COMMENTARY: Time for all Nevada high schools to talk honestly about athletics

Nevada’s debate over high school athletics has intensified since 30 Clark County School District football programs elected to play independent schedules for the next two seasons. District schools are also beginning to refuse to compete against public charter schools in other sports, based partly on accusations that charter schools recruit students differently and have an unfair advantage. This is false.

Charter schools recruit students (both athletes and non-athletes alike), and so do schools in the Clark County School District. Both public school systems promote their schools and encourage families to enroll based on the programs and opportunities they offer.

CCSD advertises its network of magnet, technical and open-enrollment schools, holds school-choice fairs and encourages families to explore each school’s programs through open houses and campus tours. No fewer than 10 of those magnet high schools have athletic programs, and any student recruited to attend those magnet programs is eligible to play sports for that school, regardless of where they live.

Charter schools likewise inform families about their academic programs, facilities, staff and extracurricular opportunities. That is school choice, not improper recruiting.

Refusing to include charter schools in interscholastic athletics based on a supposed distinction between these efforts is unfair to schools and, more importantly, to students.

District officials sometimes claim they are competing on an uneven playing field. They are correct, but not in the way they suggest.

CCSD benefits from billions of dollars in dedicated public facilities funding, including a $4.1 billion capital improvement program for school construction and renovation. Public charters receive no comparable dedicated facilities funding. Charter schools use operational dollars to lease, purchase and maintain their campuses, leaving fewer resources for extracurricular programs.

That disparity is especially apparent in athletics. CCSD high schools generally have taxpayer-funded gyms, fields, courts and other athletic facilities. Many charter schools lack those amenities and must partner with parks departments, municipalities and private facilities simply to find places for their students to practice and compete. Before labeling charter schools unfairly advantaged, the district should acknowledge the financial and facilities advantages its own schools enjoy.

For many students, athletics are central to their education. I played basketball and soccer and ran cross-country in high school. The lessons I learned through practices, competition, victory and defeat have proven every bit as valuable as many lessons I learned in a classroom. The relationships I formed with coaches and teammates continue today.

Families should be allowed to consider those experiences when choosing a school. A student interested in engineering may select a technical academy. A gifted musician may choose a performing arts school. A talented actor can pursue the best drama club. Likewise, a student-athlete should be able to compare coaching philosophies, team cultures, facilities and competitive opportunities.

Nevada’s recruiting rules do not acknowledge this reality. Under Nevada Administrative Code 385B.344, schools may promote their educational and extracurricular programs. Yet the same regulation prohibits a student-athlete from meeting with a coach to ask about the sports program and prohibits any school from suggesting that their athletic program is superior to another school’s.

But the current rule creates an obvious inconsistency: Schools may promote almost every feature of the student experience, except athletics.

Some argue that allowing schools to promote athletics would cause the best players to congregate at a few schools. That concern overlooks a basic reality: opportunities are limited. Only one quarterback can play at a time, and every roster has a finite number of meaningful roles.

Talented students will often choose the program offering the best individual fit, whether that means more playing time, a stronger relationship with a coach, a preferred team culture or a system suited to the student’s abilities. Open information will encourage schools to improve their programs, while roster limitations will help distribute players among them.

Nevada should continue prohibiting schools from offering money, jobs, housing or other improper benefits to secure an athlete’s enrollment. Rules should also prevent coaches from secretly targeting individual students or pressuring families. Those protections should be enforced consistently against every school.

But truthful, general promotion is not improper recruiting. Competitive balance is a legitimate concern, but restricting information and excluding charter schools from competition do not create fairness. Classification, scheduling, transfer eligibility and postseason structure are the appropriate tools for addressing competitive differences.

Nevada should prohibit individualized solicitation and improper inducements while allowing every public, charter and private school to promote its athletic programs openly. CCSD should compete against charter schools under those same rules, rather than exclude them based on an artificial distinction.

Students deserve to choose the complete educational experience that best fits them and to compete against their peers, regardless of which type of Nevada public school they attend.

Ryan Reeves is the chief operating officer of Academica in Nevada. Academia is an education services provider supporting public charter schools throughout the state.