'Tebow’ bill to let home-schoolers play high school sports passes Va. House
The House of Delegates voted 59 to 39 Wednesday in favor of a bill that would allow Virginia’s tens of thousands of home-schooled students to play sports at their local high schools.
Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), has said he will sign the bill. “Home-school parents pay taxes like everybody else,” he said
The bill bans public schools from partnering with the Virginia High School League (DU addition - the VHSL opposes the bill) — which governs high school activites in the state — because it forbids home-schoolers from playing sports or being involved in other programs such as drama, debate and yearbook. It only pertains to high schools, because children in lower grades are often able to play at their local public schools.
The change would sunset in 2017, and supporters would have to return to the state to reevaluate the situation after four years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/tebow-bill-to-let-home-schoolers-play-sports-passes-va-house/2012/02/07/gIQAb5KIzQ_blog.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
1ProudAtheist
(346 posts)Tea-Blow is a disgrace to humanity
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Home schoolers should NOT take a spot away from kids in school. Is the home schooler going to come in for pep rallies etc?
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)If their kid's school is a warzone, they should just suck it up or buy a house in a wealthier district.
truthisfreedom
(23,142 posts)at the very top of his class in college. He got the highest SAT score. His grades are perfect and he has paid nothing for his education, being selected for full scholarship. His brother is hot on his heels, about to enter college, same situation. Full scholarship.
There's some very good home-schooling programs out there, apparently. I guess the one my brother purchased for his kids has been pretty damned effective.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)He should have suffered with the rest of the children. Not sure how your brother lives with himself.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Sometimes it's hard to tell on DU.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)You want to punish the student for decisions made by his parents? Or perhaps you left off your sarcasm tag.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)I'm interested in learning what the home school program was because my daughter is looking to home school her daughter.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)New Jersey Education Association Executive Director Vincent Giordano appeared the "New Jersey Capitol Report" this weekend to discuss the costs of education. Giordano tells poor families who can't afford to go to better schools "life's not always fair." Transcript below.
Host: The issue of fairness, I mean this is the argument that a lot of voucher supporters make. People who are well off have options. Somebody who is not well off and whose child is in a failing school, why shouldn't those parents have the same options to get the kid out of the failing school and into one that works with the help of the state?
NJEA boss Vincent Giordano: Those parents should have exactly the same options and they do. We don't say you can't take your kid out of the public school. We would argue not and we would say 'let's work more closely and more harmoniously' …
Host: They can't afford to pay, you know that. Some of these parents can't afford to take their child out of these schools.
Giordano: Life's not always fair and I'm sorry about that.
TMED
(51 posts)with public schools. E.g., teacher in a teacher's union.
What I never see suggested is to simply require that vouchers only be used in schools that have unionized teachers. I don't follow this, closely, so don't know if this is commonly suggested, or not. But, I've never seen it.
The whole charter school thing seems to be a back door into breaking teacher's unions. So, insofar as they're supported by people who want vouchers (and I don't even know if this is true), I could see the two getting conflated.
Does anybody know about any voucher system, involving unionized teachers, only?
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Here in Wilmington, they use Charters as specialized schools that are part of the school district. My friend's daughter goes to a charter school but it is part of the school district. It's a school for those with strong artistic schools (Cab Calloway). They also have Charter schools for other specializations including an AP school Wilmington Charter, which is better than most of the private schools in the state (Btw the girl got into that school too). It's nice how it's setup because children who are extremely talented or score high on tests have a chance of attending a public school that rates just as well as the expensive private schools.
But for every decent charter out there, we still have the bad charters which are not affiliated with any school district. Those I have issues with.
New International Version (NIV)
15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:15-16&version=NIV
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)from the book of grantcart 4:3-5
3 eis·e·g e·sis = an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text. 4 But if you think a verse from sacred scripture is relevent to a discussion do not search for a bullet from the scriptures that appears to mean something that you think supports your point. 5 But rather explain how in the basic narrative of the entire book that the author has written a treatise that supports your fundamental point and how that particular scripture captures the fundamental point of the author.
xocet
(3,871 posts)It is actually a case of anegesis versus kathegesis (in the mixed form to be precise) as
Geloutopoios 4:3-5 clearly states in its original language:
3 hexanoi to pentoi syntagmanos kathedron
4 to alloi epithantos pterodous exothermi
5 hoi endothalloi pyrousi epentesthai
God, why can't they ever spare the blood, sweat and tears to read the original Greek??
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)stockholmer
(3,751 posts)-Mohandas Gandhi
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)PERIOD!!! What a bullshit bill!!!
underpants
(182,736 posts)on one side they DO pay taxes
the other side is:
- participation - if you won't send your kid to school then you are forfeiting your right to public school activities
- accountability - they don't face the same set of criteria that the public school kids face constantly. Who knows if they are behaving enough to (in my VugGinya drawl) DuhSERve the HONor of RePresentinh ya scHUool on tha FOOT...BALL field
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Now, this is why this is a bad idea: Schools receive funding based on enrollment, and part of the money received goes to the sports program. Homeschoolers by definition aren't enrolled, so the school receives no funding for them. If they're playing ball, they're using tax dollars but the government won't reimburse the school because the kid isn't enrolled.
Now, if they can figure out some kind of a "sports only enrollment" setup that gets the school the money to pay for the homeschooler's spot on the team it would be okay, but fundie homeschool parents wouldn't go for that because Jesus told them not to affiliate themselves with heathen socialist educational systems. (Of course, the football is still going to be covered with evolution cooties but those ones are okay.)
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)RKP5637
(67,102 posts)
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Are we to let parents decide which classes their kids will/won't take?
LarryNM
(493 posts)However, since I pay taxes I should be able to use the runways at Air Force Bases, practice at military weapons ranges and eat at the mess halls. OR, not be tax for their wars.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Military weapons ranges aren't in use all the time. I really can't see a reason why the military couldn't open their ranges up on Saturdays and Sundays when the weekend warriors aren't using them, and let civilians fire on them. Charge them a couple bucks for targets, you bring your own ammo and your own lunch, and you meet at the main gate by 0900 to be escorted in by MPs and escorted back out by MPs at 1600.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)If families who home school those kids paid the difference for the lose of funding for each of their kids, I would agree with you on the tax point, although not the fairness point.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The funds received are based on attendance/enrollment.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)As I was answering, my cat ran across my laptop and somehow hit the "alert abuse" link!!! I was able to cancel it.
TMED
(51 posts)No cat-footbal for him/her!
christx30
(6,241 posts)for the fastest and easiest DU jury duty ever.
underpants
(182,736 posts)thank you
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)the right to play.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)PERIOD! What a bullshit scam!!!
Botany
(70,483 posts)Hey, if you want to keep little Johnny or little Janie and home school them
because you afraid that a public education will keep them from the "true
Jesus, who is the son of God and is the word made flesh" and all that other
crap then shouldn't be infected by ANY OF THE SCHOOLS ACTIVITIES. And if
you want them to play sports send them to a "Christian School" which you can't
throw a dead cat in VA and not hit 1 or 2 of those type of schools.
