The trend of high-school students transferring for better athletic opportunities isn’t new. It was happening when I was coaching football in the ’70s in Pennsylvania; it happened long before then; it happens in a lot of places now. Notably, places that have really good teams and really successful, high-profile programs.
Call it “free agency” or “passive recruiting.” It happens. Especially in Florida. And it can be abused. That’s why Miami-Dade and Brevard counties now have rules that penalize students (with lost eligibility) who switch schools — sometimes yearly — for purely athletic reasons. That’s a sham.
But excellence in anything is always its own allure. Ask Brandon or Plant or Armwood High Schools. If they’re a standard for excellence and a beacon of opportunity, that should be acknowledged — and lauded.
But too often school transfers for athletic purposes are defended by equating such transfers with those for other purposes. A typical analogy is the student who might transfer to, say, a better music program.
Please.
Such reasoning is specious. The case should be self-evident that music or other arts are well within the curricular mandate of a school. Any school. It’s part of educating the whole person, a theory that’s been around a while. It’s not exactly the new enlightenment. And those blessed with certain aptitudes would understandably want the best learning vehicle available.
But football, basketball, wrestling? They are extra-curricular, societal adjuncts of a school. They are fun; they help give schools a rallying point; and they provide post-high school opportunity for some athletes. Period.
Student transfers, whether for sports or aesthetics, will continue. But let’s not confuse the issue. Unless sophistry is now a sport.