‘Tebow’ bill for home-schoolers:

[lightly]

I think school sports , other than the monies provided by booster clubs and so on, are a misappropriation of funds. I say this, for one reason, because The high school in this county , when it came down to a choice between funding sports or School Bussing/Buses, chose sports.

So, now the kids or their parents have to provide their own transportation to , and from, school. Distances of tens of miles in many cases.

Sports are a good thing, and a lot of fun for kids, but i think it's way overdone. Kids could choose up teams within the same school and play to their hearts content, instead of all the inter school competitions that involve great expense. I think all of that is a distraction from the purpose of schooling, which is EDUCATION.

Edited February 10, 2012 by lightly

[sam12six]

I think school sports , other than the monies provided by booster clubs and so on, are a misappropriation of funds. I say this, for one reason, because The high school in this county , when it came down to a choice between funding sports or School Bussing/Buses, chose sports.

So, now the kids or their parents have to provide their own transportation to , and from, school. Distances of tens of miles in many cases.

Sports are a good thing, and a lot of fun for kids, but i think it's way overdone. Kids could choose up teams within the same school and play to their hearts content, instead of all the inter school competitions that involve great expense. I think all of that is a distraction from the purpose of schooling, which is EDUCATION.

They essentially pay for themselves with popular sports like basketball and football selling tickets and concessions that are then used both for the sports and other school clubs (For instance, I was in the Industrial Arts club and we ran the concession stand at baseball games to fund our club activities - other clubs ran concession stands for different sports).

Do you have a link for the buses versus sports thing? I'm not doubting you, I'd just be interested in discovering how such a decision came up as the sports that cost a significant amount of money tend to bring in a significant amount of income. At the high school I attended, the sports that weren't well attended (like the cross country team) were required to raise their own funds to buy jerseys and whatnot.

[lightly]

They essentially pay for themselves with popular sports like basketball and football selling tickets and concessions that are then used both for the sports and other school clubs (For instance, I was in the Industrial Arts club and we ran the concession stand at baseball games to fund our club activities - other clubs ran concession stands for different sports).

Do you have a link for the buses versus sports thing? I'm not doubting you, I'd just be interested in discovering how such a decision came up as the sports that cost a significant amount of money tend to bring in a significant amount of income. At the high school I attended, the sports that weren't well attended (like the cross country team) were required to raise their own funds to buy jerseys and whatnot.

Hi sam, i couldn't easily find a link... i just remember the talk going around at the time... and i think it was discussed in local news papers . This is Kalkaska County Michigan, if you'd be interested to search for yourself. Yes, booster clubs and ticket sales cover some of the costs, but i don't think it's enough to cover all of the costs, such as, Construction and Maintenance of Gymnasiums and Playing fields? I just remember the question came down to a decision of cutting back on sports or bussing.. sports won, bussing lost.

[sam12six]

Hi sam, i couldn't easily find a link... i just remember the talk going around at the time... and i think it was discussed in local news papers . This is Kalkaska County Michigan, if you'd be interested to search for yourself. Yes, booster clubs and ticket sales cover some of the costs, but i don't think it's enough to cover all of the costs, such as, Construction and Maintenance of Gymnasiums and Playing fields? I just remember the question came down to a decision of cutting back on sports or bussing.. sports won, bussing lost.

It's OK, I was just curious.

From what you mentioned in the previous post, it sounds like they eliminated bus routes to outlying areas of the school district. They really shouldn't be able to do that. I can't really speak for any district but where I went to school, but there without sports, they wouldn't have had any school sponsored clubs.

[preacherman76]

I don't work at that company. That food is not for me.

You help pay for the food, of course its for you.

I think you're confusing the concept that since your taxes ultimately pay for something then that something is FOR you.

In this discussion, funds, equipment, coaches' salaries - they're all earmarked FOR STUDENTS OF A GIVEN SCHOOL. Expecting those earmarked resources to be offered freely to people who are not a part of the school is asinine.

