BA vs TSSAA

[itzme]

Are you telling me that if a kid enrolls in the spring at BA and then changes his mind over the summer, that the parents are responsible for an entire year's tuition? I can understand losing any deposit. That is only fair, since that student may have taken a spot that could have gone to another potential student. If there is a waiting list, then the spot could probably be filled. Is the full tuition due in the spring before the student enrolls? (I would think it would be difficult to collect that bill if the student never enrolled in the school. Since I have never seen a BA contract, I am in the dark on that one.) Would the school be understanding if a financial hardship caused the decision? I would hope so.

"Look at the submitted documents in this case and you will see that Riverdale sends a very similar letter to the one BA sent before the school year begins. What's the difference? You tell me!"

 

Isn't is different for a public school to invite students in a "natural feeder school" to participate than for a private school to invite students from other schools? I don't know enough about Rutherford County's zoning, so I am just wondering on this one. If Riverdale does indeed send out similiar letters, are they to students at natural feeder schools who will be going to Riverdale regardless? There would be no problem if an 8th grader in the Brentwood Academy Middle School participated in BA's spring practice. They are in a natural feeder school. If an 8th grader at JT Moore, Franklin Middle, or Bass Middle... was invited to participate, that would be a stretch. While a student at those schools is free to go to BA, he is not in a natural feeder situation-even if he had applied and been accepted. He still wasn't "enrolled" at the school in the spring.

 

If anyone can clear up the Riverdale parallel, please do so. Stan Trott seems certain that Riverdale doesn't invite 8th graders. Is there any link to the documents that were introduced in court?

I think your first question has been answered. It may seem to be a harsh policy, but private schools have to be that way. Imagine if it were not binding. Parents could sign "contracts" at multiple schools and decide at the last minute which one they send their child to attend, leaving the rest hanging out to dry. If multiple students did that, it would be chaos.

 

You have certainly framed the second part of your question accurately. One's opinion about the original "violation" hinges on whether the 8th graders in question could have been invited to participate without violation of the undue influence rule.

 

It's critically important to note that TSSAA has stipulated in court that there was no intentional violation of the rule. Everyone let that fact settle in...

 

I would encourage you to read the actual recruiting rule. It's at the bottom of page 16 in this document:

 

http://www.tssaa.org/Handbook/handbook.pdf

 

That's it.

 

It's completely up to the Executive Director of TSSAA to determine if a violation has occurred. I think that we can all agree that the rule is vague at best, and leaves too much up to the discretion of one individual who may have their own reasons for being strict or loose with the interpretation.

 

No matter how this case eventually turns out that rule and the methodology for enforcement should really be looked at hard. My bet is it will be, but they can't change it now because it would be a tacit admission that it was flawed.

Edited January 15, 2007 by itzme

[lazarus]

thank you itchme,

for finally making the much alluded to letters available.

 

my opinion would be that they are not the same thing.

 

the BA letter is inviting the kids to spring practice,

in early may,

while they are still in attendance at their previous school.

 

the riverdale letter is inviting them to the start of practice

for the upcoming season,

in late july,

when they are no longer attending their previous school.

[tackle]

I think your first question has been answered. It may seem to be a harsh policy, but private schools have to be that way. Imagine if it were not binding. Parents could sign "contracts" at multiple schools and decide at the last minute which one they send their child to attend, leaving the rest hanging out to dry. If multiple students did that, it would be chaos.

 

 

I failed to consider the difference in being "accepted" after putting in an application (and deposit) and signing a binding contract. A situation I was thinking of was when an application was submitted with a deposit, the student was accepted, but a contract must not have been signed. I can understand this and from a business standpoint, it makes sense. In our society, there are parents who would sign multiple contracts and shop around for the best package, while tying up hard to get slots in some schools. The schools would be left hanging. Contrary to what many believe, most private schools aren't flowing with money. They must have fundraisers to meet their expenses. Most also have faculty pay scales below the public school level.

 

BA was smart to only send letters to kids who had signed contracts.

 

As far as the 2 submitted letters, I have to agree with Lazarus. The Riverdale letter was sent well after the students had finished the previous school. I think they could have found communication similiar to that at virtually every high school in the state. You have to let kids know when the season starts and when practice begins. This seems to be apples and oranges, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see the outcome.

