Yes, I feel if the parents pay property taxes and live in the district they should be able to play only if some assessment standards have been met. They have to stay on grade level indicated by some form of testing that homeschoolers give to judge their childs levels. Trust me most of the kids that leave for home school due to trouble do not usually play sports anyway.

Yes, I feel if the parents pay property taxes and live in the district they should be able to play

 

If I send my child to Covington Catholic , should I be able to have him play football for Scott High School?

 

I pay property taxes and live in the district.

 

If your answer is "no" as I assume it will be, please point out the distinction that you are making.

If I send my child to Covington Catholic , should I be able to have him play football for Scott High School?

 

I pay property taxes and live in the district.

 

If your answer is "no" as I assume it will be, please point out the distinction that you are making.

Your talking about 2 different schools. Your comparing apples to oranges.

If a kid is home schooled, he is not enrolled in school (hints the name home school) You are talking about being enrolled at one school, and playing football for another.

I live right across the street from Conner in Hebron, and I dont know much about that school. But if I felt I could give my child a better education than the school, why should I have to (1) punish my child by not letting him play football there if I wanted to home school, or (2) have to send him there to play football, but not give him the education that I want. Its not fair.

You made the choice to send him or not send him to another school so you in essence cost him the oppurtunity or freedom to play sports at that school. Fair or not a CHOICE was made there are costs with every choice. A simple economics lesson.

I live right across the street from Conner in Hebron, and I dont know much about that school. But if I felt I could give my child a better education than the school, why should I have to (1) punish my child by not letting him play football there if I wanted to home school, or (2) have to send him there to play football, but not give him the education that I want. Its not fair.

Because you can't or IMO shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. If you choose to home school then more power to you but IMO you give up the right for your child to play athletics at any school that he/she is not enrolled in. You claim to pay taxes that go to the school district then enroll your child and let him reap all the benefits of the school. It isn't a smorgasboard where you can pick and choose..IMO anyway.

You made the choice to send him or not send him to another school so you in essence cost him the oppurtunity or freedom to play sports at that school. Fair or not a CHOICE was made there are costs with every choice. A simple economics lesson.

:thumb: Well said..

Because you can't or IMO shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. If you choose to home school then more power to you but IMO you give up the right for your child to play athletics at any school that he/she is not enrolled in. You claim to pay taxes that go to the school district then enroll your child and let him reap all the benefits of the school. It isn't a smorgasboard where you can pick and choose..IMO anyway.

Ok so if my kid is great at football, I have to punish him with a worse education to play football?

So if a kid who home schools or attends a private school and elects to play at a public school - do not hurt the kid. What about the student who goes to that school, supports that school, is involved in that school - I suggest THAT public school student has more than earned the right to be the one to represent the school not one displaced because someone wants to come in when it is convenient.

 

Those who elect to home school should not have the option to cherry pick what their choice of schooling limits.

 

If the school is good enough to participate in a few of the school programs then all the programs should be good enough. If one feels that strong about it, get involved with the school and make it better.

Ok so if my kid is great at football, I have to punish him with a worse education to play football?

 

I suggest, with the options for education that are clearly available now, you would be the one punishing your kid.

So if a kid who home schools or attends a private school and elects to play at a public school - do not hurt the kid. What about the student who goes to that school, supports that school, is involved in that school - I suggest THAT public school student has more than earned the right to be the one to represent the school not one displaced because someone wants to come in when it is convenient.

 

Those who elect to home school should not have the option to cherry pick what their choice of schooling limits.

 

If the school is good enough to participate in a few of the school programs then all the programs should be good enough. If one feels that strong about it, get involved with the school and make it better.

You dont pick what school you want to go to, the question was if a kid lives in that district and his parents pay those taxes, they should have every right to play sports there.

I suggest, with the options for education that are clearly available now, you would be the one punishing your kid.

Your telling me that ALL public schools have better education than what a home school student could get...NO WAY, your not even close on that one.

I suggest, with the options for education that are clearly available now, you would be the one punishing your kid.

 

:thumb: Agreed. The only one punishing your child would be you IMO.

Your talking about 2 different schools. Your comparing apples to oranges.

 

FairFan - look at the quote I quoted THEN use that context for my quote.

 

If your basis is that home schoolers should be allowed because you pay property tax in that school district, how is that different than my scenario?