Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

maxrandb

(15,395 posts)
Tue May 7, 2013, 02:58 PM May 2013

The Texas Senate approved something called the Tim Tebow Bill, and it’s a big deal

Source: Dallas Morning News via Yahoo

The Texas Senate passed the Tim Tebow Bill to allow home-schooled student-athletes to play for their local public schools in the Lone Star State, according to multiple reports.

The bill, which passed the Senate by a decisive 21-7 vote on April 25, now rests with the Texas House before it's signed into law, according to The Dallas Morning News. If the bill is successful there, it will open the doors for many home-schooled athletes in Texas.


Read more: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/texas-senate-approves-something-called-tim-tebow-bill-212158312.html



I think this is a shame. "I'm too good to go to school with you, but I want a spot on your football team".

and who doesn't think that High Schools will somehow "recruit" these home-schooled kids who are good enough to give them a shot at a championship?

If you want to play sports for your local High School, then why NOT REQUIRE THEY ATTEND SAID HIGH SCHOOL

BTW - I'm not entirely against home-schooling, although I'm willing to bet that in 85% of the cases, it's "fundy-rightwing nutjobs" that are proponents of it, and that 85% teach their kids that the earth is 6,000 years old and Jesus road dinosaurs.

But if you are going to go the home-school route, why shouldn't you have to go "all in".
97 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Texas Senate approved something called the Tim Tebow Bill, and it’s a big deal (Original Post) maxrandb May 2013 OP
I'm female and have never played football, but don't most schools have a rule that... Tx4obama May 2013 #1
Maybe that's why standardized testing is so important cprise May 2013 #10
This should kill any such eligiblity requirements. surrealAmerican May 2013 #58
I thought they had to follow some of the state cirriculum and make reports to the state. freshwest May 2013 #73
Not Texas. Igel May 2013 #90
'...a curriculum that includes reading, arithmetic, and some sort of civics is all that's required' freshwest May 2013 #93
So the next big lawsuit can be murielm99 May 2013 #85
excellent point dlwickham May 2013 #94
I believe one of the big problems with education today is the emphasis on SPORTS AndyA May 2013 #2
What Does A Football Coach At A Football Power Get Paid DallasNE May 2013 #8
Ditto and also, what about music and arts programs? Why doesn't this bill include that winterpark May 2013 #16
YEA!! get the red out May 2013 #29
And yet this still misses an important point. Igel May 2013 #91
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton May 2013 #3
Instant legal challenge TheLion May 2013 #4
On what basis? freshwest May 2013 #74
i think the bigger problem is the potential for abuse, e.g., redshirting unblock May 2013 #5
That's what I said when this bill was proposed in Virginia... Blue_Tires May 2013 #14
There are age restrictions for high school sports and probably in each state LiberalFighter May 2013 #44
People already delay kindergarten a year so their boys will be bigger in high school pstokely May 2013 #89
In Texas specifically and most likely in other states it does matter. LiberalFighter May 2013 #95
But they can be 19 on Sept 2 pstokely May 2013 #96
Did I say otherwise?????????????????????????? LiberalFighter May 2013 #97
The "moreover"s are already happening, but not in football jmowreader May 2013 #56
So, you create the problem you have with home-schooling joeglow3 May 2013 #6
The next step would be students attending parochial schools LiberalFighter May 2013 #45
Which courts have ruled in many places they can joeglow3 May 2013 #54
This doesn't take into account... RevStPatrick May 2013 #7
They should have a 'home school team/league' ... Myrina May 2013 #9
Because they pay property taxes and their kids are entitled to those benefits joeglow3 May 2013 #11
Tough shit. It was their choice not to attend the school. All or nothing. MotherPetrie May 2013 #12
We use private school and got speech therapy from our local public school joeglow3 May 2013 #13
No, I don't like parents giving the middle finger to the public school system and then expecting it MotherPetrie May 2013 #36
Our parochial schools save the public schools over $200 MILLION a year joeglow3 May 2013 #55
Agreed. If it's good enough for sports, it's good enough for education. Myrina May 2013 #15
what is the logic behind your view? joeglow3 May 2013 #24
+1 hamsterjill May 2013 #28
True, they pay taxes but... JNelson6563 May 2013 #19
The vast majority of funding comes from local property taxes joeglow3 May 2013 #21
