Despite decades of discussion, state athletic associations still struggle with the so-called private versus public debate. This debate concerns how state athletic associations can establish a competitive balance between private and public high schools. In the debate, public school supporters argue that private schools have an unfair advantage because they can selectively enroll quality students without geographical boundaries. Further, they argue favorable socioeconomic factors allow private schools a competitive advantage with better athletic facilities and the capability to hire more coaches than public schools.
In response to critics, high school athletic associations have tried various plans to eliminate the private school competitive …show more content…
Without the boundary restrictions, proponents argued private schools had access to a larger pool of athletes. Although, a recent change in Tennessee law now allows county and district school systems the authority for “open enrollment,” which allows students the ability to enroll in any school within that county or district. Therefore, one could make the argument open enrollment public schools now have access to a larger pool of athletes as well yet TSSAA does not use the multiplier against these open enrollment public schools. Thus, a court may rule the multiplier does not treat all schools in a similar situation and rule in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, arbitrary application of the multiplier makes the assumption all private schools have outstanding athletic programs. In a lawsuit, such an assumption is hard to defend because some private schools do not make athletics a priority. Nevertheless, the multiplier could force these private schools into a higher class against larger public schools with superior athletes. Lastly, as a state actor TSSAA’s rules are subject to the Equal Protection Clause as determined by the United States Supreme Court in Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic …show more content…
In most cases, states have not seen an improved competitive balance regardless of the multiplier value. For example, even though California uses the highest multiplier private schools still win over 53% of the state championships (Johnson, Tracy & Pierce, 2015). Furthermore, the state associations Missouri and Illinois faced legal challenges after applying multipliers. Epstein ( ) acknowledged the potential legal problems with multipliers when he said:
The Brentwood decisions will make it more difficult for states to enact multiplier legislation, as they will now be required to show that it is narrowly tailored to accomplish a leveling of the playing field. Preliminary data suggests that multipliers may not always accomplish this objective. Therefore, as more and more states consider multipliers, the chances of constitutional challenges to the multiplier down the road increase (p. 21).
Alternative Plan
In response to critics, high school athletic associations have tried various plans to eliminate the private school competitive …show more content…
Without the boundary restrictions, proponents argued private schools had access to a larger pool of athletes. Although, a recent change in Tennessee law now allows county and district school systems the authority for “open enrollment,” which allows students the ability to enroll in any school within that county or district. Therefore, one could make the argument open enrollment public schools now have access to a larger pool of athletes as well yet TSSAA does not use the multiplier against these open enrollment public schools. Thus, a court may rule the multiplier does not treat all schools in a similar situation and rule in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, arbitrary application of the multiplier makes the assumption all private schools have outstanding athletic programs. In a lawsuit, such an assumption is hard to defend because some private schools do not make athletics a priority. Nevertheless, the multiplier could force these private schools into a higher class against larger public schools with superior athletes. Lastly, as a state actor TSSAA’s rules are subject to the Equal Protection Clause as determined by the United States Supreme Court in Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic …show more content…
In most cases, states have not seen an improved competitive balance regardless of the multiplier value. For example, even though California uses the highest multiplier private schools still win over 53% of the state championships (Johnson, Tracy & Pierce, 2015). Furthermore, the state associations Missouri and Illinois faced legal challenges after applying multipliers. Epstein ( ) acknowledged the potential legal problems with multipliers when he said:
The Brentwood decisions will make it more difficult for states to enact multiplier legislation, as they will now be required to show that it is narrowly tailored to accomplish a leveling of the playing field. Preliminary data suggests that multipliers may not always accomplish this objective. Therefore, as more and more states consider multipliers, the chances of constitutional challenges to the multiplier down the road increase (p. 21).
Alternative Plan