Home schooled kids on school sporting teams?????

[Betrayer of the Light]

Parents of home-school kids are attacking schools is their children are not allowed to play on the school's sporting teams (or any other extra cirricular activities I suppose) since they don't attend school.

Personally I think the schools should not have to take the home school kids since one of the main purposes of the school teams are to have students from the school to join. That and the team is under the school's control and a parent of a home schooled child should not even have a say since they probably aren't affiliated with the school in much of a way (unless they had a kid already going there.)

So anyways, what's your opinion?

[Idlethought]

No, no, and hell no. you home school your kid, you deal with the consequences

[Decade]

Seriously, that's just bullshit. Whatever idlethought said is backed up by me 10 fold.

[MNJetter]

"You homeschool your kid, and you deal with the consequences"

....that is just wrong.

If you don't like homeschooling, find some way to punish the parents for it, not the kids. The parents don't really have to deal with many consequences, other than the pain of seeing their children be left out of normal activities.

With all of the colleges looking at extracurriculars as much as at grades nowadays, what do you suggest parents do? Have the poor kid play with him/herself? Traveling leagues and independant clubs aren't exactly cheap compared with school sports, and the sport you want to play might not even be in your area outside of the local school.

If you are homeschooled, you are still considered to be a part of that particular school district. In my district, my high school didn't have a marching band, but the other high school did, if people in my high school wanted to march, they got sent to the other band. I think of homeschooling kind of like that - if your parents don't host a sports team, you ought to be able to find it elsewhere in the district.

I don't know if the schools have a legal obligation to do it, but seriously, what is wrong with letting in a homeschooled student? In my school, it was equipment fees and parents associations that funded the thing - homeschooled kids are capable of contributing to that, so it's not like they're freeloaders. And they're technically students of the district, so it's not like they're completely unrelated.

You might want to try and teach the parents a lesson about choosing homeschooling (what have you got against homeschooling anyway?), but you don't need to ruin a kid's future in the process.

[Digital Masta]

homeschooling past the age of 6 is evil.

[Pierrot le Fou]

It depends on the tax situation I s'pose. If the homeschooled kids' parents get a refund or somesuch due to their kid not attending, I can see why the school would be reluctant to allow them to do extra-curriculars. However, if this is just an outright now, despite paying taxes or being able to contribute extra money in order to participate, then I think it's ridiculous.

[Bob]

"You homeschool your kid, and you deal with the consequences"

....that is just wrong.

If you don't like homeschooling, find some way to punish the parents for it, not the kids. The parents don't really have to deal with many consequences, other than the pain of seeing their children be left out of normal activities.

With all of the colleges looking at extracurriculars as much as at grades nowadays, what do you suggest parents do? Have the poor kid play with him/herself? Traveling leagues and independant clubs aren't exactly cheap compared with school sports, and the sport you want to play might not even be in your area outside of the local school.

If you are homeschooled, you are still considered to be a part of that particular school district. In my district, my high school didn't have a marching band, but the other high school did, if people in my high school wanted to march, they got sent to the other band. I think of homeschooling kind of like that - if your parents don't host a sports team, you ought to be able to find it elsewhere in the district.

I don't know if the schools have a legal obligation to do it, but seriously, what is wrong with letting in a homeschooled student? In my school, it was equipment fees and parents associations that funded the thing - homeschooled kids are capable of contributing to that, so it's not like they're freeloaders. And they're technically students of the district, so it's not like they're completely unrelated.

You might want to try and teach the parents a lesson about choosing homeschooling (what have you got against homeschooling anyway?), but you don't need to ruin a kid's future in the process.

If the parents were worried about ruining their kids future they wouldn't have home schooled them in the first place

[Decade]

If you don't like homeschooling, find some way to punish the parents for it, not the kids. The parents don't really have to deal with many consequences, other than the pain of seeing their children be left out of normal activities.
No, THAT'S just wrong. If the parents are feeling pain for leaving their kids out of normal activities, they shouldnt have home schooled their kids.

Would you really want to allow a kid who doesnt go to your school on your varsity team, for example? Especially if that team is one of the best in your state? Not really, cause that kid doesnt represent the school AT ALL. Not only that, I bet that's a huge motivating reason why the kids parents want to do that at all, so as to look good for colleges.

parents do? Have the poor kid play with him/herself? Traveling leagues and independant clubs aren't exactly cheap compared with school sports, and the sport you want to play might not even be in your area outside of the local school.
Not the schools problem. It's the same problem for the school as for a kid in Kazakhstan suffering from the same problem.

Tell you what, how bout we use a closer example: Should kids who go to private school be allowed on their public school team? No. Why? Cause they go to another place for their education and can be on a team there, simply because the parents choose to send their kid to another school. Now take home-schooled, their parents decided to send the kid to a place with NO sports or extra curricular activities. Tough luck, the parents messed up. If they want extracurricular activities, sign them up for intermeral (I know thats not how you spell it), or even better: A JOB.


If you are homeschooled, you are still considered to be a part of that particular school district. In my district, my high school didn't have a marching band, but the other high school did, if people in my high school wanted to march, they got sent to the other band. I think of homeschooling kind of like that - if your parents don't host a sports team, you ought to be able to find it elsewhere in the district.

I don't know if the schools have a legal obligation to do it, but seriously, what is wrong with letting in a homeschooled student? In my school, it was equipment fees and parents associations that funded the thing - homeschooled kids are capable of contributing to that, so it's not like they're freeloaders. And they're technically students of the district, so it's not like they're completely unrelated.

You might want to try and teach the parents a lesson about choosing homeschooling (what have you got against homeschooling anyway?), but you don't need to ruin a kid's future in the process.

You seem to have a couple things mixed up. Ok, so your school DOES share something with other schools. While strange and unusual, you show it happening. However, this kids parents have decided NOT to allow them to be part of their school's community. Sure, it sucks for the kid, but it's the PARENTS decision.

You cant decide to go half ass on things as a parent. If you decide not to let a kid in a school, how can you expect to let them on a sports team?

[Pierrot le Fou]

Holy short-sightedness, Decade.

If the parents are paying for the activity, and their kids are not committed to another school (in the case of a private school with that activity), then the kids should be allowed to participate.

Where's the problem in this? Lack of school spirit? Give me a break.

[LJGroh]

I agree with PLF, per usual.

[Decade]

Holy short-sightedness, Decade.

If the parents are paying for the activity, and their kids are not committed to another school (in the case of a private school with that activity), then the kids should be allowed to participate.

Where's the problem in this? Lack of school spirit? Give me a break.

The problem is that a parent decides that their kid shouldnt be in the environment where most other kids go to learn. The reason for this can be numerous ones, but regardless, they have decided they would prefer to NOT have their kid in the school community with other kids.

Then they decide "Well, I dont want my kid learning with the other kids, but I want him/her playing with them on a team." Why? Cause they want their kid to have a social life? Bull, they want it for college resumes.

And the reasoning of "If the parents are paying for the activity, and their kids are not committed to another school (in the case of a private school with that activity), then the kids should be allowed to participate" is lacking as well. Hell, a 27 year old in town pays taxes for schools as well. He lives in the community, why dont we let him be on the team too? Cause he doesnt go to school? Well, apparently, neither do the home schooled kids. What? That's different cause they're studying? Under which institution?

Yes, it sucks for the home schooled kids to be left out, but if that's the case, it's the parents fault for removing them from normal interactions with their peers. In other words, make a decision and stick with it.

I'm really against home schooling unless its extreme situations where the kid actually needs it, say he/she's physically unable to go to school.

[Bob]

Holy short-sightedness, Decade.

If the parents are paying for the activity, and their kids are not committed to another school (in the case of a private school with that activity), then the kids should be allowed to participate.

Where's the problem in this? Lack of school spirit? Give me a break.

Its a package deal. The schools provide the teams for kids that actually go to the schools. Besides, there are plenty of non-school sports teams children can participate in

[Frankey-eh]

what are some of the reasons for homeschooling kids to begin with?

right now, I think homeschooled kids chose (whether their or their parents's decision) to be homeschooled, and if that's the case, I don't think they should be able to participate in the nearby school's sports. If they are homeschooled because of some disabilities they couldn't control... why bother? If you couldn't handle a classroom learning environment, how do you expect to handle the field learning environment?

[Pierrot le Fou]

The problem is that a parent decides that their kid shouldnt be in the environment where most other kids go to learn. The reason for this can be numerous ones, but regardless, they have decided they would prefer to NOT have their kid in the school community with other kids.

Then they decide "Well, I dont want my kid learning with the other kids, but I want him/her playing with them on a team." Why? Cause they want their kid to have a social life? Bull, they want it for college resumes.

And the reasoning of "If the parents are paying for the activity, and their kids are not committed to another school (in the case of a private school with that activity), then the kids should be allowed to participate" is lacking as well. Hell, a 27 year old in town pays taxes for schools as well. He lives in the community, why dont we let him be on the team too? Cause he doesnt go to school? Well, apparently, neither do the home schooled kids. What? That's different cause they're studying? Under which institution?

Yes, it sucks for the home schooled kids to be left out, but if that's the case, it's the parents fault for removing them from normal interactions with their peers. In other words, make a decision and stick with it.

I'm really against home schooling unless its extreme situations where the kid actually needs it, say he/she's physically unable to go to school.

The problem is that a parent decides that their kid shouldnt be in the environment where most other kids go to do extra-curricular activities. The reason for this can be numerous ones, but regardless, they have decided they would prefer to NOT have their kid in the extra-curricular community with other kids.

Then they decide "Well, I dont want my kid doing extra-curriculars with the other kids, but I want him/her learning with them in a class." Why? Cause they want their kid to have an education? Bull, they want it for college resumes.

And the reasoning of "If the parents are paying for the education, and their kids are not committed to another school (in the case of a private school with that class), then the kids should be allowed to be educated" is lacking as well. Hell, a 27 year old in town pays taxes for schools as well. He lives in the community, why dont we let him be in the classes too? Cause he doesnt do club activities? Well, apparently, neither do the home activitied kids. What? That's different cause they're playing video games? Under which institution?

Yes, it sucks for the home activitied kids to be left out, but if that's the case, it's the parents fault for removing them from normal interactions with their peers. In other words, make a decision and stick with it.

I'm really against home activity-ing unless its extreme situations where the kid actually needs it, say he/she's physically unable to do extra-curriculars.

For those who don't get it, I just flipped around classes and activities, since Decade in his almighty genius thinks that non-participation in one should deny participation in the other.

After all, where's the school spirit when competing for academic excellence or honor roll membership when you don't participate in extra-curriculars? Where is the competition for national PSAT scholarships when you aren't with the school when they play the next town over?

Its a package deal. The schools provide the teams for kids that actually go to the schools. Besides, there are plenty of non-school sports teams children can participate in

Its a package deal. The schools provide the classes for kids that actually do the extra-curriculars. Besides, there are plenty of non-school educational classes children can participate in

Ditto.

The whole point is that you are making the (false) assertion that extra-curriculars are only for people who attend a school. That assertion is as true as stating that the school is only for people who attend the extra-curriculars. Both have as much logical weight.

It's really simply. Extra-curriculars are funded by tax dollars. If someone is paying tax dollars for those activities, and is otherwise eligible for those activities (which I already addressed, thanks for ignoring it Decade), then they should be allowed to participate barring any conflicting interest (such as going to a different school with said activity).

Christ, this ain't rocket science.

[Darkblade]

"your honor... *shrugs* Common Sense"

if your child is not enrolled in the school, they also have no right to participate in that schools sports program.

make your own "home team" if you want to participate. and if its football... you better damn well have a lot of children.