Ok, apparently it's different in Michigan JNelson6563 May 2013 #23
CA only gives schools money based on number of students enrolled AND actually attending classes. SunSeeker May 2013 #26
SAME IN TEXAS elehhhhna May 2013 #53
Their property taxes don't go to the school unless their kid is ATTENDING CLASSES at the school. SunSeeker May 2013 #34
Then, it varies by state joeglow3 May 2013 #64
Arizona law, like other states, funds schools based on attendance, regardless of property taxes. SunSeeker May 2013 #68
We actually live in the highest taxed district in the state joeglow3 May 2013 #72
Yes, this is a major factor in maintaining all school activities, including sports. freshwest May 2013 #75
So do people who send their kids to private school treestar May 2013 #57
You don't even need that when you have the AAU Blue_Tires May 2013 #17
Going to be interesting austinlw May 2013 #18
Why is it a big deal? dbackjon May 2013 #20
Does the school get extra funding to cover the homeschoolers' use of the facilities? nt SunSeeker May 2013 #27
For the classes, yes dbackjon May 2013 #31
So the homeschoolers' use of the rec facilities goes unfunded? That hurts the rest of the kids. SunSeeker May 2013 #33
No - at least in most districts, you have to pay an activity fee to use the facilities/programs dbackjon May 2013 #37
But the school's students also pay those fees, on top of funding the school by their attendance. SunSeeker May 2013 #39
Property Taxes dbackjon May 2013 #41
Property taxes don't pay for upkeep and operation, attendance does. SunSeeker May 2013 #46
My experience was limited to Flagstaff dbackjon May 2013 #48
I did read your posts and the links. Arizona does not have any special requirements. SunSeeker May 2013 #49
Can my daughter attend one public school for academics but play sports for another public school? JoePhilly May 2013 #22
Not same situation dbackjon May 2013 #32
Why not? Get your education in one location, participate in sports at another. JoePhilly May 2013 #35
Because one is a formal school, the other is a home dbackjon May 2013 #38
Would make an interesting legal argument and could be an kiranon May 2013 #42
Kids in Public HS here have alot of rules on what makes them eligible to play. Marrah_G May 2013 #25
We have no pass, no play Ishoutandscream2 May 2013 #30
It doesn't have to take it to be the right wing to... TRoN33 May 2013 #40
I found an article about home schooling and sports timdog44 May 2013 #43
I can't imagine they could play for a school outside their district.... Fastcars May 2013 #47
Why are people surprised that football is more important than education in Texas? Snake Plissken May 2013 #50
Public schools are for the kids. ZombieHorde May 2013 #51
I wish you had the last word on this subject. Inkfreak May 2013 #81
Home schooling parents pay taxes and should be able to avail themselves of some school activities. searchingforlight May 2013 #52
So if they pay the taxes, why don't they send their kids to public schools for the full package? mac56 May 2013 #59
Why have the whole package when part of it is broken? The Straight Story May 2013 #61
Soo.... cherry-pick the parts you don't think are "broken"? mac56 May 2013 #63
When it comes to your kids, maybe a crappy school and education is no biggie to some The Straight Story May 2013 #65
Just because they "can" doesn't mean they "should." mac56 May 2013 #66
So you aren't pro-choice. Psephos May 2013 #71
You keep using that word. mac56 May 2013 #79
Umm, I only posted once in here. Psephos May 2013 #88
"if the school is good enough for sports, it's good enough for education." Shrek May 2013 #83
I don't understand your logic. noamnety May 2013 #86
I agree with you with that 85% estimate duhneece May 2013 #60
This could be the only normal social behavior they get exposed to. ileus May 2013 #62
Eliminate school sports. Dawson Leery May 2013 #67
+1 million n/t A Little Weird May 2013 #69
Home skool jocks living off the public school teat. blkmusclmachine May 2013 #70
But it's a chance to defacto7 May 2013 #76
^ THIS ^ mac56 May 2013 #80
The reaction to this idea seems pretty petty to me. dkf May 2013 #77
Umm representing a school they don't attend... uriel1972 May 2013 #78
" I'm not entirely against home-schooling" - really? demwing May 2013 #82
And Vonnegut says, "told ya so." sofa king May 2013 #84
We do this in Massachusetts now and I haven't seen any problems with it. hughee99 May 2013 #87
Strange attitude. Igel May 2013 #92

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
1. I'm female and have never played football, but don't most schools have a rule that...
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:01 PM
May 2013

... you have to maintain a certain grade point average in order to play on the football team?

