Homeschool Participation in Public Interscholastic Athletics

Summary of Article“Interscholastic Athletics in Ohio”Privilege, not a right.1981 Menke vs. Ohio High School Athletic

Association—”Participation in Interscholastic athletics in and of itself has never been held to be constitutionally protected by civil right”

Governed by localities and state athletic association.Rules and regulations

Summary cont.-student rights protected by Federal Regulations

(IDEA, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act, Title IX)

Home School ParticipationOhio—originally did not allow participation

and then relaxed the policy in 1996 to allow participation IF student takes and attends at least one class on campus at an Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) member school.

Home SchoolTwo bills (1995 and 1997) proposed to

change Ohio policy but were not enacted

Supporting Details for Homeschool Policy• In 2007, 19 states allowed homeschool

participation in public extracurricular activities

• Court Cases– 1980—New York– 1995—Massachusets– 2005—West Virginia

Supports the idea of right of state and locality to decide.

Research and RigorAdequate for the discussion but not rigorousReferenced court cases and federal

regulations, but not in-depth.Good job of addressing both sides.

Homeschool Public School Interscholastic Participation PolicyRegulatory Policy

Regulatory policies are formalized rules expressed in general terms applied to large groups of people (Fowler, 2009)

OHSAA and local school boards establish and regulate policies regarding athletics, eligibility, and enrollment criteria. Applies to the state as a whole.

Strategies promoting supportAppeal to larger and more influential

constituents (HB 947).State court cases view interscholastic

athletics as a privilege not a right.Homeschooling is a choice not a mandate.Ohio is an “individualistic” state, appeals to

the economic side (utilitarian).How will ADM and school finances be

affected?

Policy Benefits of No Homeschool Participation

Maintains continuity and clear criteria.Aids in motivating students to stay in public

school.Political ramifications. Maintains differing ideology such as

separation of church and state.

Unintended Consequences of No Homeschool ParticipationPossibly hurt homeschool athletes in rural areas.

Politically – loss of support from some constituents.

ADM considerations

Additional participation issues—where does it end?Ex/ Tax argument

Policy Making—Consider the Climate

Know your culture. Majority of states that have been in favor of homeschool interscholastic athletics have been moralistic.

Political climates: Mass. (1995) to W. Va. (2005)….. Va. HB 947 (Clarke, Loudon, Fredricksburg, Prince William)

Political Cultures

Traditionalistic Moralistic Individualistic

Alabama California Alaska

Arizona Colorado Connecticut

Arkansas Idaho Delaware

Florida Iowa Hawaii

Georgia Kansas Illinois

Kentucky Maine Indiana

Louisiana Michigan Maryland

Mississippi Minnesota Massachusetts

New Mexico Montana Missouri

North Carolina New Hampshire Nebraska

Oklahoma North Dakota Nevada

South Carolina Oregon New Jersey

Tennessee South Dakota New York

Texas Utah Ohio

Virginia Vermont Pennsylvania

West Virginia Washington Rhode Island

Wisconsin Wyoming

Closer to Home—HB 947 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1.  That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Chapter 1 of Title 22.1 a section

numbered 22.1-7.1 as follows: §22.1-7.1. Organizations governing public school interscholastic programs; participation

by nonpublic school students. A. No public school shall become a member of any organization or entity whose purpose

is to regulate or govern interscholastic programs that does not deem eligible for participation a student who (i) is receiving home instruction pursuant to §22.1-254.1, (ii) has demonstrated evidence of progress for two years in compliance with subsection C of §22.1-254.1, (iii) is entitled to free tuition in a public school pursuant to §22.1-3, (iv) has not reached the age of 19 by August 1 of the current school year, (v) is an amateur who receives no compensation, but participates solely for the educational, physical, mental, and social benefits of the activity, (vi) complies with all disciplinary rules applicable to all public high school athletes, and (vii) complies with all other rules governing awards, all-star games, parental consents, and physical examinations applicable to all high school athletes. Eligibility shall be limited to participation in interscholastic programs at the school serving the attendance zone in which such student lives.

B. Reasonable fees may be charged to such students to cover the costs of participation in such interscholastic programs.

Policy Making—Consider the Timing

Is the pressure of passing this bill in Virginia connected to the current financial climate?

Key argument—tax dollars

Policy Making—Consider the Consequences

What doors does the policy change open?

Need for a comprehensive analysis. Cost-benefit

Peer collaboration to trouble-shoot

ReferencesLegislative Service Commission. (2007, January 8).

Members Only: Interscholastic Athletics in Ohio (Issue 1, volume 127). Columbus, Ohio. Hannah K. Wann. Retrieved from http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/membersonly/127inter

scholasticathletics.pdf

Fowler, F.C. (2009). Policy Studies for Educational Leaders: An Introduction, third edition.

New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

References (continued)House Bill 947. (2012, January 12). Elobbyist:

Bringing People to the Process. Retrieved from http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/521183