As I mentioned before, a high school dropout should be allowed to continue playing on the school's teams if he wants by the same reasoning as some here have.

I think you are the one confused here. A School is owned by the community that supports it.

There's no difference between roaming the halls, playing on the team, or walking in and sitting in on a class. They're all school activities that are supposed to be limited students at that school unless there's a special occasion (like a parents' day or something).

Yea no difference at all.

No, I'm not acting like they couldn't make the kids wear a helmet, I'm acting like they would only have one punishment they could enforce on non-students, expulsion from the team. Outside rare and "destined for greatness" players, expulsion from the team isn't the big behavior guarantee hanging over their heads, it's in-school discipline. Put non-students on the team and you have to overpunish or ignore minor behavior problems. If they're overpunished by expulsion from the team for something minor, you get the parents of non-students suing schools because their kid received a worse punishment that a student would have. If they're ignored, you get parents of students suing schools because THEIR kid did the same thing and it wasn't ignored.

Hu? Why couldnt you just make them sit out a practic, or a game? Why would you have to kick them off the team? Heck my coach used to make us run laps if we were messin around.

Again, do you believe a high school dropout should also be allowed to play on the local high school team (after all, he's the right age and his parents pay taxes just like everyone else), or do you believe someone who has chosen an alternative to public school for their kid (whether that's private school, homeschool, or no school) should just accept the consequences of their own decision?

A drop out isnt a student. A home school child is.

[sam12six]

You help pay for the food, of course its for you.

OK, you throw some change in Santa's pot around Christmas - are you then entitled to run to the local Salvation Army office and help yourself to some emergency supplies? No, because those supplies are not FOR you. They're earmarked FOR someone else, regardless of where the money came FROM.

I think you are the one confused here. A School is owned by the community that supports it.

Yes it is. That's why (as has already been mentioned several times) they'll generally let you use their facilities when school is not in session.

Yea no difference at all.

There is no difference. You want non-students to participate in student only activities.

Hu? Why couldnt you just make them sit out a practic, or a game? Why would you have to kick them off the team? Heck my coach used to make us run laps if we were messin around.

For some things, you're right. There's a point though where an offense is more than run laps or miss a game, but generally not get kicked off the team. As I mentioned before, something like fighting usually got you a punishment that was school related (like suspension) in addition to whatever the coaches decided for you in punishment work. This in-between level of misbehavior is something that would cause them to be overpunished or underpunished, depending on whether the person was a student or not because the school has no control over non-students' school lives.

A drop out isnt a student. A home school child is.

No, a student is someone who is enrolled in the school. Neither dropouts nor people who go to different schools are students of that school (and homeschool is a different school). Besides that, your entire argument is that since taxpayers own the school, non-students should be able to play on the school's team. Assuming an age requirement, that means homeschoolers, dropouts, people who go to different public schools and people who go to private schools should all get to play on a public school's team.

[Yamato]

No, a student is someone who is enrolled in the school. Neither dropouts nor people who go to different schools are students of that school (and homeschool is a different school). Besides that, your entire argument is that since taxpayers own the school, non-students should be able to play on the school's team. Assuming an age requirement, that means homeschoolers, dropouts, people who go to different public schools and people who go to private schools should all get to play on a public school's team.

No, that's not what the bill is saying and that is not "a student". It's saying that students of taxpayers who meet the academic requirements of that community they're paying for can play on their sports teams. The age requirements are already set as a matter of fairness and need not be adjusted. Drop outs are not students because they dropped out (of school).

But that's just the teams. What about the facilities? Should adult taxpayers of all ages who live there be able to use those facilities off-hours? If they're open and not being used at the time, yes! What's the problem? I can go down to a nearby high school and run on their track any time I want. I can park in the parking lot, turn the lights on myself, open the gates, use the football field, use the baseball field, drink out of the water fountain, use the restroom and locker rooms under the bleachers, whatever. When the sun goes down, security will ask us to leave and we do.

Yes it is. That's why (as has already been mentioned several times) they'll generally let you use their facilities when school is not in session.

