Columnist Spencer Patterson: Adopt open enrollment in Las Vegas

Spencer Patterson

Thursday, Aug. 19, 1999 | 11:31 a.m.

Spencer Patterson is a Las Vegas Sun sports writer. Reach him at 259-4085 or spencer@lasvegassun.com. Regular Thursday columnist Steve Carp is on vacation.

The first day of high school is still four days away, and already the usual rumors are floating around town -- the guessing game about which top prep athletes will wind up on different rosters this year.

More and more, it seems the action on the field, court or diamond is threatened to be overshadowed by the transfer talk.

When championships are won, talk often centers on whether the school could have done it without its transfers.

So as we prepare for a high school season that will take us into the 21st century, I'm proposing a change that would effectively eliminate all the rumors and innuendo: open enrollment.

Sounds like a revolutionary concept, right? Actually, it's already in place in at least two of Nevada's bordering states, with Arizona and sections of California both having adopted policies that allow students to attend the school of their choice, regardless of their street address.

Currently, Clark County students must receive a zone variance to attend school school outside their area. Additionally, Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association rules mandate that student-athletes who transfer from one local school to another must sit out a year before participating in sports.

The only exceptions are students whose families move from one zone to another and those who can prove that remaining at their current school would present a "hardship."

Proving a hardship can be difficult, with Clark County Athletic Administrator Larry McKay estimating that he denies about 80 percent of those appeals.

That leaves a change of address as the primary method to transfer without losing athletic eligibility. And that doesn't sit well with me.

Why should student-athletes whose parents rent have the ability to move freely from one school to another, while others whose parents own a home can get stuck in a bad situation?

Students used to be able to transfer to take a specialty course not offered at their school, but that option was eliminated by the NIAA last year. Why should a student be asked to choose between studying German and playing football?

If some students can transfer, all should be allowed to do so -- thus, open enrollment.

Certainly, a total free-for-all, with students transferring to one school for Friday's football game, then back for a Wednesday soccer game, wouldn't work.

Opponents of open enrollment argue against it for two basic reasons: that it would create athletic dynasties and that it would encourage recruiting.

In answer to the first, take a look around -- Southern Nevada is already home to athletic haves (schools that opened in the '90s) and have-nots (Las Vegas' older schools). Open enrollment wouldn't make that any worse.

To boot, a quick glance at the recent list of state champions in Arizona and California confirms that open enrollment does not lead to dynasties.

As for recruiting, open enrollment might indeed make it easier for coaches to lure athletes from other programs. But coaches dishonest enough to recruit can do so under the current system anyway.

Clearly, open enrollment can't solve all of Southern Nevada's prep sports evils. But if it means not having to hear about tainted titles again, local principals should look long and hard at adopting it.