Home schooling bible thumping anti American bigots .... fuck em all.
underpants
(182,736 posts)which I agree with
I live here
and you are right.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Botany
(70,483 posts)school district they are opposed to then they should live where
they do ..... I find these home schooling "there is no such thing as
global warming" and "the earth 6,500 years old science teaching"
people a threat to America's future.
I find these people very anti American and not too Christian either.
BTW my late uncle was an Episcopal Rector in a small town in S.W.
Ohio and he and his wife worked their asses off to help all the people
have a better quality of life. Their kids went to public schools and
did just fine.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)helps the country.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)disconnect. In general it is usually repukes who worry about taking advantage of, and dems who worry about taking care of, or looking out for the best interests of everyone.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Also, not sure you got what I meant by "taking advantage."
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I asked who would vet that they had the gpa to allow them to play in sports. Schools will not allow kids to play if their grades fall below a certain level. If mom & dad want their little homeschooled angel to be a football star, who checks to be sure he or she really deserves that straight A average mom & dad gave them?
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Since homeschooled kids go to college, get scholarships, etc. they seem to be meeting the educational requirements.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)They CHOOSE not to. Big difference.
Analogy: Christian Scientists' taxes support public hospitals, just like everyone else's.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)If you choose not to take advantage of SCHIP, should you not be eligible for medicaid.
boppers
(16,588 posts)That sounds good to me.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)Why should I have to pay taxes to fund schools?
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)
spooky3
(34,429 posts)kemah
(276 posts)The system is set up so everyone pays a small share. The taxes you pay for that public education do not cover the complete cost of educating you child. It is made up by everyone paying. Some parents move into certain school districts knowing full well that they will be paying higher property taxes to get better schools. Richmond ISD in Richmond, Texas has the highest property tax rate in Texas but their school district is rated in the top ten every year.
One of the selling points in any house purchase is the quality schools. A school that gets exemplary status will see their property rates of that school's attendance region go up dramatically.
Good schools in your neighborhood will effect the value of your house. So even if do not have kids in school, you can still sell your house a lot quicker and for more money than a house in a poor school area.
spooky3
(34,429 posts)Nothing.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Same for police.
I'm sure there are some services that I might not feel warm and fuzzy about, but most are for the greater good.
We all pay taxes because it's the right thing to do, and especially in education.
Who are you to wish educational misery on any poor child????
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)If you live in the Bronx and your kid has to go to JFK(a warzone) then make them go and shut up about it. Or move to a wealthier district.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)'kay. 
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Or the same distraction on the field. Also, the quality of teaching at schools like JFK tends to be lackluster because all the good, experienced teachers go elsewhere.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Or work to improve the district, and the education system to an equitable level-- unless it's simply too inconvenient.
I imagine we often may only see two possibilities when in reality, many more quite often exist.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Your own are collateral damage, but that is always necessary.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)provis99
(13,062 posts)which seems to be the logic of the thread.
Response to frylock (Reply #17)
provis99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
kemah
(276 posts)Now it is your turn to pay for education. It benefits whole society to have an educated population. Through history the educated nations always became the winners. Why did the white man conquer the new world? Why were we able to beat Japan? Technology.
That you do not get home schooled. You might get a basic education but you need higher ed to compete in this world. Getting straight A's in college is not a matter of intelligence but in having good study skills.
That's why foreign students get such good grades. Friday night you will see them at the library in their study groups. While American kids are hitting the beer and discos.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)People pay taxes to send ALL children to school. We do this because we have decided that educating children is a good thing to do. Those children are going to become our doctors, politicians, firefighters, police, military, etc. I prefer that the people that I will need to rely on to not be dumbasses.
If a family decides to opt out of public education, fine, teach them whatever you want at home, but you do not get to opt out of your obligation to educate all children. In addition, their decision to forego public education means that whatever education they get is on their own dime. No vouchers..
I'm split on letting home schooled kids play sports and take classes that can not be home schooled effectively. My personal opinion is that it should be OK, as long as the students can pass standardized testing to show that they are on par with their grade level.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)I agree completely with your last paragraph.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If someone decides not to use the school to educate their children, they do not get to choose to stop help paying for the school. You have been suggesting that they can and should be able to stop paying taxes for schools.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)I was merely suggesting that solution if you're not going to let them participate in school activities.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Would you prohibit home schooled kids from attending an after school drug program?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)You keep slipping into the notion that people who choose not to not participate should be able to not pay taxes, because their children are. not going to public school. By that logic, I shouldn't have to pay, since I don't have any children and it's doubtful that I will. I've been paying proprty taxes for 26 years to educate the children of my state, because it is the right thing to do.
At some point, I may give up on replying to your posts as you seem to just be bringing up the same random points to anyone who is bothering to reply to you.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)We pay taxes which entitles us to access if we need it.
Once again, would you prohibit a homeschooled kid from going to an after school drug counseling program?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I've answered that question more than once already.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Unless you have something new to say other than demanding that I answer a question that I have already answerd, give up.
Apparently you believe that pubic should be an ala carte system. Should students be allowed to not take classes that they don't want to take and substitute home schooling for just that one class?
I've already answered you on home schoolers participating in public education, what are you feeelings on the collary?
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)shouldn't have to pay school taxes or those whose kids have graduated should be exempt.
(I agree with the poster who said we are all responsible for funding the public schools.)
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Homeschooled or not.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)FR's that a way------------------------------->
it is the responsibility of the community to pay for schools.
everyone went to school as a kid, it's their place to pay for them as adults.
everyone (except the gop) benefits from an educated populace
These parents need to pay for their kid;s cost to the school if they want their brat playing public school sports.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)So their taxes don't cover their cost to the school? Maybe their should be extra taxes for homeschooled kids.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)In most cases, now a days, we're probably not talking about people teaching their kids advanced physics, but hateful conservative rhetoric.
im sorry but i have no sympathy for that kind of scum.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)I agree they need to just suck it up or at least move to a wealthier district.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)where people can afford to simply move?
If a school wants to make an exception and/or require the new athlete attend at least one period that's fine.
but seriously, what's your thing thinking people can jsut up n move?
besides home schoolers usually live in affluent areas already!
Broderick
(4,578 posts)A bit of sarcasm in a helpful way it seems. 
jhasp
(101 posts)My wife and I homeschool our children and we know many homeschool families. I don't know any of them that spend their days teaching hateful conservative rhetoric. My kids are academically well beyond where they would be if they spend their days in the local public school.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)their child is advanced and achieving way above their age/grade level.
And every homeschooled child I've ever worked with was working far below their age/grade level.
Go figure.
jhasp
(101 posts)We use a curriculum that is used in many private schools and is considered to be rigorous. It's a curriculum that I used in private school and when I went to public school (6th grade) I was a few years ahead in language arts, reading, and math. My 5 year old daughter writes in print and cursive (legibly), can add and subtract double digits (I watched her do it yesterday), can count back change, and can read and spell at least at a second grade level. She's about finished with the 1st grade curriculum. My son, who just turned seven, can do all of that and he is a little ahead of her on math a lot ahead on reading (he's at the third or fourth grade level). She's still better at handwriting.
