Home school students want to use public school facilities and activities

[Modem Butterfly]

I guess the football team is somehow miraculously free of the public-school influence. Here we have yet again another case of people demanding special rights for religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/education/22home.html?ei=5094&en=5b63cb6beda805f8&hp=&ex=1119499200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

This year, bills were introduced in at least 14 state legislatures, including Pennsylvania's, to require school districts to open extracurricular activities, and sometimes classes, to home-schooled children, say groups that track the issue. Fourteen states already require such access, while most others leave the decision to local school boards.

But many districts strongly resist the idea, citing inadequate resources, liability issues, questions about whether students would be displaced from teams and clubs, and concerns about whether home-schooled children could be held to the same academic and attendance standards. In some states, districts also lose state aid when children leave to be home schooled, although that is not the case in Pennsylvania.

SNIP

"It's institutional prejudice," said Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican whose wife is home-schooling the couple's four school-age children. "It's offensive."

[meegbear]

1. How come the same people who support this

are the ones against the public school students having GLBT groups there?

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Everything is a trade-off.

It seems to me that if you insist on pulling your kids out of school, it is silly to expect them to be able to join the glee club at the school you refuse to let your children attend.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. Of course

[friesianrider]

132. Sounds an awful lot like...

Trying to have it both ways. They want all the fun parts of a public education but none of the rest.

BTW, VERY cute kitties you've got there! :)

[Debau2005]

3. "Institutional prejudice?"

Oh, I think NOT! If you want your children to participate in the public school programs, then put them in public school.

[bleedingheart]

4. Homeschooling is costing my PA school district over $100,000 a year

because the district has to pay for cyber schooling, and other materials...and then these same kids want to play football, basketball, and be in the chorus....BUT they don't have to meet the same testing guidelines as the rest of the kids....PSEA test scores for homeschooled kids in our district were much lower than kids going to school.

[LeftyMom]

13. That's not homeschooling

Homeschooling is when parents determine the curriculum's pacing based on thier child's needs and are actively involved in teaching that material to thier children. That's a publicly funded charter that happens to be taught at home.

People who are confusing the barrier between the two do so because there is profit in it.

[bleedingheart]

19. Well Santorum refers to it as home schooling

and many home schooling parents are now using cyber schools... technically the kids are at home using the computer to learn....

[LeftyMom]

27. Santorum also thinks a zygote is a baby.

I repeat cyber schooling isn't homeschooling. Homeschooling requires parental involvement and instruction geared to the child's needs.

Just because it occurs in the home, it isn't automaticly homeschooling. My sister got pushed out of jr high and into the school dstrict's home study program (which was a joke, but that's another post) but she certainly didn't have the involvement of a parent (the school pushed her out knowing our father worked nights and no adult would be awake to help her during school hours) or a curriculum tailored to her needs (they just gave her fourth grade work, even though she's bright.) She was at home, but she'd be the first to tell you it wasn't homeschooling.

Cyber schools, home-based charters and public home study programs are not homeschooling, they're faux homeschooling. The public schools and private companies that promote them try to confuse the issue because they want the enrollment dollars homeschooled kids could bring in and the positive association with a more sucessful methodology. (Basicly, the home based charters promote themselves as a type of homeschooling because homeschooling has a track record of good results and charters do not.)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. Interesting point...

Most schools require varsity athletes to maintain a minimum grade-point average in the school's approved curriculum. How does a home-schooled kid meet that requirement? And if he doesn't have to meet it, can you just imagine how many schools are going to have 6'-5" sophomores with killer perimeter shooting being "home schooled" to avoid eligibility requirements? I see a Brave New World for cheating.

[bluestateguy]

5. I'm all for home schooling, but no way.

When you pull out of the public schools you are making a commitment to leave the public school community in which you live. Just because your taxes pay for something does not mean you get automatic access. My taxes fund the CIA and military bases, but that does not mean that they have to give me special tours of the buildings and grounds.

In fact in some cases I think liberals ought not to be so quick to dismiss home schooling as an alternative. What if religious fundamentalists take over your local school board and school district? What if you live in a very intolerant part of the country where you as a "different" student would face harassment and intimidation? I would also like to see liberals and their benefactors start to more aggressively build their own private schools where fact based science is taught, sex education is frank and open, social studies are taught with an appreciation for the diversity of our country and without jingoism and discipline is handled on a case by case basis (no "zero tolerance" nonsense).

[DFWdem]

22. Bad comparison

Yes, your taxes do fund the CIA and military, but you receive the "benefits" (if you can call them that) of these institutions in the form of national defense. Obvioiusly you don't get access to all areas of the CIA and military.

[bushisanidiot]

6. Wait. I thought the didn't want their kids going to public schools

so they just want the fun benefits that go along with it? heh..

yeah, why don't i just complain that even though i didn't join the military, i still want access to their bases so i can shop at the army commisary. that makes a lot of sense.

repukes are such flip-flopping hypocrites.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. No doubt...those facilities are subsidized by your tax dollars...

...and you should have access to them without joining the military. Anything else would be institutional prejudice according to Santorum.

:D

[Bridget Burke]

8. Don't kids need to keep their grades decent to participate?

If Mommy is your teacher, she can tell Coach you get straight A's. Success in High School Sports can lead to scholarships--other extracurricular activities count toward college admission. Should public school students face limited choices because of the homeschooled kids?

I know one homeschooling family that sends the kids to art classes, etc. They know they can't do everything for their kids so they work with other homeschoolers to hire teachers. Sports & cultural activities exist outside public schools--more could be created.

[JuniperLea]

12. they are still tested

in order to legally pass on to the next grade. there is a lot more structure to home schooling than many people think.

[Modem Butterfly]

15. Structure or no, if they don't attend the school...

...they shouldn't expect to participate in school activities.

[JuniperLea]

25. if they pay taxes for schools

i think they have that right.

[Modem Butterfly]

26. I pay taxes, why can't I join the debate team?

[JuniperLea]

49. i assume you are an adult.

public school is for children. i think you are reaching a tad.

[Modem Butterfly]

57. According to some folks, extra-curricular activities are open to taxpayers

I pay taxes, just like the parents of homeschooled children. So when does the debate club meet?

[JuniperLea]

68. you also benefit

by having kids in your neighborhood who are educated! you benefit because society benefits from having educated people.

i pay taxes and my kids are all young adults now. i paid taxes when i was paying for their college education. i paid taxes before they were born even! i benefit because i don't want to live in a society with a bunch of stumblebums... i get enough of that on the internet.

[Modem Butterfly]

69. Well then, so do the homeschool parents

So what are they complaining about?

[mondo joe]

217. And home schooling families benefit in the same way.

So they are getting their value for their taxes.

[roguevalley]

224. I taught for 27 years and saw this a lot. Pisses me off royal. The

same people who don't want you touching their kids because you're not 'good enough' for their kids want the rest. They take money from the schools. Every kid who home schools here take about two grand away from the schools. Fuck them.

[redqueen]

230. Actually that depends on how the funding is alloted in the state.

Did you read the article? How many states did you teach in?

[geniph]

35. Testing requirements for homeschooled kids vary by state

Not all states require homeschool students to pass any kind of standardized tests. Nor are the adults teaching homeschools required to be credentialed in most states.

[Scout]

47. I pay taxes for defense...

where's my private armed guard? I pay taxes, I want my own soldier!

[JuniperLea]

52. reaching, yet again...

no wonder no one takes this sort of debate seriously.

try not reaching so far for an arguement. this sort of childish debate is worthy of freepers, seriously folks.

[ProfessorGAC]

59. How Convenient!

You have a two dimensional view of the situation. If someone adds a third dimension, they're reaching. I'll admit the example was intentionally extreme, but you aren't answering the question posed by the point.

We all pay taxes and receive the benefits. If one chooses to deny the benefit (pulling one's children out of the school system) one is FORFEITING the right to that benefit. One can't forfeit just the parts of the benefit convenient. One either forfeits the benefits or one does not.

Having it both ways is the stuff of freepers. Finding a way to take an argument to its logical extreme is not. That's a standard point of debate!

Paying one's taxes does not entitle one to a la carte the benefits at the micro level. I can choose not to use the interstate system, but i can't decide only to use I-55 and no others. I am either using the benefit or i'm not. If i choose to not, i can't use ANY interstate. I've forfeited my right to use the roads for which i pay taxes.

Otherwise, it's just as convenient as your dismissal of the prior poster. And anything that convenient carries not a whit of gravity.
The Professor

[JuniperLea]

64. that would be true

if they were also forfeiting the 'right' to be taxed!

i'm thinking in terms of the best bang for the buck as well as the best for OUR children.

you say you aren't reaching then you admit to being extreme. oh brother. extreme, reaching... tomatoes toMAHtoes... puleeese.

[ProfessorGAC]

73. I Wasn't Reaching At All

Pay more attention. I was responding to your dismissal of someone else. You don't even know which poster you're discussing this with. I said the OTHER POSTER may have been using an extreme example, for effect. That's not necessarily a logical reach. You really don't know much about this, do you?

You also don't appear to read very carefully. MY example was not at all a reach, and YOU AGREED WITH IT!

Also, i don't give a whit about YOUR children. I care about CHILDREN in general. Your decision to homeschool or not is your decision, not one of the community. If you choose to excise your children from the services provided by the community, that's on you. The taxes aren't paid and the schools are built just for you and your family. Try being a little less selfish.

Lastly, we can't give up the RIGHT to be taxed. That's not even a right. It's an obligation to entitle ourselves to CHOOSE to accept the benefits. If you don't want to pay the taxes you have three choices: 1. Leave the country to somewhere without taxes. (Antarctica come to mind.) 2. Take the consequences when they send you to jail. 3. Die.

Now who's reaching. You answered a post from a second person without knowing it. Castigated me for something i didn't write. Puhleaze, yourself. Your position is indefensible, and you know it.

