White County Schools lauded for state performance; parent raises residency and athletics eligibility complaint

WHITE COUNTY — Officials from White County Schools told the county commission on June 1 that the district earned top marks on state performance measures and has received recent grants and nominations, and a local parent used the meeting’s public-comment period to raise a residency and athletics‑eligibility complaint involving her daughter.

Bob Young, chairman of the White County School Board, and Director John Barger updated commissioners on district results from the 2023–24 school year. Barger said the district was designated a “level 5” growth district — the state’s highest growth rating — and that “all of our schools are A’s and B’s on the state report card.” He added that four schools were recognized as reward schools for placing in the top 5% statewide for growth, and that these recognitions were the product of sustained work by teachers and staff.

“Love kids, work hard, and pursue excellence” is the district motto, Barger told the commission; he credited the district’s staff and the county’s financial support. Barger also said district enrollment has declined from roughly 4,000 students in 2016 to about 3,750 currently, a change he attributed in part to some families choosing homeschooling.

Barger and Young said the district recently secured external grants: White County was one of four districts in the state awarded a $150,000 pilot grant over three years to address school libraries and cybersecurity, and Findlay Elementary was nominated by the state for the National Blue Ribbon Schools recognition (the nomination was announced by the state). Those items were presented to the commission as positive developments for the county’s education profile.

Public comment: residency and athletics eligibility

Later in the meeting, Kim Mullins spoke during public comment about her daughter Kaylee Mullins and a dispute over school residency checks and athletic eligibility. Mullins said the family provided documentation showing a change of residence and that school staff initially allowed the student to remain enrolled, but that Director of Schools Dromberger later declared the student ineligible for varsity athletics based on residency checks. Mullins described multiple communications with school officials and the school board and said the family was given conflicting information about appeals and attorney representation.

“Not one time has Mr. Haley come to our door between 3:30 and 5:30 in the morning,” Mullins said of a home-check procedure the family was told took place; she said the family has security-camera footage she says proves their residency and criticized the decision as based on the director’s “feelings and beliefs.”

Director of Schools Dromberger responded on the record that he had documentation from state authorities determining the student was ineligible for the season and that a 365‑day rule applied. He said the district allowed the student to return to school on humanitarian grounds because the parents reported the children were struggling emotionally, but maintained the district would not violate association or state eligibility rules.

What the meeting record shows

• School leaders reported a level‑5 growth designation for the district, four reward schools recognized for growth, and that all schools earned A/B marks on the state report card. (Speakers: John Barger and Bob Young.)

• The district reported a $150,000 three‑year pilot grant to address school libraries and cybersecurity and that Findlay Elementary received a state nomination for the National Blue Ribbon Schools program. (Speaker: John Barger.)

• Kim Mullins described a residency and athletics‑eligibility dispute involving her daughter; she said she and others were given inconsistent information about appeals and attorney representation. (Speaker: Kim Mullins.)

• Director of Schools Dromberger said state guidance established the student’s ineligibility and cited a 365‑day eligibility rule; he said the district allowed the student back to school for welfare reasons but would not contravene eligibility rules. (Speaker: Director of Schools Dromberger.)

Why it matters

The district’s academic ratings and outside grants affect White County’s reputation and can influence economic and residential decisions. Separately, the residency and eligibility complaint raises questions for families about how the district conducts home checks and communicates appeal processes for athletics, and it highlights the distinct role of the school board and district administration in eligibility determinations.

Next steps and records

The director stated that the state had determined the student’s ineligibility and that athletic‑eligibility and residency reviews are matters for the school board and district staff; the commission referred the parent to the school board for appeal. Mullins said she has documentation and sought additional clarity from the district.

Ending

School leaders asked the commission and the public to take pride in recent academic recognitions; the residency and eligibility complaint remains a school‑district matter by the director’s and chairman’s account, with the district citing state rules in its determination.