By Andrew Adelmann

As I began to type my next post on my blog series, which was to be about "support" in a city cross country/track program, I quickly found myself bogged down in end of season planning, which, in the case of this season, seems like it started the first week of April due to the unrelenting pounding we took from 'Mother Nature' this "spring". The majority of my time seemed to be occupied by phone calls trying to find replacement meets, altering workout plans and long term scripting to make sure we were getting the necessary races in that we needed of everyone in light of so many ruined chances due to cancellations, time crushing winds or performance hampering rains. 

What made part of this planning more challenging for us this year was the bump to 3A our program took while still truly in our infancy stages and how we needed to adjust, change plans, etc. for it. So while I tried thinking more and more about what I originally intended to write, my fingers kept going back to the issues related to how flawed the IHSA classification system is and how disadvantageous it is for so many programs in our state. 

Let me preface the remainder of this, however, in saying that by no means should any of this be mistaken as complaining, making excuses, or the like, because ultimately we have quickly adapted to our new "digs" amongst 3A competition and I feel like we have done a sufficient job in doing so.  Likewise, the multiplier/waiver system is now essentially a moot point for us going forward, because after next year, our enrollment will increase within our new building anyway.   But, in keeping with this theme of this blog series, I felt the need to show how truly  disadvantageous and crippling this has proved to be for many other city schools who are in the midst of trying to build a program.  This is just an observation of fact, and that fact is exactly what it is: the IHSA's classification system and corresponding multiplier via waiver system is inherently flawed and was poorly thought out when originally implemented and especially again when revised the latest time around (upon the implementation of its new "automatic waiver" system). 

First off, I do see a great deal of logic behind the IHSA's multiplier policy and have been a supporter of it in the past. In fact, I still see a great deal of legitimacy to the idea.  Being allowed to take students from a "non-boundaried" area can be used as a competitive advantage for schools.  I have heard of certain private schools in the Chicago area that have students who travel upwards of two hours by train from homes as far away as Indiana and suburbs that are closer to Milwaukee than they are to Chicago.  There is no doubt that this wider pool of "talent" can be used to a school's advantage, which is the main logic behind the IHSA's 1.65 student multiplier rate. However, what the IHSA has ignored are the other (and possibly more significant) contributing factors to competitive advantage in private schools when they adapted a multiplier policy that treats private and non-boundaried public schools alike. 

Public and Private, Two Different Animals

Factors like scholarship money and a much less regulated (and some may argue, easier) admissions process make the situation at private schools much different than non-boundaried public schools, especially those in the city. Couple that with geography and it makes little to no sense why the schools are multiplied by the same figure. 

In the strictest sense of the word a CPS school like Jones is only defined as a non-boundaried because we can take students from any neighborhood in the city.  The keywords here are: "in the city". So ultimately, CPS schools, selective enrollment or not, do have a boundary and it's called the city limits. Even if we wanted to, schools like Northside Prep, Lane Tech or Whitney Young could not accept a student, no matter how bright, from Kenosha, or Wilmette, or towns in Indiana like St. John or Merriville.  There is absolutely NO geographical limit whatsoever on who a private school can or cannot accept, making it theoretically possible for a student, with the correct means, to fly in and out for classes every day, while those attending a CPS school can only attend if their home address is within the network of the CTA (and even that is limited, as those in neighborhoods that are less than 10 feet from the CPS district in towns like Cicero, Evanston and Oak Park can still not attend public school in the city). While that argument alone would seem extremely clear for any logical person on why the multiplier figure should be different for a CPS school vs. a private school, it somehow seems lost on the minds within the IHSA, so apparently the arguments should continue. 

In addition to the flaw known as geography, which is supposed to be the ultimate basis for the policy, private schools are much different than selective enrollment public schools in another major regard: financial assistance and admissions.  Not only are the top schools in the CPS limited by geography still, they are also limited by their own admission standards, which are not only some of the most selective in the state, but also in the nation. The very name of those schools' classification - "selective enrollment" - highlights this fact clearly. "Selective" is exactly what they are. Nearly 14,000 students applied to the "Big Five" selective enrollment schools this year (Lane Tech, Whitney Young, Jones, Northside and Payton), yet roughly only 2,000 students will be admitted to freshmen classes across those five schools.  Furthering this competitive process, it is a computer that chooses each school's students.  All admission selections are based off a formulaic algorithm that factors in test scores and socioeconomic factors (the neighborhood you live in). Given this, it is hard to evaluate such as a competitive advantage when a student has to not only test well but also live in the correct area for the computer to choose him/her.  Unlike many private schools, CPS selective enrollment schools cannot admit students based on any other reasons. 