You really need to give more thought to the stuff you write. The lack of thought shows.
The Professor

[JuniperLea]

80. oh good lord

you are the one who should pay attention. why do you suppose i put little ''s around 'right'?

i never homeschooled, but i stand by the right of any parent to do so.

gotta love that 'love it or leave it' attitude there, prof.

you don't know me and you don't have a clue as to what i do or do not know. i was speaking to a specific few items in this big conglomerate of an issue. i have the right to my opinion and just because it doesn't lock step with yours it doesn't mean i'm a bad person, or a stupid person, or that i'm not paying attention to you. please, pay attention before you belittle people.

bottom line for me is that we need to think of the children first. if there is a music class or a physical education class that a home-schooled child qualifies for and wants to attend, what skin is it off your nose? i do not believe that parents of home schooled children should be exempt from school taxes.

[redqueen]

88. "what skin is it off your nose?"

That's a question I'd love to see an answer to.

[ProfessorGAC]

175. It Was Addressed

You just didn't like the answer. That's not on me. It's on you. You apparently don't like the fact that someone doesn't agree with you.

The skin of my nose is that it's selfish for people to think society is a la carte. It's not. Wishing it were doesn't make it so. My taxes are paid in to one giant fund. Once it's there i have no right to decide which things i'm willing to fund and which i'm not. The services are there in the form they exist. I do not, and should not expect those services to be tailored to my selfish needs.

You apparently think selfishness is an admirable trait.

The Professor

[redqueen]

179. However much you wish to define reality, you really don't.

Maybe your own little world of subjective reality, sure... you can do that.

However, in the real world, objective reality is all that matters, and you don't define it.

It *is* so, in several districts... who knows how many (I'm curious to know now just how many school districts already provide the "a la carte Disneyland fantasy" you, mondo joe and MB seem to think is so farfetched and wrong on principle).

I don't think selfishness is an admirable trait at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

[JuniperLea]

190. hahaha

you don't pay attention... you don't know who you are responding to.

the taxes are paid, who cares if they are used? no one here is complaining about paying the taxes! i just want to see them used for their intended purpose without all this stupid red tape and name calling!

[mondo joe]

235. Let's see - the music teacher has less time to focus on my kid.

My kid may lose a place on the soccer team to a kid who's not even enrolled in the school.

Moreover, my school does a lot of fundraising to fund some of these programs. That includes the art and music programs.

[ProfessorGAC]

96. Dismissed

You fail completely. You were addressing SOMEONE ELSE! You replied to my post and failed to realize that the "reach" you claimed i made wasn't mine.

My example was very clear and you concurred it was TRUE! What part of your own agreement did you miss?

Secondly, it is skin of my nose. People who want to withdraw from the benefit provided by the social and governmental structure should not be able to have it both ways.

If that school has an excellent music program the kids wants to attend, then put the kid in that school.

Let's use this straightforward example: The high school near my house, when i was in HS, had a nationally renowned music program and bands. I didn't go to that school. I went to a private academy. Would you concur that rather than work within the music program at my own private school, i should get to go join the band or orchestra at the other school, just because my parents paid property taxes?

I don't. The choice to attend the school is attended was on me and my family. Once the choice is made, the WHOLE choice is made. If i really wanted to be in the music program, the option was clear. Leave my private high school and go to the public school. I don't get to have it both ways, just because taxes were paid.

Complaining about taxes is the stuff of the selfish and self-centered. We just pay our taxes and avail ourselves of those resources that fit us best. If homeschooling fits a family best, then that's the choice they make. One from column A and one from Column B is not to be expected. Otherwise, why wouldn't the local high school just welcome me into THEIR jazz band program? Why? Because i didn't GO to that school.

You misread me again. It's nothing personal. But, there is an inherent selfishness to the idea that someone should get to have it both ways, just because they paid a few % of their income in taxes. That's just a price we pay for living in a developed society. Once the money is sent in to the gov't, there's no picking & choosing. Life is not a buffet.

The Professor

[JuniperLea]

121. no, i didn't fail... not just because you said so!

you were defending another post and i disagreed. did you miss that part? i think you are the one being selfish here. you can't share one marble because someone doesn't like all your marbles.

as far as the HS music program goes, that is exactly what i did and it worked well for all. i attended a private school; all of my friends attended public. the music program there wasn't all that, but i liked the instructor and my friends were there. i attended public school for the music program. no harm, no foul. my parents paid for another school, with no tax breaks, and paid for public education as well. who cares? i think your 'no picking & choosing' arguement is weak at best. who cares? the public school i attended for music was paid out of the tax pool for my attendance. who cares? who cares if someone wants one from column a and one from column b? who cares if i want to use only a few highways and not all?

just some food for thought; if all public schools were equal, would we be having this conversation?

[ProfessorGAC]

138. Answer No

I don't concur with any public funding system of schools of which i'm aware. The one in Illinois is patently unfair. We would not be having this discussion if all schools were funded exactly the same way.

I'm not selfish at all. Did you miss the part where i said i never complain about taxes? No kids. (Couldn't have them, my wife and i.) Never attended public schools. Never complained about paying taxes.

But, the money is one big pile. Once it goes in, there is no picking and choosing which services are convenient and which aren't. It's just wrong to think that society owes complete choice to everyone who feels like opting in and opting out of certain elements.

It's not a matter of black and white. The choice still exists. But once the choice is made, live with the choice and don't expect the world to stand on its ear to make that choice convenient. That's the selfish part.
The Professor

[JuniperLea]

143. flaw

in most school systems i've been familiar with, the money does go in one big pile but the individual schools are paid according to attendance.

the school is paid for the attendance of a child who is home schooled. why do you care if a child makes use of what is being paid for?

the fact that you have no children speaks volumes with regard to your stance. i thought of a lot of things differently before i was a parent. i'm not complaining about paying taxes either, but by god if taxes are paid there should be a way to use them for their intended purpose.

[Scout]

152. the fact that you have no children speaks volumes with regard to your stan

cuz we all know that once one reproduces, a wealth of knowledge, compassion, understanding and foresight opens before you and is absorbed magically into your brain and your soul, and such knowledge is of course not ever, ever available to anyone who has not reproduced, no sirree bub.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

174. Ooh.. nice personal attack.

"I have total compassion for ALL the kids. You obviously only care about your own.

You are a monumental jerk.
The Professor"

:eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

177. I Was Attacked First

I'm not taking those types of insults lying down.

This was a counterattack. Are you even trying to read for comprehension?
The Professor

[redqueen]

183. I saw her characterization of your remarks.

I did not see her call you names.

You characterize her words as an attack. Perhaps they were, indirectly. Do you think they constitute a personal attack? If so, by all means, alert. I thought it took something more direct than "anyone, with children or not, can be compassionate towards the needs of all children. i'm just saying this guy has none of that."

Perhaps I'm wrong... if so... I'd appreciate a clarification.

You're quite hostile today. Is it the subject? Bad day? Have I just not seen enough of your posts in GD to have witnessed previous hostility on your part?

[Modem Butterfly]

187. On this point, I can back you up

I have no idea why this topic has gotten so freaking heated.

[JuniperLea]

192. then why is it

that your post was removed and mine was not? are you writing for comprehension? or insults? or selfishness? you don't want some poor kid to benefit from the taxes already paid in his behalf because his parent made a decision you don't agree with? and you don't want to share any of your pretty colored marbles?

[JuniperLea]

178. you can't argue effectively

so you take personal shots. nice going.

love it or leave it... brother

if you had compassion for all kids you wouldn't be so hot under the collar about some kids getting what has already been paid for on their behalf! why do you care? it's been bought and paid for, the delivery is all that is left.

stuping to calling names. sheesh. how mature.

[ProfessorGAC]

161. That's Not The Pile I'm Talking About

The overall money goes into one big pile, no matter what the politicians say. State taxes, federal grants, property taxes, gambling revenue, road taxes, etc. No matter what the politicos say, it's all one big pile.

It's then distributed across the state to each district. But, once we've paid in, we have admitted that we are expecting others to allocate those resources in a certain set of fractions. So, we are not in any position to pay our taxes and then decide, after the fact, which dollars we're willing to make community property and that from which we expect some direct benefit. It doesn't work that way.

Once you send the taxes in, you just have to accept that the overall benefit is community based. Extracting one's self from one system or the other is a choice that comes with consequences. Picking and choosing is the ultimate in self-absorption. As in "I pay my taxes so i should get to do what's best for me!". As in, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME.

Lastly, what does having no children have to do with anything? I'm thinking about what's best for the thole of the system and the people within it. Individuals thinking they're above the whole is not good for anybody. Our inability to have children, that we wanted to have, does not invalidate any opinion on this matter. And, it's small of you to bring it up in the way you did. We are NOT childless by choice.
The Professor

[JuniperLea]

194. you still don't get it

yes, taxes are paid. no debate there. to use them or not is the perogative of the taxpayer. so why can't some kid use what has already been paid for on his behalf?

i sited your lack of children with a line of thought that in my point of view isn't in keeping with thinking of the betterment of the whole, of all children.

like i said, i have no children in public school, yet i gladly pay my taxes. i don't use all of the roads available to me,yet i glady pay my taxes. if i choose to use a road, are you going to stop me?

[mondo joe]

169. I have kids. Does that speak volumes about MY stance too?

Moreover, we chose to send our kids to public schools though we had other choices.

[gollygee]

213. Why shouldn't they be able to have it both ways?

re: "People who want to withdraw from the benefit provided by the social and governmental structure should not be able to have it both ways."

Why not? And I mean that seriously. What harm is there in someone having it both ways? Why shouldn't they be able to? Is it "just because" or is there a more tangible reason?

[mondo joe]

219. Because they impinge upon the access of the kids who ARE enrolled.

There are only so many places on the team.

There are only so many books in the library.

There are only so many computers in the lab.

Why should an enrolled kid have less access to these things because a kid who ISN'T enrolled is in what could be their place?

[gollygee]

239. I'm personally on the fence about this issue

and the "there are only so many places on the team" is one of the reasons. I don't think that argument extends to library books as well though, since unless there is a huge number of homeschooling kids in an area, the access to the library won't be noticed by the other kids.

Is that the only reason that homeschooling families shouldn't be able to "have it both ways"? If there were available spots on a sports team after all the school kids had filled the spots they were interested in, would it then be OK for homeschooled kids to try out for any extra spots?

[mondo joe]

245. The other most obvious reason is the funding, which is somewhat

more complex. In many circumstances enrollment impacts overall funding.

