(Virginia) Senate panel kills 'Tebow bill' - homeschoolers NOT allowed on public school sports teams

[underpants]

The Senate Education and Health Committee this morning voted down both the "Tebow bill" that would make it easier for homeschooled students to play public school sports, and a bill that would let school districts open before Labor Day without a waiver from the state Department of Education.

Gov. Bob McDonnell backed both measures.

House Bill 947, called the "Tebow Bill" after the Denver Broncos quarterback who was homeschooled, died for the year on an 8-7 vote in the panel. Sen. Harry B. Blevins, R-Chesapeake, a former public school principal and coach, cast the swing vote against the legislation.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/mar/01/senate-panel-kills-tebow-bill-early-school-opening-ar-1732530/

[Keystone Writer]

1. Interesting. It's law in Florida.

Made for an awkward situation when the homeschooler was interviewed and she made disparaging remarks about her teammates. Not exactly a team player.

[kemah]

64. No Pass No Play Rule apply to homeschoolers?

Most districts make the athletes pass all their classes before they are allowed to play. How are these homeschoolers graded by mommy in order for them to play.
The Rio Grande Valley has an annual marching band tournament, they moved it to the beginning of the school year in order to bypass the no pass no play rule. Too many kids were not passing and the bands did not have enough members.

[Keystone Writer]

66. I don't know the specifics.

I'm pretty sure the athlete was a good student. Personally, I like her and her mother. I was just disappointed by the way her article came across like a political advertisement showing how rough and uncouth public school kids are. She made the team captain sound like she was loose and had no values.

I don't know how that was suppose to make the situation better.

[cherokeeprogressive]

89. So it would seem that the Rio Grande Valley makes allowances for public school kids

who can't pass their classes? And you ask "How are these homeschoolers graded by mommy in order for them to play."?

Too funny.

[karynnj]

158. Many are not "graded by mommy"

Many of the programs require that the midterm and final be proctored at the public library or school. For those that don't, they could require some test passed at a high enough level a few times a year. It should be easy to work something fair out.

[Auntie Bush]

2. I say Good! Sorry home schoolers...but if parents think public school is

so awful that they can't send their kids there...then they shouldn't be able to go out for sports there.

[Luminous Animal]

8. In Delaware, private school kids were allowed to try out and play for team sports

in their own district if their own school did not offer those sports.

I say, screw them! The kids don't deserve to engage in team sports.

Who cares that the parents pay taxes to support public schools! And screw those kids for the choice their parents made! Let those kids play in their own yard!

[ljm2002]

52. It really isn't a question of what the kids deserve...

...but rather it's about the choices their parents make for them.

Children are not autonomous, making their own decisions about their schooling (for one example). For home-schooled children, their parents made the decision to educate them at home, for whatever reasons. Usually, although not always, that decision is made for religious reasons. Whatever the reason, the parents knew the rules when they madke their decision. They didn't want their children exposed to "certain ideas" and "certain elements". Well, then: they need to stand by their convictions. Allowing their children to consort with the enemy for the purpose of participating in sports, dilutes their overall message. In fact one might ask whether they really believe what they espouse? These parents should form their own sports teams, with other home-schooled children. There is nothing difficult about that.

If I were voting on this issue I would vote to exclude home schooled children from participating in sports as a member of the public school team. It's no more unfair than subjecting these children to anti-science indoctrination in the guise of "education".

[Igel]

86. "What they espouse" varies. A lot.

Houston had an Afrocentric education homeschooling mini-movement a few years back. Black, secular, and opposed to the Eurocentric history/science/etc. education they got in public schools.

Granted, that is largely anti-science, but let's not go there.

Some are fundie Xian. I knew one fundie Xian who managed to get his kids away from the horrible secular culture that is public school before it could do any harm, when the kid was finishing 8th grade. Four year later the kid was still reading at an 8th grade level and doing math at the 8th grade level. I was pleased: I'd have though 4 years of not reading a single word (apart from street signs and Playboy) would have left him stupider. Another fundie Xian, same church, took her daughter from the last day of 9th grade to the first day of 11th grade. 9th grade GPA was just over 1.0; she had to test to be placed in 11th grade, and they put her in 12th grade. Oops. One year homeschooling, 2 grade levels.

I lost students to homeschooling earlier this year. In one case his father works for NASA as a physicist. The kid's drop-dead smart and messed up his sophomore year. So his parents are going to get him ready for college. They can do it. In another case the daughter just kept not doing her work--smart kid, but out of place in a large school in classes with 28 or 29 other kids, most of whom don't want to be there. She had a 4.0 and it should have been higher.

A lot of homeschoolers are counterculture, still, and don't like the rigid uniformity and obedience to rules that they see in public schools. If the parents are educated and disciplined enough themselves, it works.

I've just lost a lot of kids to homeschooling because of behavior problems. Their parents are yanking them to keep them home and away from their friends. The assumption is that it's their friends that are into drugs and cheating and not the kids so yanked. Tough call from my vantage point. These very much non-fundie and probably not especially Xian parents are just transiting their kids from their senior year to high-school drop-out in a less painless manner.

I also lost a couple of kids because of health issues. There's no way to make up a month of school 3 months before you graduate. The kid comes back for next spring or doesn't graduate--or gets a home-issued diploma. He's already accepted to college, contingent on finishing high school. The home-issued diploma is legally binding.

A junior in my class was pulled out because she's 4 months pregnant and having both health and emotional issues. Homebound won't cover the duration of the pregnancy.

Deciding public policy based on vindictiveness to a subgroup of the population the policy would effect isn't a good policy. Most of these groups don't consider public school sports teams "the enemy." They're your words. Some do, of course, but there are lots of reasons for parents to homeschool their kids.

It can also be a pain to try to organize sports teams. Okay, you organize a basketball team. Where do you practice? Where do you compete?
Hire coaches? Refs? Equipment?

These teams aren't part of the real mission of public schools. Although, granted, in Texas the claim could be made that the public school system exists primarily to support the football teams--I've seen a private school cancel the required weekly chapel for a football game and last summer when there were few job openings in Texas nearly every one had "coach" or "asst. coach" in the job title.

[ljm2002]

99. Of course there are different reasons for home schooling...

...I worked with a software engineer whose two children were home schooled, and there were decidedly non-fundies, in fact they were atheist or at least agnostic Jews with a strong interest in science. But then again, they did not expect the public schools that they had rejected, should take up the slack in their children's physical education or participation in team sports.

Businesses, schools and private organizations hook up with local leagues all the time. There is no reason at all that home schoolers cannot do the same. Too damn bad they can't siphon money from the public schools -- the very ones that they rejected because those schools just could not do the job. Public schools are having their money siphoned by everyone these days, especially the privatizers who want to destroy public education altogether. I see no policy reason for public schools to accommodate children whose parents have pulled them OUT of the public school system.

Vindictiveness has nothing to do with it. You make your decisions, and then you deal with the consequences of those decisions. Or do we all get to pick and choose what parts we want to homeschool our children, and what parts we don't? What you would see is parents taking advantage of all the extras such as sports programs, arts programs, music and drama programs -- all of which cost money and all of which are hurting in the public schools by and large. Yet by your logic, we have no right to exclude home schooled children, apparently because it's a burden on them. Well guess what? It's a burden on the public schools too.

They opted out, fine. I understand there may be very good reasons for doing so. Just make your choice and live with it.

[Bluerthanblue]

65. i'm

believing this is sarcasm.

hope I'm correct.
I agree with you- the issue is what is best for the Kids- or at least it should be.

[Luminous Animal]

76. Oh yes, it is sarcasm!

[Bluerthanblue]

82. thanks-

sometimes I'm really bad at telling the difference.

Glad this wasn't one of them.

[Ilsa]

141. It's not as if private schools would allow a

Public school student or home schooled student to take a French language class, for example, if French wasn't an offering in public school.

[Luminous Animal]

145. Actually, The French American School (a very expensive private school in San Francisco)

allowed my daughter to participate in music lessons (and their recitals) for free. I would have paid.