[Hira-Kata to Sawa]

Yeah...as modern society tends to forget, in school the focus on education should be greater than, not less than or equal to, the extra-curricular activities. Hell, I guess that's why they're "extra". The home school needs to work on boosting enrollment if they want to field a team. And anyways, what self-respecting kid would want to play on the same team as a homeschooled kid? Not me.

[NERD]

Heh, you guys don't realize something- if there was a real talented kid who can flat out play, and the school team/coach gets a hold of him/her, they will do everything in their power to make him/her play for their school. Home schooled or not.

And though I went to public school, I can certainly understand why some parents would choose to teach their kids at home instead of sending them to school, and it's because most of the time they feel that the school is not doing a good job at teaching the kids, and has less to do with the environment. Hell, I would home school my kids if I could so they may escape from the idiocy that is high school. Face it, teaching those kids on a 1-on-1 basis is not challenging, but when you got 3-4 classes of 30-40 teenagers, that's a challenge.

PLF made a good point about tax dollars spent on extracurricular activities as well. As long as your parents are paying for it, you should be able to join in, home schooled or not.

Besides, how many of you actually played for a school team? Honestly.
(member of the Chess/Math team!)

[conners]

Like PLF said home school parents still pay school taxes (unless you happen to be lucky and live in a voucher area) so their kid has a right to be on the team. The argument that the kid doesn't go to the school is all relative. I never set foot inside my highschool for class my senior year since I was taking advanced classes at the CC, yet still played on three sporting teams. The home schooled kid is no different, he just goes somewhere else for class. Most home schooled kids know the kids in school from hanging out with them at the park, the pool, etc. So its not like they are dropping strangers into the mix here.

Darkblade,
I really doubt a local high school sporting league would let a bunch of parents enter a team of their homeschooled kids, even if they could afford the equipment.

Nerd,
Ice Hockey, Chess Team, Football Team, Computer Programing Team, Basketball Team.

[Darkblade]

Heh, you guys don't realize something- if there was a real talented kid who can flat out play, and the school team/coach gets a hold of him/her, they will do everything in their power to make him/her play for their school. Home schooled or not.

starting with trying to get the kid enrolled in school.

[NERD]

starting with trying to get the kid enrolled in school.

Good point, but do you know a lot of parents would still get riled up about that? Then once the kid starts playing great and basically carries the team, suddenly the kid is a hero.

You have to be enrolled to play anyway, which is this whole debacle is all about. I say we bring in home school draft to make the sport more interesting and get support from sporting goods companies.

[Darkblade]

the only thing that would really bother me is:
who is the kid competing FOR?... its definately not for the school.. and what if they win some sort of trophy? do they take it home with them? or is it displayed in the schools trophy case??

If they could come up with some really legitimate guidelines for handling these types of exceptions, I think it would make everyone happy.

[Decade]

For those who don't get it, I just flipped around classes and activities, since Decade in his almighty genius thinks that non-participation in one should deny participation in the other.
My all "mighty-ness" stays on the college campus...and when in comparrison to talking to you. What you did was say "I cant get a good enough counter argument, so I'll just do what the kiddies do and just switch words around." Wow, you're creative. You're also forgetting a key flaw in your argument:

All extra-curricular activities and sports are not required of students, classes and schooling IS. Every kid has to take science, every kid has to take math, every kid has to take english, but every kid DOESNT have to be on the basketball team, they can take something else, or nothing at all because extra-curricular are all OPTIONAL.

What you're arguing is, "They dont have to do something thats mandatory of all other sutdents, but they should be rewarded with the same privelage they get." No, they shouldn't. I went to high school, I pay taxes, I should have as much right to play on that team than that home schooled kid then, even 4 years after graduating high school.

But hey, let's work with a kid THEIR age then. If a kid goes to private school, should he/she be able to play on the public school team? NO, they go to a DIFFERENT institution all together. When games against other schools come up, who's really representing the school? Kids in their own school, or kids from other schools? Hey, lets turn high schools into the NFL, where we can trade any player for another, that'll promote anybody in that school can be on their football team! What? A kid who doesnt go here took the last spot and I woulda got on if they hadnt? Wow, where's the fairness in that?

Extra-curriculars are funded by tax dollars. If someone is paying tax dollars for those activities, and is otherwise eligible for those activities (which I already addressed, thanks for ignoring it Decade)
What was that? Sorry, I wasnt listening, I was doing something more interesting like bouncing a ball...

[conners]

What you're arguing is, "They dont have to do something thats mandatory of all other sutdents, but they should be rewarded with the same privelage they get." No, they shouldn't. I went to high school, I pay taxes, I should have as much right to play on that team than that home schooled kid then, even 4 years after graduating high school.




Umh no. The tax argument is valid in the following sense "For a period of four years during which someone is in grades 9-12 they have the right to try out for and play on school teams (if they make it)." After that you can view your school taxes as being used to pay the next generation of doctors and lawyers, who will someday install a little computer into your heart and help your kids find loopholes in the estate taxes.

The same argument works for private school kids as well, unless of course their region happens to be on the voucher plan. Then you have a right to play where ever you spend your voucher.

[Decade]

Umh no. The tax argument is valid in the following sense "For a period of four years during which someone is in grades 9-12 they have the right to try out for and play on school teams (if they make it)." After that you can view your school taxes as being used to pay the next generation of doctors and lawyers, who will someday install a little computer into your heart and help your kids find loopholes in the estate taxes.

The same argument works for private school kids as well, unless of course their region happens to be on the voucher plan. Then you have a right to play where ever you spend your voucher.

Ok, let's work with that. What grade is the homeschooled kid legally, officially in? Just cause he/she's the same age as a kid in that grade? Obviously, there has to be an actual other argument, I simply dont know it and just want someone to fill me in.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Decade, have you already given up on actually arguing this properly? Is this going to become another 10 page thread where you keep restating that you're right while ignoring everyone else on the subject?

[Decade]

Nah, I'll probably just realize it's wasting oxygen to deal with you again and end up only ignoring you...again

[Bob]

The problem is that a parent decides that their kid shouldnt be in the environment where most other kids go to do extra-curricular activities. The reason for this can be numerous ones, but regardless, they have decided they would prefer to NOT have their kid in the extra-curricular community with other kids.

Then they decide "Well, I dont want my kid doing extra-curriculars with the other kids, but I want him/her learning with them in a class." Why? Cause they want their kid to have an education? Bull, they want it for college resumes.

And the reasoning of "If the parents are paying for the education, and their kids are not committed to another school (in the case of a private school with that class), then the kids should be allowed to be educated" is lacking as well. Hell, a 27 year old in town pays taxes for schools as well. He lives in the community, why dont we let him be in the classes too? Cause he doesnt do club activities? Well, apparently, neither do the home activitied kids. What? That's different cause they're playing video games? Under which institution?

Yes, it sucks for the home activitied kids to be left out, but if that's the case, it's the parents fault for removing them from normal interactions with their peers. In other words, make a decision and stick with it.

I'm really against home activity-ing unless its extreme situations where the kid actually needs it, say he/she's physically unable to do extra-curriculars.

For those who don't get it, I just flipped around classes and activities, since Decade in his almighty genius thinks that non-participation in one should deny participation in the other.

After all, where's the school spirit when competing for academic excellence or honor roll membership when you don't participate in extra-curriculars? Where is the competition for national PSAT scholarships when you aren't with the school when they play the next town over?



Its a package deal. The schools provide the classes for kids that actually do the extra-curriculars. Besides, there are plenty of non-school educational classes children can participate in

Ditto.

The whole point is that you are making the (false) assertion that extra-curriculars are only for people who attend a school. That assertion is as true as stating that the school is only for people who attend the extra-curriculars. Both have as much logical weight.

It's really simply. Extra-curriculars are funded by tax dollars. If someone is paying tax dollars for those activities, and is otherwise eligible for those activities (which I already addressed, thanks for ignoring it Decade), then they should be allowed to participate barring any conflicting interest (such as going to a different school with said activity).

Christ, this ain't rocket science.

The sooner you admit im right the better

[Pierrot le Fou]

Decade, I have stated this simply.

Assuming that the student fulfills the requirements for participation in the program, their parent is paying into the system that funds the program, and they do not have a conflict of interest (such as attending a school which has that activity), then there is no problem.

Is that so hard to understand?

And FYI, there is no requirement in the US of getting a high school degree. I could drop out and not take classes if I so desired. Suggesting that school is a requirement is silly, because that isn't the case, otherwise there would be no home schooling which is where the issue here stems from.

[Kaji]

How about we get some feedback from someone who's been homeschooled on the matter? Starting with a bit of background...

I was in the public school for Kindergarten, but the teacher took a personal dislike to me and put "troublemaker" and "unteachable" on my permanent record within a month of my joining her class (transferred in because I was moving across country. Started in the Baltimore schools, then moved down to Prince William County in VA). As a result of that I was put in an experimental program known as Transitional 1st Grade the next year, and those of us in the class were told that if we did well enough on our standardized tests, we'd be able to go right into 2nd grade the following year. Well, come October the principal changed, and the new one decided to scrap the program and put everyone in 1st the next year. Realizing that it'd be the same whether I did the work or not at this point, I basically lost all motivation and became quite lazy over the rest of that year and my 1st grade year.

Considering that the school had already set me on a bad track, my mom started looking at options in the local private schools.

The one we found worked really well the first year, but in 3rd and 4th grade the school decided to consolidate and teach grades 1-4 in one classroom, which naturally meant things were focused more on the 1st and 2nd graders, as they made up about 2/3 the class both years. Between outgrowing the school (it only went through 4th grade), the politics of dealing with the teachers at the school, and the fact that classes still weren't meeting the needs of either myself or my brother (who was 2 years behind), the decision was made to homeschool.


To be able to homeschool in Virginia, the parent who will be doing the instruction must have a 4-year degree (doesn't matter the subject, they just need to have one). The curriculum must be approved by the school board (and reapproved every successive year). Said curriculum must meet or exceed the Virginia Standards of Learning, and furthermore, the students must take the IOWA test (or an equivalent) every year. If they are not performing at grade level, they must enroll in the public schools the next year.

So as you can see, it's not like they get a free ticket to just sit at home and do absolutely nothing the whole year. What time school runs, what's taught, and how it's taught might be a bit unorthodox, but part of the beauty of it is that it can be tailored to how the student learns best. Some colleges have started actively seeking homeschoolers because they consider the education they get to be of a higher quality.

As to interactions with the public schools, here's the deal in Virginia:
-Homeschooled students may not earn high school credits
-Homeschooled students may not validate high school credits based on their curriculum
-Homeschooled students may not earn a high school diploma

So as we can see so far, if the student isn't enrolled in a public school for grade 9, they might as well not bother with them. They are also at that point required to get a GED, although considering Stafford County a couple years ago felt it necessary to provide their diplomas with a warranty that they could "come back for remedial education any time in the next two years if their learning should prove unsatisfactory," that doesn't say too much for having a diploma from the public schools in the first place, frankly. That aside, between more people homeschooling and more middle-aged people going back to get that college education they never got when they were younger, the GED is losing its stigma, at least with college admisions boards if nowhere else.

As to extracurricular activities in particular, the commonwealth leaves it up to the individual counties to determine whether homeschooled students can take part in extracurricular activities or not. Incidentally, things such as the PSATs are only offered through the local high schools (at least in Virginia), and so that means that they end up falling under this rule. Ended up getting our school board member involved when I was told I couldn't take them when the district superintendent's secretary decided to make that call for him, and never told him that there was a homeschooler wanting to take the test.

