Wheatley hopes to find a balance
STATE COLLEGE
» The rough triangle of Pennsylvania highways connecting the Penn Stater Hotel and Conference Center with the State Capitol and Pittsburgh’s Hill District takes about four hours to cover. But such was the importance of the story that State Rep. Jake Wheatley Jr. wanted to tell Wednesday that he was willing to endure the trek for just a few minutes on the floor.
The Democrat from the 19th District wanted to hear directly from the PIAA’s Board of Directors at its bimonthly meeting as to why this new layer of transfer restriction was so important. Why was it vital to include a postseason ban for the first season after an athlete has transferred from 10th grade and beyond? And before they made that choice, in the public comment section of the board meeting, did they grasp the burden that Wednesday’s action would impose on student-athletes, like those that had reached out to Wheatley?
“What’s behind the rule and who’s really going to be punished?,” Wheatley told The Daily Times and PaPrepLive.com. “I think it’s children of color and children who are going to be locked into bad schools in their districts. You’re putting another hur-
dle that kids have to jump through.”
Through the unique window of his constituency, Wheatley broaches a salient balance in the negotiations undertaken by the PIAA, both Wednesday and at large: How to weigh the rights of individual student-athletes with the imperative of competitive equity?
The PIAA board meaningfully shifted the context of the conversation. Previously, the only thing on the table was participation at the new school for transferring athletes. If an athlete sought a transfer motivated by athletics, then the request for eligibility was to be denied. But the difficulty of proving the true intent (and the messy and multifaceted reality of most decisions) meant the rule was rarely applied. When it was, it would often be re-litigated in the court of popular opinion.
That prohibition remains in force. But instead of making it an allor-nothing battle, shades of gray are introduced. Athletic motivation is still not acceptable. But for students who change schools with athletic motivations that the PIAA can’t detect or prove, the postseason ban can be invoked to reduce the accumulation of trophies that fuels partisan squabbles. Though there’s a hardship waiver provision in the new rule, voluntary school changes (i.e. those not mandated by courts or economic circumstances) fail to meet the hardship standard.
“It’s a double-edged sword,” is how District 12 chairperson Michael Hawkins puts it. “You want the kid to have the best possible experience, but you don’t want them to have the best possible experience at the expense of another kid. … We don’t
want to discourage kids from getting a good education, but it’s an education first.”
Wheatley’s view is important for its divergence from the prevailing demographics of the room in which he offered it. The vast majority of seats on the board are held by white males, often hailing from districts of suburban or rural character. Their districts don’t face the same challenges posed to Wheatley’s constituents on a daily basis.
Beyond socioeconomic conditions that are too vast to do any justice in this space, the school choice aspect is completely unique. In cities like Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, the menu of options can change yearly, between private schools, charters and changing slates of public institutions with their different profiles, as either selective institutions or neighborhood schools, often of varying degrees of quality. And no matter what the PIAA constitution may decree, the temptation to view athletics as not just an important selection criteria but a potential gateway to a higher education is a permanent fixture of the everyday reality.
Separated from those challenges, Wheatley conveyed an admonition to the board not to forget the individuals at the center of the questions they debated. To him, the name of the team on the final line of the bracket matters little; far more important are the individuals that comprise that team and its competitors and holistic view of what those kids need. The postseason ban presents an extra hurdle to participation, the brunt of which is likely to be borne by constituents like his, who have less disposable time and fewer resources to undertake the extra battle.
To use a turn of phrase that PIAA Executive Director Dr. Robert Lombardi
brandished Wednesday, Wheatley is less worried about the tuna that the transfer-rule fishing net collects than the dolphins that are inadvertently ensnared by it.
“I think this is all about making sure they’re protecting students and families first, and not institutions and schools,” Wheatley said. “I think we want to have fair play, but we want to make sure that students have opportunities to play. I looked at this rule as punishing poor students and students of color who are most likely the ones lost in schools that are not academically rigorous or schools that are unsafe or harmful. They’re most often in those situations.”
Hawkins heard those criticisms. He said he had a conversation with Wheatley Wednesday about them and is mindful of his concerns. He’s quick to point out that appeals rest with district committees rather than with the PIAA. That means that administrators from District 12 will handle cases involved kids from District 12, with a greater sensitivity to and familiarity with the landscape. Should that fail, an appeal to the PIAA is also a recourse.
“We just want to hear the case,” Hawkins said. “And if the case is legitimate, we have enough compassion in the committee to pass the kid along.”
That may not be enough for Rep. Wheatley. And he’ll be keeping an eye on the process.
“I would tell you after today’s vote, I would like to try to find ways to impact this where parents not being punished for making decisions about their kids’ futures,” Wheatley said.
Call it another important check on the system to keep it in balance.