Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]

View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem

1. Sandi Saunders | April 22, 2012 at 7:09 pm

   I agree with and believe Mr. Henderson handled the question well.

   Parents who made the decision to home school, private school or otherwise educate their children need to accept the parameters of that decision just as the parents who send their children to public schools have to do. The idea of “pick and choose” cafeteria services in public education is wrong and serving yet another minority that actually CHOSE to leave the system is not their job or priority, nor should it be.
2. Amy Wilson | April 22, 2012 at 8:58 pm

   Parents in many different circumstances seek to create better opportunities for their children than those that currently exist. This is what homeschooling families are requesting: a better choice. In fact, a “pick and choose” system already exists, with over half of Virginia’s school divisions voluntarily permitting homeschooled students to take academic classes on a part-time basis. Homeschoolers are also permitted in many parts of the Commonwealth to participate in after-school clubs and activities and in competitive athletics at the middle school level.

   Why shouldn’t our local public school programs serve as many kids in the local community as possible?
3. Amy Wilson | April 22, 2012 at 9:16 pm

   For more information on homeschool sports access, please see:

   http://vahomeschoolers.org/blog/2012/03/time_magazine_provides_our_fifteen_minutes_of_fame/

   http://vahomeschoolers.org/issues/sports_access_FAQs.asp

   http://vahomeschoolers.org/legislative/2012_01_30_reasons_to_support_sports_access.asp
4. Sandi Saunders | April 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm

   Simply put, the public school systems are over-burdened and under-funded as they stand. Asking for more and special treatment for students not even IN the school system is selfish, self-serving and wrong. Like I said. Home school parents already made their choice and they should learn to live with it.

   I do not think that parents who have pulled their children out of the public schools should have any say in how any program is handled or whether anything is “offered” to non-students. Such parents want more and better for their children and their children alone. Nothing new under that sun, and nothing about it that I will ever support. As per usual, “give them an inch and they want a mile”.
5. Scott M. | April 22, 2012 at 11:22 pm

   Dear Mrs. Wilson, you say in comment #2, “Parents in many different circumstances seek to create better opportunities for their children than those that currently exist.” That’s another way of saying you bailed on the public schools instead of sticking around and working to make them better. Instead of making better opportunities at the public schools for your children and others, you’re hoping to give your children a competitive advantage over those “left behind”.

   Now that you find you need something from the public schools, it must really hurt to come begging and mixing with the common people. If you’re not willing to support the schools, how can you legitimately ask the schools to support you?

   I regularly give money to my children’s school above and beyond our tax dollars. My family helped clean up the school grounds this weekend as part of Earth Day. My wife will be helping out at the school auction. We do this to make our public schools a better place for our children and our community’s children.

   My personal opinion is, if you want your children to participate in public schools athletics, they should attend public school.
6. E William | April 23, 2012 at 5:44 am

   There is also the question of logistics: VHSL requires a student athlete (or competitor) to attend a minimum number of classes on the day of competition to be eligible to compete; how can this be assured if a student is home-schooled? There is also the “Take Five, Pass Five” requirement; how can a school or a coach be sure a home-schooled student is meeting that requirement?

   There are simply too many “question mark” factors involved in this issue. Home-schooled students should not be allowed to compete in public school events. The parents of these students made choice to not utilize the service of the public schools for educational purposes, as is their right. They have many reasons why they do so. However, they cannot then choose to utilize one of the many non-educational services the public schools provide.
7. E William | April 23, 2012 at 5:46 am

   oops, “made the choice”…it is too early and my fingers aren’t awake yet! Apologies.
8. Chuck | April 23, 2012 at 6:51 am

   My question would be this. Do the parents of homeschoolers get a break on their taxes. Having never been involved in homeschooling I don’t know the answer to that and simply don’t have time to research it before work. However, if the parents are paying the same taxes as everyone else, it would seem they are entitled to all ht same benefits as everyone else. To say otherwise would be the same as saying a citizen in the community who lives there and pays taxes, but has no kids, should not be able to address the school board or have a voice in how the their tax dollars are spent.
9. Amy Wilson | April 23, 2012 at 7:08 am

   Scott M., the public schools here in Prince William County are actually pretty wonderful. I attended them myself. I’m not sure why you are making assumptions about my family’s choice to homeschool, but I assure you, it had nothing to do with seeking a “competitive advantage” for my children, and everything about creating a family culture that works for us as individuals.

   Your personal comment about sports access is also off-base. My own family has no interest in this access — as many homeschooling families do not. But for those students who do, this is an important issue. Del. Rob Bell and The Organization of Virginia Homeschoolers are advocating for those children.

   Homeschooling families also donate money to public schools, participate in fundraisers, help clean up playgrounds, and more. Again, your assumption that these activities are pursued only by families whose kids attend public school is off-base.
10. Amy Wilson | April 23, 2012 at 7:15 am

    E. William, it’s true that homeschoolers cannot meet VHSL eligibility guidelines specifically tied to enrollment and attendance at public school. A variety of options have been discussed with VHSL. In some states where legislatures have mandated homeschool sports access, homeschooled students submit an affidavit regarding their ongoing coursework; in other states they submit standardized test scores to document their academic work.

    In Virginia, this year’s bill would have required homeschoolers to be bona-fide homeschooled students under our home instruction statute for two full years before being eligible. Under that statute, families submit annual curriculum descriptions listing each student’s courses, and at the end of the year, students are required to demonstrate academic progress via standardized testing or an evaluation by a professional teacher.
11. Sandi Saunders | April 23, 2012 at 8:27 am

    The issue is not whether home school parents get some “tax break” for not sending their children to the schools they and we all pay for. Having children has a bearing on your taxes in the form of a tax break until they reach a certain age. In a public school, or not, has no bearing on what taxes you pay as far as I know, nor should it.

    Home Schoolers, as well as people without children in the schools can still address the school board, Board of Supervisors, write letters to the editor and even go to the football games as far as I know. None of that has ever been contingent on having children in the school. Neither has volunteering in the school system.

    Mrs. Wilson has every right to campaign for inclusion of students whose parents chose not to include them in public schools and we have every right to oppose that request. Neither is contingent on having a child “in the mix”. I do not doubt they will eventually win, but that is far from making it right. Public schools are the football every politician wants to kick for one reason or another.
12. Amy Wilson | April 23, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Chuck, to answer your question, there is currently no tax credit available in Virginia to homeschooling families. Such a credit, in various forms, has been proposed via legislation several times, but has never passed. In fact, homeschoolers are divided on the issue of tax credits — while some would welcome a credit, others are opposed.
13. Amy Wilson | April 23, 2012 at 8:49 am

    It would be great if localities could decide for themselves whether or not it is a good idea to include homeschoolers in public school sports programs. Local school boards and personnel can make that decision about part-time academic attendance, about clubs and about sports at the middle school level. Different communities make different choices, and local residents can debate the issues. But communities can’t make their own choices when it comes to homeschoolers’ participation in high school sports — VHSL has made the decision for them.

    VaHomeschoolers has heard from coaches in some rural areas who say that they would love to recruit homeschoolers, because they don’t have enough students to field the teams they would like to have. We have heard from public school students who would like to be able to play on teams with their homeschooled friends. We’ve also heard from parents whose kids attend public schools who say that they would welcome qualified homeschoolers to their children’s athletic programs.
14. e william | April 23, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Ms. Hudson, those provisions are all very well and good, but they do not address the immediate issue of attendance on a daily basis. There are public school athletes who have had to miss important competitions because they did attend the prerequisite number of class the day of that competition. There simply is no way to ascertain whether or not a home-schooled student has met that specific qualification. Therefore, such students should not be allowed to compete in public school activities. There are plenty of Rec Leagues and private sports clubs that circumvent these regulations, and therefore stand as alternatives to public schools’ competitive programs.
15. e william | April 23, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Chuck, my tax dollars help to pay for military bases. Can I show up at one and demand to use their weapons and firing ranges? No, I must be a member of the military to do so. My tax dollars help pay for fire trucks; do I get to drive one? No. I have to be a fire fighter to do so.

    There are plenty of tax payers who do not and should not have access to all the amenities and infrastructures that their tax dollars pay for. It is that simple.
16. R. Martin | April 23, 2012 at 9:12 am

    I would like to clarify the quote from William Bosher, former Virginia state school superintendent: “As for priorities, home-school families should be fighting for the access to algebra and chemistry, not football and soccer. I feel the General Assembly should take a knee on this issue.” Home educated children already have access to algebra and chemistry because the individual school systems are allowed to make those decisions. Because the VHSL’s policies don’t allow for home educated children to participate in high school sports the individual school systems have no choice as to whether students from a home school are permitted to even try out for a sport. This bill would put that decision where it should be, in the hands of district school administrators. There, they can choose whether or not to allow a home schooled teen the ability to even try out.
17. Liz | April 23, 2012 at 9:26 am

    AS a home schooling mom of 7 children, I feel that I must say that Homeschooling is an awesome experience for both the children and the parents. I love my children enough to be here for them and protect them. To be active in our community and teach our children a broader spectrum than any public school. There are countless issues in the public schools and no one no matter what their beliefs, should be discouraged from teaching their own child. We are a country that has freedom of religion, don’t we also have freedom of education? Parents of public educated children, please consider every time your send your child to their graded classroom with 25 other kids that are the same age, is this normal? Are all of your friend the same age? Will they go work at XYZ company where everyone will be 38? Oh sorry mama we are not hiring 32 year old’s, try mmv company they hire your age
18. Cindy Seitter | April 23, 2012 at 9:41 am

    The bill that was put forth to the Senate does not automatically give homeschoolers the RIGHT to try out but gives the decision to the local counties to make the decision. Currently, a majority of localities offer services to homeschoolers and it should be up to said localities to have the CHOICE to include homeschoolers or not. It should not be a decision of VHSL. That is all that homeschoolers’ are asking for. That people that are associated with our communities be allowed to make the decision for themselves without a blanket statement from VHSL for the entire state.
19. Sharon Roberts | April 23, 2012 at 10:02 am

    It seems that there is animosity against homeschooling because most are perceived as at home moms who just don’t want their kids in a public school system, which is not often the case. I am a single mom of 3, who works full time, who pulled her child out of public school, after many meetings with his public school teachers, because he was not learning the material, and needed a one-on-one learning situation. There are a lot of homeschooling families that have had their children in the public school system and have found that their children struggle, like my child. I pay taxes, from my full time career, to fund the public schools without getting any sort of tax breaks for my family or access to optional programs that we support without being on the team. However, I have to abide by all the laws and rules set forth by my state and district. My child and most home school children carry the same work load if not heavier than the public school children. We have to abide by the same amount of attendance days as the public system. Why should our children not be allowed to play for a team, which their parents are already paying for the coach’s salary? We would like the same opportunities in our own communities as our neighbors have. We teach our children about serving their communities while their community rejects them because they simply learn their work at home. I am amazed at how the public school organizations have attacked a bill aimed at providing lessons in teamwork, acceptance of others who are not like you, and healthy competition. The public school system is there to teach their community and should be open to teaching the children that are in their community not denying them access to opportunities. If, there are families that are interested in having their child in a school organized sport, and they succeed in that sport and make it to the big leagues, then why would you want to deny that child that opportunity, the community that pride and that generation a role model from their neighborhood just because of where he goes to school?
20. Mary Ann Kelley | April 23, 2012 at 10:05 am

    Sports access legislation does not force any school to allow homeschoolers to participate in sports; it simply allows the local school officials to make that choice for their own locality. I believe that the relevant and most important point is whom we trust with decision-making – a private state-wide organization, or those school officials with boots on the ground in the local school district? Why are local school officials not allowed to make this choice? If we don’t trust the local schools to make appropriate choices in issues like this, then why do we trust them with our children’s education?

    As Amy Wilson pointed out, the statistics show that there are an average of 19 homeschooled high school students per VHSL member-school. If you break that down using the rate at which public school students participate in sports (approximately 55% of the total school population according to the NHFS), that is about 10 students per school for all sports teams. Including all sports used in the NHFS data for both boys and girls (see http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3505 ), that is not even 1 person per team.

    VHSL misrepresents the situation when they say “There are 13 individual eligibility requirements mandated by the Virginia High School League in order for a student to participate. According to the bill debated this year in the General Assembly, home-school students would be expected to meet only six of these. Is this fair?” VHSL makes it sound like homeschoolers are trying to sneak past academic eligibility, when homeschoolers would actually have to meet 2 years worth of state academic standards. Conversely, under the Virginia High School League’s rules, public school students can meet academic eligibility for athletic participation by passing five classes the previous semester with five D minuses. The remaining eligibility requirements to which Mr. Henderson refers rest on the assumption that students are enrolled in public school classes.

    Sandi Saunders comments, “The idea of ‘pick and choose’ cafeteria services in public education is wrong and serving yet another minority that actually CHOSE to leave the system is not their job or priority, nor should it be.” Ms. Saunders, you must not realize that ‘pick and choose’ cafeteria services already exist in many Virginia school districts with academics and are working quite well. In addition, athletic participation is already implemented and working well in middle schools across the state. It is only VHSL’s rules that prevent those same students, who have already bonded on middle school teams, from continuing as teammates in high school.

    Mr. Henderson quotes William Bosher asking why homeschoolers are fighting for sports access and not “fighting for the access to algebra and chemistry”. There is a simple answer to that – there is no private state-wide organization preventing access to algebra and chemistry. Homeschoolers already have access to academics in many high schools across the state. Local school districts are trusted to make the decision as to whether such access will work for their schools; why are they not trusted with the same decision for athletics?

    Let’s have a discussion based on all of the facts, not just on a position statement that sounds good on the surface but omits key information relevant to the discussion.
21. Michele Kendzie | April 23, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Henderson’s first argument claims taxes are homeschoolers’ most common argument, yet Wilson didn’t even mention taxes so perhaps he’s incorrect.

    Examples such as asking why the old lady doesn’t use the school nurse despite paying taxes is silly because she has other options. Homeschoolers may not have any other option when it comes to team sports. Re-read Wilson’s argument and the other articles to which she linked and try to understand.

    Who would a team player want beside him or her? I don’t think where the players learn matters. I bet any player you ask would be more concerned about things like personality and sports skills than where their team mates learn math.

    As for shopping for better attendance zones, that happens all the time. Many families take into account the school district before choosing to buy a house.

    The Bosher quote made me laugh. Homeschoolers do not need to fight for access to algebra or chemistry. Resources and mentors in academic subjects are readily available! The same can not be said for team sports opportunities for teens.

    It really isn’t a big deal. Kids just want to play on the team. What are you afraid of?

    The one point I like in Henderson’s message is that homeschoolers could work on making a strong homeschoolers’ athletic program. It is unrealistic at this point in time because there are not enough teen athletes to make it work logistically, but the number of homeschoolers is increasingly all the time.

    So you think, when we have this strong homeschoolers’ athletic program someday, we should not allow public school kids to participate? I believe all the homeschooling parents I know would have no problem inviting anyone with the athletic skills needed.
22. Richard J Beason, CPA | April 23, 2012 at 10:46 am

    The argument for local districts to make the decision does not hold water. The sports teams of public school compete throughout the State and therefore it is a State issue, not a local issue. Abuse by localities led to the State adopting Statewide rules and it would be detrimental to go backwards by allowing the localities to now make these decisions. No sooner would Homeschoolers be allowed to participate than would there be a coach’s strategy to recruit athletes by having them be homeschooled and picked up by the coach. Recruiting of athletes would begin anew. Homeschoolers should seek agreements with Private Schools to join their teams as they already allow for recruitment of players.
23. Akemi Orlando | April 23, 2012 at 10:53 am

    What I don’t understand is why public schools need to take an exclusive stance towards homeschoolers at all. Why can’t a child be homeschooled and particpate in AFTER SCHOOL activities? What’s the harm in that? What is everybody so afraid of if we were to allow that?

    Where is this belief coming that homeschoolers are not entitled to the same access and support of a public school that those students who are attending public school get? Isn’t the public school system for all children?

    Personally, I think it’s great that we have some school districts that allow partial homeschooling, where students can be homeschooled for most subjects but still be allowed to participate in a few electives at the public school. I hope some school districts do allow homeschoolers to come in and take music classes or participate in after school chess club, etc.

    What about kids who are participating in K12 online at home through a public school, are they allowed to participate in after school activities? I hope that they are able to but don’t know about this myself.
24. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 10:54 am

    e william said, “There are plenty of Rec Leagues and private sports clubs that circumvent these regulations, and therefore stand as alternatives to public schools’ competitive programs.”

    This is simply NOT true. In my southern Virginia town, rec league ages out in middle school and there is not a private sports club with competitive sports for at least 90 miles in any direction. One reason to seek high school sports is because quite literally, it is our community’s ONLY competitive sports option. Those who are against homeschooled children having the access to try out for their community’s only teams at their local high schools have repeatedly said this, but it is simply NOT TRUE. Our southern Va community does not even have a recreation department! It is so easy to look thru the lens of your own locality without realizing the reality of what is available in smaller and more rural communities.

    My son played soccer for years with the kids now on the high school team, and those who will be on the team next year – for the same coach – on a soccer field that our family helped build and that the school division does not own – but does play on. But because of this arbitrary exclusion of homeschoolers, he no longer had a place to play in our town.

    However, I have faith in VHSL’s civility and interest in our state’s children, and I think they will work this out with homeschoolers, so that children aren’t excluded based on their getting their academic needs met without further burden to the schools. I think this is in the interest of schools, who, after all, benefit from having more stake holders rather than alienating those who do want to be a part! (What a curious notion – keeping people “out”!)

    I look forward to continuing synergy between schools and homeschoolers, who have for years been able to take chemistry or Shakespeare or play middle school sports etc. in the school divisions who have made the local decision to allow it – and over half have already done so! We already know that schools and homeschoolers can work together with the best interests of the children in mind – it’s already done, and I can’t see VHSL wishing to continue to go against the tide of cooperation and innovation that will work well for all families, now that they see the importance of the issue.

    Full disclosure: because my son is a youngest homeschooled kid, so I’m not educating little ones at the same time, and because our family has resources such as a second car and jobs, we have indeed been able to take advantage of a private club that is 90 miles away. However, this comes at the expense of our being able to volunteer and participate in programs in our own small town and more rural community. What a funny thing, to have rules in place that create the unintended consequence of some of our most community-minded people, homeschoolers like us, driving to urban areas instead of participating in and strengthening the programs and schools in their own communities!
25. R. Martin | April 23, 2012 at 10:59 am

    E William– Our tax dollars don’t allow us to drive the fire truck or fire the military weapons but they do allow the firemen to come to put out the fire that is devastating our home and also provide a military that protects our freedoms here and abroad.
    Our tax dollars also provide for road construction and improvements in areas that we may never drive but if I decide one day that I want to drive on those roads I do have that right.
26. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Richard Beason said, “No sooner would Homeschoolers be allowed to participate than would there be a coach’s strategy to recruit athletes by having them be homeschooled and picked up by the coach.”

    How exactly would this work? Under the bill submitted last year, homeschoolers would have to be bona fide homeschoolers for TWO YEARS, meeting state academic requirements and having filed with their local school divisions for those two years, and only playing for the school they would otherwise attend. The bill was proactively written to insure this. I just don’t get how you get from here to there. Homeschoolers live in specific places and would go to specific schools and have specific academic requirements filed in specific school division offices. What would make them free agents available for recruiting any more than a public schooled athlete who lives in a specific place and attending a specific school and meeting specific academic requirements? No, these are just scary things to say without considering how the legislation was actually written.

    And besides, other states have done it with these similar guidelines, and it’s no big deal. Why should Virginia in particular place homeschoolers at a disadvantage?
27. Ernie | April 23, 2012 at 11:14 am

    What’s next Amy? Sure I don’t attend UVA but I’d like to play football there? I won’t attend any classes but I’m a heck of running back. I promise to take equivalent course material at home. My parents pay taxes and the university is a public school. Hey, you should see my brother. He is 7’2″ and can dance like a ballerina. He wants to play basketball at UVA but it is in his best interest to be schooled at home.

    If public school is not appropriate for the kid’s education then they cannot participate in any public school extra curricular activities. This should be part of the decision process.
28. Amy Wilson | April 23, 2012 at 11:15 am

    Mr. Beason, I think the argument for local decision-making DOES make sense. Local school divisions can already choose to apply their own, more stringent academic eligibility requirements for public school athletes — those rules aren’t identical statewide, but all school do have to meet VHSL’s minimum. Similarly, if VHSL rules created minimum eligibility requirements for homeschoolers, local divisions could decide whether or not to include homeschoolers in their own programs — if they were permitted to try out, they would have to meet those VHSL minimum requirements.

    VHSL’s Handbook states, “27-1-10 Local Rules-The principal shall be authorized to make and enforce any local rule supplementary to League rules and regulations, but not inconsistent with them. The authority of a principal to impose and enforce such local rules is absolute and will not be subject to League review. The League will not question the right of any principal to exclude any student in his/her school from participation in any League activity at any time.”

    This year’s bill would only apply to bona-fide homeschoolers who had been homeschooling in full compliance with the law for at least two years (including filing curriculum descriptions and testing/evaluations). It would not have created a situation where students could drop out of school and masquerade as homeschoolers, only to be recruited right back in.

    VHSL already has a rule in place prohibiting attempts to recruit students from one school to another. That rule clearly could be amended slightly to include homeschooled students from other attendance areas as well. I think it’s an insult to coaches to imply that they would behave unethically.
29. Mary Ann Kelley | April 23, 2012 at 11:25 am

    Mr. Beason, while I do understand your point about abuses by public school athletic departments, the regulations in the bill would prevent the abuse that you mentioned. Any athlete dropping out of school to be homeschooled would be ineligible to participate in athletics for 2 full years (until they had 2 years of academic eligibility as a homeschooler). Contrast that to a public school family who could move to a new district and the athlete would immediately be eligible to play on the team in the new district.

    This type of argument is precisely why I beg of anyone forming an opinion about this issue to be educated on the facts and not just the rhetoric. Amy Wilson listed several links with accurate information from the people who have worked on the language of the bill. A few minutes of reading is all it takes to be educated.
30. Jenny M. | April 23, 2012 at 11:30 am

    The funny thing about Mr. Henderson’s comments is how few of them are directed at the actual bill in question. It’s a “slippery slope” argument — first sports, then band, then chaos and the breakdown of social institutions.

    That’s not how it goes where I live — in fact, it’s just the opposite. The schools already allow homeschoolers access to extracurriculars and a certain number of classes. (We’ve already got access to chemistry and algebra, Mr. Bosher, and there was no fighting involved. Relations between the school and homeschoolers in my county are friendly.)

    But local schools are powerless to make the choice when it comes to sports. That doesn’t make sense to me. I have no personal interest in this — my kids aren’t into sports — but I like my local schools and think they should be trusted with to make their own decisions on this.
31. Sandi Saunders | April 23, 2012 at 11:37 am

    If indeed, you “would like the same opportunities in our own communities as our neighbors have”, then send your children to the public school in your own communities and volunteer there and make them better.

