JMO, but I think anyone that has an issue with this takes youth and high school sports WAY too seriously. :idunno:

 

Bingo. My exact point in all these topics. To many adults take youth sports to seriously.

As some as stated above, it's a lot more complicated than saying "just let them play". There are all kids of aspects and considerations and possible "un-intended consequences" that can come into play. I'm kinda in the ball park with All Tell and tend to agree with his following statement..."I fully support the right of people to home school their children if that's what they feel is best for their kids but when you choose to do so you voluntarily give ups some things. The social aspects of attending school with your peers is one. Another IMVHO is the PRIVILEGE of playing interscholastic sports." With that said, I am constantly debating with myself about this opinion.

 

I can definitely see both sides. I just fall into the camp of "let 'em play". Of course, I've never worked in sports, just been a spectator.

I would assume the same logic for allowing the kids to play high school sports also applies to band and all clubs? Prom?

I would assume the same logic for allowing the kids to play high school sports also applies to band and all clubs? Prom?

 

Opens up another can of worms

Opens up another can of worms

 

Correct. What would the bill sponsor's argument be against clubs/band/prom?

How about another twist. How about a kid that goes to a private school, should they be allowed to play on the public school team? They pay the same taxes don't they? Better yet, He plays football for the county team and plays basketball for the private school since his school does not offer football.

Part of the decision of where to send your child to school or home school needs to take in all academic, social and athletic aspects of the school or home school.

I would assume the same logic for allowing the kids to play high school sports also applies to band and all clubs? Prom?

 

Just wait until their is a lawsuit to force a school to place a homeschooled kids name on the ballot for homecoming king / queen.

On a strictly selfish note if this does pass I really don't want to hear the wailing when the first home schooled kid plays for Trinity.

Kentucky is - surprise for the state formerly and nearly annually - ranked 49th in education - very very homeschool friendly. They merely require that you sign a paper stating you are teaching the core subjects. There is no testing for progress, no guidelines, no mandated curriculum. Ohio requires an annual assessment and a proposed curriculum for each student.

I am 100% in favor of this bill. My wife and I pulled our two sons out of public school for one year and our daughter out for two years so that we could move them forward academically to where we believed that they should have been - especially in math and science. During the year that all three kids were home, we fielded a team to compete in the Kentucky Governor's Cup academic competition. Because we did not have a bigger family, the team could not compete in many of the events - but we finished third out of 18 teams in the region.

 

There are many very poor, and by poor I mean bad, public schools in Kentucky. For people who ask who is going to ensure that home schooled student-athletes are actually being educated at home, you should be asking who is going to see to it that student-athletes in public schools are actually being educated.

 

Public schools are supported by taxes. Parents of home schooled (and private school) students are responsible for paying the same taxes as those parents whose children attend public schools. Parents of home schooled and private school students are actually doing public schools a favor by reducing class sizes without reducing the tax revenues that support those schools.

 

IMO, it is very petty for people to deny home schooled kids or kids who attend small private schools that do not offer the choices of extracurricular activities that larger public school offer. Their parents pay for public schools and if they want to make selective use of them, then I see it as a win-win for everybody involved.

Edited August 6, 201412 yr by Mitch Rapp

Kentucky is - surprise for the state formerly and nearly annually - ranked 49th in education - very very homeschool friendly. They merely require that you sign a paper stating you are teaching the core subjects. There is no testing for progress, no guidelines, no mandated curriculum. Ohio requires an annual assessment and a proposed curriculum for each student.

 

I shake my head sometimes at people who say they are going to homeschool their kids.

On a strictly selfish note if this does pass I really don't want to hear the wailing when the first home schooled kid plays for Trinity.

Good Luck with that!!! :lol2:

Kentucky is - surprise for the state formerly and nearly annually - ranked 49th in education - very very homeschool friendly. They merely require that you sign a paper stating you are teaching the core subjects. There is no testing for progress, no guidelines, no mandated curriculum. Ohio requires an annual assessment and a proposed curriculum for each student.

It is no surprise that a state that ranks so low academically is friendly to home schoolers. States with weak public school systems provide strong incentives for parents to home school their kids.

 

People who oppose home schooling tend to forget how much of a student's time during a typical school day is wasted. A reasonably well educated parent can teach a child much more in less time than a student can learn in a good public school. Think of all of a student's time that is wasted switching classes, answering roll calls, watching television while a clueless substitute teacher just tries to survive the day, etc. (I am not saying that all subs are clueless, but few are as well qualified as the teacher for whom they substitute.)

 

I have no problem with state government not rigidly controlling what is taught at home. Why should a state that consistently ranks low in academic achievement dictate standards to parents who find the public schools in their area inadequate?

The homeschool laws in Ky are pathetic. I do know a few parents who truly embrace homeschooling their kids and go to great lengths to provide a quality education. However, I often see "homeschool" as a way for parents on the hot seat to escape. Social services reports often lead to a parent pulling a kid to be "homeschooled". A family about to be sent to family court for truancy or educational neglect - homeschool is an option for these parents. Sign a couple of papers and no more pressure, no more home visits from the school district, no more truancy to earn a court appearance. There is no accountability.

That part would need to be seriously addressed before I could support a bill like this one.

It is no surprise that a state that ranks so low academically is friendly to home schoolers. States with weak public school systems provide strong incentives for parents to home school their kids.

 

People who oppose home schooling tend to forget how much of a student's time during a typical school day is wasted. A reasonably well educated parent can teach a child much more in less time than a student can learn in a good public school. Think of all of a student's time that is wasted switching classes, answering roll calls, watching television while a clueless substitute teacher just tries to survive the day, etc. (I am not saying that all subs are clueless, but few are as well qualified as the teacher for whom they substitute.)

 

I have no problem with state government not rigidly controlling what is taught at home. Why should a state that consistently ranks low in academic achievement dictate standards to parents who find the public schools in their area inadequate?

 

The schools and the parents who are inadequate should both be addressed.