Sometimes you just have to ask.

But the last time I looked, in most districts, taxpayers aren't paying for private schools.

[karynnj]

161. In many areas, the homeschooled student, if sufficiently smart, can take language courses

at a local community college.

[malaise]

27. 100% correct

They want to pick and choose what they want from public schools.

[we can do it]

33. I Agree with You....You Can't Have It Both Ways

[karynnj]

159. You do realize that you are punishing the kids who may have had no choice.

[we can do it]

3. Good. Let the Freaks Stay at Home and Play In Their Safe Yards

[mzmolly]

6. Elizabeth Edwards homeschooled

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2012, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

her children.

The decision to home-school doesn't always surround "safety" or religion.

Edited for spelling. (blush)

[Zalatix]

9. And so what if the issue is safety? Tons of kids face harm in school and going to school.

Especially gay children and anyone who isn't white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. (See: Pagan, Muslim, etc.)

Between the school shootings, molestation by teachers, assaults by students, etc., school is only different from a prison in that you actually had to be accused of something to go to prison.

So.. yay to Elizabeth Edwards! Home schooling isn't just for right wing conspiracy nut crazies.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Yes. I home schooled and fortunately, the San Francisco school district has

a great relationship with home schoolers. After all, its about the kids, not the parents.

[Zalatix]

23. Best. Idea. Ever.

When the Government is blanketly antagonistic toward homeschoolers it is forced to accept basic and erroneous assumptions about homeschoolers. Plus they drive the practice underground, leaving kids potentially vulnerable to hidden abuses. (I'm all for homeschooling but I know there are abuses that can happen there, just like they happen in the public school system.)

Governments like San Francisco are more likely to bring homeschooling out into the open and maintain a desirable level of accountability. The potential benefits include being able to monitor things and get a real look at what homeschooling is about. At some point this cooperation can even lead to the trading of educational techniques and secrets with the end result being the improvement of each other's method of schooling.

San Francisco is again pioneering liberal concepts and laying the path for innovation. Oh noes. Innovation by liberals. Republicans' heads will explode!!!

[Luminous Animal]

25. Yes. It's pretty cool. Access to libraries. Access to administration. Access to home study with...

teacher monitoring. And access to extra-curricular activities. Or you can be a parent like me and opt out of the system altogether. The school system did allow my daughter to shadow a 3rd grade friend at his school for 3 days when my daughter was considering dropping home schooling... which was cool. (She decided against it because, as she said, "Too many rows. Rows to get in. Rows of desks. Rows for lunch. Rows to get out.&quot

[mzmolly]

18. Agree on the issue of safety being a valid concern and the fact that homeschooling is not just for

loons.

[we can do it]

32. I Don't Care Who Does It (my brother's kid's were for a while). Stay at Home, Play at Home

for whatever reason, if the school isn't good enough, safe enough etc. then neither are the sports teams.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Amen

[mzmolly]

38. IIRC, you are not fond of NCLB?

I support you in that, and I support parents who don't wish to have their children subjected to the NCLB environment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. That's fine

But if you want to be involved in extra curricular activities you need to be enrolled in school.

It's not a buffet.

[mzmolly]

48. Not necessarilly.

Some districts allow Parochial students to play sports on public school teams. Further, many school districts allow students to take individual classes, "buffet" style.

If public schools want to continue garnering support from local parents (including homeschool/private school parents) who vote to increase funding to the schools, they may wish to keep a good rapport?

[MattBaggins]

132. You advocate a mafia approach

How nice

[mzmolly]

152. Absurd.

E o m

[WinniSkipper]

135. But if they want to take an AP class?

Is extra-curricular off limits, but classes are OK?

I have read you posts over the years. And this is a compliment - you remind me of my mom - a teacher of roughly your generation (she is recently retired). I want to say that so you don't think I am new here just to stir the pot. I really want to understand your perspective.

[mzmolly]

37. It's not a matter of school not being "good enough". It's a matter of children not all fitting

into the same educational needs, box. Not all kids learn the same. Not all kids can learn in a distracting environment. Not all children thrive in a standard school setting.

Homeschooling parents pay taxes in their districts. They financially support public school, whether or not their children attend. If they're paying for the football team and paying the coaches, they should be able to partake in sports.

BTW, are your brothers kids, "freaks" too?

[Raine1967]

57. +1

People pay taxes.

And yes, there are many many reason for people to Homeschool.

[The Straight Story]

12. So my daughter is a freak? Yeah...DU used to be a progressive big tent place... (nt)

[Luminous Animal]

15. Apparently, so is mine. Thankfully, the San Francisco school district

works with home schooled children, if desired, and not in opposition to them.

[mzmolly]

39. Apparently so.

And, the DU jury felt it was ok to call homeschooling children, freaks. However, Limbaugh is a vile idiot for calling a grown woman a slut. I'm glad priorities are consistent around here.

[JSnuffy]

28. Well, that was bigoted...

... and topped with a nice dose of ignorant.

People home school for a variety of reasons beyond your dreams of right wing whackjobbbery.

[Bluerthanblue]

111. I guess a lot of people would call John Holt a right-wing nut bag

He was a pretty progressive free-school, free thinker in the '70's.

[Incitatus]

122. The kids are freaks because their parents home school them?

Nice attitude.

[firehorse]

4. good decision

[JSnuffy]

5. Too bad...

...

The parents are still paying the taxes for the school in addition to paying for their own schooling efforts.

They should be allowed to participate.

[ibegurpard]

7. sorry, public taxation funds are not a buffet

society in general has decided that public education is worthy of spending public tax dollars on.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Yeah. Screw those kids for the choices their parents made.

Those kids don't deserve to play team sports.

By the way, lots of school districts offer a buffet for kids... home study, AP programs, work-school study...

Many districts allow kids at private religious schools to try out and play for the public school sports teams if, 1) the kids live in the district, and 2) the school does not offer that sport.

The thing about public schools is that their mandate is to serve the CHILDREN no matter their circumstances, not narrow minded parents.

[mzmolly]

41. Bravo!

Not to mention, plenty of liberals homeschool their children.

[Incitatus]

123. +1

Some of the comments on this thread are disgusting. It's sad to see on a site filled with liberals.

[rucky]

130. +1

[The Straight Story]

13. No health care for illegals either (and other benefits). good call (nt)

[Neue Regel]

148. No, see, you have it wrong...

Illegal aliens are only seeking a better life, and you can't punish children because of their parents' choices.

Home-schoolers, on the other hand, are only seeking a better life, and those children must absolutely be punished because of their parents' choices.

Up is down these days, it seems.

[sadbear]

149. Because everything exists in a vacuum, right?

[Neue Regel]

150. No

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. So let me see if I have this right... I can pay for the buffet, but can't eat there because I chose

a different table to sit at?

You mean I can pay for a plate at the Education Buffet... but not be entitled to eat there?

The state gets my parents' tax money regardless of whether I attend public schools or not. Yet you think I shouldn't be able to participate in ANY part of the public school experience because I don't participate in ALL of it?

[sadbear]

20. Devil's advocating: Isn't it elitist to take only the good and leave all the bad?

Not everyone gets that choice.

[mzmolly]

40. So, the only good thing about public education

is the sports infrastructure?

[sadbear]

45. That's subjective.

To me, of course not. But to a homeschooling parent who wants their children to play sports at the public school, I would guess yes.

[mzmolly]

49. That's not the impression I get

from many of the homeschooling parents I know. Many school at home because their children were not a thriving in a typical school setting.

I would argue that some parents do the school a favor by taking a high need child out of a setting, that makes it hard to teach children with more typical needs.

Hope that makes sense?

[sadbear]

55. Again, they're still picking a choosing

And to my original point, isn't the ability to pick and choose elitist?

"Even though both our children don't thrive in school, I can afford to homeschool my child."

Most families need two incomes and a lot of those families have parents at work when children are home. They can't afford "sacrifices".

[mzmolly]

119. So what.

Some schools allow children who are homeschooled, to take individual classes, as well. That said, I can understand a district saying that public schooled children have first priority.

