Andrew T. Pittman

Addressing Technology Standards: What is the Role of the Physical Educator?.

It seems that everywhere we look today we see standards: National Standards for Physical Education, National Beginning Teacher Standards, National Board Certification Standards, and National Educational Technology Standards for Students. The International Society forTechnology in Education (ISTE) initiated the development of the National Education Technology Standards (NETS) project in 1998 to advocate the appropriate use of technology in educational settings and to support and improve learning, teaching, and administration in those settings. The NETS projects mission is to develop national educational technology standards for students (NETS-S), teachers (NETS-T), and administrators (NETS-A) to use as guidelines in helping individuals become technologically literate. The goal of each set of NETS standards and resources is to help teachers, students, and administrators understand what they should know and be able to do with technology in order to become competent, technology literate individuals (ISTE, 2002). This article looks at the role of K-12 physical educators in helping students to accomplish the

Dodgeball: Beware of Litigation

Lindaman ex rel. Lindaman v. Vestal Central School District 785 N.Y.S.2d 549 New York Appellate Division, Third Department November 18, 2004

Home-schooled Children and Interscholastic Athletes

Reid v. Kenowa Hills Public Schools 680 N.W.2d 62 Michigan Court of Appeals March 2, 2004

Un)Reasonable Search in High School Athletics

8 JOPERD • Volume 80 No. 2 • February 2009 As school districts around the country consider drug testing for student-athletes, attention recently turned to the state of Washington, where the Supreme Court declared the Wahkiakum School District’s random drugtesting program unconstitutional in violation of the state’s privacy laws. The school had instituted random drug testing during the 1999-2000 school year, after half of its student-athletes identified themselves as drug or alcohol users. Thus, as an absolute condition of playing extracurricular sports, every student-athlete had to agree to be tested, and anyone found with drugs or alcohol in their urine was to be suspended from participation. The district had based its policy on the Vernonia School District drug-testing program, which had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995).

Judicial Review of Eligibility Issues in Scholastic Athletics

11 JOPERD • Volume 80 No. 5 • May/June 2009 Elizabeth Mancuso was a talented swimmer who attended the Austin Preparatory School her freshman year, but did not compete for the school team. Instead she competed as a member of a private swim club. In the fall of 2000, Mancuso transferred to Andover High School and, because she had started school a year earlier than most of her classmates, she repeated the ninth grade. At Andover, during her second freshman year, the plaintiff joined the school’s varsity swim team and continued to compete successfully during her sophomore and junior years. Shortly before her senior season, she was declared ineligible to compete by the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA), which regulates competitive interscholastic sport in the state. Mancuso was ruled ineligible pursuant to its fifth-year student rule, Rule 59.1 of the MIAA Rules and Regulations Governing Athletics, which provides that a student shall be eligible for interscholastic competitions for no more than 12 consecutive athletic seasons. The MIAA ruled that Mancuso’s eligibility clock had started with her first freshman year at Austin, although she did not compete in interscholastic athletics that year. Therefore, her four years of eligibility had concluded at the end of her junior year at Andover. Pursuant to the internal appeals process of the MIAA, Mancuso’s principal at Andover applied to the MIAA requesting a waiver, which was denied, and subsequently appealed to the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletics Council (MIAC), the last step in the MIAA’s internal appeals process. The MIAC denied a waiver of the rule and did not grant eligibility to Mancuso.

Fighting in Sports: Criminal or Not?

State v. Guidugli Court of Appeals of Ohio 811 N.E.2d 567 June 4, 2004

Peer-Grading Passes the Supreme Court Test

Owasso ISD v. Falvo United States Supreme Court 122 S.Ct. 934, 534 U.S. 426 February 19, 2002

Religious Accommodation in High School Athletics Scheduling

James Montgomery, et. al. v. Board of Education and Oregon School Activities Association Court of Appeals of Oregon Feb. 27, 2003 71 P.3d 94

What Should You Do When Faced with Sexual Harassment

Burlington Industries v. Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 United States Supreme Court June 26, 1998

Stand or Fall: Wrestlers Continue to Grapple with Defeat

National Wrestling Coaches Association v. Department of Education United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 366 F.3d 930 May 14, 2004