"Tebow Law": Gaining Support in Virginia

Elections have consequences.

For years the Democrats aligned with their collective associations and unions throughout the country as self-appointed "protectors" of the public educational system have fought this measure that only recently has been called the "Tebow Law", which would allow home schooled children to participate in public school sports. In Virginia, the Republicans secured virtual control of the State Senate in this last election and that along with the timing and popularity of Tim Tebow and his advocacy for conservative principles has created an opportunity to get this bill passed.

Problem?

The Republicans apparently cannot all get behind this bill in either the House or the Senate. Home school issues have always been a tough issue for politicians, which speaks to the power of the groups within the educational community and their reluctance to endorse any measure relating to homeschooling publicly. Why? The public funding situation at both the federal and state level is always plagued with jurisdictional concerns over population and enrollment. For example, in Chesterfield County there will be certain budget cuts from the State and the County will be more impacted than others in large part because it was able to secure more funding than many other localities due to enrollment growth over the last decade. Its share in the coming years will be less than it is accustomed. Any issue that in the view of the elite public education statists sees as threatening or impacting local budgets with be highly scrutinized and ultimately criticized even though home schooled families contribute equally to public education as those families actually sending their children off to school everyday in the community.

Here is one take:

January 23, 2012

All Will Brockman wants is to play soccer for a few more years.

"I don't have a David Beckham or a Tim Tebow on my hands, but he's not bad," Sharon Brockman boasts of the 13-year-old son she home schools in Montgomery County near Christiansburg.

Will plays on a private club team now, but that will end once his contemporaries matriculate into high schools and compete on their varsity teams over the next year or two. And under current Virginia law, Will will watch from the bleachers unless he enrolls in the public schools — something Sharon Brockman says won't happen.

"If push comes to shove, he won't play high school soccer either. It's more important to us that his education be what it is than he gets to play public high school sports," Sharon Brockman said in a telephone interview.

For years, a bill that would open public school sports teams to home-schooled athletes living in their attendance districts has come before the General Assembly and just as often, it floundered, usually before the Senate Education and Health Committee.

But with the Senate under new conservative management with this month's disputed Republican takeover, three bills by Republican House members revive the issue. Sponsors call it the "Tebow Law," named for Tim Tebow, an evangelical former homeschooler who won a Heisman Trophy and led the Gators to a 2008 national title at the University of Florida, then quarterbacked the Denver Broncos into this season's NFL playoffs.

"These people pay taxes that support their public schools. You can't just shut them out from the facilities and activities they're paying for just like everybody else," said Del. Rob Bell, a bookish 44-year-old Albemarle Republican who sponsors one of the bills and is burnishing his conservative credentials for a 2013 race for attorney general.

Florida is among at least 15 states across the country that put no restrictions on home-schooled students who want to play interscholastic sports at public schools in their communities, according a state-by-state summary from the Home School Legal Defense Association. At least 13 states allow home-schooled children conditional or partial opportunities for extracurricular involvement at public schools.

The National Conference of State Legislators says it does not track the issue.

Opponents of the bill say that allowing kids who want no part of campus academic and social life to crash high school varsity teams would be unfair to full-time students, create enormous competitive inequities and gut eligibility and participation requirements of the Virginia High School League, the statewide sanctioning body for public interscholastic athletics and other activities.

"There are 13 individual eligibility requirements for participation for our programs, and under Delegate Bell's bill, the homeschoolers would meet only six and part of a seventh," said Ken Tilley, the VHSL's executive director.

Paying state and local taxes that underwrite public education doesn't, by itself, create an entitlement to a spot on a public high school varsity team, Tilley said.

"There are thousands of public school students whose parents pay taxes and who don't meet all of the 13 eligibility requirements and they can't participate," Tilley said. "Why should homeschoolers get that advantage? It completely destroys all fairness."

He's not alone in opposing the Tebow bill. The politically potent Virginia Association of School Superintendents and Virginia Education Association, which represents more than 60,000 public school teachers, have joined the fight.

They contend there is little or no periodic monitoring of academic progress for children taught by parents at kitchen tables, unlike in public classrooms. Nor, they say, is there any way to verify that a student is doing classroom work through the day, instead of working out with a personal trainer.

It would foment resentment among students and athletes, their parents and particularly school faculty, said Keith Rowland, the superintendent of Shenandoah County's public schools.

"The teachers are going to have that message ringing in their ears: 'I'm not good enough to provide you an education during the day, but I'm good enough to provide you come and play.' That's not a real good message," Rowland said.

