The University Interscholastic League (UIL) states as one of its core values to provide educational competition in a fair and equitable manner.  The UIL established school enrollment size as the determinate of fair and equitable competition, thus the bi-annual reclassification and realignment based on reported enrollment numbers.  However, in 2012 the UIL Conference and District Assignment Policies and Procedures were revised to state that “charter schools located within the boundaries of a school district shall be assigned to the same conference as the high school in that school district with the lowest enrollment….”. This policy is specific to only charter schools, and treats them unfairly.  

Why are charter schools singled out with this change, and what is the impact on charter school student-athletes? Here is a real example of how a charter school was negatively impacted.  According to this policy, in the 2020-21 realignment, Georgetown Gateway Prep charter school would be placed in the 5A Conference because it is located in the Georgetown ISD boundary.  Georgetown ISD has two 5A size high schools, Georgetown HS and East View HS.  If the UIL followed this revised policy, Gateway Prep, with 349 students, would be assigned to play these high schools with 1,230 – 2,219 students.  How can the UIL justify such a policy, that if followed, would have such a consequence?

Not quite so bad, but still unfair, the UIL decided to place Gateway Prep in the 4A Conference for the 2020 – 21 school year, even though with a high school enrollment of 349, Gateway Prep is a mid-size 3A school (3A cut off numbers are 230 – 514).  The 4A Conference enrollment cut off numbers for the 2020-21 & 2021-22 school years are 515 – 1,229.   Gateway Prep has been assigned to Conference 4A, Region 3, District 19 with Burnet (923 students), Lake Belton (1,040), Taylor (1,026), Salado (644), and Jarrell (520).   The assignment to 4A is obviously still unfair to Gateway Prep charter school with 349 students.  

Through the more than 100 years of its existence, the UIL has had to adjust to societal changes and new education reform policies that impact UIL extracurricular activities.  With the passing of the Texas charter school law in 1995, the UIL was charged to incorporate public charter schools into the UIL.  In 2020, approximately 6% of the Texas student population attend public charter schools, and that percentage is growing.   Unfortunately, there are still many misconceptions and misunderstandings about public charter schools, as evidenced by the UIL policy on charter school conference assignments. It is not true that public charter schools have some competitive advantage to justify such a policy, therefore I believe this policy is unnecessary, unfair and discriminatory.    

Here are some reasons given for this UIL policy (with my responses), that can elevate only a charter school into a higher classification than their enrollment number would dictate. 

Reason # 1.  “Public charter schools have an opportunity to draw more students in a larger metropolitan area than similar enrollment sized traditional public schools that are outside of large metro areas”.    The logical inference from that statement is that some public carter schools have an advantage that other similar enrollment size traditional schools don’t have, and benefit unfairly from this “opportunity”.     

Response. An opportunity is not an advantage.  Public charter schools that reside in large metro areas share some percentage of the local high school age student population with other large ISD schools. That is called competition.  When multiple schools reside in a large metro area they have an opportunity to lose students to schools they compete against as well.  You could call that a “free market disadvantage”.  Public schools that reside in smaller metro areas don’t have competition for their student population.  That’s called a monopoly.  

For example, let’s compare charter school Georgetown Gateway Prep to traditional school Lago Vista HS.   Both schools have been in the same UIL 3A District for several years.  Gateway Prep shares the same geographical boundary as Georgetown ISD.   With a local population of about 70,000, let’s assume there are 5,000 high school age students living in this metro area.  Georgetown ISD has two high schools.   Georgetown HS has 2,046 students (40% market share of the 5,000), East View HS has 1,806 (36%), Gateway Prep has 349 (.06%).  The remaining students are either home schooled, attending another school of choice (private, public or public charter, etc.), or have dropped out.   

Now let’s assume a population of about 7,000 in Lago Vista.  Lago Vista HS is the only public school in its boundary.  Let’s assume there are 600 high school age students living in this metro area.  Lago Vista HS has 500 students enrolled (83% market share of the 600). The remaining students are either home schooled, attending another school of choice (private, public or public charter, etc.), or have dropped out.   

What special advantage does Gateway Prep have over Lago Vista that justifies the UIL elevating Gateway Prep to 4A, but keeping Lago Vista HS in 3A?  In the official UIL enrollment numbers Lago Vista HS had 500 students enrolled.  Gateway Prep had 349.  Clearly there is no advantage of residing in a larger metro area for Gateway Prep when it is competing for students with one or more large size traditional schools.  A reasonable argument can be made that Lago Vista HS, residing in a smaller metro area with a monopoly, had the advantage as their higher enrollment indicates.  

Reason # 2. “Public charter schools recruit student-athletes”.  

Response:  No they don’t.  No student transfers can play UIL sports for any UIL member school if they were recruited for athletic purposes.  There are UIL rules and safe guards in place to prevent and enforce that.  In today’s school choice environment, where families now have several educational options, all schools must “recruit” students, but UIL member schools are not allowed to recruit athletes.  Charter schools have web sites, so do traditional schools. Charter schools have social media pages, as do traditional schools.  Both have the name of the school on the side of their buses.  Both get some local media coverage, although traditional ISD get far more free media coverage.  Both want to get the word out about academic success, extracurricular programs, and what makes their school unique.     

