2012.02.03
Home-schoolers and sports
We talked some this week in our editorial board meeting about the bill moving through the House of Delegates that would allow home-schoolers to play on public high school teams, but have yet to decide whether we’ll write about it. Courtney Cutright had an informative story about it today.
At the moment, I’m somewhat conflicted.
Here’s why I would support it: One thing that concerns me about home-schooling is the potential for children to not develop the socialization skills that public and private school students have no choice but to learn. Also, while rec leagues fill the need in younger ages for home-schoolers to play sports, once kids are old enough to play junior varsity, rec leagues often have a difficult time rounding up enough kids to make a team. So I can understand why they want to play.
Here’s why I wouldn’t support it: Parents of home-school children have decided public schools don’t offer what they want for their children. Therefore, they shouldn’t be able to just drop in and take advantage of sports programs any more than they can use the science lab or jump into the lunch line. Home-schoolers aren’t on the same regimented schedule, they would not be required to meet the same academic course load or grades as the public school students and, because they are not members, would not be bearers of the school’s spirit and pride.
Christian raised a good question: If home-schoolers could join the football team, shouldn’t private school students without a debate team or lacrosse team be permitted to the public school team, too?
Membership has its privileges. If you choose not to be a member of a public school’s student body, should you be able to reap its benefits?
I’ll admit I haven’t thought the concept through, but my first reaction is that home-schoolers should be allowed to play sports at public schools.
It’s not a matter of membership, it’s a matter of ownership. We all pay taxes to support public schools, whether we utilize those schools for our children or teach them at home. Even if we don’t have children, we pay the same taxes. Some of the other arguments are just as specious. If a child plays on a team he will have (and his parents and siblings will have) team spirit. It’s driven by the team, not the school, just as in club sports.
It almost appears that supporters of public schools are envious. Home-schoolers continually out-perform public school students, at a small fraction of the cost of the bloated public schools, excelling in college and in the working world. So, to protect our wounded pride, let’s keep the home-schoolers out of our little public school world.
Is that the case?
Comment by Jim Ludington — February 3, 2012 @ 6:23 pm
I’ve not followed this situation closely but came across a wikipedia article that helped.
There is a section where they talk about home school athletics (they were classified as drop-outs). They also talk about home schoolers doing better/worse than public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling
The thing that popped out at me is home schooled kids (and private/religious schools in general) aren’t subject to the same federal requirements of No Student Left Behind. They also don’t have to meet the same accreditation standards. This seems to me to be a way for conservatives to make education kids in the public schools so difficult that people just give up on it much as they’re trying to chip away at abortion by throwing up roadblocks.
So keeping home schooled kids out of public school athletics seems to be more about pressuring their parents by taking it out on the kids. One has to decide whether they’re for the kids or for the public schools which finds me very conflicted.
Comment by Scott M. — February 3, 2012 @ 8:46 pm
The reality for most schools is that the kids IN the school have to “try out” and literally “compete” for a slot on any team. They also generally have academic standards and rules to follow. Allowing home schooled kids to “walk on” would doubtless take a spot an actual student would otherwise occupy and it is not a team building kind of situation IMO.
One of the biggest points for any school team is the loyalty and dedication to the team, the school and the community that supports them. I oppose home schooled or any other non-student of the school participating in extra-curricular teams. That is where the Rec Leagues can serve the purpose for that need.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 4, 2012 @ 12:09 am
3 – Sandi, the home-schooled kids would be subject to the same rules of the tryout – the risk of being cut, no guarantee to make the team, etc. – as any student in the school. With regards to the academics, home-schooled kids have to show the same academic progress – as appropriate for the age and grade – as those actually in the schools.
I think as long as the parents are paying taxes to the school system, their kids should have the opportunity to play for the team their tax dollars help support. Cut the tax strings, though, and I agree that home-schooled kids should not be permitted to try out for the time.
Comment by 89Hoo — February 4, 2012 @ 10:33 am
#1 Jim got it right!
The families of home schoolers pay the same local, state, and fed. taxes as those families that receive government schooling.
Also, as anyone who has ever played a team sport knows, a player that makes the team will have team loyalty whether a home schooler or not. That is the definition of a “team”!
Well said, jim.
Comment by John R — February 4, 2012 @ 12:00 pm
It is not remotely a “matter of ownership” and no, Jim did not get it right. ALL taxpayers pay for public education, but not nearly all taxpayers have children or have children of school age. Our society supports and funds public education, you “own” nothing. Neither do the parents involved. The public school system is not a supermarket. You do not get to pick and choose the services your children will participate in and ignore those you do not want to participate in. You are either in or out. The parents made the choice and their children will have to live with that. If allowed, this will not go well.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 4, 2012 @ 7:08 pm