If a person is home schooled then there is no way to know what their grade point average is.



cprise

(8,445 posts)
10. Maybe that's why standardized testing is so important
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:32 PM
May 2013

...so people can keep disassociating themselves from public schools without fear their movement will be viewed as a bunch of frauds. That's not to say standardized testing is as good as they think.

surrealAmerican

(11,369 posts)
58. This should kill any such eligiblity requirements.
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:09 PM
May 2013

If your school had a star player whose grades were too low, what would keep you from telling his parents to homeschool him, and just keep him on the team as a homeschooled student?

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
73. I thought they had to follow some of the state cirriculum and make reports to the state.
Wed May 8, 2013, 01:52 AM
May 2013

Not sure about it in practice, but at one time I considered home schooling my kid. They said that was what the state expected. The problem is, not all parents have all the prerequisite training to be effective teachers.

Igel

(35,390 posts)
90. Not Texas.
Wed May 8, 2013, 06:18 PM
May 2013

IIRC, a curriculum that includes reading, arithmetic, and some sort of civics is all that's required. No formal curriculum is required--you don't have to buy one or subscribe to one.

I last checked in 2005, but it's a state constitution kind of thing.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
93. '...a curriculum that includes reading, arithmetic, and some sort of civics is all that's required'
Wed May 8, 2013, 06:32 PM
May 2013

which is what I said with the words, 'some of the state cirriculum' that I was offered in the nineties in Texas. They were going to provide the materials to me for free, and check with me, but that was all. I felt socialization was needed, and my kid wanted to keep going despite problems. It didn't work out, but that's life.

murielm99

(30,784 posts)
85. So the next big lawsuit can be
Wed May 8, 2013, 11:15 AM
May 2013

some family suing a high school because their kid is not allowed to play because of his grades, but a homeschooled kid is allowed to be an active team member. I can see it now. As much as I dislike the emphasis on sports, I could sympathize with this type of lawsuit. If you don't want to go to school, then don't play school sports. Organize your own damned football team.

AndyA

(16,993 posts)
2. I believe one of the big problems with education today is the emphasis on SPORTS
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:03 PM
May 2013

Not on learning, but sports. Schools will build new stadiums, gymnasiums, and all the other sports necessities while ignoring the fact that some new books, computers, and things that actually help to educate the students are sorely needed.

Oh...and how about paying the teachers a little better? A good teacher can make all the difference in the classroom, even without adequate supplies.

The focus should be on the education, not the sports.

DallasNE

(7,404 posts)
8. What Does A Football Coach At A Football Power Get Paid
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:21 PM
May 2013

In comparison to, say, the math teacher? Where is the economic justice.

winterpark

(168 posts)
16. Ditto and also, what about music and arts programs? Why doesn't this bill include that
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:57 PM
May 2013

home schooled kids can participate in orchestra and band, etc?

Igel

(35,390 posts)
91. And yet this still misses an important point.
Wed May 8, 2013, 06:20 PM
May 2013

One state I lived in--no idea which, at this point--allowed home-schooling parents to have their kids attend little things like labs.

If you *want* to teach you kid biology or chemistry or physics but can't swing the lab requirements, have them cued in to lab schedules at the local high school. Then they show up for the labs.

Now, that would be disruptive. But it would be a good solution to the poverty of some home schooling curricula. And would be returning some of the tax benefits to tax payers.

Response to maxrandb (Original post)

unblock

(52,496 posts)
5. i think the bigger problem is the potential for abuse, e.g., redshirting
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:10 PM
May 2013

a parent could decide to home-school their football star and delay graduation for years to give him multiple shots at the title in the hopes of attracting a big-name college recruiter.

moreover a parent could entirely design a home school schedule around a sports career.

of course, home schooling always give parents latitude to screw up their kid if they're so inclined, but this gives them additional temptation.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
14. That's what I said when this bill was proposed in Virginia...
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:55 PM
May 2013

As if big-time high school sports/college recruiting weren't already corrupt enough (that's who this bill is designed to benefit, lest anyone think it was REALLY about the poor, oppressed home-schooled students)

LiberalFighter

(51,352 posts)
44. There are age restrictions for high school sports and probably in each state
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:20 PM
May 2013

as well as the national organization. At best, they might delay a student for a year but doubt beyond that.

pstokely

(10,540 posts)
89. People already delay kindergarten a year so their boys will be bigger in high school
Wed May 8, 2013, 03:40 PM
May 2013

doesn't matter if they 19 and still in high school

LiberalFighter

(51,352 posts)
95. In Texas specifically and most likely in other states it does matter.
Wed May 8, 2013, 10:14 PM
May 2013