    Yes indeed I am against the idea that parents can choose to home school their children and then pick and choose cafeteria style of the services in public education. The fact that some districts do allow it, is their burden, but I do not have to support it or agree with it. It is wrong and yes, it adds to the burden on schools to be serving yet another minority that actually CHOOSES not to participate in their system. What you “already have” has no bearing on my opinion that it is wrong. Either kids are in public schools or they are not, this middle ground has obviously only made you all more greedy, not less. Why should you get the luxury of picking and choosing from what you like and support when the other 99 percent of parents do not? What if everyone chose as you want to do? The system should not be catering to you in any way. You chose to leave, so leave. This is just people asking for “special treatment” for their children and that is wrong.

    And your insult that only you are the ones wanting the best for your children, making their education more enriching and their futures better, is just not born out in any statistics, but it sure makes you sound “superior” and greedy too.
32. Amy Wilson | April 23, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Ernie, I guess that’s a question to take up with UVA. While it’s a public university, supported in part with state funding, students do pay tuition to attend (unlike public schools, which are completely taxpayer-funded and free to students).

    The comparison isn’t really relevant. It’s an example of the common fallacy known in debating terms as a “slippery slope” argument.
33. Sandi Saunders | April 23, 2012 at 11:47 am

    For the record, we are not “afraid of” anything, we are sick and tired of the public schools being beaten down and taken advantage of by people who refuse to participate by sending their children to the schools, volunteering and making those community schools better like we do, yet wanting to be allowed to access only the parts you like and want. You should not get the “best of both worlds” just because you want it. Nothing about your situation should be treated as being part of the public school system or entitle your children to public school activities. YOU made the decision to leave your local school, no one made it for you. So stay gone and stay completely out of the system you do not want to be in. Teaching your children to try and game the system but not be a part of it is wrong.

    The Virginia High School League is not the Virginia High and Home School League and I hope it never is. I hope they maintain the backbone that the school districts have not. You do not warrant special treatment.
34. Sandi Saunders | April 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Jenny M #30, the question asked was: “Should home-schoolers play on public high school teams?” It was not: How do you interpret the bill seeking to force the VHSL to allow home-schoolers to play on public high school teams.

    I would assume the same question is what this thread is about. Mr. Henderson addressed the question very well.
35. Heather Parkinson | April 23, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    I find it interesting that Mr. Henderson brings up the tax issue as the main point in this argument. Homeschooling families do pay the same taxes as anyone else in the city or county, granted, but that is not our stance behind asking for our children to be considered for sports teams.

    Homeschoolers choose to do homeschool for a gamut of reasons (probably as many reasons as there are homeschoolers). One reason is as simple as the fact that they want to spend time together as a family, not be separated from one another for 8-12 hours a day. These are our kids! If you could spend more than just harried weekends and brief, stressful moments at night with your kids, would you not choose to do so? Another benefit to homeschooling is the ability to personalize your child’s education. If you have an aural learner, you can accommodate that. A visual learner? No problem. Most school systems cannot create a learning environment suitable to the individual child. If my child doesn’t understand fractions, for example, we can stop and work on that until he does. However, if he understands them immediately, there is no need to continue the lesson. Again, school systems cannot do that. They have to teach to the median, which sometimes means kids are bored while others are lost. As the product of a public school education, I fully understand this.

    What is unfortunate is that many homeschooling families find, when their child is interested in a particular sport at the high school level, they have to make a choice – sports or education and supporting the family unit. That shouldn’t have to happen. Families shouldn’t have to give up their educational choices (which we are all free to make, realize) and their family choices in order to find a team for their kid to play on. Particularly since sports are played after school, as an extracurricular activity. This shouldn’t even be a school issue. The schools should be charged with educating the kids, not lining them up for the NFL. If sports were taken out of the schools and put into the communities (as they are up to high school), there would be no debate. However, until that happens, there is and will continue to be.

    Many communities throughout Virginia and the country currently allow homeschoolers to attend part-time, whether it be academic (core) classes, electives (languages, drama, art, band), or activities like clubs and dances. This is nothing new, and what is already in existence works well. It enriches the lives of everyone involved. It opens minds to the realization that just because something/someone is different, they’re still equal and still peers.

    Mr. Henderson also mentions the possibility of a publically schooled student choosing to have a classmate beside him in the lineup on the field on Friday night rather than someone who only attends practice. Having just come off of a three-year stent with a parks and rec. lacrosse team – since there was no lacrosse team in the high school – I can tell you that my homeschooled daughter was just as much a part of that team as every other girl even though she didn’t bump into them in the hallways, sit with them at lunch, or sit next to them in class. Now, since it has become a high school sport, she has to sit on the sidelines and watch while her team plays without her. A team is a team, no matter the members. That’s what teamwork and team spirit is all about.

    This is an excellent opportunity for us – the adults – to teach our kids acceptance and tolerance and the true meaning of community and team. Or, we can take sides and take an “us against them” mentality. But isn’t our job – isn’t the schools’ job (beyond academics, which this debate is) – to help ALL of the kids in the community grow to become tolerant, contributing members of society and good stewards of this land and one another? How do we do that by teaching exclusion and intolerance and inflexibility and segregation?

    Concerns regarding requirements to be on a team have been addressed in the bill. Homeschoolers will have to try out just like anyone else. If they don’t make the cut, they don’t get on the team. Homeschoolers have to prove academic achievement and advancement for two *years* prior to being on a team – not just that current semester or nine weeks. Two years. Homeschoolers can be kicked off a team just like, and for the same reasons, their schooled peers. Homeschoolers will, at the discretion of the school (rather than that of a private, for profit entity which currently governs high school sports), have to sign a behavior contract and anything else required of its athletes.

    The school systems are already responsible for our homeschooled youth in many ways – while the student remains homeschooled. They are responsible for testing for disabilities and delays. They are responsible for treating disabilities and delays. They are responsible for providing our children with work permits to get a job under age 16. They are responsible for administering standardized testing for college entrance (PSAT, SAT, etc.). If the school systems are responsible for providing these things that a homeschooling family cannot, how can they draw the line at sports?

    Realize, too, you are talking only about a handful of kids. The schools will not suddenly be overrun by thousands of homeschoolers standing on the field for tryouts. You might see one or two. We will pay for anything the schooled kids pay for. We will fundraise right beside the schooled kids. We will cheer with a win and console with defeat. We will become a part of that team, a part of that community that already exists in our backyards that is called a school. These kids already interact and are already on innumerable “teams” together. They go to scouts together, they work together at McDonald’s, they take dance classes together, they belong to the same pools, they live in the same neighborhoods, they have been on sports teams together when they were younger, their younger siblings still are on sports teams together, they are friends. Let’s not make them enemies. Let’s teach them how to be good neighbors and good citizens and be welcoming of others.
36. Bruce Harper | April 23, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    There are quite a few things wrong with this whole thing, from the big picture down to an individual team. At the small end of the scale is the local high school and the individual team. Mrs. Wilson can talk about the numbers being “actually quite small” but it only takes one player to upset the balance of an entire team. There are sports such as basketball and soccer where the rosters are limited as to the number of players who can be on the team. My son played soccer for years and looked forward to playing on the varsity for Coach Blumenthal at Blacksburg High School. He knew that he had to put in his time on the JV squad, but if he was persistent, he would get his chance come tryouts to make the varsity team and eventually be a starter (he did, and he played in two state championship games).

    Now along comes a home-schooled player who is a soccer phenomenon and the coach has no choice but to put the player on the team (more on the tryout process later). Everyone else is bumped down on the list and Player A, who goes to school every day, all day and put in his time at practices and on the JV team, drops off the list of those who make the varsity team because there is no more room. He is relegated to being a junior on the JV team, stuck with the sophomores and freshmen if he wants to keep playing. How is he going to feel? How will his friends, who made varsity and were looking forward to playing together as a team, feel about losing their friend in place of some outsider? The home-schooled student may be part of their crowd, playing on their traveling team, or he may have moved to the area so he could play on a powerhouse team. He could be sort-of accepted on the team because of his skills or he could be shunned because the other players see that he is there only for the exposure he (and his parents) are after for his future.

    There are posts here where parents talk about how their son or daughter played on a team and everyone got along just fine, but there was a parting of the ways come high school time. Your child was left on the outside looking in while the rest of the team went on to play the sport, all because of a choice you made about your child’s education. If the local school system only had the power to change things, instead of being tied down by the VHSL, life would be grand and everyone would be happy on the same team again. Perhaps the lesson should be that “life isn’t fair, we make choices, and sometimes those choices have consequences.” Live with your choice instead of running to the General Assembly to make it fix them.

    There is also a middle part of the picture — the whole high school atmosphere that goes with sports. There are pep rallies held at various times to support different teams, with the team gathered on the gym floor to be cheered and sent on to victory in the upcoming game. There are spirit days and cheerleaders decorate lockers of the players to show that the students are behind their classmates. On game days, the players wear their game jerseys for recognition and there is a feeling of camaraderie. At the game, students in the stands cheer for their friends on the field. And the home-schooled student fits into all this how? Sure, he (or she) may be friends with some of these same students through other situations (church, Scouts, clubs, etc.) but it won’t be the same. When someone you see every day at school is on a playing field or gym floor in competition, he is representing you and your school. What is someone who just shows up for practice representing? He is pretty much out there for himself. How hard can the cheerleaders (and the crowd in the stands) cheer for him when he is running down the field, even if it is for a winning touchdown or goal? It just isn’t the same.

    Throwing a home-schooled student into the tryout mix changes things, too. It would seem that to avoid any question of bias for or against those students, a blind process would have to be established that would leave the coach of a team out of the selection process. Otherwise, a coach could favor those players who have put in their time and give the edge to one of those boys, even if a home-schooled player is just a little bit better. Then the home-schooled crowd would have a fit because their students wouldn’t be getting a fair shake, even when the rules say they have to be given the opportunity to play. The blind process would also protect the coach in the other direction, from the parent of the child who didn’t make the team because a home-schooled student was placed on the roster, even though that parent had been sending his child to school since kindergarten and had been a loyal booster of the team since his son started playing on the JV team.

    This isn’t algebra class or chess club, it is high school sports, which is competitive enough as it is. Adding in outsiders (and more rules and expenses when school systems are struggling with budgets as it is) really isn’t something that is necessary now or at any time. Home-schoolers made their choice not to participate in the public school system and they should not be allowed to pick and choose as they please just to make their children happy.
37. Sandi Saunders | April 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    Precisely, you are asking the whole system to be changed for “a handful of students”. Not fair, not fair at all. You made the choice, some for good sound reasons. Stick to it.
38. Stacy Sin | April 23, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    As the mother of two homeschooled, athletic children, I wish to address some points made by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Henderson. Firstly, I’m very saddened that this issue has become so divisive. This isn’t an us-against-them issue at all. This is about all of our children and what will most benefit them. If a team is to be competitive, you want the best on your team; and as VHSL rules now stand, it is not an option. I honestly don’t see the necessity of a bill to force the hand of VHSL to permit public schools to allow homeschooled children to try out for these teams. I’m confident that if facts replace fears, logic would win and an agreement could be made in the best interest of all children.
    Nowhere in the wording of the bill, or out of the mouths of advocates for it, has it ever been suggested that public schools be forced to place homeschool students on their sports teams. The issue here is only: Should homeschooled children be afforded the opportunity to try out for these sports teams? As it stands now, it is not up to the state, the district, the school, or the coach to allow homeschool children to try out. Even if all interested parties wanted this to happen, the VHSL has taken that option off of the table, schools hands are tied and they have no option to allow homeschool athletes. In rural communities, there are not a plethora of sports options because the population will not support it. There are rural high schools that would welcome the chance to audition homeschool school athletes for their teams and are prohibited from doing so because of the mandates of this private organization. This is an egregious oversight with consequences to all parties. Rural teams cannot field the best teams, or possibly a team at all, while willing and capable homeschool athletes in their districts are left little if any opportunity to play competitive sports with their friends, neighbors, and former teammates. You cannot strengthen a homeschool only athletic program (nor a private competitive intramural one) if your small community does not have the numbers to support such a venture. The rural community example is certainly a lose-lose scenario and a very clear illustration of why this issue deserves our attention.
    If homeschool students were allowed to try out for teams, that doesn’t mean they have an automatic in. A school may choose not to allow homeschool students on their teams simply by not allowing them on the team! The coach or school decides who makes the cut and who doesn’t. If a school didn’t want homeschool athletes, it’s really as simple as they don’t make the cut, that’s it! For schools that would welcome homeschool athletes, they can do so and everybody wins. As for having to meet certain requirements (or not), that issue could be dealt with by the schools and their homeschool athletes if this should ever come to pass. Playing on a sports team is a privilege and not a right. If there were some instance of a fight or other infraction, homeschool students are not exempt from consequences, they could lose their spot on the team or be suspended from the team and all team activities for a time, just as a public school team member could.
    Yes, we do pay taxes and we choose to homeschool our children. We are not asking for tax credits, we are not asking for special privileges for services that do not apply to us (such as an adult using the high school gym), nor are we asking anyone to bend over backwards so that our children may play sports. We are only asking the chance to try out. Fortunately, we don’t have to fight for Algebra and Chemistry because the school district where I live (among many others in the state) already allows homeschool students to take 2 classes “a la carte”, space permitting, and it has yet to cause any problems the magnitude of what is being forecast if we allow homeschool students to try out for sports. I don’t see joining band as any different. If it was allowed, and schools are hospitable to the idea, where exactly is the harm?
    Homeschool children already have camaraderie with other children in their neighborhood, because that is where they live and play. Because of zoning, some children on the same street attend two different schools. Schools don’t define who your friends are and who has your back. The school you go to is defined by where you live and indeed your school zone can be changed even if you don’t move. Many of these children played little league together or were on a community swim team and were already teammates, many of these children participate in several other activities together outside of school. Some of my children’s closest friends are girls they have played soccer with since they were 4 years old. My girls are homeschooled, the other girls are in public school and attend different schools around town, and yet they are all very close, they are a team. As adults, many of us have a sense of community and friendships in our neighborhood, and yet most of us go to work for different companies and in different fields of business, we can make friends and have camaraderie at work and yet it does not diminish or arbitrarily supersede our other relationships in the community, nor should it.
    People choose to homeschool for many various reasons, and that’s a topic for another time, but I will say that the reasons are not so black and white as we just hate public school and think we can do everything on our own and better. Indeed, if that were the case, this discourse would not be happening. While it may appear to some we want to have our cake and eat it too, all we want, like any parent, is the best for our children. Some public school children may be in band, yet their parents choose to also pay for private music instruction (should that exclude them from band? Of course not). Some parents invest in Kumon or SAT prep or other programs that work in tandem with what public school offers, this is not much different than what we do on the homeschool side of things. It would seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater if we didn’t choose from here and there to combine opportunities and resources that best suit our children’s individual needs to make them successful and well rounded adults. If that is having a cake and eating it too, then it seems to me every parent, regardless of what school their child goes to, is trying to do this. I can live with that, and I applaud all parents for working in the best interest of their children because it’s an investment in the future and the future is looking bright!
39. Scott M. | April 23, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    I’ve been pretty impressed with the thought that goes into these comments and this issue. Although some of the rhetoric has been a bit heated, for the most part it’s remained respectful. My congratulations to all.

    I do want to point out something I find mildly ironic. Some have advocated acceptance of the home schooled kids into public school sports saying this will teach teamwork. What I find ironic is it is these very same parents to have chosen not to participate on the team of the public schools by withdrawing their children.

    It seems we want our children to learn a lesson we’re unwilling to practice ourselves.
40. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Sandi, you sound very resentful of homeschooling and confident in your characterization of homeschoolers as greedy. This disheartens me. I am just a mom, too, and I am puzzled by this reaction. None of the people I know in real life seem to think of me as greedy or thinking that I am superior. I sit down and have my tea and cereal just like the next mom. If school is working well for people, then I think they should use schools. If homeschooling works well for them, then they can homeschool.

    Is homeschooling a choice the law prohibits you from? I don’t get it. I could use schools. You could homeschool. I’m trying to understand how or if my decision to homeschool feels to you like an indictment of your decision to use schools or that somehow it translates or reflects something you think I intend about schools but that I don’t intend. I worked for a school division for years, have been a public community college adjunct instructor until this year, and have spent many volunteer hours in schools. My oldest kids are Eagle Scouts, and you can believe that the community service they and our family did with them are not indicative of greediness. That was a lot of hard work on their part – no “something for nothing” sought there.

    It may be that you are generalizing without realizing. Perhaps you’ve met or read about a homeschooler who was greedy or thinking she was superior, and somehow you’ve let this stand for all homeschoolers in your mind. I’m not sure, but I do know that small groups of people do risk being characterized one dimensionally by a few people who may seem to be representative of the whole group. Maybe this is what you meant when you said homeschoolers are “yet another minority.”

    It’s also true that I find it is sometimes easy to be suspect of people who make unusual choices. It is easier to disagree with the choice out of hand than to consider why or how the choice was reached. It’s that old “walk a mile in her shoes” thing that is so easy to say and so hard to do.

    I doubt we’ll meet in real life, but we would probably enjoy working together or having coffee or doing fund raising for a cause we share. I certainly do many things with public school parents and I am so glad they do not wish me to “stay gone.”

    However, you have expressed a feeling I have heard occasionally during this debate, and I wish I could get to the root of it. There is something powerful in your words that I’d like to grasp. My decision to homeschool seems to feel like a RISK to your kids’ school? Is that it? Or is it UNFAIR that your kids have to do school things you disagree with, all the rigamarole? I do admit, homeschooling is great that way – though with the privilege to dispense with the homework you don’t like comes the responsibility of seeing first-hand that you provide educational opportunities that work as well or better than those in school. It’s not exactly a cake walk!

    I do think public school as we know it may be somewhat at risk, but I am not sure that homeschooling is the source of that risk. Technology, changing times, globalization, over reliance on a test-driven curriculum, both true and faux school reformers etc., are probably closer to the root of the risk – homeschooling may just be a response to some of that in some cases. If homeschooling is not the source of risk, perhaps we are a symptom?

    Rather than thinking of us as families who turned our back on schools, perhaps another way is to realize that these are families with needs the schools could or would or indeed, even *should* not meet. That may be because we have differing priorities (for a while there, my best reason for homeschooling was that my husband was working the night shift, 7 days/week, back in the boom days. Homeschooling was the only way he could see his own kids! Sending my kids to school simply could not produce that opportunity, and with three growing boys, we felt that keeping him fully present in their lives was the most important thing we could do at that stage of our family life). Other families have kids with particular learning issues that the schools find difficult to impossible to accommodate, and sometimes after years of fighting for the understandably limited resources within schools, families simply decide to use their limited energy on directly meeting the needs of their kid before it becomes too late. Each family has a different reason.

    It sounds like you are angry and feeling that your kids are left behind by the two percent of families who are choosing to homeschool. It seems like this makes you feel that you don’t want any resources shared with that two percent. A convenient way to put this is “all or nothing.” Hearing that homeschoolers have worked this out with schools in other places doesn’t make you feel better – you still resent that some people don’t have to do all the school stuff, and you want to make sure they feel the discomfort of that choice.

    I wish I knew what to tell you. I’m not sure that the strategy of continuing to block homeschoolers’ athletic opportunities is going to produce anything of value, and in fact, it may be missing an opportunity to bring dedicated families into the circle of the school.

    However, I will continue to try to understand why some school supporters presume bad attitudes among homeschoolers, and I will continue to do my best to mitigate that. My hope is for progress both for schools and homeschoolers, and I wish you well!
41. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Mr. Harper, are students who “attend” virtual schools and alternative schools also “outsiders”? Because they are allowed to try out for public school sports. I guess they would miss those pep rallies and hallway experiences, though!

    And funny – on my son’s competitive soccer team, one of the (public school) moms just told me that she thought high school was the perfect time for homeschoolers to try out, because the high schools in big communities are all taking in new students from the various middle schools. Her son said “bring it on” of the possibility of additional competition! Now THAT’S a competitor!
42. Scott M. | April 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    This is a bit off-topic so won’t be surprised or hurt if the editors delete it but it seems to me, some of the arguments being used are similar to this question: Should just anyone be allowed to be on the school board or should it be restricted to those who have children in the school system?

    Back to home schooled athletes though.

    It seems to me the home schoolers are arguing they CAN contribute, time, energy, money, get along, etc. but aren’t GUARANTEED to do so. With your child in the public schools the same applies and the lack of people at the clean-up event this weekend showed.

    But one of these two scenarios is more likely to guarantee a level of interest and commitment to the public schools than the other. When you’re got skin in the game, in this case your child’s, you’re more likely contribute to the well being of the school so you can reap the rewards. The only situation the home schooling parents are guaranteed to care about is the sports program.
43. Kathy Dunn | April 23, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    When Henderson makes the claim that, “During the hours of a school day, there’s a bond built between these young men and women that will last a lifetime” he is essentially saying that school is where best friends are made and excludes all the other places that kids meet each other and form friendships. Unless school has changed dramatically since I was there, we had 4 minutes between classes – not a lot of time to socialize. I would imagine that teaches don’t appreciate a lot of “bond-building” in their classes either. That leaves lunch – a rushed event in itself, and bus rides -loud and crazy to say the least. Once you strip class time away, you shouldn’t be left with a whole lot of social time, or an audit of how a student spends his time at school should be done. If only I had a dollar for every time I heard a teacher say to me, “School isn’t for socializing. Do that on your own time…”

    Growing up, bonds between my friends and I were built outside of school. Here is just a small list of places where I, a public school graduate “socialized:” our street, neighbors yard, friend’s house, park, playground, pool, skate park, ice rink, library, sporting events, church, Scouts, community service events, parties, etc. Oh yeah, almost forgot – on our sports teams, those that the town ran when we were little and the high school teams when we were teens.

    As a homeschool parent, it really irks me when people accuse me of isolating my kids. Homeschoolers are not locked in their rooms all week. We have plenty of interaction with kids in private and public schools at all those places mentioned above. You cannot assume that the public schooler on the football team doesn’t already know and trust the homeschool kid that wants to join his team. Henderson asks; “Who would you want beside you when the going gets tough on a Friday night, someone who has been with you all day in school or someone who just comes to practice for two hours?” Who spends ALL day with someone else in school? NO ONE DOES. So using this logic, the kid really has no one to rely on come Friday night. I don’t know how college athletes play so well. They barely see each other off the field. Don’t discount the bond that forms only from time together on the field… it’s a strong one indeed.

    All the obstacles can be overcome. Kids can be encouraged to welcome and not discriminate against homeschool and private school students. Strict academic standards can be expected. Discipline can be handed out. How do I know this? Because it is being done all over the country successfully. I moved last year from a school that allowed homeschoolers to join band, take individual classes, play on teams, even particpate in theatre productions. Guess what? It was implemented without a battle, and worked well, so much so that the kids didn’t notice that it happened.

    The result of this little experiment, you may ask?