Peace.

[Ikonoklast]

16. Nope, it's the same as if they went to a parochial school.

You don't get to show up at a public school and bump a student off of a team in a school you don't attend because you didn't make the team at your private school, or that sport isn't offered at the private school; same deal here.

Send you kid to a private school, they try out for sports teams there, and only there. Home-school your kid, and you as a parent are limiting their choices as far as team sports go.

The argument that they are paying taxes is a moot point.

People with no children pay school district taxes, too. It's the law.



The decision was made by the family not to send their child to the local public school, no one held a gun to their heads; the school district didn't force them to be home-schooled.

[phylny]

30. I agree. When our kids had an unexcused absence from school,

the school got no funding for them that day. When a parent chooses to home school their child, they accept the limitations that choice brings.

[NuttyFluffers]

35. ding! ding! ding! winner!

"you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have, the facts of life -- the facts of life."

[crimsonblue]

44. you know, that is a really catchy slogan...

you should consider pitching that as a jingle or theme song.

[Snake Alchemist]

11. And don't let them see any guidance couselors either. Let them deal with their own problems. nt

[Luminous Animal]

17. Let them get guidance from a stick in their own yard.

[JNathanK]

21. If they're paying state taxes that go to public schools, alongside home schooling...

...then I don't see why their kids shouldn't be allowed to play on the public school team. If they get vouchers, then that's another story. However, the requirement should be that they support the public school, financially, in some way.

I mean, sure they may get picked for the team over a kid that attends classes at the school. They might not. I don't see it as much of a loss though if the student a homeschooled kid gets picked over sucks. It would only benefit the school and the team to have players that are genuinely better.

[MNBrewer]

24. If the kid doesn't go to the school, how can it be logical that they get to play on the school team?

Should kids who go to one public school play for another public school's team? When parent's choose homeschooling, they should be willing to give up participation in the school for all events. No classes, no extracurriculars.

[underpants]

26. Financing for schools is based on attendance

1. If they choose not to participate, they choose not to participate
2.There is no way to hold homeschoolers accountable other than throwing them off the team - which is a wasted space that an actual student could have taken in the first place
3. Funding for schools is based on attendance.

[JNathanK]

121. Home school parents still pay taxes that go to the school though.

...even though the budget may be lowered from lower attendance. Some districts offer vouchers that take some money away from public schools, but they may still be paying federal, which would still go into the school system that their kid isn't attending. Even if they're paying less money, they should be allowed to let their kid use at least a fraction of the services. Allowing them to participate in at least one extra-curricular activity at the school, I think would be acceptable even in that case, as long as they've paid some dues to the schools. I think allowing home schooled kids to intermingle with public school kids could be good for strengthening the social connections of the youth in the community too.

[underpants]

126. So...

I pay taxes. That doesn't mean I can just pop into Langley AFB and say I want to fly an F16.

I can't demand to drive a snowplow just because I feel like it.

Look- they made a lifestyle choice (point 1) and this is part of that decision.

[ProfessorGAC]

131. I Pay Taxes Too

I'm 55. No kids in public schools. Nothing i want or do will get me a "return on investment".

So, what does paying taxes have to do with it? We pay taxes solely for the purpose of what we personally get out of it? It seems you didn't think your statement all the way through. There is a larger social construct involved, and just because someone pays taxes doesn't mean they should get to be assured of some payback.

[treestar]

137. That actually doesn't sound all that fair

And the teams have a school spirit aspect, too, which the home schooled kid would not have.

I think a kid who actually attends the school should have first shot at any limited team.

[dmallind]

138. I pay school taxes. Can I play on the football team too?

If taxes are the criterion, we all pay. A HS lucky enough to have a couple of NFL players in its district could really win some games.

[SunSeeker]

22. So if the homeschooler plays on my kid's school's soccer team,

can my kid go swimming at the homeschooler's pool? Yeah, didn't think so.

And my kid's public school requires good class attendance and minimum B grade average--which means my kids spends a lot of time in class and doing homework to stay on the team. A homeschooler can just come in after his parents declare him an A student. Seems unfair to let homeschoolers do that.

I mean, either you home school or you don't. If public school is such a horrible, scary place, why of all things do you want your kid in that public school's sports program? Jocks aren't exactly known for abstaining from underage drinking and sex. Of course, on a sports team, your kid is less likely to run into the type of kid rightwing homeschoolers REALLY don't want their kids exposed to: a lefty bookworm (gasp).

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. Did your tax dollars help pay for the pool in the homeschooler's back yard? Didn't think so.

Homeschoolers are required to meet the same educational standards that public schoolers do. You know that, right?

When my daughter attended Nazarene elementary/middle school, she was tested every year BY THE STATE at the same time the public school kids were tested. Given the same tests, and scored by the same rubric.

Maybe you'd benefit from learning about homeschooling before making the kind of statement you made.

Just a thought...

[SunSeeker]

47. So they test her once a year--how is that the same as earning a grade?

My kid has to keep at least a B average to stay on a sports team. How does your school district determine what your daughter's grade point average is?

BTW- It is really rude to accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about, especially here on DU. Just a thought...

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. I guess you've never heard of athletes getting good grades they didn't deserve...

so their playoff-bound high school team could remain competitive.

Or a teacher's pet.

Grades really don't mean shit... especially these days when self-esteem is more important than failing a child.

And BTW - I don't need your advice on how to act here at DU. I've been here almost three weeks now and pretty much know my way around. But thanks for playing.

[SunSeeker]

112. You really believe "Grades really don't mean shit"?! Wow.

I guess there's no point in continuing this conversation since we apparently live in different realities. Good luck getting your kids in college. And welcome to DU.

[JNathanK]

120. If success on the yearly test shows they've accumulated the same knowledge, I don't see the issue.

nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. Talk about needing to learn a thing or two . . .

Every state has its own regulations for homeschoolers. So no, they are NOT "required to meet the same educational standards that public schoolers do". Maybe in your state. Not where I teach.

The only requirement is for the parent to maintain a log. And the only person who can ever ask to see this log is the local prosecuting attorney. And that has never happened.

Homeschooled students do not have to meet the same standards. They are not tested. Their parents are not held accountable for educating them.

http://dese.mo.gov/schoollaw/HomeSch/

[SunSeeker]

61. Thanks for the link.

I really appreciate it when people offer up a link or actual facts to support their assertion rather than just claim someone is wrong. Not only are homeschoolers not held to the same standards, but as the link I cited in response to Bluerthanblue lower in this thread shows, in California, it costs schools $40 PER DAY for EACH student who does not attend. So for each kid pulled out of school, it costs my school $7,200 each year they would otherwise get if that kid attended (based on a 180-day school year). I don't know if it is the same in your state...

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. Yes it's the same

School districts lose money for every kid who is home schooled. There have also been several attempts in MO to actually give the per pupil funding to the home schooling family. The school district would pay, not the state. Understandably, school associations are adamantly opposed.

[SunSeeker]

69. Wow, that is scary.

So this MO homeschooler proposal would have each homeschooler parent receive, say, $7,200, for each kid--without having to meet the same standard as the public school? And it comes out of the school's budget (which is already hit because the kid isn't going there) instead of the general fund?? And the school would still be expected to let that homeschooler play sports, etc.???? Talk about inviting abuse and killing public schools!

Tax money should only go to public schools, not private schools or homeschools--which are private schools in every sense of the word. Otherwise, public tax money would go to funding the religious indoctrination of kids. I'm a firm believer in the Establishment Clause. As you might guess, that's my problem with school vouchers as well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

105. Yes that's the proposal

Nothing about playing sports that I know of however.

[obamanut2012]

127. Wow

How crazy is that???

Have five kids, make a cool 40K or so by keeping them home at the expense of the taxpayer, at to the detriment of the kids in public school.

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. That's pretty wild.

Not to mention short-sighted.

[JoePhilly]

81. Does that mean my daughter can go to one public school but play sports for a DIFFERENT ...

public school?

