Home schoolers playing high school sports

[lelandhorne]

It actually hurts kids who do attend the schools because those who homeschool do not pay the same amount of money to support the schools as those who attend. The prohibition against participating in athletics is simply a penalty tax to encourage parents to send their kids to the local public schools.

You have to pay taxes regardless of whether your kid attends public school or not. How exactly do those who attend pay more to support schools? Generally speaking home schoolers come from more wealthy households aswell.

The penalty tax to encourage homeschoolers to send their kids to public schools is the property tax itself by the way.

 

[lelandhorne]

Candidly, you couldn't be more wrong. Personally, I'm pretty consistent in my position that people should suffer the consequences of their choices. If you don't like the consequences, make different choices.

They already suffer by having to pay money into a system they don't use.

 

[Bama Torch in Pcola]

It actually hurts kids who do attend the schools because those who homeschool do not pay the same amount of money to support the schools as those who attend. The prohibition against participating in athletics is simply a penalty tax to encourage parents to send their kids to the local public schools.

Ok, charge a fee to let them play. Problem solved.

But I still disagree with your argument that this hurts public school kids. The reasoning is paper thin and has the whiff of a "state as sole arbiter of all that is good" philosophy.

 

[TheAccountant]

If you want your home school kid to be athletic then get him involved in non-team sports (golf, swimming, tennis, etc.) or find a club team to participate in. You made the choice that the education you can provide is better for your child than that of the public schools. However, I think part of the overall education of the public schools includes team sports and clubs provided to the student body (not any kid in the school district).

 

[TheAccountant]

They already suffer by having to pay money into a system they don't use.

That's a pretty big club.

 

[Bama Torch in Pcola]

If you want your home school kid to be athletic then get him involved in non-team sports (golf, swimming, tennis, etc.) or find a club team to participate in. You made the choice that the education you can provide is better for your child than that of the public schools. However, I think part of the overall education of the public schools includes team sports and clubs provided to the student body (not any kid in the school district).

Um, isn't education supposed to be about the kids? Your argument is straight out of the NEA Handbook of Specious Arguments.

 

[TheAccountant]

Um, isn't education supposed to be about the kids? Your argument is straight out of the NEA Handbook of Specious Arguments.

LOL, ok... I'm far from a "statist" or NEA mouthpiece.

Public school education is mainly for the public school enrollees. Again, I ask, should private school kids be allowed to participate in public school extracurricular activities?

 

[Tide1986]

Ok, charge a fee to let them play. Problem solved.

But I still disagree with your argument that this hurts public school kids. The reasoning is paper thin and has the whiff of a "state as sole arbiter of all that is good" philosophy.

I think charging a fee above and beyond any athletic fee makes sense.

Beyond property taxes and any athletic fees, all of the schools my kids have attended have charged school fee(s) to help cover operating costs and provide education and other services not provided by the basic public education system. Homeschooled kids do not pay these fees, which puts the burden of these costs on the families of those children who do attend.

 

[Bama Torch in Pcola]

LOL, ok... I'm far from a "statist" or NEA mouthpiece.

Public school education is mainly for the public school enrollees. Again, I ask, should private school kids be allowed to participate in public school extracurricular activities?

I'm not sure how that question is even pertinent as many private schools have their own sports programs. Why anyone would want to deny kids the chance to compete is beyond me. No one has been able to explain how this would hurt public school kids. And no one has denied it would be good for the home schooled. There seems to be an agenda here that has nothing to do with the kids.

 

[Bamaro]

Their parents pay property taxes, until home schooling parents can opt out of those their kids should be allowed to play sports.

The idea that property taxes go directly to schools is questionable at best. Just like lottery/gambling proceeds going directly to schools that we are all told when first voting on allowing gambling. It all goes into the vast pool of government revenues to be ultimately spent how the currently elected politicians want. Also, using the argument of property taxes would mean that home schooled kids living in an apartment would be out of luck.

 

[TheAccountant]

I'm not sure how that question is even pertinent as many private schools have their own sports programs. Why anyone would want to deny kids the chance to compete is beyond me. No one has been able to explain how this would hurt public school kids. And no one has denied it would be good for the home schooled. There seems to be an agenda here that has nothing to do with the kids.

1) Yep, agenda 21.

2) The argument is the parents pay taxes and it would be good for the kids. My question is very simple - if a private school kid doesn't make his/her team or the school doesn't offer it should he have the same right to access the public school programs as a home school kid. Their parents pay taxes too and I see no difference in private school kid and a home school kid except one being a little more private than the other.

3) Participating in sports programs is not a right afforded to every student. The vast majority of teams the kids have to try out and make. Are those public school kids who try out and don't make the team and can't participate being harmed more or less than the home school kids who don't get to participate?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

1) Yep, agenda 21.

2) The argument is the parents pay taxes and it would be good for the kids. My question is very simple - if a private school kid doesn't make his/her team or the school doesn't offer it should he have the same right to access the public school programs as a home school kid. Their parents pay taxes too and I see no difference in private school kid and a home school kid except one being a little more private than the other.

3) Participating in sports programs is not a right afforded to every student. The vast majority of teams the kids have to try out and make. Are those public school kids who try out and don't make the team and can't participate being harmed more or less than the home school kids who don't get to participate?

1) I have no idea what Agenda 21 is.

2) Yes they should.

3) Agreed.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I pay taxes and I want to join my local HS's golf team so I can play golf for free!


If my kids were in public school and didn't make the baseball team because home schoolers got spots instead, I'd be pretty po'd. There are plenty of city run, community or club sports home schoolers can participate in, they just don't want to have to pay. Parents know the deal when they decide to home school so, learn to deal with the choices you've made. This is just another example of the entitlement mentality that is ruining this country. "I'm entitled to play HS sports, even though I don't go to that HS, because I pay taxes." That's a load of you no what right there. You know how many things my taxes help fund that I don't qualify to participate in... you made the choice, live with it.

This has nothing to do with the "poor little kids" but, everything to do with the parents not wanting to pay for the other sports options at there disposal.

 

[rizolltizide]

The glaring omission in this argument is homeschooled kids are too dorky to play sports. This argument wouldn't have been missed if the participants were homeschooled.

 

[Jon]

considering that homeschoolers tend to be more affluent than the average public school kid I would argue that many pay more in taxes than many others in their school system and use none of the resources. Sure the state loses out on some fed dollars for my kids but they still get quite a bit out of my paycheck and in other taxes. This is a non-issue for me as my kids are very much not athletes but they would kill on the chess and math teams.

 

[Catfish]

The glaring omission in this argument is homeschooled kids are too dorky to play sports. This argument wouldn't have been missed if the participants were homeschooled.

Hey! I'll put my dorky bonafides up against anybody's and I played sports. :biggrin2:

 

[TrampLineman]

As long as they are required to follow the transfer guideline rules as the other students do, I have no problem with it. Once you make your choice you are stuck with that school unless you sit out a year.

 

[skrayper77]

It depends on how the insurance will be handled if the child is injured.

 

[Tide1986]

It depends on how the insurance will be handled if the child is injured.

Interesting consideration...

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I think Accoutant has a good point. If homeschoolers are going to be allowed to go to public schools to participate in sports because they do not have an organized platform to do so. Then what about the private school students who's private school doesn't offer something like girls softball or I know of some private schools who don't have a baseball team. Will they be allowed to participate? Because their parents pay taxdollars that go to fund public schools as well. I don't have a dog in this fight but it is an interesting topic.