    1) ALL of the kids were given the opportunity to fulfill their academic and extra-curricular goals and dreams.
    2) Homeschool parents were given the opportunity to ensure that their kids got a well-rounded education despite their lack of ability to form a sports league, teach AP Calculus, or build an art studio in their home.
    3) More parents were drawn into the school community as volunteers, coaches, booster club fundraisers, etc.
    4) The kids made EVEN MORE friends – yikes! More driving, sleepovers and pizza parties for us parents
    5) Parents on both sides of the fence got to know each other, became good friends, learned more about each others’ values, faiths, cultures, and supported each other in the various struggles that we all face as parents.

    I don’t think anyone could argue that this outcome would be bad for the kids, the parents, the schools, and the communities of Virginia.

    The “war” between homeschool parents and public schooled parents is rediculous and has gone on long enough. Why can’t everyone just see us all for what we really are – parents passionate about our kids and wanting the best for them.
44. Richard J Beason, CPA | April 23, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    28. Amy Wilson – Public school children play teams across the State and the rules are written at that level to protect all the children and teams across the State. As fr insulting coaches, apparently you have not been too involved in athletics if you believe coaches would not bend the rules to their favor any way they can. They do this in little league when there is no money involved. Once money and jobs are involved, manipulation to win is a true source of conflict. As for your two year waiting rule, that becomes impractical once the child moves from one place to another and would quickly be struck down because it would be unfair and unenforceable.
45. Sandi Saunders | April 23, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Oddly enough, Jeanne Faulconer takes me to task and then proceeds to do what she accuses me of. That is certainly typical of a broad concept like “home schooling” but I am afraid you have missed the mark and badly.

    I do not resent or even care one way or another about parents who choose to home school or their children. I respect your choice the same as I respect that of my fellow parents who stayed and worked within the public education system. What I do not respect is you wanting to have the best of both worlds. That does nothing to help public education, which is important and which needs parents from the community involved and making them successful.

    Public schools are over-burdened, under-funded and seriously under respected and I am sorry, but regardless of your world class reasons it is not respectful or supportive to pull your children from public schools and then expect them to take you back in on your terms and conditions. I am sorry they did it for academics, clubs, arts, sciences or any other activity and I do not support sports becoming another avenue for people who refuse to play within the rules, which is all home schoolers are doing. If you want out, stay out. If you want in, stay in. Public education should not be a cafeteria program for alternative education choices. I do think it is greedy to want the schools to provide what you cannot after you chose not to have your children attend school. I think it is elitist to think you should be able to pick and chose what programs, activities or sports your child will partake of while sloughing off the rest of the programs and requirements to suit your comfort level.
46. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    So Mr. Beason, let me get this straight – rules written by VHSL protect children and teams, but rules — if they were passed by our General Assembly — such as the “two year waiting rule” are impractical and uneforceable? That’s a pretty convenient set of observations about the impact of rules! LOL

    What would be great is for VHSL and homeschoolers to collaborate and come up with terms that take into consideration both the nature of public education and the nature of homeschooling. I think our athletics administrators and our home educators are at least as smart as those in the other states who have accomplished this so well! I’m sure of it!
47. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Sandi, if you read any of what I wrote as taking you to task, our communication has failed.
48. Bruce Harper | April 23, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    You put it quite well, Sandi. I’ve heard home schoolers say over the years they are doing it because the public schools are inadequate or aren’t good enough (and I have no problem with that, that it their choice, their decision). But it is interesting how on this topic, sports, how passionate and demanding they are that they get their way to have their children get a spot on a sports team, to the detriment of other children who attend school all day, every day. But that isn’t “special treatment” to be able to pick sports as an optional activity from the school menu, along with chemistry and algebra, while doing everything else at home because it suits their needs or lifestyle. I agree with you, it should be all or none, especially in these tight budget times.

    Blacksburg right now doesn’t have a real high school and there is a major battle going on over the county budget because of the debt Montgomery County is carrying to build the new high school, plus the new Auburn High School and the renovation of the middle school for Auburn. There isn’t a whole lot of extra money available over that debt service in the budget because people don’t want to pay much in the way of taxes, so the school board is looking at hard cuts in its budget, including getting rid of teachers, closing a school, or instituting a “pay to play” plan for sports. Throwing in pick-and-chose home-schooled students into the sports program (even if they pay) is just adding an extra and un-needed burden on the school board and administrators (dropping athletic directors is part of the budget cutting) at a time when they don’t need more headaches.
49. Sandi Saunders | April 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Mrs. Faulconer, I am not sure there is another way to take your remarks, but upon review I can find none.

    Like I said, I respect your choice, right up until you come back wanting the best of both worlds and open arms from the public school system, on your terms, and then we will never agree. Public schools have too much, too many and not enough resources to contend with already and I cannot support asking more from them for “a handful” of students whose parents chose not to be a part of the public school system. If you consider that “resentment”, I can live with that. If you think that is not greedy, I disagree. If you think that is not elitist, I disagree. You folks want to pick and chose. Access the best in the systems and bypass the rest. I maintain that is greedy and elitist and I see no other description for it. That your motives are “for the best outcome” for your child, puts you in the same boat as those of us who did not ask for special dispensations or to be allowed to access only the parts we liked but accepted the whole package, warts and all and made the best of it.
50. Heather Parkinson | April 23, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    43. Mr. Beason – VHSL already imposes a waiting rule on kids new to a jurisdiction. Some families choose not to move to a new school district during high school for just that reason. On Varsity softball in one county as a junior and move to the next county as a senior – you don’t get to try out for softball. That’s VHSL’s rule already in existence. I suppose I’m curious to know when high school sports really became that competitive and that important in a child’s life. Shouldn’t the high school level be more to learn the game, garner experience, and learn about teamwork and sportsmanship rather than be a cut-throat competition affecting the financial futures of entire families? I realize this is a discussion for another day. Realize, too, VHSL is just that – the Virginia High School League. Other states do not use a private entity to govern their high school sports. Other states make those decisions within the schools.
51. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    So Sandi, to you, the important thing is for me to support the schools with my children’s presence, regardless of our preference for a legal educational method that meets their needs and our family’s needs more effectively at this time? And if I don’t do this, I am elitist?

    Am I getting this right – in your mind, ALL people should do this, or they are not playing by “the rules?” So families like mine are in violation of some kind of implied social contract?

    Still trying to get it, but NOT trying to take you to task. I was and am merely trying to understand, probing to get at what it is that seems to tick a few people off about a small percentage of people making a non-mainstream choice. Most of the school parents I know are quite supportive of our decision to homeschool; many ask me for information about homeschooling, and many people move in and out of schools and homeschooling for one or all kids as their situations change. Frankly, many teachers have told me they are very supportive of homeschooling, and in my homeschooling circle, many of the homeschooling parents are teachers or former teachers who plan to return to the classroom when their homeschooling time is complete. I just don’t run into this “all or nothing” argument much – until high school sports access comes up!

    Seeing the opting out of school to be a do-it-yourselfer as elitist is an interesting concept. Homeschoolers sort of never know what’s next – we’re isolationist if we don’t have our kids in a gazillion sports and activities, and we’re elitist if we want to have our kids in the only ones in town!

    But, if it is the ACT of not attending school that you see as a conscious choice to hurt others somehow, I can see why that would bother you. I am always bothered by people who seem to be making conscious choices to hurt others by word or deed.

    I think homeschoolers see this the other way – that by taking first-hand responsibility for the guts of their kids’ education, they are doing a most important thing to prepare them for community and personal responsibility. I presume we’d disagree on this, but I think we’re in danger as a society if perpetuating the institution of school monolithically becomes more important than parents getting their children’s educational needs met. Having a variety of visible and legal ways that parents do get their children’s needs met (public ed, homeschooling, private schools for a while – now possibly charters and virtual classes) reminds us that it is the children, not the institution, for whom “education” is important. That is the guiding light at the best schools I know of!

    Focusing on an all-or-nothing approach, and again, I presume we’d disagree, Sandi, would seem to me to be risking missing out on innovation and nimbleness that schools could benefit from exposure to.

    I’m glad that so many people think parents seeking the “best of both worlds” is not a bug, but a benefit! To turn the “everyone should send their kids to school” argument on its ear, perhaps if more people insisted on more of the “best of both worlds,” all children would benefit! I don’t know if that’s elitist, but it is a refreshing thought to me!
52. Heather Parkinson | April 23, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Scott M. – Homeschooled children *do* learn teamwork. Often in more ways than their schooled peers. Their first, and most important, team is their family. Families have to work for homeschooling to work. And the best families work as a team. So many families are falling apart these days, but look around at the homeschooling families and you’ll see a different norm. The children and parents (typically) respect one another. They talk to one another. They learn from one another. They are not (as) rushed and stressed (well, ok, sometimes we’re more rushed and stressed!) as their schooled counterparts. But when they are rushed and stressed, they still work as a team. There aren’t “drop outs” in homeschool. There aren’t runaways who homeschool (at least not that I’ve ever heard of). Drugs and alcohol are no where near the problem. Then, there’s bullies – let’s broach that. Bullying is the antithesis of teamwork. Not only the bully but the bullied – and the bystanders. Every second of that interaction is anti-teamwork. It’s greatly reduced in the lives of homeschoolers – and immediately quelched and dealt with – by loving parents – when and if it is witnessed.

    Then, beyond the family team, these kids are involved in other teams – church, youth groups, choirs, theatres, scouts, ballet, gymnastics, swimming, summer camps, Destination Imagination, Lego teams, places of employ….you name it.

    Contrary to your statement, we, as homeschoolers, are teaching our children to learn a lesson (teamwork) that we are quite willing to practice ourselves. We practice this lesson in a much more all-encompassing and effective manner than what is (typically) practiced within school walls. One does not have to attend public school full time to learn teamwork. One does not negate teamwork by not attending public school full time.
53. Tanya Croxton | April 23, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    I am an MBA married to a PhD who decided to homeschool our kids. I have been everything from a teaching assistant to severely & profoundly handicapped children in a public school to a teacher of MBA students in a top-25 MBA program. For many years I sent my children to public school until last year when my children requested that I homeschool them rather than send them back to local public middle school. I didn’t make the choice they did. I also know several homeschooling families who have decided to send their kids into the public system after homeschooling them for many years primarily at the request of their kids. What some of the writers here do not understand is how fluid the boundaries sometimes are between homeschooling and public schooling, and how many homeschoolers actually participate in public school events and activities. We are all part of a larger community, not just one public school or private school or homeschool community. Additionally, the needs and wants of the children involved inform the decisions of the parents.

    My husband and I are very qualified to teach our children math, science, economics, history, and literature. However, I tried coaching in the local soccer league and I just don’t have the background in that sport. I was a competitive swimmer, not a soccer player and I consider the high school soccer coach and the high school wrestling coach infinitely more qualified to teach my sons soccer and wrestling. Should I give up my opportunity for my sons to learn history from a history PhD and finance from a finance MBA with a CPA, so that he can train for sports from a sports expert? Should I deprive the wrestling team of my son’s natural talent simply because I want to share the joy of literature with him (did I mention my BA in Comparative Literature)? The assumption is that only the students are benefitting from the high school sports and not their teammates and schools. Obviously, those arguing against the measure have not had the joy of meeting and dealing with homeschool children and don’t understand all that they contribute to every one whose lives they touch.
54. Sandi Saunders | April 23, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    No Jeanne, “the important thing” is for you to live with the decision you made and leave the schools you do not want your children to attend, alone. You are entitled and welcome to your “preference”. You are not entitled or welcome to a school system that changes to meet the needs you decide to have after you leave. That is akin to resigning your club membership but still wanting to tell them how to do things and let you come to “the fun stuff”. If you ask for that, yes, that is the epitome of elitist. You made your “non mainstream” choice so now leave the mainstream alone. You only want to be a “do-it-yourselfer” to a certain extent, then you want to be allowed to pick and choose what your child will participate in as if public schools were there for your discretion. I am sure you will win in the end. I am equally sure that it is wrong for you to do so. I am certainly “out-numbered” here. You need to stop trying to change my mind. Your position is quite clear, I am not deficient in comprehension, I simply disagree with you.
55. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    To bring this back to sports access, I’m curious as to what is so different or special about Virginia that makes it impossible to work out these issues, when in the majority of states in the country, it is just not a big deal?
56. Christina Nuckols | April 23, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Greetings everyone. Just a reminder to “keep it down to a dull roar,” as my mother would say. In other words, keep the conversation civil.
57. Jeanne Faulconer | April 23, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Right, right, Sandi. I hope I have not implied you are deficient in comprehension. It was definitely I who was seeking understanding.

    I think I’ve got your viewpoint clearly now. Your opinion is that I am elitist.

    Anyway.

    Sticking with a discussion of the actual issue, my opinion is that schools do or should exist to serve children, and it’s to their advantage,the community’s advantage, and children’s advantage to do so when possible. As an academic and homeschool mom and youth coach and community volunteer, I’d definitely not agree that I’ve ceded my rights to attempt to influence school policy or General Assembly legislation just because of my decision to homeschool. I’m not seeing mutual exclusivity in those two positions.

    That would be quite a departure for our system of governance, I’d say.

    I’ve actually not ever thought of schools, who as far as I know are mandated to serve all the children of their community and are public institutions, as any kind of exclusive club that is not welcoming to certain “kinds” of people. Well, they haven’t been that in recent decades, anyway.

    No problem on my living with my decision to homeschool, Sandi. I’ve homeschooled for many years in three states and understand the ramifications quite well. Fortunately, while I must and do homeschool with full recognition of the current state of things, this does not preclude my advocating for sane policies VHSL has well within its means to work out with homeschoolers that would allow homeschoolers to try out for their community’s athletic teams. Or, the state could simply go another route for organizing publicly funded competitive sports for teens that is more equitable for all the kids in a community. That seems far less likely, so we’ll just go for how about letting local school divisions decide whether kids can try out. Or even – just let kids try out.

    (And to those who say homeschoolers in one-off situations would be a financial burden to schools during hard times, I have to ask, what would happen if those homeschoolers DID enroll full-time, as opponents to sports access keep telling us to do? I think that saying homeschoolers should just enroll full-time since the schools are already too overburdened to serve homeschoolers part-time has a sort of interesting circular absurdist quality. I’ll have to think about that one for a while! And before anyone asks, yes, the schools do receive funding for homeschoolers enrolling part-time, and yes, the proposed legislation did allow homeschoolers to be assessed fees for participation in school sports. Sigh. I guess that’s all part of the “have your cake and eat it too” plan! LOL)
58. Chuck | April 23, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Seems like the same fact that gets lost in the gun debate is lost here. In Virginia both the legislature and the courts have determined that a free and public education is a right. Not a priviledge but a right. I’m not sure how you can deny that to someone.

    Now the question becomes, do sports count as part of that education? I think it is clear that sports do count as part of the educational experience. Otherwise, why is it included? IMO there is definitely an educational value to sports. Kids learn about teamwork, commitment, sportsmanship, values, and many other lessons that don’t come from a text book. If you ask me, denyng this experience to home-schooled kids because of some misguided resentment is what is elitist.
59. Chuck | April 23, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    This issue also raises another question in my mind. Liberals are constantly demanding to know from those opposed to gay marriage how, exactly, does allowing homosexuals to marry threaten or cause harm to heterosexual marriage? Would not the same reasoning be applicable here? How exactly does home-schooling harm or diminish public school? Some of the more vehement objectors here make it sound like home-schoolers taking their kids out of school is somehow diminishing the public schools. How so? We have already established that the parents who home-school are still paying the taxes that support the school system just as they would if their kid were attending public school. It would seem to me that their choice to home school lessens, not increases the burden on the school system. They now have the same amount of money but fewer students to try to educate. How does that not lighten the burden on the school system? Is the contention that the school system is somehow legitimized by the number of students it teaches, or is this just cover for the same reason school systems today are so reluctant to actually expel the most dangerous and disruptive students. The fact that their Federal aid dollars are based on the number of students on the roll.
60. Brian Lindholm | April 23, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    To #59 (Chuck): Aye. A free and public education is indeed a right in Virginia.

    And there’s another element that’s getting lost in the debate here: What’s best for the children? Most of what I’ve seen here is arguments about home-school parents. Do their taxes entitle them to access to high-school sports? Should they be perfectly consistent with the consequences of their choice to home-school? Are they sufficiently supporting their local school system? Is it elitist to want to participate in the public schools on a “part-time” basis?

    These are all secondary questions. The primary question is this: Would it be good for home-schooled children to be able to participate in high-school athletics? Based on several of the comments in this thread, the answer is YES. [If it were NO, then all school sports should be canceled as a cost-savings measure.] Let them play.
61. Kendra Swager | April 23, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    So many people use the phrase “pulled your kids out of school” to describe homeschooling parents. It sounds as if those who homeschool are insulting/abandoning all of the hardworking teachers, administrators, coaches, and involved parents.

    I never “pulled my kids out of school.” I simply never enrolled them. I am not anti-public school. On the contrary, many of my close friends are public school teachers and many of my children’s friends are public school students. I support our community’s public school sporting events, fundraisers, arts programs, and other special events. But I didn’t enroll my children in public school, mostly because my husband’s and my work schedules and our interests/philosophy make homeschooling a very appealing alternative for us. We homeschool, but we are not anti-pubic school.

    Consider this: When my first child was three years old, a friend suggested that I should have my child tested for concerns with her speech development. Do you know where a three year old goes for speech services? Even though they are not enrolled in school (too young), they are served by the speech therapist in your school district. Our schools provide certain services to children in our communities irrelevant to enrollment. We had a very positive experience with the public school speech therapist. My child sat in her classroom, side by side with other preschool aged children receiving services and also with some kindergarten and first grade age public school students. Yes, preschoolers, homeschoolers, and public school students all together. We were served in this way for nearly three years until my child achieved her goals. No one treated us like outsiders during those 30 minute sessions once a week,.. we are members of the same community.

    So when we needed a service such as speech, the county directed us to the public school. When my children become high school age, what if they are athletically gifted and hope to attend college on a sports scholarship? There are very few club sports (especially for girls) that attract the attention of college recruiters. If you want to compete at the college level in many team sports, for practical purposes you need to compete at the high school level first. I hope that when the time comes, if my children want to compete for a place on the school sports team, we can be on the same “team” with our public school friends just as we were in speech class in the early years.
62. Rachel Roberts | April 24, 2012 at 9:06 am

    The biggest problem I see is this: Why should this decision belong to VHSL? If schools truly are about community and personal involvement, why are we allowing a large, statewide organization to make a sweeping blanket rule ‘against’ in every, individual case?

    Picture an athletic student in a rural location with no other opportunities for sports involvement – he homeschools because his academic abilities and learning style are better served by more one-on-one tutoring than a classroom setting. He is friends with several of his neighbors regardless of whether they attend the same school, simply because they’ve grown up playing together in the same community. He has mainly athletic goals and pursuits. Shouldn’t the decision rest upon his local community to decide, such as the school itself, whether he can try out for their team and participate even more with his community in this way? Why do the guys at VHSL presume to know what is best for that child, the school, and the families that live there?
63. bugbait | April 24, 2012 at 9:47 am

    I think the argument against “picking and choosing” is a bit reactionary, as this seems to be the direction all education is heading regardless of public or private or homeschool. Once upon a time there were no magnet schools and no IB or Cambridge programs. There were Vo-Tech schools, but other than that you pretty much went to the school in your district and took the classes that were available. The amount of classes offered in the High Schools in my area is probably double what was available when I attended. Charter schools, online schools, distance learning didn’t exist. At the university level, my alma mater offers about twice as many baccalaureate programs as it did when I attended; subjects and areas of study that didn’t exist. And it offers a variety of ways to attend classes (wish that had been available in my time.) Just thought I’d point this out. Personally, I think it’s great and hope that all education goes to the ala carte format/choice format as much as possible.
64. Bruce Harper | April 24, 2012 at 10:05 am

    This has become point-counterpointless. The homeschool crowd is defending their homeschool decision, which isn’t the question — that is their choice and no one has a problem with that. What hasn’t been explained or justified is how or why one of their children deserve a spot on a high school athletic team that would displace a full-time student at that school from the team. It hasn’t been explained how unbiased tryouts would be held and funded (someone has to pay for the time and effort of those involved). It hasn’t been explained how that student is to be a representative of that high school on the field of competition — there is more to high school athletics than just strength and prowess — when he or she is just showing up for an hour or two of practice at the end of the day and has no other real connection to the school (yeah, he may be friends with some of the students who attend there, some of his teammates, but that is a tenuous connection at best).

    It still comes down to a pick-and-choose situation, where one group wants to select some things they want to use from the school system and reject the things they don’t like. That may have been nice in the past, but in these budget-stressed times the practice probably should get a hard look and perhaps should be something that gets the heave ho except where services are mandated.

    There also needs to be a good explanation put out somewhere about just what the VHSL is and does. It isn’t just some monolithic organization “out there” that issues edicts and controls high schools sports (and debate and some other things) on a whim. It is actually run with input from all the high schools across the state, from principals and athletic directors.
65. ACTivist | April 24, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Interesting. I had sent my youngest daughter to private school for 9 of her 12 years. I really couldn’t afford it but made the sacrifice to avoid further the abuse by some teachers, the ridicule and cliques from students and the abysmal texts that tend to throw politics into every subject. Some of the public school subjects were shortened in their teachings and the “high caliber” of teachers that were promised just never materialized after the endless increases in taxes. Then you add the wasted expenditures coupled with the hierarchy politics and you get publjc school systems out of control. With 35 years in Loudoun Co. we are still trying to change this but to no avail. Most of this comes about from those that want endless perks off the backs of all others but it seems especially unfair when you don’t have a dog in the fight yet are continually required to make it better for the others that “want the world.

    My youngest daughter excelled OUTSIDE the public system and is more well rounded then most others. Money and time well spent by her parents. My oldest daughter, who also had some private school years, is now homeschooling my granddaughters. I had questions about thjs endeavor and was shown an ease for myself I wouldn’t have expected. My grandbabies are both bright and exceptionally talented. They are challenged and excell at every level of their requirements. Their days of learning are long but put into an environment of little stress and more adventure, as it were. The liberalism and politics of PS don’t exist and the children are not being inhibited or stifled in this “home school environment” which pleases me greatly. My educator-daughter has also shown me a thirst for knowledge and research that I don’t see in most adults. I absolutely don’t see it in most of the public educators I know. Yes, public/private school definitely have greater advantages than PS while all cost associated with this education is borne by the parent and NOT the collective. Yet the same amount of taxes are collected for a program run by bureaucrats wanting nothing more than power and prestige. And even with the voice of the people it doesn’t change.