For Texas the following applies:

Students are eligible to represent their school in varsity interscholastic activities if they:
• are not 19 years of age or older on or before September 1 of the current scholastic year. (See 504 handicapped
exception.)
• have not graduated from high school.
• are enrolled by the sixth class day of the current school year or have been in attendance for fifteen calendar days
immediately preceding a varsity contest.
• are full-time day students in a participant high school.
• initially enrolled in the ninth grade not more than four calendar years ago.
• are meeting academic standards required by state law.
• live with their parents inside the school district attendance zone their first year of attendance. (Parent residence
applies to varsity athletic eligibility only.) When the parents do not reside inside the district attendance zone the
student could be eligible if: the student has been in continuous attendance for at least one calendar year and has not
enrolled at another school; no inducement is given to the student to attend the school (for example: students or their
parents must pay their room and board when they do not live with a relative; students driving back into the district
should pay their own transportation costs); and it is not a violation of local school or TEA policies for the student
to continue attending the school. Students placed by the Texas Youth Commission are covered under Custodial
Residence (see Section 442 of the Constitution and Contest Rules).
• have observed all provisions of the Awards Rule.
Limitation on Awards. Schools may give one major award, not to exceed $70.00 in value, to a student during high
school enrollment at the same school for participation in one of the UIL interschool competitions listed in Section
18 Pre-Season Regulations
380. One additional symbolic award, not to exceed $10.00 in value, may be presented for participation in each
additional UIL activity listed in Section 380. The $10.00 award may be given to a student for an activity during
the same year that the major award is given for that activity.
• have not been recruited. (Does not apply to college recruiting as permitted by rule.)
• have not violated any provision of the summer camp rule, Section 1209.
• have observed all provisions of the Athletic Amateur Rule, Section 441.


You might notice that the student cannot be 19 on or before September 1
Must have been enrolled in 9th grade not more than 4 years prior.

jmowreader

(50,594 posts)
56. The "moreover"s are already happening, but not in football
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:03 PM
May 2013

We've got people up here (north Idaho) who aren't serious fundies, but who homeschool because the kid is on club teams for soccer, basketball, volleyball or softball, plus does all the sports-academy stuff, in hopes of getting good enough to get a full-ride college athletic scholarship to a high-end school and all the travel those guys do is not conducive to public education.

My worry is that the high schools in Texas will recruit from outside their normal areas. If there is not significant control over where a homeschooler can play football, there is no reason why High School A can't find a superstar in High School B and convin$e his parents to homeschool their son so he would be eligible to play for High School A.

 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
6. So, you create the problem you have with home-schooling
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:11 PM
May 2013

I am not saying you. I know multiple people who home-school and their kids are great. However, one of the biggest problems I hear is "these kids don't get social interactions they need."

THEN, when they are allowed to participate in activities at their local public school that they pay taxes into, people say "bullshit, we should isolate them."

LiberalFighter

(51,352 posts)
45. The next step would be students attending parochial schools
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:23 PM
May 2013

demanding to play on a public school team.

 

RevStPatrick

(2,208 posts)
7. This doesn't take into account...
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:15 PM
May 2013

...the fact that the home-schooled kids are going to have to eat about a gigaton of shit from the regular school kids, and are probably not going to last long enough to make the team.

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
9. They should have a 'home school team/league' ...
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:24 PM
May 2013

... and have to provide their own coaches, practice facilities, travel arrangements & equipment etc.


Why should they get to bump some kid(s) who are attending the public schools from a sports team?

 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
13. We use private school and got speech therapy from our local public school
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:49 PM
May 2013

What is the basis for your view? You don't like parents deciding to home-school or not use a public school and your response is "fuck that kid up his ass?"

VERY Democratic of you.

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
36. No, I don't like parents giving the middle finger to the public school system and then expecting it
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:18 PM
May 2013

to cater to theirl spawn when they feel like playing a team sport. If the school is not good to educate their kid, then they can take their sports team needs elsewhere, too. Team sports is NOT an essential part of anyone's education and I would just as soon public schools not expend their limited resources on something that is too often at the expense of other more necessary items.

Equating speech therapy with playing a fucking team sport is an odd thing for a parent to do, IMO. Not very Democratic of YOU.

 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
55. Our parochial schools save the public schools over $200 MILLION a year
Tue May 7, 2013, 07:48 PM
May 2013

If all the kids in parochial schools in our city (20,000) suddenly went to public schools, where the cost to educate a kid is around $12,000 a year, they would need to find over $200 million a year to educate them. Given that the vast majority of the funding comes from property taxes, we are all paying into the system (which I have ZERO problem with).