My daughter is a good softball player. Good enough that we might consider sending to different area high schools. There are there that are near us. One has the better academic program, and a pretty good softball team. Another has a pretty good academic program, and a very strong softball team.

She's a great student, and so we know she'd do very well in either school, but we'd prefer the one with the better academics. But playing for that school's team might not help her grow her skills, and limit her opportunities for sports related scholarships.

And so ... should we be able to send her to the high school with the better academic history, and then also have her try out for the Softball team at the school that has the strong sports program??

After all, that's what a local home schooled kid would be able to do. They'd get to try out for the better team.

If the legislation allows this, then I'm willing to consider it. As things stand, my daughter can't pick one school for her education, and another for her sports activities.

[Bluerthanblue]

84. what makes you think that a home-schooled kid

would "get to try out for the better team".

That is completely untrue. They would only be able to access the public school that is in their district. Just as your daughter has access to the same school. A home-schooler in your district would be able to access your daughters team- not any team they 'chose'. Where do you get the idea that they could do any different?????

[JoePhilly]

91. Wrong ... Where I live, Wake County NC, I have the choice of three high schools.

On edit ... my kids can go to Apex High, Green Hope, or Panther Creek.

I just have to do the correct paper work.

[Bluerthanblue]

97. then home schooled kids would only have the same options as yours.

I thought you were saying that home schoolers could choose from any school they wanted.

You have a choice as to which school your daughter attends.

That seems awesome. Do spots fill up in the most sought after school? How do they keep things even?

Are there waiting lists?

[JoePhilly]

101. Actually no ... they do NOT have the same options.

When we select a school for my daughter, she must do all of her academic work there AND play athletics there.

The HS child will get to SEPARATE those decisions. The HS kid gets to pick one path for academics, and a different one for sports.

My daughter will not be able to do so. Once she makes a choice for her academic path, that becomes her choice for the athletic path as well ... she does not get to pick a different athletic path.

The are one and the same. And that is the point.

[Bluerthanblue]

108. if a home schooled child opted to participate in sports in one of your schools,

and also wanted to participate in one or more academic classes, I would be pretty certian that they'd have to attend the same school.

Your daughter is free to have her school work augmented by you at home, without that being any threat to her school or sports activities.

Why should your daughter be able have that choice? You want to deny other children something that isn't taking anything away from your daughter in any way shape or form. Why? because they are choosing a different academic path than you? Does that make you feel threatened in some way?

Is this the platform you think a progressive democrat should support???

[JoePhilly]

110. Nice try ... But you make no sense.

A home schooled child does not have to attend ANY classes at ANY of the schools available. So your first premise fails.

And my daughter who has her education "augmented" at home, receives no credit for any work we do at home. The work we do here at home does not change her grades ... and those grades are important because if her grades drop, she becomes ineligible to play. There is nothing I can do with her at home to change that.

And you clearly miss my point ... all I argued is that if your child can separate the academic path, and the athletic path, then my daughter should also be able to do so.

As long as that is true, I'm fine.

Why do you find THAT threatening?

Or ... Is this the platform you think a progressive democrat should NOT support???

[Bluerthanblue]

113. I'm not arguing against your child having

her opportunities withheld from her.

Your claim that your augmenting your child at home doesn't have impact on her grades confuses me. If it doesn't something is wrong.

Most home schooling parents have to pay for all their school needs, including curriculum which can be pretty expensive. They support the public school system with their tax dollars at the same rate you do. They aren't recieving anything while your child is- why would you begrudge a home schooled child the opportunity to participate in sports?

Saying that they can't unless your child can pick her favorite team to play on seems pretty spiteful to me.

The number of home schooled kids is negligible. If all students in each of your high schools could pick which team they wanted to play on it would make things pretty difficult for the administration. What if the softball team at the school your daughter chose to play for was good, but the field hockey team wasn't- would you then want her to be able to choose yet another school?

My son is a senior in public high school. He was never home schooled. This isn't a personal agenda on my part.

I do admit to feeling pretty frustrated by some of the broad-brush negative stereotypes being tossed around about homeschoolers.

It is astounding to me that progressive democrats think that this kind of prejudice is acceptable.

[JoePhilly]

116. I did not say the work we do at home has no impact on her grades.

It absolutely does.

But I can not SUBSTITUTE the work we do at home to REPLACE the grades she gets while she is actually in school.

And yes, HS parents pay for their school needs ... so do those parents who send their kids to PRIVATE schools.

Should a child at a private school be able to play sports at the PUBLIC school?

Using your argument, they should be able to.

And you complain about a "broad brush" stereotype about home schooling ... did I use one?? No.

I made a simple argument. If we are going to separate the decision of academic education and athletics, I'm fine, just so long as my kids also get to separate those 2 decisions.

If HS kids and their parents should get to separate those decisions, than so should my family.

[Bluerthanblue]

117. it doesn't seem like

we're going to come to agreement on this.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with your daughter choosing one school for atheletics and another for academics.
I can see how the administration might- because of the reasons I listed in my previous post.

Have you approached them with this dilemma? I'd suggest you do if it is important to you.

I hope you have success.

peace.

[obamanut2012]

128. Excellent series of posts in this subthread

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. "...that's what a local home schooled kid would be able to do."

"They'd get to try out for the better team."

My guess is that a home schooled kid who was granted permission to participate in intramural sports at a public school would be forced to play for the school he or she would have attended in the first place. If you have other information concerning your claim, I'd love to see it.

I don't know how they do things in JoePhilly-land, but I'm betting that's how it would go in most other places.

Good luck to your daughter.

[JoePhilly]

92. I live in Wake County NC ... I have the choice of 3 high schools.

On edit ... my kids can go to Apex High, Green Hope, or Panther Creek.

I just have to do the correct paper work.

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. Well if you do, so does everyone else I guess, right?

In that event, if it were my decision to make I'd allow the home schooled kid the same choice in the context of intramural sports and which team to play for.

I should think that would be the only fair way to go about it.

[JoePhilly]

94. But my daughter will have to pick a school to attend and then also PLAY on their team.

The HS kid does not.

She can not attend one of these schools and then play for another.

[cherokeeprogressive]

95. As it should be. Your daughter SHOULD play for the school she attends.

But, since your daughter has a choice of THREE different schools to attend, so should the home schooled kid have the choice of THREE different school teams to play for.

Is that so hard to understand?

[JoePhilly]

96. The HS kid gets to select a different ACADEMIC path ... but my daughter does not.

Is THAT so hard to understand???

My daughter is only allowed ONE decision ... she must pick an Academic path that also matches her athletic path.

Your home school kid does not. The HS kid gets to SEPARATE those decisions. They get to have one academic path, and a different athletic path.

Now, you could argue that my daughter actually has 4 academic paths. The three high schools, and home schooling. But even if you take that route, you MUST also allow her to SEPARATE the two decisions.

And that's what you don't seem to understand.

[cherokeeprogressive]

100. Oh... you're anti-home schooling. I see now. It's only about THAT.

Thaaaat's why you're being so obstinate.

I'm thinking that if we engaged in the Vulcan Mind-meld, we'd probably both explode.

Here's to ya anyway.

And like I said earlier, good luck to your daughter and I meant that.

[JoePhilly]

103. No, I am not anti-home schooling.

My child's academic and athletic paths can not be separated.

This legislation allows HS kids to separate those decisions.

I'm fine with that, just so long as my children can also separate those decisions.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

[cherokeeprogressive]

106. Oh damn. I sincerely apologize. I read some other posts that were anti and I thought they were

yours.

I truly am sorry Joe.

And for the record, your point isn't hard to understand at all; I just disagree with it. For me, in the larger picture, it's silly to think a child could attend one school and play for another when home schooled children, mostly through no choice of their own, get to play nary a game. I just think that's vindictive.

Once again, I'm sorry... I didn't read closely enough.

[JoePhilly]

109. NP ...

I had a discussion about this with some friends recently. And it went something like this ...

Scenario 1: HS kid wants to play softball. The HS kid has no school and so no team to play for.

Scenario 2: Public School kid wants to play softball. The public school kid's school has softball.

