Iowa High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) uses free and reduced lunch (FRL) percentages to determine football classification

[MarkCalaway]

8 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

You're right "bro" tough guys should just submit to being subjected to unfair systems.  Cuz....that's what tough guys do.  Or is it dumb guys...I get confused?

Stop being a victim and be a man.

[Titan32]

2 minutes ago, MarkCalaway said:

Stop being a victim and be a man.

The Catholics are going to LOVE you!  Men fix problems.  Mouth breathers live their plight.

Edited October 15, 2024 by Titan32

[MarkCalaway]

I am sorry that your life sucks so much. 

Best wishes

[Irishman]

4 hours ago, Cloudy14 said:

This is understandable, but I have a feeling is far more nuanced in modern times.  We have free and reduced lunches for these families, food stamps, and other forms of assistance.

I am also looking at this from the athlete perspective (which i also understand is nuanced). Think of the success stories in high school, college and pros where athletes came from families eligible for FRL. It is on the coaches, players and administration to increase participation in athletics.

Again, not saying its a poor concept, just wondering how it could be adopted.  Would FRL drop in enrollment negate an increase in class due to success factor?  How would Indiana HSAA adopt it?

Another perspective......Looking at a sectional from this area. Bishop Dwenger is at 21% FRL. Leo is at 20%. South Side is at 69%. Wayne is at 65%. New Haven is at 63%. East Noble is at 36%. Columbia City is at 25%. DeKalb is at 38%. Over the last 10 years, you can guess/rank teams based on the number of sectional titles they have won. 

While it's not THE indicator, or even the leading indicator, there is certainly a correlation between the FRL number and school success. Inside the building, it is hard to find common factors for student success or even the lack of success, and the same goes for test scores. The one thing that can be said is that the schools with low academic performance and test scores all have high FRL numbers. 

I like what Iowa is doing. And as @foxbat said the sped numbers are a factor as well. I have said for years the one key factor in the disparity in classes and looking at just the sectional above, it's not really about who is in each building, it's more about who is NOT in certain buildings that see high levels of success. 

While some want to think kids are being punished based on the performance of a class no longer in the school, the fact is those schools can show the drop in performance is nothing close to what a LOT of schools see after they have a run of great teams. Another fact is that MOST schools are being classified (punished if you will) due to the number of students who do not participate in anything.  Someone made the comment that it's up to coaches and admins to get more kids out, but not much thought given to why kids are not going out. Real life hits a lot kids much sooner than it should. Kids are working to help with household income. Kids are helping raise younger siblings, cousins, neighbor's kids......or even their own kids. 

[Cloudy14]

5 hours ago, Titan32 said:

You are looking too deeply....of course, there are kids with FRL who participate in sports and who have great stories.  The issue for Iowa was...what reliable data can we use to most effectively adjust enrollment numbers for competitive balance...albeit not perfect...but what would be the best mechanism that can be trusted and is readily available?  FRL is certainly not a perfect mechanism but a pretty damn good one as has been noted and will continue to be via the anecdotal posts on this thread.  Particpication is another good one but much harder to quantify with trustable data.  Iowa is onto something here.  If someone posts Indiana FRL numbers with football records correlated .....my hunch is that it's going to be very telling.

Its possibly I'm looking deeply, but I hope whoever adopts policies does. There is never a single answer, but it could be as simple as adjusting the formula.  Maybe 30% of FRL or 50% of FRL, depending on the data provided by Iowa HSAA.  Would like to see some long-term data from Iowa and as we know, it only takes a few stud athletes to turn a program around for a few years regardless of classification.

[Cloudy14]

1 hour ago, Irishman said:

Another perspective......Looking at a sectional from this area. Bishop Dwenger is at 21% FRL. Leo is at 20%. South Side is at 69%. Wayne is at 65%. New Haven is at 63%. East Noble is at 36%. Columbia City is at 25%. DeKalb is at 38%. Over the last 10 years, you can guess/rank teams based on the number of sectional titles they have won. 

While it's not THE indicator, or even the leading indicator, there is certainly a correlation between the FRL number and school success. Inside the building, it is hard to find common factors for student success or even the lack of success, and the same goes for test scores. The one thing that can be said is that the schools with low academic performance and test scores all have high FRL numbers. 

I like what Iowa is doing. And as @foxbat said the sped numbers are a factor as well. I have said for years the one key factor in the disparity in classes and looking at just the sectional above, it's not really about who is in each building, it's more about who is NOT in certain buildings that see high levels of success. 

While some want to think kids are being punished based on the performance of a class no longer in the school, the fact is those schools can show the drop in performance is nothing close to what a LOT of schools see after they have a run of great teams. Another fact is that MOST schools are being classified (punished if you will) due to the number of students who do not participate in anything.  Someone made the comment that it's up to coaches and admins to get more kids out, but not much thought given to why kids are not going out. Real life hits a lot kids much sooner than it should. Kids are working to help with household income. Kids are helping raise younger siblings, cousins, neighbor's kids......or even their own kids. 

I was the one that mentioned coaches, admins and players getting kids on teams.  This can help athletic teams but can also help the kids as well.  For most small communities, the school drives the town.  When the school is successful, the town feels it. This is why I mention having people reach out to the kids.  Getting kids on teams can help kids grow as individuals, gain respect for classmates and be a net positive for them. I don't think this is a generalization or conjecture either.  I think you see real value in team activities.  Whether its football, band, choir, robotics, etc. I encourage any kid to get as involved as possible.

As far as growing up quick, I get that.  I had a school bus drop me off at a job starting in Jr. High.  Its not me complaining and I didn't have an awful childhood, but I understand. 

To make my position clear, I'm not against this, at all.  As I just mentioned in a previous post, seeing data would be great.  Maybe you adopt a similar formula and adjust the values, but I am against stacking policies to level out the field.  We have the success factor and the Indiana HSAA would likely have to think about how success factor is implemented if you are shifted based on FRL. @foxbat's idea of SPED numbers as that has a more direct correlation on participation.

[foxbat]

6 minutes ago, Cloudy14 said:

I was the one that mentioned coaches, admins and players getting kids on teams.  This can help athletic teams but can also help the kids as well.  For most small communities, the school drives the town.  When the school is successful, the town feels it. This is why I mention having people reach out to the kids.  Getting kids on teams can help kids grow as individuals, gain respect for classmates and be a net positive for them. I don't think this is a generalization or conjecture either.  I think you see real value in team activities.  Whether its football, band, choir, robotics, etc. I encourage any kid to get as involved as possible.

As far as growing up quick, I get that.  I had a school bus drop me off at a job starting in Jr. High.  Its not me complaining and I didn't have an awful childhood, but I understand. 

To make my position clear, I'm not against this, at all.  As I just mentioned in a previous post, seeing data would be great.  Maybe you adopt a similar formula and adjust the values, but I am against stacking policies to level out the field.  We have the success factor and the Indiana HSAA would likely have to think about how success factor is implemented if you are shifted based on FRL. @foxbat's idea of SPED numbers as that has a more direct correlation on participation.

Frankly, I'd leave SF alone even if something else was adopted tied to FRL and perhaps SPED/disability stats.  The idea of FRL coupled with SPED/disability as a starting point ends up being mainly just that, a starting point. 

As teams/programs progress, the idea of SF could still be something that can be used, although I would make a couple of tweaks to it such as making it a four-year rolling cycle to move up.  If we are going to stay with the two-year cycle, then we should go back to 2 points to stay up; 4 if we go to a four-year cycle.  The current move to 3-to-stay-up, in a two-year cycle, will mean too much yo-yoing.

[Southside]

33 minutes ago, Cloudy14 said:

Would like to see some long-term data from Iowa and as we know, it only takes a few stud athletes to turn a program around for a few years regardless of classification.

I don't think there is LONG-TERM data. I think Iowa just implemented this system in 2023. 

[Cloudy14]

17 minutes ago, Southside said:

I don't think there is LONG-TERM data. I think Iowa just implemented this system in 2023. 

Thanks, that's why I would want to see it before its adopted. It could be an interesting study.  I'm not aware of this being implemented in other states. 

[MarshallCounty]

4 hours ago, MarshallCounty said:

Does this load up

 

Link to FRL

This is old data from 2015. It’s not the most accurate, but you can get a decent idea who how this could impact things.