I have a PhD and am a professor at a public university and my wife has degrees in biology and chemistry and a background in public health. Your sample is likely biased because homeschooled students that are doing well continue to be homeschooled and ones that aren't doing well leave and go to public or private schools (I'm assuming that you are a teacher). Homeschooling isn't for everyone. I know homeschooling families that do it for indoctrination purposes and their kids are not prepared for the world. We homeschool for several reasons. Chief among them, the ability to give our children the best education possible. I grew up poor and in an abusive home and education was my ticket out of that life. We also like the flexibility of homeschooling. At 7 am when the school buses are driving by to drop kids off at the school two blocks away, my kids are still in bed. When I'm out of school in mid-January, we get to take great vacations. Some days the kids are very focused and get through two days of lessons. Some days they aren't and they just do some reading and a little seat work. All in all, it works well for us.
spooky3
(34,429 posts)"I know homeschooling families that do it for indoctrination purposes and their kids are not prepared for the world."
vs.
"I don't know any of them that spend their days teaching hateful conservative rhetoric."
jhasp
(101 posts)I do know specifically one family that homeschools purely for religious purposes. They and their kids aren't hateful, in fact they're really nice. However, their kids aren't prepared for the world. Not all religious people spit venom.
spooky3
(34,429 posts)However, I do not see "indoctrination" as positively as you do, and I don't think it's necessary to call it "hateful" for it to have some negative aspects.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Maybe their should be extra taxes for homeschooled kids..."
And education programs dealing with homonyms, too.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Response to Botany (Reply #3)
Occupy_2012 This message was self-deleted by its author.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)considering how many thumpers watch football on tv
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)are most often associated with educational values.
Nevertheless, it is irrational to discriminate against those whose decisions are rooted in religious values.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)it's 6- 12 grade - also known as "hippie high." They don't have sports teams, band, etc, but they have classes and a more student directed experience.
The students attend those after school extracurricular activities in their local neighborhood middle or high school.
It works fine, and allows us "hippie" parents to send tour kids to a public school where kids learn much more about democracy and being active citizens, and still have the full range of sports, band, etc that our taxes pay for.
We still have to go to the neighborhood high for the sports and band - we don't get our choice of any school in the city. And it does keep us involved in the local neighborhood school, in terms of what's offered in the way of those programs. We're expected to participate in the bake sales and other fundraising for those programs, and PTA meeting where those decisions are made about our kids' teams.
I see no reason to penalize homeschooled kids for a decision that their parents made concerning homeschooling. It benefits the public school to have more participation, where those parents would not have participated at all.
Botany
(70,483 posts).... whack jobs and see them as a real threat to America and democracy. I feel
bad for the kids but if "they" (the parents) feel it is so important that they don't
want Mr. Jones teaching their kids about world history then they give up the right
for that very same Mr. Jones to use his knowledge, skill, and time to "coach up" their
kid in football.
To me their is a difference between going to an alternative school that is PART OF
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT and home schooling your kids. In Ohio the current governor
and many members of the State House and Senate are members of a radical anti
public education movement who really want to see it shut down and replaced w/
private charter schools, christian schools, and home schooling. I see this idea as one
step in that direction and I think it should be rejected because it weakens one of
the ideas that made America great, a free publiceducation.
Ohio State Senate Majority Whip Shannon Jones is a perfect example of these
anti public education "whack jobs."
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that don't get addressed in the public schools. I'm not one of them.
And there are whack jobs that send their kids to public school. Believe me, I've met them. I had a fellow kindergarten parent ask me if I knew which kids had gay parents, so they could discourage their kid from befriending those kids to prevent their kid from seeing anything "like that." I told her that there were several same sex parents of kids (it's a magnet dual Spanish Immersion school, and many people that adopted from South America wanted their kids to learn about the language and culture) and that she might want to transfer to her neighborhood school, which might have a less progressive parent base.
Botany
(70,483 posts)thanx for your thoughts
christx30
(6,241 posts)that home schools does it for religious reasons. There are people that do it because they want their kids to actually learn something, rather than being taught to take a NCLB related test. Some people want their kids to do well in life, and not learn how to operate a fryer at McDonald's.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)its one thing to grab a bunch of kids and form a summer softball team sponsored by Larry The Sofa King, its entirely another to bring in kids to play for a school team.
Sports goes beyond the field.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)Having played team sports in college.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)Indeed, children who are home-schooled will take their experiences from the field with them.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Sorry, sticking with that. I have worked and volunteered with adult home schooled children and lets just say they 'never learned how to get along with others'.
While adding them to the mix in HS sports could help a bit with that, it isn't fair to the kids in the school who are denied those spots and will make it increasingly difficult on the kids who are trying to be part of a team/school spirit.
jhasp
(101 posts)we shouldn't let them go socialize and be part of a team. That's brilliant.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)Home schoolers literally take money from the kids who are in public schools.
I know not every home schooler comes from a Crazy Fundy Family, but families who home school their kids do make a choice, and I don't think children not part of the student body should be allowed to take resources -- and team slots -- away from enrolled students. As a parent, this would really tick me off. This also takes possible college scholarships away from enrolled students (which is why most of the home schoolers want to play, I bet).
How is this fair???
There are home school sports leagues. There are rec leagues. School sports should be for the STUDENTS. Period.
ForeverLiberal
(7 posts)I agree 100%. Also, why the hell are they passing bills like this when there are IMPORTANT things to discuss?
Stupid Tim Tebow. -_-
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)I will be most appreciative if you will assist me in acquiring a better understanding of how they "literally take."
Response to Thaddeus Kosciuszko (Reply #79)
Occupy_2012 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)On the contrary, their parents continue to "give."
jhasp
(101 posts)The average cost of a student in my local school district is $12,000 per year. So, since my two kids are homeschooled, the school isn't paying $24,000 to educate them each year, and my kids are stealing from the district? You do realize that there isn't an unlimited pot of money used to fund education? Whether or not my kids attend the local school, I still pay in $4,000 in property taxes each year. 60% of that goes to support the local school district regardless of whether my children attend there or not.
underpants
(182,736 posts)your math is as bad as your decision
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)students.
underpants
(182,736 posts)have you not read the posts here?
JI7
(89,244 posts)obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)And often private leagues.
JI7
(89,244 posts)
maxrandb
(15,316 posts)isn't that obvious?
tech_smythe
(190 posts)nothing more
remember, the tea baggers are the hyper conservative and they HATE public ed-jeeeww-min-kay-shun
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Let them organize their own teams.
This is so unfair to the kids enrolled in public schools who have to abide by school rules and policies in order to participate in sports activities.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)They have to have a certain GPA, be "good school citizens," including a certain attendance record, etc.
Why should they get a slot before an enrolled student?