Frankly, as Pierrot said, homeschoolers are paying taxes that go into the schools as well. In most places, they don't get a rebate, a voucher, or anything like that for the money they put into the system, either. So in a sense, the homeschooler is paying more for those extracurricular activities than you are, because you are incurring expenses on the system by taking classes there, using the cafeteria, using the bus system, etc.

There are groups formed by homeschooling families within a region that work to provide things that the kids can't get from working at home with Mom and Dad. My little brother took his Spanish and science courses with parents in the group who had degrees in the subjects. He also participated in a bowling league, and a number of social events sponsored by the group.

Another benefit to homeschooling is that if a student is able to move ahead faster than the curriculum would allow if followed rigidly, they can move right along, as opposed to in a classroom where you either have to move at the rate of the slowest learner in the class, thus boring the ones who are learning at the intended pace, or else hold to it strictly, and damn the ones on either end, thus shortchanging those on either end. In my case, I tested well enough at the end of the first year that I skipped 6th and just went into 7th for all practical purposes, thus making up for the year the public schools had cost me. By the time I was starting 11th grade, I had signed up to take courses at the local community college, and at the end of my first semester I took the GED (at 16), got double the necessary passing score, and started going to college full time. Presently I'm getting ready to graduate with my master's in education at 22.

It's quite amusing talking to some of the people I know who are public school teachers, really. I know more than a couple who are so fed up with what they see in the school system that they've decided that when they have kids, they're going to homeschool them. What's it really say for our public education system when it's so bad that the people who work in it won't trust their own kids to it?

[Idlethought]

Actually now that I think about it a little more I think kids should definitely be allowed on public school sporting teams, and possibly even the other extra-curricular activities. I was basing my initial response on the gut reaction that "if you choose not to let your child go to a public school then you should completely cut them off from the public school." which, I admit was wrong.

Then I remembered my mother's cousin's niece(?) and how antisocial she was and she was home schooled so I was thinkin. Homeschooled kids should definitely be allowed to participate in the extra-curricular activities if even for the sole purpose of helping with the social interaction part of growing up. I mean, part of the experience of going to high school is learning how to interact with your classmates, whether they be assholes or not. The negative, though, is dealing with the shitty education taht comes with it. This way, homeschooled kids get the great education AND can learn to interact with their peers ^_^ If I think about this more I'll post more on it.
~Ciao

[Decade]

Decade, I have stated this simply.

Assuming that the student fulfills the requirements for participation in the program, their parent is paying into the system that funds the program, and they do not have a conflict of interest (such as attending a school which has that activity), then there is no problem.

Is that so hard to understand?

And FYI, there is no requirement in the US of getting a high school degree. I could drop out and not take classes if I so desired. Suggesting that school is a requirement is silly, because that isn't the case, otherwise there would be no home schooling which is where the issue here stems from.

Look, I can be a little compromising on the subject. If there's an actual extra spot on a sports team which no one in the school actually tries out for, then it should be allowed for a homeschooled kid. However, if there's kids in that school who try out for that team, and one of them doesnt get in just because a kid who doesnt go to that school gets on the team, that's where I see the problem.

A kid who goes to the school in question should always have privelage over being on a sports team than a homeschooled kid because that's their right to be on that sports team over a kid who doesnt go to that school. Should a kid from the next town over try out and be on the hometowns sports team, simply cause he wanted to be? No, of course not, and in some counties parents are paying taxes for the schools of the county, not the schools just in their town.

The homeschooled kid can meet the requirements for the team, but why should he be able to take away another kids spot from the team?

[paul]

Or, parents who want to homeschool their kids because of inadequet education in the public system, can look at this alternative:

Be more asian :P

My parents worked me hard before highschool, during summer vacation I remember one year when I had to do 3 hours of math in the morning and 3 hours of other stuff in the afternoon, per day. I still went to school regularily, although alot of the subjects were jokingly easy. And I did extra work during school days as well.

I remember when my parents were concerned the ESL programs weren't good enough, so I also learned at home, starting by memorizing 20 vocabulary words each day, their meanings and spellings and also reading a short story.

As a result of building a good foundation, school is much easier for me than alot of other people. And so, I have alot of extra time for extracurriculars :)

I don't particularily agree to this method, as I was one of those kids who didn't really listen much, other kids actually self-motivate themselves to do this studying -_-.

See? You can go to school, and keep the standards of education high.

I've actually met with numerous home schooled people, and I must say 3/4 of them gives me a sense of unease. Its just something different in the way they talk, most enounciate very clearly at least. Thats not a bad thing, its just hard for them to fit in very well. On the other hand, I've met perfectly normal home schooled people as well. (In general, they're not very good when it comes to sports)

[Pierrot le Fou]

Look, I can be a little compromising on the subject. If there's an actual extra spot on a sports team which no one in the school actually tries out for, then it should be allowed for a homeschooled kid. However, if there's kids in that school who try out for that team, and one of them doesnt get in just because a kid who doesnt go to that school gets on the team, that's where I see the problem.

A kid who goes to the school in question should always have privelage over being on a sports team than a homeschooled kid because that's their right to be on that sports team over a kid who doesnt go to that school. Should a kid from the next town over try out and be on the hometowns sports team, simply cause he wanted to be? No, of course not, and in some counties parents are paying taxes for the schools of the county, not the schools just in their town.

The homeschooled kid can meet the requirements for the team, but why should he be able to take away another kids spot from the team?
If the home-schooled kid is better, and is paying the same amount of taxes, and has absolutely no conflicts of interest with another school/team, why shouldn't they get on?

We aren't talking about the guy from the town over who doesn't pay taxes in the town in question and has a conflict of interest as far as teams are concerned.

We're not talking about someone who couldn't make their team and therefore uses another school's team as a 'second chance.'

We're talking about a kid who doesn't have any other opportunity for an extra-curricular of that sort who tries out and qualifies just like everyone else, pays taxes just like everyone else, and doesn't have another team they're committed to -- just like everyone else.

Why should they be penalized for not going to the physical school to learn? Should we also claim that people in higher academic brackets should also get the spots over people in remedial classes? Why are you so willing to discriminate on someone simply for not being in the building? What bearing does that have, everything else removed, on their ability to play on a sports team?

[Decade]

It's because it's a kid who doesnt actually go to school who wants to be on that team. Yes, I can admit (I can agree to see some things after you bring them to light), if the kids family pays the taxes for it, they can have the option to do it too, but it shouldnt be before a student who goes to the school.

I just cant see it being fair for someone being in the school being rejected or cut from a team because somebody who doesnt go to the school took their spot, it shouldnt happen. Being on a public school sports team or any other group that is funded and provided by their school should be one of the only things a current student should only be eligable in that school, not kids outside that high school. I'd hate to hear of someone at any high school who didnt get on their team just for that reason.

[gyoza]

Ok, where I'm from home-schooling is extremely extremely rare, so I really don't know enough about the technicalities of it to formulate my own opinion on this as of yet. Please look at this as a curious question than as a challenge to either side:

If you go to a certain school, and don't make the team, you're not allowed to try out for a crappy team in another school in hopes for some starter action (conflicts of interest and all that, I assume). However, I would also assume that a home-schooled kid is able to try out for as many different teams as he likes (as long as it is the right district and they're paying education taxes)? I dunno, this seems a bit to me like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

[Kaji]

Gyoza - You can only be in one elementary district, one middle district, and one senior high district unless you literally live right on the line (in which case you go to the one you pay taxes to). We're not talking about people going shopping at all the districts here, we're talking about someone going to the school that receives their tax money they're putting into the system and asking for permission to take part in some of the activities.

[Invictus]

PLF/Kaji FTW.

Thank you, that is all.

I was homeschooled, btw. (Always good to state your bias at the outset. :P)

[gyoza]

Ah, but there are many schools, each with their own teams, in one district, right? At least that's how it is where I grew up. Or is there only one team in each district?

[Kaji]

Each school is its own district. I think you're confusing "district" with "school system."

Using the Prince William County Public Schools as an example...

Elementary schools
Leesylvania
Featherstone
Parkside
Woodbridge
etc.

Middle Schools
Rippon
Woodbridge
Grand Park
etc.

High Schools
Potomac
Woodbridge
Gar-Field
Stonewall Jackson
Hylton
Freedom
etc.

The list is incomplete, but it's complete enough to show my point. The house I grew up in was in the district for Leesylvania Elementary School, Rippon Middle School, and Potomac Senior High. As a result, anyone living in my house or the surrounding community would have to go to one of those three schools if they were attending the public schools, unless they got a waiver from the system to go to one of the special schools in the area with an IB program (e.g. Stonewall Jackson or Freedom SHS were two in the area). So a person in my district couldn't just go up to Woodbridge SHS and say "I want to play for the Vikings!" because they are in Potomac's district, and Woodbridge isn't one of the alternates they can get a waiver for (which even then they need to test for first, I think. Not too sure on that). Likewise, when I applied to take the PSATs, I had to take them at Potomac because that was the high school for my district.

[quietfly]

I live in bergen county NJ, I have two children one, attends public school, the other one is in a private school. My daughter's school ( the private one) does not have sports ( it is a school specializing in creative arts). about 60% of the children in my daughters school play sports on thier local regional sports teams. you may not think it's a big deal, however when your real estate taxes are linked to your regions School budget, regardless of whether or not your children attend school there they have the right to play on a sports team there.

we pay roughly 15K a year in real estate tax, about 35 precent of that goes to the school budget, i consider that 5250 dollars my "membership fee" for my kids to participate in any school program they want. Actually they are even able to join school plays, drama clubs, debate clubs etc.. its not limited to sports but any activity that the school funds.

[Decade]

Alright, fair enough. Now a good question for you:

How would you feel if your kid who goes to the public school REALLY wanted to be on the soccer team and tried out, but then found out he got rejected simply because one kid who doesnt go to his/her school took that one spot that coulda been his/hers. Just because that ONE kid who doesnt go to the school, its not possible to be on that school team that year.

Regardless of what you pay and what you believe, you know, and know that in general, parents would go ripshit about it.

I'm not trying to say we should punish kids who are homeschooled, I'm saying that the kids in that school should be given priority to be on teams or other activities over homeschooled kids. If there's an open spot AFTERWARDS, then a homeschooled kid can get on.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You really refuse to give up, don't you Decade? You say 'fair enough' right before talking about how the exact situation she stated isn't fair for the public school kids. And that's the thing -- it is fair. Pay the taxes, meet the pre-requisites, and get the SAME shot that everyone else is getting. That's fair. Getting the scraps and leftovers despite paying the same amount as everyone else is ridiculous. Surely you can see the unfairness in that, right?

[Decade]

As much as you can see the fairness in letting a kid outside of your towns school take away a spot from a kid on that team.

As far as giving up is concerned, you dont seem like you really want to give up the douchebag position, do you champ?

[Pierrot le Fou]

I had a 13 year-old kid genius from my town on my math team. He was Junior High aged, but took classes at MIT. There were many a math competition that he took my spot for as, well, he was smarter than me (clearly). I had no issue with him being on the math team or the computer science team. I had no issue with him getting a trip to a national comp sci competition. Nobody else on the team did either. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

What does it teach about fair play if you refuse to give other people who meet the same pre-requisites a fair shot? You're suggesting that it isn't fair to people like me. It isn't fair to people like him the other way. It also isn't fair to me the other way. I am denied of competition. I am denied a chance to prove that I deserve that spot more than him. If I am just given what I want for the sole (silly) reason that I am currently at the school, rather than for the reason that I earned the spot out of the group of people who want to compete, then I am being cheated just as much as they are.

