Home schooled students, on average score better on college entrance tests than public school students do. We only home schooled our kids temporarily to allow them to catch up with where we believed that their math and science skills should be - in other words to undo some of the damage done in public school. Both of my sons were National Merit Scholars - one a finalist and the other one a semi-finalist.

 

Home schooled children can be taught much more effectively - even by parents lacking a teaching certificate than in public schools. The reason is simply the numbers. My wife could easily work one on one or one on two with our kids and cover three times more material in the same amount of time.

 

Granted, there are parents who do a poor job of home schooling or are simply not teaching at all, but the same can be said of some teachers and some public schools. There parents are not representative of the great majority of people who are increasingly choosing not to send their children to public schools.

 

There is no good reason that home schooled children should be barred from taking advantage of some of the services for which their parents are paying.

 

What about the taxpayers w/o children, or the taxpayer with one child who gets no more benefits than one with multiple children, or the unemployed who don't pay taxes - you can't rationalize homeshooled children playing sports because their parents pay taxes.

Absolutely yes.

I am not sure how they would work out all the details, but I think it could possibly be a great idea.

Let's see....I don't think they should be allowed to play.

 

The idea that a parent paying taxes into a school has the right to take only the good things from the district (athletics) and leave the bad (academics) upsets me. If you don't like the way academics are being handled at a school--work to change it. Become involved in the site based council, attend board meetings, volunteer your services, have an "Academic Booster Club." Heaven knows we have lots of athletic boosters that do good work.

 

The name of the team that I support is the "Elliott County High" team....not "Taxpayers of Elliott County."

 

A home school student is not enrolled in the school....how can they participate in a school sponored event?

If the public school district has failed in terms of academics, why should the kid be penalized?

 

It is a tragedy enough that low-income parents have no other choices that schools that don't accurately reflect what they would like their kids to learn. I don't understand why the kids deserved to be penalized for the failures of others.

What about the taxpayers w/o children, or the taxpayer with one child who gets no more benefits than one with multiple children, or the unemployed who don't pay taxes - you can't rationalize homeshooled children playing sports because their parents pay taxes.

There are obvious inadequacies in the public school system- some districts have open enrollment, some don't. Some parents get more bang for their buck (with multiple kids in the schools, as you said) while some child-less taxpayers are paying for something with no (direct) return from them.

 

However, the fact remains that home-schooled kids are not using resources that otherwise would have been used in the schools- saving the school district money. Furthermore, the reason why the parent is homeschooling their child is presumedly because they do not like what the school district is doing. The kid should not be penalized for the mistakes of others.

BTW, no chance should a home-school kid be allowed to participate at a private school.

BTW, no chance should a home-school kid be allowed to participate at a private school.

 

 

There's a similar thread in the Football forum. I addressed that issue there.

Good point.

 

As good a point if I provide enough for my retirement and take the cost to provide my own insurance I can and should be allowed to opt out of medicare and Social Security, including self employment insurance? Before you say yes, please note there is a clear case study that shows if you are consistent with this matter 81% of current and future retirees would NOT have the least basic amount of services and income. Those who produce the most in our society picks up most the tab. It is not unreasonable to expect society to be at least obligated to community expected services.

What about the taxpayers w/o children, or the taxpayer with one child who gets no more benefits than one with multiple children, or the unemployed who don't pay taxes - you can't rationalize homeshooled children playing sports because their parents pay taxes.

The money available to the school to educate the students residing in the tax district does not change because a few people decide to teach their children at home. Whether those parents actually pay taxes or not, the fact is that if their children are not using all of the resources to which they are entitled, then the students who do attend the public school are left with more, not less, of those resources.

 

The reason that public schools do not want to allow home schooled children to use "their" facilities is fear of competition and fear of losing students, jobs, and political power. It is the same reason public schools generally oppose school choice, charter schools, private schools, and any other form of competition.

The money available to the school to educate the students residing in the tax district does not change because a few people decide to teach their children at home. Whether those parents actually pay taxes or not, the fact is that if their children are not using all of the resources to which they are entitled, then the students who do attend the public school are left with more, not less, of those resources.

 

The reason that public schools do not want to allow home schooled children to use "their" facilities is fear of competition and fear of losing students, jobs, and political power. It is the same reason public schools generally oppose school choice, charter schools, private schools, and any other form of competition.

 

I was told the money schools get is based on the number of students enrolled in the school. But I really don't believe it is a money issue, I was just addressing a previous post.

 

I believe if you don't like public schools well enough to attend the academic classes, why do you want (and be allowed) to participate in extra curricular? I agree with Ram, you can have anything you want but you can't have it all.

I was told the money schools get is based on the number of students enrolled in the school. But I really don't believe it is a money issue, I was just addressing a previous post.

This is true of the state portion of funding but the fact that Kentucky places public school attendance over learning is not the fault of homeschoolers.

 

I believe if you don't like public schools well enough to attend the academic classes, why do you want (and be allowed) to participate in extra curricular? I agree with Ram, you can have anything you want but you can't have it all.

Competition is a good thing - in sports and education. Public schools should embrace competition, not fear it. Schools should look at home schooled athletes as an opportunity to prove that the public schools can do and will do an effective job of educating its students.

 

Home schooling is a lot of work and expense for most people. Schools should be happy to get home schooled students and their parent into their hallways and gyms on a voluntary basis. Public schools exist, or should exist, to educate the children of the community.

 

Would it be better for these home schooled children to be allowed to participate in group activities at their local public school or denied that opportunity? How would allowing a few home schooled children to play sports in public schools harm the children who already attend those schools? Are public school parents simply worried about home schooled kids eating in to their kids' playing time?

This is true of the state portion of funding but the fact that Kentucky places public school attendance over learning is not the fault of homeschoolers.

 

Can you explain this portion of your opinion more? I assume that to mean that, in your opinion, state funds should be lessened for schools that don't perform as well?

Can you explain this portion of your opinion more? I assume that to mean that, in your opinion, state funds should be lessened for schools that don't perform as well?

My point is that parents who home school have no say in the way that public schools are funded. The state can adjust its formula to dole out state funding if it wants, so this should not be a factor in denying home schooled children the opportunity to participate in team sports in their community owned school.

 

Public schools should welcome this opportunity to showcase their services. There is nothing wrong with having public schools selling themselves to their stakeholders in the community. Monopolies never benefit their customers and this is a marketing opportunity for our public schools.

My point is that parents who home school have no say in the way that public schools are funded. The state can adjust its formula to dole out state funding if it wants, so this should not be a factor in denying home schooled children the opportunity to participate in team sports in their community owned school.

 

Public schools should welcome this opportunity to showcase their services. There is nothing wrong with having public schools selling themselves to their stakeholders in the community. Monopolies never benefit their customers and this is a marketing opportunity for our public schools.

 

How do non-home schooled students parents have any more say in the the way that public schools are funded than anyone else? Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

A better way would be to allow homeschool teams to join KHSAA and to play public schools.

 

Would they be called the Homies?:lol: