OVERVIEW
In an effort to provide a more complete picture of the issues surrounding the ADM-3 bylaw proposal, the CHSAA office was asked to provide the data that supported the language used as either the rationale or the pros for the proposal. The response given was that the CHSAA office had provided sufficient information for unbiased discourse and debate between member schools and that any other data needed to support a particular position should be readily accessible for anyone wanting to do that research. Please see below the information that was collected via independent research. We believe it to be an accurate picture of what is going on in our state association, as well as others throughout the nation
Language in the ADM-3 proposal
“Rationale: The multiplier is intended to adjust for the competitive advantages that some member schools may have due to selective admissions, enrollment controls, and/or tuition-based enrollment when compared to schools that do not have these advantages The multiplier aims to standardize data and ensure a more equitable comparison of school enrollments despite differing admission practices.
A 1 5 multiplier is a common and widely accepted factor used by other state high school associations that have implemented similar models. Using this figure allows Colorado to align with a known benchmark while still tailoring the system to CHSAA’s needs A 1 5 multiplier increases adjusted enrollment meaningfully by 50% without automatically forcing all affected schools into a higher classification It provides enough impact to potentially change placement without guaranteeing it, which maintains fairness and prevents overclassification while ensuring equity without a full separation for post-season competition ”
Response to the Rationale
● Selective Admission - Both Private and Charter schools would have this “advantage”
● Enrollment Controls - All schools in Colorado, as a byproduct of open enrollment, have this “advantage”
● Tuition-based Enrollment - Private schools have this “advantage”
○ We would like further information on how paying tuition is an advantage to private school families
● A 1 5 multiplier is a common and widely accepted factor - While there are states that have a multiplier, there is no example of a state that has approved a multiplier recently In fact, many have moved away from a multiplier in recent years, as detailed below.
“Pros:
Acknowledges demonstrated competitive advantages
Data supports that selective admissions, tuition-based enrollment, and enrollment management practices can create an uneven playing field in competition
Promotes competitive equity
Offers a transparent and predictable mechanism for adjusting enrollment figures, giving all schools a clearer understanding of how classifications are determined
Takes a measured approach, not an automatic one: Unlike blanket policies that move schools up a classification based solely on school type or structure, this model uses an enrollment multiplier.
As a result, some schools may remain in their current classification if the adjusted enrollment does not meet the threshold for change
Whereas several other State Associations separate public and private schools for competitive purposes, a multiplier aims to equitably integrate member schools into one classification structure By exempting programs that did not qualify for and win at least one postseason contest in the previous cycle, the bylaw ensures that the multiplier is applied in a way that reflects actual competitive success rather than just school structure. This helps avoid penalizing programs that may not be consistently competitive, even if they fall under the broader school definition ”
“Cons:
Some schools who meet the definition may be adversely impacted
The multiplier is applied broadly to school enrollment, which may not align with the actual performance or strength of individual sports programs ”
Response to the stated Pros
● Acknowledges demonstrated competitive advantages - Nobody has yet defined what exactly the demonstrated competitive advantages are And do all private schools “enjoy” them, or just those that have successful athletic programs? There are, according to Mark Twain, “lies, damn lies, and statistics ” Nebraska Football is widely known as a top 5 program in the country all-time. You would not know that it is even close to true from the last quarter of a century Creating different ways to look at statistics is important, and another version is detailed below.
● “Data supports…” We have not been able to find the data (and none was supplied when requested) that supports the statement that there is a competitive advantage that exists simply because:
○ some schools (including public charter schools) have selective enrollment Some private schools do not practice selective enrollment - if you want to attend, you are eligible to do so
○ Tuition is paid to attend private schools. Yes, all private schools charge tuition. This allows the school to operate as they do not receive the same funding from state and local taxes and federal programs that the public schools do There is no data that supports that this tuition inherently gives private schools an advantage over public schools. Otherwise, most private schools would have state championships.
○ Enrollment management practices are practiced - this happens at all schools Charter schools selectively enroll Public schools compete for and recruit out-of-district students (listen to the radio ads, watch the video ads online or on TV, or look at the signs on the public school buses). If a public school accepts an open-enrolled student, and that student subsequently becomes an attendance or discipline issue, that student is sent back to their district of residence
● Promotes Competitive Equity - We do not yet know how schools will be classified, so claiming this is going to provide equity is misleading. It has been shared that if five schools move up, five schools will not necessarily move down
● Penalizing Programs - Why do we need to penalize successful programs, and why draw the line at successful private school programs when, by ratio, there are just as many public/charter school programs that would fit into that description?