    There is no increase in costs for homeschoolers to try out for sports. If I had my way, I would require PS to be nothing more than academics since I don’t believe the collective pays for a child to go to school and be average or sub-par in academics but a launching point for a future athlete. If you want music, pay for it. If you want drama, pay for it. If you want sports, pay for it. Why should I pay for things that are NOT educational? But since I am and so are the homeschooling residents of each county, why should a private? entity tell us who can and cannot be allowed to try out and participate in sports programs at public schools that we all pay for anyway? This mindset is bigoted and exclusionary, unfair and unconstitutional. It is a goose and gander issue and needs a lawsuit to finalize. Little “powerbrokers” will be the end all of everything. This issue needs to be rectified quickly. Either shared usage of PS offerings or pay for it by the individual. You can’t have it both ways.
66. hokie24 | April 24, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Seeing people use the excuse of not thinking it’s right to let parents choose “cafeteria-style” which public school services that they want for their kids is a nothing more than a lame buzzword and a cop-out. If a parent chooses to send their kid to public school, but then doesn’t choose to let their kid participate on a school sports team, then how is that any different from a parent who chooses to not send their kid to public school classes, but wishes to allow their kid to participate or try out for their area’s public school sports? Aren’t both of those situations examples of “cafeteria-style” choosing?

    Parents (and non parents) pay the same taxes that get used for public schools in their area whether they choose to send their kids to public school or not. Folks can cry that taxes aren’t a factor in this issue until they’re blue in the face, but that’s just not the truth. If you’re paying taxes in your community, then you get access to public facilities and services as long as you aren’t abusing them or breaking laws in your use of them. As long as people are not receiving some sort of tax break or credit for homeschooling their child, then nobody can or should be surprised when parents expect their homeschooled child to have a chance at playing public school sports.

    The folks who are saying that you shouldn’t be allowed to play public school sports unless you attend public school classes are making public school sound like a prison. You’re making it sound like public school is some kind of punishment that you have to endure in order to be able to play public school sports.

    It’s so easy to see that there’s an intense rage in some of these posters against parents who choose to homeschool. Why the hatred against parents who choose to homeschool? Why do you pretend that parents who choose to homeschool aren’t helping their community as much as you claim to by sending your child to public school and helping out at your child’s public school? There’s a hatred and jealousy there that is just plain unfounded. Stop pretending that parents who choose homeschooling are doing it because they believe that they are too good for public schools. That’s just not the case.
67. Michele Kendzie | April 24, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Sandi is calling the desire to partake in only portions of public school offerings elitist.

    So is it elitist when I choose to buy my groceries at Store X but ignore the offerings in their deli, their cafe, and their cooking workshops?

    So it is elitist when I go check out a book from the library but do not attend any of their special programs?

    This is just name-calling instead of really thinking through the issue.
68. Scott M. | April 24, 2012 at 11:12 am

    @60 Brian, you ask would it be good for the children and find the answer to be yes. I think it’s good for the children IN THE SHORT RUN but maybe not in the long run.

    This is speculation on my part of course but letting home schooled children pick public school sports may encourage some parents to switch to home schooling knowing they are free to choose public school athletics. With those children not in public schools, the public schools lose the support of the home schooling parents resulting in worse public schools. Which then encourages more people to take their children out of public schools, thereby speeding up the cycle until eventually a new equilibrium is reached but an equilibrium that has resulted in poorer public schools.

    I realize it’s a little far fetched this scenario but illustrated the point we should work to strengthen our public schools and make them better for all children. In fact, they should be so good there is no incentive to home school our children. This might mean more teachers, flexible scheduling, and a raft of other proposals. Of course that would also mean more money and respect for the teaching profession which we probably won’t get from the “government is the problem” crowd.
69. Lake Claytor | April 24, 2012 at 11:14 am

    What are we talking about really?

    Two…maybe three extra players trying out for a team?

    Is THAT really what all this is about?

    No…of course it isn’t.

    Home-schoolers have disrespected Public Schools, therefore, they need to be punished.

    (This isn’t about the kids OR education, folks)
70. debbie s | April 24, 2012 at 11:26 am

    In my school district thry can’t even pass the sols. The school is not accredicted, and there is no alternative school to send our children to. I have a special need student, who after five years in school was still unable to read or write past a first grade level. He needed one on one help, that the school system could not provide. Yes we do have laws in place for situations like mine, where you can send you child to a diiferent school in the district, but we don’t have one. You can send them to school in another area if they volunterly except them, if not its $5000. Does my son not deserve an education? Aparently not here in Virginia. With One son that has Aspergers, learning disability, dyslexia and dysgraphia, they failed him. With another son that also has dyslexia, that spent 4 years in the public school, also could’nt add, write, read, etc.. I had to do something, our school system just keeps moving them up, even if they are not able to do the work. They have graduated countless children who cannot read oir fill out a job application. I had no choice in taking mine out, our system failed them. However they have no trouble in building big school, big football field, nice atheletic programs, just no substance in the education depatment. They were even unsucessful in hiring a Speech Language Pathologist or Occupational Therapist. But because I am unable to afford to move to a better school system, my children are not allowed to participate in any sports program. Yes I think its unfair, some of us homeschool because we have to, or else our children sit in a classroom and do nothing all day.That is not an exaggeration, that exactly what my boys did all day, because they could not do the classroom work, and the teacher did not have the time, or resourses to help them.But they sure managed to fill all the papers out so they did’nt have to take the sols, not that it could have hurt their scores any. Do I want my children to play sports there now, no I don’t, but I do think they should have the option, yes I do!
71. Linda Miller | April 24, 2012 at 11:26 am

    We homeschool and pay taxes. I am thankful to have the opportunity to homeschool, however, I would appreciate the opportunity to place my children in a sports program at the public school, or even in a class or two at the public school if I so desired. If homeschoolers are banned from participation in the public schools then they should not have to pay tax dollars to fund someone else’s education.
72. Sheila Stone | April 24, 2012 at 11:26 am

    Actually I, like many other homeschooling parents, tried for several years to make the schools better; attending meetings, chaperoning field trips, volunteering in the classrooms and in the PTAs, voluntarily helping with yard sales, bake sales, car washes. I also served on the Vo-Tech board for my community high school. Can’t be done; the system is too broken to fix.

    What *I* believe needs to happen at this point is that sports should be taken OUT of the schools. They are not academic, and the schools can’t even get the academics done well in the time they have (ALL DAY for MOST OF THE YEAR). Sports rightly belong in the purview of the local recreation departments, in which all members of the community participate. They have absolutely nothing to do with education. They are effective as bribes to make some kids struggle through their classes, sure–but they are using valuable resources that are needed for academic learning.

    If learning were made accessible, EFFECTIVE, relevant, and individualized, at an appropriate level of challenge, and for an appropriate and reasonable amount of time, kids wouldn’t need to be bribed to stay in school. The time they are NOT in school could be spent with their families and in their communities, learning values and practical skills by imitation, and receiving parental care and guidance that we currently, to our social cost, palm off onto our teachers and educational institutions.

    Like so many of our homeschooled children, my daughter COULDN’T learn in her noisy, crowded classrooms with their “one size fits all” curriculums. Like so many of her homeschooled peers, she has done just fine in homeschool, testing out in the 90th percentile on the standardized year-end tests last year. Like so many homeschooling parents, I found the financial and energy cost to be worth the result, and believe me, these costs have been staggering for me personally. If schools became true LEARNING communities, she might have gone back, but nothing I have seen in my involvement in an advisory capacity for health care training in our local high school has shown me what I would consider a learning community.

    If we are “serious” about an educated populace for our democracy, we need to “seriously” rethink our approach to education, and that is why so many of us have left “the system”. We’ve only got a year to go before my own homeschooler graduates, so this argument is moot for us. But I want to reiterate: we didn’t “opt out”. We were forced out, by an unresponsive and ineffective system that would rather let kids drop through the cracks than look honestly at the results of misguided and ineffective educational policies, procedures and priorities. The money, time, and adult effort that goes into sports (and so many other extracurricular activities)? Let’s use that in the CLASSROOMS, and let’s get sports OUT of the schools and back INTO the communities, where they belong.
73. Jordan B | April 24, 2012 at 11:27 am

    I am a senior at Patrick Henry High School and have run Cross Country (XC) for each of my four years. I recognize that the decision to be homeschooled is normally in the hands of the parent. It would be unjust to deny a student access to high-school sports because of their parent’s vision. Sports can provide a social environment which fosters the interpersonal skills necessary for success. In addition the pressure of competition may be hard to replicate in a homeschool setting. The XC team has always welcomed middle-schoolers to participate (I ran 6-8 grade at PH) and despite Mr. Henderson’s concern their absence from the hallways has never been an issue. Elite middle school athletes want to play at the high school because they recognize the higher level of competition helps their development. I imagine Homeschool athletes would also want to compete on a field against the best of their peers and be seen by college scouts. That said, I believe that Homeschoolers should be limited, like middle schoolers, to practice and junior varsity events. The Varsity team represents the public school and should be comprised of attending students the same way the US Soccer Team is restricted to citizens. When a student goes to an event to cheer on their team it should be made up of their fellow classmates. In addition there are a limited number of spots of a Varsity Team. No homeschooler should every be allowed to make a high-school’s varsity team while a student who attends gets cut.
74. Candice | April 24, 2012 at 11:27 am

    I couldn’t agree Amy more. She said everything I feel about just allowing homeschool children a chance to try out. All I see from the opposition is fear and “what if’s”. Fear is what fueled segregation and kept minorities and women under the “majorities” rule for years because they were scared of the what if, And thought change would allow them their supremacy. Public school children aren’t all that different than homeschool children in general. And they aren’t asking for special treatment just a way to play competitive sports. This bill has been accepted and successful in other states, but as usual Virginia’s outdated views are keeping it in the civil war era…not allowing for modern times to keep us all united moving forward.
75. Jeanne Faulconer | April 24, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Jordan, one way to look at a public school team is that it represents the school. Another way to look at it is that it represents the families in the school division – the COMMUNITY – which supports the school and which it serves. That is what is “public” about it.
76. Jeanne Faulconer | April 24, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    This, from Bruce, is interesting: “There also needs to be a good explanation put out somewhere about just what the VHSL is and does. It isn’t just some monolithic organization “out there” that issues edicts and controls high schools sports (and debate and some other things) on a whim. It is actually run with input from all the high schools across the state, from principals and athletic directors.”

    Bingo! I notice homeschoolers are among those who are conspicuously absent from those who provide input!

    I believe you have actually identified one of the reasons Virginia has a problem in providing sports access tryout opportunities to all its teens when the majority of other states do not have this problem. When you have an org with a loop that reinforces its own constituencies and does not reach beyond them, yet which nonetheless controls a large public program with many dollars attached, folks who are NOT IN the loop will be marginalized, despite the fact that these are public institutions. This org is only receiving input from selected constituencies – not ALL the constituencies – and then it systematically excludes those from whom it receives no input and to whom it has no accountability!

    However, again, I’m optimistic. Having seen that homeschoolers are passionate about this issue, VHSL has the opportunity to listen and respond. I just have so much confidence in the goodwill of coaches and principals – I know they do understand how serving the public works, and I know they must want to be fair to our communities’ athletes – all of them. They’ve just had the misfortune to sort of be in a bit of an echo chamber, and I think they can now move from that chamber to be responsive. It can happen to any org, but fortunately, organizations don’t have to be static; they can evolve to meet changing needs and to serve all constituencies.

    If not, I wonder if the VHSL control of high school sports in Virginia is sustainable?

    As has been suggested, the public could create a movement for separating sports from schools in Virginia if that is the only way to equitably provide potential opportunity equitably to all the kids.

    Or, as proposed last year in the General Assembly, schools could be prohibited from being a member in an org that excludes the home educated students in the school division it serves.

    It just feels to me like these kinds of options would be so much more drastic (yikes, would there be lawsuits? Whattamess!) than the existing org acting on the understanding that it is administrating public programs.
77. ACTivist | April 24, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    Jordan wants the opportunity to be a “team player” in sports and feels he would be neglected if left to the wishes of his parents to home school. Isn’t that the issue here? Brian thinks that more people would home school if allowed to participate in PS sports programs. Not a bad idea, Brian.

    The ABC’s are this: school started in the home and with mentors. Someone got the bright idea to create schools so that all could learn under “professionals”. Then the state and federal government got involved because they could do it better and the people didn’t decent. Now you have a bureaucracy that the parent really has no say so in. The. curriculum has expanded way to far from the original intent of “academics”. The power should always be with the people. The decisions should be made by the people for the benefit of all.

    Let’s jump up one level: higher education. With public institutions, you, as the taxpayer, subsidize said institutions with the remainder coming from the student attending said institution. The student PAYS for every course they take EXCEPT sports. Why? I have pride in my state but those taxes help fund those sports programs that I don’t utilize. Same thing with lower education. You don’t need a sports program in school for the few that utilize it and that all pay for. You can make it extra-curricular and pay as you go. The comradery . doesn’t change because of the venue. It is still team sports. I would much rather see the opportunity for home schoolers to have access to PS sports programs than, say, Chinese as a language where I pay 50,000 dollars plus benefits to a teacher where it could be done by Berlitz or RosettaStone for 500 dollars. The sky is not falling and those prejudice elitists need to back away from their position. Home schooling came first and if you use the “grandfather” clause, they should have the first and foremost say jn the matter. It isn’t rocket science but it is logical. If you pay, you should always have a say. Otherwise we need to re-create a school system more fair to the tax payer who gets nothing for the expenditure.
78. Michele Kendzie | April 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    The discussion of the partaking of various offerings of the public school system being a symptom of the changes the system is experiencing reminds me of Seth Godin’s article, The Future of The Library:
    http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/05/the-future-of-the-library.html
    After reading it last year, I was inspired to share my idea of schools being more like libraries on my blog:
    http://rhicarian.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/the-future-of-libraries-and-maybe-schools/
79. Sandi Saunders | April 24, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Very well said Jordan B. Thanks for participating here, you do the public schools proud!

    What I “fear” is that further rewarding people who chose to not be part of the school system is unfair to the students in that school system and yes, they are my concern and my only concern. Your children appear to have all the advocates they need.

    You chose to leave the school system and obviously that was the right decision for you all. Now, learn to live with it and leave the school system you do not want to be part of alone. It is not a grocery store or a library. It is a system with rules and regulations and you chose not to participate so let’s just leave it at that.
80. Shannon Lee | April 24, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    My family and I have just relocated from Beaverton, Oregon to Virginia. In Oregon home schooled children can participate in any sport, activity, group or class available at the local public school…with no major issues. We were surprised that it is such a hot topic here.
    Just the fact that we are talking about so few home school students in comparison to public school students makes me wonder why the opposition to home school student participation is so fervent. (The VA DOE website lists 11,877 home schooled students in grades 6-12 for 2010-2011. That is compared to 657,192 public school students in grades 6-12 for 2010-2011). Certainly only a fraction of these students even desire to play a sport. Even if all of them did, that would be about 18 students per school (~658 Middle & High Schools in VA). A few extra athletes on any given team are not going to stress the system. Will the system be stressed if they all gave up home schooling and enrolled in public school?
    It works in other states. It can work in Virginia. Let ‘em play!
81. Heather Parkinson | April 24, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    Jordan makes an interesting point, but Jordan you need to think on a scope farther than your own backyard. In some communities, having that one homeschooler can actually *make* a team that otherwise had too few students for the school to put a team together that year. In some (far fewer) communities, there would be actual competition for those Varsity spots. But, as a Varsity player, do you not welcome competition from your peers? Does having faster runners applying for your spot on the team not encourage you to work harder and run faster? The numbers speak for themselves and those numbers indicate an average of 9-10 students per high school. Spread that out amongst the spring sports and you’re only in competition with one or two extra kids for that coveted Varsity spot.

    In line with Sheila, above, since this debate finally got a toe-hold this year after years and years of trying, it does seem reasonable, and appropriate, that anything done under the name of a school after school hours should not be done by that school; those should be turned over to parks & rec., and that would not be a difficult transition. The money is there, the equipment is there, the fields are there, the instruments are there, the coaches and directors are there….they would now just have a new “boss,” and it would go back to being PARENTS’ decisions whether or not their own child is performing well enough in school to participate in any after-school, extracurricular activities. After all, aren’t the parents the ones who should decide that, not VHSL? Extracurricular activities would go back to community activities, not school activities. Let’s spend the school’s money and resources on the education – those classes the kids sign up for every year – and leave the rest to the community, for the entire community. Homeschoolers, privately schooled kids, and publically schooled kids alike would join together on the same fields and auditoriums – just as they do in church and scouts and dance class and Wal-Mart. Can you just IMAGINE what that would do for the communities? Talk about having support to make something strong!
82. Rebecca G. Joyce | April 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    People have many pre-conceptions and prejudices about homeschoolers; in point of fact, homeschoolers are just as varied in their backgrounds, experience and reasons for homeschooling that are as diverse as the kids themselves. My own child has to be homeschooled for medical reasons; it’s no walk in the park. We’re hoping his health will improve so that he can participate in, and maybe go back to, regular school in a year or so. There are lots of kids like ours, kids who are different, kids who have particular issues that the school system cannot accomodate. Homeschoolers frequently move in and out of regular schooling, as their needs and situations change over time. Homeschool parents pay taxes–just like everyone else– to support the school system. As parents, they can and usually are part of “booster” clubs and the support systems for the team. The animosity toward the “homeschool superstar” is something of sour grapes and unfair to the child–superstar or not, he’s still just a kid, and did not show up just to make it harder for other kids. It’s entirely fair. School systems do not exist to support the sports teams; sports teams exist to teach young people responsibility, strategy, how to win and lose, and how to be good sports. A strong, fair community is welcoming to people who are culturally different (as some homeschoolers are) and will offer equal access to all young people, no matter their color, religion, ethnicity or schooling status. Homeschool parents and homeschool kids are people, tax-payers, and community assets and resources in their own right. Teams that turn up their nose are sending the message to their own children that some people are better than others. And some people are not as deserving of respect and dignity than others. And that is not the lesson that builds the kind of strong community values of democracy, decency, and fair play that is the strength of the American way of life.
83. Lake Claytor | April 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Once again, this issue has NOTHING to do with logistics or the children. The “Anti” Home school crowd (on here) simply wants to punish people that do not go along with the indoctrination.

    It is personal to them.

    Deciding to home-school is nothing less than an attack on public schools, teachers, the NEA, etc.

    —-

    I absolutely LOVE seeing all of these new names on here speaking so much common sense.
84. Stephanie | April 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    Wow! There is a lot of criticism/opposition for/against parents who homeschool on here. A lot of people are taking the possibility of this law passing very personal. The funny thing is we hardly ever get any of this in my local community. People in our community encourage us, from the public school teacher who agreed that there was not an appropriate teacher for my son for the next year to the coaches on our Parks & Rec teams who encourage my kids’ love of sports. Our local public high school sports director was hoping the law would pass so he could open sport teams up to all kids in the community! If he isn’t against it (as a public school rep in charge of high school sports) and sees a benefit to his public school- why can’t others see it?
85. Sandi Saunders | April 24, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Lake Claytor, I have nothing personal against anyone who home schools. I have said that repeatedly. I respect their choice to leave the school system for whatever reason they do so. I have not questioned that decision or them for making it. You are using a personal, though mutual, dislike to label my position on the matter. I have no children in any school. I am not affected either way with what happens. I do not like it when people who are not even in a school system ask for special treatment from that school system. I would appreciate it if they then respected the fact that they HAVE left the school system and should not ask for a pick and choose menu of what they would like to partake of, most especially if that means changing the rules, regulations and upsetting the entire system as this law would.
86. Amy Wilson | April 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    While it might upset some individuals, I think there is ample evidence from many other states that including qualified homeschooled students would not “upset the entire system.” In fact, this year’s bill included an amendment that added a “sunset provision” that would have made the change temporary, expiring in 2017. It would have had to go back before the legislature for review at that point, so that if the change did indeed have unintended negative consequences, those could be addressed, or the entire idea could be abandoned.
87. Lake Claytor | April 24, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Sandi, if someone wasn’t PAYING for any of it, I’d agree that it would be considered “special treatment”, but these folks ARE paying into the system.

    How would this “upset the ENTIRE system”?
88. PeterJ | April 24, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Sandi,

    It’s not about leaving the school system. That implies that everyone is required to attend public school and that a parent has to opt their children out of attendance. Virginia state law does not require that all school aged children have a public school education it only requires that all school aged children be educated by one of 4 different methods, one of which is through the public school system and one of which is homeschooling.
89. PeterJ | April 24, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    The goal of Virginia’s public school system is to, “educate students in the fundamental knowledge and academic subjects that they need to become capable, responsible, and self-reliant citizens. Therefore, the mission of the Virginia Board of Education and the superintendent of public instruction, in cooperation with local school boards, is to increase student learning and academic achievement.” Because of this goal many local school boards have instituted programs whereby students not attending a public school on a full time basis can take specific classes and participate in activities that are not available to them otherwise, i.e. chemistry, music, biology. If athletics are considered to be part of this fundamental knowledge requirement then the individual school boards should have the option of allowing access to sports programs.
90. Bruce Harper | April 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Counterpointless.

    Sandi, you and I need to go to lunch, then shop for some asbestos suits. This homeschool crowd is tough and clueless. I’m certainly not “anti”-homeschool nor critical of those who have made that choice and I’m not reading that in anything you have written. What I have said and have read from you is that there is a problem with being selective in picking and choosing some things from the schools, such as sports, while leaving the rest behind. It should be an all-or-none proposition, except for mandated services such as for meeting special education needs.

    I have to ask, Heather, just what Utopian community are you living in? You claim “those [sports, I suppose] should be turned over to parks & rec., . . . The money is there, the equipment is there, the fields are there, the instruments are there, the coaches and directors are there.” Around here, there are three different parks & rec departments and they aren’t exactly swimming in money. The fields either are under the control of the school system (maintenance is a cost and an issue) or the towns or the county (and are few and far between). Coaches are either employees of the school system and are paid thusly, or the town or county rec department and may or not be paid, or are volunteers under the various league programs for soccer, lacrosse, softball et al. Equipment is either held by the schools, the rec departments, or the volunteer organizations. Sure, it would be nice to just have the schools divorce themselves of all the sports programs, but that realistically won’t happen — and even if it did, the convoluted mess that would be involved, both financially and with who would be responsible for what would tie up resolution of the thing for years. What we have is what it is and while it may be bent a little it ain’t broke so it doesn’t need fixed.

    As to the VHSL, it isn’t broken either. I did a quick check of the system in Pennsylvania just a quick for-instance and the PIAA, Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, Inc. (http://www.piaa.org/) works just about the same way. It is made up of member schools (high schools and middle schools/jr. highs) and representatives from other education organizations in the state — school board, athletic director, sports officials, and other associations. There are no members or representatives from home school organizations involved. I would imagine that a check of many other states would find a similar organization having oversight of high school sports programs, more for expediency and efficiency, not out of a conspiracy to exclude certain groups.
91. Trevor | April 24, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Tim Tebow anyone? He was home schooled. Went on to be a superstar at the University of Florida, a public institution I might add, Heisman trophy winner, and a NFL player. Hmm.

