This article came out yesterday and once again, it touched the home-schooled issue in chess in Arizona.
April 8, 2007
Home-schooled chess team banned from tournament
Lindy B. Mapes, For the Tribune
A team of East Valley home-schooled students who won the state chess championship in 2006 was not allowed to compete this year at the Arizona Scholastic Chess Championship in Tucson.
A change in rules regarding home-schooled teams in the Arizona Chess Federation left the 26 students at home March 16-18 while their peers at public and private schools checkmated their way to victory.
“They put rules on home-schoolers that aren’t on anybody else,” said Joan Harmonick, a mother from Mesa who home-schools her children and whose 18-year-old son coaches the team called Chevalier Noir (Black Knight) Academy.
The ruling, which came in December after months of contention, requires home-schooled students to either join their local public school team or form a team with other home-schooled students living within the attendance boundaries of the same public school.
Chevalier Noir players come from Scottsdale, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa and Ahwatukee Foothills and practice together at the Harmonicks’ home.
“There are not enough home-schoolers within the boundaries to form a team,” Harmonick said. “And our local public school doesn’t have a team, so we are completely shut out.”
Harmonick and other parents of home-schoolers are quick to point out that Arizona is an open-enrollment state, which means public school students do not need to live within prescribed attendance boundaries to enroll. Charter and private schools do not even have attendance boundaries.
Arizona Chess Federation secretary Myron Lieberman said the December ruling was established to create boundaries for home-schooled chess teams in proportion to those of public schools.
Here is the full article.
Unfair to ban the kids.
It should not be surprising that a government school system, a monopoly upheld by government regulation, uses more regulation to ensure no one who doesn’t play by their rules embarasses them.
People are forced to pay into the public school, so they don’t have to provide a good product – whatever they do, they’ll get paid. Still, they don’t want to give people any more reasons to take their children out of the public school, because that threatens to grow grassroots support for government educational reform.
Sent the following email to Arizona Chess Federation:
Mr. Myron Lieberman,
I am writing to express my disgust at the Institutional discrimination against home schooled children in Arizona Chess by the Arizona Chess Federation, Inc.
I refer specifically to the Chevalier Noir home schooled chess team that was recently barred from competition.
Passing the buck to the USCF and saying “We were just following orders” has not provided an excuse in the past and will not work today.
Yes…it is unfair to prevent them from playing, but, it makes perfect sense. Two points: 1) You have to look at it from the perspective of the kids that go to public schools and play with kids only in their district. They and their parents see it in the light that the homeschooler team have the advantage of taking the cream of the crop from the entire state/area. 2) The same would be true if you allowed homeschoolers to field sports teams to compete against the district bound schools.
Maybe if they changed the format to a scholastic team event where anyone could create a team from anywhere, it would level the playing field a bit. Similar to the way the amateur team east, west, and south tournaments work.
Response to Anonymous questions: 1)Arizona is an open-enrollment state, which means public school students do not need to live within prescribed attendance boundaries to enroll. Charter and private schools do not even have attendance boundaries.
2)Can you show me ANY proof that home schoolers are forming super teams?
Why not treat these teams as innocent until proven guilty? I think that the super team argument is a red herring to ban the home school kids. I don’t see any move to ban charter schools or older magnet schools.
AZ may be an open enrollment state, but regardless of what district a child resides in, he will be representing the school that he actually attends. That school may or may not be in his district.
If you’re saying that schools are recruiting from other districts to form super teams, then there may be merit to comparing it to home school teams.
I see both sides of the argument, especially understanding some of the history behind the rule. There had been cases of “super teams” being formed by home school groups, and schools who recruited home school kids to represent their school because of their chess talent.
I believe AZ is simply following the rules set up by the USCF for team eligibility in national events.
If the rule is wrong then it should be changed at the national level so that states can have consistant rule to follow. If each state association does its own thing, then players who may play into different states may encounter different rules depending on what state they’re playing in.
In my area there are schools that will play in both the CT and NY state scholastic championships because of the close proximity of the tournaments.
Didn’t we already discuss this? Let me help clarify what happened this year.
Under current ACFI (and USCF) Scholastic Regulations a team of home schooled students can only be formed if all the players live within the same local school boundry. This has been the rule for a few years. Chevalier Noir has known that for some time.
Last year they were ineligible to form a team, but ACFI granted them an exemption while they reviewed the rules and tried to come up with something fair. Chevalier Noir won the state title last year. During the summer a proposal was given to the ACFI but it was voted down.
[Insert a changing of the board.]
