Unfortunately, when you take a deeper dive, this proposal appears to be rushed to the table for consideration based supposedly on “numbers only” criteria. While that may appear to be the “equal” way to divide up the state’s schools, is it the “equitable” way to meet the IHSAA’s mission statement?

“The mission of the Idaho High School Activities Association is to coordinate, supervise, and direct interscholastic activities which enhance and protect the total educational process of all student participants. All activities and programs shall be formulated to promote citizenship and the academic mission of the school.”

The pure numbers don’t appear to be in sync with that statement. They appear more driven by the desires of some ISHAA board members to take the pressure off the exploding number of urban schools from overloading a top level (6A under the proposed new system) with little or no regard for the handful of rural schools relegated to competing against the urban enrollment spillovers. Emmett has been and will continue to be one of the smallest schools in its classification, with a schedule of competition that will pit it against schools nearly twice its size over 80 percent of the time.

A number of activities supporters in the Emmett community have appealed to the IHSAA Board of Control to perhaps take a step back and not push these changes through in short order. A letter (which appeared in the August 26 Messenger Index) was forwarded from the community with multiple signatures. Numerous individual letters have been sent as well.

The letter writers addressed a large menu of concerns regarding safety concerns that sheer numbers and size differentials can pose to students — athletes in particular — physical, emotional and academic.

I honestly don’t expect the IHSAA Board to waver from its quickly pieced together proposal. The current system has been in place for over 20 years. Over the last several years the Board has researched, weighed and contemplated a number of rules changes including the three-point shot in basketball, the shot-clock in basketball, the addition of javelin to the track and field events, taking two to three years to bring to a vote and then even longer to implement. This change came to the Board in April of this year.

While they have traditionally maintained two-year windows of operation for their classification readjustments (moving schools as enrollments fluctuate) there is no rule that forbids them from simply extending the current alignment one more year through the 24-25 season so that additional information and considerations can be entertained.

The IHSAA should certainly consider such a move on Wednesday. Not only a review of the “numbers” calculations but a consideration of mitigating factors as possible modifiers of those enrollment numbers should be on the table.

The problems at hand are primarily the result of an Urban/Rural divide that has been taking place across much of this country for the past two to three decades. And more recently in Idaho. The population growth rate in urban areas is much higher than most rural towns and was a topic of a conversation I had with Bob Gardner, then Executive Director of the National Federation of High Schools, ten years ago. He called it his biggest concern for “the future of equitable treatment of all activities participants.”

The surge of year-round single sports athletes, particularly in urban areas where access to club teams in the off-season for individual sports is convenient, creates a wider divide. Conversely, rural schools forced to compete regularly with urban schools, are often forced to encourage if not pressure athletes to participate in multiple sports for the school, eliminating or limiting the extra practice and competition in a single sport. Also physically overtaxing some athletes.

Urban schools, particularly those with multiple high schools within the same district, often have open enrollment policies that tend to gravitate athletes, or musicians, or debaters, to a better performing school within that district. Again, creating a competitive disbalance that goes beyond just enrollment numbers.

The reliance upon a “numbers only” approach is lazy and too easily manipulated. Using the numbers provided by the IHSAA with their proposal, there are 166 schools included in the mix across the state.

Some of those do not participate in all or in a few cases, any sports. They participate for the other activities.

A pure number breakdown of the 89,265 students enrolled in IHSAA member schools, indicates that the average school would be epitomized by Fruitland High with an enrollment of 541 students. But if you seek the median school — the one that has as many schools larger than it as it has smaller than it — Orofino High with 255 students would be middle of the pack in Idaho. Perhaps meaningless data — but then “pure numbers” often are.

The top 20 percent of schools inregards to highest enrollment, encompass 60 percent of the total student enrollment in the state. Of those 33 schools, only eight are single schools in single towns and even three of those draw from multiple other small communities within their districts.

I don’t anticipate the IHSAA pumping its brakes on this proposal Wednesday. But I think we need to consider what Emmett needs to contemplate, either way.

{span style=”text-decoration: underline;”}Emmett moving forward{/span}

A number of supporters are clamoring to have Emmett relegated back to the old 3A, which would now be the 4A. We had some very competitive and historic success in that brief window of opportunity.

But is that in the best interest of our students moving forward?

The biggest deficit that I see in such a retreat is that it could cost a number of students the opportunity to participate. Emmett has one of the highest per student participation rates in its current SIC grouping. Over 60 percent of students opt to be part of an extra-curricular activity at EHS — and that doesn’t count the “club sports” like girls rugby, boys lacrosse, trap shooting and mountain biking, or 4-H and FFA.

A drop to the next lower level could eliminate an entire level (freshman, junior varsity, varsity) of teams in some sports as there would be no competition. Emmett Middle School had to remain in the Inter Valley League, made up of the larger schools, the last time Emmett was in the SRV because there were no middle school programs at many of the smaller schools.

A second hurdle that a lowering of classification could result in is a diminishing of some opportunities for standout performers to be recruited to college opportunities. Most of the college coaches I have worked with over the last 40 years focus their high school recruitment at the higher classification levels. They also have indicated a preference for multiple-sport athletes as more versatile and more coachable. Certainly, there are exceptions to those guidelines for once-in-a-generation talents who can get on the largest of recruiting radar screens, but those are rare.

Regardless, if Emmett remains one of the smallest schools in a future 5A, or a larger school amongst the future 4A, we have one glaring issue that will have to be addressed locally — and it’s not something the IHSAA can provide. That is activities facilities!

Most specifically, indoor activity space — gym floor space.

The amount of practice and game space in Emmett doesn’t match up with any of our current pool of peer schools. Nor does it provide equal footing with the next lower enrollment level of schools; even with some schools a quarter of our size. The lack of practice court space forces our high school teams — often the younger ones who are yet to drive themselves — to gather as early as 5 a.m. or late into the evening making extremely long days and providing extra strain on academic performance and on family transportation support.

The lack of indoor facilities permeates our activities programs all the way down to the youngest programs available through the Gem County Recreation District.

I suspect that finding a solution to this gaping need will entail a private group of donors. We have a business community that has given exemplary support to programs — often on a weekly basis — and to ask them for more doesn’t seem appropriate. But no sure there is anywhere else to turn.

Sometimes we have to be careful of what we wish for; then willing to dig a little deeper, be a little more creative, and seek visionary partnerships to make those wishes a reality.