I see two issues in your post:

1. Should schools pay for sports? That is a separate issue.
2. Should students who do not attend a public schools be able to participate? I don't see a problem.

That said, given how much money we collectively save the public schools here while still paying our property taxes to fund the schools, how exactly are we giving them the middle finger?

hamsterjill

(15,224 posts)
28. +1
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:34 PM
May 2013

Well said!

And the argument about paying taxes - - - well, there are plenty of childless couples who pay taxes, too.

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
19. True, they pay taxes but...
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:06 PM
May 2013

I don't know where you are at but here, in Michigan, the school funding in each district is based on how many students they have. Since the home-schooled kids aren't in on that count the local school district does not receive funding on behalf of that student.

Additionally, many schools have programs that need to be augmented with fundraising and fees to the student/parents.

Julie

 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
21. The vast majority of funding comes from local property taxes
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:14 PM
May 2013

I would bet it is much cheaper for the district and better for other students if a kid is home-schooled, the district gets its local property taxes, but not the state funding and has to allow this kid play football than if the kid is enrolled full-time and they get the additional state funding.

SunSeeker

(51,800 posts)
26. CA only gives schools money based on number of students enrolled AND actually attending classes.
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:31 PM
May 2013

As far as I understand it, all public schools work that way. Homeschooled kids would use the resources of the school (i.e. football facilities and staff) without the school getting paid to compensate for it.

SunSeeker

(51,800 posts)
34. Their property taxes don't go to the school unless their kid is ATTENDING CLASSES at the school.
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:54 PM
May 2013

Schools are funded according to how many kids attend class each day. In CA, that amounts to $40/student/day. In fact, even if a student is enrolled, if that student does not come to school that day, the school does not get $40 for that student that day. Homeschoolers never come to class, so the school never gets funding for that kids, even if the parents pay property taxes.

 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
64. Then, it varies by state
Tue May 7, 2013, 09:32 PM
May 2013

Here, the funding is collected within the district. Thus, there is no where else to send the money. It all goes to the district where the residence is.

SunSeeker

(51,800 posts)
68. Arizona law, like other states, funds schools based on attendance, regardless of property taxes.
Tue May 7, 2013, 10:29 PM
May 2013

The Arizona legislature went into great detail to define what attendance means, none of which include homeschooled kids: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/15/00901.htm

The same rule applies for Arizona state charter schools: "Charter schools are funded by the state and receive money based on student enrollment and attendance." http://www.asbcs.az.gov/parent_resources/brochure_faq.asp

Although some districts have convinced local property owners to pay special assessments to help fund local schools, it is not enough. Arizona is a dismal 46th in the nation in per student spending. That effect is compounded by attendance-based ("per-student&quot funding when AZ schools lose students, whether to homeschooling or loss of school-age population (such as from home foreclosures as a result of recession):

When schools lose students, they also lose per-student state funds while overhead costs, such as air-conditioning, food service and transportation, remain steady.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/27/20110227arizona-public-school-funding-recession.html#ixzz2SfDCkitH
 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
72. We actually live in the highest taxed district in the state
Wed May 8, 2013, 01:28 AM
May 2013

People always approve special assessments. And we don't use the schools... But mom is happy, so I am happy.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
75. Yes, this is a major factor in maintaining all school activities, including sports.
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:09 AM
May 2013

That loss is a reason why schools demand kids that are enrolled go to school on time, too. If they are not in their homeroom class at a certain time, the school isn't paid, even if they show up and attend all the classes later.

At least that was the way it was when I attended in Texas. The morning roll call determined the amount the state paid the school to operate in its entirety. If these kids just show up for one class or after school for sports, the school is not getting paid for it...

Unless this new law counts their showing up past the tardy time, but still pays for the entire day. Which I doubt that they have the money for, since they are laying people off. I think this is just more to hurt the public schools where they have laid off so many teachers, not based on school failures, even though the number of students has not gone down.

Possibly charter school lobbyists are pushing this in order to make their case for more profit as the public schools go without.

JMHO. Not a school employee.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
57. So do people who send their kids to private school
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:05 PM
May 2013

So if those kids don't make the teams on the private school, they should be able to play for a public school team.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
17. You don't even need that when you have the AAU
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:58 PM
May 2013

and other amateur recreational sports available in *EVERY* community for all age groups

austinlw

(54 posts)
18. Going to be interesting
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:02 PM
May 2013

to see how they intend to reconcile this with Texas' pretty strict no-pass, no-play rule. I predict lawsuits from parents due to the potential for unfairness when their kid who fails 1 class can't play for several weeks while all the home-schooled ones can.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
20. Why is it a big deal?
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:08 PM
May 2013

Arizona has had this rule for decades. Works fine. Kid is allowed on campus only to participate in the activity.

Arizona also allows home-schooled kids to take specific subject (i.e. Chemistry) if there is space available after full-time students have registered.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
31. For the classes, yes
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:46 PM
May 2013

And if there is an activities fee, the parents have to pay that as well.


The State will add them as a 1/6 (or whatever %) of a student in the funding formulas. This is why most of the school districts don't mind, if there are 15 or 16 students in Chem it costs the same, but gets the extra funding.

SunSeeker

(51,800 posts)
33. So the homeschoolers' use of the rec facilities goes unfunded? That hurts the rest of the kids.
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:50 PM
May 2013

It is also not fair to the kids who have to maintain a GPA to stay on the sports teams.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
37. No - at least in most districts, you have to pay an activity fee to use the facilities/programs
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:19 PM
May 2013

Whether band, chorus, or sports, the student has to pay extra.

As for the actual physical building, those are built via property tax or state funding, so everyone, whether they have kids or not, are paying for them.

SunSeeker

(51,800 posts)
39. But the school's students also pay those fees, on top of funding the school by their attendance.
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:28 PM
May 2013

That attendance-based funding goes toward building maintenance, paying for sports staff, etc. AND they have to maintain a minimum GPA to play, unlike the homeschoolers.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
41. Property Taxes
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:44 PM
May 2013

Which all residents pay the building costs.

Activity Fee is geared towards those extra costs.


I know the schools in Flagstaff had requirements for the homeschoolers to stay eligible.


SunSeeker

(51,800 posts)
46. Property taxes don't pay for upkeep and operation, attendance does.
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:23 PM
May 2013

And it appears there are no special "requirements" for homeschoolers in Arizona, unlike other states. http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/Issues/E/Equal_Access.pdf

Over half of all states, like CA, don't let homeschoolers participate in a school's extra-curricular activities, for the reasons I've mentioned, among others. http://voices.yahoo.com/reasons-why-few-states-allow-home-schooled-students-368230.html

Do you have any links about the "requirements" you mention? I am assuming if there are any, it does not involve maintaining a grade point average or paying the school what it would get if that student was attending classes. That being the case, it is simply unfair to let the homeschooler participate in extra-curricular activities at the school.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
48. My experience was limited to Flagstaff
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:41 PM
May 2013

And they did, at the time. I had a friend whose kids were homeschooled, but participated in classes and band.

If you actually READ the appendix to your link, you will see that they have to meet the same requirements as regular students, so that would INCLUDE academic progress.

You are not READING my posts, or are unwilling to understand them.

Did I say they had to pay the full amount of what the state support is? NO. But if there are activitiy fiees, which pay for these activilties, they have to pay them.


I am done with you, since you don't seem to understand basic explanations.

SunSeeker

(51,800 posts)
49. I did read your posts and the links. Arizona does not have any special requirements.
Tue May 7, 2013, 07:25 PM
May 2013

Since homeschooled students don't get grades the way public school students do, they can't and don't comply with the minimum GPA requirements of public school students. Seems like in Arizona, they just let them slide. The link does not describe any special requirements for Arizona homeschoolers, i.e. they're treated as if they already got the grades and generated the attendance funding that public school students do. That is what I am saying is unfair.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
22. Can my daughter attend one public school for academics but play sports for another public school?
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:15 PM
May 2013

It would seem to me that under this law, I should be able to send my daughter to one public school because it is strong academically, but then have her play sports for a different school because they have better coaches or sports facilities and programs.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
35. Why not? Get your education in one location, participate in sports at another.
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:01 PM
May 2013

If a home school kid gets to select their academic experience and have it be separate from their athletic experience, why can't everyone else?

kiranon

(1,727 posts)
42. Would make an interesting legal argument and could be an
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:58 PM
May 2013

unintended consequence of this proposed law. I'm sure someone will make the challenge along these lines who wants his/her child to play on a bigger/better team than their home school has. Schools will like the idea of having their pick of athletes from a larger pool. And ... this is Texas where football is everything. Lawsuits are built on differences/distinctions in opportunities.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
25. Kids in Public HS here have alot of rules on what makes them eligible to play.
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:17 PM
May 2013

I wonder if TX does and if so, how will the coaches monitor grades and behavior?

