Will new IHSA committee make an impact on public-private school debate?

Seems we struck a nerve.

Last week’s column — the possibility of Illinois following Alabama’s lead in separating public and private schools into different postseason tournaments — generated a good amount of reader response.

While most of the banter took one side of the issue over another, one reader reminded me about the recent emergence of the IHSA Competitive Balance Committee. The new group has met monthly since March and will continue to meet as necessary through September.

Let’s just say the committee has a lot on its plate trying to solve the public vs. private school debate.

Formed under the direction of the IHSA Board of Directors, the 17-member group features administrators from Illinois public and private schools as well as IHSA staff members. They’ve been tasked with formulating potential solutions “related to the competitive balance of boundaried vs. non-boundaried schools.”

It may be mission impossible.

Private school critics insist there’s no getting around inherent recruiting advantages, especially with the 30-mile radius rule in the congested Chicago area. Defenders say private schools are already getting slammed by the IHSA through enrollment multipliers, success factor multipliers and the class waiver process.

Given the lack of common ground, can there be a true solution that doesn’t involve separating private and public schools? That appears to be a non-starter for the committee.

According to the minutes from the April meeting, “the committee generally has agreed to focus on avoiding a boundary/non-boundary schools competition split and alternatively consider pursuing by-law/policy adjustments that promote competitive equity within the existing membership structure.”

They did discuss the concept of an “open division” for the postseason, which would be reserved for the state’s most competitive schools. But it doesn’t single out private schools.

In a comment that won’t sit well with the anti-private school crowd, the committee also “recognized that a non-boundary school does not automatically have a competitive advantage. There are many other factors that determine a likelihood of success.”

Yikes. Moving on.

So far the committee has reviewed current IHSA policies and data, reviewed policies of other states, surveyed members schools and discussed potential reasons for a lack of competitive balance in different sports.

Based on the survey results, though, IHSA schools seem more concerned about transfer rules than the public vs. private school debate. Tightening up on transfers will be a committee focus moving forward.

But the public vs. private school debate remains on the agenda for future meetings. There’s even thought to separating private schools in the early parts of playoff brackets, and combining them with public schools deeper into state tournaments.

The meeting minutes detail numerous potential ideas: Using other states as a model for future IHSA decisions, applying success factor multipliers to private AND public schools, stiffening residency requirements, denying postseason eligibility for first-year transfer students, and using socio-economic data as part of the enrollment classification process.

A lot of options remain on the table for a committee with a lot on its plate.