Edited January 15, 2007 by tackle

[big red big blue]

that is a very good synopsis, itzme. I think RC and company got a little too ambitious when this thing first went down. What the TSSAA should have done is just closed the loop hole and rewritten the rules. Instead, they focussed on forcing a "square peg into a round hole" and applying the undue influence rule to this case, where almost no one thinks it logically applies, in order to punish BA. Then they made it worse with the draconian penalties they levied against BA. At that that point, BA rightly question the fairness of a system in which so much power was handed to one individual with such an arbitrary standard. I think they had one shot at an appeal to the TSSAA board and that was that.

 

If the TSSAA chair is going to weild that sort of power then it only makes sense that there is a higher level of oversight. Anyone facing the same penalties deserves, at a minimum, the opportunity for some sort of arbitration hearing with an independent body. I think that would be a fair byproduct.

[itzme]

thank you itchme,

for finally making the much alluded to letters available.

 

my opinion would be that they are not the same thing.

 

the BA letter is inviting the kids to spring practice,

in early may,

while they are still in attendance at their previous school.

 

the riverdale letter is inviting them to the start of practice

for the upcoming season,

in late july,

when they are no longer attending their previous school.

Clearly they are different, in exactly the way that you point out. That isn't the point.

 

TSSAA said it was against the recruiting rule to have any contact such as this unless the students were already enrolled. That was the basis of their claim. They said any contact at all before enrollment was illegal. They have never said contact was permissible after school was out, or any other such thing. Of course, TSSAA has never had any complaint about such an innocuous letter, except for the one Coach Flatt sent. Why would anyone make a stink about inviting kids already committed to, or in a feeder program for their school? They wouldn't unless they had an axe to grind.

 

Look, I do not claim that BA is perfect in every respect, and there are some things that I wish had never happened, at several points along the way in this whole thing. I do believe, however, that Mr. Carter probably in his heart-of-hearts wishes he had a do-over as well. If an infraction at all, this was a technical and pretty minor one, and for (IMO) political reasons, he threw the proverbial book at BA and Coach Flatt.

[supersteve17]

The brief filed by the BA lawyers as cited above is fascinating reading. It looks to me like the BA lawyers have been reading the arguments made on this "public-private" forum!

 

I'll be interested in hearing the outcome of this whole thing.

[BDURHAM]

If the school is a natural "feeder," then the school

can contact the kid over the summer about practice.

The school cannot invite the kid to spring practice.

 

K-12 schools have an advantage -- 8th graders can

go to spring practice.

 

You're not stating the TSSAA's argument and policy

correctly about contacting 8th graders. And there

is a big difference inviting a kid to a fall practice

for 9th graders (3 or more days after school begins),

than inviting a kid who is not zoned for your school

to "spring" practice.

 

Why are you making this silly argument? There are bigger

issues on the surface to debate.

 

Ever heard about Father Ryan being penalized in the past

for starting practice with 9th graders too soon?

 

Ever heard of anyone other than Flatt writing a letter

inviting 8th graders to spring practice before they

attend the school?

 

Clearly they are different, in exactly the way that you point out. That isn't the point.

 

TSSAA said it was against the recruiting rule to have any contact such as this unless the students were already enrolled. That was the basis of their claim. They said any contact at all before enrollment was illegal. They have never said contact was permissible after school was out, or any other such thing. Of course, TSSAA has never had any complaint about such an innocuous letter, except for the one Coach Flatt sent. Why would anyone make a stink about inviting kids already committed to, or in a feeder program for their school? They wouldn't unless they had an axe to grind.

 

Look, I do not claim that BA is perfect in every respect, and there are some things that I wish had never happened, at several points along the way in this whole thing. I do believe, however, that Mr. Carter probably in his heart-of-hearts wishes he had a do-over as well. If an infraction at all, this was a technical and pretty minor one, and for (IMO) political reasons, he threw the proverbial book at BA and Coach Flatt.

Edited January 16, 2007 by StanTrott

[my2cents]

If the school is a natural "feeder," then the school

can contact the kid over the summer about practice.

The school cannot invite the kid to spring practice.

 

K-12 schools have an advantage -- 8th graders can

go to spring practice.

 

You're not stating the TSSAA's argument and policy

correctly about contacting 8th graders. And there

is a big difference inviting a kid to a fall practice

for 9th graders (3 or more days after school begins),

than inviting a kid who is not zoned for your school

to "spring" practice.

 

Why are you making this silly argument? There are bigger

issues on the surface to debate.

 

Ever heard about Father Ryan being penalized in the past

for starting practice with 9th graders too soon?

 

Ever heard of anyone other than Flatt writing a letter

inviting 8th graders to spring practice before they

attend the school?