    How is it any different from a kid who graduated early from high school so he could go to Virginia Tech and compete for a spot on the roster? For anyone who’s not familiar, J.C. Coleman is that player. How’s that fair to the other seniors that have to stay till May or June to graduate? Why should Coleman gets the special treatment just because he’s going to Virginia Tech?
92. Amy Wilson | April 24, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Bruce Harper, to go back to the example of Oregon, where school districts are required by statute to allow homeschooled students to participate in extracurricular activities, including athletics, both private schools and cooperative charter schools that include homeschoolers are associate members of the Orgeon State Activities Association. So there are states that include other stakeholders (besides public schools) in their associations.

    OSAA’s pamphlet on homeschooled student eligibility is also a great model for Virginia to consider. Homeschooling requirements are quite similar in the two states, and OSAA offers a set of rules and academic eligibility requirements that could be effectively adapted to Virginia. See

    http://www.osaa.org/publications/pamphlets/Home%20School%20Eligibility.pdf
93. Heather Parkinson | April 24, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Bruce – “The fields either are under the control of the school system (maintenance is a cost and an issue) or the towns or the county (and are few and far between). Coaches are either employees of the school system and are paid thusly, or the town or county rec department and may or not be paid, or are volunteers under the various league programs for soccer, lacrosse, softball et al. Equipment is either held by the schools, the rec departments, or the volunteer organizations.” PRECISELY. This won’t happen likely in my lifetime, but perhaps in my children’s. Turn this over to parks & rec control. It’s really that simple. The schools no longer pay for maintenance, parks & rec. does. The taxpayer money that is going into it now is diverted to parks & rec. Any fees paid by players – or raised by players – goes to parks & rec. The coaches become paid by parks & rec., not the school system. The equipment and uniforms are turned over. The schools could even charge for the use of permanent structures – which supports the local school system financially. It’s really not that difficult; it’s certainly not utopian. The fees and grants currently being paid/given to VHSL can go straight into the pockets of the local parks & rec. departments.

    But, all that is not (currently) the point. The point now is this current legislation – until someone drafts something new.

    The point now is whether or not homeschoolers should be allowed to try out for high school level competitive team sports, which are currently under the control of a private state-wide entity. The point will always be what is best for the children, the community, and the world’s future – as we (the community) are supposed to be working towards making the world a better place, and the focus of that should be on the children.

    Show me one state who has tried this and it has failed, and I will reevaluate. Show me one study that shows that this would harm any child, and I will reevaluate. Please, show me one shred of evidence that this is not the way forward. We wouldn’t even have a public school system with this much resistance to change, this much fear of the unknown, this much traditionalism and refusal to do something different.
94. Sandi Saunders | April 24, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Thank you Bruce Harper. I need an asbestos suit (and lunch) most days!

    I am well known for my controversial ideas. I hate it when someone who does not even subscribe to the Roanoke Times, insults the paper, reporters or the editorial board. I hate it when people outside of the school system and with no apparent knowledge, denigrate and blame the school system. I spent over 10 years as a school volunteer, PTA leader, substitute and teacher’s aide and I can tell you that there are parents God Himself could not please. Whatever ails a school cannot be fixed by parents in the community withdrawing and it also cannot be fixed by catering to the wants of parents and children who have withdrawn.

    I appreciate that these parents are pro-active and passionate, I simply disagree with them on what they really want, that it is reasonable and why it would benefit anyone except them.
95. Amy Wilson | April 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Oops — that should have been “Oregon SCHOOL Activities Association” (not State).
96. Jeanne Faulconer | April 24, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Bruce, I don’t think it’s a conspiracy to exclude certain groups; I just think it’s understandable that this situation could “grow up” quite naturally in an organization that does administer high school sports if it’s only made up of high school principals and coaches and such. If I thought it were a conspiracy, Bruce, I wouldn’t feel nearly as optimistic as I do that VHSL will be able to find ways to open the tryout process for homeschoolers.

    I do think Pennsylvania, by the way, allows homeschoolers access to high school sports – yet another reason for optimism!

    Sometimes, if an org does have a history of exclusion, either with intent or simply because of an accident of re-enforcing its own culture, including members of the excluded groups is a great way to create synergy. So if you have a group that’s not been served by an organization that is administrating for a public institution, purposely bringing that group to the table would seem to be a positive strategy. But allow me to be the first to admit that I’m no expert on VHSL. I’ve just been trying to figure out how this came to be battled out in the Legislature rather than being worked out by the relevant parties.
97. Jordan B | April 24, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    First of all I’ll repeat my final point. Varsity sports teams represent their public high school. If you want to be be part of a team that represents an institution you have to be part of that institution. That’s true from church league softball to the Olympic games. Varsity sports teams do not represent their attendance zones communities.. Their success or failure does not reflect on the neighborhood private school kid or childless elderly. It’s perfectly fine to use an institutions resources. It has been mentioned that homeschoolers have access to a school’s lab materials, libraries, and the sort. In the same capacity they should be permitted to use the sports teams as a way to stay fit, practice their skills, and make friends. But being chosen to represent the school in competition has no academic equivalent. I suppose it would be similar to nominating a home schooler for the student government. I think nobody here would agree that is acceptable.
    In response to some other comments I would like to point out that homeschool parents do not corner the market on complaining. Imagine the parent who goes to her sons soccer match only to see him ride the bench as homeschool all star leads the team. You think that wouldn’t raise some questions. And what about the opposing teams who can’t represent their schools in the regional playoffs because tebow homeschooler who shows up for a few hours after the bell lives in the district. They can come to practice where trust me there is plenty of competition. But Come on guys. You can’t seriously think allowing homeschoolers to be on a varsity team is right,
98. Amy Wilson | April 24, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    “there is a problem with being selective in picking and choosing some things from the schools, such as sports, while leaving the rest behind. It should be an all-or-none proposition, except for mandated services such as for meeting special education needs.”

    Why?

    Virginia just passed legislation REQUIRING high school students to take at least one virtual course during their high school years.

    High school students are permitted by law to dual-enroll in community college — some of these students don’t even set foot in public schools.

    Public high schools in Virginia offer numerous specialty education centers where students can focus on vocational skills and other programs for part of the school day, and attend academic classes at their base school for the rest of the day. (For example, http://bedfordbstc.sharpschool.net/)

    Some school divisions are contemplating offering an all-virtual public high school program. (Such a program is available to younger students via the Virginia Virtual Academy).

    Homeschooled students attend public school classes on a part-time basis in many school divisions.

    These examples all show that all-or-nothing is not the way things are, and it’s definitely not the way things are headed in our public education system.

    What makes all-or-nothing a good argument?
99. Heather Parkinson | April 24, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Bruce – Interesting you chose PIAA. Here are their eligibility requirements to play in middle and high school interscholastic sports:
    ATTENDANCE:
    You must be enrolled in and in full-time attendance at a PIAA member school or a Charter or Cyber-Charter School, or be home-schooled.

    http://www.piaa.org/schools/eligibility/default.aspx
100. Bill H (MHLA) | April 24, 2012 at 9:33 pm

     Bruce – Here in Massachusetts, some 15 years ago (back in the last century:) our statewide hsing organization (MHLA) was instrumental in getting our MIAA to allow “self-determination” permitting individual school districts to decide sports participation for homeschoolers. Just as districts determine participation in classes, band, chorus or any other activities.

     To date, I am not aware of any problems. It quickly became a “non-issue”.

     The bottom line: most homeschoolers will be going “pro” in something other than sports.
101. Sandi Saunders | April 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm

     If I may ask, since Virginia has something like 32,000 home schooled kids, this is more than a “handful” of kids and why do all of you not participate and expend your passion supporting this organization for your children?

     http://www.hspn.net/defaultz.asp

     “Chris Davis, executive director of the Homeschool Sports Network in Virginia, said involvement in public school athletic competitions was unnecessary, given that the state has more than 30 home-school sports organizations. The proposed law would undermine these organizations, Mr. Davis said, and would clash with the intent of home-schooling.

     “We asked 20 years ago to leave us alone, we want to educate our own way, we don’t want public schools involved,” Mr. Davis said. “To go back and say, ‘Let us in,’ is inconsistent. And once the government grants something, they’re going to want something back.”
     http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/sports/virginia-home-schoolers-make-a-play-to-join-high-school-teams.html?pagewanted=all

     Another excellent article with some very valid points:
     http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/304383
102. Bruce Harper | April 25, 2012 at 7:32 am

     It is interesting how this has gone. The RT may have to declare this round a bust and try for version 3.0. So far the discussion hasn’t really panned out the way it should have. It’s been a crowd of advocates piling on, talking about how to bend the rules to their advantage and avoiding answering the questions that have been posed.

     I’m old school and I was (and still am) an advocate for my sons, but when the rules said you couldn’t do something, that was the way it was. Now we have the “Me First!” generation that can’t tell their children “No” (a perfectly good word that isn’t used enough). They have to find a way around the rules, a way to bend or break them, a way to fix things so their child can have his own way, so he can do what he wants to do. They justify it nine ways to Sunday, telling us how good it will be for their child, for the team (in this case) and the school, and the “community.” They dodge the questions about the effect on those who will be left out, dropped off the roster to make room for their son, and how things will have to be changed just to accommodate this one special case.

     So again, some questions, based on my experience and Jordan’s posts. When your son makes the team, what about the all-day every-day student who is bumped from the roster, who had been working for that spot on varsity only to be replaced by a home-schooled student who only shows up for practices and games? How is he going to feel? What about his parents? When your son is going up for a basket or going down the field to shoot a goal, is he representing himself, the team, or the school? When he has enough credits to “graduate” will he identify himself with that school that he played a sport for or will he tell his friends at college that he was homeschooled?

     What about tryouts? Who handles them so they are run in an open and unbiased manner so there is no question that everyone is getting a fair opportunity and evaluation? As I wrote before, a coach could favor the player from the school who put in the time and practices on the JV team over the homeschooled student who just showed up and wanted a spot on the team. Or the coach could select the slightly better homeschooled player and leave the long-time participant on the outs, opening himself up to attacks from parents from the school. The coach needs to step out of the process just to protect himself from any bias so he can manage the team he is handed — parents are bad enough as it is these days, no matter where some of the players come from.

     It has been mentioned that “other states have done this with no problems.” Fine, but Virginia isn’t other states. I thought the reason for having this point/counterpoint was to have a back-and-forth airing of both sides of this issue. So far, its been a strong defense of homeschooling (not needed, that isn’t what is up for debate) and a lot of “my child is strong, good looking, and above average and should get to do whatever he wants, including be the star player on the high school team and those mean people at the VHSL won’t let him.” Left out is the negative impact on the school, the team, the other players (including those who get left out), and those who have to make the decisions about who gets to play and who doesn’t. If other states have done it, fine, but it couldn’t have been all sweetness and light at the beginning, there must have been problems and I’ll bet there are still issues and hard feelings here and there.

     It will be interesting to see how this continues to transpire. I’m sure the RT folks are waiting, too.
103. Amy Wilson | April 25, 2012 at 7:36 am

     HSPN has a specifically Christian worldview, which permeates their athletic programs and which is a part of the organization’s mission. That isn’t a good fit for all homeschooling families, who, just like Virginia’s population in general, have a broad variety of religious beliefs and practices. Secondly, their offerings are very limited. They offer a grand total of *three* tackle football teams in the entire state of Virginia.

     The 32,000 number represents all students being educated at home in Virginia. Of those, about 7,000 are educated under the religious exemption (meaning that attendance at school is in conflict with their religious beliefs). This year’s sports access bill included only families using the home instruction statute (the other 24,000+). Of those, only about 6,000 were in grades 9-12. The number of those who’d actually like to play competitive sports is likely similar to the number of public school students who play competitive sports — about half. Take those 3,000 kids and spread them over Virginia’s 43,000 square miles.

     That’s not a situation that lends itself to successful homeschool-only leagues, with statewide levels of competition.
104. Jeanne Faulconer | April 25, 2012 at 7:45 am

     Sandi, these are GREAT questions. I’m so glad you asked about this. First, the homeschool sports group you mention has NO team of any kind of sport within several HOURS of where our kid ran out of soccer opportunities. In that area, I was aware of only ONE other serious homeschooled athlete in the WHOLE county – and he played baseball. I believe the org you linked to has, for example, three football teams in the whole state. These teams are out of reach and not an option for most areas of Virginia. I think it is very hard for people not in homeschooling to understand the lack of critical mass.

     Having “more than 30″ homeschool sports organizations doesn’t help any of the kids who don’t live anywhere near any of them. That’s why those kids need their communities’ sports programs.

     Also, please note his philosophy that 20 years ago “we asked” to be left alone–that’s actually a point of view that many homeschoolers don’t share, and it is an idea that has not extended to all homeschoolers if it ever did.

     Homeschoolers are indeed quite resourceful in coming up with support systems and so forth that they need, and in a few areas, sports teams do have sufficient population for multiple sports. However, in many locales, resourceful though we are, even if kids’ our desire was to play on a homeschool team rather than the most competitive team available, we can’t make a team sport with one kid.

     That is sort of the point of all this.

     As for the 30,000 number – the vast majority of these are not high school age. The idea of a “handful” is because when you adjust for age and then spread these kids over all the schools in the state and then take out the ones who aren’t interested in sports and then take out the ones who aren’t good enough and won’t make the cut and then spread that few over the sports – it would only be a handful. Again, as far as I know, if my son tried out in our town where he ran out of soccer opportunties, he’d be the only such kid in all the grades 9 – 12 who was a homeschooled kid who’d be trying out – and he’d still have to make the cut; it’s not a given. Frankly, I’m aware of NO other kid, besides that one baseball player, in that school division, who MIGHT try out for any high school sport – and that’s for boys and girls. And yes, it’s actually such a small group in such a rural area, that I really do indeed probably know every single possible homeschooled athlete.

     So – I don’t know – I’d consider “one” spread over all the grades to be even less than a handful.

     We really truly have exhausted all the options, because believe me, fighting to be in public programs that have routinely excluded your “kind” is no picnic!
105. Amy Wilson | April 25, 2012 at 9:26 am

     Bruce Harper, I think the bulk of this debate has focused on the sports issue rather than on defending homeschooling. The fact that homeschooling parents have participated so actively is a measure of how important this issue is to them.

     Rules change all the time — either because they are flawed, or because the situation that they govern changes, necessitating a change in the rules. Passively accepting “the rules” without question is not a virtue.

     As for public school kids getting bumped from teams, this could potentially happen in some cases. We are talking about competitive athletics. If all of the kids have worked hard at their studies (wherever they may pursue them), and all of the kids have, through hard work and talent, developed athletic skills, then should not the best athletes make the team?

     There are already rules in place regarding tryouts and how they are run. There would be no need to change them. If there are disputes, the system currently in place for resolving them could be used. This is a non-issue.
106. Lake Claytor | April 25, 2012 at 9:29 am

     How many folks on this thread are employed by state run (public) schools…or HAVE been employed by state run schools?

     Who here makes their living off state-run education?

     If I worked for the horse and buggy company…I am sure as heck not going to be promoting the automobile.

     Some teachers are more than a little defensive when it comes to Home-Schooling, some take it PERSONALLY.
107. Carrie Cox | April 25, 2012 at 9:55 am

     I think homeschooled students should be allowed the right to try out for a spot on the public school team. Too often there simply are not other options for these children.
     There would be requirements they would have to meet, as has already been set forth, and the passing of the bill would allow them simply the chance to TRY OUT. Not a guaranteed position on the team.
     As others have noted, the number of potential athletes any given year for any given school on any given sport is QUITE minimal. How does an extra handful of children trying out for a spot hurt anyone?

     As homeschoolers we pay taxes that go to help our schools, and we don’t mind that – we’re happy to see our local schools do well and want to support them in their goals to do so. Our sons give our “box tops for education” to their friends/neighbors so that the school can benefit from them, with the knowledge that any little bit helps. When we are at the schools, were rec sports practice and play, we actually walk around picking up litter that is strewn on the ground, helping keep the school grounds clean for the benefit of all. We truly want to see the schools do well. We just happen to educate our children differently, which is the one point where we differ from the schools – EDUCATION.

     This topic though is about SPORTS. Sports and education are two different topics. That is why even those who attend public schools must meet requirements to play, because the two are not entwined.

     Should our sons want to continue playing sports past the time when rec leagues can no longer benefit them, I do not know what we will do. We live in Salem and there is not a homeschool-esque option or equivalant that is available for us.

     Again, Sports and Education are two SEPERATE issues. In education we chose the route that worked best for our family. We only seek to be able to do so when it comes to sports.
108. Jeanne Faulconer | April 25, 2012 at 9:55 am

     Ok, I have removed the offending symbols that I was using in an attempt to make my excerpting/commenting more clear – so this is the version I’d ask the moderator to allow to stand. (Again, my apologies).

     As to the link on the Roanoke Times story Sandi provided, I’m afraid that by letting some of the quotes stand as facts in the story, it promulgated exactly the kinds of misunderstandings that we see around this issue. Further, this is a statewide issue, and the story understandably focuses a lot on resources that are available in the Roanoke area which are impossible to replicate in some parts of the state.

     To fisk a bit, the story says:

     “But Roanoke County school officials and the executive director of the Virginia High School League staunchly oppose the legislation.

     ‘I would prefer that local school divisions could decide if they would like home-schoolers to participate in any of their sports or activities,’ Roanoke County schools Superintendent Lorraine Lange said.”

     JEANNE: What Superintendent Lange just asked for is what the bill would indeed have done — allowing school divisions to decide.

     “Hidden Valley High School Principal Rhonda Stegall said she is rounding up a group of students and other opponents to take to the Senate hearing later this month, if the House approves the bill.”

     “‘I don’t think we need Richmond telling us who can be quarterback on the football team,’ said William Byrd High School Principal Richard Turner, who also serves as chairman on district and regional high school league divisions.

     JEANNE: What Turner just said is something I definitely agree with too – that we don’t need Richmond telling us who can be quarterback on the football team. With long-time involvement in athletics, I’m quite comfortable with coaches holding all the cards on who plays where and who makes the team. Fortunately, the kind of policies we are looking for would NOT do that at all. To conflate giving school divisions the ability to decide if they will permit homeschoolers to try out as being the same thing as legislators selecting players in certain positions is a pretty hyped logical fallacy!

     (STILL JEANNE:) In fact, it would have been especially helpful if the reporter had clarified at this point in the story that the bill could not and would not do what Turner just posited, rather than letting the “Richmond-selecting-quarterback” notion stand in for factual info about the bill. Unfortunately, letting these kinds of statements stand as fact means that the public is then sort of tricked into thinking homeschoolers are asking for legislators to be allowed to name homeschoolers as quarterbacks, rather than homeschoolers hoping their school divisions will be given the chance to see if kids in their community can try out for the public teams.

     (STILL JEANNE) Instead, what we have right now is a private org telling all school divisions, parents, and families, that some kids will never have the opportunity to even try OUT to be a quarterback or any other position on the team. The bill proposed in our most recent session would do the OPPOSITE of this person’s fear – it would move decision making to localities rather than allowing a statewide entity – a private one at that – to micromanage who can try out at local levels.

     “VHSL chief Ken Tilley said he is against the proposed legislation because it would grant home-schooled students eligibility at public schools without requiring them to meet the same standards required of public school students, such as passing five courses per semester and maintaining minimum grade-point averages. . . .”

     JEANNE: Homeschoolers would meet the academic eligibility requirements already set for them by the state, and the legislation proactively sought this in homeschoolers’ efforts to be transparent and equitable. Homeschoolers would have to meet the academic requirement for two YEARS rather than for one previous semester – which school kids could meet with 5 Ds as far as I understand it. And I’m not sure, but it also appears to me that these don’t have to be academic classes or anything, that a wide variety of classes are taken and “passed” by the students enrolled fulltime. Can we ensure that each athlete in each school is taking the exact same level of academic work and expending the same minimum amount of effort? If we can’t, then if we apply the same argument used to exclude homeschoolers to its ultimate logical end, we must not allow these players with non-identical academic expectations to play in the same high school league with one another. Let’s get practical about this. Academic eligibility requirements are good. Homeschoolers have them too. Indeed, they can’t meet such requirements as “be enrolled in school” because they’re not enrolled in school. Let’s stop making this sound like failure to meet an academic requirement. It feels quite disingenuous.

     STILL JEANNE: The majority of other states in our country have found ways to have homeschoolers try out equitably; I really do believe that VHSL is capable of working this out with homeschoolers – the coaches and principals work with parents and kids every day – I think they can do it!

     (from further on in the story –)

     “The SVHSS Conquerors are members of the Virginia Association of Christian Athletes. The local organization offers soccer and basketball for boys and soccer and volleyball for girls. Doran said there have been efforts to form a baseball team over the years but never enough interest. . . .”

     JEANNE: Please note that this is a problem for homeschooled athletes – critical mass. You might have one or two kids in an area who grew up playing rec ball and got pretty good at it and had public teams to play on – but there are not enough “homeschool only” kids to form a team at the high school homeschool level. Also note that some of these teams have specific faith requirements or faith cultures that aren’t consistent with every family’s religious beliefs, so there are real barriers to participation. And finally, in many parts of the state, there are not enough homeschoolers to even get kids together for even one sport. The kids were apparently ok to get community support during their rec years and their middle school years with public or open-to-the public programs – but somehow, arbitrarily, that is cut off to them just as they become teens – not by their community, but by a state org that bars their community from continuing to include them.

     “There are three Conquerors boys basketball teams competing at the middle school, junior varsity and varsity levels this winter.”

     “Another Roanoke County man, Al Bedrosian, who founded an intramural recreation league for home-schoolers, said he pursues at-home education for his four youngest children strictly for a religious cause.”

     “‘We educate our children on a godly, biblical basis,’ Bedrosian said. ‘If we do that, why would we want to join in the athletics of government school?’”

     JEANNE: This is such a good point. Bedrosian has great reasons for homeschooling, but they cannot be presumed to be relevant for all homeschoolers. This is a reason why some homeschoolers who do live in more populated areas might want homeschool sports teams, and if they live where one can be formed, certainly that provides them with an alternative. But I think a misunderstanding has grown up over the years that this is the case for ALL homeschoolers, that we seek to be separate in the same way that this family does (and more power to him – it’s just not all homeschoolers.)

     “Bedrosian, a two-time House of Delegates candidate, said Thursday that he has no interest in home-school students playing sports on public school teams.

     “Bedrosian founded Roanoke Valley Homeschool Recreation, which offers recreation-level boys soccer, girls soccer, boys basketball and baseball. Competition remains within the organization. More than 300 youth participate in the fall and spring soccer program, he said. Boys basketball is under way, and there are five teams in each of three age divisions.”

     JEANNE: A great example of homeschool resourcefulness! Similar options are not viable in many areas of the Commonwealth because the population of homeschoolers is too scant, and in some areas, homeschool sports orgs include religious instruction or culture not consistent with all ahomeschoolers’ beliefs, since homeschoolers are widely varying in their political and religious outlooks.

     and so on. (end of quoted passages)

     I found that much of the news coverage of the sports access issue was problematic for reporters, not just in Virginia and not specifically the Roanoke Times, but in coverage around the country. If reporters use quotes to tell the story, which is usually good journalism, they risk allowing individuals’ interpretations of what the legislation would or would not do stand in for the actual language and action of the legislation. Unfortunately, either many folks interviewed for stories like this one did not understand the legislation or, and I hate to think this, but it’s possible they could have had a willful desire to misrepresent it in an exaggerated way or just been caught up in the passion so unintentionally create a hyperbolic image.