[MNJetter]

How would you feel if your kid who goes to the public school REALLY wanted to be on the soccer team and tried out, but then found out he got rejected simply because one kid who doesnt go to his/her school took that one spot that coulda been his/hers. Just because that ONE kid who doesnt go to the school, its not possible to be on that school team that year.

Decade, if your kid didn't get on the team, that means he or she was not quite as talented as the other kids who did, no matter what school they did or didn't get on. If it ever happened to my child, I would hope to use that as a learning experience for them, and encourage them to choose another extracurricular. There are a lot of extracurriculars to choose from.

That said, I don't think I stressed enough in my argument before that extracurriculars are absolutely necessary for a college application nowdays if you want to get at least a bachelor's degree. Homeschooled students don't get that opportunity in their particular "school," and their district is obligated to give equal opportunity to all students.

Each school is its own district. I think you're confusing "district" with "school system."

Not quite. My old school district (IND 196), for instance, had two high schools, three middle schools, and six elementary schools. Each student qualifies to go to one of each school within its district through individual zones drawn by the district itself. Some districts, though, like mine, have open enrollment. If you don't care, you go to your zone school. If you do, your parents can enroll you in a different school within the district, as long as there's room. \

[Decade]

It says a lot for fairness in the system. This isnt college where they will pick kids from all over the country for their team at the school, so if a guy tries on in college and doesnt make it cause a kid from colorado's better, boo hoo.

This isnt a job where if a guy from california's better than a guy whose grown up in the companies town his entire life gets the better job, it's not a big deal.

The difference is that this is one of the few, last things left in society where kids get the opportunity to be on their team and not have to worry about competition from outside their own community. Yes, that isnt how the world works, but we dont NEED to think about the world in particular instances like a kid trying out for his school's sports team.

If it's that important to play on a team, why not play intermural (yes, I know thats misspelled) leagues? That's what they're there for.

[MNJetter]

and not have to worry about competition from outside their own community

That's the point. Homeschooled kids are, legally and geographically, in the same community as the rest of the high school. When I got cut from my high school volleyball team, I didn't look for a scapegoat to blame who might be from another district, I tried out for the soccer team and spent 4 great years on it.

Competition in schools is one of the things that helps kids grow. Bringing in more competition is good for them.

And intramural is a joke. I did intramural sports for a while. They're like community education - just something you do to pass the time. Travelling leagues are different, but those are also hella expensive. So only the wealthy ones would get any decent sports opportunity.

[MNJetter]

Addition to last post:

Also, there is no intramural Quiz Bowl, or Math Club, or grade-school-level Concert Band, etc. What would our first-chair flutist have done if our district didn't allow homeschooled kids in extracurriculars? Sat at home and played the flute by herself? That just wouldn't cut it in a college application.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

err... I was homeschooled for a while, and I took high school classes, played in band, and was in the plays. I've never met anyone who cared that I was homeschooled or not, I just gave it my all and did it because I enjoyed it. For all the time that I was homeschooled, I did just that... what I enjoyed. And no one gave me any crap for being homeschooled.

[Pierrot le Fou]

It says a lot for fairness in the system. This isnt college where they will pick kids from all over the country for their team at the school, so if a guy tries on in college and doesnt make it cause a kid from colorado's better, boo hoo.

This isnt a job where if a guy from california's better than a guy whose grown up in the companies town his entire life gets the better job, it's not a big deal.

The difference is that this is one of the few, last things left in society where kids get the opportunity to be on their team and not have to worry about competition from outside their own community.

But that's the whole thing. As stated, these kids ARE a part of the community. They live in the same school district, they go to the same parks, they live in the same neighborhoods, and they drink the same water. You're stating that they should be excluded from the community despite living in the community.

Yes, that isnt how the world works, but we dont NEED to think about the world in particular instances like a kid trying out for his school's sports team.

If it's that important to play on a team, why not play intermural (yes, I know thats misspelled) leagues? That's what they're there for.

No. Intramural leagues are there for people who can't make the cut on their high school sport team or aren't as big into competition. And we DO need to think of fairness in PUBLIC schooling, because it is PUBLIC.

[quietfly]

Alright, fair enough. Now a good question for you:

How would you feel if your kid who goes to the public school REALLY wanted to be on the soccer team and tried out, but then found out he got rejected simply because one kid who doesnt go to his/her school took that one spot that coulda been his/hers. Just because that ONE kid who doesnt go to the school, its not possible to be on that school team that year.

Regardless of what you pay and what you believe, you know, and know that in general, parents would go ripshit about it.

I'm not trying to say we should punish kids who are homeschooled, I'm saying that the kids in that school should be given priority to be on teams or other activities over homeschooled kids. If there's an open spot AFTERWARDS, then a homeschooled kid can get on.


If my son tried out and did not make it, I would be disapointed for him, but if he didn't make the team he didn't make the team. thats pretty simple. we have Travel teams here that go all over the country for little league baseball, and it is a try out system. if your go enough you get in. actually Thats the way it should be. everyone is entitled to the same chance. thats about as simple as i can put it.

[Decade]

Yes, I understand if the reason was that other kids in the school who tried out were better and thats why he didnt get in. But if his spot was taken away by a kid who DIDNT go to the school, I do see a difference. Why should my kid not have a spot on the team because a kid who doesnt go to to that school took it from him? As a parent, I want to give him the most opportunity in whatever he wants as possible, and this being one of the few things in life I can truly see him being more appropriate than a kid not in that school, even if that kid might have better abilities.

I want to make this clear, I'm not saying this to be mean to homeschooled kids. I dont want to make it sound like I dont care for them, it already sucks as it is for them to be homeschooled, but the reasoning behind my stances is because I care about kids in public schools. Everything in life is a competition, almost nothing can be achieved without fighting for it. School sports teams are one of the last things a kid has a good chance to get to join without having to compete with people outside their own school to get into (like college, jobs, grad school, etc). Not having to compete with kids outside of that school is one of the only benefits a high schooler gets anymore, let them have it.

[NERD]

School sports teams are one of the last things a kid has a good chance to get to join without having to compete with people outside their own school to get into (like college, jobs, grad school, etc). Not having to compete with kids outside of that school is one of the only benefits a high schooler gets anymore, let them have it.

You are dreaming Decade. High school sports teams without any competition? Yeah right. Even the choir/school marching band/orchestra has fierce competitions, not counting any home schooled kids.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Let me make a one-sentence rebuttal to your entire argument before breaking everything else down:
Were the kid not being homeschooled he would be in that school and eligible for the team meaning that you are simply punishing the kid for making a choice that benefits the school with smaller class sizes and a higher budget per student.

You say you're not trying to be mean to homeschooled kids. Coulda fooled me!

No, THAT'S just wrong. If the parents are feeling pain for leaving their kids out of normal activities, they shouldnt have home schooled their kids.
It's the same problem for the school as for a kid in Kazakhstan suffering from the same problem.
Now take home-schooled, their parents decided to send the kid to a place with NO sports or extra curricular activities. Tough luck, the parents messed up.
However, this kids parents have decided NOT to allow them to be part of their school's community. Sure, it sucks for the kid, but it's the PARENTS decision.
Yes, it sucks for the home schooled kids to be left out, but if that's the case, it's the parents fault for removing them from normal interactions with their peers. In other words, make a decision and stick with it.

I'm really against home schooling unless its extreme situations where the kid actually needs it, say he/she's physically unable to go to school.

And that's just from the first page.

In summary, in Decade's world, it's not mean to homeschool kids (or intending to be mean to homeschooled kids) to state that their parents made a mistake, that their tax dollars are less respectable than other kids', that their parents mistakes result in their suffering regardless of what they want, that the best man doesn't win if he isn't in an in group, and that 'public' education isn't really public.

Bullshit.

You have a chip on your shoulder against homeschooling. I don't know why, but you do. And as a result, you want to punish homeschoolers. You aren't using logic, you just hate the decision the parents made and therefore want to punish the kids. Your position makes NO logical sense. You haven't presented a SINGLE argument that holds rational objective water.

So homeschooled kids have as much claim to that spot as a kid in Kazakhstan? I wasn't aware that Kazakh kids were paying taxes in a US school district.

So elite school sports programs shouldn't recruit elite athletes despite the fact that they pay taxes and live in district because it wouldn't be fair to the person who couldn't make the cut? Yeah, some elite school program right there.

So parents should be punished by losing their tax dollars while removing a burden on society by preventing their kids from participating in extra-curriculars? That'll sure teach them to benefit the system!

And now you're arguing that this BENEFITS competition?! Life is a competition. You're suggesting lowering the bar and excluding people because you want your kid to win that competition. He sure fought for that spot, eh?

[MNJetter]

Why should my kid not have a spot on the team because a kid who doesnt go to to that school took it from him?

This implies that your kid deserved it in the first place. He or she might be last in a line of 50 kids who got cut. In that case, it wouldn't matter if they had a homeschooler or Michael Jordan on the school team - your child would have lost fair and square, and as a parent, it would be your duty to get over it and encourage your child to do something that they're better at. You have no way of knowing if somebody else "took his spot," because it was never his spot in the first place.

[Decade]

as for PLF's response, all I read was the quotes he put on me, where he fails to realize I'm saying that the kids parents are the ones at fault. Good job champ, you've won your title again :rolleyes: Thanks for reminding me that discussing anything with you is as good a use of oxygen as talking to a wall.

This implies that your kid deserved it in the first place. He or she might be last in a line of 50 kids who got cut. In that case, it wouldn't matter if they had a homeschooler or Michael Jordan on the school team - your child would have lost fair and square, and as a parent, it would be your duty to get over it and encourage your child to do something that they're better at. You have no way of knowing if somebody else "took his spot," because it was never his spot in the first place.
True, this is correct in this case. But if you know for a fact that he was just over the line and could have been on that team if that one homeschooled kid wasnt on it, it just hurts. Yes, I understand what I'm arguing is also a specific case, but if it aint my kid its another kid in the school who got put in that position.

But like you said, I accept the flaw that most of the time, you have no way of knowing if somebody else "took his spot." You're right, I'll concede to that. But it's still true for any one kid in general from the school with this case. I understand what you're trying to argue, but I just still feel its just morally wrong for this to happen. Yes, I know it can also be morally wrong to deprive a homeschooled kid from any extracurricular school activity, but I really feel the priority should go to kids who attend school normally. :meh: Sorry, this is just my belief, you just have to accept I'm not gonna concede to it anymore than you will to yours.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You know what Decade? You're an arrogant cunt. I realize I'm cockier than most people, but I have a reason to be -- I tend to be logical, and I tend to be right. Not shockingly, this is another of those times when I'm correct.

You hate homeschooling. Fine, no biggie, your choice, don't homeschool your kids. I'm fine with that.

You hate parents who homeschool their kids. Fine, a little silly I think, but you can be petty, I hardly expect more from you at this point.

But now you're taking it out on the kids. You're saying that they shouldn't be homeschooled, and if they are they should be punished by being put at the end of the queue for tryouts. You're saying that they shouldn't get in -- regardless of their ability -- until every other soul who wants to has gotten on, regardless of THEIR ability as well.

You claim that this is because the kid isn't in the school. Sure. That makes sense. Until you put two and two together.

If you had your way, the kid wouldn't be homeschooled. If the kid wasn't homeschooled he'd be in the school. If he were in the school, he could try out of the extra-curricular and get accepted on his merits over your kid anyway. In addition he would make class sizes larger, reduce funding per student, personal attention, and harm your kid's education as well as taking his spot on the debate team/basketball team/cheerleading squad.