[DFWdem]

119. So it's either black or white?

No shades of gray? What are you, a Sith?

[JuniperLea]

133. hahaha!

yes! apparently it is all by the book for some! don't take into consideration that all people are different.

anyone who is truly looking out for the welfare of our children would find a way to put those children first, not some convoluted all or nothing reasoning. it's this kind of snobby bs that really irks me. think of the children!

[ProfessorGAC]

164. I Already Addressed That

Pay more attention.
The Professor

[JuniperLea]

200. aieeee

the pot calls the kettle black...

[Scout]

196. if the debate is so childish and freeperish...

why are you spending so much time posting?

[JuniperLea]

203. why do you care?

i like debate. i like tripping people up in their own words. it's still a free world afterall. for the moment, i still have the freedom of speach. and i care very deeply about education.

so why are you here if you are only going to pick on posters and not talk about the issue at hand?

[Scout]

268. I have been talking about the issue at hand...

and I'm not the one complaining about others being childish and freeperish

[mondo joe]

67. Their taxes are not paid for THEIR children to use the system - even

people who never had children pay the very same taxes.

[redqueen]

71. The point is, if they share in funding it...

what is the logical reason for excluding these children?

On prinicple?

[Modem Butterfly]

75. The same logical reason for excluding adults

[redqueen]

90. Adults are not eligible for anything in public school.

Except possibly some kind of outreach programs.

Frankly, your repeated use of that ridiculous comparison is sad.

[Modem Butterfly]

93. And neither are non-students

Frankly, my repeated use of that ridiculous comparison is apt. There may be valid arguments for allowing non-students to use school facilities, but the payment of property taxes isn't one of them.

[redqueen]

101. These ARE students.

They're students who don't attend a school.

[Modem Butterfly]

102. Not as far as the school is concerned

If you attend Jefferson High, Lincoln High calls you a non-student, because that's what you are to them.

[redqueen]

109. That's ridiculous.

Students are students, regardless of where they're taught.

[Modem Butterfly]

111. ROFL!

:rofl:

That's why up-scale public school districts have periodic purges of their student rolls to get out-of-district students out of their classrooms.

[redqueen]

120. Just because a student is removed from their rolls,

that does not somehow magically mean that that child is no longer a student. They may not be a student registered at that school, however they are still students.

[Modem Butterfly]

123. For the purposes of the school district, it means exactly that

I think you're confusing the practical application of the term "student" with the larger definition of "one who studies". For the school district, a student is "one who attends".

[redqueen]

142. So you're approaching this from a funding POV?

Because as was stated in the article, and several times in this thread, funding for these activities is not always based on enrollment in regular classes.

[Modem Butterfly]

149. Not always, but usually

And it's a serious issue for many school districts. I have no problem with homeschoolers renting facilities, assuming the school district believes it can accomodate them and provided it charges the homeschoolers the same rates, and provides the same access, as other members of the community.

[mondo joe]

163. They're students who don't attend the school? HAHAHAHAHA

Isn't attendence part of BEING a student at the school?

[redqueen]

170. You added the "at the school" qualifier, I did not use it.

Therefore your loud laughter looks pretty silly.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

176. Oh sorry. So if you're a student you can access any school's resources?

Cute.

[redqueen]

184. No. Only the ones you're eligible for enrollment in.

Is this really that hard to understand?

[mondo joe]

189. But eligibility does not equal enrollment.

Being eligible doesn't necessarily mean you'd be enrolled EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO BE.

And I see no reason the kids who ARE enrolled should have any less access to any resources consumed by those who aren't.

[redqueen]

210. It does in a public school, which is the subject of this thread.

Why would children who are enrolled in public school have any less access? Is this really just about jealousy?

[mondo joe]

226. As I've told you elsewhere in this thread it DOES NOT.

My sister could not get into the public school closest to her home.

When my kids enrolled we filled out the app with a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice, because we might not get the 1st or even 2nd choice.

[Name removed]

234. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nonconformist]

287. Does that extend to kids that attend private school?

They are, after all, eligible to be enrolled in their public school. But they're not.

What about a drop-out? Drop out at 16, but stay on the football team for a couple more years? They're eligible to be enrolled, why not?

This is beyond absurd.

[youthere]

284. Actually in my state you can...

for extra curriculars anyway. If my district doesn't have a swim team, they can join the swim team in a neighboring district.

[youthere]

283. My homeschooled kids are not "non students"...

They are dual enrolled in my local district as well as a neighboring district that has a homeschool assistance program. In my state homeschooled kids are still enrolled, and the school recieves seat money for them. In my case both districts share the seat money. Please do not make generalizations. All states differ.

[mondo joe]

155. Because it is a misuse of the resources. I pay taxes but can't use

the school resources for anything I want.

Likewise for the parents of home schoolers.

[redqueen]

166. You're not a student.

If a student is eligible to attend a school but is home-schooled, I think it's logical that if their district receives funds based on participation and not enrollment, that these students should be allowed access.

[Modem Butterfly]

168. The hell you say!

I most certainly AM a student. And a homeschooled one at that!

[redqueen]

173. Are you eligible to enroll in the school you wish to participate in

these activites at?

[Modem Butterfly]

182. I have no intention of enrolling

I am doing perfectly fine with my education, but I need enrichment, so I want to use their resources.

[redqueen]

185. It doesn't matter if you plan to.

What matters is if you're eligible. If you're not, you're not. If you are, you are.

It's quite simple, really.

[mondo joe]

180. Eligibility does not equal enrollment.

My kids are eligible to attend a number of schools. It doesn't mean they'd get into each if they tried.

Do you suggest I get to enroll them in one but use the extracurricular activities of another?

[redqueen]

188. They're eligible to attend a number?

Are some of them magnets? What else would prevent them from getting into the school?

I don't suggest anything like the idea in your second sentence. What I suggest is that if a student is not enrolled in any school, yet is eligible to enroll in a public school, that they be allowed partial access to whatever school programs for which funding is provided based on their participation. Perhaps this is some kind of logistical nightmare, as MB seems to think... since it's been implemented in several districts, I think it's probably not all that insanely difficult.

[mondo joe]

191. Kids may not get in because the school is filled up, for one thing.

My sister could not attend the nearest school because it filled up. Her next option was far away and VERY inconvenient.

If she was instead home schooled she could say she's eligible for the school - which would be true - but we know she'd not have gotten in if she tried.

And if she didn't attend the school I see no reason for her to access its library, band, sports teams or any other school functions.

[redqueen]

212. A public school denied her access?

Because it was full? That's odd. I hear so much about overcrowded schools... yet in her district, apparently keeping class sizes down is reason enough to deny enrollment. Very strange.

It's fine that you don't agree. We don't have to agree. Have a great evening. :hi:

[mondo joe]

215. She was given another option - about an hour away.

At least in my experience kids select up to 3 schools, ranked 1st choice to 3rd. Depending on enrollment capacity they may not get their 1st or even 2nd choice.

[redqueen]

218. That's wild.

I wonder why any state would let a district get into such a situation. Oh yeah, I remember... tax cut for landowners comes first, quality education for children comes second. Duh!

[mondo joe]

222. At any rate: simply being eligible does not guarantee enrollment.

If it did there'd be no reason to have 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices.

[redqueen]

True, in situations like that,

where the schools have been neglected to the point that those obviously are, then steps should be taken to improve that first, then work on allowing all eligible students an equal opportunity to enrich their education.

It's very sad that that problem even exists... isn't anyone raising hell about it? Are any new schools being built?

[mondo joe]

241. My sister was part of a lawsuit that led to the creation of a new

school - but that was a LONG difficult process.

But AGAIN, her eligibility for a school did not mean she could have enrolled.

And it happens every year that kids don't get their first choice. Even in upscale neighborhoods.

[Scout]

220. Phoenix area is like that....

my niece sells real estate and lives in Phoenix area ... many people are buying homes and moving into overdeveloped areas only to find out their kids can't go to the local school because it is full!

[JuniperLea]

89. right

taxes are paid so ALL children CAN attend. well educated children benefits all people.

[redqueen]

92. "Well educated children benefit all people"

That's why I do NOT understand all the animosity towards this idea.

There really is NO good reason for it.

[Modem Butterfly]

100. It's not education, it access to school resources

And frankly, if a homeschooling parent can't provide that access without help from the public school, they need to reconsider whether they should be homeschooling.

[redqueen]

103. What is the access for?

Stamp-collecting?

Seriously, MB... the reason we supply these extracurricular activities is for the enrichment of their education. It is a part of their education.

You say they should reconsider whether they should be homeschooling, I disagree. I say they should petition their school boards to implement a partial-use system like those already in place.

[Modem Butterfly]

110. Well, no it's not a part of their education if they aren't students

After all, public high school students can't come into homeschool homes and start using their resources. Kids at Uly's school can't go to Pace Academy (a very up-scale private school in Atlanta) and use their resources to get educated anymore than I can. And the opposite is true as well (assuming a Pace kid could even get someone to take them into inner Atlanta).

If a parent takes their kids out of school to educate them at home, that's their perogative, but it also becomes their responsibility. Once a kid is out of the public schools, the public school is no longer responsible for their education.

[redqueen]

144. You're all over the place.

Now you're using the bureaucratic nonsense argument again... because the student isn't enrolled, the student shouldn't have access. Yet systems where that is indeed allowed exist, and the world hasn't fallen apart just yet.

So what IS the real reason?

[Modem Butterfly]

150. If the student isn't enrolled, the student is not a student...

...of that school district.

Look at it this way: why should the school districts own students suffer? Don't they deserve maximum access to resources? Why should they have to get in line behind a bunch of non-students? After all, their parents pay taxes too!

[mondo joe]

186. Precisely. Why should any enrolled student lose out on a book,

a place on the team, a performance or anything else to a kid not even enrolled?

[JuniperLea]

197. prove it

i don't think your argument holds water. school districts are different. the high schools in my area are paid per student, per class. it's not taking anything away from anyone else.

[Modem Butterfly]

205. Yeah. Lots of high schools have multiple copies of library books...

...and extra spots on the sports teams, so many they don't even bother with tryouts.