Scenario 3: Private school kid wants to play softball. The Private school kid's school has sports, but not softball.

And this leads to the question ... can the HS kid, and the private school kid, both go and play softball for the public school ... and if they can, why can't the public school kid play for a different school than the school they actually attend?

When we look at these three very real scenarios ... you can imagine parents sending their kid to a private school that has no sports, and then having those kids play sports for a public school.

Should that be allowed?

I'm told that some home schooling efforts are very well organized. The parents get together, develop learning materials, so on. Do they not also set up sports teams?

I'd think that they could set up teams, like city area traveling teams, or maybe even find a way to get HS based teams into public school or private school leagues.

Again ... I'm not anti-home schooling, but at least so far, I can't see how you make this work.

[cherokeeprogressive]

107. Oops.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=380518

[alp227]

154. Could daughter join a private sports league?

I know a private softball league and other non school youth sports leagues exist where I live.

[Bluerthanblue]

59. wow... talk about prejudice-

not all homeschoolers are 'right-wing' and not all public schoolers are "lefty-bookworms".

I homeschooled my oldest son through high-school, (he's been gainfully and happily employed at the same job since he was 18- almost 10 yrs now) and my youngest son is in his senior year at our public high school.

The attitude and ignorance contained in your post do nothing other than perpeptuate myths and ugly stereotypes which hurt everyone. If you want to talk about "fairness" how about begining with facts and real information rather than basing your statements on gossip and misinformation.

Who has said that public school is a horrible scary place? You make alot of assumptions. As for your statement that 'you either home school or you don't' that isn't true. Some school districts work closely with homeschooling families to the benefit of all.

[SunSeeker]

60. Disagreeing with you is not prejudice. Homeschoolers cost schools money.

I never said "all homeschoolers are 'right wing' nor did I say all public schoolers are 'lefty bookworms.'" Indeed, I was pointing out that public schools have jocks (that tend to drink and have sex, duh) AND lefty bookworms. I was just pointing out how inane some of the motivations for homeschooling are, namely trying to shield your child from these types of kids. Obviously some left of center folks homeschool their kids, and although I may agree with their politics, I totally disagree with their assertion that they are entitled to pick and choose from the benefits my school offers my kid for attending. That does not make me a bigot or prejudiced. Those are ugly words to throw around at a fellow DUer and totally inappropriate under the circumstances.

As others up the thread have noted, schools (at least in California) get their funding based on daily class attendance. It is such a crucial fiscal need for the students to attend class every day that my school asks you to "donate" money to make up for the money lost when your child is absent for extended periods of time. Seriously, in California, when a child is absent for that day, the school loses a chunk of money from its budget. See, for instance: http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/investigations/137627368.html

The homeschoolers in my area, by not attending my area's schools, decrease the money the schools get. So that is why it is unfair for them to then turn around and expect the schools to then provide them with all sorts of benefits, like participation in sports teams. You may be paying taxes, but you are not paying for those benefits if your child is not attending that school. If you want those benefits, attend the school. Otherwise, if you want your homeschoolers to have sports, sign them them up for the myriad private sports opportunities like AYSO and Pop Warner. That was the point I was trying to make about the pool to cherokeeprogressive. Your kid can't come use my kid's school's sports facilities, i.e. soccer team, just like my kid can't come use your kid's school's sports facilities, i.e. a home pool.

There is also the issue of not "earning" your way on the team. As others up the thread have pointed out, homeschoolers do not get grades, at least not in California. My kid needs to bust his butt to maintain a good GPA or he is kicked off the team, no matter how talented he is. That enforces an important policy of putting academics ahead of recreation. That policy would be totally subverted if someone could take their C student, homeschool them, then demand they be allowed to play sports.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel compelled to really spell it out for you homeschoolers so you don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about or being a "bigot."

[Bluerthanblue]

63. where do you think the funding comes from for schools?

people who don't have children and parents whos children do not attend public schools are funding those schools- The system you have in place in Calif. obviously has some issues. If a child being absent for a day causes a buget short-fall, seems to me that you would want to address this problem rather than blame children who are entitled to equal access to public education and the associated programs.

Do you, as a parent of a child attending public school pay some kind of tax that other taxpayers do not? If not, then your assertion that: "You may be paying taxes, but you are not paying for those benefits if your child is not attending that school. doesn't make any sense.

You may have a myriad of private sports opportunities out there in California, but in the rural area where I live in NH there are no organized sports activities for high-school age kids available. My oldest son played on local soccer, basketball, football and baseball teams until he reached HS age, where the programs ended in deference to the public school program. At that time our school system was unsure about allowing homeschoolers to participate in HS sports ONLY because of the issues which came up with other districts. Now, they do allow them.

What I found particularly objectionable about your post is the way you portray homeschoolers. You may think that only "your kid" busts his butt to excell, but there are many hs kids who also work very hard at their education. The 'public school' concept of treating 'sports', the arts, and other programs as being less important that the basics is unhealthy and needs to be changed.

There ARE homeschoolers who voice bigoted and ignorant opinions about the public school system, and I've fought with them over this same kind of thinking. The goal of education is to give children the skills they need to be positive citizens of the world, equiped with the tools they need to live full and productive lives. Most children will get this from a public school exclusively, some outside of the public system, and others from a combination of the two. I support public schools and see them as important. I also support the rights of children who recieve much of their instruction outside the traditional system. It does NOT have to be an all or nothing situation. My youngest son was never homeschooled. My oldest was only homeschooled. I understand both sides of this situation fairly well.

Thank you for 'spelling it out', even if we don't agree.

[SunSeeker]

67. Each homeschooler in my area costs my school $7,200 per year.

Yes, they may pay taxes, but the school is not reimbursed for the costs of providing benefits to the homeschooler. By me putting my kid in that school, I am getting that school paid $7,200 per year ($40/day x 180 school days per year, per the link I cited). THAT is how I am paying for the benefits and the homeschooler is not. Homeschoolers should address this problem in CA before demanding access to CA public school benefits.

[Bluerthanblue]

68. where do you think the reimbursement comes from? Not from you alone-

and not from the other parents of public school students. It comes from the taxpayers which includes people who have no children, people whose children never make use of the public system and local businesses who also contrubute no students to the mix.

The $7,200 you cite isn't what a home schooler 'costs' your school- that is the amount that each one of the students enrolled in your public school require for the year of school. It's kind of disenguenious to claim that that is a burden put on your school by homeschoolers. You aren't paying that $7,200. Not only that, but those children who don't interact with the public school system aren't 'costing' the district anything.

If you want to look at it through your lens- then you are recieving benefits from the taxpayers which they are not- and as such you are benefiting from others while others do not. I don't feel this way, I believe that our society as a whole is responsible for the education of the children of everyone, for the betterment of everyone. It's what living in a society requires.

[SunSeeker]

72. Homeschoolers need to change the law so a school is reimbursed for the benefits it provides them.

Before making benefit demands, homeschoolers need to change public school funding laws so that whatever part of the "buffet" they choose should be assessed a cost that the school then gets from the general fund--THAT way your (and everyone's) taxes will go to make the school whole. Otherwise, the public schools will go broke or drop extracurriculars altogether, as far too many schools have already done.

[JNathanK]

124. I fear that this debate could be used to allow home schoolers to opt out of funding public school

This is a real slippery slope, and I think people are shooting their selves in the foot by asserting that home schoolers, even though they pay taxes to the public school system, can't let their kids go there. Its really stupid, and I see it as a pointless wedge issue. First they'll let the home schoolers opt out of taxes, and then they'll allow anyone who's kid isn't attending, like the elderly or private schoolers, to opt out of paying taxes to public schools. We think public schools are badly funded now. Just wait and see where this whole debate leads to.

[WinniSkipper]

79. What does your link have to do with this?

Nowhere in the story or the video does it state that you lose money for homeschooling.

It states you lose money for unexcused absences. HS would not factor into that. Truant students make up that number.

[SunSeeker]

155. If the homeschooler had attended that school, it would get $7,200 per year.

With the loss of that child, the school loses that money. Then, the parents of that child expect to be able to pick and choose from the benefits that school provides, all the while denying the school the money it would have otherwise gotten provide those benefits.