[Muda69]

5 hours ago, temptation said:

https://www.in.gov/doe/files/corporation-enrollment-ethnicity-free-reduced-price-meal-status-2006-24.xlsx

Hmm, according to this the entire Community Schools of Frankfort only has 12 students who actually pay full price for their meals, unless I'm reading it incorrectly:

 

Edited October 15, 2024 by Muda69

[Irishman]

45 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Hmm, according to this the entire Community Schools of Frankfort only has 12 students who actually pay full price for their meals, unless I'm reading it incorrectly:

 

Yes, you are reading that correctly. 

[Cloudy14]

	Not easy to paste in here, but I tried to apply the factor as best I could using the 2015 data (didn't see the other data in time).  I also made some assumptions in Classification after applying the FRL factor. YES THERE COULD BE ERRORS     AP Poll - Class 2A Rankings thru Week 8
	School	Enrollment	FRL (%)	FRL Reduction	New Enrollment	New Classification*	New Classification**	Sectionals	Regionals	Semi-States	States
1	Brownstown Central (8-0)	469	34.33%	120.8	348.2	A	AAA	13	3	0	0
2	Lafayette Central Catholic (7-0)	302	0.00%	0.0	302.0	A	AA	16	11	7	8
3	Indianapolis Lutheran (7-1)	267	0.00%	0.0	267.0	A	AA	10	8	4	3
4	Adams Central (7-1)	408	19.51%	59.7	348.3	A	AAA	24	16	4	1
5	Paoli (8-0)	396	56.44%	167.6	228.4	A	A	4	2	0	0
6	Western Boone (7-1)	513	29.31%	112.8	400.2	AA	AAA	11	7	5	4
7	South Vermillion (8-0)	468	41.79%	146.7	321.3	A	AA	0	0	0	0
8	Triton Central (6-2)	468	30.87%	108.4	359.6	A	AAA	9	1	0	0
9	Linton (6-2)	387	39.37%	114.3	272.7	A	AA	15	11	2	1
10	Northeastern (8-0)	423	35.16%	111.5	311.5	A	AA	0	0	0	0
11	North Posey (6-2)	442	23.87%	79.1	362.9	A	AAA	5	5	2	0
12	Heritage Christian (6-2)	507	0.00%	0.0	507.0	AA	AAA	4	2	2	1
13	Monrovia (6-2)	503	28.79%	108.6	394.4	AA	AAA	6	5	2	1
14	Rochester (7-1)	473	37.83%	134.2	338.8	A	AA	5	2	1	1
	Average:	430	26.95%	90	340.2	A	AA	9	5	2	1
	Average (ex. Private):	450	34.30%	115	335.1	A	AA	8	5	1	1
	Bottom 10 based on Sagarin Ratings thru Week 8
		Enrollment	FRL (%)	FRL Reduction	New Enrollment	New Classification*	New Classification**	Sectionals	Regionals	Semi-States	States
54	Christel House	420	89.69%	282.5	137.5	A	A	0	0	0	0
55	Central Noble	385	37.94%	109.6	275.4	A	AA	1	0	0	0
56	Eastern (Pekin)	389	39.21%	114.4	274.6	A	AA	0	0	0	0
57	Wabash	492	50.24%	185.4	306.6	A	AA	0	0	0	0
58	Whitko	389	35.40%	103.3	285.7	A	AA	1	1	1	1
59	Lake Station	391	79.87%	234.2	156.8	A	A	2	0	0	0
60	Mitchell	430	38.52%	124.2	305.8	A	AA	1	0	0	0
61	Clarksville	385	66.07%	190.8	194.2	A	A	3	1	1	0
62	Crawford County	379	57.46%	163.3	215.7	A	A	0	0	0	0
63	Union County	391	41.94%	123.0	268.0	A	AA	0	0	0	0
	Average:	405	53.63%	163	242.0	A	A	1	0	0	0
	*Class 2A Enrollment Range 24-25 & 25-26 (513 - 377)
	**Class 2A Enrollment Range after FRL Factor (344 - 253)

[crimsonace1]

I believe it was Coach Gallogly - who was one of the best posters here back in the day when he was in Indiana - who was proposing using FRL numbers as a sort of reverse-multiplier. 

