Posted: 27/Aug/2010 at 11:27pm | IP Logged

Considering the findings in this case, the Superintendent should be doing everything possible to accommodate you.

Posted: 01/Sep/2010 at 12:02pm | IP Logged

LOL, thanks Barnes, that QB must have replaced someone’s kid that works at the news station. What a commute! And doesn’t it just make those UIL rules look ridicules as well as the news coverage. Is it any wonder that the state is worried about a massive lawsuit and in 2003 a bill was gaining momentum in the state legislature “to abolish the existing UIL and replace it with a legitimate state agency”?

After looking at that tape it reminded me of something you might be able to ask the sup. I know this case was about the UIL and you are dealing with the district but it is applicable especially considering the more recent Findings of Fact and Law.

The UIL has no authority and school must show the purpose/need as well as rational basis for the policy.

“Even when the purpose of a statute is legitimate, equal protection analysis still requires a determination that the classifications drawn by the statute are rationally related to the statute's purpose [cite omitted]. Under the rational basis test of Sullivan, similarly situated individuals must be treated equally under the statutory classification unless there is a rational basis for not doing so.”

“”Texas courts are particularly sensitive to the problem of overinclusive and underinclusive classes. For example, in Sullivan v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 616 S.W.2d 170, 172-73 (Tex. 1981), the validity of an "anti-recruiting" rule for high school athletes was being challenged as violative of Art. 1, §3 of the Texas Constitution. There, the "anti-recruiting" rule prevented all student athletes transferring to different schools from playing sports for a year after the transfer. Because this rule was "overinclusive," our Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional:

 "The transfer rule creates two classes of students: those who do not transfer from one school to another, as compared to those who transfer. The rule treats these two classes of students differently by permitting members of the first group to compete in interscholastic activities without any delay while imposing a one-year period of ineligibility on the second group. The purpose of the transfer rule was to discourage recruitment of high school athletes. This is a legitimate state purpose. However, equal protection analysis still requires us to ‘reach and determine the question whether the classifications drawn in a statute are reasonable in light of its purpose.' McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 191, 85 S. Ct. 283, 13 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1964).

 "In practical effect, the challenged classification simply does not operate rationally to deter recruitment. The U.I.L. rule is overbroad and over-inclusive. The rule burdens many high school athletes who were not recruited and were forced to move when their family moved for employment or other reasons. The fact that there is no means of rebutting the presumption that all transferring athletes have been recruited illustrates the capriciousness of the rule. The inclusion of athletes who have legitimately transferred with recruited athletes does not further the purpose of the transfer rule. Under strict equal protection analysis the classification must include all those similarly situated with respect to purpose. Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 86 S. Ct. 1497, 16 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1966). See Developments in the Law -- Equal Protection, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1065, 1084 (1969). It is clear that the transfer rule broadly affects athletes who are not similarly situated."[12]

See also Bell v. Lone Oak Independent School District, 507 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1974).

 In Whitworth v. Bynum, 699 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1985), the Texas guest statute was challenged as violative of equal protection. Finding the law unconstitutional, our Supreme Court held:

 "Even when the purpose of a statute is legitimate, equal protection analysis still requires a determination that the classifications drawn by the statute are rationally related to the statute's purpose [cite omitted]. Under the rational basis test of Sullivan, similarly situated individuals must be treated equally under the statutory classification unless there is a rational basis for not doing so. Although Bynum has argued that an overinclusive statute cannot be struck down under a rational relationship test, overinclusiveness was a determinative factor in Sullivan."

See also Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. v. Comm. of Insurance, 626 S.W.2d 822, 830 (Tex.App.- Austin 1982).””

Posted: 01/Sep/2010 at 9:39pm | IP Logged

I just read this article about charter school students at McAllen’s Lamar Academy suing to play on teams outside the district where they live so they can join teams closer to their charter school. About 99.9% chance they will lose trying to play on a team outside their home district but check out this excerpt from the article about Santos’s long daily trip from the charter school to his home school to practice. (the ISD pays for a bus to pick up 1 student!)

“”But for Santos, this set-up results in a daily schlep back and forth to Sharyland during the swim season.

Sharyland school district’s Athletics Director Richard Thompson, who supports the current UIL rules, said he’s happy to have Santos on the high school team.

Thompson said he has made accommodations like the daily bus rides to and from Lamar to make sure Santos has the opportunity to participate.

“We actually drive over and pick him up at the IB academy and take him to the Boys and Girls Club swimming pool where we practice,” he said. “We want him to compete for us because he lives in our attendance zone.”

“”

Notice the AD doesn’t let the UIL’s full time enrollment rule inhibit him; all he cares about is that the student lives in his attendance zone.

Posted: 01/Sep/2010 at 9:49pm | IP Logged

I just can’t believe that a public school paid to have a school bus pick up and then drop off 1 student everyday all last season! Your sup refuses to abide by the law and this AD goes above and beyond and sets up a bus for 1 kid. Night and day.

Posted: 02/Sep/2010 at 9:18am | IP Logged

Another important point from the article is that “the public school does get additional federal and state funding just for extra-curricular activities”.

This funding can be withdrawn if the school does not allow a student within the schools boundaries access. Judging from the comments by the AD and my own experience, I believe he bends over backwards for the students in his district because it is the right thing to do and he has the law to back him.