     Of course, the general public, reading that such legislation would allow “Richmond” to pick teams in high schools, is not going to think that this legislation is a good idea, and furthermore, will definitely have a sense of homeschoolers feeling entitled.

     It’s just so much more reasonable – and less dramatic – when the truth of the legislation is spoken, when what homeschoolers are asking for is made clear, and when it’s understood that in states in the country where this already exists (which is the majority of states) it is considered a “non-issue.”
109. Chuck | April 25, 2012 at 10:19 am

     Sandi, @101 you say “If I may ask, since Virginia has something like 32,000 home schooled kids, this is more than a “handful” of kids . . .

     yet according to the article you linked;

     “According to data on the Virginia Department of Education website, there were about 8,000 home-schooled students statewide in the ninth- to 12th-grade range during the 2010-11 academic year.”

     Wouldn’t that 8000 be a more accurate and germane figure since we are talking about high school sports? You and Bruce have done a fine job of calling the people who hfavor allowing home-schooled kids to play high school sports names, but as yet you have not answered the question about how having these kids “increases the burden” on the schools. Many schools don’t have enough players to have to “cut” people from the team. In fact, many rural schools have barely enough players to field a team. It seems to me that the benefits of this outweigh the costs. The team has more kids to choose from and the kids get an opportunity to interact. Or maybe it would be best just to label the home-schooled kids as outsiders due to their parents’ choices.

     Also, despite all the rhetoric, no one has yet said how having these kids play “increases the burden” on the schools academically. The parents are in fact paying tax dollars to support the school but not actually using the service. How does that not lessen the academic burden on the school? I could go with the “special consideration” argument if home-schooler parents were asking for something that didn’t already exist to be created to accomodate them, but they aren’t. They aren’t saying “you have to start a football program so my kid can play.” They are merely asking for their kids to be allowed to participate in existing programs. You are fond of demanding proof from other posters, so in this case, why don’t you show us the money. How is this costing the schools anything more than it would if that home-schooled kid were actually attending the school?

     The only issue of merit I have seen raised so far is that of academic standards of achievement required for participation. I think that is a genuine issue to address and that some manner of proving academic standing would need to be implemented. However, I do not think the best answer is to say we shouldn’t do it because it raises that issue. After all, isn’t it about what’s best for the kids? It’s not, or at least it shouldn’t be, about what’s most convenient for the school officials. And it certainly shouldn’t be about fostering some bitter, resentful attitude that seeks to punish the kids because their parents chose to take them out of public schools and now they should have to “learn to live with it.”

     Mostly though, I am still waiting for someone to explain how allowing these kids to play is asking for special treatment or would upset the entire system. Again, they aren’t asking to change the entire system, just to be allowed to participate in the one that already exists.
110. Jeanne Faulconer | April 25, 2012 at 11:17 am

     Bruce, in our family, we’re quite prepared for the fact that this might not get worked out in time for our son to benefit, and frankly, he has not committed that even if it were allowed, he would try out for a high school sports team. Furthermore, he might not make a team he tries out for. It’s all part of the process.

     We have frankly been as much a part of, or even more a part of, the athletic community and general community as well as the homeschool community, and we think this would be a positive development for all three. You may see me as a self-interested homeschooler “piling on,” but you might also want to see me as a youth soccer coach or an athletic association founding board member. I happen to hate for kids not to have a place to play. Which is why I helped build a soccer facility. Oh, and yes, I have coached teams that my son didn’t benefit from at all. (And to be clear, as far as team sports, I have strictly been a recreational, though certified, coach).

     I’m not sure what you mean when you wrote this: “As I wrote before, a coach could favor the player from the school who put in the time and practices on the JV team over the homeschooled student who just showed up and wanted a spot on the team. Or the coach could select the slightly better homeschooled player and leave the long-time participant on the outs, opening himself up to attacks from parents from the school.”

     Yes. The coach can select any player he or she wishes. That is the nature of trying out on a competitive team. Kids get cut. They can get cut for being too small, too slow, too underdeveloped in skill, too undisciplined, or having a bad haircut. If the coach thinks the haircut kid has gotta go, he’s gotta go. Nothing about the tryout process changes if homeschoolers are permitted. There are currently no controls in place for bias (what about students from other countries? What about students of varying races? etc.) Allowing homeschoolers to try out would not introduce anything new to the dynamic that coaches and schools have not already dealt with as professionals.

     In U.S. competitive sports culture, we presume that it’s in the best interest of coaches to win, and that they’ll pick the kids that will help them win. Are there coaches who have other, personal priorities besides winning? Possibly, probably, surely sometimes – human nature being what it is – but we’ve never been able to control for a coach who selects his best friend’s son or whatever, and having homeschoolers involved won’t increase or decrease that part of human nature. (In fact, the cynical among us might say that automatically excluding homeschoolers allows for narrowing the selection to those already favored…perhaps that is where the bias resides?)

     I have to go with my experience with coaches as most doing their best to be fair, and most selecting athletes that they think will produce wins. That said, even coaches may have strategies that are difficult to understand from the sidelines – such as perhaps selecting players to develop for specific positions for a “next year’s team,” understanding that they’ll have a player graduating from that position before next year. A certain player might be selected for leadership qualities or mental acuity that he brings that will improve a team’s performance, for example. These decisions, too, are respected within the athletic community, or if they’re not, that’s among folks who haven’t had experience with or a close eye on how teams are developed.

     The legislation that was proposed, and homeschoolers’ presence in general, would have no more or less tendency to create bias in a player selection process.

     The coach decides from among those who try out. The end.
111. Sandi Saunders | April 25, 2012 at 11:21 am

     Schools only have so many slots available on a team and the moment a home school kid is allowed to try out but is cut in favor of an enrolled student, this entire argument will change.

     I also do not believe that unless the wording was changed that the bill offered left the decision up to the school district.

     I think a lot of smoke and mirrors and wrongly offended emotions are being offered instead of the crux of the matter. Home school parents who chose, for whatever reason, to leave the school system now want the school system to modify, change or scrap any rule that excludes them from their a la carte menu selections from the system they chose to leave. I oppose this on every level and think that asking for the preferential treatment is asking too much and will turn into a battle every time a home school athlete is not “chosen”.

     Just look at what transpired here. People who have never come onto this site for any other discussion miraculously heard about the conversation and piled in and on the opinions expressed here with alacrity that will end up being the same treatment that our local schools and school districts will receive. It is how they have already gained the access they have so far.

     I do not understand how it can be argues that they are not asking to change the system when the system’s regulations and rules cannot even be applied to home schooled children in every category as they can an enrolled student. That does not make sense. Of course they are asking for the entire system to be modified to accommodate children not in the school system.

     If the VHSL is going to become just another Recreational League, you rob it of the most important part of the mission IMO. There is a reason that high schools have class reunions 10-20-even 50 years later. There is a reason schools display trophies and memorabilia. There is a bond and a special relationship that going to school together and representing your school on a team offers and there are rare and getting rarer still situations where choosing a home schooled athlete will not displace an enrolled student and I do not and will not support that, not for even one student. Jordan is correct, this is just wrong for any varsity sport but it is not right for the junior sports either. Whatever “hand full” of kids is on a team will displace a “hand full” of enrolled students, no way on earth it does not.
112. Sandi Saunders | April 25, 2012 at 11:24 am

     Chuck, I sited the 32,000 number (which is not inaccurate) because this is not an insignificant number and even whittled down to the “eligible” athletes, do you truly expect that no growth will occur? Especially once they get this free pass for cafeteria educational opportunities? Really? Did the article not mention the exponential growth already experienced to get to that 32K?
113. Jen | April 25, 2012 at 12:03 pm

     Am I correct that the passage of this bill would only allow the each individual system to decide for itself, whether it wants to allow home schooled high school students to try out for sports? The bill would actually not allow them, just let the locality decide? It certainly seems to me that if a certain locality felt that strongly against allowing this, it would still be able to not allow it. And, if another locality, perhaps a smaller rural area that could really use the extra athletes, they could allow it? Seems no problem to me. I know the county I am in has a specific rule that officially does not allow a home schooled student to participate in any public school activities. While I don’t particularly like this rule, it could still stand and it would cover athletics. Then it would become my job to work at a local level and get that changed. (If I felt that need). Also, to the young man so upset about a home schooled student “taking” his spot… this is not a rec league, the better athlete at the try outs would get the spot. Seems this would come under the suggestion that kids need to be told “no” more. “No, son, you did not make the team because you were not good enough”. Not what a kids wants to hear, but totally fair.
114. Amy Wilson | April 25, 2012 at 12:14 pm

     When a local paper selects a controversial issue with a nation-wide media profile that affects a specific population, it’s a safe bet that members of that population will take an interest. That’s not “piling on” — it’s exactly what any newspaper would welcome. In fact, I was told when my opinion was solicited that the paper expected this to be one of the better-read topics, of interest to many readers.

     The RT has been very successful in bringing readers to its site with this topic. Just look at the number of comments this topic has generated for the launch of the new format of the Point/Counterpoint feature — in looking back, it seems to outstrip any other recent topic.
115. Jeanne Faulconer | April 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm

     “I also do not believe that unless the wording was changed that the bill offered left the decision up to the school district.”

     Oh my. You haven’t read the bill?

     You should go read it, because it quite clearly left the decision up to each school division.

     Quite. Clearly.
116. Akemi Orlando | April 25, 2012 at 12:51 pm

     e william, your comment about not being able to drive a fire truck intrigued me. You wrote:

     15.Chuck, my tax dollars help to pay for military bases. Can I show up at one and demand to use their weapons and firing ranges? No, I must be a member of the military to do so. My tax dollars help pay for fire trucks; do I get to drive one? No. I have to be a fire fighter to do so.

     There are plenty of tax payers who do not and should not have access to all the amenities and infrastructures that their tax dollars pay for. It is that simple.

     What I’m trying to better understand is how homeschooling nullifies all support my kids would get from a public school. I just thought of an example. What if I decide to form a volunteer fire department and as a result do get to drive my own fire truck; does that mean that I don’t get to enjoy the support from the paid fire department in my city in the event that my house goes up in flames? Or what if I owned my own guns and went to the range to use them with the intention of learning how to protect myself. Does that mean that I also would not enjoy the protection of soldiers on a military base?

     Why couldn’t homeschoolers assume some level of support from the public school system just because we don’t depend 100% on it?

     Why do you want to shut the school house door on homeschoolers and not allow them any access to what public schools have to offer? I don’t understand this stance, I’m not sure I see the motivation and/or the benefit derived from it.
117. Jeanne Faulconer | April 25, 2012 at 12:51 pm

     Full text of the bill: A. No public school shall become a member of any organization or entity whose purpose is to regulate or govern interscholastic programs that does not deem eligible for participation a student who (i) is receiving home instruction pursuant to § 22.1-254.1, (ii) has demonstrated evidence of progress for two years in compliance with subsection C of § 22.1-254.1, (iii) is entitled to free tuition in a public school pursuant to § 22.1-3, (iv) has not reached the age of 19 by August 1 of the current school year, (v) is an amateur who receives no compensation, but participates solely for the educational, physical, mental, and social benefits of the activity, (vi) complies with all disciplinary rules applicable to all public high school athletes, and (vii) complies with all other rules governing awards, all-star games, parental consents, and physical examinations applicable to all high school athletes. Eligibility shall be limited to participation in interscholastic programs at the school serving the attendance zone in which such student lives.

     B. Reasonable fees may be charged to such students to cover the costs of participation in such interscholastic programs.
     #
     If school divisions can’t be members of an org that blocks homeschoolers statewide, they can make those decisions at a local level. (My opinion? It would be better for such an org to help figure out how to include those who would like to become more involved in their schools rather than just prohibiting membership in that org, but that route was tried unsuccessfully for many years before this strategy made greater inroads, as I understand it. I’m not a legislative expert so I don’t understand all the fine tunings).

     Hope this helps! (and actually I think I did copy the bill before it had the sunset provision put in – running out the door, but I think this is the part relevant to our conversation – I think!) Maybe someone else can give the bill in its final form if I missed it.
118. Bruce Harper | April 25, 2012 at 12:54 pm

     Once more, from the top. Jeanne, you keep talking about this “private org telling all school divisions, parents, and families, that some kids will never have the opportunity to even try OUT.” Technically, the VHSL is a private organization, but it is made up and governed by its membership, which consists of the public high schools in Virginia as represented by the principals of those schools. It isn’t like some unknown group of people meets in a dark corner of the state and issues these rules, it is the schools themselves who discuss, review, and pass the regulations that they operate under.

     As to the tryouts, as I have said and as Sandi points out, “the moment a home school kid is allowed to try out but is cut in favor of an enrolled student, this entire argument will change.” I know tryouts and the resulting roster-posting can get ugly and adding in extra participants, especially homeschooled students after a long fight to get access, will pretty much ensure that there will be parents working to make sure their son or daughter gets a place on a team, even if an enrolled student has to be cut at any cost. I suspect that legal action will be among the threats bandied about in the discussion with the coach, athletic director, principal, superintendent, and school board members. Throw in the parents of the senior, who played on the JV team for two years, made the varsity team after working hard on JV and diligent practice, then is cut or as Jordan says, spends a lot of time riding the bench while a homeschool player sees more time on the field — how happy will those parents be on senior night? Here’s a kid who attended school every day, supported the team and his teammates, and ended up on the outs just some someone else could get special treatment and be able to play the game. Yeah, that’s fair.

     Chuck, yeah, maybe it would work for some teams in some rural counties, but then you have a mish-mash of rules to think about. Do you make it locality specific? Does the student have to live right there where he is going to play? Or could it be like traveling soccer, where you can play wherever you are willing to drive to? Then how do schools playing that school handle it? Is it fair that they might be going up against a “ringer” (a la Tim Tebow) because they didn’t have the opportunity to land a stellar player? Maybe there are good answers, but so far no one has really offered them here. As to academics, that isn’t the issue in the sports program because it’s apples/oranges. The homeschool parents just want to put their children into the high school sports programs, even though they don’t do anything else (or only a select one or two things) with the public schools. They just want the benefit of the program but so far haven’t explained the down side — as I explained above, the extra process for blind tryouts, the problems when the enrolled students get bumped off the roster, and just where the support and loyalty is — to the individual, the team, or really and truly to the school.
119. Sharon | April 25, 2012 at 1:15 pm

     If this bill were to pass and my county consent to homeschool athletic participation (definitely not a given), my son would almost certainly make the high school varsity soccer team as the roster is not full this year, nor has it ever been full. I’d italicize or bold that last part if I could.
     I read again the “what if” scenario where the homeschool student bumps the traditional student off the team or onto the bench. If a serious homeschool student-athlete enrolls in public school and takes a spot on a team from another student, is that student and his parents going to be any less upset because he lost his spot to a classmate rather than a homeschool student?
120. Brandy Bergenstock | April 25, 2012 at 1:45 pm

     I find very little that is true about Mr. Henderson’s argument.
     “…the public-schooler could be suspended from school and team activities, losing valuable classroom hours and practice time. Meanwhile, the home-schooler could be sent home where he could continue to do his school work and practice his sport in the back yard.”
     I guess he was never in an altercation at school and has never been or had his children suspended, because when I got suspended from school (about 9 times over the years) I was always sent home with the work I would be missing and the double punishment for me was my mother would administer the work in the evenings – usually with ruler in hand as she had been taught by her nun teachers. So no- this is not true by any stretch of the imagination. And if you think that homeschooler isn’t in trouble for fighting, you are sorrowfully mistaken! What would happen at that moment is both students would be homeschooled by angry parents.
     “…you build camaraderie with your teammates not only at practice but at school. ”
     The thinly created idea of comrades as keeping homeschoolers from playing sports is by far his weakest after his misconception of what happens to public schooled during suspension. Who do I want beside me? I want the player who is there for each and every practice, who is worth his/her salt on the field and builds the team up instead of playing just for himself- that’s who I want on my sports team!
     “Who would you want beside you when the going gets tough on a Friday night, *someone who has been with you all day in school* or someone who just comes to practice for two hours?”
     And this is a joke! Every single student knows you have exactly the amount of time to walk QUICKLY to your next class. You’re lucky if the 3-4 minutes they give you transfer to classes is even enough time to get there without being late each day. They intentionally give students no time in between classes to socialize as this leads to fighting and behavioral issues that admins must deal with. And just because you are on a team does not mean you take the same classes, have the same lunch period, or quite frankly, have anything in common besides your sports team. So the idea that people who aren’t in your school shouldn’t be on your team is another misguided, thinly veiled “argument” of discrimination against homeschoolers. Next point….
     “If this bill ever passes, home-school parents could shop their student athlete around to the best football school regardless of where they live — just as the Tebow family did.”
     1.)When this argument was examined by Oregon, it found no credible threat of abuse in the entire state to warrant further investigation in future budgets. So while fear mongering is attractive for building up your base of the misinformed, it holds little water under the light of facts.
     2.)There have been entire families who moved across STATE lines to put their budding athlete into a better program. My husband’s aunt moved from Va to Florida- public schooled- so their son could attend a highly ranked hs football team. So cities should now investigate why public schoolers move from one area to another? We should monitor all activities of all families? Is that what you want?
     3.) I’m sorry that you feel compelled to write about a bill you have not read, because you would have seen that there are several provisions that keep people from sports team shopping. They were specifically built into the law to prevent this kind of potential abuse, which I have already stated is an overblown argument and one that is not supported by fact. But WHY does this coming up? On one hand, it could have been missed. Maybe, but it seems if this is so important you would have looked for it a little while in the law. On the other, and more nefariously, it is an intentional lie to try to sabotage a lawful rule by misleading Senators & our fellow citizens.
     “I will leave you with this quote from William Bosher, former Virginia state school superintendent: “As for priorities, home-school families should be fighting for the access to algebra and chemistry, not football and soccer. I feel the General Assembly should take a knee on this issue.”
     I know you own a computer, and while your argument is highly flawed, I’m sure you could have googled this before making it your ending line, because if you had put two minutes constructing your anti-homeschooling discrimination theories, you would have found out we did this! DONE. Schools across Va allow without- I submit- massive failure to the entire system for accommodating homeschoolers in this way. Cross it off the to-do list for homeschoolers. Next on our to-do list: sports access.
121. Heather Parkinson | April 25, 2012 at 2:29 pm

     Might I make a suggestion? For all the “what ifs,” ask those states who have already implemented this just what DID. They are all successful programs. There have been no law suits, no unfair cuts, no hurt feelings. It has worked. For, in some states, more than a decade. Those states haven’t overturned this. Those states haven’t had parents crying foul – from either “side” of the fence. Let’s turn to the them to answer these questions rather than fantasize, hypothesize, and demonize. The answers to your questions and concerns are out there, over more than half the country.
122. Amy Wilson | April 25, 2012 at 5:44 pm

     Here’s my take on the “local option” question:

     The bill would have prohibited public school divisions from being members of VHSL, unless VHSL changed its eligibility rules (in specific ways, spelled out in the bill) to include homeschooled students. It was written this way because, as a private (that is, not public — not government-controlled) organization, VHSL is not subject to the General Assembly directing its internal policies and rules. But school divisions are public entities, subject to a certain level of direction from the General Assembly. So the bill was reworded from previous versions to bring it in line with these facts.

     The chances that the bill’s passage would have resulted in the disbanding of VHSL were pretty much nil. The organization has been in existence for a century now, and ably serves public school divisions in the administration of their interscholastic sports programs. Passage of the bill would have resulted in the necessity for VHSL to change eligibility rules.

     Here’s where the local option could come in (as I cited above, with a rule copied and pasted directly from the VHSL handbook): localities have the option to impose additional eligibility requirements on student-athletes, as long as those requirements are not in conflict with VHSL rules. For example, some school divisions require a more stringent academic standard than the “Take 5 Pass 5″ minimum that VHSL requires. So, even though VHSL rules say that a student with 5 D’s is eligible, some school divisions say that such students are NOT eligible — they would have to have a 2.0 GPA instead.

     In light of this, local school divisions could still have opted, even in the face of the bill passing and the overall eligibility rules expanding to include homeschooled students under certain circumstances, to impose additional eligibility requirements on homeschooled students, or to prohibit their participation altogether.

     But the bill most clearly did NOT mandate that school divisions allow homeschooled students to try out. It only mandated that they could not continue to be members of VHSL (or any entity like it) unless its eligibility rules incorporated homeschoolers in specific ways.
123. Amy Wilson | April 25, 2012 at 5:54 pm

     To requote the rule I mentioned above, which is relevant to the “local option” question:

     VHSL’s Handbook states, “27-1-10 Local Rules-The principal shall be authorized to make and enforce any local rule supplementary to League rules and regulations, but not inconsistent with them. The authority of a principal to impose and enforce such local rules is absolute and will not be subject to League review. The League will not question the right of any principal to exclude any student in his/her school from participation in any League activity at any time.”
124. Jordan B | April 25, 2012 at 6:09 pm

     Here are my rebuttals to some of the most frequent points brought up by the opposition.
     1. There are so few home schoolers it will not be a burden – if something is fundamentally wrong the reach of its effects should not matter. The point of this blog is to argue whether a homeschooler being allowed to play on a high schools team is right or wrong. In my mind the low budget costs and low noticiability of adding a few homeschoolers should not be an argument.
     2. High School Sports are a public service so should be available to the entire community – There is a difference between using an institutions rescources and representing that institution. To do the later it only makes sense that you belong to the institution. Homeschoolers should be allowed to come to the high school to practice, lift weights, and even play junior varsity just as they have access to “chemistry and algebra”. There is no academic equivalent to representation. But if a school were to send a delegation of its best chemistry students to some statewide event I think we can all agree a homeschooler who uses the schools rescources should not be a part of it.
     3. Homeschoolers meet the same requirements or greater ones as public school kids – I personally do not believe meeting requirements is much of an argument. All of my homeschool friends are extremely bright. The problem is this. What if a kid starts getting homeschooled because he or she is failing in the school setting. Now after two year of homeschool he or she is meeting the academic requirements to play sports. The question is whether or not the chld would be able to replicate her success in the same public school setting she previously failed in. If Not he or she is being judged by a double standard.
     4. The point of this blog is to defend legislation that allows individual school districts to decide – perhaps. But I believe it is more in the spirit of the two editorials to argue whether homeschoolers deserve the a chance to play a varsity sport at a local high school not who the decision is up to.
     5. Homeschoolers normally help make a team rather than lead to a full time student being cut – Maybe this is just my bubble but I have never seen a team that is exactly one player short (the average number of homeschoolers per sports team). I suspect in almost every case the addition of a homeschooler either continues to leave e team shorthanded or more likely leads to a student who attends the school getting cut or having less playing time.

