FREEMAN BOARD LUKEWARM ON PHOENIX EXPANSION

Request comes from Marion, which is also in talks about an all-sports co-op with Parker; superintendents and ADs were to meet Wednesday

An expansion of the Phoenix cooperative between Freeman, Marion and Freeman Academy arrived at the table of the Freeman Public School Board last week Monday, March 10 following a request from Marion to explore a broader sports partnership.

This issue arose at a recent Phoenix advisory committee meeting that included Freeman School Board President Emily Andersen and board vice president Doug McCune.

And while Freeman board members agreed at last Monday’s meeting to follow up by asking what sort of terms Marion officials were thinking, there appeared to be little support for adding other athletics to the Phoenix football and softball programs already in place.

Marion, meanwhile, has also reached out to Canistota and Parker about an all-sports cooperative, according to the official board minutes from its March 10 meeting. And on Monday, March 17, Marion Superintendent Brian Brosnahan said that superintendents and athletic directors from Marion and Parker had scheduled a meeting for Wednesday, March 19 to further discuss a possible partnership. Brosnahan also said that coaches from both districts have been made aware of the developing situation.

The latest could have broader implications locally, like what it would mean for Freeman Academy, which has been in a sports co-op with Marion since 2016, or what the impact would be on the Phoenix football and softball programs, which are contractually bound through the 2025-26 seasons. And should Marion engage with another district in an all-sports cooperative — and if that includes wrestling — that would mean the end of the Rebels cooperative that has been in place since 1991-92 and is the longest standing in the state.

Board members from Freeman Public, meanwhile, didn’t indicate much support for the request from Marion, even though they agreed to “continue the discussion,” according to the official minutes from the meeting published on page 3B.

Andersen noted that an expanded cooperative would mean a move from Class B to Class A in both basketball and volleyball, “and there (were) some folks with some concern about that and that level of competition impacting the overall participation rate.”

Freeman Superintendent Jake Tietje shared both ADMs used by the South Dakota High School Activities Association for classification and also participation rates for Freeman, and he asked, “are we in need of having an all sports co-op for these sports in particular, or will the numbers be so excessive that there are going to be serious issues with people having an opportunity to participate?”

“I guess the question is, what’s changed since the last time we went down this road?” asked McCune, a reference to a previous discussion that took place in 2021 and 2022 about a possible Freeman/Marion co-op in which the two districts couldn’t agree on terms as they relate to who hosts what, and how frequently. Freeman and Marion — and Freeman Academy — eventually settled on a new football cooperative starting in the fall of 2022, with softball to follow.

“We’ve been here before and we put a very generous offer in front of the other two, which was rejected,” McCune said. “And if we’re going to jump to Class A sports, we are the only school with a Class A facility, so we would not be able to play games at either of their facilities. And if they were not satisfied with 30% of the events last time, I don’t know if they would be satisfied with zero percent moving forward.

“Why would we give up anything when we don’t have the need?” he continued. “Because we don’t have the need, and it’s our job as a board to look out for the taxpayers and the patrons in our district, not bordering districts. I don’t think that’s responsible.”

But board member Chris Sayler, who was on record as being for an all-sports co-op, said Freeman does have sports that have a need.

“Our girls basketball program, we were relying on seventh and eighth graders to fill it,” he said. “If we didn’t bring those up, I think we had seven or eight girls out.

“We’ve got to look long-term,” Sayler said. “Numbers change and kids come and go. There’s dips and valleys all the time. It’s good to keep the communication open, in my mind.”

Andersen said enough time has passed since previous discussions that it might be prudent to seek opinions from the students and the larger public, similar to a survey that was completed in the fall of 2021 that showed overwhelming support for athletic cooperation with a neighboring district.

“Time has transpired since then and I don’t know if attitudes have changed,” Andersen said. “Giving the public a chance to provide feedback, for me, would be important to get more information.”

Board member Cody Spangler said he’s not necessarily against an all-sports cooperative, but that it should be all sports or no sports.

“I have no desire to have four different T-shirts in my drawer trying to represent the litany of whatever’s, because somebody is concerned about their kid that will never make money playing a sport, getting enough playing time or being competitive,” Spangler said. “That’s not what a school is designed to do.

“I say it’s either one single sports co-or or no sports co-op,” he continued, “and if there’s not enough kids for the sports, don’t have the sport.”

And board member David Downs agreed with McCune.

“I’m against expanding the co-op,” Downs said. “I feel there’s an incredible amount of school pride and ownership of your community when you can field sports for your own team.”

Andersen wrapped up the discussion by asking if the board is interested in continuing down this path.

“I’m open to listening and having a conversation, but I don’t know why we would until we can get the other board’s capacity for where they’re at with what they think a split could look like, because that’s what it’s going to come down to — that’s what it always comes down to. Who is giving up what?”

The board ultimately unanimously agreed to continue the discussion in the interest of gaining more information about shared events before turning this into a larger, ongoing agenda item.

“I don’t think it’s a wise use of our time as a board to talk about this for the next eight months to get to the same points we got to,” McCune said. “Let’s have that conversation first.

“We’ve got to gauge where they’re at,” said Sayler.