CIF-SS office reviewed 950 transfers

Note from CIF: The Southern Section Office staff divides transfer paperwork among three assistant commissioners. An assistant commissioner handles hardship paperwork for initial review Bylaw 208). In the event a hardship appeal does not appear to be valid, or to meet the criteria the Commissioner reviews and renders a fi nal decision.
In the month of September, the Section office processed 746 transfers under Bylaw 207. 616 of those requests were granted unlimited eligibility. 122 of those requests were limited eligible and nine were not granted eligibility.
The office received 86 hardship requests. 38 were approved for unlimited participation, 41 were given limited eligibility and seven were not granted eligibility. Under Bylaw 209, 74 requests were granted eligibility and 24 were denied. In all, the office processed 950 transfers of one type or another; an astonishing amount of work divided among four assistant commissioners.

For more info from the CIF Commissioners meeting in regards to transfers, click thread.

CIF Section Commissioners meet four times each school year to discuss issues affecting the state and consider actions for Federated Council approval. At the October meeting the following items were discussed and actions taken:

Transfer Eligibility – Underperforming schools. Th e Romero Bill allows for transfer of students from schools deemed underperforming to schools determined to be performing. Th e Commissioners agreed that an
accommodation should be allowed to grant immediate eligibility, but that there should be some limitations to the options the student receives. For instance, since private schools do not publish comparable performance data, it would be impossible to know that a student’s transfer to a private school would in fact be to a higher performing school.

Current Bylaws 207 and 207 – Several commissioners have expressed concern about the number and types of transfers they’ve seen this year. Transfers are increasing along with the burden of processing and investigating. Hardship requests are increasing in number and, in some cases, complexity. Th ere was general agreement that
the commissioners list their concerns as well as their ideas to improve the bylaw language to allow for greater movement of students, yet deal with fl agrant violations.

Boarding Schools – A number of boarding school representatives met with CIF representatives to ask for a repeal of the new bylaw that limits transfers into boarding schools outside of the 207 provisions. Th e commissioners, in seeking equal application of our rules believe the rule should stay in place until the eligibility committee can explore options.

This spring, the CIF Southern Section office conducted a survey of attitudes and beliefs about transfers, paperwork and hardships among our member athletic directors and principals. The feedback was encouraging, with over 355 responses received on-line and 40 responses received in writing. While surveys cannot be used to as substitutes for the type of feedback we receive from Council and the Executive Committee, they can be used to make generalizations about Section policies and the beliefs of our constituents. Some results were equivocal: the responses were not clear-cut enough determine the actual strength of a response. For instance, when asked if a student transfer should not displace an athlete who is at his/her home school, the
responses broke down into roughly 1/3rd increments: agree, disagree and no opinion, with a slight majority to those that agreed with the statement: hardly overwhelming. One reason for this, however is that many of the respondents had only a few years experience on the job. One-third of the respondents had 1-3 years experience
on the job and may not yet have formed opinions on the questions asked. Some responses however were remarkable for their strength with almost 90% agreement on certain issues. Below is a summary of what the survey found.

Responses and Observations:
Hardships and Parents:
Perhaps the most overwhelming response from our athletic administrators was in response to the statement: “A parent who dislikes a coach should be allowed to take his athlete to another school and be eligible immediately.” 87% of the respondents disagreed; only 7.6% agreed that students should be permitted to transfer because of differences with a coach. Th e strength of that response speaks to our core beliefs. 82% of respondents say parents are more demanding than in years past and expect immediate eligibility for their students. Do families resort to falsily cation of information to gain hardship eligibility? According to 55% of the respondents, they do; only 14% disagreed with that statement. Similarly, 58% of the responses indicated that families often claim financial hardship to gain immediate eligibility; only 14% disagreed. While our administrators did not believe they should have to assist families in preparing paperwork for hardships, they also believe the paperwork is about right in terms of volume.

63% of our athletic administrators believe the new transfer rule is a good idea; only 17% disagree with the rule. Do students transfer for athletic reasons? A huge majority of administrators agree: 81% believe the reasons for transfer are athletic in nature. 64% of the respondents stated they personally knew of a family who transferred for athletic reasons. Are families motivated because of athletics? 78% of the respondents agreed, “sports participation has become so competitive that families transfer for athletic advantage.” This seems to be the nature of our challenge: give a clear message that high school sports are secondary to athletics in a time when the pursuit of athletic advantage is overwhelming.

Should CIF-SS regulate transfers and rule on eligibility? 83% of the respondents agreed that CIF-SS should have that regulatory role. In a similar question, 67% of the respondents stated CIF-SS should attempt to keep a “level playing field” by monitoring and ruling on transfers. Given the results from the hardship and transfer questions,
it is surprising that only 46% of the respondents believe that transfers are disruptive to the educational process. 35% believed it is not disruptive. Office

Facebook Twitter Plusone Digg Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email
  • Colt74

    4 commissioners works out perfectly….

    1 for Amat……
    1 for C.O.
    1 for S.H.
    and 1 left over for M.D……


  • Joe Amat


    You smile, but Assistant Commissioner Rainer Wulf is a proud Lancer graduate. He also is one of the most respected and honorable men around as a former HS coach/AD at Trabuco Hills. It actually probably hurts Amat more than it helps as he is extra careful not to show any favoritism or impropriety. Proud to have Rainer in the office AND as an alum

  • bpk

    CIF is a joke. Any honest parents putting in a legitimate transfer request gets turned down. You have to basically lie (per officers at CIF) to get approval.

  • Bookie

    bpk – did you not read any of that? only NINE of 746 transfers were denied eligibility. Only SEVEN of 86 hardship cases were denied. Those odds are pretty good for the transfers

  • Colt74

    Joe Amat….I posted in jest because of all the mudslinging against the schools I listed. I don’t have a pony in this race but my own personal bias is to let a kid play where ever he wants to play…as long as his transfer was completed within a certain time frame before their particular sport starts. But if you played football for one can’t transfer to another school and say play in that new schools baseball the same year…you would have to sit out for the rest of that year.