They often do have their own teams, and even their own leagues. A big part of this bill is because of college sports scholarships.
pampango
(24,692 posts)their own leagues", it reminded me of "separate-but-equal arguments of the past. '"They" have their own water fountains and bathrooms.'
Nikia
(11,411 posts)They could participate in their public school activities by deciding to attend that school. They are the ones who are choosing to be separate.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The parents pay the same taxes either way but use none of the public school's resources. It's good for the kids to get a chance to socialize with others outside their circle and nobody's "stealing money" from someone else, as has been alleged by some. We've allowed this in Massachusetts for some time now, and it doesn't seem to be an issue.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)Thanks!
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)Just not in a public school.
THEY ARE NOT ENROLLED STUDENTS.
By this logic, students at private schools should be allowed to be on the teams, too.
And yes, they DO "steal money" from the schools. Certain resourcing and funding is based on enrollment.
I have no kids and pay the same taxes, so what do I get>
hughee99
(16,113 posts)It's NOT a private school, its a public school. People pay for it. People with children in school, people who home-school children, people with no children. If a private school student wants to play a sport that his school does not offer, but the public school in the district where he lives does, then he should be able to play too. Certain resource are based on enrollment. Most sports teams are allotted X number of players for a team. The school pays X dollars for that team whether 0, half, or ALL students are home schooled. You can argue that he's stealing a roster spot from a public school kid, but NOT really that he's stealing from the school.
You have no kids and pay the same taxes, what do you get? Hopefully an educated doctor, plumber, and electrician when you're 80 at a price you can afford. Someone with a job to pay into social security and medicare. Higher property values if your area can retain those it educates, and high school sports to watch if you like that sort of thing.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)How is that fair? I should get a reduction in taxes, right? That's the logic shown in this thread.
I opted out of kids.
These parents opted out of public schools.
We both made a choice, so too bad so sad.
Students who are not members of a student body should not be allowed to take team slots and possible scholarships from kids who are active members of that student body. If parents don't like it, they can send their kids to public school.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and met then necessary requirements I'd support your right to play on the team too. As it is, you are (presumably) allowed to use the school's athletic fields when not in use by the teams, right? In my town, I am, but I can't speak for all schools.
I don't recall once ever suggesting that anyone not have to pay their taxes, though I did suggest that people should be allowed to use the resources they pay for. To be on the team has certain requirements, and I don't agree that one of them should be enrollment. If you meet those you can play on the team, if not, you can use the fields when they're done. If you're good enough, you'll start and if you're not, you won't. And if you don't get a scholarship because you weren't good enough to start on your high school team, to quote you "too bad, so sad".
You sound like you should be an advocate for home schooling, since your arguments seemed to be based on the premise that home-schooled kids will be better at sports than public school kids.
We've had a number of home-schooled kids over the years on my high school team, and I have to tell you, that hasn't been my experience at all.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)it's really as simple as that.
this is N O T a good thing for public schools.
you need to look at the educational funding aspect of this.
these schools are loosing money per kid (they still pay for that kid's gear, and the insurance, but are NOT getting money from the government FOR that kid)
it's not right or fair.
unless the parents are paying for the money required to cover a kid in sports, this is a poison pill to public schools!
hughee99
(16,113 posts)now, those fees don't necessarily cover 100% of the costs. When I was in high school, it was something like $100 for football, maybe 60 for basketball and somewhere around $40 for tennis. It probably didn't cover the cost of football (though coupled with football ticket revenue, maybe it did), it probably did cover the full cost of tennis.
In any school, the school allocates, lets say 100K for football (just for the sake of nice round numbers, The number is considerably higher). The school allows 100 kids to play football. That's the size of the team. The school is going to pay 100K for 100 kids to play football. If the school has 350 students, it's going to pay 100k for football. If it has 10,000 students, it's going to pay 100k for football. It's a SET fee.
I know, I know, you're arguing that the school would get slightly more money if this child attended classes AND played football. For many towns the local budget is not based strictly on a "per student" basis either, though the state funding is often handled that way. Perhaps local towns should factor in home schooled kids and give the school system extra money for the kids to play?
tech_smythe
(190 posts)seriously, fukem
tech_smythe
(190 posts)because the school is N O T getting credit for that kid being enrolled.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The parents are paying their taxes, they shouldn't have to pay twice for their kids to play football. If the local government needs to adjust it's "per-student" enrollment calculations for budgeting, I'm fine with that...
tech_smythe
(190 posts)it's MEANT to kill the schools!
why are you defending the home schoolers anyway?
seriously, what's your angle in all this?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)It sounds like you've got the axe to grind.
I went to public school as did my wife. My daughter is in public school and my son is too young for school (but will go to public school). When I was in high school, we had NO home schooled kids. A few years later, the town had a handful of them and some wanted to play sports. The parents paid their taxes, asked the town if their kids could try out for the teams, the towns had to look into the local rules and said okay. The kids tried out. Some were good some were not, but it was good for both the public and home schooled kids that they interacted. Somehow, it didn't lead to the collapse of the entire public school system, no one died and no animals were harmed.
My "angle" is that I've seen what appears to be proposed in practice, and I'm listening to people with these ridiculous "doom and gloom" scenarios. Mostly, I like to debate with people in the hopes that either I will enlighten someone else, or even better, they will enlighten me. I have no real dog in this fight (though having two small children, I guess I eventually will).
tech_smythe
(190 posts)if the district made a local decision that allowing HS kids into their schools wouldn't break the back, that's fine.
but this is legislation, state wide.
yes, i see nefarious plans in anything that comes from a tea bagger.
I don't trust em. not even a little.
When I was a kid, home schooled kids were generally seriously smart, and did get superior educations at home. and I'm sure there's plenty of that going on today.
but im positive this is just a plot to drain public resources on a state wide level.
seriously, fukem!
if they want their kids to play in the public school's sports team, they should be REQUIRED to take at least one period of courses. preferably science and /or history.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)why would you favor "dumbing them down" as a condition to play sports, rather than just asking that localities allocate slightly more money to account for this? As of 2007 (I don't have updated numbers), there were about 1 1/2 million home schooled kids, with about 25,000 high schools (as of 2008) nationally, so about 60 kids per high school. Once you factor in how many kids don't want to or aren't good enough to play high school sports, we're not talking about a ton of kids. Currently, half the states already allow this without any serious financial repercussions I'm aware of. If Virginia wants to do it too, I don't see the problem.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)because it certainly seems like nothing anyone has said has made it through your anamantium skull!
whatever.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)You think if the town decides to do it that's fine. I don't care if the state does it, and think the state should allocate any necessary funds to compensate the schools if necessary.
You see it as a nefarious plan to drain public school resources (suggesting that the impact would be significant). I disagree on how large that impact will be.
You say that the HS kids you knew were seriously smart, and then suggest that they should be required to take a history or science class. I don't see where that benefits anyone (you increase the class size for a student that would likely not gain anything from the class), unless your also implying that then the schools could count them as enrolled and get the "full rate" for them.