 

TRoN33

(769 posts)
40. It doesn't have to take it to be the right wing to...
Tue May 7, 2013, 05:39 PM
May 2013

home-school America's children. My wife and I are very liberal. My wife is a teacher and her English are obviously far more superior over mine but I can understood the concept of the importance of home-school our two sons. Its because our school district are being bought by Koch brothers and Monsanto to ensure that the schools would have to follow their preference of educational system.

timdog44

(1,388 posts)
43. I found an article about home schooling and sports
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:04 PM
May 2013

from a home schooling site. It delineates the states where it can happen. It leaves it up to individual schools in others. And also talk the pros and cons. I do not have a personal opinion on it. I do know a number of home schooled kids, and most are not really interested it sports. More interest in the arts. And the kids are usually very intelligent and well adjusted. Anyway here is the article for those interested.

http://www.home-school.com/Articles/can-homeschoolers-participate-in-public-school-programs.php

Fastcars

(204 posts)
47. I can't imagine they could play for a school outside their district....
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:33 PM
May 2013

I live in Louisiana, a state almost as football mad as Texas, and I would be willing to bet that the home schooled students can't play for any school they want and would limited to trying out for the team of the shool that they would attend if they weren't home schooled. If not there would be a ton of superstar athletes gettting "home shooled" so they could play for the regional powerhouse team.

Snake Plissken

(4,103 posts)
50. Why are people surprised that football is more important than education in Texas?
Tue May 7, 2013, 07:31 PM
May 2013

Seriously, how can anyone be surprised by this? Other than they left out a clause with allowed inmates in correctional facilities to be considered 'homeschooled"

Inkfreak

(1,695 posts)
81. I wish you had the last word on this subject.
Wed May 8, 2013, 08:14 AM
May 2013

Seems to sum it up nicely. I see alotta nitpicking & assumptions about homeschoolers.

searchingforlight

(1,401 posts)
52. Home schooling parents pay taxes and should be able to avail themselves of some school activities.
Tue May 7, 2013, 07:37 PM
May 2013

I think that any opportunity that allows these kids to be exposed to new ideas is a good thing.

mac56

(17,575 posts)
59. So if they pay the taxes, why don't they send their kids to public schools for the full package?
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:19 PM
May 2013

They opted out. Now they want to have their cake and eat it too.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
61. Why have the whole package when part of it is broken?
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:35 PM
May 2013

From zero tolerance crap to getting suspended for pointing a pencil at someone to violence and bullying. Is it any wonder more and more people home school?

Look at it this way - you can pay $x to use the full benefits package or only a small part of it. Either way you are paying.

I tend to be pro-choice in many things and see it as a progressive value in general. Finding ways to punish people we see as sinners for not following our own personal beliefs just don't seem right and at the worst very controlling.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
65. When it comes to your kids, maybe a crappy school and education is no biggie to some
Tue May 7, 2013, 09:54 PM
May 2013

And other parents can do the same - they have choices. Choices are usually something people in life want for themselves and others.

Not everybody of course.

mac56

(17,575 posts)
66. Just because they "can" doesn't mean they "should."
Tue May 7, 2013, 10:21 PM
May 2013

Sometimes the most profound lessons taught in school aren't in textbooks.

Add on edit: as someone posted upthread, if the school is good enough for sports, it's good enough for education.

Psephos

(8,032 posts)
71. So you aren't pro-choice.
Tue May 7, 2013, 11:29 PM
May 2013

And sometimes the most profound lessons taught in a shitty school scar a kid for life.

Psephos

(8,032 posts)
88. Umm, I only posted once in here.
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:55 PM
May 2013

Which suggests you aren't reading very closely.

Meanwhile, thousands of faceless kids in horrible schools continue to learn "profound" lessons every day. Lessons that will screw them over later in life.

Shrek

(3,986 posts)
83. "if the school is good enough for sports, it's good enough for education."
Wed May 8, 2013, 08:51 AM
May 2013

You say that as though it's axiomatic, but it's not.

It's entirely possible that an academically substandard school could have a superior athletic program.

 

noamnety

(20,234 posts)
86. I don't understand your logic.
Wed May 8, 2013, 11:19 AM
May 2013

We all pick and chose the public services we're going to use, based on our particular needs.