[mondo joe]

207. Of course it's taking away. If an enrolled kid loses out on a place

on the football team to an unenrolled kid, or can't get a book from the library because a non enrolled kid took it or has less access to computers in the computer lab because an unenrolled kid is sitting at it, the enrolled kids are losing out.

[JuniperLea]

214. show me evidence, proof

that this is what is happening! what i'm saying is that all kids should be treated equally. if an enrolled kid is no good at baseball, why is it fair that he would get on the team instead of a non-enrolled kid who is wildly wonderful at it?

still, you haven't proven a thing... where is your evidence that this is what would happen? sounds like pure conjecture to me.

[redqueen]

223. There are some significantly underfunded schools

which don't have enough funds for desks, books, etc.

In those cases I can certainly sympathize and understand that they'd deny home-schooled children to have access. However, it also must be said that these schools are the exceptions, and not the rule. As such, they're nearly worthless as examples in a debate such as this one.

[JuniperLea]

233. agreed

i think the real issues that need debated are those pertaining to getting all public schools on the same footing. better/higher paid teachers, more school supplies and books. a safer environment. these are the real issues imho. not denying some poor kid access to what has already been paid for on his behalf.

[Scout]

225. all kids would be treated equally

if their parents left them in the public schools.

The PARENTS are initiating the different treatment by removing their children from the public school in the first place. Duh.

[JuniperLea]

237. so you think it's better

to leave home schooled children in already over-crowded, poorly staffed and under-supplied schools rather than take some of that burdon off? how does that help?

it's this all or nothing mentality that just doesn't make sense.

[Scout]

250. yes, if the parents want them to be able to take advantage

of the extracurricular and enrichment activities, which is the point of the thread.

leave home schooled children in already over-crowded, poorly staffed and under-supplied schools
let me get this straight ... the homeschooling parents are just trying to relieve the burden of the public schools of the education part, but not of the enrichment/extra-curricular part?

The schools are over-crowded, poorly staffed and under-supplied when it comes to education, but miraculously are NOT so when it comes to enrichment, thus the home-schooled children who want to cherry-pick the enrichment programs are what, just trying to help relieve the burden? Uh huh, I buy that one.

[JuniperLea]

253. your pretzel logic

is astounding. no, i never said that was their reasoning. i'm merely arguing a point you tried to make. quit twisting my words.

[Scout]

256. quit twisting my words

right back at ya

[JuniperLea]

260. read the thread again

and show me where i twisted yours.

[Scout]

267. read the thread again and show me where i twisted yours

you made the accusation, back it up.

[JuniperLea]

272. no, you accussed me!

and i asked you first! if you can play 'neener neener' childish games, you should be able to take them.

i accussed you of twisting my words and your comeback was to say the same goes for me... and i asked you to show me where... you go first, bucko!

[Scout]

277. post 253, you accused me of twisting your words

253. your pretzel logic
is astounding. no, i never said that was their reasoning. i'm merely arguing a point you tried to make. quit twisting my words.



where have I twisted your words?

[JuniperLea]

280. read again... and try hard to understand this time

1 - i said you twisted my words.

2 - you said i did the same.

3 - i said, prove it. show me where i twisted your words.

4 - here is where you are supposed to show me... but no, instead you said to show you where i claim you twisted my words... i refused... i asked first. if you can't do it, just say so.

[Scout]

281. yes, you first claimed I twisted your words, but gave no proof. n/t

[redqueen]

This I can sympathize with...

However I still can't quite agree. Take the football team for example. Space is limited. However entrance is granted based on ability. If a child is home-schooled, yet eligible to enroll in that school if they chose to do so, then I think it's only fair that they be given a chance to develop their talents at playing football. If they are better players then they deserve that spot on the team more than the enrolled students. IMO, of course. :)

[JuniperLea]

145. oh please!

public school students have not had taxes paid to a home school! nor do they pay for private school, so it's only right that they aren't allowed to use it! they do, however, pay for public schooling by virtue of all of us paying taxes!

this 'neener neener neener' attitude is really trying. it doesn't cost any more to let that home schooled kid have a class or something in the private school! you'd think bread was being taken from your plate!

[Modem Butterfly]

158. The irony is palpable.

public school students have not had taxes paid to a home school! nor do they pay for private school, so it's only right that they aren't allowed to use it!

:ROFL:

they do, however, pay for public schooling by virtue of all of us paying taxes!

Well no, they don't. Otherwise, why would up-scale public schools have to purge their rolls of out-of-district students periodically? Because even though we all pay taxes (well, most of us), they aren't residents of those districts and aren't participating in that taxbase.

it doesn't cost any more to let that home schooled kid have a class or something in the private school!

An excellent solution. Let the homeschoolers who desire access to more resources send their kids to private school so we can be done with this discussion.

[JuniperLea]

172. oh brother

all schools try to purge themselves of students not in their area! upscale or not! like i said, if all schools were created equal, we wouldn't be having this discussion. being the resident in a certain school district isn't the issue here and i fail to see why you are trying to make it an issue.

you know i meant 'public' school. cripes

[gollygee]

231. This doesn't make sense to me

I agree with probably 99% of posts I read by you on DU. But not this one.

"After all, public high school students can't come into homeschool homes and start using their resources. Kids at Uly's school can't go to Pace Academy (a very up-scale private school in Atlanta) and use their resources to get educated anymore than I can. And the opposite is true as well (assuming a Pace kid could even get someone to take them into inner Atlanta)."

You are confusing private resources with public resources. No one has a right to use any private resources. We all have a right to use the public resources that our tax dollars fund to at least some extent. What is in question is to what extent, not whether people have access or not.

"If a parent takes their kids out of school to educate them at home, that's their perogative, but it also becomes their responsibility. Once a kid is out of the public schools, the public school is no longer responsible for their education."

I agree that the education is the parents' responsibility, but that doesn't explain why they shouldn't have access to public school resources. They can be responsible for their kids' education *and* use public resources - the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[JuniperLea]

140. i applaud you, redqueen

a voice of reason!

there is no room for holier than thou, snobby and selfish thinking where our children are concerned!

[redqueen]

146. I say there's no room for bureaucratic bullshit

where our children are concerned.

If there's a GOOD reason to exclude these kids (such as in districts where the funding for these programs is in fact based on enrollment and not participation or by the parents), then fine, let's hear it.

So far, I haven't heard anything even close to a good reason.

[Scout]

160. funny but it's been my experience

that the snobby, selfish holier than thou thinking comes more from parents than from non-parents where "our" children are concerned.

If you want your precious darlings to be able to use the public schools, then enroll them in the public schools. If the public schools aren't "good enough" for the education of your precious then why are they good enough for extra-curricular activities?

[Modem Butterfly]

165. Did you see her explanation for why she's doing this on the other thread?

Yikes.

[Scout]

232. because one child choked her child, and the teacher rolled her eyes?

yeah, I saw that.

[Modem Butterfly]

262. Edited

Not really worthy of being posted. It's just depressing.

[redqueen]

240. Did you re-read that, to clear up your misunderstanding?

[JuniperLea]

221. that is a snobby attitude

just what i was talking about. it's all so very love it or leave it to you. so black and white.

[Scout]

243. I'm so sorry that my PERSONAL experiences

do not fit into your preconceptions and generalizations.

It is black and white really. If you want the advantages of the public schools and their resources, then enroll your kid in public school.

Can you actually debate any of the points, or are you just interested in passing judgement?

[JuniperLea]

246. black and white

i see. no original thought allowed. we lemmings must all adhere to all the previously written rules. just because we could make something better is no excuse.

i've spoken on topic all along. where have you been?

[Scout]

254. you crack me up

where do you invent these things I've supposedly said?

no original thought allowed. we lemmings must all adhere to all the previously written rules.

I tell you about my personal, real-life, everyday experiences, and you call me a snob (oh, wait, you only said i had a snobby attitude!) and now I'm telling you not to think!

Methinks thou needs to get a grip on thyself, and come down from thine high horse.

[JuniperLea]

258. hahaha

glad to bring you a laugh, scout. you are the one who said the issue was black and white! i merely expanded on that!

he who laughs last!

;)

haha!

[JuniperLea]

137. what help are you talking about?

they are paying for public school regardless! why can't they use it? if you tax their tea, can they not drink it? can you blame a parent for wanting a better education in the basics and then punish the child? that is what you propose, you know. punish the child! i find that selfish and snobbish and just plain rude.

[Modem Butterfly]

141. Then why can't I go out for track next spring?

I'm paying for public school regardless! The junior high in my school district has an excellent Spanish class. How come my nephew can't continue to attend school in his district but take Spanish in mine? I'm paying for public school regardless!

can you blame a parent for wanting a better education in the basics and then punish the child?

It's the parents who are "punishing" their children (your words, not mine) by taking them out of public school, just as my brother is "punishing" my nephew by keeping him out of my school district.

[JuniperLea]

153. no, you are the punisher

and you are not a school aged child, so your arguement about attending class yourself is moot. your nephew has a public school he CAN ATTEND. no one can decide they will attend some arbitrary school, and no one is saying that here!

do you have proof that home schooled children are getting an inferior education? if your brother doesn't live in an area where your nephew can attend YOUR school district, maybe he should move.

[Modem Butterfly]

181. It's institutional discrimination! Just like the homeschoolers!

your nephew has a public school he CAN ATTEND

As do homeschoolers. The difference is, he attends his.

no one can decide they will attend some arbitrary school, and no one is saying that here!

Actually, that's just about the argument you're making. You say that (some) non-students should be able to use public school resources because someone, somewhere pays property taxes and anyway, it benefits us to have educated children.

[JuniperLea]

199. i'm not understanding you at all

it's not an arbitrary school if a home schooled child attends a class in his district, a school that he would otherwise be eligible to attend!

your nephew cannot just attend a school just because he wants to attend that particular public school. no one can. a home schooled child couldn't attend a school out of his area either!

[Modem Butterfly]

202. Sarcasm

it's not an arbitrary school if a home schooled child attends a class in his district, a school that he would otherwise be eligible to attend!

But chooses not to, for whatever reason, except to play Basketball. No, nothing arbitrary about that at all.

:eyes:

your nephew cannot just attend a school just because he wants to attend that particular public school. no one can. a home schooled child couldn't attend a school out of his area either!