Response to the stated Cons
● “Some schools may be adversely impacted” - All private schools will experience an adverse impact, as will those public schools that are in a classification that the private schools will be moved to If I am the coach of a 3A football team, and a net of three more schools move into my classification as a result of this bylaw, I now have to compete with more schools for the same number of playoff opportunities
Open Enrollment and A Multiplier
As different forms of a multiplier surface as a bylaw in Colorado high school athletics, it is important to ground the conversation in a firm understanding of both Colorado state law and relevant comparisons to other states One critical consideration is that Colorado is an open-enrollment state, meaning that students may enroll in public schools outside of their assigned district Colorado is one of twelve states with the strongest or most codified open enrollment laws The other states include:
• Arizona
• Delaware
• Iowa
• Nebraska
• South Dakota
• Wisconsin
• Arkansas
• Florida
• Kansas
• Oklahoma
• West Virginia
Notably, none of these twelve states currently has a multiplier bylaw in place within their high school athletic associations Some states offer particularly relevant case studies:
• Arkansas: Once employed a multiplier system starting in the early 2000s However, the Arkansas Activities Association has since moved away from that approach and adopted a model that classifies schools based on competitive success over time, rather than enrollment modification
• Wisconsin: Though discussions about a multiplier have taken place, the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) has instead implemented a "Competitive Balance Plan" and "Tournament Performance Factors", focusing on on-field success rather than adjusting enrollment figures
• Nebraska: Recently held a vote on implementing a multiplier system The proposal was rejected In each of these cases, the multiplier approach has failed to gain sustained or widespread support.
In the broader context, several states with less robust or more restrictive open enrollment policies have also considered and ultimately declined to implement multiplier systems. These include:
• Minnesota
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• Missouri - Missouri does not currently use a sports "multiplier," having replaced its 1 35 private school multiplier in 2019 with the MSHSAA Championship Factor for non-public schools in football, soccer, softball, basketball, volleyball, and baseball. This new system places schools in classes based on raw enrollment but moves successful teams up one or two classes after six seasons based on a point system for postseason performance
• Alabama - 1 35 multiplier plus a competitive balance factor, no statewide open enrollment law
• Georgia - The "multiplier" in Georgia high school sports is a rule by the Georgia High School Association (GHSA) that counts out-of-zone students multiple times (originally 3 0x) to determine a school's athletic classification, aiming to level the playing field between public and private schools This rule was intended to prevent successful private schools from benefiting from large student populations drawn from outside their zones but faced criticism and was eventually removed for the 2024-2026 reclassification cycle, with the GHSA forming a committee to study alternative competitive-balance models.
• Illinois - 1 65 Multiplier, no open enrollment law
Another perspective:
We know that in the last five years (chosen because that is the timeframe CHSAA used), private schools have won 115 state championships. We also know that 38 of those titles were won at the highest classification offered by those sports: 26 by Valor Christian, 7 by Colorado Academy in lax and field hockey, and 5 by Regis In addition, at least one was won by a school voluntarily playing up a class: Holy Family baseball in 4A Since those won't be affected by ADM-3 if it passes, let's throw those and the highest classification out
That leaves 76 championships left, primarily in three or four classes More classes for football and basketball, less in a few other sports, but let's keep this with the vast majority
If we assume all 76 titles were won in 4 classes (1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A): 76 titles divided by 4 classes is 19 titles per class in 5 years Divide that by 5 years and you have, on average, less than 4 titles per class per year
If we assume all 76 titles were won in 3 classes (2A, 3A, and 4A): 76 titles divided by 3 classes is 25 3 titles per class in 5 years Divide that by 5 years and you have, on average, just over 5 titles per class per year
So, when we throw out the titles won at the highest classification, we are left with private schools winning, on average, somewhere between 4 and 5 titles per class per year Or, another way to look at it, private schools are winning (on average) 4-5 titles per class per year in an Association that offers over 25 titles per year in each class
The question that can be asked then: Is winning, on average, 1 3 to 1 7 titles per sports season per class over the last five years too much success for the over forty private schools in the association? I know that this is a bit simplistic, but not overly so. I also am aware that in some sports (2A soccer, 4A basketball, for example), private schools have won lots of titles But we can also look at other sports (wrestling, volleyball) where private schools have had considerably less success than public schools I acknowledge that my numbers are general, as are those offered by CHSAA