Reason # 3.  “Public charter school’s cherry pick their students”.

Response.  No they don’t.  By Texas charter school law, public charter schools must accept all students who apply.  Charter “open-enrollment” schools cannot discriminate in admissions, and must hold a lottery by an independent auditor when the applications exceed the seats available.  Most traditional ISD’s have open transfer policies, accepting students outside the schools’ geographic boundary.  But they often screen these applications, and are allowed by law to deny transfers. 

Reason # 4: “Public charter schools pull students from everywhere.  They don’t have a boundary”.  

Response:  Not true.  Per UIL rule, public charter schools share a boundary with the traditional public school district in which it is physically located.  This establishes the UIL “Residency Rule” geography that both public charter and traditional schools must follow as it relates to student transfers and eligibility.  Many charter schools do admit students from outside this boundary, as do many traditional schools that have “open transfer policies”. However, the advantage traditional schools have is that they get to screen, deny or accept these admissions from outside their district boundary. Public charter schools by law cannot.  

Reason # 5: “Public charter schools have more money and resources than traditional public schools”

Response:  Not true.   Public charter schools face significant financial disadvantages compared to traditional public schools.  Depending on the independent study one uses, they show a funding shortfall of between $570 to almost $2,000 fewer dollars per student per year in funding than traditional public schools.  Charter schools in Texas have no taxing authority, and do not receive local tax revenues, a large source of funding for traditional public schools to offer numerous athletic programs, and “state of the art” athletic facilities.  This funding gap is one reason most charter schools do not offer as many sports compared to similar size traditional schools, and their athletic facilities are much more modest. Many don’t meet minimum NFHS athletic gym specs, or field construction requirements. 

Reason # 6: “Public charter schools have a significantly higher winning percentage in UIL athletic competitions than traditional public schools”.  

Response:  No scientific evidence to support such a claim has been offered by UIL to support singling out charter schools for such a policy.  The UIL Lone Star Cup evaluation criteria, and the Austin American Statesman newspaper Breazeale Cup awards, do have a scientific method to rate UIL member school’s athletic accomplishments that they publish each year.  I am positive those results would not support an accusation that charter schools are having a statistically significant higher rate of athletic success over traditional school UIL members.  In fact, the opposite is more probable. Furthermore, there are many traditional public schools that have dominated in UIL athletics for many consecutive years, and some new ISD high schools have won state championships within the first few years of existence.  If a charter school is going to be elevated to a higher classification for repeated athletic success, or for the anomaly of winning a state title a short time after first opening, the same policy should exist for traditional public schools.  It does not. 

Reason # 7: “Charter schools that get elevated to a higher classification have the ability to appeal”.  If a majority of Superintendents in the new district they are assigned to, and a majority of Superintendents of the district they want to join agree to the request, then the charter school can move back down in conference classification.

Response: Setting aside the fact that a public charter school shouldn’t even be in the position of needing to appeal when their enrollment numbers fall in a lower classification, the process is rigged against approval.  First, all the UIL District Assignment and Appeals Committee members are all traditional ISD Superintendents, and the Chairperson is a vocal critic of public charter schools, using his ISD employer to publish and distribute anti-charter school material in the community.   Second, the UIL sets the new classification and district school pairings before the school can appeal.  More likely than not, the charter school will be placed in a geographical outlier to the lower classification district it wants to join, and must seek approval from. That district will most likely have a full slate of schools.  It is highly unlikely a Superintendent is going to vote in favor of the appeal when it adds another long commute to UIL district competitions, especially if it’s a charter school.  Had the charter school been placed in the correct classification to begin with, the district boundaries, and school assignments to that boundary, would have been drawn up differently.  

In summary, we’ve had some “bad actors” operating charter schools that were UIL members (Dallas Prime Prep Academy as the most notable example).  Many of these charter schools (including Prime Prep) are now closed because of the charter school “three strikes and you’re out law” for failing to meet academic or financial requirements.  We’ve also had traditional public schools caught cheating in the UIL that still operate (Dallas Carter had a basketball state championship removed).  It is unfair to paint all charter schools with a broad brush, just as it is traditional public schools.  

What can you do?  The UIL is governed by traditional ISD Superintendents.  They sit on all the policy making and rule enforcement committees that determine reclassification and realignment.  Many of them are anathema to the Texas charter school movement that was written into law in 1995, and will do and say almost anything to undermine public charter schools.  This UIL policy singling out charter schools is just one example of how they do that. 

We don’t expect the UIL to change this charter school policy voluntarily as long as the traditional ISD Superintendents run the organization.  Charter school families, the TEA Commissioner, and elected state and local officials are the ones who must bend the UIL back to their founding mission to serve ALL Texas public school students in a fair and equitable manner.  

Write to your state elected officials, and the TEA Commissioner.  You can copy and send parts of this policy position statement in your correspondence.