Perhaps the bill's most formidable adversary is Del. Robert Tata, R-Virginia Beach. The chairman of the House Education Committee is nicknamed "Coach" for the football teams he led to championships in his days as a high school educator. He also was a University of Virginia football and baseball star in the early 1950s who played briefly for the NFL's Detroit Lions.

Tata fears that opening high school sports to homeschoolers would weaken the system's accountability and allow aggressive coaches at powerhouse sports schools to "recruit" home-schooled blue-chip players.

"I guess what you'd have is sort of like a bunch of adolescent free agents," Tata said with a laugh. "But how would you control it? I mean, you could have some 6 (foot) 4 (inch) gorilla at home who can't read or write but can run a 4.4-second 40-yard dash."

"It'll start all these schools recruiting, and don't think it won't happen," he said.

******************************************************************************

While I think that Del. Tate needs to look at things through a different lense and not through that of a coach concerning such issues, it could be easily constructed through legislation to permit homeschoolers to participate in athletics at the schools in which they would attend otherwise if enrolled. There is no reason to shoot down the idea simply because one fears manipulation by coaches and "big time" schools. If you have that fear than you should have the will to implement measures that would restrict such a situation. As to "accountability", it is the school district and its athletic component that is certainly responsible for following the measure as laid out by the State and if they fail to do so than it should be in the State's purview to withhold funding should they be found to be in violation.

Note: Chesterfield County State Senator Stephen Martin has failed to respond to constituent requests for his position on this matter as of this posting.

Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors: Supervisor Jekyll or Chairman Hyde?

When you speak with most citizens residing in Chesterfield about matters regarding its Board of Supervisors one usually will hear the response, "Why am I not surprised!" This response has basically become the norm in Chesterfield when it comes to actions taken by the Board. The reason is very simple. Citizens have become so disillusioned and used to viewing the Board as so out of touch that nothing the Board decides ever surprises them. The Board has become predictable in its ways and in the last year or so the Board has proven that it seeks to return the Board back to the "good old boy" network that once controlled matters in Chesterfield for so long.

In 2011, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors decided then to break with tradition and not elevate Supervisor James Holland (Dale-D) to Board Chairman. In typical back room deal fashion- denied of course by Supervisor Gecker and Jaeckle---Holland's consideration at the last minute was removed and instead Supervisor Art Warren would Chair the Board. This would satisfy two interests in the County; one the interest that wants to control the agenda and two, the old line that had no desire for Chesterfield to have its first African-American Chairman. The former is important because of the issues that we face as a County, especially the new Comprehensive Plan as well as the potential shortfall in school funding  moving forward. The latter of course would be denied publicly that such notion even exist on the Board or in the County, but we as citizens no better. You do not break tradition for no reason and the manner in which it was done whether you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent is shameful.

That said, we learn today that Supervisor Daniel Gecker (Midlothian-D) has been elected by the Board to be Chairman for 2012 and Supervisor Dorthy Jaeckle (Bermuda-R) as the Vice Chairman which is the same duo that thwarted Mr. Holland's elevation in 2011 who they perceived as aligned with former Supervisor Marlene Durfee from Matoaca. During the process, Mr. Holland has set an example of grace and integrity while his colleagues have demonstrated a willingness to return Chesterfield County back four decades and have shown themselves to be true "political animals". Supervisor Holland abstained from voting on the Chairmanship issue this week and rose above the 2011 matter and demonstrated true leadership in this regard. All too often our Board plays to its lowest denominator and is more about "personalities" than issues. Frankly, this was the issue that Supervisors over the last four years could not rise above and in large part you have elected officials like Supervisor Gecker that do not particularly liked to be questioned on anything nor do they willing accept accountability let alone be held accountable by colleagues in a public forum. This was why over the last four years our Board has become so contentious. Some Supervisors did not feel comfortable with the challenges being made by former Supervisor Durfee regarding policy and frankly the influence peddling going on at the County level.

I recall one discussion with Ms. Durfee in 2010 regarding zoning and development with regard to both the residential side but also the commercial but in particular the government-related projects that were underway in the County. It made little sense to many of us that schools were costing dramatically more to build in Chesterfield County- even when you remove land as compared to other localities when these projects were often being undertaken by the same firms. These same firms were also engaged not only in school projects but also government buildings and residential developments. The question arose just how is it the the same firms seem to be winning the majority of these contracts in Chesterfield. Are we as a County getting the best bang for our buck? Ms. Durfee challenged many things in her term and frankly many people in the halls of County government and the Board did not like that, but especially Supervisor Gecker. The matter would always be dismissed as "styles" publicly, but in truth the matter was many did not want to address publicly many of these matters that they intended to keep below the radar. It did not matter that Durfee voiced concerns over Cosby High School- size and scope, location of middle school as well- along with hundreds of residents demanding the school be built for at the very least 2,200. Of course, these number was ignored and the project moved forward in a manner that the established interests wanted and in the end Cosby High School was over capacity within one full year of opening. The most shameful result is the lack on responsibility and accountability by those on the Board then and now regarding this issue. Will the Board have anyone in 2012 on it to hold others accountable or is this Board hoping that the silent majority (citizens) remain silent? It is no secret that members wanted Durfee gone and it very well may have been more her than Holland himself that prevented Holland from assuming the role of Chairman in 2011, but do not forget who has benefited from that back room deal. The proof is now in the pudding!

It hard to tell what shape the new Board will take under the direction of Supervisor Gecker as Chairman. Gecker has been all over the map on various issues, especially the Comprehensive Planning debate where his influence from his urban planning background that appears aligned with such policy as Agenda 21 and very well may have been a participating factor in the Renaissance Group being selected to devise the Chesterfield Comprehensive Plan. We should all watch this issue and the debate that ensues with the January 25, 2012 Public Hearing on the Comp Plan, which will be f the first major policy issue this Board faces in 2012. Gecker has proven not to be a friend of the CCPS and the School Board and has been more critical of that body than any other member on the Board in recent years and his relationship with his district's School Board Representative Patty Carpenter-Midlothian has been tenuous at best.

At this point it is apparent that we have no way of knowing just which Chairman of the Board of Supervisors will lead the new Board; Supervisor Jekyll or Chairman Hyde!!!

Chesterfield: Economic Development

Chesterfield County's amazing developments

Calendar event: Chesterfield County's amazing developments
By: Times-Dispatch Staff Richmond Times-Dispatch Published: January 16, 2012 Updated: January 16, 2012 - 12:00 AM

Chesterfield County's economic development director, Will Davis, will talk about the county's "amazing developments" at the Chesterfield Business Council Networking Breakfast on Tuesday.
"We're not succumbing to the recession," Davis said. "We should be celebrating and pleased … to see how fortunate we are to be in a growth community."
In 2011, he says, the county's Economic Development Department helped generate 11 projects worth $143.6 million and resulting in 2,149 new jobs. That investment was an 18 percent increase compared with the previous year.
For example, he noted, Amazon.com Inc. last month announced plans to invest $85 million for a large distribution center in the Meadowville Technology Park adjacent to Interstate 295 just south of the James River in eastern Chesterfield. About 1,000 people will work at the Meadowville site.
And in the past five years, Davis said, the county's economic development agency has assisted in generating more than a half billion dollars in new investment and 4,198 jobs.
The networking breakfast will be 7:15-9 a.m. at Johnston-Willis Hospital's cafeteria, 1401 Johnston-Willis Drive.
To register, go online at www.grcc.com or call the reservation line at (804) 783-9368.
Walk-ins will be accommodated based upon availability.
The Chesterfield Business Council is an advocacy arm of the Greater Richmond Chamber that works to support the county's business community.
(Peter Bacqué)

As quick as the County is to rally around these developments, there must also come the reponsibility of prepapring the County for the impacts that these new economic projects will have upon our County infrastructure and especially our schools. On average, a new family that may enter the County will bring with it 1.52 children that must be accomodated with our system and our system is already railing from poorly inconceived planning measures by our Board of Supervisors. The assumption in the press release regarding Amazon is the jobs will be filled by citizens already residing within the County, but that of course is certainly no guarantee that that is how things will play out. The jobs are coming and if the come so to will people in search of them.

Unfortunately, those members on our Board of Supervisors that have steered our growth the last decade and even before (Supervisor Daniel Gecker and Art Warren) never really embraced the message in the movie "Field of Dreams"- "if you build it, they will come"!! Chesterfield as been building at a clip with no rival save Loudoun and Fairfax County in NOVA but has managed to stay behind the growth curve in terms of public facilities, infrastructure and school capacity. It is apparent from recent comments from the new Board that very few lessons have been learned and the breathing space that has resulted from a slowing housing market as not provided them with enough pause to reevaluate their positions regarding the build out. The reality is Chesterfield County has been unable to keep pace with its own planning decisions and still believes that "growth pays for growth". Well folks, growth does not pay for growth; we as citizens do in one way or another!

It's A New Year in Chesterfield: How Much Will Things Remain the Same?

As we unwind from the Holiday Season and stow our decorations away for another year, it begs the question just how Chesterfield County will look and feel at the end of this upcoming year. There was heated debate last Fall in some quarters about how our local government has been operating these last few years and the animosity that has ensued between different elements of government and in particular how Chesterfield County has taken on the look and feel of a Fairfax or Loudoun County in Northern Virginia. Many citizens question whether that is a suitable direction to be embarking upon here in Chesterfield. The issue over the new Comprehensive Plan has spurned real debate that has intertwined national, political agendas with local policy.

The two obvious issues that such measures as the Comprehensive Plan highlight is Chesterfield's inability to structure growth in a manner that is mutually beneficial to all residents (property rights) within the County and  and the capacity level of our school system.You will recall that many citizens demanded that Cosby High School be redesigned to accommodate a greater capacity than was proposed. The Board ignored citizens whom understood seeing all the new growth and new developments coming on line that there would be more and more families moving into the area. The Board zoned these developments and then ignored the impact of such zoning upon the area. One year after opening its doors, Cosby High School was over capacity.

Chesterfield County continues to remain one of the fastest growing localities in the Commonwealth. Two years ago, Kirk Turner the County Planning Director stated that "a healthy growth rate is 2 percent and anything less does not support the growth, anything more stresses our ability to provide public services". As we all know, Chesterfield has grown above that 2% growth rate over the last decade and from a public service perspective the slowing housing market while very tough on citizens has benefited government in this area because had the housing boom continued Chesterfield would be worse off from a service standpoint than we are today. The County is still unwinding excess inventory from the prior boom today. That does not reflect well on the continued leadership in planning and government that has ridden this period of growth out the last decade and a half however and with the support of a Board of Supervisors that remains behind the curve of growth. As Kirk Turner explained in 2009, "when you zone more property in any year than the market will absorb, then you have over zoned".

Our previous Board of Supervisors has always pushed back upgrading "public facilities" and routinely has bought in to the notion that "growth pays for growth", but in reality citizens pay for that growth. The poorly maintained infrastructure can not withstand another four to eight years of this negligent growth model. Our Board must chart a course for Chesterfield with a realistic vision that does not solely rely on the General Assembly or the Federal Government has it has the last twenty years. Many of us have asked our government to slow down and permit our schools to absorb the expansive growth that this broken model has achieved and yet even from James Stegmaier, County Administrator we are told that "when you get down on the ground, there are obstacles you didn't see from there whether they are unforeseen consequences or political realities". Here in lies the problem with Chesterfield.  The consequences regarding the issues of growth were never "unforeseen" and have been highlighted by citizens throughout this growth period but by and large have been ignored by the Board, which has sought to protect itself from "political realities".

This last election cycle brings Chesterfield to a crossroads. Citizens of the Matoaca District elected both a new Supervisor and School Board representative  and replaced two of the most outspoken, challenging the status quo personalities the County has seen in a long, long time. Will these voices be missed? Will Chesterfield County return control back to what many of us can remember being referred to as the "good ole boy" system of government? The are many questions and frankly reservations that citizens have and the fear now within the County is that our government just too two steps backward which will result in less transparency. During the last decade, we have been dealt a Board that has been unaccountable and recklessly irresponsible in addressing citizen concerns regarding growth, schools and real estate assessments/valuations and taxes. We have witnessed a Board that has approved zoning after zoning case and flooding our market with excess capacity driving down values at the same time neglecting our older villages and areas resulting in blight with unoccupied commercial property and an increase in rental housing units. There has been no real vision for the County communicated to citizens by its leaders and the result has been rushed zoning cases that in the end result in not only negatively impacting our quality for life, our schools but also our business community. Two touted developments sought by this government regime were Magnolia Green and Roseland- both whose developers have declared bankruptcy and remain delinquent on payments to local banks and companies, not to mention the four million dollar bailout of SportsQuest with tax payer money in a "lease for play" deal that enabled the private concern to remain viable for a period of time only now to be delinquent to elements of the local business community.

Chesterfield can do better! The days of remaining on the sidelines hoping that we have a government that will do the right thing and provide our public services and safety without question are coming to an end. Our schools face a certain financial shortfall, over capacity and we are witnessing quality teachers move to other localities on the one hand and we have a Board of Supervisors providing themselves a pay raise on the other.

The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County in 2012 must return to the table and acknowledge that "WE" are all in this together. If we as citizens allow this Board to remain isolated from reality and to maintain the status quo of a failed model, than as we unpack those decorations in December of this year we will face even greater challenges for both our community and our families.