During the fall a committee was formed (which included Chevalier Noir parents) to form up new rules and to propose them to the board. I was the chairperson of this committee. I can honestly tell you that we worked hard to come up with rules that were fair to all Arizona chess players, but in the end we had to agree to disagree. We sent 3 proposals to ACFI and they were all voted down.
The players were NOT “banned” from the tournament. The players were NOT “banned” from being on a team. Their specific circumstances did not fit the criteria needed. It is no different then when players go to school without chess clubs or teams. Those players would not be allowed to form teams together to compete in the state championship events either.
These same rules were in effect at the State Grade tournament in January. Players from Chevalier Noir played in that event (not as a team). They chose to not play in the Scholastic Championships in March and that is the only reason why they didn’t show up.
– Enrique
(Looking forward to these words being used against me… again.)
NYtrigal,
The pool of home children is MUCH smaller and that is usually why they come from larger geographical areas.
Chevalier Noir was allowed to compete last year, was the Arizona Chess Federation rebuked by the USCF for allowing the Chevalier Noir team to play?
I doubt it. Did the Arizona Chess Federation make an appeal to the USCF to allow home schoolers to play? I hope they did, but I doubt it.
Scholastic Chess is usually run by people with ties to public education and SOME of those people are threatened by the idea of home schooling and will trample home schoolers if the system allows them the opportunity.
Anon 1:06,
The pool is smaller and the committee did look to compensate for that. Unfortunately, what Chevalier Noir wanted was too big in the eyes of the ACFI. And in another proposal it was too small in the eyes of Chevalier Noir. (Hence the agree to disagree.) )=
“Chevalier Noir was allowed to compete last year, was the Arizona Chess Federation rebuked by the USCF for allowing the Chevalier Noir team to play?”
No, last year (under the same rules) Chevalier Noir was ineligable to form a team. They were granted an exemption while ACFI reviewed the rules. During the summer the interpretation that the team does not conform to the rules was upheld.
“Did the Arizona Chess Federation make an appeal to the USCF to allow home schoolers to play?”
It was Chevalier Noir that contacted USCF. In turn, that’s what lead to some of the confusion. USCF gave Chevalier Noir an ambigious answer to an ambigious question. They came to a State tournament (in January 2006) believing they rightly could form a team. The TDs informed them that that was incorrect.
After the tournament an appeal was made to ACFI which lead to the exemption I mentioned above for the April 2006 tournament. ACFI later agreed with the interpretation of the TD and it was affirmed by USCF.
“Scholastic Chess is usually run by people with ties to public education and SOME of those people are threatened by the idea of home schooling and will trample home schoolers if the system allows them the opportunity.”
The ACFI is the state affiliate that runs both scholastic and adult chess. It does not have direct ties to public education.
– Enrique
The kids were not banned. But they were not allowed to play as a club team at a scholastic tourney. Why should they be allowed to play as a school??
If there was a club team championship or division, great. This was schools competing against schools and as such the Chevalier Noir obviously does not qualify.
I am sure if they came in last place last year they would have been allowed to form a team this year.
I see the Arizona federation’s point of view. This particular scholastic tournament is organized for kids who go to school and the teams are formed on the basis of schools attended.
The home-schooled kids don’t go to school, and instead are in educational programs tailored for them at home by their parents.
So unfortunately for them it gets complicated when they try to participate in activities that are based on going to school.
In the case of the one family mentioned, those kids would be allowed to enter as members of a school team, provided it was a public school which they would be geographically eligible to attend. The chess federation doesn’t require that they actually attend that school, but they can only represent that one particular school. The parents have to work things out with the school to make it happen. This is a common problem and crops up for all kinds of “extra-curricular” activities for home-schooled kids.
But that school doesn’t have a chess club or team. So, they are disadvantaged, just like any other kid in that town. There are a probably a lot of places in Arizona where there is no chess club at the school.
If home-school kids are going to be accomodated by being able to form “free” teams, then why not kids who happen to go to schools that don’t have chess clubs?
It isn’t as if these home-schooled kids have no other organized chess options. There are a lot of scholastic events where you only have to be the right age.
The federation could change the tournament so that any “free” team could participate, like the adult “Amateur Team” events, but that would change the interschool aspect of it, which is important to the kids and the parents, at least in one or two tournaments per year.
It seems perfectly all right to me for parents to home-school their kids, but I don’t think they should expect the rest of the world to abandon all activities in which school identity plays a part.
Below is a comment from a reader of The East Valley Tribune on this subject:
I noticed that Phoenix Country Day School replaced the home-school team as state champions in the K-6 Division. Phoenix Country is a private school that draws students from all over the Valley. They have no attendance boundaries. The Phoenix Country coach, Will Wharten, is president of the Arizona Chess Federation and voted to block home-school teams. Perhaps he had ulterior motives. Maybe he wanted to get rid of the competition and clear the way for his own team to win the championship. Scholastic chess in Arizona is filled with pettiness. Too many people care more about winning than about children.