 

Not a lawyer but according to pages 9,15 & 16 it was legal for them to attend spring practice but has now been changed so they can't. Usually only one or two went and that year 12 did. Sounds like C Flatt may have been a step ahead of everyone else, and I am by no means a Flatt fan.

 

Ryan gives a free ticket to a football game to every Parochial school student once a year. That is a lot of tickets to be giving away K-8.

 

After comparing the two maybe that is why BA has 10 titles and Ryan has one.

Edited January 16, 2007 by my2cents

[itzme]

 

Why are you making this silly argument? There are bigger

issues on the surface to debate.

 

While I disagree with your characterization of the discussion here, the reason I have posted on this subject is to allow those who might not be as biased about this as you and I are to read the documents, understand the nature of the original complaint from BA's perspective, and make up their own minds.

 

Having accomplished that goal to my satisfaction, I now bow out.

Edited January 16, 2007 by itzme

[CoachT]

TSSAA said it was against the recruiting rule to have any contact such as this unless the students were already enrolled. That was the basis of their claim. They said any contact at all before enrollment was illegal.

Even if BA has a contract that families sign obligating them to attend the school or pay the tuition anyway, wouldn't the definition of enrollment have to be one that every school would have to meet, both public and private? Since BA has the students (and families) under contract that does not change the definition of enrollment statewide, does it? If a public school was to have a student sign a non-binding contract (since a binding one would not be possible) saying he would attend school in the fall that would not mean that student was enrolled until he actually shows up at the door in the fall.

 

I am not in a position to comment on the rest, but the answer to tuition being due is yes. If a parent signs a contract, they end up owing a full year tuition regardless of whether the student attends or not. It may sound harsh, but schools need to know what budgets they are operating under and if it was just the deposit at stake, I guarantee there would be a high incidence of broken contracts as soon as students start school in August.

Wouldn't every school, public or private, like to know exactly how many kids are coming in the fall so that they can plan for the number of teachers and additional facilities? (We often have to hire new teachers, or move teachers, after school begins.) The fact that BA can is a plus, and that is OK, but again that wouldn't mean that they could contact children when other schools can't when all are working under the same rules. If I am missing something let me know.

[Bighurt]

Wouldn't every school, public or private, like to know exactly how many kids are coming in the fall so that they can plan for the number of teachers and additional facilities? (We often have to hire new teachers, or move teachers, after school begins.) The fact that BA can is a plus, and that is OK, but again that wouldn't mean that they could contact children when other schools can't when all are working under the same rules. If I am missing something let me know.

Yes, every school would like to know exactly how many kids are coming in the Fall. Public school do have to accept kids who just show up at the last minute. This is less of a problem with private schools.

 

Having served on the school board for a couple of years, I think 2 things are relevant here. First, budgets. Just like most public school boards do their budgets in the Spring, private schools do their budgets in the Sping and they need to know how much revenue is projected in order to create their operating budget. Tuition payments constitue 99% of their operating budget. Second, protection from school "shopping". Without a binding contract, there is no protection from kids accepting admissions from CPA, MBA, BA, Lipscomb, Ryan, etc and then backing out of their commitment. This has been a problem in the past but is less now with binding contracts.

 

I do agree that treating a student who has signed a binding contract as an "enrolled" student is risky.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Bighurt

[big red big blue]

Even if BA has a contract that families sign obligating them to attend the school or pay the tuition anyway, wouldn't the definition of enrollment have to be one that every school would have to meet, both public and private? Since BA has the students (and families) under contract that does not change the definition of enrollment statewide, does it? If a public school was to have a student sign a non-binding contract (since a binding one would not be possible) saying he would attend school in the fall that would not mean that student was enrolled until he actually shows up at the door in the fall.

 

I think that is the key issue. It seems like the TSSAA got caught with its pants down because there were no specific rules regarding who could participate in Spring practice. After all it's just practice and not actual competition. They should have just established a rule that only students attending classes are eligible to participate in spring practice.

 

It raises a lot of questions. Did BA send the letters to every male who had signed enrollment papers? Or was the letter sent only to those known to be football players? What about reading lists? If BA sent letters to all future attendees while they were still students elsehwere specifiying what the summer reading list was and how summer book reports had to be written, wouldn't that (as the TSSAA saw it back then) be considered correspondence that is "undue influence." As itzme says the issue isn't spring practice itself; it's the actual correspondence that was said to be "undue influence." So technically the subject matter of the letter would be immaterial. If a student was in a state of "committed but not yet attending classes," an "invitation" to participate in the summer reading program could be viewed as an effort to unduly influence that student to attend the school.