School is not in session during football practice or football games. This should be obvious when the football players are students at the school in question.

The options open to the community's students should be even greater than this. Home-schooled students should be able to take a class or two at the public school as needed just like they should be able to play sports there.

[Yamato]

I'm sorry, but where did you derive this from in my post?

And I'm afraid I don't understand what point you are trying to make with the rest of your post. Would you clarify it, please?

From the difference between letting students play on the team that they're somehow not "entitled" to already and you being "entitled" to use facilities because you provided for their existence in the first place. The taxpayer pays for it all. The facilities, the staff, the field, the uniforms, the gear, the balls, everything. So if that's what makes the difference, the question remains, why not? Telling me they're not "entitled" isn't providing a reason why not. The "Tebow" bill entitles them, that's the point.

[Yamato]

No, I don't think someone who is not a student should be allowed to participate in school activities - and sports are school activities. I've played many times on the local high school's tennis courts, but I wouldn't be daft enough to think I had the right to join the school's tennis team unless I actually went to the school.

Wait, they don't coach you? Don't offer to let you play in games against kids in their care when they don't know what immunization shots you've had? Don't make themselves responsible for you conduct when they have no power to punish misconduct? What jerks.

You won't need papers - just ask yourself a quick question: Am I a student enrolled at the school? If yes, you can participate in school activities (assuming you meet their academic criteria). If no, you may be able to use some of the facilities, but school functions are off limits unless you're asked to come because they feel you can contribute something to the activity.

This same litmus can be useful in the adult world too. There's a company picnic tomorrow with free food. Should I go? I ask myself the same question: Do I work at the company?

There's a Federal employees softball league game Saturday. I pay taxes? Should I show up expecting to play? I ask myself the question again: Am I a Federal employee?

Anyway, I think we're at a conversational dead end. I believe only students should be allowed to participate in student activities. You believe anyone who pays taxes should be able to roam the halls between classes hanging out withe the student population. I believe you make educational choices for your kids, taking the advantages with the disadvantages. You believe you should get to pick and choose only the advantages from among your options. I would hold schools responsible for the safety of kids at school activities. You believe they should be open to people the school has no way to impose safety restrictions on. It's just a fundamental difference in world view I don't see how we can overcome...

Company picnics are not paid by taxpayers they are paid by the company. So no, you can't go if you don't work there.

You're blowing this completely out of all common sense. You don't need to strip any of the conditions out of the program that already exist for the players on the teams for good reasons whether it's about age, or health, or whatever else. All you have to do IN ADDITION TO what you're already doing, is to just let the kids play.

I believe that only students should be able to participate in student activities. And home-schooled students, are students. Stretching a very simple idea out to the absurd is going to make a false dead end that I'm not going to drive down. There is no way the school couldn't impose the same safety restrictions on home-schooled students that they already do for everyone else. I couldn't see it working otherwise. I believe that anyone who pays taxes that pays for that school and decides to home school their kids should be able to attend functions at that school, have their kids take classes at that school, play sports at that school, use facilities at that school, and participate in programs for that school that increase consumer choice and competition with other schools and communities.

[ninjadude]

I believe that only students should be able to participate in student activities. And home-schooled students, are students. Stretching a very simple idea out to the absurd is going to make a false dead end that I'm not going to drive down. There is no way the school couldn't impose the same safety restrictions on home-schooled students that they already do for everyone else. I couldn't see it working otherwise. I believe that anyone who pays taxes that pays for that school and decides to home school their kids should be able to attend functions at that school, have their kids take classes at that school, play sports at that school, use facilities at that school, and participate in programs for that school that increase consumer choice and competition with other schools and communities.

Home schooled students are not students at that school. Again this can be extended to private school. If homeschoolers are allowed to do all you say then surely the millions of private school students (in the Chicago area that would be Catholic students) would be able to do all those things as well. There just isn't the facilities for this. Contrary to you (and my kids were homeschooled for a few years because of medical reasons) I DON'T believe anyone who pays taxes can attend functions, take classes, play sports, or use the facilities unless they are ENROLLED in the school as a full time student. The school has to be able to accommodate that enrollment. And generally enrollment means full time - unlike college. You don't get to pick and choose. And just because you pay taxes for something does not mean that you get to use it.

