I will be the first one to admit when I am wrong...and I am wrong. I found the bill itself, and in Alabama, and Fla it states:This bill would permit students in private and church schools and those taught by a private tutor to participate in extracurricular activities at public school. Since students receiving instruction in Alabama are enrolled in church schools or taught by tutors, this bill would potentially affect them.

 

So to answer your question, if we had this law, you would be allowed to send you kid to a private school, and play football for a public school.

 

:irked: And if we were to pass such a law in our state IMO it would be utterly ridiculous.

:irked: And if we were to pass such a law in our state IMO it would be utterly ridiculous.

I will agree with you on 1 part of that. I dont like the fact that someone could go to a private school, and play sports for a public school, but I dont find a problem with a home schooled kid being allowed to play if they live in district.

I will agree with you on 1 part of that. I dont like the fact that someone could go to a private school, and play sports for a public school, but I dont find a problem with a home schooled kid being allowed to play if they live in district.

 

With all due respect I must disagree.

With all due respect I must disagree.

Thats fine, you have every right, but we need not argue...like you said in guru's pole, we will not change each others mind, and I respect your opinion as well.

True but I'm still paying property taxes regardless of how the state distributes the money. That is the basis for those that say home schoolers should still be allowed access to public school activities and other advantages.

And the fact that the public school loses funding because that family opts to home-school their child is a basis for an argument for not allowing them to play. Neither necessarily holds sway over the other.

And the fact that the public school loses funding because that family opts to home-school their child is a basis for an argument for not allowing them to play. Neither necessarily holds sway over the other.

What if schools allowed participation from home-schoolers on a pay-to-play basis? Woudl this change anyone's minds?

What if schools allowed participation from home-schoolers on a pay-to-play basis? Woudl this change anyone's minds?

 

Not mine..Attend the school as a full-time student or you lose your chance to play. IMO..

Not mine..Attend the school as a full-time student or you lose your chance to play. IMO..

 

For the record, I'm with BZ on this one. I dont buy the "I pay taxes" line of thinking. Extracurriculars are a bonus for being a student at a school. If you don't attend the school, you don't do extracurriculars. Period.

For the record, I'm with BZ on this one. I dont buy the "I pay taxes" line of thinking. Extracurriculars are a bonus for being a student at a school. If you don't attend the school, you don't do extracurriculars. Period.

:thumb:

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.

Attend the school as a full-time student or you lose your chance to play.

These two posts sum up my view on the issue.

I would love to see what supporting information you could show to make your claim.

 

I'm sure a parent that home school's their child would give more attention than regular school teacher. So I would think their test scores would be higher from home schooling vs "regular schooling".

 

However to get a well rounded education, the child would need other extracurricular activities. Where the child partakes in the activities could be at the local school which the parent(s) pays taxes to support.

I'm sure a parent that home school's their child would give more attention than regular school teacher. So I would think their test scores would be higher from home schooling vs "regular schooling".

If they are using a solid curriculum and are doing a good job of teaching, yes. I think there is a legitimate question whether all home-schooled kids are getting the same quality of education that they would get in a public school, and the answer varies from situation to situation.

However to get a well rounded education, the child would need other extracurricular activities. Where the child partakes in the activities could be at the local school which the parent(s) pays taxes to support.

As has been stated earlier, the parents are paying taxes to the school system, but they're also costing the system money by not enrolling their child or children.

 

Part of what makes high school sports great is the camaraderie that exists between athletes working for a common goal, students that grow up together, go to the same classes and interact together on a daily basis. Home-schooled kids miss out on that stuff, but that is the choice made by their families ... accordingly, athletics and other extracurricular activities are part of that.

For the record, I'm with BZ on this one. I dont buy the "I pay taxes" line of thinking. Extracurriculars are a bonus for being a student at a school. If you don't attend the school, you don't do extracurriculars. Period.

 

 

I agree 100%. And for the record I think that parents that homeschool their kids are doing them a big disservice. There is a lot more to be learned at school than what is in the text books. Kids will have to face the real world sooner or later, and from what I have seen kids who have been sheltered their whole lives just aren't ready to what lies ahead. Sure attending a public or private school for that matter may expose a kid to some situations that a parent would like to avoid, but I think that learning how to deal with or avoid certain situations is beneficial at an earlier age.

I'm sure a parent that home school's their child would give more attention than regular school teacher. So I would think their test scores would be higher from home schooling vs "regular schooling".

 

However to get a well rounded education, the child would need other extracurricular activities. Where the child partakes in the activities could be at the local school which the parent(s) pays taxes to support.[/QUOTE]

 

Ok, then where do you draw the line. Does the home schooled student participate in graduation with their local school, they paid taxes aren't they entitled. Maybe they could serve as president of the student council for their local school. These are all activites that they would miss out on by being home schooled. Isn't the student entitled to these as well, why just athletics. What if a child being home schooled is from a poor family, should the government subsidise this childs lunch everyday like they would it he was at the local school, or maybe the kid could go to the school each day to eat lunch and then leave. Of course their should probably be a law that we would have to reserve a seat for them at the popular kids table.

 

That's the problem with this country today is that everybody feels that they are entitled to everything. If you make a CHOICE to home school your kid than you have disassociated your kid from the school and IMO that should be for all activites not just academics. It's a double standard, the school isn't good enought to educate your precious child, but you'll use the school to try to fulfil the childs other needs.

I agree 100%. And for the record I think that parents that homeschool their kids are doing them a big disservice. There is a lot more to be learned at school than what is in the text books. Kids will have to face the real world sooner or later, and from what I have seen kids who have been sheltered their whole lives just aren't ready to what lies ahead. Sure attending a public or private school for that matter may expose a kid to some situations that a parent would like to avoid, but I think that learning how to deal with or avoid certain situations is beneficial at an earlier age.

I think there is a lot of truth to that.