April 8, 2007
See all comments and article:
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/87407
Sigh…
A private school can field a team, even if it draws players from cross district lines. Heck, it can even recruit and give scholarships.
Meanwhile, home school teams get shut out.
The rules should lean towards encouraging participation, not shutting teams out. Heck, if small schools need to get together to have a team, that should be allowed. But the bureaucracy finds a way to drive kids from chess. Nice move, guys.
Those home school kids are learning the Golden Rule the hard way. Those with the Gold Rule! The USCF should rise above the petty local politics and help the children!
Anon 6:42
With all due respect (and I do mean that) I take exception to your comment that “scholastic chess in Arizona is filled with pettiness”. That is not tru and you should not make such broad, ignorant comments. It may be your opinion, and you are free to have that opinion, but I think you would be best served to not jump to conclusions so quickly in life.
– Enrique
Enrique,
Is Robert Tanner still Vice President
of ACFI?
Anon 8:08
As of Sep 2006 Robert is now the Vice President.
– Enrique
I see. Thank you.
“Scholastic chess in Arizona is filled with pettiness.”
Show me one area of the country where this isn’t true. In my brief career of helping kids out with their chess, the competitiveness of the adults involved never failed to shock me. I’ve seen tournament directors of nearby towns (still across a state line) bickering over tournament dates, and ultimately punishing the kids. Then there are the coaches acting in completely ridiculous ways as they try to spur on their team to victory. Unfortunately, I would be truly reluctant to start my own kids in scholastic chess.
“Show me one area of the country where this isn’t true.”
I welcome and encourage you to come to Tucson, AZ and enjoy the scholastic chess league that the local affiliate provides. (=
– Enrique
He might be home schooling his kids in which case they would be treated as second class…
In that case I would put him in contact with the board member that home schools his kids as well, and participates in the league. (=
– Enrique
Funny picture. 9×9 board!
Hey, you can complain about the problem in Arizona, but it is MUCH WORSE in Indiana. In Indiana, the Indiana State Chess Association has an agreement with a state affiliate to run the Indiana State Scholastic Team Championships. That affiliate, Scholatic Chess of Indiana, doesn’t allow homeschooler’s to play unless the team is schooled in the same building. Now how is that going to happen?!? They don’t even come close to following the 2005 USCF National Scholastic Chess Tournament guidelines for homeschoolers!
Editorial in the Arizona East Valley Tribune, mistakes Arizona Scholastic Chess Championship for a public school program.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/87744
April 13, 2007
Compromise is winning move in chess
Tribune Editorial
Life often isn’t easy for children who go to school at home. While they get to develop special bonds with their parents and study at their own pace, they often miss out on the social activities and characterbuilding competition that comes from learning in a classroom setting.
Many home-school parents try to compensate for this by finding venues and activities their children can enter with other home-school children or with kids at traditional schools. State law encourages this by requiring publicly funded schools to allow home-school students to compete for a position on interscholastic teams. So we frequently see home-school students playing on traditional sport teams from football to tennis.
But an ongoing dispute about the proper role of a competitive chess team made up of East Valley homeschool students raises a question about how much accommodation should be provided by regular schools.
The Tribune reported April 8 that members of the Mesa-based Chevalier Noir team had entered the statewide championships sponsored by the Arizona Chess Federation under an exception to a rule that encourages all teams to be sponsored by a school — whether it be district, charter or private. A committee of parents, including those with students in traditional school and those who teach their kids at home, recommended a permanent exception to make the federation more inclusive.
But after the home-school team won the state title last year, the federation decided to keep the current rule, which requires home-school students to join the chess team of the public school they normally would attend or at least to form a team of home-school students only from within that school’s attendance boundaries.
As a result, the Chevalier Noir players didn’t attend the state championship this year although they could have competed as individuals. (The event is designed to encourage team entries).
Home-school parents complain the school-sponsored chess teams are using this rule to stifle competition. But school coaches and parents are worried about a homeschool team of “all stars” from around the Valley or around the state that would have an unfair advantage.
Both sides have a point, but we also believe both sides could be more flexible. When parents decide to educate at home, they should realize they won’t be able to replicate many classroom experiences. They shouldn’t expect others to transform the world to accommodate their personal choice, at least when it could place additional, unreasonable burdens on families who prefer the traditional school setting.
Still, home-school parents are correct when they are argue the chess federation rule lacks balance when private and charter schools can enroll students from just about anywhere.