     Let me know your thoughts so I can better understand the argument for allowing homeschoolers represent high schools in athletics.
125. Sandi Saunders | April 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm

     Yes Jeanne, I read the bill and it states unequivocally: “No public school shall become a member of any organization or entity whose purpose is to regulate or govern interscholastic programs that does not deem eligible for participation“…home schooled children. Where exactly is the choice for the school district? The schools cannot afford to, nor do they want in most cases, to leave the VHSL, you want the General Assembly through the schools to be the force that changes the VHSL system because you cannot do it any other way. The wording of that bill is even worse than simply allowing the school districts to decide IMO. This is the pretense of a choice that is no choice at all.

     I think it is ludicrous for a child not enrolled in a school to attempt to represent that school in ANY competition. Not academic and not athletic. That is a perk, an honor, and sometimes a prestigious one, for students of the school.
126. Sandi Saunders | April 25, 2012 at 6:47 pm

     Jordan, I think you have the subject well in hand and you understand it from a perspective that deserves respect IMO. Have you asked your friends how they feel about students their age, even their capability or better, representing a school they do not attend?
127. Amy Wilson | April 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm

     “Where exactly is the choice for the school district?”

     Sandi, did you read my posts?
128. Sandi Saunders | April 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm

     I am seriously going to have to ask that you all stop with the tactic of “did you read…”. The bill offers no choice. No choice at all.
129. Amy Wilson | April 25, 2012 at 8:14 pm

     Jordan, here are my own views on your most recent post:

     1. “if something is fundamentally wrong the reach of its effects should not matter.” I agree. Given this argument, if it *is* fundamentally wrong to exclude homeschooled students, then it “should not matter” if, by including homeschooled students in the eligibility requirements, the competitive bar is raised for all athletes at tryouts. (See #5)

     I think the best reason for including homeschooled students is that they are members of the broader school community, who have unserved needs that can be met by public programs offered in community schools. The reason so many posters have raised the “minimal impact” argument, I think, is that there is such a strong reaction against the idea of including homeschoolers and arguing that harm will ensue, that it is a point that needs to be made.

     2. The schools represent the community. The local community funds the schools, volunteers in the schools, attends school functions, and has the biggest stake in the schools’ success or failure. Homeschooled kids are part of the community — they should also have an opportunity to represent it.

     3. VHSL has focused heavily on the academic eligibility issue. I agree with you that homeschooled students can easily demonstrate that they are academically eligible.

     If a student is not doing well in public school, and then finds a way to meet his or her academic needs more fully and successfully via home education, why should he or she not be able to try out, once any relevant waiting period has passed? If that student were to transfer from, say, a regular public school classroom to one (within the public schools) that could more fully serve his or her special educational or other needs, and thereby bring his or her grades up, shouldn’t that student regain eligibility, in whatever way the rules outline?

     Besides, the proposed two-year waiting period alone would preclude most kids who leave public school and begin homeschooling during the high school years from ever regaining VHSL eligibility before graduation.

     4. I think it makes sense to discuss the general subject as well as this year’s legislation. The legislation, the media attention it received, and the public reaction to the media coverage, is the reason the paper selected this topic in the first place.

     5. I think you’re right that the practical matter is that there will be situations in which the inclusion of homeschooled students at tryouts could raise the competitive bar to the point that one or more students who might otherwise make the team will not. I don’t think that’s a valid reason to exclude homeschoolers. I think it’s a reason for all of the kids who try out to work as hard as they can to earn a spot on the team — as they do now. That’s what competitive athletics are about.
130. Chuck | April 25, 2012 at 9:06 pm

     ” Really? Did the article not mention the exponential growth already experienced to get to that 32K?”

     Since you are apparently the only one who is allowed to inquire if someone read something, I guess I’d better answer. One of the articles you linked cited the number of home-schooled in VA at 32000. The cited the VA DOE as showing that figure at 8000. I was left wondering which was accurate. Given that the NYT article didn’t really offer a source, I tend to believe the VA DoE.

     Interesting Bruce, that you refer to the pro home-school side of the argument as counter-pointless and clueless. so far all the other side has demonstrated here is a willingness to call names, resent and exclude a specific group with whom they disagree and do not feel comfortable. I think there is another name for that.

     And Sandi, over at Refresh RT you’ve been singing that song about civility and attracting new voices to the blogs. Now when several new posters appear, you say :

     ” Just look at what transpired here. People who have never come onto this site for any other discussion miraculously heard about the conversation and piled in and on the opinions expressed here with alacrity that will end up being the same treatment that our local schools and school districts will receive. It is how they have already gained the access they have so far.”

     So what exactly does that mean? New voices are only welcome if they agree with you?
131. Jeanne Faulconer | April 25, 2012 at 9:19 pm

     Oh Sandi, we might be talking about different things? I was referring to the local school division being able to make the choice whether to have homeschoolers try out. That choice would absolutely be in play if the bill had passed. The only thing they could not do is be a part of an org that does not allow them any choice. That’s what the bill prohibits.

     Now, as I understand it, it had been tried the other way for some years, with requests and recommendations for VHSL to voluntarily allow schools to decide how to best meet the needs of their school division, but they continued to block the ability for school divisions to be able to choose.

     If the bill had passed, the schools would no longer join an org that blocked this en masse across the state. They would then, for the first time, have local choice.

     I hope this clarifies. Sorry I had to run out the door before. Soccer pratice doncha know! : )
132. Heather Parkinson | April 25, 2012 at 9:50 pm

     Sandi, Perhaps the question should be, “Where exactly is the choice for school districts currently?” The answer to that question is, “There isn’t.”
133. Heather Parkinson | April 25, 2012 at 10:07 pm

     I’ll expand on that post, too. My daughter, as one small example, has played on a rec team for the last three years. Another homeschooler on the team (whose parents created the team) was so good, they realized she actually had a shot at a college scholarship through the sport. They decided to stop homeschooling, move to a different county with a better team, and enroll her in school JUST so she could play the sport in high school for that high school. They gave up what they had decided was the best educational option for their daughter so she could have a chance at an education beyond high school. That’s a sad choice to have to make, and it’s a sad state of affairs that that choice is being made.

     In the meantime, our local school system saw the success of this team and decided to incorporate that sport as a school sport starting this current school year. What this meant to my homeschooled daughter was that she was no longer eligible to play a sport she has come to love, and at which she began to excel, with the girls and coaches whom she has come to love, over the last three years. Her cleats and her stick hang sadly in her room and she has no other option. Her public schooled teammates – yes, they ARE her teammates – want this legislation to pass. They WANT her to be able to play and are saddened by the fact that, because of “some private statewide organization” they don’t have any say as to whether or not she “belongs” anymore. She won’t get a scholarship to college for this sport; she’s not that good. She won’t play it professionally; she’s certainly not that good. She’s just a kid who has found a passion – and a team – and wants to exercise, play a game, teach others the game, and practice good sportsmanship and teamwork; all the while with friends. Is that really so elitist or threatening or fearful? Or is that just being a kid?

     We want what’s best for her certainly, and what we have decided is best for her academically and socially and emotionally is to be homeschooled (after years in school – oh, and her little sister attends public school). While doing what’s best for your child (in this case, homeschooling) usually comes with great rewards, this particular choice also comes with a cost. Really, it shouldn’t. Since the schools are charged with providing every student in the area services – free of charge – and standardized testing and the ability to obtain a work permit, and they now provide her the ability to take classes of her choosing, why is letting her try out to be to play a game on her team with her teammates such a concern and such a threat? It is just a game, after all.
134. Sandi Saunders | April 25, 2012 at 10:29 pm

     Chuck, wanting “new voices” with more than one POV on a blog is one thing, the bulletin to pile on is quite another. While it is fine here, my point was that this is only a taste of what it will be when a school district is bombarded with the same zeal. That is a whole different kettle of fish. I am sorry you don’t see that, but I think it is glaring.

     I think it is quite apparent that I do not need anyone to “agree with me”.
135. Jeanne Faulconer | April 25, 2012 at 11:09 pm

     Jordan,

     You say, “The point of this blog is to defend legislation that allows individual school districts to decide – perhaps. But I believe it is more in the spirit of the two editorials to argue whether homeschoolers deserve the a chance to play a varsity sport at a local high school not who the decision is up to.”

     This may seem true to you, but in actuality, school divisions really do make use of their ability to tailor what they offer to homeschoolers according to what they are able to provide and the nature of their community. In some schools, adding another student may be extremely challenging for a school; in other situations, having more students for certain classes is welcome. Over half the schools do allow part-time access for classes, but this means that a significant number are exercising their ability to choose not to do so. (I concede that in some communities there may not have been any requests from homeschoolers, which might mean the school division simply hasn’t recently considered the issue, but would allow it if it were requested. I don’t have any intent to inflate the numbers of schools making varying choices).

     I suspect schools, if offered the choice about sports access, would use the choice, the same as they do today for part-time enrollment.

     As to varsity sports versus just practices, now I’ll have to say “you’ve got to be kidding,” LOL. Do you REALLY know any competitive teen athlete who only wants to practice and lift weights but not compete in real life? If it were just an exercise space that schools were prohibited from opening to homeschoolers, indeed, I don’t think you’d hear much fuss. We replicate that in our basement and running around the farm every day. What homeschoolers need is the ability to compete with their peers – first to try out, and then, if they make the team, against other communities’ teams.

     Related to this, you say, “I suspect in almost every case the addition of a homeschooler either continues to leave e team shorthanded or more likely leads to a student who attends the school getting cut or having less playing time.”

     So, by this logic, adding a homeschooler to a short-handed team and making it somewhat less short-handed has no value for that community’s team or those athletes? As one coach told me, I’d rather play with one sub than no subs!

     As for playing time and getting cut, I don’t know about you, but my son has certainly experienced this as a competitor. As they say, “the toughest position on the team is on the bench.” Either it is about competing for a spot or it’s not, since it is a public team. I know that is harsh – it always is – and I’ve been on the receiving end of that, quite personally. If a school is in a community where those spots are that tightly coveted, the school division there could choose not to open its sports programs on the basis of who the best players are and could keep them open just to full-time enrolled students.

     Of course, this is just if the legislation were the same as it was during the last General Assembly session. I suppose future legislation could be offered with different wording, simply requiring all public teams to allow tryouts of all kids living in the school division. We don’t know what form a future bill might take. Since it did so well last year, perhaps a legislator will offer something that is more specific in requiring the schools to do more than the last bill would have. We will have to wait and see. (Or I guess it could just get worked out before legislation forces anything???)
136. Sandi Saunders | April 25, 2012 at 11:15 pm

     Is there a choice that does not come with a cost? That is the role of being a parent. As my dear conservative friends here often assure me, the world owes no one any thing and we all have to live with the choices and mistakes we make. I did not create the system and frankly there are many systems that do not meet my needs, wants, or standards but I accept that their system is to meet the most not the least and move on to the things I can and rightfully should try to change.

     I am curious, did you explain to your daughter that her loss was the result of your choice or did you blame the VHSL?
137. Jeanne Faulconer | April 25, 2012 at 11:29 pm

     Clarification: I said over half of schools allow part-time access. I should have said school DIVISIONS.
138. Jeanne Faulconer | April 26, 2012 at 12:17 am

     Many people who find their choices restricted by policies they disagree with make further choices to advocate for change. I’m not sure where we’d be as a country if people had always simply all accepted things as they are.

     As for a system existing to meet “the most not the least” – that does not sound much like the goals of education at any level in any democracy I know of.
139. Heather Parkinson | April 26, 2012 at 1:13 am

     Yes, Sandi, every choice we make has pros and cons, costs and benefits. However, preventing a child from playing a team sport to further her education is a cost unnecessary, as proven by more than half the country.

     Interesting question about our explanation. Given her particular situation, no explanation was needed; she has been following all of this as it unfolds, realizing her ability to continue to play was on the line and being decided by her representatives and/or the VHSL; not by her parents, not by her school system or school board or superintendent, not by her coach – all of our hands are tied.

     But, to answer your question, she knows very well she can’t play because of 1) our choice (now hers) to homeschool and 2) VHSL’s rules prohibiting homeschoolers from participating. Is the the result of just one and not the other? Is it the result of our legal decision to provide our child with the best possible education or VHSL’s discriminatory choice to exclude children from playing a game? She (and her teammates) also realizes how ridiculous that is and that if she lived in any of a number of other states she would probably be playing.

     Interesting, too, no one has yet provided evidence of harm caused or problems created in those states that allow homeschoolers to play.
140. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 7:57 am

     It’s not a tactic, Sandi. I explained specifically how, using VHSL rules, schools would have a choice. Since you continue to argue there is no choice, I thought you might have missed my post. The order of the posts sometimes changes on my screen (presumably because of some delay on the server end), and sometimes when I look back up, I realize there’s a post I didn’t see in between two I have read.

     You say there is no choice, but I explained how there would be. What’s wrong with my explanation?
141. e william | April 26, 2012 at 8:09 am

     @ #139- the answer is simple (at least according to “States’ Rights Advocates”): Virginia families who choose to home-school and want their students to play public school sports can move to a state where such a provision exists. The same argument has been presented to advocates of Gay Marriage and Medical Marijuana, so it should apply here. Problem solved!
142. Heather Parkinson | April 26, 2012 at 8:59 am

     @ e william – Or, we could be progressive and make the state in which we live a better place to live, particularly when it follows in the footsteps of others who have already have and have successfully! I’d hate simply to give up on Virginia entirely and never have anyone create any new laws to prevent discrimination or enhance safety. It’s a shame you would.
143. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 9:26 am

     Amy, I am truly at a loss as to how you, or anyone can characterize that bill as offering any choice. There is no choice at all for virtually every school division in this state. There just isn’t. There is no frame crooked enough to encompass that bill and choice.

     Heather, you have no more assurance that your child would be chosen than anyone in the school system now does. So your victimization of your daughter as “preventing a child from playing a team sport to further her education” is just as possible with this change to the entire system as any other child in the school system now.

     Any way that this is looked at objectively still leads to parents who chose to leave the school system now wanting access on their terms and I will never support it, respect it or believe it is a function of the education system to meet. You want them to sanction you coloring outside the lines and call it inclusive instead of abusive and I will not play along. You want us to believe that adding yet another minority of “special” students is no big deal and knowing what public schools face, I do not believe that either. One of the links I offered said that home schooling went from “850,000 students nationally in 1999 to 1.5 million in 2007″, that kind of growth will have an impact in many, many school divisions and public school children enrolled in their school could get displaced by kids who do not even attend the school and the emotional toll of that is an unfair burden on kids and parents who have done nothing wrong, in favor of parents who made a choice they no longer want to live within.

     As E. William mentioned, there are people with a much longer, bigger and harder to stomach grievance who are still waiting for acceptance and inclusion into civil rights our Constitution provides so crying for change when you opted out of the school system is hard to respect.

     I find it odd that the people who are supporting this are the last to offer support for any other “special interest” involving citizens so I think you should consider that a coup.
144. 89Hoo | April 26, 2012 at 9:33 am

     141 – what we are seeing IS states’ rights in action. There is no federal mandate (at least not yet) to include or exclude home schooled students in or from participating in public school activities, which is the reason there is so much variance between the states. Thank goodness; that’s the way it should be, and we should ALL – no matter how we feel on this issue – hope that that remains the case.

     And keeping the federal government out of the affairs of the individual states DOES provide more choices and opportunities at the state levels. Here we can work to include or exclude completely, or towards some middle ground compromise. And yes, we all have the choice of moving somewhere else if we wish.

     Many more decisions should be left to the states.
145. e william | April 26, 2012 at 9:45 am

     @Heather, I actually fully agree with working to make the state in which one lives “better” (a radically varied set of definitions exist here!). I was using this issue to bring to light what I see as a faulty argument advocated by “States’ Rights” proponents. However, I do not see this as an issue where “discrimination” is at play. I do believe this is a clear-cut case of choice and consequence, but mostly of logistics. I stated my opposition to the inclusion of Home-schooled students in public school programs in post #6 above.
146. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 10:01 am

     Sandi, you still haven’t responded to the substance of my argument on “local option.”

     e william, why bring up states’ rights proponents in the debate? Homeschoolers are just as varied in their political viewpoints as is the overall population.
147. Jeanne Faulconer | April 26, 2012 at 10:02 am

     Let’s look further at the idea that we should “accept” the current situation because it is an already-established system that in at least in one commenter’s apparent view, rightly serves “the most and not the least.”

     In 1966, I happened to be in the first racially integrated first grade class in my county in Virginia. I’m so glad that there were those who did not accept the then “current situation.” True, wanting ALL the kids to be able to use the best services public funding could provide was something “the most” fought. However, not doing so was not Constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled, nor, in my opinion, morally right. I’m grateful to those who helped Virginia’s schools change course on this issue, and I can truly say my own life was made for the better, since I was not deprived of my experience in an integrated community, as others of “both” races (what a quaint – though chilling – notion that is today!) had been up until that moment. I note with humility that this change in the system was much more important and much more dramatic, and required amazing organizing, compelling leaders, and actual physical bravery to overcome. It is not my intent to frame homeschoolers’ current request for sports access in terms of the Civil Rights Movement other than to note in response to a specific post in this forum that it is an example of where the decision by “the most” not to serve “the least” became an an instance where “changing the system” was accomplished, and in the end, I think many people who believed it would be the end of the world found it to be the right thing.

     In 1973, I was a young athlete myself (yes, I’m ancient now). There were no track opportunities for girls at my middle school (I can’t actually remember if there were ANY sports opportunities for girls, but there may have been softball); however, I was permitted to run track with the boys team, where I was top seeded in low hurdles, ran highs less successfully but still helpfully for my team, and for as many years as I managed to pay attention to it, remained the record holder in boys low hurdles at that school. That was the year I attained my full stature of 5’1″.

     Title IX of the Education Amendments, prohibiting gender discrimination at any educational institution that receives federal assistance, had been passed in 1972, but “the most” continued the System That Should Not Change, which was definitely not for the benefit of “the least,” in violation of Title IX. I went to the first day of track practice at my high school. Nothing for girls there, and by the way, I was now a foot shorter than the number one hurdler, who had a distinct testosterone laced advantage – which it turned out, was true of 100% of my public school’s only track team. Within 12 months, I went from being a competitor to, get this, actually administrating events for the guys’ meets – I ran pole vault, high jump, and triple jump – so THEY could compete. If I couldn’t be in the action, perhaps I could be close to it. (Don’t get me started on the feminist conflicts). It wasn’t until after my senior year that law suits began to make it clear that schools in Virginia really DID need to provide athletic opportunities for their formerly marginalized “least” – the girls – who were also supposed to benefit from activities at their community’s public funded institution.

     Title IX still has its issues and its administration remains thorny, but I don’t think anyone with a daughter or a granddaughter or a sister or a girlfriend who is an athlete thinks that it would have been best if those advocating for public funds to be equitably spent on girls had just “accepted the system.” Personally, I’m the mom of three sons, but let me tell you, I am excited beyond belief to watch girls play at competitive levels. Because really, it’s not nearly as much fun to call out numbers and let the guys line up for their shot at competition while you watch (this would be similar to homeschoolers being allowed to practice but not play!) and it doesn’t do nearly the job of helping you find your body as a teen, and it doesn’t help you create a habit of fitness that should last your lifetime, and it doesn’t feed the competitive edge that some people by nature thrive on and that we in the U.S. say we mean to nurture, and it most certainly does not make one eligible for scholarships, nor does it develop talent or skill.

     Thank goodness that some girls have sports opportunities at their community’s publicly funded schools these days – if we could extend that to those homeschooling in their school divisions, what another great example of progress that would be for women’s athletics.

     I’m also well aware of families who were unable to get their special needs children served by their school division’s public funds until advocates pushed for change, which I think mostly came by way of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the ’70s, renewed and updated in the 90′s. Again, while realization of this Act’s intent has been challenging, mostly due to funding, most people I know feel that changing the system that served “the most” to accommodate “the least” was the right thing to do – those children deserve the benefits of their public institutions as much as the other kids. Again, people who have special needs kids in their lives are well aware that without those who pushed to make the publicly funded schools serve such kids, “accepting the system” would mean that the public’s resources would not truly serve the all the children of the public.

     Again, I’m not trying to compare the specifics of these cases to homeschoolers’ interests here – I am addressing the idea that accepting “the system,” as one poster advocates, is in my opinion not how we’ve made progress. It’s funny, I did not start out by thinking of giving examples only in education, but as this post developed, all the examples were indeed related to public ed.

     While homeschoolers are comfortable with their decisions to home educate and understand there are results from those decisions, this does not mean they abdicate their right to petition the government for change, including or especially change that impacts homeschoolers’ ability to derive benefit from public programs.
148. Jeanne Faulconer | April 26, 2012 at 10:13 am

     “Amy, I am truly at a loss as to how you, or anyone can characterize that bill as offering any choice.”

     Indeed, the bill was opposed because it definitely, for the first time, offered school divisions the ability to make a choice.

     I’m not sure how many other ways we can say this. Currently, school divisions don’t have the choice as to whether to allow homeschoolers to take part in their public athletic programs. If the bill passed, school divisions would have the choice as to whether to allow homeschoolers to take part in their public athletic programs.

     This is why the bill was opposed! Because some school divisions might indeed make the choice to allow homeschooled kids to take part.

     Here it is:
     Currently – school divisions have no choice.
     Post-last-session’s legislation – if it had passed – school divisions would have had a choice.
149. Jeanne Faulconer | April 26, 2012 at 10:17 am

     “I find it odd that the people who are supporting this are the last to offer support for any other “special interest” involving citizens so I think you should consider that a coup.”

     I am not sure what you mean by this? Are you presuming all homeschoolers to be politically conservative?

     As a side note, philosophically and behaviorally speaking, it is an interesting exercise to consider which side of this debate is taking the most conservative stance!
150. Jeanne Faulconer | April 26, 2012 at 10:25 am

     Ha – while I was writing that long post, I had no idea States Rights was going to come up. By happenstance, I used three examples of Federal legislation! I actually did not intend to make a case for Federal law trumping state law with those examples. What I meant to do was simply to demonstrate that systems do not need to remain static and that people will advocate for change. In those cases, the ultimate tools turned out to be Federal law – but there was also much done at the local and state levels and in informal communities to create positive outcomes.

     Homeschool laws do vary state-by-state, and I actually think the way things have developed, that’s a good thing and not likely to change. I’d rather not see change forced by legislation even at the state level. I’d rather see reasonable people work together to benefit the kids in each school division’s area of responsibility.
151. Lake Claytor | April 26, 2012 at 10:36 am

     Again, their opposition has NOTHING to do with the kids, or education.

     This is PERSONAL.

     If one makes their LIVING in the PUBLIC sector (Public schools, colleges)…what are the odds that they will be supportive of Home-schooling?

     Just curious. Is it irrelevant?

     I have yet to hear anything that speaks to how the system would be over-burdened by adding a few prospects to a team?

     Whatever happened to “Diversity”?