Which is beside the point.

[JuniperLea]

209. beside the point, yes

then why do you keep bringing it up?

i'm saying you can't go to an arbitrary school. there is nothing arbitrary about a child wanting to participate in physical education classes in his or her own school district or neighborhood school they would attend if they were not home schooled. you are comparing apples and oranges.

[Modem Butterfly]

211. I'm not

You're the one who keeps bringing it up.

[JuniperLea]

216. dooood!

i didn't even know you HAD a nephew! FCOL! read the thread! you keep bringing him up... i only mentioned him in response to your mention!

[Modem Butterfly]

227. Whatever

:eyes:

[JuniperLea]

229. snappy comeback

i guess i win the debate.

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

255. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Modem Butterfly]

257. Bored now

I tried to have a serious discussion with someone who is apparently just dicking around. My mistake. Fool me once, and all that. Have a nice day.

[JuniperLea]

259. take your marbles and run

fine with me!

i don't 'dick' around.

am i the one who took my marbles and ran? no.

am i the one who said 'whatever'? no.

[Scout]

270. you're the one who says "quit twisting my words"

and "you have a snobby attitude" and "you like to try to trip people up on their words"

but no, you don't dick around ... do you pussy foot?

talk about dishing it out but not being able to take it...

[JuniperLea]

273. i stick to the issues

i don't take it personal until someone else does. seems to me that's all you have done. and you can accusse others of dicking around. riiiiight.

[Name removed]

278. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

279. nice jab

sans ellaboration, naturally. you are good at jabs, but you refuse to back up what you say. why is that?

[Name removed]

282. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

128. exactly!

the redqueen speaks the truth! i'm so tired of this mentality where people are greedy with something that isn't even theirs! you pay the taxes anyway! why not give a child a fighting chance in this ever increasingly stupid world?

[Modem Butterfly]

99. Well, that's not true

For instance, my grandparents lived in a great school district, but I wasn't allowed to attend school there simply because they paid property taxes.

The issue isn't education but rather access to school equipment and resources for the larger community and the fact that homeschoolers are demanding special rights.

[JuniperLea]

115. no, but...

you were allowed to attend a public school, right? i'm not talking busing here... a whole nuther oprah. few people get to attend school in their own neighborhood these days.

[Modem Butterfly]

117. Homeschoolers are allowed to attend public schools, too

They just choose not to.

[JuniperLea]

126. so?

what does that have to do with your statement and my subsequent question?

[Modem Butterfly]

134. That's what I'd like to know

I pointed out that as a public school student in one district, I was not allowed to access resources in another district because I was a non-resident. You pointed out the fact that I was allowed to attend public school in my own district, and I pointed out that homeschoolers are allowed to attend public school in their own districts as well.

[JuniperLea]

201. not if you have your way

you are fighting against that, remember? ;)

[Modem Butterfly]

204. Not at all

The issue isn't attendance but participation in extracurricular activities for non-students.

[JuniperLea]

206. so you are saying

that boy scouts and girl scouts shouldn't be allowed to use public school facilities either? how is an extracuricular activity attendee taking away from anyone else?

[JuniperLea]

195. so what?

taxes were paid. the public school system is made available to them by virtue of taxes paid by all!

[philosophie_en_rose]

130. .

[philosophie_en_rose]

135. Taxes that aren't allocated to the school.

Schools get some funds for certain programs based on enrollment figures. They get nothing for students that aren't enrolled in classes.

It's about the allocation of funding.


In addition, it is reasonable for school districts to have enrollment policies. If a student is not enrolled as a student in a school, there is no reasonable expectation that a school should provides services to that student. None.

[redqueen]

148. Where that's the case, then it's a problem.

However, as stated clearly in the article, some districts do receive funding based on participation, not enrollment.

If that's the case, what's your objection?

[philosophie_en_rose]

193. They are not enrolled in the school.

It's a simple fact that you are enrolled as a student or you are not.

If you are not enrolled as a student, you are not subject to the rules or restrictions of the district. Thus, you don't get sent to court for missing classes or held to the same graduation requirements. The school has no claim over you.

If you are not enrolled as a student, you are not able to benefit from the rules, restrictions, and programs available to students in the school. Because you are not a student.

Extracurricular activities are earned by students through participation and success in regular school. I do not begrudge a parent the right to enroll students in private programs. However, I do not believe that they are entitled to public services that they have declined. A school district has every right to restrict its programs to people enrolled in the school. If a parent chooses not to enroll in the school, they decline the positive aspects along with what they perceive to be negative.

For instance, I was accepted to a public university with an excellent sports team. That university is supported by public money. I pay taxes for that team. I chose to go to a private university. Can I show up and join the team? I pay taxes.

The reasonable expectation is that the university can exclude me, because I chose not to attend that school. Even if I chose to not attend any school, I would not be entitled to services at a school that I do not attend.

The logic is very clear. Please look at the Professor's posts for further explanation. There are choices and parents are entitled to home school. However, choosing "home school" academy is a different choice with different drawbacks and benefits than enrollment in a public school.

The funding issue is not the most important or the only concern. It is the liability, the accountability, the logistics, and the school's capacity to limit their programs to students in attendance at the school. I was simply responding to the expectation that some people have that they are entitled to use any service that taxes might contribute towards. In many instances, that is not the case. Funding sources are diverse and I would sincerely doubt that there is any program that is fully funded with taxes.

[JuniperLea]

228. that's the point

there is no good reason why a child cannot be enrolled for a class or two and be compensated via the taxes already paid on behalf of that child.

[redqueen]

238. But but but... It's aginst the ROOOLS!

The ROOLS say if you're not enrolled, you're not eligible to participate... we can't change the ROOLS just cause it's logical and fair, can we?

:crazy:

[JuniperLea]

242. uh ya, i fergit

alla us lemmings mus folla de roools... no thinking outside the box allowed!! nothing new! oh dear lord! how could we cope with an original thought that hasn't already had a rule written about it?? doh!

[philosophie_en_rose]

265. You're comments are extremely immature.

The problem in this thread is that people discussing the issue like adults cannot engage with that simplistic mindset.

You cannot change the facts, simply by avoiding or ridiculing them.

You simply do not want to face the consequences of making a choice. There are benefits and consequences to not being enrolled in a school. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

Or perhaps I should call the university of washington and demand to be on their basketball team. :eyes: If they don't change the rules {and at least public education taught me to spell correctly}, then they are unfair meanies! :sarcasm:

[philosophie_en_rose]

264. Picking and choosing has its consequences.

The "class or two" are likely to be the cost prohibitive classes. In addition, there are overhead and liability issues that are contrary to your simplistic view.

[nonconformist]

286. So what if said taxpayers send their kids to a private school

Should the private school kids be able to drop in and participate in public school activities if they want?

'taxes' is a WEAK argument. Most public schools receive their funding based on enrollment and attendance.

[LeftyMom]

18. Testing isn't mandatory in many states

Thankfully here in CA we fall under the private school statute and don't have to test. :D

[bleedingheart]

9. Cyber Schooling is how the PA Public Schools are losing money

you see in PA if you homeschool using books...well you don't get any subsidy.

HOWEVER...if you use one of those cyberschools like Rick Santorum's wife uses...then you get the cyber tuition/computer paid for out of tax dollars.... Rick Santorum got over $100K in such aid from a Penn Hills School District...by the way Penn Hills is not a wealthy district...

"A member of the Penn Hills school board said last week that the district has paid about $100,000 for the Santorums' children to attend the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School. Erin Vecchio said Santorum has never lived in the district, despite owning a two-bedroom house there; the family of six lives in a home in Leesburg, Va., so the senator can be close to Washington, D.C. "

http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_323100927.html

Now I can tell you that Santorum got way more than his money back in taxes using this scheme.

[Fleshdancer]

10. This BS is EXACTLY how many Republicans think!

They want all the benefits of the system without any of the costs. They don't want to pay for public education, but hey, why not let little Billy use the facilities??? At the end of the day, they don't give a shit about the greater good of the community, all they care about is their own personal well being. Explain to me the "morality" of living that way.

You want Billy to learn religion AND be on the soccer team? Fine. Then enroll him into public school and when he gets home at 3pm, supplement his public education with private education at home or in the church.

[DFWdem]

23. Their point is that they DO pay the costs

They do so in the form of property taxes. I for one think they should be allowed to participate in team sports. How else will they be exposed to people outside of their comfort zone? Will they meet people with different backgrounds/points of view in their church or homeschooling clubs? This may be one of the few areas where their views on life are challenged.

[Modem Butterfly]

28. Great! So everyone who pays property taxes can go out for football!

Too bad for the renters, eh?

[DFWdem]

32. Well, no...

Because they pay their property taxes indirectly via their rent payments

[Modem Butterfly]

34. And children don't pay property taxes at all...

So all after-school activities are adults-only, so long as the adult actually pays property taxes. Stay-at-home folks, roommates, adult children living with Mom and Dad are excluded.

Who's up for a game of Basketball?

[DFWdem]

38. By that logic

Every child should be expelled from public school

[Modem Butterfly]

39. Exactly.

[DFWdem]

43. Not sure I follow

Obviously adults can't play junior high or high school (insert sport here) due to age restrictions. As a child I played various sports - football, baseball, basketball - and the leagues are divided by age group. I think it was 6-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17. Also, in the younger leagues there were weight restrictions. I remember one heavy kid on my team in the 6th grade running laps before a game trying to burn off a pound or 2 to get to the 135 pound weight limit. Anyway, I think it's a good thing for these kids to play with others who have a different background/skin color/belief system than their own. Where else will they be exposed to it?

[Modem Butterfly]

56. I'm taking a ridiculous argument to it's illogical extreme

Obviously adults can't play junior high or high school (insert sport here) due to age restrictions.

Well, you can't play junior high or high school sports if you don't attend the school either.

Anyway, I think it's a good thing for these kids to play with others who have a different background/skin color/belief system than their own. Where else will they be exposed to it?

The Y, local community centers, parks, community recreation programs, summer camp, enrichment programs offered by museums, community theater, youth orchestras, the list is nearly endless...