One compromise could be for home-school chess players to join the team of any school they wish, but their affiliation must last at least a year to be in a similar category as charter and private schools. Another option would be to accept home-school teams from within the same school district (instead of the more limited individual school boundaries) as a recognition that the pool of interested home-school students likely will remain much smaller.
Either way, home-school students would get a chance to test their chess skills against the best in the state while keeping the competition fair for their classroom peers.
Informed response to confused Tribune editorial
http://epaper.aztrib.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=RVZULzIwMDcvMDQvMjIjQXIwOTMwMQ==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
Chess flap centers on fairness
EAST VALLEY VOICE
April 22, 2007
— Leslie Johnson of Gilbert is a home educator and served on the ad hoc homeschool study committee for the ACFI in 2006.
Following a fire storm of readers’ comments from the East Valley Tribune article (“Homeschooled chess team banned from Ariz. tournament,” April 8) the editorial board of the East Valley Tribune published an editorial (“Compromise is winning move in chess,” April 13) in an effort to build a firewall around the controversy. Unfortunately, the opinion piece is but a gust that may well fan the flames even further if the foundational premise on which the piece was based is not corrected.
Fundamentally, the controversy does not emanate from homeschoolers seeking an accommodation provided by “regular schools,” as the editors report. Rather, the entity under which the controversy is surrounded is private — not public. It has no ties to the public schools.
The Arizona Chess Federation, Inc. functions to carry out the goals of the United States Chess Federation, which in this case includes providing an accommodation for scholastic (K-12) homeschool chess teams. Although the USCF recognizes the ACFI as an authority for state and local competition, it is a private organization, free to make whatever rules it wishes with no obligation to accommodate anyone.
Chevalier Noir homeschool representatives, who served on the 2006 ACFI ad hoc committee to modify the rule, authored three proposals for the ACFI board to consider — all of which were rejected. Even so, the goal of the representatives has always been to find a solution that allows for homeschool scholastic chess players — in accordance with homeschool law A.R.S. 15-802 — to be able to form teams and compete with other scholastic chess teams in the state. Their position was supported in a letter to the ACFI by Arizona Families for Home Education, a state organization which has supported homeschooling parents in Arizona since 1983.
The current rule does not work as the USCF intended under Arizona statutory homeschool requirements. About one-third of other states also have homeschool statutes that conflict with the USCF provision. Unlike Arizona, many of those states (Kansas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas) have created rules to accommodate homeschool teams while also complying with their state homeschool laws.
Further, there is neither an effort nor the desire to replicate the classroom experience by homeschool chess parents as the editorial declares. In fact, that is why the Chevalier Noir representatives are only asking for a workable accommodation for the eligibility of homeschool teams. While under the current rule homeschoolers may join a public school team in the few places where they exist, most homeschoolers do not desire to play as part of a traditional school team. Like other students, they would prefer to be team members with others whose school choice is the same as their own.
Also, there is no unreasonable burden, as the editorial purports, to any family who prefers a traditional school setting by the inclusion of homeschool teams. To the contrary: other privately-sponsored scholastic competitions have been enriched by a scholastic field inclusive of all school choice entities — public, private, charter, parochial and homeschool.
National Geographic Bee, Scripps Howard Spelling Bee, Mathcounts and Readers’ Digest Wordpower Challenge, to name a few, all benefit from the inclusion of the entire scholastic field of students. Recently, for example, homeschool students won first place in both the National Geographic Bee and the Scripps Spelling Bee for the state of Arizona. Although the students advanced as individuals like all other finalists, they competed in local homeschool-sponsored qualifiers. Notably, Veritas homeschool team won first place in the Mathcounts team competition this year. No burdens on anyone — traditional school or otherwise — in these contests, just robust competition.
“Compromise” solutions put forth by the Tribune cannot be supported by the demographics of scholastic students in Arizona. According to state and county records, public school students outnumber homeschoolers by a ratio of approximately 60:1. The proposals put forward by Chevalier Noir took into account these facts; the Tribune did not, even though copies of ACFI ad hoc committee proposals and supporting demographic statistics were sent to their editors and writers weeks ago.
At no time have homeschoolers involved in this issue sought to build a team of “all stars” from around the Valley and state, “recommended a permanent exception to the rule” or expected others to “transform the world in order to accommodate their personal choice,” as the editorial states. When the flames of controversy are blazing such hyperbole only serves to fuel the fire.
Chevalier Noir’s goal is to represent all homeschoolers at the table with those in positions to decide the rules and those who report on the controversy. To date, although they have asked many times for such a meeting with the ACFI, their requests have been denied. Homeschoolers stand ready to meet with those touting “compromise.” Let’s put this fire out.