[Yamato]

Home schooled students are not students at that school. Again this can be extended to private school. If homeschoolers are allowed to do all you say then surely the millions of private school students (in the Chicago area that would be Catholic students) would be able to do all those things as well. There just isn't the facilities for this. Contrary to you (and my kids were homeschooled for a few years because of medical reasons) I DON'T believe anyone who pays taxes can attend functions, take classes, play sports, or use the facilities unless they are ENROLLED in the school as a full time student. The school has to be able to accommodate that enrollment. And generally enrollment means full time - unlike college. You don't get to pick and choose. And just because you pay taxes for something does not mean that you get to use it.

You're referring to millions of nationwide private school students bled into the sports programs of public schools nationwide. Yeah, that could be a nationwide extension of my position although the "Tebow" bill doesn't have arms that long. Does Virginia worry you? And the Chicago-area private school students just so happen to be Catholic. Okay?

I'm not surprised you have this view as this seems to be the democrat viewpoint the moment the Catholics get riled up. Sure, facilities-based limitations must remain a factor. Removing such examples of common sense that only allow you to reject the bill aren't necessary. The school not being able to accommodate the enrollment is another issue and nobody is suggesting that schools be forced to do something they can't do.

Why are you telling me that I can't pick and choose? The Tebow bill says that in the case of home-schoolers, I can choose. And why should college students get to, unlike what you think of high schoolers? Because they pay for it?

Edited February 15, 2012 by Yamato

[ninjadude]

Virginia’s tens of thousands of home-schooled students

Opponents, including some school boards and PTAs, say home-schooled kids are not required to meet the same academic criteria as public school athletes — attend and pass five classes per day — and that they would take team slots from their public school counterparts.

State officials calculate that nearly 32,000 are home-schooled in Virginia, but the association thinks there are twice as many.

lack of Facilities? yep Forced? yep.

[preacherman76]

OK, you throw some change in Santa's pot around Christmas - are you then entitled to run to the local Salvation Army office and help yourself to some emergency supplies? No, because those supplies are not FOR you. They're earmarked FOR someone else, regardless of where the money came FROM.

That isnt even close to the same thing. Giving money away outta the goodness of your heart is hardly the same thing as being forced to pay, in some cases several thousand dollars a year, for a school tax. When you willfully give money for a charity, you do so knowing its for someone else.

There is no difference. You want non-students to participate in student only activities.

roaming the halls, or just walking into a class is potencialy disruptive. It wouldnt serve anyone any purpose. Playing school sports is benificial to not only the student, but possibly to the school as well. How do you consider a home school child a "non-student"?

For some things, you're right. There's a point though where an offense is more than run laps or miss a game, but generally not get kicked off the team. As I mentioned before, something like fighting usually got you a punishment that was school related (like suspension) in addition to whatever the coaches decided for you in punishment work. This in-between level of misbehavior is something that would cause them to be overpunished or underpunished, depending on whether the person was a student or not because the school has no control over non-students' school lives.

Im sure as reasonable intelligent adults, they could find a solution. Especialy in the event of a fight. Which shouldnt be tolerated, and should easily get you kicked off the team.

No, a student is someone who is enrolled in the school. Neither dropouts nor people who go to different schools are students of that school (and homeschool is a different school). Besides that, your entire argument is that since taxpayers own the school, non-students should be able to play on the school's team. Assuming an age requirement, that means homeschoolers, dropouts, people who go to different public schools and people who go to private schools should all get to play on a public school's team.

You are the only one making a argument that drop outs, or kids from other schools (who dont pay taxes for other schools) should be able to play sports in said school. Private schools, and kids from other public schools have thier own sports programs. Home schooled kids have no such options.