I've understood everything you've said, I just don't think you've made a very good case, and haven't changed my mind.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)Having the HS kids try out for the team costs the school nothing. There is no need for additional coaches or additional anything. The only ramification is that some kids that attend the school may not make it because the HS kids was better and got the slot.
To not let them play just seems spiteful. "You're not running your life the way we want so you can't play with us!!!"
tech_smythe
(190 posts)every kid that isn't from that school costs that school money.
they're putting their resources into a child who they aren't being compensated for.
and that takes money away from kids who ARE attending.
the school only has X amount of dollars.
every non-student who is on the team takes from that pool spreading it thinner, and lord knows school don't HAVE any extra money to begin with.
i'm sorry you have the public system. I can't really blame you either, it's going to hell. but your using their team sports is only hurting it.
your kid playing team sports w/o you paying his costs hurts that school because that school is N O T being paid by the state for your kid. you're leeching off the same system you opted out of.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)A) the additional head at the school just impacts federal funds.
B) the kid is not taking any additional resources. They will not hire additional coaches. Varsity teams typically have a set number the keep and everyone else is cut. The only people "hurt" by this are the kids who attend the school who get cut from the team. But the HS kids are also in that district.
The people living in the district are paying for the kids in the district to be educated and have sports. If one parent chooses to not use the academic services of the school then the overall funding per student goes UP since the federal funding is a fraction of the overall funding and most is local funding--which will not change regardless of how many student choose to be HS'd.
The bottom line is that it cost the school and taxpayers NOTHING to add that kid to the team. The only difference is WHO is on the team.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)At the beginning of the public school year, you have to fill out a form for every kid you have in the public school because those forms determine how much money the school gets from the state and the feds. School funding, while it is from taxes that everyone pays, is apportioned PER STUDENT. The government doesn't just shove money into a five-gallon bucket, mail it to the superintendent, and tell the school, "this should do ya."
And remember what the teacher always tells you: Make SURE to bring this back, because the survival of our school is dependent on you doing so.
Massachusetts may have a way to provide athletics-only funding to the schools, and if they do it really wouldn't be an issue.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)which could then recruit its own team called the Tebows. 
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)For it would be impossible to exaggerate the magnitude of power of a Tebow Eleven team, on high-school football playing field.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Both Catholic and (Protestant) Christian brick-and-mortar schools have a distinct recruiting advantage over their public counterparts, 'cause they aren't constrained by enrollment districts. That's how then-tiny Notre Dame became a national power: by recruiting Catholic players from across the country, at a time when most state schools drew their teams from in-state.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)To deny home-school students an opportunity to participate in sports would be "taxation without participation".
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)They are free to enroll their children in their local public schools where they can participate in many extra curricular activities. No one has taken that away from them.
jody
(26,624 posts)taxed without participation.
Those are the facts as I understand them so please show me which of them are wrong.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)Can I be on the girl's track or lacrosse team?
jody
(26,624 posts)obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)To defund public schools.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)that includes quality public schools as well as public safety and well maintained roads.
If I never have to call the fire department to put out a fire in my house, should I get a discount on my taxes?
If I don't drive why should I pay taxes that are used to maintain roads I don't drive on?
Public education benefits all of us, including those of us who don't have children attending public schools. A good public school system raises the property value on my house. It's also good to live in a community where I can trust the clerks in the local stores to count my change correctly. And when the time comes that I may need to be cared for in my community hospital or nursing home, I want to be assured that the people giving me my medications are capable of reading and measuring correctly.
For those benefits I gladly pay taxes to support quality public schools in my community even though I have no children in the schools.
jody
(26,624 posts)shown to benefit society, that is not open to all students, is particularly not open to home-school students, is one that parents should be required to fund with taxes when their student is prohibited by law from participation.
Obviously you don't see it that way.
I can live with those differences, hope you can.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)I want that portion of my taxes used for the police to respond to 911 calls refunded.
That makes as much sense as what you're arguing.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)athletic programs.
jody
(26,624 posts)obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)And families with kids in private schools, and people with kids who moved to the area after their kids were grown?
jody
(26,624 posts)The question is whether society benefits from education and how to apportion the cost of education to each citizen.
Progressive tax rates and other methods have been adopted to answer that question and the current policies are not universally supported.
That's OK if education is not an inalienable/unalienable right government is required to protect but, rather is a privilege granted by society through the democratic process.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)If I don't use a resource, I should get a refund on my taxes. YOU stated that.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)I don't break the law, should my taxes be reduced because I don't use the court system or the police?
jody
(26,624 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)It's same thing since taxes fund athletic programs. Your argument appears to be since the home schoolers aren't using a school resource, they shouldn't be taxed for it.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)The root of parental choice--let's set that card aside.
Now, what is the rational for denying children the opportunity to intermingle with others and experience a wider range of human relationships?
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Kellerfeller
(397 posts)way you want the rules to be. There is no logical reason for them to not be able to "opt in" for sports if the kid meets the age and residency requirements.
Your claim supports the Catholic church claim/position that its employees "opted out" of birth control.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)school? Really?
And no it doesn't support the Catholic church position regarding birth control. Nice try.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)And yes, a kid in the district who is better does indeed replace another kid in the district. Both kids are in school. Both parents pay taxes. There is no logical reason to not let the kid play.
It costs nothing.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)The other kid is NOT PHYSICALLY in the public school. Sure they pay taxes but they CHOOSE not to attend it. It does cost something. It costs the public school kid a spot to a home schooled kid.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)I this a "show up and you get kudos" thing?
He could have earned it and bumped the HS kid.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)I made a choice not to have children, they made a choice not to put their kids into public schools.
jody
(26,624 posts)claiming society benefits from sports programs which are prohibited to all but a select few.
You might have my attention if you want to argue that every sports program should be open to every student and every participant should play the same time.
msongs
(67,394 posts)maxrandb
(15,316 posts)The VHSL already has had serious issues with kids using fake addresses, or claiming to live in certain districts so that they can get into Division I football factories. There have even been accusations of coaches "recruiting" kids to come play High School football for them.
This is going to be an eligibility and administrative nightmare.
Ratty
(2,100 posts)I used to bash too, and it's perfectly understandable given the current GOP trend of reviling teachers and public education (yeah, and the unfortunate choice to bring the obnoxious Tebow into the whole thing). But I'll just say in the last few years I have been surprised at the number of progressive parents I have met who are homeschooling their kids. Not for religious reasons, not because they think teachers unions are destroying America, not so they can teach their kids the dinosaurs were too late to Noah's ark. But because they were financially able and thought they could spend more time with their children and give them individual, specialized attention. Religious fundamentalist nutcase homeschoolers I have met? Zero. I live in the SF Bay Area so I'm sure that factors into it. So, I'm just sayin ...
As for the subject at hand, if the schools were smart they should publicly embrace the idea, acknowledge the taxpayer argument, and say they are eager to work with the homeschoolers on finding a way that a portion of those tax dollars could be used to reimburse the schools.
