Hoot Gibson

Students attending public schools have no right to be educated by a homeshooling parent because they do nothing to support that parent's household. The same cannot be said of parents who homeschool their children. Their children have the right to an education in a public school, if they so choose, and that education includes the extracurricular activities sponsored by the school with tax dollars. IMO, it is petty for the people who run public schools to deny the opportunity for homeschoolers to participate on school sponsored teams. As I said in a previous thread, schools should welcome the opportunity to provide a positive public school experience to home schooled children. Doing so benefits the community as a whole, whether or not the parents decide that the public school is not so bad after all as a result of that experience.

That is too bad. Not surprising but disappointing just the same.

Schools exist to make the student better - not vice-versa and the responsible parents should be free to decide what education is appropriate for their children, not the state. Funding formulas can be changed, if necessary, to accommodate homeschoolers but replacing a couple of team members with homeschooled kids who are good enough to make the cut will cost little or nothing more.

So, if all home schooled kids in Kentucky were enrolled in public schools, where would the extra money come from to absorb those students? Kentucky does not print money so either taxes would be raised or the size of classes and the workload on teachers and staff would increase.

That should be up to the private school but I doubt that private schools would be interested in allowing home schooled students join their teams. The parents of home schooled students are not compelled by the government to support private schools in their neighborhood, so they do not own a stake in those schools.

I never said that they do. What I am saying is the fact that the school may not get money from the state because a home schooled player attends no classes is not the fault of the home schooled player or his/her parents. They have no control over how the state decides to fund its 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.

IMO, the key point that the people who oppose the proposed rule are missing is the fact that public schools belong to the public. They do not exist solely for those who choose to sit in their classrooms.

:thumb: I agree on all counts. I am glad that Tim Tebow is providing a non-stereotypical example of a home schooled kid who excels in life. Many of these kids are very well educated, very well adjusted socially, and become very successful adults.

The home schoolers that you know may be teaching their kids at home for 99.9% religious reasons but many parents do so for academic and/or political reasons. Team sports teach skills that are not easily taught at home and one of the best places to learn those skills is on a public school team.

Some of these arguments against allowing home schooled children to participate in public school athletics smacks of the old "if it was good enough for me, then it should be good enough for them" argument. If parents want to home school, then how does it harm the children of those parents who believe that the public schools are doing a good enough job for their own children? The parents of students attending public schools do not own those schools and neither the the school board members, administrative staff, or teachers. Public schools belong to the community and home schooled children are a part of that community, whether you like it or not.

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. 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?

I suspect that the state treats them as private schools to maintain the separation of church and state. That does not mean that the KHSAA must treat every home school the same as it does Trinity or St. X.

The state treats home schools as private schools. You have to submit the name of your school and the name of the principal. Obviously, not many families can field a football team or even a basketball team. More than 20 states allow home schooled kids to play for public schools and IMO, Kentucky should join them.

By definition, home schools in Kentucky are private schools. All that should be necessary for a home schooled kid to play in a public school in their district is a statement that he or she is academically eligible to participate. I don't understand why the transfer rules would be any different than for any other transfer. Suppose the home schooled child lived next door to another private school but played for a public school. If he decided to transfer to the private school next door, then the same rules would apply as for any other student transferring. The home school could be required to agree in writing to the abide by KHSAA rules and decisions before being allowed to play.

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.

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.

I agree again. We home schooled our kids for a year but they were not allowed to participate in any extracurricular activities. So, we paid $500 to participate in the Governor's Cup academic competition. Our "school" finished third in a region of 17 public schools. We could have done better with a bigger family. Public school administrators and the NEA fear being shown up by home schooled children. They prefer pushing the same old tired stereotypes of home schoolers as they push for more unnecessary regulations. If they can force home schools to teach the same curriculum as public schools, while denying them the benefits to which taxpayers should be entitled, then the benefits of home schooling will vanish and kids forced back into the system.

Yes. The parents of home schoolers pay property taxes to support public schools just like every other parent. The difference is that they do not normally use the services that they pay for. Home schooled kids should be allowed to participate in extracurricular activities at the schools in their tax districts.

Did Fleming County have school today? Some districts have a rule against holding games if school was canceled because of slick roads.

I don't know whether Corbin is a top 10 team or not, but if any key players played football, then two early losses should not be held against them. Corbin has won 10 straight games after starting the season 3-2.

My point exactly. Based on its returning talent and performance to date, Elliot County has a much better shot of winning the state than anybody gave the '76 Edmonson County team - yet that Edmonson team did cut down the nets. Anybody who says that EC is not a legitimate contender for the state title just does not know what they are talking about.

Are you old enough to remember the 1976 Edmondson County team that won the state title? If so, do you recall how shocked most of the state was when the Wildcats won the title? I am not sure of what kind of schedule Edmonson played that season but if they had played a "top 10" schedule, then I am pretty sure their state title would not have been such a shock to people outside of the county.

I don't have a dog in this fight and feel no need to make a case. Most of the team that lost in the first round last season is back. EC is clearly good enough to beat any team in the state on any given night and the same can be said of several other teams. Chemistry, talent, and momentum will decide the state championship this year, just as it does every year. No team can survive having a bad game in the Sweet Sixteen against a good team but that is as true of Holmes as it is for Elliot County. Assuming that EC advances to the state tournament this season, it will be a much more experienced and battle tested team than it was a year ago.

The threads will continue until EC wins the state title. When any of the Golden Triangle contenders fall short of a state title, it will be chalked up to a bad night. If EC falls short, then it will be trumpeted as proof that the team's schedule failed to prepare them for the big time. That is just how it is for eastern Kentucky teams in any sport. The attitude only changes after multiple state titles. In other words, Belfry can play a relatively weak football schedule without such criticism because they have state titles to prove the a team does not have to play a "top ten" schedule to be the top team in the state. EC returned most of its team from a year ago and has played a strong enough schedule to establish itself as a legitimate contender for its first state title. Those who think otherwise will be convinced by nothing short of a state title. Most people who can read a box score already know that Elliot County is for real.