News Florida Senate panel approves school, sports choice bill
- Thread starter VaPrepsRod
- Start date
Other than the earlier legislative proposal that gives schools the opportunity to exit the VHSL, does anyone know of any bills this session that have an affect on high school sports. Speaking strictly of the Virginia General Assembly.
Just WOW! Really interesting to read some of the associated articles and the comments people posted in the Sentinel.
Also, really unbelievable how quickly and unanimously this went through with almost no discussion. Someone or some very powerful group called in a lot of favors here. Hell, it took years to get LCA into the VHSL via legislation. All attempts failed. Only a lawsuit got it done. Now, in Florida, the FHSAA has been made a Eunich. Let the recruiting begin.
That's interesting legislation you mentioned. I haven't gone to verify anything but it's my understanding that Public Schools are not under any requirement to join the VHSL. It is voluntary. The VHSL was originally formed as an organization that took care of Charlottesville area debating teams. Created schedules and arranged competitions. It was so successful that many schools decided to use them as a Logistics arm for all of their inter scholastic sporting events. Everyone climbed on board pretty quickly because it was so much easier to have a centralized management system than schools trying to make all arrangements independently. So it is my general understanding that just as easily as Schools can be part of the VHSL, they can just as easily leave it.
Of course, should a school choose this direction, there would be quite a set of hurdles to overcome in creating an adequate sports program for their students. However, such a school could specialize with one or two sports, unencumbered by recruiting rules and be quite dominant, despite not being able to participate in VHSL sanctioned Championship series. Some far seeing AD could build a Nationally recognized power house based on this scenario. Could be an interesting development.
SESSION
Introduced by: Robert B. Bell | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Students who receive home instruction; participation in interscholastic programs. Prohibits public schools from joining an organization governing interscholastic programs that does not deem eligible for participation a student who (i) receives home instruction; (ii) has demonstrated evidence of progress for two consecutive academic years; (iii) is in compliance with immunization requirements; (iv) is entitled to free tuition in a public school; (v) has not reached the age of 19 by August 1 of the current academic year; (vi) is an amateur who receives no compensation but participates solely for the educational, physical, mental, and social benefits of the activity; (vii) complies with all disciplinary rules and is subject to all codes of conduct applicable to all public high school athletes; and (viii) complies with all other rules governing awards, all-star games, maximum consecutive semesters of high school enrollment, parental consents, physical examinations, and transfers applicable to all high school athletes. The bill provides that no local school board is required to establish a policy to permit students who receive home instruction to participate in interscholastic programs. The bill permits reasonable fees to be charged to students who receive home instruction to cover the costs of participation in such interscholastic programs, including the costs of additional insurance, uniforms, and equipment. The bill has an expiration date of July 1, 2021.
FULL TEXT
HISTORY
- | print version
Introduced by: Robert B. Bell | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Students who receive home instruction; participation in interscholastic programs. Prohibits public schools from joining an organization governing interscholastic programs that does not deem eligible for participation a student who (i) receives home instruction; (ii) has demonstrated evidence of progress for two consecutive academic years; (iii) is in compliance with immunization requirements; (iv) is entitled to free tuition in a public school; (v) has not reached the age of 19 by August 1 of the current academic year; (vi) is an amateur who receives no compensation but participates solely for the educational, physical, mental, and social benefits of the activity; (vii) complies with all disciplinary rules and is subject to all codes of conduct applicable to all public high school athletes; and (viii) complies with all other rules governing awards, all-star games, maximum consecutive semesters of high school enrollment, parental consents, physical examinations, and transfers applicable to all high school athletes. The bill provides that no local school board is required to establish a policy to permit students who receive home instruction to participate in interscholastic programs. The bill permits reasonable fees to be charged to students who receive home instruction to cover the costs of participation in such interscholastic programs, including the costs of additional insurance, uniforms, and equipment. The bill has an expiration date of July 1, 2021.
FULL TEXT
HISTORY
- 12/18/15 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16102337D
- 12/18/15 House: Referred to Committee on Education
- 01/20/16 House: Reported from Education (14-Y 8-N)
- 01/21/16 House: Read first time
- 01/25/16 House: Passed by for the day
- 01/26/16 House: Read second time and engrossed
- 01/27/16 House: Read third time and passed House (58-Y 41-N)
- 01/27/16 House: VOTE: PASSAGE (58-Y 41-N)
- 01/28/16 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed
- 01/28/16 Senate: Referred to Committee on Education and Health
This just looks like the home school Bill again. Nothing about giving schools the right to leave the VHSL. They already have that right. The wording simply states that if you're part of the VHSL, home schoolers must be allowed to play. A unique approach.
I've said for years, home schoolers will eventually be allowed to play and that it's all just a matter of litigation. I don't like the wording of the bill. But the LCA suit sits in the back of people's mind. still see it voted down for the way it's worded. No one likes to move forward with a gun at their back. But it's still inevitable. IMO.
In other words people will now be allowed to decide to not be a part of the school for the academics, but will be forcibly allowed to represent the school they want no part of on the athletic field. Yep, that makes sense.
I know you have offered this opinion in previous discussions. Maybe you missed it in our last discussion but, the information you provided that gave an overview of the home school efforts to date had a lot of very good information in it. One of the main takeaways from that information was that to date home school efforts had very little, if any, success in courts and their advances were made in the legislative arenas. Just my opinion but, I don't believe the LCA suit worries people at all when it comes to the home school issue for a variety of reasons including (1) the home school folks at present do not possess the same resources as LCA to fund protracted litigation. (2) the items at issue in a home school suit have a number of defenses already litigated and set as precedent in other courts and (3) the cost/benefit/risk/reward matrix for the home school issue is vastly different then the LCA issue. At the end of the day the LCA suit was successful for one primary reason. The reason was that after investigation and consideration, the VHSL and their advisors concluded LCA's inclusion was going to be a non event for the most part as they were really the ONLY school on the horizon that had any interest in joining and it was far easier to craft a limited solution to satisfy LCA that the VHSL still maintained some form of control over rather than expend monies and place the decision in the hands of the courts. Home school participation has much broader implications for VHSL members and many more possible implementation problems making it an issue on which VHSL membership is more likely to stand and fight.
Look, I'm all for giving less power to the VHSL, but if we're going to go back to the "good old days" of one state champion that some people argue isn't legit then let's do it now and save everybody some money. Even though I think that the salaries of the folks in Charlottesville is WAAAYY too high for a group that is supposed to be there for the good of the kids and the schools, I do see a need for a central governing body IF we're all going to play nice together. Have they made some boneheaded decisions in the past? Of course. Should Joel Hicks have been in the Hall of Fame years and years ago? Absolutely. Should the state title game for any sport be held in Richmond? Absolutely not, it's nowhere near centrally located, but if you have two teams from that area playing for it then there should be enough flexibility to move it. If Liberty University or UVA or any other small college doesn't want to put the VHSL on their scheduling understanding that this is a possibility then fine, don't use them. If we can't get a college facility to make it happen, don't use a college facility. God forbid we have to go a year without hearing one school or another complain about the goal posts being too narrow.