You're arguing both sides of the coin in a ridiculous irrational emotion-filled rant which holds no water. At all.

And the worst part? You think your argument makes sense.

It doesn't. Your argument is shit. Flat-out shit. It's been detailed in this thread several times by several people other than me. It's been agonizingly gone over in detail by me in this thread. You refuse to listen to me because it would involve getting it through your thick stubborn skull that you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.

I am wrong sometimes. I do admit when I'm wrong (and there have been plenty of occasions on these boards where I have stated as much). This is not one of those times.

You want the 'public' taken out of public education. You want public education to be nepotistic. You want favourites to be played not because of a reason like tax money, ability, or fairness, but because you want your kid to get what he wants. And the biggest irony is that your kid is getting more out of the system because of people like the homeschooled kid, yet you despise him for giving you an advantage and want to disadvantage him more.

Now if this is just an opinion that you will readily concede is irrational and has no basis in logic, I will gladly lay off you. But if you continue to insist that this somehow makes some sort of 'sense' using principles of logic, I'm going to have to mock you until the cows come home. Jesus Christ almighty, this ain't rocket science, we're talking about some really basic logic here.

[Decade]

You know what Decade? You're an arrogant cunt.
You are what you eat, ask your mom.

I realize I'm cockier than most people,
Not really cockier, you're just an asshole. Again, you are what you eat.

but I have a reason to be -- I tend to be logical, and I tend to be right.
Logically speaking, there have been various people who disagree. But hey, we can agree you're special, champ :innocent:

Not shockingly, this is another of those times when I'm correct.
And I'm arrogant? Jesus, Mary and Joseph son, you've got problems, and no, I aint helpin you with any of em, I'm cutting you off (again) here. Have fun with that there...whatever it is you're doing. Just remember whenever you get all flustered cause somebody doesnt agree or someone doesnt just seem to see "you're right,"

I think you're special :innocent:

[Pierrot le Fou]

You really are daft, aren't you Decade? You're patently wrong, you're proved patently wrong, and instead of actually addressing the gaping holes in your argument and logic, you resort to childish name-calling?

I'm entirely aware that I'm arrogant, and I'm entirely aware that I call you a host of names. The difference is that I admit I'm arrogant, and I'm only calling a spade a spade in the process of disemboweling your arguments.

So how about you step up and show some responsibility for once in your posting career on this site? Perhaps then people would take your arguments seriously and actually consider that you may have something worthwhile to say. As it is, all you seem to do is beat horses into the ground by ignoring arguments against you while restating the same things as if the repetition will make them true.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, and pretending that you can, all the while fervently arguing the same points over and over just makes you look foolish.

You're just making yourself look bad at this point. This is the second thread I've seen you continue arguing well beyond the point when a rational person would quit. This is strike two. Nobody respects someone who's too arrogant to concede that they're wrong, or to concede that their argument was crap. And that's where you're headed, no matter how many 'witty retorts' using juvenile name-calling devoid of addressing the fundamental issues with your argument you make.

So I have an idea. Read over the thread again. From post one. Look at your arguments. Look at how they were refuted. Note how often your argument shifts with the wind and the fact that your original points were refuted. Then think really hard about whether or not this is a time you should be running off your mouth as if you're right.

[Decade]

I'm entirely aware that I'm arrogant, and I'm entirely aware that I call you a host of names. The difference is that I admit I'm arrogant, and I'm only calling a spade a spade in the process of disemboweling your arguments.
Not only are you arrogant, not only will I throw you a bone and admit I can be arrogant, you're also totally hypocritical.

If you disagree with someone, you belittle them because of it. And of course, when someone does it back they're obviously just showing they're a dumbass and "an arrogant cunt" just because "you dont agree with PLF." Screw that.

Not only was I the bigger man last time and just decided to start ignoring you, I was big enough to see if I could try one more time to have a debate with you AGAIN here. It doesnt matter that I dont agree with you, you tried to restate your case again, and I responded. You didnt respond AGAIN until after I talked with someone else. It doesnt matter how many people may agree with 1 argument, people can still NOT agree with you (that's why we have differences in people, like republicans and democrats, or in terms you'll understand "apples and oranges"), just accept it.

Not only that, I didnt leave it at "youre right, im wrong (or vice-versa)," I left it at:


I understand what you're trying to argue, but I just still feel its just morally wrong for this to happen. Yes, I know it can also be morally wrong to deprive a homeschooled kid from any extracurricular school activity, but I really feel the priority should go to kids who attend school normally. Sorry, this is just my belief, you just have to accept I'm not gonna concede to it anymore than you will to yours.

YOU resort to name calling, YOU resort to arrogance, YOU turn out to be the most childish person I have ever spoken to on these forums. If you dont like what I have to say, JUST DONT READ IT (Hell, I've learned that lesson myself on these forums and abide by it, if you're a fregin mod, why cant you?).

This is upsurd, I refuse to have any further dialogue with you. In short, I'm not going to read any more posts you make anymore, regardless of its contents. If you dont like what I have to say, it's very simple, YOU CAN DO THE SAME. You're say you're a TEACHER and you still havent realized this? That's damn sad.

Look, you're obviously avid about making arguments, go on and have fun with that, I'm just not gonna have one with you anymore. From now on, if you continue to choose to read my posts and want to have a argument about it, have it with yourself, I aint participating anymore.

[Kaji]

If the system were concerned with making people not feel bad, nobody would ever get cut from the team. You think it's any easier for the person who narrowly got cut when nobody from outside tried out? Maybe he just had a bad day when the chips were down. Fact of the matter is, that's life. I'd rather have my kid learning about how he doesn't always get his way and how he has to work hard to get some things in life than teach him that the bar will always be lowered to where he can pass it (which is sadly true of public education these days).

Besides, what good is it to have a kid on the team if he's just sitting there keeping the bench warm? If he gets cut from the team and wants to be on it badly enough, you can bet that you'll find him practicing every free moment he gets.

"But then he doesn't have any free time to enjoy being a kid!"

He's banking his time now so that he can do what he wants later, and chances are is still enjoying it in the process. If he wasn't, then I'd be questioning why he's doing it in the first place. That aside, teaching him that the heavens will be pushed aside and time will be made for him to do whatever he wants when he wants to is a bad lesson because once again, the world is not going to bend to his whims when he's on his own. I'd much rather have him benefit from a (possibly hard) lesson in time management and learn skills that will get him where he wants to be in life.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Not only are you arrogant, not only will I throw you a bone and admit I can be arrogant, you're also totally hypocritical.

You're a damn moderator on these forums, and yet you dont even condone by the same rules that you're supposed to uphold. Rule fuckin 1 is:


Yea, I've done this too, but Ill give you the same offer of checking back on threads and see whose really been so childish to start the process of doing that. And of course, when you do it back you're obviously just showing you're a dumbass and "an arrogant cunt" just because "you dont agree with PLF." Screw that.

I'm not a moderator, and I'm not on your case simply because you disagree with me. I'm on your case because your argument makes no sense.

Not only was I the bigger man last time and just decided to start ignoring you, I was big enough to see if I could try one more time to have a debate with you AGAIN here. It doesnt matter that I dont agree with you, you tried to restate your case again, and I responded. You didnt respond AGAIN until after I talked with someone else. It doesnt matter how many people may agree with 1 argument, people can still NOT agree with you (that's why we have differences in people, like republicans and democrats, or in terms you'll understand "apples and oranges"), just accept it.

You didn't decide to try if you could have a debate with me in this thread. You posted first. You opened your mouth first in this thread, and you did so by ridiculing the concept that people could believe something other than your opinion.

I actually didn't see your first response to me, believe it or not, until after I had made that post. And once I did see it, I responded to it.

And about that little exchange, I simply asked:
"Decade, have you already given up on actually arguing this properly? Is this going to become another 10 page thread where you keep restating that you're right while ignoring everyone else on the subject?"

Your response?
"Nah, I'll probably just realize it's wasting oxygen to deal with you again and end up only ignoring you...again"

Sure you're the bigger man. That's why you made a snide remark like that rather than, y'know, actually proving your point.

Not only that, I didnt leave it at "youre right, im wrong (or vice-versa)," I left it at:

I understand what you're trying to argue, but I just still feel its just morally wrong for this to happen. Yes, I know it can also be morally wrong to deprive a homeschooled kid from any extracurricular school activity, but I really feel the priority should go to kids who attend school normally. Sorry, this is just my belief, you just have to accept I'm not gonna concede to it anymore than you will to yours.

How do you reconcile that quote with your original statement?
Seriously, that's just bullshit. Whatever idlethought said is backed up by me 10 fold.
If you don't like homeschooling, find some way to punish the parents for it, not the kids. The parents don't really have to deal with many consequences, other than the pain of seeing their children be left out of normal activities.
No, THAT'S just wrong. If the parents are feeling pain for leaving their kids out of normal activities, they shouldnt have home schooled their kids.
Not the schools problem. It's the same problem for the school as for a kid in Kazakhstan suffering from the same problem.
You seem to have a couple things mixed up. Ok, so your school DOES share something with other schools. While strange and unusual, you show it happening. However, this kids parents have decided NOT to allow them to be part of their school's community. Sure, it sucks for the kid, but it's the PARENTS decision.

You cant decide to go half ass on things as a parent. If you decide not to let a kid in a school, how can you expect to let them on a sports team?
And the reasoning of "If the parents are paying for the activity, and their kids are not committed to another school (in the case of a private school with that activity), then the kids should be allowed to participate" is lacking as well. Hell, a 27 year old in town pays taxes for schools as well. He lives in the community, why dont we let him be on the team too? Cause he doesnt go to school? Well, apparently, neither do the home schooled kids. What? That's different cause they're studying? Under which institution?

I could go on and on with quotes, but all of these are rationalizing what you later claim is 'just a moral belief.' Bullshit. If it were just a moral belief, then it couldn't be rationalized, because it's irrational and simply a fundamental difference of belief.

You changed your argument and reasoning several times in this thread, and refuse to own up to it. That's a cop out. You may not be saying you're right and I'm wrong, but you're trying to put what you originally claimed was a rational belief beyond reproach by declaring it to be in the realm of belief and opinion based on morality rather than rationality.

I can't reconcile those, and it's simply dishonest to pretend that you were 'playing nice' with the 'It's just my belief!' angle.

YOU resort to name calling, YOU resort to arrogance, YOU turn out to be the most childish person I have ever spoken to on these forums. If you dont like what I have to say, JUST DONT READ IT (Hell, I've learned that lesson myself on these forums and abide by it, if you're a fregin mod, why cant you?).

No, I don't 'resort' to name-calling. You did that. Even while calling you names I refuted your arguments. YOU resorted to name-calling. YOU resorted to intellectual dishonesty. YOU resorted to this nonsense. And YOU are the one claiming to be above childishness.

This is upsurd, I refuse to have any further dialogue with you. In short, I'm not going to read any more posts you make anymore, regardless of its contents. If you dont like what I have to say, it's very simple, YOU CAN DO THE SAME. You're a mod and you STILL havent realized this? What's worse, you say you're a TEACHER and you still havent realized this? That's damn sad.

Yes, I am a teacher. And you know what? When a student makes a mistake, I try to correct them nicely the first few times. I did the same here. I was not outright rude for quite a few posts in this thread. You simply changed your argument and kept on chugging as if there were no icebergs around and you didn't have a sinking boat in the form of an argument.