It's an intriguing idea, and is probably a more fair metric than some of the other ideas (like a straight multiplier) that have been thrown around. 

[foxbat]

50 minutes ago, Cloudy14 said:

	Not easy to paste in here, but I tried to apply the factor as best I could using the 2015 data (didn't see the other data in time).  I also made some assumptions in Classification after applying the FRL factor. YES THERE COULD BE ERRORS     AP Poll - Class 2A Rankings thru Week 8
	School	Enrollment	FRL (%)	FRL Reduction	New Enrollment	New Classification*	New Classification**	Sectionals	Regionals	Semi-States	States
1	Brownstown Central (8-0)	469	34.33%	120.8	348.2	A	AAA	13	3	0	0
2	Lafayette Central Catholic (7-0)	302	0.00%	0.0	302.0	A	AA	16	11	7	8
3	Indianapolis Lutheran (7-1)	267	0.00%	0.0	267.0	A	AA	10	8	4	3
4	Adams Central (7-1)	408	19.51%	59.7	348.3	A	AAA	24	16	4	1
5	Paoli (8-0)	396	56.44%	167.6	228.4	A	A	4	2	0	0
6	Western Boone (7-1)	513	29.31%	112.8	400.2	AA	AAA	11	7	5	4
7	South Vermillion (8-0)	468	41.79%	146.7	321.3	A	AA	0	0	0	0
8	Triton Central (6-2)	468	30.87%	108.4	359.6	A	AAA	9	1	0	0
9	Linton (6-2)	387	39.37%	114.3	272.7	A	AA	15	11	2	1
10	Northeastern (8-0)	423	35.16%	111.5	311.5	A	AA	0	0	0	0
11	North Posey (6-2)	442	23.87%	79.1	362.9	A	AAA	5	5	2	0
12	Heritage Christian (6-2)	507	0.00%	0.0	507.0	AA	AAA	4	2	2	1
13	Monrovia (6-2)	503	28.79%	108.6	394.4	AA	AAA	6	5	2	1
14	Rochester (7-1)	473	37.83%	134.2	338.8	A	AA	5	2	1	1
	Average:	430	26.95%	90	340.2	A	AA	9	5	2	1
	Average (ex. Private):	450	34.30%	115	335.1	A	AA	8	5	1	1
	Bottom 10 based on Sagarin Ratings thru Week 8
		Enrollment	FRL (%)	FRL Reduction	New Enrollment	New Classification*	New Classification**	Sectionals	Regionals	Semi-States	States
54	Christel House	420	89.69%	282.5	137.5	A	A	0	0	0	0
55	Central Noble	385	37.94%	109.6	275.4	A	AA	1	0	0	0
56	Eastern (Pekin)	389	39.21%	114.4	274.6	A	AA	0	0	0	0
57	Wabash	492	50.24%	185.4	306.6	A	AA	0	0	0	0
58	Whitko	389	35.40%	103.3	285.7	A	AA	1	1	1	1
59	Lake Station	391	79.87%	234.2	156.8	A	A	2	0	0	0
60	Mitchell	430	38.52%	124.2	305.8	A	AA	1	0	0	0
61	Clarksville	385	66.07%	190.8	194.2	A	A	3	1	1	0
62	Crawford County	379	57.46%	163.3	215.7	A	A	0	0	0	0
63	Union County	391	41.94%	123.0	268.0	A	AA	0	0	0	0
	Average:	405	53.63%	163	242.0	A	A	1	0	0	0
	*Class 2A Enrollment Range 24-25 & 25-26 (513 - 377)
	**Class 2A Enrollment Range after FRL Factor (344 - 253)

Your numbers will be somewhat off though, especially in private school reporting, as the FRL for most private schools will be 0, actually non-existent, in the IDOE spreadsheet. 

In general, LCC belongs to the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana and the Diocese has roughly 13% FRL across its network, but LCC has FRL around 19.8%.  That won't make too much of a difference with regard to the new range that you have, but there are other private schools that would likely be counted as 0 because if the IDOE spreadsheet that are actually non-existent, but actually do have decent sized FRLwhich may impact class changes.  The biggest of these, tied to rankings and traditional power, would be Luers which sits at around 42% FRL.

