There are many arguments for and against the “Tim Tebow Bill” within Virginia and across the nation. It is important to look at the arguments provided by those who support the bill. In doing so a few faulty arguments appear to repeat themselves continuously. Dispelling of these myths is essential to understanding the true impact of the “Tim Tebow Bill” on the high school sports landscape.
I. Paying Taxes Entitles Children to Play High School Sports In the United States funding for public schools is tied to property taxes, meaning a family that chooses to homeschool their children is still paying to fund the public school in their area. Because of this some parents feel that “paying property taxes should allow them access to the interscholastic …show more content…
Janet Womack, the superintendent of Florence City schools in Alabama, sums up the argument, when she says, “The issue we run into that I am opposed to and most of my colleagues are opposed to would be parents being able to pick and choose that your school is good enough for my child when it comes to fine arts and athletics or career tech but your school is not good enough for the other things.” She continues, “I don’t believe you can have your cake and eat it, too. I think either you choose to be a part of that system or you choose not to be a part of that system. It is one or the other and not a little of both.” The argument for inclusion based upon tax payments appears weak at best. Many states apportion funding based on enrollment and the expenses of home school students, who play a sport but are not enrolled, are not covered under state funding. Finally, it is clear that if a parent chooses not to partake in the public education system that parent’s child is not entitled to participate in their high schools sports program because their parent has waived that …show more content…
Prior to the passage of a “Tim Tebow Bill” the governing organizations of high school sports, such as the VHSL and AHSAA, are designated as private institutions to protect from lawsuits. They are protected from lawsuits because “schools volunteered to abide by the association 's rules and governance procedures.” Passage of the Tebow bill would open these associations and state governments to more litigation. Don Jackson, a professor at Samford Law School, warned, “If the state moves forward with this action, then they could be a party in that suit. They could have liability, because the AHSAA is now viewed as a state entity.” Further, he added, “This is a classic case of unintended consequences. By injecting themselves into the AHSAA 's rules making process, the Legislature is risking turning the AHSAA into a state actor and removing the protections it enjoys as a private entity. That will open the floodgates for lawsuits and problems." This risk of litigation is a major selling point against the “Tim Tebow Bill.” If the state moves forward with the rules set forth within the bill it would be open to many costly lawsuits, which could have adverse effects on sports programs at all high
I. Paying Taxes Entitles Children to Play High School Sports In the United States funding for public schools is tied to property taxes, meaning a family that chooses to homeschool their children is still paying to fund the public school in their area. Because of this some parents feel that “paying property taxes should allow them access to the interscholastic …show more content…
Janet Womack, the superintendent of Florence City schools in Alabama, sums up the argument, when she says, “The issue we run into that I am opposed to and most of my colleagues are opposed to would be parents being able to pick and choose that your school is good enough for my child when it comes to fine arts and athletics or career tech but your school is not good enough for the other things.” She continues, “I don’t believe you can have your cake and eat it, too. I think either you choose to be a part of that system or you choose not to be a part of that system. It is one or the other and not a little of both.” The argument for inclusion based upon tax payments appears weak at best. Many states apportion funding based on enrollment and the expenses of home school students, who play a sport but are not enrolled, are not covered under state funding. Finally, it is clear that if a parent chooses not to partake in the public education system that parent’s child is not entitled to participate in their high schools sports program because their parent has waived that …show more content…
Prior to the passage of a “Tim Tebow Bill” the governing organizations of high school sports, such as the VHSL and AHSAA, are designated as private institutions to protect from lawsuits. They are protected from lawsuits because “schools volunteered to abide by the association 's rules and governance procedures.” Passage of the Tebow bill would open these associations and state governments to more litigation. Don Jackson, a professor at Samford Law School, warned, “If the state moves forward with this action, then they could be a party in that suit. They could have liability, because the AHSAA is now viewed as a state entity.” Further, he added, “This is a classic case of unintended consequences. By injecting themselves into the AHSAA 's rules making process, the Legislature is risking turning the AHSAA into a state actor and removing the protections it enjoys as a private entity. That will open the floodgates for lawsuits and problems." This risk of litigation is a major selling point against the “Tim Tebow Bill.” If the state moves forward with the rules set forth within the bill it would be open to many costly lawsuits, which could have adverse effects on sports programs at all high