If I send 90% of my mail FedEx, I'm still entitled to receive my mail from the US postal service.
If I opt not to use the city bus, I'm still allowed to drive on the public roads.
If I have a small kitchen fire and put it out myself instead of calling the fire department, I'm still allowed to use the ambulance service.

It feels very wrong to argue that if you don't use every last bit of ALL the public services you are entitled to, you shouldn't be allowed access to any.

That's not what "public" means.

duhneece

(4,126 posts)
60. I agree with you with that 85% estimate
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:19 PM
May 2013

of home-schooled kids being from a rw, fundy background...but disagree that it's a shame. I think its always a good thing for kids from rw, fundy families and/or communities to be exposed to others. Maybe those personal interactions change the way we see 'the other.'

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
77. The reaction to this idea seems pretty petty to me.
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:39 AM
May 2013

What's the big deal in giving people who pay taxes something in return. It's a small portion of what they are entitled to after all.

It's not like these kids are going to be geniuses if only they don't play football.

And with an obese population shouldn't we be encouraging more participation in sports? I don't know what good it does to have a fundy kid getting all fat sitting in front of the TV. Let them play.

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
78. Umm representing a school they don't attend...
Wed May 8, 2013, 03:24 AM
May 2013

Seems a little odd to me and unfair to the kids who do attend and want to get on the team.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
82. " I'm not entirely against home-schooling" - really?
Wed May 8, 2013, 08:27 AM
May 2013

Then why the hell write this?

I think this is a shame. "I'm too good to go to school with you, but I want a spot on your football team".


Just a bunch of bullshit...

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
84. And Vonnegut says, "told ya so."
Wed May 8, 2013, 09:35 AM
May 2013

Why stop there? Why not front a line of five 22 year old behemoths who are home-studying for their GEDs and trying out for the NFL every spring?

Kurt Vonnegut was perfectly attuned to this sort of idiocy, and while he's talking about college ball, the logical conclusions of this policy might very well be the same.

From Player Piano:

Doctor Roseberry was inclined to react ironically to the last line of the song. "Certainly, victorious last year, four years afore that," he muttered in his pregnant solitude. But here was another year that might not look so hot inlaid in rosewood. "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow," he said wearily. Every coach in the Ivy League was out to knock him down to a PE-003 again, and two losses would do it. Yale and Penn were loaded. Yale had floated a bond to buy the whole Texas A&M backfield, and Penn had bought Breslaw from Wisconsin for $43,000.

Roseberry groaned. "How the hell long they think a man can play college football?" he wanted to know. Six years before, Cornell had bought him from Wabash College, and asked him to list his idea of a dream team. Then, by God they'd bought it for him.

"But what the hell they think they bought?" he asked himself. "Sumpin' made outa steel and see-ment? Supposed to last a lifetime, is it?" They hadn't bought him so much as a water boy since, and the average age of the Big Red was now close to thirty-one.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
87. We do this in Massachusetts now and I haven't seen any problems with it.
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:01 PM
May 2013

If you go the home-school route, why SHOULD you have to go "all in"?

Igel

(35,390 posts)
92. Strange attitude.
Wed May 8, 2013, 06:28 PM
May 2013

"I'm too good to go to school with you, but I want a spot on your football team."

Most kids who are home-schooled aren't the decision makers. It isn't their choice. Often they object to it.

Many parents who homeschool their kids do so not because their kids are better than the other kids, but for other reasons. They don't like the curriuclum, would prefer that no kid be exposed to it, but can only decide for their own; or they prefer another they'd rather see all kids receive, but can't impose it on any but their own. Or their kid hangs out with a bad crowd and this is a way of exerting control over their kid's behavior when it's legally permissible to do so. In other cases the kid's simply gotten behind and is going to fail. This gives the kid a breather, rescues his year, and allows him to catch up with his peers.

One kid in my class was going to be homeschooled by his PhD father and MS-bearing mother. Kid was brilliant. He was a junior in HS, they were moving anyway, and he was looking forward to it.

Another kid was failing level classes, had remediation classes stacked up waist high, and was going to flunk. He vanished in March. The next year he re-enrolled. His parents made him work his ass off from March until August to catch up. He graduates this year with his class.

This push for state-mandated "one size absolute *shall* fit all" is odd. Authoritarian, even. And certainly oversimplifies things. Moreover, it's unfair and unjust: it imputes motives that in some cases are present but are also lacking in many, if not a majority, of cases.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»The Texas Senate approved...