Response to Ratty (Reply #42)
Occupy_2012 This message was self-deleted by its author.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)we know the religious right's agenda, and some progressives seem to have their heads in the sand. I hope they are happy with destroying the Commons.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko
(307 posts)Well placed.
pampango
(24,692 posts)They have modest incomes and chose to buy "more house" for the same money in an urban neighborhood rather than buying a smaller home in suburbia with its better schools. And they believe that their children will get a better understanding of "real" life growing up with low-income neighborhood kids as opposed to going to essentially all-white, upper-middle class kids.
The Dayton City Schools make a lot of money from the property taxes that these families pay. I've never heard any of our friends complain about this because they understood the pros and cons of buying a house in Dayton neighborhood. Paying taxes to support schools that you don't plan to use is one of the "cons".
I don't think either of these families have any interest in their children playing sports at the public schools in their neighborhoods but, if they did, I think they should be allowed to do so since they support these same schools financially.
Nikia
(11,411 posts)My godmother's children went to Dayton City schools and everything went alright. I am sure that some of the schools in that system are better than others, but don't they have intra district transfer? When I graduated from an Ohio high school in 1996, we had open enrollment.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)Why not? Their parents play the same taxes.
on edit: This is not directed at the OP.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Kellerfeller
(397 posts)does, then yes.
Why are folks being so selfish and exclusionary about this? Its not like it is costing the school or taxpayers anything.
underpants
(182,736 posts)no offense taken "
guss
(239 posts)In my hometown they added 3 local towns to paticipate in sports. it works gives them enough support to field a team. I feel if a home schooler parents support the team he enters. with money and Parent activitys like driving and spending a huge alot of time to these games that thier child are competing in. let em in. its not like the old days the school would provide the equiment, the uniforms, the bus trips, to all these events. where u could bitch they stealing from the locals. Not anymore parents provide way more then the school can.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Expose these kids to the real world. Get them out of their parents' Disneyworld lives.
WoodyM90
(40 posts)to run for Class president or the Student Council even if they do not attend the school?
tech_smythe
(190 posts)run for an office in a place you don't actually live?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I live in Virginia, and we have a local magnet public school (grades 6-12) that's known as "hippie high" because of it's program that allows students more of a voice in the school experience. There is no band, and no sports teams.
The kids go to their neighborhood middle or High school and participate in those programs. They do not go to classes, so, no, they don't run for student council. They only participate in the non-classroom, after school extras that "hippie High" does not have the facilities to provide.
This allows for a greater variety of public educational experience while still benefiting from the sports and music programs that everyone pays for with their taxes.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)No. They do not participate in the academics there, so they are not. They would simply be member of a team. Could they be the captain of the team? Sure, why not?
JCMach1
(27,555 posts)The parents pay state taxes, so I have no problems with it. The stipend that most coaches get outside of Football make it largely volunteer on our part anyway.
In my experience, the student's who do try out are the highly skilled ones. The few players I got were very good. So there are no complaints from me.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Some people even suggested that people who home school in bad areas should just suck it up or pay for private schooling!
How progressive is that?!?
tech_smythe
(190 posts)the hate is understandable
after all these morans are voting for the tea party which is destroying our country.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I have known perhaps 7 homeschooled people in my life.
All of them were being homeschooled for religious reasons, but also because they felt that they could do a better job teaching than a school could that had to devote attention to multiple students.
One of the kids ended up in prison.
All the rest turned out exceptional.
This is still very anecdotal, but the idea does not surprise me. As Dr. John Ogbu found, one of the biggest predictors of student academic success is parental involvement. Homeschooling is the ultimate parental involvement.
I also don't like the religious aspect of it but I commend people who are so called to teaching that they do it for free.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Playing team sports in the public school is great for kids, whether they are home-schooled or public-schooled.
Being able to play on the team of the local school is good for those kids who do it, so I support this. There is nothing wrong with home-schooling. People do it for different reasons.
Activities that bring home-schooled kids into the community that everyone belongs to are good in my opinion.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)It opens us up to being made to jump through additional hoops to qualify, which runs the risk of expanding those to every HS family, and it's usually more trouble than it's worth in the areas where it's permitted.
graywarrior
(59,440 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Plus the fact that she wasn't home schooled so her parents could give her bible study time and cram religious beliefs down her throat while denying the actuality of scientific principles.
On the contrary, her parents decided on home school to help her reach her potential because the school system where she lived was deemed inadequate for her.
There's always an exception to the rule, and Ava was one of the most exceptional exceptions that I ever saw to a rule.
graywarrior
(59,440 posts) LarryNM
(493 posts)and so are the remarks about "bashing" home schooling. Not only is money not received by schools for students not in attendance, but this applies to all extra-curricular ativities. Students enrolled in a school should not lose a place in school activities to someone not enrolled in that school. As has been pointed out, taxes are not paid because you do or don't have children or where they attend school, but for the whole of society. Now, if you want funds sent directly to parents to determine their children's education, that is another matter.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)is not for the benefit of society either.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)the funding for public schools is not completely based on the number of students. Only part of it is.
So for each kid that is home-schooled, the spending per student in the public school goes up.
SayIt
(16 posts)Cool, it seems.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)by fucking up our social system. It's got NOTHING to do with faith, but dogma and politics.
kemah
(276 posts)When you were in school, who did you think was paying for you to go to school? Now it is your turn to support the system. The property tax a family pays for education does not fully pay for the education the family receives. They system is setup that all a small share but you continue to pay after you have left the school. It is only fair.
If home schooled kids want to play then they should be allowed to play. But give them the standardized tests that all of the public school students are taking. If they pass the standardized test, then play, if not hit the books. That would make it fair for public school kids have to pass the standardize tests. As a parent I would like to know of my home schooled kid is up to his grade level. If not then I have to hit the books with my child.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I'm not in favor of standardized tests, except those that are given only to see how one grade level in one school is doing.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And so long as their parents are paying the same taxes as they would if their kids were attending, I see no reason to exclude kids from the experience of sports, drama, band, etc.
Our city has a public high school magnet program that's known unofficially as "Hippie High." They participate in their neighborhood public high school sports teams, band and drama. It works fine.
Again - this should be about what is good for the kids, not about penalizing or judging a decision that the parents made.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)but not school? Explain how that makes any sense as it doesn't.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)is completely isolated or if the kid participates with other students in some areas. It might even convince them and their parents to go ahead and enroll.
Javaman
(62,510 posts)the child in question should be subject to a grades qualification test.
If the kid can't maintain what is considered a B average then no sports.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,336 posts)I thought the school gets money based on attendance. Fewer kids, fewer dollars. So a homeschooler wants to use school resources without the school getting money for the kid.
How are home-schooled kids graded? What would "B average" mean?
Javaman
(62,510 posts)That may differ from city to city.
I haven't a clue as to how home school kids are graded. However, if there is a standardized test within the school system developed for kids who are home schooled then the "B" average would be based upon current curriculum that enrolled school children would have to take.
underpants
(182,736 posts)awww well Reagan (Morgan, Malachi, etc.) is just so smart we just know it .....