As other private examples, Bishop Noll's FRL is around 56%, yet would likely show up with FRL as non-existent in the spreadsheet.  BTW, Chatard's FRL is a bit over 17%, while Cathedral's clocks in a bit under 9%.  For some comparison in the Lafayette area ... West Lafayette clocks in around 18.7%, nudging out LCC for lowest FRL in the area, Harrison is around 29.6%, Jeff is close to 69%, while McCutcheon is around 43%.  Faith is listed at 0%, but I suspect that's because of non-reported numbers as opposed to no FRL at all.

[kdets89]

17 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Faith is listed at 0%, but I suspect that's because of non-reported numbers as opposed to no FRL at all.

Not an educator, so I have no idea how the FRL is calculated/reported, and this is not meant to be a wise-ass question:  could it be they don't have lunch program at all?  Indy Lutheran has no lunch program, but certainly has students that would qualify for FRL.  How are those numbers reported?

[tango]

5 hours ago, Titan32 said:

The Catholics are going to LOVE you!  Men fix problems.  Mouth breathers live their plight.

Not really. We are reasonable people for the most part.

[Tippy]

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

Your numbers will be somewhat off though, especially in private school reporting, as the FRL for most private schools will be 0, actually non-existent, in the IDOE spreadsheet. 

In general, LCC belongs to the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana and the Diocese has roughly 13% FRL across its network, but LCC has FRL around 19.8%.  That won't make too much of a difference with regard to the new range that you have, but there are other private schools that would likely be counted as 0 because if the IDOE spreadsheet that are actually non-existent, but actually do have decent sized FRLwhich may impact class changes.  The biggest of these, tied to rankings and traditional power, would be Luers which sits at around 42% FRL.

As other private examples, Bishop Noll's FRL is around 56%, yet would likely show up with FRL as non-existent in the spreadsheet.  BTW, Chatard's FRL is a bit over 17%, while Cathedral's clocks in a bit under 9%.  For some comparison in the Lafayette area ... West Lafayette clocks in around 18.7%, nudging out LCC for lowest FRL in the area, Harrison is around 29.6%, Jeff is close to 69%, while McCutcheon is around 43%.  Faith is listed at 0%, but I suspect that's because of non-reported numbers as opposed to no FRL at all.

Lafayette Jeff has the highest FRL in Tippecanoe County, but has the best football team in Tippecanoe County.  Jeff will be 9-0 after this Friday.

[foxbat]

28 minutes ago, kdets89 said:

Not an educator, so I have no idea how the FRL is calculated/reported, and this is not meant to be a wise-ass question:  could it be they don't have lunch program at all?  Indy Lutheran has no lunch program, but certainly has students that would qualify for FRL.  How are those numbers reported?

I was wondering about that as Lutheran HS showed up as 0% FRL, but I know folks who go to Lutheran who, like you said, would qualify for FRL based on their income levels.  The FRL % that's reported seems likely based on those who sign-up for the FRL.  If a school has something like open-campus for lunch and you provide your own lunch from home or run to McDonalds, I'm pretty sure that school would show up as 0% in the numbers.

As such, I think your question adds a pretty good item for consideration.  I know that the local Lutheran school, St. James, which is K-8, has around a 35% FRL.  In their case, it would seem that they have a lunch program.  A couple of other private schools showed up as 0% too ... like Heritage Christian.  I couldn't tell from their website exact what the assistance prospect might be there, but if anyone from HC has some insights like you've been able to provide for Lutheran, that would be appreciated.

[Muda69]

12 hours ago, Irishman said:

Yes, you are reading that correctly. 

Thank you.  So I guess with some kind of FRL adjustment the Hot Dogs would probably be playing in 1A.  Neat.

 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Muda69

[MHSTigerFan]

This kind of thing is vaguely reminiscent of the Three-Fifths Clause in the original Constitution — in the sense that some people “count” more than others.

Edited October 16, 2024 by MHSTigerFan

[temptation]

I’d love to see someone take the time to break down the numbers and see what this would look like in Indiana.

Even if it’s as simple as ranking the teams by FRL and then doing so by enrollment and then taking the average of the two.

Not it!