Let me ask you a question. How do you personaly feel about home schooling in general? I think the answer might go along way in explaining why you feel they are second class, and shouldnt be provided with services thier parents have more then paid for.

[Yamato]

lack of Facilities? yep Forced? yep.

Academic criteria is already an issue sans the football. They should match that up anyway, independent of this bill. Ignoring it until it's time to play ball makes the school system look bad; don't blame the home schooled.

It's up to the school to determine limitations on facilities. Regarding football, obviously there are strict regulations for how many players you can have out on the field at a time, so facilities shouldn't be much of an issue. There's a larger pool of students that can try out for the team. Some public kids won't get chosen or won't get as much play time as a starter. But the greater talent won't be as squandered in an open and inclusive system. Giving the Tebows of the nation a chance would be a huge windfall for schools, students and communities alike.

I tried out myself after it was suggested due to talents I carried over from other sports but I was 80lbs in 8th grade, dreaded the morning practices, didn't know anybody at the new school and after a few weeks of trying my toughness I had no more interest in getting hurt. But none of that mattered, what matters is that I had the opportunity to try out like other students. Maximizing opportunities for kids is better than a militant attitude that seeks to reject kids before they even have a chance.

[sam12six]

That isnt even close to the same thing. Giving money away outta the goodness of your heart is hardly the same thing as being forced to pay, in some cases several thousand dollars a year, for a school tax. When you willfully give money for a charity, you do so knowing its for someone else.

And when you pay taxes, you know sometimes the funds are allocated to benefit someone other than yourself. You don't expect to walk into the Pentagon and have free run of the place because it's for military/government officials. You don't expect to go to Israel and have free run of their facilities because some of your tax dollars might have paid for them.

My point is that just because someone took your money to pay for something, that doesn't make the thing they paid for yours.

roaming the halls, or just walking into a class is potencialy disruptive. It wouldnt serve anyone any purpose. Playing school sports is benificial to not only the student, but possibly to the school as well. How do you consider a home school child a "non-student"?

It's already been stated several times - a student is someone enrolled at that school. Sure, if Subway's giving a student discount on subs then from their perspective anyone who can prove they are in any school is a student. From a school (any school) perspective, the only people who are students are students of THAT school.

Im sure as reasonable intelligent adults, they could find a solution. Especialy in the event of a fight. Which shouldnt be tolerated, and should easily get you kicked off the team.

What you're talking about though is revamping the entire system of handling athletes just to give special rights to homeschooled people.

You are the only one making a argument that drop outs, or kids from other schools (who dont pay taxes for other schools) should be able to play sports in said school. Private schools, and kids from other public schools have thier own sports programs. Home schooled kids have no such options.

It's just an extension of your argument that since homescoolers pay taxes on them then their kids should be allowed participate in school activities at the local public school. Well, parents of dropouts pay the same taxes and their kids should have the same rights if this is your stance.

Private schools recognized that sports offer some benefits to students and the schools alike and chose to organize their own teams and sometimes leagues. As I mentioned before, that's what homeshoolers should do if they want the same benefits of school sports programs for their kids. What they shouldn't do is try to force their way onto the teams of other schools.

Let me ask you a question. How do you personaly feel about home schooling in general? I think the answer might go along way in explaining why you feel they are second class, and shouldnt be provided with services thier parents have more then paid for.

I feel that it almost universally provides a better academic education than public systems (in every area where academic education does not conflict with religious teachings of the parents). Socially, the adults I know who were homeschooled run the spectrum from normal to complete misfit (again, depending on the parents). If I had children, I think I'd either go with private school or public with a homeschool supplement.

I think you're getting thing backasswards with the second class thing. The PUBLIC system was put in place for the "second class" citizens who couldn't afford (in money or time) to privately educate their children. Everybody pays so a basic education is available to the children of any citizen. Some people choose not to take the option and continue to privately educate. By not having them be part of the public system, they have chosen to take the advantages provided by private education (more teacher/student time, insulation from "undesirable" people) over the advantages of the public system (large population and organization for clubs, etc.).