Add to this process intense scrutiny by the public, media and government alike, and there is especially zero room for subjectivity in selections, outside of the handful of "principal discretion" picks that each school gets. However, even those picks have to be reviewed after the fact and each principal has to go through a thorough justification process for his/her selections.  Likewise, schools can offer no additional incentive for a student (or in many cases, athlete) to come. There is no scholarship money to add a sense of value to the institution or display a sense of desire for a particular student.  If a student who lives on the far south side cannot afford the time or money that it takes, for instance, to travel via the CTA everyday to Northside College Prep (a trip that could take 90 minutes one-way), outside of the application for a fee waiver, there is no other financial assistance that can be provided. 

A Hypothetical

So, explore a hypothetical situation for a moment: A good student, who also happens to be a talented athlete, comes from a poor family in the city.  He decides he wants to go to a particular CPS selective enrollment school and begins the process.  First he applies and takes the admissions test. Then he simply has to wait and hope that both his score is good enough and that the algorithm works in his favor in order to get in. The latter of which he has no control. On the flip side, a private school, which can still accept him even though it is located outside of the city limits at any distance, can offer scholarships, which can open up the possibility for this student (who would otherwise be unable to afford such an education) to attend, and also provide a more subjective criterion (sometimes even affording a candidate an opportunity to interview in person) as opposed to a mathematical formula that decides who gets in and who does not. It couldn't be clearer that the more advantageous situation for the student (and for the schools possibly attended by this good student) is that offered by the private school, which truly does not have a boundary and boasts a process that is much more controllable than that which is determined by a complex mathematical formula.  Yet, in the eyes of the IHSA, both scenarios offer the same exact competitive advantage, deemed to be at a multiplier of 1.65 per student.  

Let's be very clear: CPS selective enrollment schools SHOULD be multiplied due to the slight advantage that they do have. But let's also be very clear about something else: that multiplier figure should NOT be the same, or as large, as other private non-boundaried schools that have a much larger advantage and there does not appear to be any logical argument to justify an equal number. 

Specific Problems with the Current Policy

When the IHSA revisited their multiplier policy a couple years ago, they made revisions that were at least intended to improve the policy, but in reality, make little sense, and instead have further muddied the waters:

1. The granting of automatic waivers is based solely upon temporary success and not long term program quality. In all sports, the IHSA has set up automatic waiver criterion based upon two or three year windows of achievement. Yet, a high school student is at school for four years, or, in other words, one talented class of students could affect a program's classification for years after they graduate, as the loss of a program's waiver lasts for five years. Shouldn't it be the inverse?  Shouldn't a program's record be looked at over a five year period to see if there is a sustained pattern of success and then possibly eliminate the waiver for a trial period of two to three years after that?  After all, the goal of sports, especially at the high school level is to build, develop no grow. None of which can happen consistently for a large crop of "bubble schools" that will fluctuate between classes for years to one. Which leads to the next piece of flawed logic:

2.  Up and down movement between classes, which the IHSA now promotes with its new policy, is not beneficial for anyone, neither the schools affected, nor their former competitors in their previous class or their new competitors.  Take the NCAA. A team cannot prepare as well if one year they are in Division I and the next moment they are in Division II. You set up your schedules to face more teams in your division, you develop your talent certain ways in light of your post-season competition (i.e. do you spend time developing 800 runners long term because this is where the most opportunity lies or do you focus on another area?) and you just adapt a certain mindset and mental acclimation to where your are classified. Yet none of this can exist when you move back and forth and it affects your competition, who is not moving, just the same. I have spoken with many coaches that hate the fact that rivalries they built on suddenly disappear. Not to mention the track coaches that have expressed concern now that 1A and 2A will be extremely watered down in certain events while 3A has become a war, opposed to a battle. If that's the case, why don't we just move back to only two classes?

3.  As it does currently exist, the multiplier figure is not as representative of the actual student body within each IHSA member school as it can be.  The numbers that are reported are already broken down per gender, and the current system already allows for different gendered teams within the same sport at the same school to be classified differently, so why not apply the multiplier figure to individual genders instead?   By doubling the population of an individual gender at a school and then applying the multiplier figure to that number, it would alleviate some of the discrepancy and disadvantage in some cases where a male to female ratio is severely disproportionate, as is the case here at Jones (350 males to 500 females).  

