Should Home School Kids be Able to Participate in School Sports

[oldschool2]

58 minutes ago, jv_coach said:

If their parents are paying taxes sort of hard to argue against it. 

Also this is 2017 and if a boy can compete as a girl or a girl can legally take steroids then why cant homeschoolers play to.

 

I'm paying school taxes in a town that my kids not only didn't go to...but aren't in school at all.  Can they play school ball for the school?

[jv_coach]

1 hour ago, oldschool2 said:

I'm paying school taxes in a town that my kids not only didn't go to...but aren't in school at all.  Can they play school ball for the school?

How old are your kids?

[ctown81]

On 3/24/2017 at 11:38 AM, Jag Insider said:

If the school is not good enough for the child to attend daily like all the other students at that particular school, why is the football team or other extracurricular activity good enough? 

I think a home schooled kid would have a tough time being accepted by his/her other teammates on that particular team, jmo...

This is the second time I've heard this argument on this thread. It's VERY possible for a school to not be good enough academically but good enough for extracurricular activity. Sports and education are two different things and I understand parents wanting the best educationally for their child. Why have kids miss out on a valuable part of life just because they want a better education. We have kids that play for us who attend a different school. If they're school doesn't offer the sport, they can play with us.

P.S. when I say play for us, I mean the school I work at, not Carthage.

[scoopno1]

I'm thinking about changing my mind on this one.... ran across a couple of good looking home schooled boys... one over 6'6" that live right here in town.... I might have had the wrong attitude and info all the time. Welcome aboard boys.

[RETIREDFAN1]

12 minutes ago, scoopno1 said:

I'm thinking about changing my mind on this one.... ran across a couple of good looking home schooled boys... one over 6'6" that live right here in town.... I might have had the wrong attitude and info all the time. Welcome aboard boys.

lol......

[oldschool2]

3 hours ago, jv_coach said:

How old are your kids?

I'm thinking that you missed the point of my comment.

[pirate52]

On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 11:37 AM, L'Acadien said:

I say homeschooled kids should be allowed to participate, but this should bring the kid under the school's grade jurisdiction. This would probably be pretty complicated. The idea would be "If you want to homeschool, that's fine, but you are now a [insert school district] student and you have to meet our standards". 

I really like the idea of homeschooled kids being allowed to participate. Sports help bridge a lot of the gap between what homeschooling parents can and cannot offer their kids. 

L'Acadien, I would like to see a fair way for them to be able to participate. How would you handle the problem of the work the other kids have to do in the athletic period they would miss? As an ex-coach I believe that time is invaluable and usually very hard work and  it wouldn't be fair for them to miss it. Not trying to argue, just wanting to know how you think it could be handled?

[WOSgrad]

On 4/5/2017 at 0:49 PM, ctown81 said:

This is the second time I've heard this argument on this thread. It's VERY possible for a school to not be good enough academically but good enough for extracurricular activity. Sports and education are two different things and I understand parents wanting the best educationally for their child. Why have kids miss out on a valuable part of life just because they want a better education. We have kids that play for us who attend a different school. If they're school doesn't offer the sport, they can play with us.

P.S. when I say play for us, I mean the school I work at, not Carthage.

Question, would you be in support of a student attending your school for Algebra class yet being homeschooled for all of his/her other classes?

[RETIREDFAN1]

32 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

Question, would you be in support of a student attending your school for Algebra class yet being homeschooled for all of his/her other classes?

apples and oranges.........

[WOSgrad]

22 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

apples and oranges.........

Why?  Because the element of the school district that the parent wanted their child to be involved in exclusively was the math department as opposed to the athletics department?

Truth is, it is apples and apples.  In both cases, parents are choosing the single aspect of a school district that they want their child involved with. Why should one be dismissed as ridiculous and the other be the subject of our legislature's current session (for the 3rd session in a row)?

[RETIREDFAN1]

13 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

Why?  Because the element of the school district that the parent wanted their child to be involved in exclusively was the math department as opposed to the athletics department?

Truth is, it is apples and apples.  In both cases, parents are choosing the single aspect of a school district that they want their child involved with. Why should one be dismissed as ridiculous and the other be the subject of our legislature's current session (for the 3rd session in a row)?

No, because Algebra is CURRICULAR and athletics are EXTRA CURRICULAR.........algebra is a requirement for graduation, athletics is not.....apples and oranges........

[WOSgrad]

6 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

No, because Algebra is CURRICULAR and athletics are EXTRA CURRICULAR.........algebra is a requirement for graduation, athletics is not.....apples and oranges........

ALL courses that a student is homeschooled in are requirements for graduation.

But it these choices are what are "best for the child" why should we tell parents that their choices in these matters should be limited to solely extracurricular activities? By my reckoning, if the decision to homeschool a child is about getting a child a "better education" as some here have claimed, then it seems giving the parent a chance to pick and choose what parts of the curriculum they want their child involved, and by homeschooling, not involved, in should given priority over that they want their kid running out of a tunnel on Friday night.

[ctown81]

55 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

ALL courses that a student is homeschooled in are requirements for graduation.