[DFWdem]

104. Isn't this the issue being discussed?

Obviously adults can't play junior high or high school (insert sport here) due to age restrictions.

Well, you can't play junior high or high school sports if you don't attend the school either.

Also, what if you live in a town with a population of 10,000 or a rural area? These places don't have a population base large enough to support a recreational league in addition to the public school sports teams.


edit for content

[Modem Butterfly]

112. And non-students can't play due to being non-students

So what's your point?

Also, what if you live in a town with a population of 10,000 or a rural area? These places don't have a population base large enough to support a recreational league in addition to the public school sports teams.

Actually most of these places consolidate from other towns around the county.

[DFWdem]

147. I beg to differ

The town I grew up in had a population of 15,000 and did not consolidate anything with any surrounding counties or cities. If your whole issue is the fact that it costs the school district money to have athletics it is simple enough to address. Take the amount needed for the program, deduct the amount paid for out of property taxes for that sport, divide the remainder by the number of people on the team and charge the homeschoolers that much per person to participate.

[nonconformist]

58. NO THEY DON'T

School funding is determined by ENROLLMENT.

[redqueen]

63. Actually, it differs from state to state / district to district. n/t

[dddem]

94. I agree that for social reasons home schooled kids should participate

in sports and such. Maybe I'm being naive, but where I live, there are all kinds of recreational sports the kids can participate in, regardless of where they go to school. Both of my daughters play softball through town leagues, not through school. I imagine most towns in this country offer rec. leagues that are inexpensive. And if money really is a factor, they usually find a way to work it out. As far as paying taxes, last I heard, taxes benefit all of us in some way or another. My house has never been on fire, should I withhold a portion of my taxes from the fire dept.? Taxes are not user fees. And kids can get exposure to sports without using the public school facilities or resources.

[CornField]

11. Not all people homeschool because of religion

I homeschooled my daughter when she was in the 4th grade because of a very negative personality conflict between her and the teacher. The school district refused to move her into a different homeroom and I refused to force her to go to a place everyday to be under the thumb of someone who obviously could not stand her.

Dual enrollment (part homeschool, part public school) was our savior that year. I was able to teach her the core curriculum and she was able to maintain her place in the extra-curricular activities (band, art, etc.). In Iowa, the district loses tax funding when children leave to be homeschooled, unless the family joins a Home School Assistance Program. Such programs allow for some oversight of the homeschooled kids, offer extended learning opportunities, social events, group learning, etc.

[redqueen]

65. That Home School Assistance Program sounds like a great idea.

I don't like the hostility here towards homeschooling... don't understand where it comes from at all.

Perhaps a solution like this should be proposed in every state, so that anti-homeschoolers might STFU finally.

[northzax]

14. I support this 100%

in my school, if you didn't attend school, that means be physically on campus, you didn't play that night. If you had a dr.'s appointment, you made it for a non-game day. harsh, but them's the rules.

so as long as all the kids are physically at the school on that day for practice and games, then I see no problem with this at all.

oh, they won't be? bummer.

[LeftyMom]

16. Speaking as a homeschooling parent

I certainly don't want to deal with teh bullshit that public finding brings just to borrow some books from the school library or bum a microscope. These faux-homeschooling programs and offers of partial emrollment come with restrictions I don't choose to live with.

Homeschoolers are hardly a monolithic entity. The wingnut bloc tries to speak for all of us, but they don't. Please don't assume that what Rick Santorum or the HSLDA says is what we want. They speak for a small but vocal minority of the homeschooling popluation. Most of us just want to teach thier kids free of interference and are perfectly willing to pay our own way and stick to private sports programs to do so.

FWIW, the program the Santorum family was cheating Penn Hills into paying for was computer-based self instructional. Supposedly they're paying for it out of pocket now, but since the program requires no significant parent involvement and isn't individualized, I'd still argue that what they're doing isn't precisely homeschooling, it's cyber-schooling, an entirely differnt kettle of fish.

[Modem Butterfly]

17. Speaking for myself...

...my concerns are with the wing-nuts who want to have their cake and eat it to, in the name of their god.

[bleedingheart]

21. where do you draw the line though between cyber and home?

I have read articles such as this...

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4840116.htm

that make me think that basically cyber and non cyber home schooling are still home schooling but that those who chose to go the cyber school route can in some states have the entire cost of it picked up by the local schools (as it is done in PA)... the problem is that it is quite costly and many local school boards are finding the cost of educating via cyber school more expensive than if the children were attending public school.

To be honest I can't help but think this cyber school thing here in PA is being designed to destroy the public school system by sucking enough money from the districts until they can't sustain themselves without huge tax increases which will just lead to more rage among the citizens who have no clue as to how this all occurred until it is too late.

[LeftyMom]

41. If parents aren't supervising, altering the scope and sequence to fit the

child's needs and footing the bill, it isn't homeschooling. When the family has sacrificed a greater degree of control than legally mandated to the government or the public school system- that isn't homeschooling.

When a family is tailoring thier program to thier child's needs, paying for it themselves, maintaining control of and involvement in thier child's education, that's homeschooling.

[bleedingheart]

44. well my kids go to public school but in addition I ...

nurture their interests, buy additional books for them, spend loads of time with them helping them to better understand the school work as well as other topics they find interesting. For instance, I buy books, visit the library with and will take my kids to places to explore topics they have discovered through school, me or another source...so in esssence am I not public schooling and home schooling?

[LeftyMom]

55. I beleve the term for that is "afterschooling"

but personally, I would just call it parenting. Yeah, that's combining some aspects of homeschooling with thier public school experience, but it's supplementary and centered aroung the public school's scope and sequence. Therein lies the difference.

[southernleftylady]

24. they pay the same taxes do they not?

[Modem Butterfly]

29. By that logic, the children of renters should be excluded

Or perhaps all children should be excluded because they don't pay property taxes, and only the adults who pay should be allowed to participate in athletics.

[southernleftylady]

31. lol ok you got a point nt

[Bunny]

236. Renters pay property taxes.

It's included in their rent.

[Bridget Burke]

30. So do people without children.

Can we use school facilities?

[southernleftylady]

36. you did.. prob. when you were growing up :) its a cycle :) nt

[Bridget Burke]

37. Yes, but I went to public schools.

And my grandmother worked at a public school. A job that homeschoolers would NOT have supported.

[Modem Butterfly]

40. Not necessarily

If, like most Americans, you are paying taxes to a school district other than the one you attended as a child, you have not gotten your money's worth. For instance, at my rural, sub-standard high school, we had very few extra-curricular activities. The high school down the street has a swim team and a forensics team. I would have killed for that in high school. I'm paying for it now, but I have a feeling if I show up with my swimsuit and legal pad and say, "I pay property taxes, I'm entitled to be involved with the after-school stuff" they would have me removed from their property.

[bleedingheart]

45. in our area they have had adult swim nights at the high school

granted you have to pay an extra fee to have a teenage lifeguard in case ya bump your head or have a problem...

the problem is that sometimes those little programs die off cuz no one is interested or utilizes it.

[Modem Butterfly]

54. Why should a taxpayer have to pay an extra fee?

That's institutional discrimination!

[bleedingheart]

79. for the lifeguard...to keep it safe...

the facility is paid for by the taxpayers but technically when school is in session the pool is "guarded" by the coaches and teachers.

[ProfessorGAC]

83. Not Me

My sister and i both went to private schools. Yet, my parents paid taxes.

My wife and i were unable to have children. Yet we pay taxes.

And you know what? We've never complained about paying them.

Now, homeschoolers want a return on investment of their taxes just because they paid them.

Sorry. Living in a developed society doesn't work that way. A certain sense of community is required. Once one chooses to remove one's self from the community benefits, the benefits are lost in full.
The Professor

[redqueen]

97. That's ridiculous.

You get a return because all society benefits from well-educated children.

I don't see the logic in your statement that if a student or their parent chooses to pull them out of the public system, that they should lose all access to that institution. A couple of systesms have been mentioned in which homeschooled children are allowed partial access for certain classes or extracurricular activities... please let me know why you think this is so wrong.

[ProfessorGAC]

108. I Already Said It

You can disagree. But, i already said why i think it. You think it's ridiculous. I think your position that one can opt out of a system somewhat is ridiculous. If the school isn't good enough for these kids, then so be it.

Life is not that convenient. Having one's cake and eating it too is fantasy. If they don't live in Disneyland, they don't get to have it both ways. If the parents opt to teach their own children by removing them from the community benefit provided, that's on them. They've made their choice.

I don't see how you can miss the logic. It's seems fairly clear to me. Everyone makes choices. With choices are certain consequences. What's illogical about that.

Also, remember that the benefit obtained from educated kids is WHAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE FOR! How does doing that at home provide any further benefit? How does being allowed to play for the high school football team after one has decided that the school isn't good enough, benefit society? Even if the issue is high school band (and i'm a musician), how does having access to that program benefit society any further than the band program already does?

The answer are: They don't. The benefit to society is already extant in all these areas simply because the school is there. That doesn't change in any way by letting a homeschool kid play on the football team.

It's a matter of people expecting society to conform to their expectations, for their convenience. It's selfish and repulsive.
The Professor

[Scout]

116. Bravo!

you said what I've been trying to say, and did it so much better than I would have.


:toast:

[redqueen]

118. You're ignoring reality.

There are already sytems in place which allow partial use... your comparison to Disneyland is irrational.

Educating students at home provides an additional benefit when there are unacceptable conditions at school. I'm surprised that needs to be pointed out.

"Even if the issue is high school band..., how does having access to that program benefit society any further than the band program already does?"

What? Are you seriously asking how homeschooled children having access benefit society any further than enrolled children?

"The answer are: They don't. The benefit to society is already extant in all these areas simply because the school is there. That doesn't change in any way by letting a homeschool kid play on the football team."

I maintain that it does. The benefit to society is increased because more children get to participate. Note that I'm speaking primarily about the arts. I have my doubts about sports and whether or not it even belongs at school to begin with, however I recognize that I'm in the minority so I'll leave that for now. :)

I disagree that these people expect society to conform to their expectations. It seems to me that they expect school districts to be in the business of enriching students' lives. I find it repulsive that so many wish to exclude these children from participation based on nothing meaningful at all.