Edited October 16, 2024 by temptation

[Coach Nowlin]

16 hours ago, MarkCalaway said:

Stop being a victim and be a man.

tell us more about Union Dugger "manning" up 

and getting Tougher

[MarshallCounty]

13 hours ago, Cloudy14 said:

	Not easy to paste in here, but I tried to apply the factor as best I could using the 2015 data (didn't see the other data in time).  I also made some assumptions in Classification after applying the FRL factor. YES THERE COULD BE ERRORS     AP Poll - Class 2A Rankings thru Week 8
	School	Enrollment	FRL (%)	FRL Reduction	New Enrollment	New Classification*	New Classification**	Sectionals	Regionals	Semi-States	States
1	Brownstown Central (8-0)	469	34.33%	120.8	348.2	A	AAA	13	3	0	0
2	Lafayette Central Catholic (7-0)	302	0.00%	0.0	302.0	A	AA	16	11	7	8
3	Indianapolis Lutheran (7-1)	267	0.00%	0.0	267.0	A	AA	10	8	4	3
4	Adams Central (7-1)	408	19.51%	59.7	348.3	A	AAA	24	16	4	1
5	Paoli (8-0)	396	56.44%	167.6	228.4	A	A	4	2	0	0
6	Western Boone (7-1)	513	29.31%	112.8	400.2	AA	AAA	11	7	5	4
7	South Vermillion (8-0)	468	41.79%	146.7	321.3	A	AA	0	0	0	0
8	Triton Central (6-2)	468	30.87%	108.4	359.6	A	AAA	9	1	0	0
9	Linton (6-2)	387	39.37%	114.3	272.7	A	AA	15	11	2	1
10	Northeastern (8-0)	423	35.16%	111.5	311.5	A	AA	0	0	0	0
11	North Posey (6-2)	442	23.87%	79.1	362.9	A	AAA	5	5	2	0
12	Heritage Christian (6-2)	507	0.00%	0.0	507.0	AA	AAA	4	2	2	1
13	Monrovia (6-2)	503	28.79%	108.6	394.4	AA	AAA	6	5	2	1
14	Rochester (7-1)	473	37.83%	134.2	338.8	A	AA	5	2	1	1
	Average:	430	26.95%	90	340.2	A	AA	9	5	2	1
	Average (ex. Private):	450	34.30%	115	335.1	A	AA	8	5	1	1
	Bottom 10 based on Sagarin Ratings thru Week 8
		Enrollment	FRL (%)	FRL Reduction	New Enrollment	New Classification*	New Classification**	Sectionals	Regionals	Semi-States	States
54	Christel House	420	89.69%	282.5	137.5	A	A	0	0	0	0
55	Central Noble	385	37.94%	109.6	275.4	A	AA	1	0	0	0
56	Eastern (Pekin)	389	39.21%	114.4	274.6	A	AA	0	0	0	0
57	Wabash	492	50.24%	185.4	306.6	A	AA	0	0	0	0
58	Whitko	389	35.40%	103.3	285.7	A	AA	1	1	1	1
59	Lake Station	391	79.87%	234.2	156.8	A	A	2	0	0	0
60	Mitchell	430	38.52%	124.2	305.8	A	AA	1	0	0	0
61	Clarksville	385	66.07%	190.8	194.2	A	A	3	1	1	0
62	Crawford County	379	57.46%	163.3	215.7	A	A	0	0	0	0
63	Union County	391	41.94%	123.0	268.0	A	AA	0	0	0	0
	Average:	405	53.63%	163	242.0	A	A	1	0	0	0
	*Class 2A Enrollment Range 24-25 & 25-26 (513 - 377)
	**Class 2A Enrollment Range after FRL Factor (344 - 253)

Small nit, classes will still be 64 teams, so the enrollment cut off will change as well, some schools will drop down but some would stay in current class because the lower class will full.

[Titan32]

39 minutes ago, temptation said:

I’d love to see someone take the time to break down the numbers and see what this would look like in Indiana.

Even if it’s as simple as ranking the teams by FRL and then doing so by enrollment and then taking the average of the two.

Not it!

I would like to see the FRL data for Indiana for each year....show old class, estimate the new class then bounce that against wins and losses for that year.  I'm not interested in how many titles each school has won in its history.  The relevant data is that year's FRL numbers against that year's wins and losses.   I'll take a look when I get time .....but that might be December.