[WinniSkipper]

162. So where do the parents taxes go?

And your link says nothing about this issue. It addresses the state holding back funds for truancy

[SunSeeker]

170. It depends on your state. Usually it goes into a general fund, to be allocated to state services,

such as prisons, parks, colleges, tax subsidies for the rich, etc. Heck, some few pennies of it might even reach your local school. But where the parents' taxes DON'T go to--where NOBODY's taxes go to--is covering the cost of providing benefits to homeschoolers.

As I've tried to explain repeatedly in this thread, schools receive money from the state based on how many students actually attend the school (the point of the link you asked about). It doesn't matter to the school how much the kid's parents pay in property or income taxes since that is not how the school's budget amount is set.

So, if schools are already suffering with bare bones budgets that barely cover what the school needs to educate the students that ARE enrolled in that school, they certainly do not have the resources to pay for extracurricular activities of homeschoolers who are not enrolled students. Because they are not enrolled, homeschoolers who use sports facilities, etc. do not entitle the school to any extra money from the state under current state law.

That is why I have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread, homeschoolers need to change the law before they demand benefits from public schools. Otherwise, the schools run out of money for that activity and just cut it out altogether, like so many public schools are already doing. Then, NOBODY gets to have that benefit.

[WinniSkipper]

172. Trying to explain a wrong point repeatedly doesn't all of a sudden make it correct

Last edited Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Look at it this way. Try it with these hypothetical numbers.

Local homeschool parents in one district - 10. Normal public school parents 100. Each pays $1,000 in local taxes and (for arguments sake) $1,000 of their state taxes got to the education fund - like every other individual who pays taxes.

So - local districts and the state each have $110,000 from the taxpayers. What you are saying is that schools are ONLY receiving the $100,000 in local and $100,000 in state funds - and $10,000 in local funds and $10,000 in state funds are being illegally diverted from schools. That's what you have to be saying because if schools are getting $110,000 local and state - your argument falls apart. So it must be that your legislators are doing something nefarious.

Either way - that is not the issue or the responsibility of homeschoolers.

[SunSeeker]

175. I'm not wrong. Schools are funded based on attendance, not what the parents pay in taxes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "star" funds--I'll assume you mean state funds. What I am saying, which is what the law is in CA, is that a certain amount (in CA it is $40/day or $7,200/year assuming no absences) is allocated to each school for each student that is enrolled.

Using your numbers, when the parents pay that $110,000.00 to the education fund, it doesn't all go to the local school automatically. Let's say for the sake of your example, that the local district consists of one local school, and that school gets $1,000 for each student attending per year. Assuming there is only one kid per "normal public school parent" in that 100-parent district, that means the district only gets 100 kids x $1,000 per kid or $100,000. That $10,000 sitting in the education fund from the 10 homeschooler parents does not go to the school. The only way that local school can get that $10,000 is for it to get 10 more students.

What happens to that $10,000? It goes to other schools or other districts who do have the student numbers to qualify for that money. There's nothing "nefarious" or illegal about it. That's just how school funding works.

[WinniSkipper]

176. I do realize that it is not a zero sum on the state level

Let's try this - Dollars that come in to the states from say rich districts are diverted to poorer districts. Agreed. State spends a certain amount that it gives back per student attending school. Agreed. And yes it was 'state'. I figured I would let someone point that out before editing. Being new and using the edit function could be political suicide at DU.

Issue - either way in your scenario - the homeschool parent has paid their fair share as they are required to do. And probably did so happily as those of us without kids do. And as you point out it has all gone to education. Just as it was supposed to.

Districts getting shortchanged on the funds? That seems to be a state vs a superintendant issue, or just a generally bad way to allocate the funds. And could probably be addressed through proper channels.

As far as I can tell the homeschool parent has done nothing that should avail them of the services.

[SunSeeker]

177. Welcome to DU.

[WinniSkipper]

178. Thanks SunSeeker

it's like dipping your toes in lava.

[WinniSkipper]

173. ....and for your convenience

I checked your link again. No need to worry - it still say districts lose money for unexcused absences. Not homeschooling.

[SunSeeker]

174. Homeschooling is the functional equivalent of an unexcused absence. nt

[uppityperson]

90. Hahahahahaha, your humor is so dry, I almost took it seriously. thanks for the big laugh

You almost got me but reading your last line " your kid is less likely to run into the type of kid rightwing homeschoolers REALLY don't want their kids exposed to: a lefty bookworm (gasp)" made the sarcasm obvious.

Good one.

[SunSeeker]

115. Yeah, I guess I should use more emoticons. ;) nt

[alp227]

153. Best post of the bunch I've read.

I am especially concerned about grade falsification by homeschool parents. I know that regular schools do progress reports of student athletes based on a teacher's objective evaluation. Yes there are cases of grade inflation or special treatment in schools but at least there is a more clear grading mechanism in schools and teachers can be more likely held accountable unlike the less regulated home school parents.

[obamanut2012]

29. good

[Elric]

31. Dumb move

[Blue_Tires]

36. It's just as well...

1. Homeschool kids have plenty of other outlets to play amateur sports (AAU, American Legion, Local rec, etc.)

2. This rule would have been abused and exploited to oblivion by blue-chip football/basketball recruits

[obamanut2012]

129. #2 is THE reason it's been pushed in so many areas

People should just be honest about it.

[crimsonblue]

46. kids should go to normal school...

One of the most crucial aspects to becoming a well-adjusted adult is being able to form your identity and construct social groups, both of which are severely hindered by home schooling .

[ProdigalJunkMail]

50. ah, another person completely oblivious to how homeschooling can work n/t

[whistler162]

98. or how public and private school work!

[Puzzledtraveller]

51. I agree somewhat

There has been another issue thought that I often wondered about. In my state and I assume it is like this in many, the private schools, most of which where I live are Catholic schools compete in the same group as the public schools for state titles. We have a couple of these Catholic schools whose sports facilities would shame some colleges. Their performance has reflected this in titles won, in addition to the ability to pay more for coaches and staffing. I question should they be allowed to compete for state titles. Interested in other peoples take on this.

[Cerridwen]

53. Many places allot tax dollars based on student numbers.

The home-schoolers may pay taxes but their collective tax base is reduced by the number of home-schooled students, that is, the schools receive less money because the home-school students aren't counted in the budget numbers.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. the collective tax base of every taxpayer in the district is less in

situations such as this. Not only the taxpayers who home-school their children.

There are many homeschooling children who do not recieve any benefits from the public school system. There are people who send their children to alternative schools. If you live in a co-operative school district, your school taxes will reflect the number of children which your town contributes. I don't know of any school districts which require those who send their children to the public school pay a tax that those without children in the school do not. Do you?

[LynneSin]

54. If there are all these homeschooled kids out there - why don't they form their own teams?

I could understand if there was only a handful of homeschool kids in the state but there are hundreds.

If the parents have the ability to teach their kids then they should have the ability to coach their kids and create clubs for the kids.

First, it would give the kids even more social interactions and it would solve the problem of homeschoolers wanted to play sports and participate in clubs.

And I would even allow for those homeschool teams to compete against public school league although technically all their games would be away games since they have no home court team.

[Raine1967]

56. I'm more offended that they call this the Tebow Bill

He's from Florida -- not Virginia. I think they named it this bill to make some religious connection to it. There are many other reasons parents choose to homeschool.

Personally I feel that if a kid wants to play on a school sport they should be allowed to -- Home schooled or not, the parents pay taxes to the school in many cases.

I see the argument made for not allowing them, but this really isn't the children's fault if Parents choose to homeschool. Sports provide a good social interaction and may actually help the kids see another way of thinking that they might not get if cloistered in a homeschool environment.

[Bluerthanblue]

71. I completely agree.

I'm kind of discouraged to hear so many people supporting having children lose out and saying they shouldn't have equal access.