Look, you're obviously avid about making arguments, go on and have fun with that, I'm just not gonna have one with you anymore. From now on, if you continue to choose to read my posts and want to have a argument about it, have it with yourself, I aint participating anymore.

Congratulations. Burying your head in the sand to avoid criticism is a very marvelous way to go through life.

[erbiumfiber]

In New Hampshire, it's the law that homeschooled kids can join extracurriculars- or even take a class or two. My NH sister has homeschooled all 4 of her daughters at one time or another (the oldest until high school) and they took some classes (like art and music) at the local school and the youngest is on the track team in middle school (whatever that consists of- I doubt there were try-outs for this...)

"House Bill 631 became law in 2002. This law would seem to require that schools provide opportunities for homeschoolers to take classes and to participate in extracurricular activities at the school. According to the official summary:

This bill provides that home educated pupils shall have access to curricular courses or cocurricular programs offered by the school district in which the pupil resides, and that local school boards may establish a policy regulating participation in curricular courses and cocurricular programs, provided the policy is not more restrictive for non-public or home educated pupils than the policy governing the school district's resident pupils.

Additionally, the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association, which governs sports among high school teams, has created detailed rules permitting local school districts to allow homeschoolers to participate in such activities."

http://www.mv.com/ipusers/chenh/lawsummary.html

Note that NH is a very pro-homeschooling state because of the huge numbers of children that are homeschooled there. My sister chose to do it with her three youngest (adopted Russian) daughters to get them to a point where they could keep up in class in English. They also had a lot of behavioral and social issues from their screwed-up life in Russia (with their alcoholic mother and various abusive Johns). ESL is not a very strong program in NH schools.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

You know, Decade, it seems you have a very... closed view of homeschooling. Some do it for religious reasons, but mom pulled me out of Jr. High because of harassment. There really is nothing in the world like a couple hundred of your peers chanting "Freak! Freak! Freak!" at you. I'd hope that if your child were in a similar situation, you'd do something to get them out of it.

[Kass]

Students in extracurricular activities must maintain certain standards of behavior and minimum GPAs. (I'm leaving out that some coaches/teachers cheat, because cheating is the exception not the rule and not applicable to this anway.) For meeting those standards, students are rewarded with the opportunity to participate in sports/clubs/etc. Participation in these activities is NOT a given. It is provided to a select few qualified to participate. (Tryouts.) Not even all public school students are allowed to participate.

Homeschooled students are not required to meet ANY standards. Up until they take entrance exams for college, there is no testing or minimum acheivement levels for the students. Since the majority of homeschooled students in the US are removed from school for religious reasons and educational reasons second, there is no reall assurance that a child is receiving a better education. They are receiving a more biased education.

Since homeschooled students do not have to maintain the minimum standards as every other publicly schooled student, they have not earned the right to participate in the extracurriculars, especially since many athletic endeavors are funded heavily by parental booster clubs that raise money for the activities. That would be private money, not public. Uniforms and much of the safety equipment is often purchased by the student and their family.

Just because you pay taxes, does not entitle you to access everything in this country. Your federal taxes fund military bases here in the US, but if you have no reason to be there, you aren't allowed acess. Your federal taxes fund the Eisenhower interstate highway system, but between the hours of 7 am and 10 am going eastbound and 4 pm and 6:30 pm going westbound, you are not allowed to travel Interstate 66 inside the Beltway unless you have two or more people in your car. You will get a $400 ticket if you do. Your local taxes fund police training facilities, but if you have no reason to be there, you are not permitted to be there. Your local taxes pay for schools, but if you have no children enrolled in that school, you are not allowed to be there orparticipate in its activities. You will be escorted out by a police officer.

Wait. Let me say that again. If you have no children enrolled in a school, you are NOT permitted to be on school property or participate in its activities. Even if you do have a child enrolled, you have to sign in and get permission to be there; you cannot go to classrooms without an expressed/approved reason; you cannot disrupt activities or classes; you cannot you cannot attend practices for extracurricular activites; you cannot linger on school property; and you cannot drop off or even remove your child from the premises without signing in and clearing it with the office staff.

Tax funding for schools isn't apportioned based on the size of the tax base or overall population. It is apportioned based on enrollment. Schools are funded per student. All the costs from textbooks to the electric bill are added up and a per student average is figured and that money is provided to the school by the school district. That is why there is such a drive to make sure enrollment is up within the first month of school. That is when all their funding is determined for the upcoming fiscal year. After that, every new student basically is not funded until the next count.

It is reasonable to look at the finances and assume that if a child is not enrolled in school, money is not allocated toward their education and that money that would have gone toward it has been reallocated elsewhere. Schools aren't sitting around saying, "Oh goody, he's not attending school. That means we have extra to spend on something else."

Schools LOSE money for every child that is not enrolled. Homeschooling costs public schools money. The administrators and boards hate it. It's also why the teachers' unions are so adamantly opposed to any legislation that would make homeschooling easier or more "recognized" for the purposes of college enrollment.

So all that tax money that is allegedly available for homeschooled kids, isn't there at all. Schools were never given funding for that child.

[Decade]

Really? Because I thought by paying my taxes I got to do all that cool stuff, like get into government buildings and military bases and fly the planes I helped pay for. But wait, paying taxes dont let you do JUST anything you want?


:watson: Guess homeschooled kids should be in school if they wanna play on that schools teams.

[Kaji]

Kass, you're in Virginia, so read my first post on the matter. Homeschoolers are held to the same standards as the public schools are, if not higher. If they don't meet the SOLs and prove it every year through standardized test results, they are required to go back into the public school system the following year, and take a placement test before doing so so that the schools know where they belong (except for in high school, where you're effectively a freshman no matter what). I was living in Woodbridge when I was being homeschooled, so I can't imagine the rules are that different in your locality.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Students in extracurricular activities must maintain certain standards of behavior and minimum GPAs. (I'm leaving out that some coaches/teachers cheat, because cheating is the exception not the rule and not applicable to this anway.) For meeting those standards, students are rewarded with the opportunity to participate in sports/clubs/etc. Participation in these activities is NOT a given. It is provided to a select few qualified to participate. (Tryouts.) Not even all public school students are allowed to participate.

Homeschooled students are not required to meet ANY standards. Up until they take entrance exams for college, there is no testing or minimum acheivement levels for the students. Since the majority of homeschooled students in the US are removed from school for religious reasons and educational reasons second, there is no reall assurance that a child is receiving a better education. They are receiving a more biased education.

Since homeschooled students do not have to maintain the minimum standards as every other publicly schooled student, they have not earned the right to participate in the extracurriculars, especially since many athletic endeavors are funded heavily by parental booster clubs that raise money for the activities. That would be private money, not public. Uniforms and much of the safety equipment is often purchased by the student and their family.

Assuming that the student fulfills the requirements for participation in the program, their parent is paying into the system that funds the program, and they do not have a conflict of interest (such as attending a school which has that activity), then there is no problem.

To be able to homeschool in Virginia, the parent who will be doing the instruction must have a 4-year degree (doesn't matter the subject, they just need to have one). The curriculum must be approved by the school board (and reapproved every successive year). Said curriculum must meet or exceed the Virginia Standards of Learning, and furthermore, the students must take the IOWA test (or an equivalent) every year. If they are not performing at grade level, they must enroll in the public schools the next year.

I stipulated that I presuppose they meet the requirements. Kaji stated that they have to meet standards in Virginia where he was homeschooled.

Just because you pay taxes, does not entitle you to access everything in this country. Your federal taxes fund military bases here in the US, but if you have no reason to be there, you aren't allowed acess. Your federal taxes fund the Eisenhower interstate highway system, but between the hours of 7 am and 10 am going eastbound and 4 pm and 6:30 pm going westbound, you are not allowed to travel Interstate 66 inside the Beltway unless you have two or more people in your car. You will get a $400 ticket if you do. Your local taxes fund police training facilities, but if you have no reason to be there, you are not permitted to be there. Your local taxes pay for schools, but if you have no children enrolled in that school, you are not allowed to be there orparticipate in its activities. You will be escorted out by a police officer.

Wait. Let me say that again. If you have no children enrolled in a school, you are NOT permitted to be on school property or participate in its activities. Even if you do have a child enrolled, you have to sign in and get permission to be there; you cannot go to classrooms without an expressed/approved reason; you cannot disrupt activities or classes; you cannot you cannot attend practices for extracurricular activites; you cannot linger on school property; and you cannot drop off or even remove your child from the premises without signing in and clearing it with the office staff.

Tax funding for schools isn't apportioned based on the size of the tax base or overall population. It is apportioned based on enrollment. Schools are funded per student. All the costs from textbooks to the electric bill are added up and a per student average is figured and that money is provided to the school by the school district. That is why there is such a drive to make sure enrollment is up within the first month of school. That is when all their funding is determined for the upcoming fiscal year. After that, every new student basically is not funded until the next count.

It is reasonable to look at the finances and assume that if a child is not enrolled in school, money is not allocated toward their education and that money that would have gone toward it has been reallocated elsewhere. Schools aren't sitting around saying, "Oh goody, he's not attending school. That means we have extra to spend on something else."

Schools LOSE money for every child that is not enrolled. Homeschooling costs public schools money. The administrators and boards hate it. It's also why the teachers' unions are so adamantly opposed to any legislation that would make homeschooling easier or more "recognized" for the purposes of college enrollment.

So all that tax money that is allegedly available for homeschooled kids, isn't there at all. Schools were never given funding for that child.

we pay roughly 15K a year in real estate tax, about 35 precent of that goes to the school budget, i consider that 5250 dollars my "membership fee" for my kids to participate in any school program they want. Actually they are even able to join school plays, drama clubs, debate clubs etc.. its not limited to sports but any activity that the school funds.

I think there's a hole in your logic here too Kass. People need to pay property taxes. A percentage of those property taxes goes to the district's schools. Perhaps between schools the budget is apportioned on a per-student basis (as a ratio to students in the entire district, so that schools get more money for more students and less for fewer students), but it makes no sense to state that with more money in the pot, and fewer students taking a piece of that pot, that the money spent per student would be REDUCED by home schoolers.

Where is that money going if not to the school district? If 35% of property taxes are budgeted to go to the schools (as in quietfly's case), why would the amount change according to the number of enrolled students?

I can only see such redistribution working proportionally to the sizes of the schools. If there are 2 schools in the district, one with 500 students, and one with 1000 students, then the school with 1000 students would get twice that of the one with 500 students (give or take non-student-quantity related expenses like building maintenence/utilities, etc.). If 500 of the second school's population decided to homeschool, then the budget apportionment for each school would be equal, but because there are a third less students still receiving the tax apportioned to the schools, the amount per student would increase overall (though not directly proportionally due to the reality of having too many teachers and expenses which can't be lowered proportionally to the students as easily).

If you have information that somehow supports that the money just magically disappears from the school district, please share it, but I just can't see where it would disappear too. I can see federal/state funding (which deals with a far larger pool of schools) being distributed on a per-student basis, but I cannot see local property taxes working the same way (for the reasons I described above). A good bulk of at least suburban school budgets are funded for a large part through property tax, which is why more expensive towns tend to have better schools (due to higher property tax) while cities tend to have worse schools for the same reason.

I understand what you're trying to say about tax dollars not granting you carte blanche to do whatever you want. And I agree in principle. But I'm not asking for admission to military bases or anything equally absurd here. I'm talking about a LOCAL issue of paying LOCAL taxes and being denied a LOCAL privelege. We're not talking federal funding here. Property taxes can be quite hefty, and you are being denied the primary benefit of those taxes while the rest of the town is benefitting.