[Modem Butterfly]

127. Partial use is still quite rare

If a school district feels they can handle it, I applaud them. But not every school district will be so fortunate. In fact, I'll wager that most would find it quite a strain.

[ProfessorGAC]

131. Then, You Would Be Wrong.

The benefits already exist. Giving access benefits the children, but the benefit to society hasn't changed. If you can't see that, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

You're rationalizing like mad to make a point. It's not working.
The Professor

[redqueen]

154. We just disagree... I am not "wrong" just because you say so.

You don't get to define reality, you know.

The benefits only exist when there is participation. Having a music program that no one uses is of no benefit to society, is it? Therefore, the benefit is increased when participation increases. That's my logic.

I'm sorry that you think my disagreement with you on this point makes you right and me wrong, but please save your condescension for those who wish to take it.

You say I'm rationalizing, yet you don't cite examples. Weak.

[geniph]

33. A lot of districts already do this

The district I work for has a homeschool program that basically has one facility (an older school that's no longer used as a regular school) with a computer lab, a small library, and a small classroom that the homeschoolers can use. I think the homeschoolers should be allowed to do that; if they're property owners, then they're paying for public schools whether they use them or not. Plus I think it's best if the homeschool kids are sometimes around other kids, even if it's only other homeschooled kids; otherwise, some of them grow up as unsocialized as hermits.

Allowing *some* extracurricular participation by the homeschooled kids is usually a positive thing for those kids - if their parents have a tin ear but the kid wants to learn music, for example. I don't think we should necessarily bar all homeschool kids from such programs, but I do think the districts have every right to set their own rules for participation - for example, the homeschooled kids must be officially enrolled as part of the district's home school program, they must take the same tests as public school kids, they have to have certain academic goals met in order to participate, and certainly they must adhere to the same behavioral standards as the public school kids who are allowed to participate.

I guess my big thing is that I hate the idea of kids being taken off and indoctrinated in total isolation from other kids, so any exposure to the public schools is probably a positive. I know plenty of home schoolers who do try to make sure their kids are properly socialized, but some all but keep the poor kids in prison, isolated from other kids lest they hear a swearword or any information about dissenting viewpoints.

[redqueen]

70. The common sentiment here seems to be "fuck the kids"

since there's an axe to grind with religious homeschoolers.

It's positively revolting.

[Modem Butterfly]

74. Well in this case, it would be their parents saying "fuck the kids"

Assuming the kids want to be involved in extracurricular activities at public schools. It's the parents who homeschool who make the decision not to allow their kids to participate in extracurricular activities at public schools. It's a sacrifice they make for their children's education, which I get, but to then claim an entitlement to pick and choose what parts of the public school system they become involved with is ridiculous.

[geniph]

81. Right, it is the parents doing that...

but I still think we should, insofar as possible, do what most benefits the kids that the districts can do without hardship. It's not too much of a hardship for our district to provide those services we do to the homeschool program. HOWEVER - our homeschool program requires those parents to register their kids as part of the program, thus we do get some federal funding for those kids (albeit not as much as a regular student). I do think they should have to do that at the very least.

We do have to remember that, while a majority of homeschoolers may be doing it for religious reasons, there are plenty who are doing it for less-ideologically-driven reasons.

I have already stated I work for a public school district. I hate anything that increases the burdens on public schools without commensurate funding. Private school voucher programs are something I'm wholeheartedly in opposition to - but homeschooling - well, it depends on the reasons for it, and I still don't think we should abandon those kids to the vagaries and whims of their parents if there's any way to avoid doing so.

I believe the homeschool program kids (the registered ones, the ones for whom the district receives funding) should be allowed to use computer resources, libraries, and such. Extracurricular activities, I could go either way on. But it's too simplistic to say, let them have private lessons (not all homeschoolers have the money), or let them do those things at their church (not all homeschoolers are religious). I think anything that helps socialize those kids, anything that makes the public schools less intimidating and more familiar to them, is ultimately positive. A lot of the kids who start out playing soccer with the public school kids are probably eventually going to ask their parents to let them attend public school.

[Modem Butterfly]

87. People don't realize the costs behind use of facilities

Physical plant, insurance, additional personnel, it adds up. Every school district is in a unique situation, and some can be more accomodating than others. Forcing every school district to accomodate non-students is simply a bad idea.

[redqueen]

106. I thought you said it wasn't about funding?

If the school is getting the funding, what's the big deal?

[Modem Butterfly]

113. When did I say that?

[redqueen]

244. To be honest, I'm not in a mood to look it up.

I saw you claim in another post that it's not about taxes (i.e. funding).

However, after seeing you attempt to spread mischaracterizations of my post on another thread, I'm really not interested in continuing this discussion.

[redqueen]

82. No, there are already systems in place which allow partial use.

I hope to see those systems started everywhere.

[Modem Butterfly]

85. I'm sure those school districts have dealt with the logistics

But using the courts to force school districts to accomodate the community at large is a waste of public resources.

[redqueen]

107. What logistics?

When the funding is based on participation, it's covered. When it's paid for by the parents, it's coverd. The ONLY case where this would be an issue for me is when the funding is only covered for students enrolled in regular classes. Since that's not always the case... I truly do not get this outrage.

[Modem Butterfly]

114. Liability, physical plant, personnel...

When the funding is based on participation, it's covered.

That's not the case everywhere, far from it in fact.

When it's paid for by the parents, it's coverd.

And as I've said before, if homeschoolers want to rent school facilities and the local school board feels they can be accomodated, let them pay the same rate as any other community members.

[Scout]

77. I don't care WHY they are being homeschooled....

for religious or other reasons. If you want your kids to be able to use the public school facilities, leave them in public school. If you want to take them out of the public schools, fine, that is your choice. You just can't have it both ways.

If sports participation is important for your child, I'm sure your community must have little league, or community rec & ed programs, or church teams, or travelling teams, or the Y, or the park down the street.

You want to school your child yourself, fine, but you have to take the good with the bad, just like if you were in the public school system.

The parents are the ones who are saying "fuck the kids" by taking them away from the place that has the opportunities they want/need.

Revolting, indeed. :eyes:

[redqueen]

86. No, some people already get to have it both ways.

I hope that kind of set up spreads to every school district where it's possible.

I maintain that it's those who are spewing such vitriol at homeschoolers / homeschooled children who are saying "fuck the kids". They know there are systems in place to allow access, and for no good reason, they are against it... it's plainly idiotic.

The only reason cited is bureaucratic nonsense. Admirable. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

95. My axe to grind is to protect the resources for the kids IN the school

I don't see why a kid who goes to the school should have to compete for the resources, or even a place on the team, with a kid who doesn't.

[libodem]

42. bite me

they suck the money out of the schools for vouchers and say the most damning, vicious, nasty things about public education let them go use a church....

[DFWdem]

53. Actually,

Home-schoolers don't use vouchers. They home-school

[KG]

46. don't ya love it when fundies demand special treatment they would

deny to others? :eyes:

[Scout]

48. too fucking bad

if your kid is "too good" for public school education, then they are "too good" for public school sports.

Put them on a private travelling team, or put them in community rec & ed sports.

[WLKjr]

51. If you want to use public schools activities, then

put your kid in a public school.


I bet if I wanted to take a kid of mine from public school to put in a religion based school program, I would be told no becuase my child has to be a student there.


Santorum, I sure hope your kids never turn out to be like you...

[redqueen]

60. I support this.

In districts where funding is doled out based on participation, it's fair. In districts where the parents pay, it's fair. The only situation in which this would not be fair is if the district paid based on enrollment in regular classes... other than that, I don't see what the big deal is.

And for the record, all the comments stereotyping homeschooling parents and homeschooled children are pretty ignorant. One would think that after being reminded again and again that there are many parents who wish to homeschool for NON-religious reasons, and that many middle and lower-income parents also homeschool, that that nonsense would have died down some at least.

[Modem Butterfly]

62. Great! Sign me up for volleyball!

:)

[Bridget Burke]

139. Even the non-religious home schoolers believe the schools suck.

Why should they subject their children to such inferior peons?

[dogday]

61. Homeschooling is a good alternative for some and should not

be grouped as a Ring-Wing Republican idea. There are many children obtaining their education at home for many reasons and religion is not the only reason. Homeschooling was popular before the religious got hold of it.

Parents don't like the teachings of school, the kids in the school, the violence in the school, the intrusiveness of the system, there are many reasons. I considered it for my second child, but decided she would do better socially in public school.

I don't know about sharing facilities, I would think that money would be involved, they now charge for students to use the field, gym etc for extra-curricular activities, so charge the home schoolers as well and schedule as to not interfere with the student who attend public school....

[Modem Butterfly]

66. Shouldn't they charge the homeschoolers as much as anyone else?

After all, the students likely get a discount since they're students and the district is already paying liability insurance and other costs.

[dogday]

76. What ever is fair, is what should be charged.

Homeschooling is not reserved for the religious right wingers, I assure you. The old hippies and establishment freaks were doing it way before them and it has it's advantages.

There are many people who do not like big brother teaching their children, especially in this time were we see they are more intrusive than ever with counselors and mental screenings, etc.

[Modem Butterfly]

78. If a group of homeschoolers want to rent the track and field...

...and the school board feels the school is set up to handle it, I have no problem with it. They should be charged the same rate as any other community group. To ask for a discount based on the taxpayments of their parents is to ask for special rights.

[Modem Butterfly]

91. The issue isn't homeschooling, but rather special rights

And after years of Republican rule, we all know that special rights are wrong...

[dogday]

98. I believe in equal rights and homeschooling.. The Republicans

are always trying to get stuff for free even when they are so rich they could afford to buy a whole school. Stingy selfish people....

[SoCalDem]

72. Using MY tax-dollar-supported facilities, when they "opted out"?

Sounds like they just want it both ways..

I would actually support NOT using their property tax assessments for schools, and just cutting them out completely.

If public schools are too dangerous or lacking for their kids when it comes to learning, WHY would they even want to subject their little darlings to the extra curriculars?