Javaman
(62,510 posts)I know of two that are awful students.
And your point is?
underpants
(182,736 posts)every one that I have met just happened to doing really well when Mom scores the test.
Javaman
(62,510 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)
Javaman
(62,510 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)like, the ones where they teach that evolution and global warming BS."
No. No. A thousand times, no.
If they don't do it completely in your authoritarian way, they can't benefit at all?
Nice.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Tell me, just where does this mythical society exist except in your mind?
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)": of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>" Dictionary.com
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Tell me, how does that work for you with income taxes? Do you drive a car?
Do you wear clothes when you walk down the street? This is fascinating.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I'm guessing any given area, especially down in the south, there are probably at least 50-100 kids being homeschooled in a school district. Why don't the homeschool kids unite and form their own teams & clubs. Since they don't have a sports field or auditorum they could pay a small fee to use the local school (provided that it's not in use already) or just use a public park for sports practice.
If the homeschoolers have enough players to field a team then they could join the public school league.
It's not fair that a kid who is in a public school could lose a chance to play football or be in a school play because of some outsider.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)The homeschool families are already choosing not to use public school services they paid for. Encourages socializing and athletics.
I cannot believe some of the comments on this thread.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Maybe they could hitch a ride on the school- er, lunch bus. And while they're at school, pick up some textbooks just in case there's something that doesn't contradict the Bible.
But wait, they helped pay for the school too. So Mom and Dad should be able to home-school at school-school - as in, use a room to teach Genesis. And complain to teachers who teach evolution, even though their kids aren't even in the classes. They pay their salary too, right?
The Chinese menu approach to public service...sounds good to me.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)Nice.
If they qualify for free lunch, they only get to eat if they play by your rules. How progressive.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Like everyone else.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)Do you also think food stamps recipients should only be able to buy "approved" foods (no sugary foods, chips, soda, etc)?
How about that they have to be drug tested to receive those benefits?
In other words, they don't get to eat unless they jump through your authoritative hoops an you approve it?
Yikes.
Sounds like you also want to do away with the free lunch programs that many districts have during the summer. After all, those kids aren't students.
It just doesn't sound very progressive to punish kids to the point of letting them go hungry simply because they are using FEWER taxpayer resources but they just aren't doing things the way you think they should do them.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)We weren't talking about food stamps, were we?
And though they use school facilities, summer lunch programs are funded by the USDA and staffed by community groups.
And it's not a question of authoritarianism, it's a quesiton of practicality and the best use of funds.
Do you have kids?
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)Simply because they will not learn "your way"?
School lunches are also funded by the USDA and does not depend on the enrollment numbers. In fact "School food authorities can also be reimbursed for snacks served to children through age 18 in afterschool educational or enrichment programs."
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf
And if the "play by the rules or you don't eat" works here, why not with food stamps? You can't magically just pretend the other program is not an analog simply because it is inconvenient.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)I can't understand why you want to make the homeless go hungry simply because they're older than 18.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)and not have to rely on parents.
Kids do not have that freedom or ability. They are dependent on the whims of their parents.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Sounds like your scenario is only fostering reliance on their parents.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)We SHOULD indoctrinate kids to our beliefs. We should indoctrinate them to be kind and giving and be a useful participant in society. Those kids who grow up without that "indoctrination" usually end up in prison.
Is it indoctrination to teach kids to be accepting of all races. Yep. And it is a good thing.
Is it indoctrination to teach kids to accept LGBT? Yep.
Just as you don't like what some people teach their kids, they probably don't like what you would indoctrinate your kids with.
BTW, I guess you fully support those public schools in red states that teach (since that is apparently what public schools do instead of indoctrination) creationism, prayer in school, and abstinence.
This child has been indoctrinated.
?1326132143
On the Road
(20,783 posts)I still haven't seen a good reason against the law expressed anywhere in this thread. Apparently the mention of Tim Tebow and homeschooling is enough basis .
I don't know if people think they're doing kids a service by wanting to prevent homeschooling, but from an educational perspective it is, shall we say, a misplaced concern. On average homeschooled kids far exceed the public school standards, but as long as they meet the same achievement level the public system sets, it should a matter of personal freedom.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)In CA the high school exit exam is a joke. Most 5th-graders could pass it.
Is teaching Genesis instead of evolution a public school standard? What about teaching that children of Islam will all go to hell?
I don't want a dime of my tax money supporting that crap. In any way, shape, or form.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Least you can do is be nice about it. [pre]
[/pre]
No, I'm not talking about barely meeting minimum requirements. My niece is from one of those evangelical homeschool families you're horrified about. She had a perfect SAT score. Only other person I knew who did that was my ex, who had a PhD from Yale. (She went to Catholic schools before then.)
Just look at some statistics about homeschoolers and you might change your mind. The government has an interest in a child's education. It does not have a compelling interest in forcing parents to use their option, especially because it's not as good in a large number of cases.
Athletics is an issue for homeschoolers. My niece and nephew played soccer in homeschool leagues, but they were comparatively small. It's not a huge problem, but it's part of a child's development. The law seems like a reasonable accomodation.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)What about cooperation, about getting along with other kids? How to deal with bullying? Conversational skills?
Learning to accept diversity? Of religion, of language, of culture?
There's a lot more to education than SAT scores. Homeschoolers are not doing my kids nor society any favors by growing up in an exclusive, righteous bubble, then demanding to use public facilities when it suits them.
All part of the package.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)that's what it does... they are defunding the public schools by NOT enrolling their kids in that school. Do you know that is how schools are enrolled?????
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)As I understand it for federal funding, there is a certain amount budgeted and the school count determines how that funding it split up. I don't think it changes the overall funding nationwide and it certainly does not change the local funding that goes tot he schools.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Kellerfeller
(397 posts)the headcount determines how the federal funding is distributed, not how much of it there is.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)* Federal AND state funding are determined by ADA.
* That equates to how much of it there is for a given school.
* That means if kids are using resources at my kids' school without showing up for classes, they're getting a free ride - in essence, I'm paying so they can get a fundie-nut "education" at home.
Do you believe in state-sponsored religion?
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)those "other" schools. Remember, the home school kids on teams do not cost the district anything. And the fact that the teachers don't have to teach them, that means there are smaller classes and the local dollars go further.
Why are you trying to drag down the per-capita spending at your school?
On the Road
(20,783 posts)parents would not be able to educate their own children so that the funds can be allocated differently? Really?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)but in case you didn't understand me the first time, when a parent does not enroll its kids in a public school, THAT school does NOT get the funding for those students... get it?
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)Federal funds are as you describe. That is about 10% of the budget in most states. The other 90% is not counted that way.
http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/schoolfunding/edufeb2011.pdf
"State funding is allocated to a district based on the number of students residing in the district."
So yes, by enrolling another student, 10% of the budget goes up accordingly. The other 90% is diluted by having another kid in a seat in a classroom. Fewer home-schooler mean more teachers and classrooms needed. However for sports, the size of the team is usually fixed and does not increase as more kids enter the district. Which is why larger schools usually have better sports teams because they don't have to accept the mediocre players on the team to fill out the roster.