[Kass]

Kass, you're in Virginia, so read my first post on the matter. Homeschoolers are held to the same standards as the public schools are, if not higher. If they don't meet the SOLs and prove it every year through standardized test results, they are required to go back into the public school system the following year, and take a placement test before doing so so that the schools know where they belong (except for in high school, where you're effectively a freshman no matter what). I was living in Woodbridge when I was being homeschooled, so I can't imagine the rules are that different in your locality.

Virginia is one of the few exceptions. Most states do not have such stringent regulations regarding home schooling.

Yes, you took the SOLs, but you were not required to maintain a GPA in order to participate like the other students. You were not required to maintain certain codes of conduct during the school day. You were not required to meet attendance guidelines. You were not held to the same standards for participation in extracurricular activities that the students who went to school everyday were.

For educational purposes, you were required to keep up with your age group (which is a good thing). That's it.

Pierrot le Fou, it would be nice if the amount spent per student magically increased just because 500 kids were home schooled, but it doesn't. While you're thinking logically, budgets are handled based on pressing need and politically. I also said schools, not districts for a reason. Administrative costs, debt payments and spending per student are three wholly separate accounting strings. Most school districts have significant bond holdings and deficits that have to be paid before increases are made to teachers' salaries and spending per student. Most are overcrowded and have massive ongoing construction projects. (School districts are required to build new schools based on county population increases. There is a magical formula that figures for every certain amount a population increases, the number of school-aged increases by a certain amount and the need for a new school occurs. Developers are also mandated to allocate a certain amount of land per number of new housing units for school districts.)

Three years ago, the PTAs in Fairfax County were buying copy paper for the schools to start the year off because the budget was so strained. Fairfax County is one of the wealthiest counties in the country and their schools among the best. And they couldn't buy copy paper for to make tests, emergency contact forms, health information forms or handouts. Things like that are factored into administrative costs, not spending per student.

Administrative, construction and debt paymements consume huge portions of the budget.

As homeschooled students use resources allocated for spending on enrolled students, they cut into the budget for those students. If each school gets $1,000 (number chosen for easy math) per enrolled student, that money is spent on texts, computers, PE equipment, etc. The district has 10,000 enrolled students and spend $10,000,000 on students. Of that $1,000 per student, $250 is spent on extra curriculars. So those 500 home schooled students all decide one year to participate in extra curriculars. That $125,000 that is now spent on home schooled students doesn't sound like a lot when you put it against $10,000,000, but that is funding for 125 enrolled students or spending on extra curriculars for 500 enrolled students.

They don't dip into the administrative budgets. They don't dip into teachers' salaries. They don't dip into overpaid superintendent salaries (though I wish someone would). They cut spending per student. Schools have X to spend on enrolled students regardless of how many homechoolers do or don't participate in extracurricular activities. They have X and that amount doesn't increase because homeschoolers are participating in activities at their school. Activities get cut or funded less to pay for homeschoolers' participation. X just gets spread thinner.

This hurts schools' budgets. Not the district's budget. That $500,000 not spent on home schooled students because they are not enrolled in school is more likely to be redirected into building a new elementary school than spread out in per student spending. A new elementary school is a very good thing, but it doesn't pay for sports equipment at an existing junior high or high school.

So either they enroll in school so that schools get funding to pay for their participation, or they don't participate 100%. It's not fair that the budget gets strained for the kids there every day for kids who only are there for the fun stuff.

No one is denied the benefits of their taxes. They CHOSE to not take advantage of those benefits. No one said they couldn't come to school. They removed their children from school. If you refuse to enroll your child so that the local schools are funded for your child's participation, then you should not have access to the benefits at the expense of other students. Those facilities and activities are there if you chose to enroll your child in school and take advantage of them.

Just because I don't travel through Burke, doesn't mean that my county taxes should not fill pot holes on Burke roads. It's my decision not to drive in Burke. I could if I wanted to do so or needed to do so. It is still my obligation to pay my property taxes to make sure that Burke roads are in good enough condition to drive on. That's why the elderly, the single without children, the married without kids, etc. are required to pay the same property taxes as people with kids. And they don't get to use school facilities either.

[quietfly]

Originally posted by Kass

…..Schools LOSE money for every child that is not enrolled. Homeschooling costs public schools money. The administrators and boards hate it. It's also why the teachers' unions are so adamantly opposed to any legislation that would make homeschooling easier or more "recognized" for the purposes of college enrollment.

…..While you're thinking logically, budgets are handled based on pressing need and politically.

…….As homeschooled students use resources allocated for spending on enrolled students, they cut into the budget for those students. If each school gets $1,000 (number chosen for easy math) per enrolled student, that money is spent on texts, computers, PE equipment, etc. The district has 10,000 enrolled students and spend $10,000,000 on students. Of that $1,000 per student, $250 is spent on extra curriculars. So those 500 home schooled students all decide one year to participate in extra curriculars. That $125,000 that is now spent on home schooled students doesn't sound like a lot when you put it against $10,000,000, but that is funding for 125 enrolled students or spending on extra curriculars for 500 enrolled students………….

…..No one is denied the benefits of their taxes. They CHOSE to not take advantage of those benefits. No one said they couldn't come to school. They removed their children from school. If you refuse to enroll your child so that the local schools are funded for your child's participation, then you should not have access to the benefits at the expense of other students. Those facilities and activities are there if you chose to enroll your child in school and take advantage of them.

Just because I don't travel through Burke, doesn't mean that my county taxes should not fill pot holes on Burke roads. It's my decision not to drive in Burke. I could if I wanted to do so or needed to do so. It is still my obligation to pay my property taxes to make sure that Burke roads are in good enough condition to drive on. That's why the elderly, the single without children, the married without kids, etc. are required to pay the same property taxes as people with kids. And they don't get to use school facilities either.


Actually those arguments do not just count against home schooled children, but also against children who attend private schools as well. Many states, (NY, NJ, CT, I'm not sure of the others but that’s my tri-state area) Have to deal with this issue on a regular basis. It's almost a double jeopardy issue, this is why Local districts all deal with taxation on a per charter level, this means each town gets to "decide" what/how to tax certain things inside of the incorporated township/borough/city/ etc... limits. The problem here is that the Source of educational funding is often decided on a higher level ( district/ state) so in essence the state sometimes "writes checks" the towns cannot (because of lack of funds) "cash". To make issues worst, certain policies ( special education, individual education plans, etc..) often add to the drain with out being accounted for in the previous year ( case in point if a student with special needs transfers in mid year, or if a students needs change radically<needing a full time assistant>) It is against the law (at least in NY, NJ,CT) to deny the student the right to access these resources. Oddly enough in NY, and NJ it is also against the law to refuse a child in district (regardless of enrollment) access to publicly funded school programs (sports/after school enrichment etc…). As a mater of fact in NJ they even go one step further. The technology budget for the education system follows the individual child. This means Every school (non religious, however that’s another discussion) that a child between 1st and 12th grade attends in NJ receives a technology grant from the state of NJ on a as enrolled basis. I understand your concern about home schooled children causing a drain on already precariously thin resources, however in actuality the heaviest drains are placed on schools by special needs programs, which are often very volatile in there demands and needs. For these reasons a lot of school districts run in a fiscal deficit, until the district or state steps in to either resolve the issue, or investigate what caused the problem. In NJ schools are budgets are determined partially on an attendance based per diem, so the schools funding is largely determined on how well there attendance record is/there enrollment ( I believe this is also the case in NY as I recall the several stories about the state taking over control of a few schools that were not able to keep a mandatory minimum attendance rate). NJ also has laws that state if a child’s educational needs cannot be met in a public school they will place that child in a private one that can fulfill that need. Yup, that’s right the state will pay for a child to attend a private school if there is not a public one that can fulfill the child’s documented educational need.


Originally posted by Kass

Just because I don't travel through Burke, doesn't mean that my county taxes should not fill pot holes on Burke roads. It's my decision not to drive in Burke. I could if I wanted to do so or needed to do so. It is still my obligation to pay my property taxes to make sure that Burke roads are in good enough condition to drive on. That's why the elderly, the single without children, the married without kids, etc. are required to pay the same property taxes as people with kids. And they don't get to use school facilities either.


Just to define some terms here, you are comparing a right to a privilege. Driving is not a right. You need to be licensed for it, and it is a privilege that is granted by your state. You are not entitled in any way shape or form to the “right” to drive.
Education is a right. It is an entitlement, you are (as a citizen of the United States, resident of your home state and even as a resident of a territory) entitled to an education.
Your obligation to pay taxes is essentially your participation “fee” to your city, state, and country.

By voting, you in some way, shape or form determine the person who might determine your taxes (I know, its convoluted but this is our system )


Originally posted by Kass

“Schools LOSE money for every child that is not enrolled. Homeschooling costs public schools money. The administrators and boards hate it. It's also why the teachers' unions are so adamantly opposed to any legislation that would make homeschooling easier or more "recognized" for the purposes of college enrollment.

No one is denied the benefits of their taxes. They CHOSE to not take advantage of those benefits. No one said they couldn't come to school. They removed their children from school. If you refuse to enroll your child so that the local schools are funded for your child's participation, then you should not have access to the benefits at the expense of other students. Those facilities and activities are there if you chose to enroll your child in school and take advantage of them.”



These statements scare me, let me explain why.

You are right, I CHOSE not to enroll my daughter in public school and I pay a price to enroll her in a private school of my /her choice. My local schools still receive (their rather substantial) portion of my taxes, which increase every year, but I gladly pay. My taxation rate does not change regardless of my enrollment decision. I am still fully expected to pay for services I might never use. By your statements private schools would be an even greater threat to public schools, more so than home schooled children.

My issue is when people state that I have forfeited my right to Choose to access these resources, in plain speak , they are mine/ my children’s right, not a privilege, but a right. While there exists pre-requisites for accessing these rights, In my case I require a child to access these rights, in my case children’s they are required to follow what ever guidelines that have been established for using the resource; however, the right is still inherently mine/or my child’s. Don’t confuse the issue of rules and regulations with rights, yes there are rules that need to be followed in order to use these rights, (just like with voting) however the rules do not preclude the right, they are rather guidelines to using them.

Lets expand upon this for a bit; let’s say a family with 12 children (the Walton’s) moves into town and decides to rent. They (essentially) pay no real estate taxes, however we are still required to pick up the slack, and provide their children an education, which by the way is the child’s right.

What makes this “hypothetical” family better than any others, that they are entitled to take advantage of “benefits, facilities and activities” that my children are not entitled to because of our enrollment choice?

What gives an administrator or the Board of Ed, the right to decide why, how and when my children’s rights are valid or forfeit?

What is the line of delineation for the decision that “all children are equal, however some children are more equal than others”?


Nothing, the answer, at least in NJ is that ALL children are entitled to equal rights and access to publicly funded school programs. To say anything else is (in my opinion, and also currently the opinion of the NJ supreme court) simply discrimination.

Please do not take this as a personal attack, this is similar to a subject near and dear to me as having one child in public school and another in private school has shown me that there are always two sides to every reality.

I understand and sympathize with public schools and their plight. I am a proud product of a public school education, and one of my children is also receiving an outstanding educational experience in his public school.

Unfortunately I feel as if non-public school children (regardless of their enrollment choice) are viewed by teachers and administrators as a detriment, instead of a child; a child that has the same amount of wonder, discovery and magic inside them as any other.
Many administrators have become jaded, it has become an environment of “no’s”. Many parents feel as if the administrators are being “graded” on how well they can keep the resources away from children, instead of honestly assessing needs.