[ProfessorGAC]

84. My Point, Above, Exactly

The Professor

[friesianrider]

129. Exactly, well put nt

[DFWdem]

136. The question isn't why they would want to

The question is should they be allowed to? Why someone wants to engage in sports has no bearing on this argument any more than why a gay person would want to marry someone of the same sex. It's a question of should they be allowed to? My opinion is yes on both matters.

[SoCalDem]

151. Extra curricular activities are offered to students at a school

as an incentive..a perc.. They are for THOSE students..the school cannot afford to offer these activities to just anyone..

Where would it stop? What if a NEW school was forced to let ANY student in the area use their facilities??

When parents decide to remove their kids, the loss of the "social" activities is part of the deal. They should take this into consideration before they remove them.

[redqueen]

247. It's not an incentive nor a perk.

It's for the enrichment of their education.

[SoCalDem]

275. Kids with failing grades are usually not allowed to participate.

of course , coaches know ways "around" that issue..but every school I have been associated with, USED the extras as a lure for students to do well in school:)

[seaglass]

105. Public school sports teams = school pride. There are

plenty of Rec teams, Select teams that kids can join.

It isn't a money thing for me, it just seems ridiculous to have a kid that doesn't attend the school represent the school.

[philosophie_en_rose]

122. Students from one school have no right to join another's team.

This is a complex issue. Although taxpayers seem to believe they pay for everything under the sun, it is simply not the case that all education - let alone extra-curricular activies - is covered by the government. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for the debate team to have car washes or cheerleaders to wrap gifts at Christmas. I would not have to buy chocolate from sad-eyed nephews or dodge my friends when they're selling subscriptions for their kids.

Funding is often based upon enrollment numbers. Home schooled students should either contribute an additional fee or not participate. Otherwise, those students take resources that are not reimbursed to the school.

Even if parents pay taxes, it does not entitle them to take their children anywhere they like. Otherwise, I could have just ditch my high school band and play with another. I could skip math, because it's hard. I could reinforce the idea that you can just not do what's hard for you.

People should be sensitive to the variety of problems such "pick and choose" schooling creates. Fundamentally, it's unreasonable for a student to receive special privileges that are not based on a bona fide disability or need. Home schooled kids are either in school or they're not.

How does transportation work? School dances? How does liability work? How does accountability? How can the school ensure that the students are meeting the same attendance, academic, and other standards that public schools students must meet?

There is a reasonable solution somewhere. For instance, a local school district has a volunteer "home school support" person that will help parents develop curriculum and lend text books. They do want children to learn. However, it's up to the parents to organize "home school" teams for local competitions.

Again, home schooled students should have every opportunity to enroll in a school. However, you are either enrolled or you're not.

[Generic Other]

124. Out-of-district students don't have rights

Let them pay tuition for "enrichment" opportunities they are losing out on being inadequately educated at home.

[philosophie_en_rose]

269. Exactly. If they can't make it without public school

Maybe the parents made the wrong choice.

[friesianrider]

125. Oh fucking Santorum...

He has SOME balls to talk, considering he himself was involved in a home-school scandal last year I believe.

This is ridiculous, but to be expected.

[RobinA]

156. Call Me a Crackpot Liberal

but what's the big deal? Homeschoolers pay taxes too. What's the deal with letting them be on the football team if they want and can make the team? And the yearbook and band can use all the help they can get these days, so if some homeschooler wants to add his two cents, who does it hurt? People homeschool because they think they can provide their kid with a better education. Is this a crime in America? Maybe they do want it both ways. So what? No one is hurt by this, the school just has to be a little flexible, not something schools are into being these days. I thought this was a liberal board, but it's just as hidebound and blinded by dogma as some other unmentionable boards. It's just different dogma.

The close-mindedness on this thread is unbelieveable.

[mondo joe]

159. Why should a kid who attends the school have to lose a place on

the football team to someone who doesn't even attend the team's school?

Should I be able to send my kids to the homeschooler's home for math class? For lunch?

[redqueen]

248. Thanks for chiming in.

It really is shocking, isn't it? All the venomousness... really offputting.

[depakid]

162. So long as the parents their pay fair share

in taxes supporting schools and fees and such that others pay, their kids should be allowed equal opportunities to participate. In some districts, the parents may need to pay extra to cover expenses due to the fact that the kids aren't enrolled- but that can be done rationally- it's not that hard to come up with a reasonable estimate.

Here I think is the real reason why many school boards object:

"We see extracurricular activities as a reward for students who are complying and who are working through school,"

They want to use these privileges that they can threaten to withold- much as occurs in prisons.... and they can't do that with home schooled kids- so it looks like favoritism, when in fact what it does is hold a candle up to their control techniques.

[gollygee]

171. I don't generally think it's a problem BUT there are complications

Homeschooled kids' parents pay taxes for the programs. A lot of people homeschool who aren't fundies trying to insulate their kids from the world.

The biggest complication I see is that most school districts expect kids to maintain a certain GPA in order to participate in sports. I could see kids dropping out of school because they can't keep up the GPA and then "homeschooling" where the parents can say what the grades are and just make the grades whatever is required for the kids to play sports.

It is a shame that homeschooled kids can't play on sports teams. In some communities that's the only way to play at the high school age group.

[GreenPartyVoter]

198. We do that here. It's been fine as far as I can see.

[redqueen]

249. So your school already allows this, and the school isn't falling apart?

WOW!

[GreenPartyVoter]

276. I can remember kids coming in to use school facilities since _I_ was a kid

and sure there's been some contentious times but overall I think it worked out ok.

[AngryAmish]

208. I attended parochial school 1-12

In my area we could use some of the special ed facilities of the public school across the street (speech therapy if I recall). In high school, we could use the public school's driver's ed class (I did) and certain AP classes (I didn't because I was too dim or too lazy).

What do people think about that arrangement?

[redqueen]

251. Oooh you don't wanna ask!

Some people seem to think it's horribly unfair that you would have been allowed to use those facilities.

I think it's fine. :shrug:

[BluGrl]

261. Yes and no

I use private school because the public school system that my kids would attend is too dangerous. We've had children (elementary aged) physically assualted to the point of needing hospitalization, not to mention rape and robbery taking place in the high school bathrooms. I think the state prison GED program gets better academic scores than our public schools, too!

With that said, if a home schooler is forced to follow the public school's curriculum and testing requirements, then I think they are entitled to enjoy the extracurricular activies available as well.

If their state allows them to use their own curriculum, then they need to arrange those activities privately just like with private schools.

[BiggJawn]

263. So have another 5 kids and field your OWN team, Santorectum...

What if I'm going to the poor, run down, "Every Child Left Behind" inner city school, and I wanna go be on the swim team for the Towenship school out in the 'burbs that has the Olympic-class "Aquatic Center" on THEIR campus?

I can't do it, can I? It's "across District Boundries". But isn't THAT "Institutional prejudice"?

What if I'm in the district, but I'm a student at some little one-horse "church school"? (NOT "Homeschool"!)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

266. I hate the home school debates, but I'm going to weigh in anyway

First, I'm basing my opinions on the rules and laws regarding home schooled kids in my state. Second, I don't see anything wrong with parents having the right to home school their kids. Seeing the fundie influence in my son's school (sending home Jesus poems at christmas, the christian magazines that kids are given as reading material, etc.) makes me glad that that option is there if I ever need it.

That being said:

1) In my state, district funding is based on enrollment. If a parent chooses to home school their child(ren), then their portion of funding is lost. It's true that the parents still pay taxes that go towards education funding, but it's spread out thinly in the general education fund rather than being sent to the school district. I know from personal experience that the funding for high school sports and other extra-curricular activities runs into the 6 figure region for the high schools in my area, and the parents of home schooled kids don't pay their fair share. If they were willing to pay into the system for the athletics/extra-curricular, then it would be perfectly okay for the kids to participate in those extra-curricular activities.

2) Both the families that I know personally who home school get sizable tax breaks because of their school funding. (caveat: I'm not sure if the tax breaks come from the federal, state, or local level, but it's a fairly large chunk of change to these folks). I disagree strongly with these tax breaks simply because I don't like subsidizing religious teachings masked as "education." If all citizens were allowed tax breaks based strictly on usage of the resource, the entire system would be in shambles. I've called the police ONCE in my life, so does that mean I should get a tax break? Absolutely NOT - the police department helps to protect myself and my family, thus providing an indirect albeit not quantifiable benefit. The same goes for education funding; just because you home school your kids or are childless doesn't mean that you don't benefit from the system.

3) Many home schooled kids use government resources for things like distance learning and cyber-training, especially in subjects that are difficult for a parent to teach in a home school environment. I'm fine with that since those parents are paying into the system (at least before their tax breaks). But, it's far more costly to give these home schooled kids those educational opportunities then it is to educate them in a public school environment. In essence, many home schoolers are using MORE tax dollars, and paying LESS for those benefits.

It's ludicrous (again, in my state) for a parent to home school their child and deny the district the funding for that child, then demand that their child be given something for which they don't pay. I'm definitely a socialist when it comes to public education. We all pay into the system and reap the benefits of it. Someone pulling out of the system and still expecting to benefit from it seems wrong to me.

[BluGrl]

271. I think you make some excellent points

However, there are some states that only allow home schooling so long as the schools are allowed to oversee and monitor the home schooled students progress. In addition, they are required to go to the school and take mandatory tests, etc.

I think that if the state is going to allow the local school system dictate how the parent teaches their children at home, then they should allow those parents access to all activities at the school.

Fortunately, my state doesn't require parents to be babysat by the crappy school system that we have to contend with here in Memphis. The reason my children don't attend is due to their complete incompetence.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

274. I don't disagree that parent's should have the option to home school

As long as the district receives funds for your children I would consider your kids students in the school district whether they attended a traditional public school or were home schooled. If you choose to utilize the district's extra-curricular activites, then you should have the right to do so - you paid for those activities.

However, if the district loses funds from home schooled kids, then those home schoolers should "pay to play". It hurts the kids who do remain in public schools when funds are lost from home schoolers who still continue to reap benefits from a system they don't pay into.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

285. link to excellent article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=251&topic_id=213&mesg_id=213

[pinto]

288. Locking.

Discussion on this topic has become an "I said, you said", "did too, did not" issue for a while. Seems a good time to call it. Thanks for your consideration.

ed for spell.