But it these choices are what are "best for the child" why should we tell parents that their choices in these matters should be limited to solely extracurricular activities? By my reckoning, if the decision to homeschool a child is about getting a child a "better education" as some here have claimed, then it seems giving the parent a chance to pick and choose what parts of the curriculum they want their child involved, and by homeschooling, not involved, in should given priority over that they want their kid running out of a tunnel on Friday night.

But SPORTS is not a requirement for graduation. So a child should be required to get a sub par education if they want to play sports? How is a home school kid who lives in the district playing sports hurting anything? Most parents are just putting education FIRST.

[WOSgrad]

9 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

But SPORTS is not a requirement for graduation. So a child should be required to get a sub par education if they want to play sports? How is a home school kid who lives in the district playing sports hurting anything? Most parents are just putting education FIRST.

No, sports is not a requirement for graduation.  It is an activity provided by a school district to children who ATTEND THEIR SCHOOLS.

So again, with the parents putting their education first, you would have no problem with a child attending your school for one class yet going home to be homeschooled for the others?

[Tigers2010]

Should they be allowed to attend the lunch period as well. They shouldn't have to miss out of the chicken fried steak day just because they want a "better education". They pay taxes, they should get that chicken fried steak.

[oldschool2]

I've said this already:

It would be an easy fix for me..if I were coaching.  The state may say who is allowed to participate in UIL activities, but has ZERO control over who plays on what team or how much they play.  A homeschooled kid CAN absolutely play...as long as they are in attendance for every single athletic period, team meeting, team meal, practice, etc..

There's also nothing to stop a coach from having a tryout... Or not letting a homeschooled kid play a single second in any single varsity game.  I mean...if a kid isn't held to the same standards as the rest of the varsity team (dress code, discipline, showing up on time, actually waking up for school, having to pass and stay out of trouble for multiple classroom settings) then why would the coach let them be a varsity player.

You guys are missing the most important point.  No matter what legislation says, the varsity head coach is still 100% in control over who gets a varsity uniform.  If homeschooled kids play enough JV games they'll start rethinking what's actually important.

[RETIREDFAN1]

1 hour ago, WOSgrad said:

ALL courses that a student is homeschooled in are requirements for graduation.

But it these choices are what are "best for the child" why should we tell parents that their choices in these matters should be limited to solely extracurricular activities? By my reckoning, if the decision to homeschool a child is about getting a child a "better education" as some here have claimed, then it seems giving the parent a chance to pick and choose what parts of the curriculum they want their child involved, and by homeschooling, not involved, in should given priority over that they want their kid running out of a tunnel on Friday night.

It's still comparing apples to oranges......a compelling argument won't change that FACT........an apple is still an apple and an orange is still an orange........:P

[RETIREDFAN1]

29 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

 

You guys are missing the most important point.  No matter what legislation says, the varsity head coach is still 100% in control over who gets a varsity uniform. 

Until they legislate THAT.........:P

[LumRaiderFan]

55 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

No, sports is not a requirement for graduation.  It is an activity provided by a school district to children who ATTEND THEIR SCHOOLS.

So again, with the parents putting their education first, you would have no problem with a child attending your school for one class yet going home to be homeschooled for the others?

Personally, I would not...not if they lived in the school district.  Why should I care, it does not affect me...and they are already paying for it.

 

[oldschool2]

17 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Personally, I would not...not if they lived in the school district.  Why should I care, it does not affect me...and they are already paying for it.

 

 

They most certainly are NOT paying for it.  School taxes pay for the education.  Being a member of the athletic program is a privilege.  There are even students enrolled in public schools that can be kicked out of athletics and denied getting back in.

[oldschool2]

21 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

Until they legislate THAT.........:P

I'll put every dollar I have on it that the state will not decide who a coach has to put on a varsity team or how much they play.

[RETIREDFAN1]

2 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

I'll put every dollar I have on it that the state will not decide who a coach has to put on a varsity team or how much they play.

You must not be paying much attention to the idiots in Austin........

[WOSgrad]

39 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

It's still comparing apples to oranges......a compelling argument won't change that FACT........an apple is still an apple and an orange is still an orange........:P

And you saying it is apples and orange doesn't make it so.  For if the impetus behind allowing this senate bill is not making a student suffer for wanting to have a "better education," then both choices are made to further that goal.  That my friend (and that is sincere as despite our vehement disagreement on this, WestHardinFan1 and I are friends), is comparing apples to apples.

[oldschool2]

5 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

You must not be paying much attention to the idiots in Austin........

I'm paying plenty of attention.  Do you really think that the state could ever legislate who plays and how much they play?  What if there are 6 home shool kids in the basketball program.  You trying to tell me that it's possible for the state to make it to where the varsity coach has to put all 6 on his/her varsity roster and let all 6 of them be a starter?..

Bottom line.  High school coaches can squash this.  I guarantee it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

18 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

And you saying it is apples and orange doesn't make it so.  For if the impetus behind allowing this senate bill is not making a student suffer for wanting to have a "better education," then both choices are made to further that goal.  That my friend (and that is sincere as despite our vehement disagreement on this, WestHardinFan1 and I are friends), is comparing apples to apples.

It actually BEING an apples to oranges comparison makes it so.........:P ( I wish the emojis worked....lol).......it's good that we can disagree in a civil manner......Have a good weekend.......:)