LarryNM
(493 posts)underpants
(182,736 posts)Funding - funding for schools is based on attendance
Participation - part of the decision to home school should be the missed proms and athletics
Accountability - there is no way to punish or monitor behavior of a home schooler who either disbehaves on the sports field or in everyday life.
Scout
(8,624 posts)if you don't go to the school, tough shit, you don't play on the team.
they can start their own little league full of home schoolers if they want sports.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Go live in your own libertarian world and stop fucking up our social system you weird anti-social religious/political fanatics!
If you don't believe in the idea of a society, don't live in one, idiots!!!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)education is beyond me. This is I believe is essential in understanding the opposition to home schooling, for which I am neither for or against. However the same political ideaology that embraces freedom and choice has no problem with compulsory education.
Can someone explain? Seriously, I have a hard time with this.
kemah
(276 posts)The country that has the highest educated citizens will win in war and economical. Why did the white men win over the Indians in the new world, technology, military training, and civil engineering. The GED was started in response to WWII shortage of literate soldiers, you can not go to war today with out an educated soldier. WWII was won with superior technology and superior military training, educated generals. The cold war was also won with an educated workforce and better weapons.
Look at the natives in third world countries, where there is no compulsory education. Education is a challenge, uncomfortable. Look at your typical teenagers they rather stay home, sleep late, play video games. A lot of poor people would rather have their kids work menial jobs to support the family. Child labor laws made compulsory education to get kids out of the workforce and to put them in productive environment, not just hanging around the house waiting to turn 16.
I hope this explains your concerns, if not then US will become a third world country while the educated countries live us behind and maybe they will come and invade us with newer technology and take this country away from us like we took it from the natives.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)and it'll never be attributed to this idiotic bill as Virginia repukes never look at reality. Kids don't want "outsiders" on their teams and the kids will serially abuse the "outsiders".
Everyone knows how clique-like high school is, and this moronic repuke bill completely ignores that.
LarryNM
(493 posts)in Any Extra Curricular activities then the Parents Need to file Suit against all involved. Afterall, Their Children are being denied social interaction and they not only pay taxes but are enrolled in the school. Some Occupy activities also would be in order.
kemah
(276 posts)School have policies that exclude students who are not passing or have discipline problems. My son was denied riding the school bus because he got out of his seat while the bus was moving. Three day suspension. These home schoolers need to also need to meet the requirements that public students need to meet. Schools get money from the state for the number of students registered in their schools. If you want to home school then you get to suffer the consequences of your free choice.
Home schooling is not easy when done right. I had a neighbor who home schooled four kids all different ages (14 to 5). How are you going to come up with lesson plans for four different levels of math, English, writing, science, history? Her answer a lot of field trips to Wal Mart. True story.
Nikia
(11,411 posts)There are some students (with their parents) who do choose to go to public school because of the extracurriculars as opposed to being home schooled or going to a private school with fewer opportunities.
For private schools that don't have a strong sports tradition, having their students join public school sports teams instead could save them a lot of money.
eringer
(460 posts)Stuff like this in Virginia (and there are a ton more new laws like it) resulted from Democrats and Independents staying home last November. These people would never put their fine china or silverware in the $1 box at a yardsale so what gives? Wake up Virginia!
brooklynite
(94,489 posts)That player next to your son in the huddle might be...
Gay
or...
an Atheist
or, worst of all...
liberal!
DO you really want your kids exposed to the outside world?
kemah
(276 posts)Scare them away with reality.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 9, 2012, 04:36 PM - Edit history (3)
have to do with homeschooling or religion...
One of the coal mine canaries nobody wants to address is just how laughably corrupt and lawless sports have become on the high school level for top-level players, parents, coaches, referees, and school officials on local and state levels (decades of influence from the NCAA and AAU have trickled down)...Look at the history of most top athletes and see just HOW many high school switches are in their record -- There are countless examples of them making at least 2-3 changes in the same YEAR...Look and see how many tricks are pulled to make sure a top player "lives" in the schooling district so he's eligible (up to and including moving in with the coach)...Look and see just how much time and travel distance high-profile AAU teams take up, essentially making it a full-time job (and don't get me started on the coach's 501c charity scams)...And look and see just how many times violations are brushed aside with a wink and a nod and given no punishment by state governing boards...
By far the biggest beneficiaries of this bill (and soon to be the biggest exploiters) are the big time football/basketball prospects, because there are a hell of a lot more of them in the Commonwealth than homeschoolers interested in playing sports...They will just declare themselves "homeschool" and become play-for-pay mercenaries...Many of them already are; this bill will just make it easier...
The state legislature is following their usual form, creating grandstanding, meaningless answers for things that don't need a solution while pandering to a fundie base...If homeschool parents were REALLY interested in getting their kids in sports, the AAU and dozens of amateur organizations have been around forever...
hay rick
(7,603 posts)I have family members who home-schooled their kids. I knew that my sister-in-law (who has a Masters in education) was quite competent to teach her kids. They all attended and graduated from good universities. My concern was with socialization- the experience of befriending and otherwise dealing with a lot of kids their own age from different backgrounds. Years later, they all seem well-adjusted.
My niece continued her family tradition and home-schooled her daughter until her daughter developed a passion for chemistry that surpassed her ability to teach. Her daughter now attends Columbia. My niece and I discussed my "socialization" issue at length. She told me about all the alternate programs that they participated in, particularly dance and musical programs. Her daughter is a nice, bright, hard-working young girl, but my concerns remain...
I think home-schooled and public school kids can both benefit from their interaction. My main concern would be equitable funding. Link to school funding information for Charlottesville, VA: http://www.ccs.k12.va.us/departments/budget/budget-wkshp-3dec2011.html
Of the three major sources of funding, only state aid appears to vary with number of enrolled students. A fee to cover additional unreimbursed costs seems like an equitable solution.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)And made illegal.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
LostinRed
(840 posts)as long as the children are able to pass standarized tests. I do think the home schooling parents should have to get some sort of certification though.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)expatriate2mex
(148 posts)Zax2me
(2,515 posts)So many that do not like or approve of choice.
Choice of religion.
Choice to educate your children as you see fit.
I guess pro-choice only applies when you choose the way others want you to choose.
How progressive!
expatriate2mex
(148 posts)liberal and guess we are just about gone as being liberal applies to all issues and not just those that support my choices. Maybe that's the difference in liberals and progressives, progressives are liberal in their issues only?
Another thing is the misconception that only the far right home school. This is far from the truth.
Hotler
(11,412 posts)
Jimbo S
(2,958 posts)A school's extra-curicular options should only be available to those students enrolled. The students are part of the school "community". They go to class together, socialize together. They represent the school. I can only see a home-schooler who shows up for a couple of hours late in the afternoon as nothing more than an outsider. I think it would be an odd dynamic.
we can do it
(12,180 posts)