[SunSeeker]

73. You do have equal access to the school, you just choose not to go there.

What you are asking is for a custom buffet for your kid. That is very different. That costs schools money that schools are not being reimbursed for under current law. People are not "supporting having children lose out." I do not support having children lose out, that is why I think children should all go to well-funded, well-equiped public shools who are fully reimbursed for the benefits they provide.

[Bluerthanblue]

75. no, the students who live in Va. do not- as

proven by the OP.

[Fla Dem]

133. Why should inclusion just be limited to sports; what about pep squad/cheerleading?

What about participating in the orchester/band, choral groups, drama club/plays, school productions. Should they be able to go on school trips? Why not let HS kids contribute to the school paper, belong to French club, or the camera club. Why limited inclusion to sports. Is it because sports is the be all, end all, of the high school experience? Just saying. Don't know why everyone gets all stressed over sports, as if it was the only extracurricular activity that benefitted kids. But if you make sports available to kids who do not attend a public school, then I say open up all activities to anyone who wants to participate.

[Bluerthanblue]

143. actually the school district where I live does

allow home schooled kids to participate in most of these things.
(the official policy states: )
"Home schooled students can participate in school, curricular and extra-curricular activities, which may include but are not limited to: field trips, assemblies, educational programs, dances, band, OM, intramurals, and clubs with written permission from the parent and the principal. The student must agree to abide by the same code of conduct as the regularly enrolled students participating in the same activity, and as space allows. They must provide immunization records and physical exams must be up to date and on file."

They also allow participation in athletic teams provided they meet the same requirements as regularly enrolled students, including : academic, physical exam, age, immunizations, semester eligibility and standards requirements.

Our system does not have an adversarial relationship with home schoolers and everyone benefits as a result.

I know of several home schoolers who have done this successfully. When my oldest son began home schooling our district was pretty negative towards the concept, and we had to jump through hoops in order to be able to teach our children at home. That was back in the late '80's - as the years went by and we demonstrated that we were committed to home schooling, and that our children were indeed benefiting from their education, the district responded in a very positive way.

Home schooling isn't for everyone, but by the same token neither is public school, what is important is that people be allowed to choose the situation which is best for each individual child. For one of my sons that was a home school education, for another it's been public school.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

74. Parents pay taxes to the school?

Everyone pays taxes. Not just parents. Does that mean we should all be able to play on school teams? Even old farts like myself?

In my city, the schools are allocated funds based on attendance, not on tax revenue. If the homeschooled kids don't attend, then the school doesn't get that share of the revenue.

[Bluerthanblue]

77. yes you should have access to the school- everyone in the community should.

Here in NH our schools also serve as places to hold town meetings, sporting events,(little league, soccer camp, adult softball) etc. Our schools act as emergency shelters, places to hold fundrasing events for local causes, we use the school for voting during local, state and national elections.

The actual cost to the school system for a student participating in a sporting event is minimal. My son has to pay a sports fee if he in involved in extra-curricular sports each year, and he's a full time public school student.

The problem of underfunded schools isn't because of 'home-schoolers' although some would like to frame it that way.

[SunSeeker]

171. You should have access if you pay a fee to cover the costs--like you do in NH.

The problem--one of the many problems--with this Tebow bill is it does not require the homeschooler parents to pay any extra fee to cover the cost to the school of providing the homeschoolers the benefits.

No one here is saying "the problem of underfunded schools is because of homeschoolers." No one here has framed it that way.

Schools are underfunded because the right wing hates public schools. They want that portion of our taxes that goes to public schools to instead go to each parent to spend as they see fit, which would then be diverted to religious and private schools, leaving public schools to die. The right hates public schools because it exposes their kids to leftwing thought--their kids might actually start to think for themselves--and get out of their parents right wing religious straightjacket.

There's a really good article on it on Alternet.com:

http://www.alternet.org/story/154312/why_teaching_people_to_think_for_themselves_is_repugnant_to_religious_zealots_and_rick_santorum/

Yes, I know, you're a progressive, and I am sure you tried to teach your kids to think for themselves and tought them facts instead of racist propaganda and religious dogma. But the right wing uses the existence of you few progressive homeschoolers to say not all homeschoolers are right wing or religious and therefore all homeschoolers should all get tax money.

Our tax money, instead of going to public schools--the ONLY path out of poverty--will go to religious indoctrination. Public schools will die on the vine, and with them class mobility in America. So, I am very protective of public schools. I am not attacking you, I am just saying you have to come up with a better law so that public schools don't lose out if homeschoolers want to take advantage of public school benefits.

[samfarkus]

78. Live and let Live

why is it everyone is against other people telling them 'how to live their lives' but when a parent wants to school his kid at home, he's a 'nutjob'.. guys you need to chill with the name calling, they're just kids, let em have fun. What if someone applied your blanket judgements to blacks, or mexicans, or women? What would you call them? Bigots. Your hatred for these kids that you don't even know is palpable. If you want to charge the parents a fee to register the kid for a public sport, then do so, but chill with the sanctimonious political stuff. It's invading every facet of everyday lives now and its getting lame. I know some homeschooled kids and they're fine. They're not osama bin laden. Live and let live.

[Bluerthanblue]

80. thanks-

for your open mindedness.



It should be about the kids- not about prejudice and politics.

[JNathanK]

125. +1

[Saving Hawaii]

87. I don't think I would ever even consider homeschooling my kids.

I had two friends from shortly after high school that were homeschooled by extremely conservative Christian parents. One I met as a coworker. He and I got along exceptionally well. After I left that job and got a better one I helped him get a job there. We carpooled to work, had fun beforehand. Great guy and a good friend. But since I moved away I do know that he's gotten into manufacturing illicit drugs (not pot, hallucinogens) in his bedroom. Not for money, just for fun. Pretty successful, more than me, he's just about finishing up his post-grad work right now. But I imagine his parents would curl over and die if they knew how he lived today (lots of promiscuous and safe sex, lots of illicit drugs, etc..). The other is less of a success story. He spent most of the past year in jail and is now living in a mental institute. I don't know if you can blame all of his current problems on his parents, but I don't doubt some of his issues stem from that.

Shoot, I know lots of good kids from very Christian families that turned out just like their parents after years in the atheist public education system. But every anecdotal experience I've had with homeschoolers from devout Christian families... well, the results have never been as desired.

[cynatnite]

104. If a kid wants to be in a sport of a public school, they should be a student of that school. n/t

[Bradical79]

114. Seems like there should be some way to compromise

Make sure the parent pays whatever fee or amount that the public school is missing out on by not having the student as a regular pupil, maybe some sort of base academic oversight to make sure the home schooled student is making similar academic progress to the regular students, and so on.

[cynatnite]

118. Compromise for what?

The parent chose to homeschool their child away from public schools. Why should that child be allowed to participate in school activities when they are not a student of that school?

If the parent wants their child to play football for a particular school, then that child should be a student of said school.

[WinniSkipper]

134. And if they want to take

....an AP Class because the parents can't handle that part of the HS education - even though they have paid taxes you are against the kid having the option to do that?

Because my kid is bullied because they are gay and I HS - and I am getting no satisfaction from the administration on the issue - my kid should;t have access to AP courses that I as a taxpayer have funded?

[cynatnite]

136. I'm not against the kid going to school for a course or two if necessary...

I just think that if a parent opts to homeschool their kid, they don't get to play a sport at the school of their choosing that that they're not a student of. It seems unfair that a kid who is not a student of said school should be allowed to participate in the extracurricular activities.

Now, if the kid is taking a course or two, then I would be okay with letting it be at the discretion of the school district.

In the end, no matter the reasons, the parents opted to homeschool and there are consequences to that decision.

[WinniSkipper]

139. "Consequences to that decision"

That says it all. They paid their taxes. Do you think they have a right to the public school education, or is it a privilege? Because the way you state it, it can't be a right. Just because they have paid into something and have CHOSEN not to utilize it does not give up my right to that service. If I don't cash my social security check this month - have I opted out for life?

This is "my way or the highway" approach is what we hate about republicans.

[cynatnite]

140. Of course they've got a right to a public school education...

Put the kid in school if they want all the benefits of it.