I realize that this conversation started by talking about participation in programs that many schools consider expendable so, these naturally become the target of budget crunches and “last minute line item deletions” however the I feel the principal behind the argument is the same. It comes down to the belief of whether or not publicly funded school programs are a right or privilege to the child. It is my belief that if they are a right then you must expand that right to all children. Many disagree with me, many agree.
Your mileage may vary.

[Rapter]

The first page itself makes me want to strangle a few people(decade for instance..)

I myself am unschooled, meaning I am homeschooled, but not given a cirriculum, or made to do anything a teacher or parent sets in front of me, right now I am studing to get my GED so I can apply to the Los Angeles Recording School. Now onto the subject at hand, Personally, i wouldn't want to be on any of my area's school sporting teams, but then again that is my personal opinion, and mine alone. My other opinion on this is, Public schooling shouldn't block homeschooled kids from entering thier extra-cirricular activities, but that is up to the schools themselves, and to the courts i guess. That is the society we live in, People will sue over anything.. any one person is able to.. which i personally hate, along with the rest of governmental authority, but that is another matter.

Really, from the posts I have been reading, it seems people just don't understand what being homeschooled is. The most common argument against homeschooling is, "But won't they lose thier chance at socializing with other kids?" I personally say thats bullshit, I have plenty of friends, good friends too, that I talk to regularly.

anyways, take my post for its 2 cents.

[Decade]

You can blame your anger on a subject on whoever you want (hell, make me out to be the asshole, I wont agree with you anyway), but difference in opinion is difference in opinion.

While eudcation is a right in the States, it is also a privelage. This is why kids can be kicked out of schools, this is why there are kids who drop out of schools, and this is why we have people who never actually graduated high school. With this right and privilage comes other rights and privilages for its students, such as extracurriculars.

As such, there are of course some kids who will never do any extra curriculars in high school (I maybe did one or two for example), and there may be some who do whatever they can. But, these are privalages meant to be given to the students who actually go there.

The excuses of "Well, I'm still paying taxes for it, so I have the right" doesnt really hold much merit As Kass had said in a much clearer argument than I could make:

Just because you pay taxes, does not entitle you to access everything in this country. Your federal taxes fund military bases here in the US, but if you have no reason to be there, you aren't allowed acess. Your federal taxes fund the Eisenhower interstate highway system, but between the hours of 7 am and 10 am going eastbound and 4 pm and 6:30 pm going westbound, you are not allowed to travel Interstate 66 inside the Beltway unless you have two or more people in your car. You will get a $400 ticket if you do. Your local taxes fund police training facilities, but if you have no reason to be there, you are not permitted to be there. Your local taxes pay for schools, but if you have no children enrolled in that school, you are not allowed to be there orparticipate in its activities. You will be escorted out by a police officer.

Whats more, many school teams and extra curricular have grade requirements of each of their participants where each student must maintain a certain grade in each class in order to stay on the team (this is to ensure a student has enough spare time to study for school). While yes, there are still some teachers today who will give an "easy C or A" to students on sports team, that number is drastically falling. However, again as Kass had explained clearer than I ever could:

Homeschooled students are not required to meet ANY standards. Up until they take entrance exams for college, there is no testing or minimum acheivement levels for the students. Since the majority of homeschooled students in the US are removed from school for religious reasons and educational reasons second, there is no reall assurance that a child is receiving a better education. They are receiving a more biased education.

In other words, if Student A goes to school and Student B is homeschooled, and both would have the equivalant of a "D" in Biology for example, Student A would be kicked off the team while Student B would receive no such penalty. That's not to fair either, is it? In the end, while many people arguing for homeschooled kids should be allowed in school extracurriculars because they are not being treated fairly and equally, by arguing they should it's also actually arguing they should be treated better than students who go to public schools.

It's true. They're getting a privalage without meeting a requirement. That would be like a foreigner coming to your country and getting instant citizenship without having to pass through the normal immigration process.

But, just as you have said, these are my two cents on the matter.

[quietfly]

Originally posted by Decade
While eudcation is a right in the States, it is also a privelage. This is why kids can be kicked out of schools, this is why there are kids who drop out of schools, and this is why we have people who never actually graduated high school. With this right and privilage comes other rights and privilages for its students, such as extracurriculars.

The excuses of "Well, I'm still paying taxes for it, so I have the right" doesnt really hold much merit As Kass had said in a much clearer argument than I could make:

By Kass: “Just because you pay taxes, does not entitle you to access everything in this country. Your federal taxes fund military bases here in the US, but if you have no reason to be there, you aren't allowed acess. Your federal taxes fund the Eisenhower interstate highway system, but between the hours of 7 am and 10 am going eastbound and 4 pm and 6:30 pm going westbound, you are not allowed to travel Interstate 66 inside the Beltway unless you have two or more people in your car. You will get a $400 ticket if you do. Your local taxes fund police training facilities, but if you have no reason to be there, you are not permitted to be there. Your local taxes pay for schools, but if you have no children enrolled in that school, you are not allowed to be there orparticipate in its activities. You will be escorted out by a police officer.”

You can blame your anger on a subject on whoever you want (hell, make me out to be the asshole, I wont agree with you anyway), but difference in opinion is difference in opinion.

While eudcation is a right in the States, it is also a privelage. This is why kids can be kicked out of schools, this is why there are kids who drop out of schools, and this is why we have people who never actually graduated high school. With this right and privilage comes other rights and privilages for its students, such as extracurriculars.

As such, there are of course some kids who will never do any extra curriculars in high school (I maybe did one or two for example), and there may be some who do whatever they can. But, these are privalages meant to be given to the students who actually go there.

The excuses of "Well, I'm still paying taxes for it, so I have the right" doesnt really hold much merit As Kass had said in a much clearer argument than I could make:
Quote:
Just because you pay taxes, does not entitle you to access everything in this country. Your federal taxes fund military bases here in the US, but if you have no reason to be there, you aren't allowed acess. Your federal taxes fund the Eisenhower interstate highway system, but between the hours of 7 am and 10 am going eastbound and 4 pm and 6:30 pm going westbound, you are not allowed to travel Interstate 66 inside the Beltway unless you have two or more people in your car. You will get a $400 ticket if you do. Your local taxes fund police training facilities, but if you have no reason to be there, you are not permitted to be there. Your local taxes pay for schools, but if you have no children enrolled in that school, you are not allowed to be there orparticipate in its activities. You will be escorted out by a police officer.


Whats more, many school teams and extra curricular have grade requirements of each of their participants where each student must maintain a certain grade in each class in order to stay on the team (this is to ensure a student has enough spare time to study for school). While yes, there are still some teachers today who will give an "easy C or A" to students on sports team, that number is drastically falling. However, again as Kass had explained clearer than I ever could:
Kass:
“Homeschooled students are not required to meet ANY standards. Up until they take entrance exams for college, there is no testing or minimum acheivement levels for the students. Since the majority of homeschooled students in the US are removed from school for religious reasons and educational reasons second, there is no reall assurance that a child is receiving a better education. They are receiving a more biased education. “


In other words, if Student A goes to school and Student B is homeschooled, and both would have the equivalant of a "D" in Biology for example, Student A would be kicked off the team while Student B would receive no such penalty. That's not to fair either, is it? In the end, while many people arguing for homeschooled kids should be allowed in school extracurriculars because they are not being treated fairly and equally, by arguing they should it's also actually arguing they should be treated better than students who go to public schools.

It's true. They're getting a privalage without meeting a requirement. That would be like a foreigner coming to your country and getting instant citizenship without having to pass through the normal immigration process.

But, just as you have said, these are my two cents on the matter.



Um no, it (education) is a right , like voting it has certain requirements. If you do not register properly you have lost your ability to Participate in the election, but not your Right to vote. Children similarly must conform to the rules and regulations of the resource (in this case school) in order to access that right.
When a child is "kicked out" of school it is generally because they have violated the rules and regulations of the school, thus they have lost their ability to participate in school, but not the right to attend. There are very rare cases when rights are actually revoked, it is usually because of issues involving safety which fall well out of the scope of this discussion. Like most other rights, citizens have, you may chose to abstain, or not participate (although in the case of school there are federal mandates that you must attend until the age of 14* this is amended by emancipation, however again that issue falls WAY out of the scope of this discussion)

Taxes hold no weight in the argument what so ever. Rights are inherit, they just there. While there are many regulations in accessing these rights, they are always there ( except in extreme cases) as long as you meet the requirements (see my voting example above and in my previous post)



Originally posted by Decade

Whats more, many school teams and extra curricular have grade requirements of each of their participants where each student must maintain a certain grade in each class in order to stay on the team (this is to ensure a student has enough spare time to study for school). While yes, there are still some teachers today who will give an "easy C or A" to students on sports team, that number is drastically falling. However, again as Kass had explained clearer than I ever could:
Kass:
“Homeschooled students are not required to meet ANY standards. Up until they take entrance exams for college, there is no testing or minimum acheivement levels for the students. Since the majority of homeschooled students in the US are removed from school for religious reasons and educational reasons second, there is no reall assurance that a child is receiving a better education. They are receiving a more biased education. “


In other words, if Student A goes to school and Student B is homeschooled, and both would have the equivalant of a "D" in Biology for example, Student A would be kicked off the team while Student B would receive no such penalty. That's not to fair either, is it? In the end, while many people arguing for homeschooled kids should be allowed in school extracurriculars because they are not being treated fairly and equally, by arguing they should it's also actually arguing they should be treated better than students who go to public schools.


We are not debating the right of the school to administer it’s own student body, I believe that would be a fruitless debate. Conversely, whatever school the child is enrolled in also has the right to decide whether or not that child is academically entitled to seek extra- curricular enrichment. You cannot compare the two systems because they are not comparable. The fact that the child’s governing body has determined his or her eligibility is the qualifying point.
Just so you know private schools (at least in NY and NJ) are also not state regulated when it comes to meeting “any standards” they are not require to take any standardized testing and also not required to submit to the state any records of progress for the children attending there institution. It would be foolish to say that this means they have no/lower standards than public schools (my daughters school produced 7 children who scored 1500 or higher on the SAT’s, and they have no grading system at all ).


Originally posted by

Since the majority of homeschooled students in the US are removed from school for religious reasons and educational reasons second, there is no reall assurance that a child is receiving a better education. They are receiving a more biased education.


That seems to be an opinion more than anything else. What about children who attend parochial (catholic schools)? Since they are definitely not state regulated are they receiving a more biased education? Is the education they receive less valuable? Facts seem to say otherwise.

There is however a way to validate whether what the effect of the education the children receive is. Statically a higher percentage of children who attend these “non regulated” schools go on to a 4 year college and Matriculate at a much higher rate. To say that because an education is not state/federally regulated and that we can not validate that the child is receiving a better education the, just is not supported by the facts.



Originally posted by Decade

It's true. They're getting a privalage without meeting a requirement. That would be like a foreigner coming to your country and getting instant citizenship without having to pass through the normal immigration process.

But, just as you have said, these are my two cents on the matter.


As a person who has, and will continue to serve this great country of ours (the USA) it saddens me that you can compare this issue to one as serious as immigration.
I have not seen a sufficient burden of proof in any of the arguments you have raised, if this were a proceeding that was being held under my jurisdiction, I’d counsel you to seek a higher level of facts to support your argument. However you have also mentioned perhaps the most important thing of all about this discussion, it is in fact a matter of opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I doubt I can ever change your views on it.

Best Regards.