4.   The entire “automatic waiver” system recently implemented by the IHSA is based on a concept that does not even remotely exist: competitive equity.  In other words, schools that possess multipliers are assessed those multipliers (or waivers) based on their performance in regional and/or sectional championships, which should theoretically be competitively similar.  However, one has to look no further than last week’s Class 2A Boys Track Sectional results (namely the King and Northside sectionals) to realize how untrue this is.  Quite simply, the lack of competitive equity in the state series is no longer just unfair in the extreme ease that some schools now qualify to the finals with, but also in the way that it disproportionately affects the future classification of certain schools.

Take for example the reason that we at Jones are now a 3A school in boys’ track and field.  Because of our recent “success” at the sectional championships the last two years (third in 2011 and second in 2012), we lost our automatic waiver.  In both years, however, it would have been harder for us to not place in the top three than it would have been to place in the top three.  In both cases we would not have finished in the top six in any other sectional.  In 2012 we fielded athletes in only six events most of the year (including at sectionals), which were all mid-distance/distance events.  We had no field event athletes and only two sprinters on the team.  Yet, because of the weakness and embarrassing lack of participation in our sectional, we finished second place.  To put it another way, as has become commonplace in the IHSA’s new system, teams that have success our punished, while mediocrity is rewarded.   We are a school with an enrollment of 835 students, of which only 350 are boys.  Yet, because we have tried to build a reputable and competitive program within the state, and have made the best out of what we have, we are now forced to compete with teams that are three to four times the size of us, from schools with enrollments that are four to five times as large, all because we actually showed up to our sectional and place high by virtue of being there.  I know there have been “rumors” lately of teams trying to do worse at their sectional meets to ensure they do not get “bumped up,” but these are far from rumors.  These discussions are occurring rampantly, and quite honestly, I cannot say I blame them, nor can I say we did not think about it (very seriously) last year.  The schools are not at fault for this logic, the IHSA is.  How can you set-up a system based on the idea of competitive equality when no effort has been made to make things equal?   In theory, it might make sense to base an entire system off of competitive equity, but a lot of other disastrous things also worked well on paper.   

Another Hypothetical

A coach builds a brand new program at a school with an enrollment of 800 – 900 students.  He/she has twenty-five athletes on the team, no resource and a meager budget.  His/her athletes do their best though and show up at their sectional championship two years in a row, ready to give it their best effort.  Because of poorly represented sectional assignments, in both numbers and competition, they finish in the top three for two consecutive years.  As a result, this “non-boundaried” school gets moved up a class to truly compete out of their league, in only their third year of existence with numbers and resources that cannot keep pace with their opponents.  Call it what you will, any coach or smart minded person in the “business” of athletics will tell you that two years is not long enough to build a truly sustainable program.    

A Lack of Response

Time and time again, to no avail, our coaching staff has gone “on record” to help try to remedy some of the aforementioned issues.  Even something as simple as making a more competitive sectional within the city, for example, would have helped to an extent.  I have personally written numerous times to the IHSA to express my concern with how easy many of our regional and sectional assignments have become.  I have candidly shared how truly unfair we think it is that we are able to steal spots from some more deserving teams in other areas.  Even when it has come as a blessing for some of our athletes, I have still felt conflicted over these “gifted” state finals spots and have disclosed this.  Our school hosted a girls’ sectional this year where there were TWO entries in the 100m hurdles and THREE entries in the 300m hurdles.  Beyond this, there were no more than SEVEN competitors in any of the field events and only one heat of every race (FOUR teams in the 3200m relay) except for the 100, 200 and 400 meter dashes.  On the boys’ side, if you look at the King sectional from last week, it is truly startling that there was only one entry in the 3200m run in addition to the lack of quality elsewhere in middle-distance and distance events.  This is not only unacceptable, but embarrassing. 

There are a ton of great athletes and coaches trying to do big things in the city and this representation reflects poorly on all of us.  Even when it is has provided an advantage, I know of numerous great coaches who have tried to change this. 

The goal for many of us here in the Windy City is to make CPS track and cross country more competitive and better represented within the state.  Tireless efforts from truly incredible coaches like Derrick Calhoun of Morgan Park, Dale Devinney of Mather, Kris Roof and Tony Jones of Lane Tech and Bob Geiger of Whitney Young have come a long way in helping to reach this goal.  Yet the policies being implemented by the IHSA seem to run directly counterproductive to such efforts and aim to especially hinder many other young coaches and programs who are trying to reach the level that some of these CPS stalwarts have already reached.  Ultimately, as indicated, this problem’s burden does not fall upon specific programs, but rather in the severely flawed logic of policies that were poorly planned and implemented, and the lack of collaboration and clarification that has resulted only furthers the growing inadequacies in the system.