If they opt to not have their kid take advantage of a public education, there are consequences...such as not being part of a school football team that they are not a student of.

It's not a my way or highway kind of thing. It's simple. If a kid goes to a public school he or she gets all the negatives/positives that go along with it. The same with a homeschooled kid. There are positives and negatives with that as well.

I just don't get why it's okay for a non-student of a public school be allowed to participate in an extracurricular activity. They are not a student of said school. If the parents want them to participate in these activities, there is a simple way to solve it. Make that kid a student. Some schools allow students who are partly homeschooled to participate. My older kids went to school with some friends that were homeschooled part-time.

[WinniSkipper]

146. And my relatives did a similar solution...

...to the friends of your kids. Homeschooled, took a few classes at high school that were AP or more advanced, and played on a few teams. I am with you there - I think that model is ideal for everyone - fair for both sides.

It does get my dander up a bit when it is presented that a group that has paid into (and really - that's true support) the public schools through their taxes, don't get any money of it back, and want to take advantage of something that is their right are told they can't. Because that is my way or the highway. This example - my gay son is harassed mercilessly - and I homeschool him because the Born Again principal does nothing. But he loves to run track. You would not give him that option.

If there is an issue with the blue chips (and there is) address that. Blanket laws like these are exactly what we should fight against.

[dmallind]

142. Yes, reasons can vary - but 83% say they homeschool for religion.

It's not an unreasonable assumption or generalization to infer.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf

[Bluerthanblue]

144. kind of misleading percentage- among those who

were asked what their main reason for home schooling was only 36% said it was religious or moral reasons. The next main reason was concern about the school environment 21% and dissatisfaction with academic instruction available at other schools 17%.

If 83% of home schooling families were rabidly religious, you can bet your ass they would have chosen religion as number 1.

If you read through the report, the percentages above are listed there.

[dmallind]

147. Misleading? Direct cite. The top reason even in your pick, no?

Concerns for school environment can also be religiously motivated beyond instruction in the latter (even fundies may prefer clergy to teach religion itself)- as can several of the other categories.

[Bluerthanblue]

151. no-

not sure what you mean by "top reason even in your pick", if you are saying that religion was the 'top-reason' you're completely wrong.

If only 36% of people chose 'religion' that leaves 64% saying that it was something more important to them than 'religious concerns' which motivated them to choose homeschooling.

here is a recent poll: http://www.home-school.com/poll/?id=why

here are some comments by actual home schoolers http://www.cafemom.com/group/114079/forums/read/14131103/What_is_your_main_reason_for_homeschooling

http://www.homeschool-curriculum.org/reasons-for-homeschooling.html

Parents give many different reasons for homeschooling their children. In 2007, the most common reason parents gave as the most important was a desire to provide religious or moral instruction (36 percent of students). This reason was followed by a concern about the school environment (such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure) (21 percent), dissatisfaction with academic instruction (17 percent), and "other reasons" including family time, finances, travel, and distance (14 percent). Parents of about 7 percent of homeschooled students cited the desire to provide their child with a nontraditional approach to education as the most important reason for homeschooling, and the parents of another 6 percent of students cited a child's health problems or special needs.

this is from the same source as you- again, the main reason cited by the majority of parents was NOT religion, it was a combination of several other valid reasons.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91

[SunSeeker]

156. Every homeschooler I've known (all 6) were religious fanatics.

And I bet they wouldn't have listed religion as the reason they homeschooled their kids. They would have picked one of the other reasons, liked "morals" or "dissatisfaction with academic instruction"---that's what they told me when talking about why they homeschooled.

[Bluerthanblue]

163. well, that is your experience-

mine, it quite different.
I've known over 40 home schooling families whose reasons were far more diverse than I'd ever have thought- but every single one of those who were 'fundementalist christians' made it quite clear that they were home schooling mainly because of their religious convictions.
I home schooled my oldest child from '87-2000. In the begining, I know a couple of families who cited 'religious' reasons even though they were not overtly religious because at that time permission to home school had to be given by local school districts, and you either had to make a case that there was a "manifest educational hardship" to your child attending school- which could be somewhat daunting- but claiming 'religious conviction' was not heavily scrutinized.

It's pretty difficult for those who are home schooling to be seen as anything but a religious wing-nut who wears denim jumpers, doesn't allow their children to watch tv, experience the world, think for themselves, question authority, or be 'normal' (whatever that is) given the oppressive stereotype that 'christian home schoolers' have managed to bring to the group.

That is part of why I've been so insistant to point out that there ARE progressive, democrats who home school. They aren't on the fringe of the group, but in many cases they are the back-bone. John Holt was hardly a religious wing-nut, and he motivated many of the first home educators- including those who introduced my family to the concept.

Sorry to be so persistant on this issue. Even though I haven't homeschooled in years, and my youngest attends public school, I have to speak out for those families who are anything BUT the religious zealots that most people think of when they imagine "home school". They don't deserve to be judged by the radical elements of the group.

[dmallind]

165. So - which reason was higher then? Since when did the top pick from a list need to be GT 50%?

[Bluerthanblue]

168. the person I was addressing claimed that 83% of homeschoolers do so for religious reasons-

the 'top pick' was less than half that-

That is pretty disingenuous.

for all the reasons I've already stated in my replies to her.

[karynnj]

157. I wish the Tebow bill would have passed

Even if they are using a competent program and have an adult capable of helping them through the material for which they need help, a major deficiency for home schooling is that they do not get the social interactions needed. If a child qualifies to be on the team, this could be something that would greatly benefit him/her.

As they would be entitled to free public education, it would seem that whatever small costs there would be for adding the kids to teams would still be less than what it would have cost to educate them. It would also be good if - on a capacity available basis - they could join art or music classes and extracurricular activities.

[SunSeeker]

160. It is not a "small cost" and it would go unfunded, hurting the school.

As I said further up the thread, homeschoolers need to change the law so that a school is reimbursed for the cost of providing these extracurricular activies to homeschoolers BEFORE demanding that the schools provide them.

[karynnj]

167. At least in NJ, the majority of the money for a school comes from local taxes

In addition, there is money from the state from income taxes. A parent, who opts to home school pays the same income tax and property tax that would be paid if his kid was in the school. If the activities are free for the students of the school, why should they not be free for this person, who is using LESS of school?

Now, IF, the school district is required to pay for the homeschooling, then I agree with you. ( I know Santorum got the PA school where his house was to pay for his kids' homeschooling. ) There it would be entirely reasonable to charge a fee to kids not in the school.

[SunSeeker]

169. The activities are "free" to the students of the school because by attending,

they are getting the school paid. As I've tried to explain repeatedly in this thread, schools receive money from the state (and I am sure NJ is no different) based on how many students actually attend the school. It doesn't matter to the school how much the kid's parents pay in property or income taxes since that is not how the school's budget amount is allocated.

So, if schools are already suffering with bare bones budgets that barely cover what the school needs to educate the students that ARE enrolled in that school, they certainly do not have the resources to pay for extracurricular activities of homeschoolers who are not enrolled students. Because they are not enrolled, homeschoolers who use sports facilities, etc. do not entitle the school to any extra money from the state under current state law.

That is why I have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread, homeschoolers need to change the law before they demand benefits from public schools. Otherwise, the schools run out of money for that activity and just cut it out altogether, like so many public schools are already doing. Then, NOBODY gets to have that benefit.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

164. I support this

I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments made here and don't think less of anybody- on the right or left- whom chooses to homeschool their children. However, ultimately, it seems hopelessly impractical to carve out a ton of exceptions for homeschooled children. To me, either you are willing to accept the pros and cons of sending your children to public school or you aren't and if you aren't, you're free to keep your children out of public school and educate them yourself at home with full recognition that if you do, your children are going to forfeit the pros of public school (i.e. sports). That's just how it is IMHO. For those wanting their homeschooled children to participate in sports, why not find some other homeschooling parents with whom to form teams, purchase equipment, etc?

[sadbear]

166. +1

This is the reasonable answer.