Reply to Is it true the Lacrosse player from Lightridge HS was Bullied or not?

Forum Index » Lacrosse

Reply to "Is it true the Lacrosse player from Lightridge HS was Bullied or not?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why is this still being discussed? [/quote]

Probably because people have an opinion. People can agree with the decision or not. But the bottom line is the point other posters have made. If LCPS determined there was cause for the girl to be granted a transfer waiver something wasn’t great at her previous school. Knowing the importance of lacrosse in this girl’s life this should have been a coordinated all or nothing scenario—either granted both waivers or neither. But it sounds like the parents should have just rented a place in the preferred zone which would have been cheaper and less stressful for their daughter. I’m guessing they didn’t since it sounds like a field hockey player (they were state champs so an even stronger sports program) at the same school was granted the school and sports waiver this year so maybe they thought they’d receive the same.[/quote]

Others have mentioned the importance of this already, but upfront the VHSL states, “Parents or guardians are responsible for understanding all potential consequences of changing schools by special permission.” VHSL further states, “Under VHSL rules, subsequent student-requested transfers (or returning to a regular school of assignment) will generally result in 365 days of ineligibility unless there is an actual corresponding change of residence of the parents or guardian.” LCPS seems to add to this by stating, “A waiver may be considered for transfers that are required or mandated by the school system or are for the welfare of the student or school system [b]but not for athletic/activity reasons.”[/b] So one has to assume the parents of this student understood the potential risks as it related to playing sports when changing schools.

Assuming the parents understood and accepted the risk of their daughter potentially not playing sports when they decided to change schools the VHSL clearly lays out the process they needed to follow for initiating an athletic transfer waiver, stating “The student must be enrolled in the new school before making a request.” I interpret this to mean LCPS has to grant the student a waiver to attend the requested school first, and this triggers the VHSL transfer process. So, this covers why school acceptance by LCPS is separate from an athletic waiver by the VHSL. One covers the county and the other the fairness of sports across the state.

As part of the formal review process the steps include, “The Supervisor of Athletics will contact school staff at the previous school to validate the request and purpose. The information collected will be submitted to the Superintendent Designee for review and consideration.” In this case it appears whatever information was gathered led those tasked with making the final decision to believe the requested change was driven by sports, and not the welfare of the student.

One interesting area of the policy relates to players meeting with coaches prior to enrolling at their new school. The policy states, “you may not meet with a coach outside of your school’s attendance zone to discuss your child playing at their school. No member school or group of individuals representing the school shall subject a student from another school to undue influence by encouraging him/her to transfer from one school to another for League activities.”

Others have mentioned the relationship between the student and her club lacrosse coach. It probably is not a stretch to think the coach, parents, and player discussed the potential of attending the new school prior to all of this happening. If so, this rule alone may have been reason to deny a waiver request in this case. It certainly doesn’t work in their favor.

All of this comes back to the parents should have known the risks associated with their actions, and should not have expected a rubber-stamp approval by the VHSL.

[/quote]

Well times have changed, mental health and bullying are documented concerns and an epidemic with our youth. There is also documented mental health benefits to sports participation. So to not tie the two together is ridiculous and a lawsuit in and of itself because kids who participate in activities outside of sports have no penalty. The process seems quite flawed and yes, I’m guessing these parents fully understood the potential outcome but if their daughter was struggling they were probably desperate. In the world of LoCo lacrosse or any sport the chance there wouldn’t be cross over in many sports between rec, travel, MS and HS is slim. So sadly it seems the only way to support your child who needs a move from a unhealthy environment and still wants to play a sport that is part of their identity and passion is to have the money to rent/but a property in the desired zone and that isn’t feasible for most. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics