Almost certainly not going to happen, at least this session, but an interesting thought experiment.
House Bill 619 is a straightforward two-page document. But the ramifications of its potential passing would drastically alter the landscape of high school sports in Texas. It’s why the state’s leaders in public school athletics have voiced their opposition to it.
HB 619, authored by Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins of San Antonio, proposes that any public high school student in Texas be granted a one-time, penalty-free transfer to another district for athletic purposes. The bill also proposes that the University Interscholastic League — which oversees public school extracurricular activities across the state — may not penalize students for making a transfer under those circumstances. The rule would go into effect beginning with the 2025-26 school year.
[…]
UIL rules currently prohibit students from transferring for athletic purposes, and those deemed to have done so are ruled ineligible for one school year. The UIL passed several measures during its fall legislative session in October seemingly aimed at cracking down on violations. The UIL state executive committee now has the authority to investigate schools deemed to have an inordinate number of transfer students intending to participate in athletics. Every student who changes schools and intends to play sports is required to fill out the Previous Athletic Participation Forms (PAPF), which includes 18 yes-or-no questions pertaining to the student’s residence, family situation and potential recruiting violations.
The issue of inordinate transfer numbers made headlines during the fall when Oak Cliff Faith Family Academy in Dallas was heavily penalized for recruiting. Several highly touted girls basketball players transferred to the charter school after state title-winning coach Andrea Robinson was hired. Faith Family made a decision to vacate its UIL membership before meetings were held to determine whether the girls transferred for athletic purposes.
The UIL does not comment on pending legislation like HB 619, but its leaders have been consistent with their enforcement of the rules outlined in the organization’s constitution. Dr. Jamey Harrison, who was appointed as the new UIL executive director last week, spoke about those challenges at the organization’s fall legislative meeting last October.
“We know that we have some keystone eligibility rules that we need to keep at our core,” said Harrison, who’s been the UIL deputy executive director since 2011. “All of that is related to having community and educational basis to our activities and to having as level of a playing field as we can possibly provide to schools. There are some instances where that doesn’t feel like it’s happening anymore, and we need to find new ways to address it. We’ve talked about a number of those over the past several years. To be honest with you, I think we were guilty of trying to find simple solutions to remarkably complex challenges, and what we’ve learned is, it’s going to take a more complex set of solutions.”
Leaders at both the Texas High School Coaches Association and the Texas High School Athletic Directors Association are opposed to HB 619. One of their most pertinent concerns is that it undermines the concept of high school sports being community-based.
“House Bill 619 has really sparked debate because it really challenges, in our opinion, the values that make Texas high school athletics so unique and cherished,” THSCA executive director Joe Martin told the Chronicle. “The state of Texas has long been a beacon of community-based athletics, and it’s very different than some other states in our country. Local high schools represent more than just sports. They embody the spirit, the pride, the identity of an entire community. HB 619 risks undermining this legacy by prioritizing individual mobility over the collective culture that defines Texas high school sports.”
Martin pointed to Florida as the primary example of what could happen to high school athletics in Texas should HB 619 come to fruition. Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed House Bill 7029 into law in 2016, which allowed students to transfer freely between schools across the state and does not have any restrictions on competing in athletics immediately. Martin said moving away from the current UIL transfer rules would compromise the support high school teams receive from their communities at home and at the state championship level.
[…]
Proponents of HB 619 would argue that allowing students to transfer for athletic purposes would provide them an escape from less desirable situations. Whether it’s coaching changes, lack of playing time or any other unfavorable circumstances, transferring to another school without the threat of suspension could provide an avenue for a fresh start for some kids. With an improvement in those situations, particularly with playing time, that has the potential to provide a better path to compete in college athletics and earn scholarships. But while individual situations can vary, Dowling argues that one of the overarching purposes of high school sports is for students to learn how to battle through adverse situations. For those facing extenuating circumstances, the UIL has a hardship waiver process in place.
“One of the most important components of high school athletics is to help prepare the student-athlete for life as an adult and to be able to navigate the difficulties of adulthood through their participation in athletics,” Dowling said. “That’s a concept I think we all agree with. Simply put, you do not always win, and there’s no guarantee of playing time unless you put the time and effort into it, much the same as an adult does as they, too, navigate life and work. I think this bill allows an athlete to easily escape that reality.”
As the story notes, HB619 hasn’t had a committee hearing yet, and as a Democratic bill without an obvious constituency but with a vocal opposition, it’s not going anywhere. I still find it fascinating to read about. Like, tell me more about the Florida experience. Does the THSCA have anything more than anecdotal evidence to cite? What exactly were the arguments that the Florida proponents put forth? I can’t imagine that state’s legislature gives a damn about athlete empowerment, so there must have been some other stated reason to put this into law. It may well be a bad reason, a reason to make me fully onboard with the THSCA, I’m just curious as to what it is. That law was passed in 2016, and a bit of googling found a couple of negative reactions.
To be clear, I do share the skepticism being expressed, and the “high school sports as shared community” argument has merit. But coaches, football coaches in particular, as a class and as a matter of makeup, are going to favor the current system and oppose changes more or less automatically. Maybe as a matter of my makeup, I’m not going to just take their word for it.
One more thing that I fixate on is that the pro-transfer portal argument sounds a lot like the pro-school voucher argument, in ways that are quite uncomfortable. Like, I could see myself get swayed by the idea of high school athletes having more say in their situations, right up to the point where the voucher bros show up and turn “provide them an escape from less desirable situations” into something diabolical. To be sure, voucher opponents have made the argument that vouchers would be bad for Texas high school football, so maybe I’m just being ridiculous. I’m just saying, this is a rich text.
THSCA is the (mostly football) coaches’ association. This bill is, of course and as always, almost entirely driven by the power programs and elite players in Texas high school football (and the reps who love them). Most programs will suffer from a rich-get-richer-type change such as this (where are the kids going to transfer from? where to? insert your local doormats and powerhouses here). So it stands to reason that most coaches (and their professional association) would oppose this.
It is simpler to give a few superstars and rich programs what they want, rather than actually fix the systemic problems that drive these inequities (cf. magnet schools, open transfer policies, anything but actually adequately funding schools).