     LOL.
152. Heather Parkinson | April 26, 2012 at 11:21 am

     Lake Claytor – We’re all still waiting to hear how the system would be overburdened or children would be harmed by this proposal. The answers are there, however. One just needs to ask the other 25-27 states who are doing it successfully (not sure if Mississippi and Alabama passed their legislation this year yet or not to be able to provide a precise number). As several have reported, it is a “nonissue” in those states, much like integration is today. We certainly aren’t crying foul that kids of a certain race “outed” kids of another race from their due spot on a sports team (though probably some people did in the beginning, sadly).
153. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 11:33 am

     Lake Claytor, do you even know what you are talking about? Why be cryptic and insinuate? Who is it you think has some personal stake or interest in this? Other than the parents who of course have a very vested interest. Jordan has admitted to being a student, but who is it you believe you are “outing” and why are you allowed to keep doing so?

     Amy, I do not believe there is any “substance” to your “local option argument”. You cannot force the VHSL to change their rules, so you force schools NOT to be a member of the VHSL (unless that group changes what you cannot). It gives lip service to their options but who is it you are kidding with the idea that a local division “opting out” would be acceptable to any of you? Your organization and marching orders are intimidating. You do not want the “option” and that is why the bill was written as it was. It is an illusion of an option with no real option available.

     You all are not concerned with the public school students your kids might displace, only with your children gaining public school access without attending public schools. You are not concerned with the school spirit, team spirit or camaraderie of kids representing a school they care about, only your decision to participate on your terms. This is not about all kids, just your kids.

     A “handful” now may not be a handful in the future, but of course that too, is not your concern.
154. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 11:44 am

     Jeanne, I do not presume to know the political stance of home school parents, nor the new folks posting here. Lake Claytor is not known to me to be all about diversity, acceptance and special treatment for minority groups and neither is Chuck (regular posters here) so their position here is not meshing with my perception of their political stance.

     I am well aware that while the majority of home schoolers are religious and separatist in their political leanings (Conservative), I know that all are not, some even prominently so.

     Regardless of whatever point Lake Claytor is trying to make, this is not “personal” to me. I do not work in or for a public school. I do have friends who home school, with some talented kids who would enhance their public school in every way. I considered it once, quite seriously for my own children. High school is very hard for some kids not ready to fit the mold. I do not begrudge the first one of you that choice and frankly I admire your commitment to your children above all else. That is job one. But it goes against my grain to ask for special treatment after you made the choice to leave. Most especially to the point of forcing yourselves into the school system. That is a bridge to far, even for this liberal, diversity and children loving mom.
155. Jeanne Faulconer | April 26, 2012 at 12:02 pm

     Well, Lake, interesting that you should say this about teachers not supporting home ed. I think we are now getting to the stereotypes of homeschooling from both “sides,” despite my appreciation for your comments in general.

     First, part of the opposition to homeschoolers having access to public programs, I believe, comes from the presumption that homeschoolers are separatist conservatives who have willfully abandoned schools hoping they will die, and that they have a specific partisan agenda that lines up neatly in opposition to those who support public schools, including on social issues. Now there’s a line in the sand.

     May I please take the opportunity to say that homeschoolers are from all political and religious walks of life? Apparently it is not known to some on both “sides” of this debate that some homeschoolers might take socially progressive stances on many issues and do indeed advocate for, um, “special interests” that they see having been unfairly treated, while other homeschoolers take conservative stances on many issues.

     Also – many homeschoolers are also teachers, former teachers, and indeed, college professors, or otherwise employed in the public sector. Let’s see – in my immediate circle, the homeschooling parents involved in ed or serving the public sector include one current college prof at a major public university in Va, a former college prof (that’s me – although full disclosure is that I was a lowly assistant professor at a private university and an adjunct faculty member at a publicly funded community college), a current high school teacher, a taking-time-out social worker, a former elementary school teacher who plans to return to the classroom, one current member of the armed services, two former members of the armed services, and a textbook writer, etc.

     Those are just some of the folks in that sector whom I see each week on a scheduled basis – if I described my expanded circle, we’d get more of the same along with many others who do not work in education or public service at all.

     Many teachers and college professors not only support homeschooling but homeschool their own children – while also wanting their community’s schools to be the best possible. Not all homeschoolers are “in” education – but not all homeschoolers are NOT in it, either. (A reasonable though now older book about this was written a while back by David Guterson, a school teacher who penned Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense, though he is better known to the general population as author of the literary Snow Falling on Cedars novel.)

     Are there conservative homeschoolers? Certainly. There are also libertarians, who are quite Jeffersonian on many issues, and on many social issues in particular, they don’t exactly line up with some of their mainline conservative brethren. There are also unabashedly liberal homeschoolers – really and truly! Right here in Virginia. Needless to say, even among homeschoolers, we could have quite the Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian debate!

     It’s enough to make one’s mind explode – none of the stuff we as a society have been taught to presume about a minority is consistent for its individual members! What a shocker!

     Add this to the mix: schools, which are presumed to teach diversity, acceptance, and service, are currently walling out people who are presumed by some to be intolerant and separatist!

     What a tangled web we weave.

     In the midst of this, we have public programs which could serve more children, but which, apparently willfully, have been prohibited from choosing to do so – with all the stereotypes stalking kids’ desire to simply try out to play ball at the highest level their communities can provide.
156. Heather Parkinson | April 26, 2012 at 12:06 pm

     Lake Claytor – You do bring up an interesting point, too, in certain groups opposing this bill (though I think you’ll find, honestly, that not to be the case with everyone, but it certainly is with the major organizations – VHSL, PTA, etc.). Do you realize that the one opposing vote that caused this bill not to pass was submitted by a former public school athletic director? I wonder at what point a conflict of interest comes up for something like this.
157. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 12:58 pm

     “Amy, I do not believe there is any “substance” to your “local option argument”. ”

     I quoted VHSL’s rule that allows local schools to exclude players from eligibility on their own terms. That’s the substance. You say there’s no option, but there it is. What is your basis for arguing that there is no local option?

     “who is it you are kidding with the idea that a local division “opting out” would be acceptable to any of you?”

     Well, homeschoolers haven’t gotten all of the school divisions to allow part-time academic enrollment, though we’d really enjoy having that option available for those who want it. If we were such a monolithic and “intimidating” force, wouldn’t we be there by now?

     “Your organization and marching orders are intimidating. You do not want the “option” and that is why the bill was written as it was.”

     The Organization of Virginia Homeschoolers did not write this bill; nor were we consulted by Delegate Bell. We did support the bill, and will continue to support similar bills on the issue if so directed by our membership.

     Advocating for the inclusion of homeschooled students at tryouts does not equate to a lack of concern about public school students. Homeschoolers support their public schools and public education in many ways, as has been discussed in these comments. Who, other than public school families and legislators such as Del. Bell, will advocate for homeschooled students?
158. Bruce Harper | April 26, 2012 at 1:45 pm

     OK, to use your favorite buzzword, the school is a “community” and you left it. Your choice (and I don’t have a problem with that). But since you walked away, you don’t get to tell the people still in the community how to run it, or get to selectively pick things in the community you still want to do or use (even though some of that is going on). Yes, as citizens or the larger community you can appear before the school board and comment, but on the smaller level, a sports team is a part of the high school, not part of or open to the entire larger community. I don’t understand where this sense of entitlement comes from. If there is such a crying need for this sports participation, why haven’t people from private schools jumped on the bandwagon? After all, it would seem that they have the same need, since not everyone is on par with North Cross or some of those schools with a developed sports program. Or have they determined their place in the scheme of things, that they have truly opted out of the system and really can’t make a case for a forced entry into the public sports programs?

     As to the public schools having “no choice” because of the VHSL, I call baloney. Because the VHSL is a construct of the public schools, each school has a voice.
     From the VHSL Handbook, “The Executive Committee may amend the By-Laws of the League.” (Section 21-1-1). “Principals of member schools, . . . [and a list of others who] may propose amendments by presenting them in writing on the prescribed form, to the Executive Director. (Section 21-2-1). So there is a mechanism in place to change the system, which I supposed has been tried and shot down because there was no desire to make that change. So instead of accepting defeat, the process was to go a different route and try to dismantle the VHSL by forcing schools to have to withdraw their membership.

     What is interesting is reading further in the manual, which pretty much sums up why a homeschooler wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be welcomed on high school teams.

     27-1-1 PRINCIPAL’S RESPONSIBILITY RULE-Final authority and ultimate responsibility in all matters pertaining to interscholastic activities of each school, both athletic and nonathletic, shall be vested in the principal who acts under authority granted by the division superintendent of schools. The principal’s responsibilities shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

     27-1-2 Control:
     (1) The principal shall exercise control over all interscholastic contests in which his/her school engages. It is his/her responsibility, as well as that of his/her coaches, faculty members and all representatives of his/her school, to practice the highest principles of sportsmanship in all interscholastic relationships with visiting coaches and official representatives, contest officials, visiting contestants and the general public, as well as to inculcate a sportsmanlike attitude toward visitors on the part of his/her school and community.

     (2) The principal shall seek by every reasonable means at his/her command to prevent the development of riots, fights, pilfering, defacement or destruction of property, or any other unsportsmanlike conduct in connection with contests with other schools, on the part of his/her students or the supporters or partisans of his/her school.

     There are a couple of key things in there. Note the word “interscholastic” — meaning “between schools.” If you are homeschooled, you aren’t a part of a school, you aren’t a “representatives of his/her school” even if you are on that team because you aren’t enrolled in that school. Note in (1) and (2) that the principal is also responsible for making sure those representatives uphold the practices of good sportsmanship and to prevent acts of unsportsmanlike conduct “on the part of his/her students.” If players do something wrong, it is easy enough for a coach and the administration to deal with them when they are enrolled in school, but what do they do with the homeschooled student? Sure, he is kicked off the team, but that’s a one-and-done punishment while his teammate may be stuck with several days of ISS, loss of other privileges that could go up to suspension, expulsion, banned from commencement or even failure to graduate. Hardly fair to slap one kid on the wrist and rake the other over the coals for the same offense just because one is enrolled in school and the other is on the team as a homeschooler. One rule for one and another for the others?

     The bottom line is still you are either a part of the community and get to take full advantage of all it offers or you made a choice to do something different and be separate from that community, therefore opting out of what that community has to offer. The “but I’m a taxpayer” argument is wearing a bit thin, also. My mortgage company sends off my property tax payment to the county (and the town) and I don’t get to earmark where that money gets spent, for all I know it all goes to animal control. I have the same access as everyone else to my supervisor and school board member and I am free to speak at any and every meeting during the public address session. I don’t believe that my tax dollars give me any extraordinary rights or access to something special just by virtue of paying to live in the community. I also don’t believe I need to go running to the General Assembly because I didn’t get my way in a matter that is pretty inconsequential in the big picture — not when Montgomery County is looking at having to lay off teachers and, perhaps, shut down the sports program to meet the budget shortfall it is facing.
159. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 2:32 pm

     Bruce, our public schools are a PART or our local communities. They are not entities in isolation. Homeschooling families are part of that same community.

     I truly don’t agree that advocating for making public programs open to more members of the public represents a “sense of entitlement.” I think that blocking local kids from athletic opportunities in their own neighborhoods is shameful, if there exist avenues for making it work. I think those avenues exist.

     As for private schools, first homeschoolers are told they can’t have sports access because “private schools will be next” and now you’re saying they shouldn’t have an opportunity to try out because private schools aren’t lined up, too. It’s hard to know which red herring to counter first.

     Public schools are represented on VHSL’s executive council, yes. But schools cannot separate and go their own way and still participate in VHSL-governed competitions. Allowing homeschoolers to participate when VHSL rules specifically say they cannon would be in conflict with VHSL rules and therefore not permitted. And there’s not another statewide competitive league competing with VHSL — so schools have no option to follow any policy other than what VHSL has established.

     Your next argument concerns the supposed inability for coaches and administrators to maintain discipline for teams that include homeschoolers. Kicking a kid off a team is a very effective method to punish infractions — principals can declare any player ineligible, as I quoted from the VHSL handbook. Once a badly-behaved homeschooled player is removed from the team, in line with rules that the principal can establish however s/he sees fit, there’s really no way for that player to cause additional discipline issues. Issue solved.

     “Interscholastic” means between schools, yes. Between public schools in Virginia’s local communities.

     The “taxes” argument has not been the main focus of homeschooling advocates here. Paying taxes is just an indicator of the underlying, much more important argument. And I think this is really the crux of the disagreement. You’re arguing that the meaningful sense of “community” is that which is isolated in the classrooms of each individual school buildings. If homeschoolers opt out of public school classrooms, then, you are arguing, they are outsiders, not community members.

     Homeschooling families are arguing that community has a much larger meaning, and that the boundaries extend to include them as well. Paying taxes is just one way that they are a part of the community; many, many other examples have been discussed in this thread as well.

     Telling homeschooling families that by making a different educational choice (for one child or all of their kids; for one year or their entire educational careers; for any reason at all), they are opting OUT of the local community is wrong-headed, I believe. Such a small definition of community divides us unnecessarily and weakens our community institutions — including our public schools.
160. Lake Claytor | April 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm

     156

     “I wonder at what point a conflict of interest comes up for something like this.”

     My point exactly.

     ——

     I am aware that not all teachers are against home-schooling. Most teachers I know are very reasonable when it comes to homeschooling.

     My remarks are speaking to the opposition on THIS blog.

     The political leftists/statists on HERE take this very personally. They claim otherwise…but, look at the language being used. The name-calling, the insults, etc.

     It just the way it is. Home-schooling is an attack on the STATE. It isn’t about the kids, it never was. It is about control.(as usual)

     This is absolutely a “battle”, and reasoning with a few of them is an act of futility.

     I have loved reading the posts of so many well informed folks on this issue.

     Amy, Jeanne, Heather and Chuck. Great stuff.

     I have to admit, I am skeptical of anyone who is against something like this.

     $100 says they (or someone in their family) works for the STATE, or used to work for the state.
161. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 2:59 pm

     Sure “community” has a much larger meaning. When was the last time someone was talking about going to their 30th “Community” Reunion? They were not because that is not what happens. Communities are very transient, now more than ever and no one school even defines a community for many.

     But a school does define most of their students. Facebook is full of “You know you went to __________High if you…” pages for a reason. The high school process, classes, teams, competitions, life long friendships, SATs, prom, graduation and yes, yearbooks, lunch follies and being a group all in something (some would say “suffering”) together, matters. For some it is all they will ever have. People who chose to remove their children from that process should not ever, for any reason, be allowed to dictate to the whole school. Not to attend chemistry class and not to play Varsity sports. You chose to leave and you should stay gone. There is no doubt your kids coming into the school will make an impact, the only question is how much and whom it might displace. I say, you have no right, or call to do so. You opted out, no one made you leave and you have no business coming into the mix on some level that you decide because that choice is not working out for you in every way.

     Parents of kids who stay in a school system have to contend with every reason you all brought up for your leaving and then some. They do that, and whatever they have to do to mitigate and overcome it, because they believe in the process of and the importance of “high school” for their children. It is their first taste of independence, asserting themselves, forging bonds outside the family, excelling in a sport, driving, first love and so many other “rights of passage”. You left that by choice, now leave them alone. I am sorry, but not one of your children has earned the right to displace even one of them, not one.
162. Jeanne Faulconer | April 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm

     Budget cuts, eh? Seems like a good strategy might be to increase the number of stakeholders rather than focusing on excluding those who’d like to be supportive.
163. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm

     Sandi, Facebook is also full of “you know you grew up in XXville if…” pages. There are many ways that people affiliate in groups. I’m advocating for public schools to be open for the public in reasonable circumstances, with (in this case) appropriate rules developed by the existing entity that governs public high school sports. You’re advocating for public schools to be closed groups, reserved for a few who meet your definition of community members (a definition not recognized in current practice or in state law).

     “You chose to leave and you should stay gone.”

     It’s clear your view is a punitive one. Anyone who opts for an approach other than public school should be left on their own forever, you’re saying here. So you’re opposed to a family choosing homeschooling for elementary school and the opting for public middle school? What about families who have one child enrolled in public school and one homeschooling? The law does not say students must “stay gone” if they or their families opt out of all or part of the public school experience.

     “Parents of kids who stay in a school system have to contend with every reason you all brought up for your leaving and then some.”

     It sounds like you are arguing that athletics are a reward that some kids have earned because their parents have stuck with a less-than-perfect public school system — and that other kids don’t deserve because their parents have made a different choice. Under Virginia law, each family is free to make whatever educational choice they feel is best for their children. They are free to change their approach at any time, and change it back again.

     I think my local public schools are pretty great schools, actually, and that those families who have chosen them are not making a great sacrifice that homeschoolers are avoiding. I think most of my neighbors feel positive about our public schools as well. We have just chosen different ways for our kids to learn their academics. Why should the fact that one option works for some families and not for others mean that athletics are closed off for some kids forever?

     I’d still like to continue the debate on the “local option” question.
164. Jeanne Faulconer | April 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm

     Sandi, at last something we can agree on! I definitely don’t think homeschoolers should be allowed to dictate to a whole school.

     Fortunately, legislation such as that proposed last year does not do anything like that.

     The legislation would allow a school division to make a decision about whether to allow homeschoolers to participate in their community’s public sports programs. Or not.

     How we get from “allowing school divisions to decide” to “homeschoolers dictating to a whole school” is a logical fallacy — a straw man, an argument that homeschoolers have not made. (We make sure we cover these as we homeschool!)

     The school division’s governing body is the school board, which would make the decision. The school board is accountable by electability. This is about as far removed from homeschoolers being able to “dictate to a whole school” as anything I can imagine.

     Hyperbole of this sort distorts the conversation, since it is not relevant to what has actually been proposed.
165. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm

     Lake Claytor, I am not sure how much longer the moderator is going to let you babble on about a “conflict of interest” and “betting” on “they (or someone in their family) works for the STATE, or used to work for the state” but it has nothing to do with this discussion and it is not relevant. Either someone has a point and a valid concern or they don’t and who they work for has no more conflict than these parents who are also not objective viewers with no stake in the outcome. So what, for the sake of decency is your point? Only one side is allowed to have “skin in the game”? Only one side can be subjective? You do not make sense and you are NOT helping the home schoolers who have just as much invested and much more on the line than anyone who “they (or someone in their family) works for the STATE, or used to work for the state”. Much more in fact.
166. Heather Parkinson | April 26, 2012 at 3:56 pm

     Life long friendships? Created in high school? Rarely. Among a privileged few, perhaps. The friends with whom I remain in touch from that age lived in my neighborhood and left my school system before high school. My children have created many friendships through all areas of their life, and several of those bonds I can see lasting well into adulthood, particularly with today’s technology. Realize, there are also the “You know you lived in __________ if” pages. Our daughter will graduate with a graduation ceremony with cap, gown, and diploma. She is attending prom for the second time tomorrow. Her date is not homeschooled.

     Have you asked a kid attending school about lunch these days? Have you gone to a school to witness it? The stories we hear first-hand from my daughter’s high school friends (YES – she has friends that are in public school!) are that they are lucky to have 10 minutes from the time they find a seat until they have to be leaving, and they usually do not have time to finish their food. Forget waiting in line first to buy food. Even my seven year old complains of that. She came home starving just yesterday, a half eaten sandwich in her lunchbox, because there wasn’t enough time to eat. I’ve gone to her school and eaten lunch with her and I can attest to the fact that there are no “lunchtime follies.” These children are controlled. The volume gets above a low buzz and the lights go out. Silence commences immediately. They cannot get up from their seats. They form a line to dump their food, after their table has been called upon to get up. There is a “quiet” table for the kids who are doing more talking than eating. Those kids also then miss out on recess. Recess is another story altogether. That’s survival of the fittest, trying to hover close enough to one of the three teachers (watching about 75 kids) that hopefully the mean kids will leave them alone. And this is a small school (pre-k through 2) with probably 150-175 kids, not all of them eating lunch or on the playground at the same time.
167. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm

     Sure it is all just a big red herring, a straw man, because as we have seen here, you all do not work as a group, you do not bombard anyone with your POV and your reasons and most of all your insinuations that you are being wronged. No, not you. No school board member will have to face speaker after speaker telling how special your athlete is to the division. How big the community is, how exceptional these kids they are “hurting” are. No, not you. None of you will ever assure them that all you want is a chance, for a “handful” of kids and they can always just say no…cause they have a “choice”. No, not you.

     You all are a force to be reckoned with, and you will doubtless win, eventually. What you will not do, is convince me that you are right.
168. Beth Balmanno | April 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm

     I moved from Virginia to Minnesota a few years ago but still follow homeschool stories in my former home state. MN has allowed homeschoolers to participate in high school (and junior high, for that matter) athletics for a number of years. Nearly every parent and coach I’ve spoken with as the current president of Minnesota Homeschoolers’ Alliance has had only positive things to say about the inclusion of homeschoolers.

     I’m not sure what more can be added to the debate that hasn’t already been said…except for the fact that there are states who manage to do this successfully. Here in MN, homeschoolers receive no preferential treatment and must go through the same try-out procedure as their school counterparts. They are held to the same academic standards (proof that they are maintaining good academic grades) and must commit to the practice and game schedule laid out by their coaches.

     As for the earlier comment… “Now along comes a home-schooled player who is a soccer phenomenon and the coach has no choice but to put the player on the team (more on the tryout process later). ” — how is this any different than a soccer phenom transferring INTO the school from another district or another state??

     As for the comment that bonding occurs during lunch and in classes as much as it does on the court or on the field…maybe in our generation it did, but these days more and more high school programs operate like their college level counterparts. Teams watch film together. They eat pre-game meals together. They condition together. This is where team-building often occurs…not during lunches where teammates might not be even in the same lunch block, or in classes that they may or may not share (last time I checked, 11th graders take different classes than their senior teammates).

     I hope Virginia homeschoolers will continue their pursuit of access to athletics. This doesn’t have to be an Us versus Them mentality. Inclusion can be one more avenue to bind us together — to provide one more thread to create a more tightly knit community.
169. Lake Claytor | April 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm

     “You chose to leave and you should stay gone.”

     It’s clear your view is a punitive one.

     Amy is right. Sandi’s view does sound punitive.
170. Lake Claytor | April 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm

     166

     I volunteer at a local elementary school, last Friday I witnessed first-hand how absurdly SHORT the lunches are.

     I asked a teacher, “Really? That’s all the time they get?”

     He laughed and said, “Yep”.

     Most of the kids had half of the food left on their tray. Talk about WASTE.

     —–

     “These children are controlled. The volume gets above a low buzz and the lights go out. Silence commences immediately.”

     I’ve seen this as well.

     Except, where I volunteer the teachers SCREAM at the kids from across the room.
171. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 4:35 pm

     Sandi, it’s very clear that your mind is made up. But it’s a debate and discussion forum, so the discussion continues.

     The fact that homeschoolers are a segment of the population that feels strongly about an issue and speaks out about it is not an effective argument against that issue.

     I think you’re dead wrong that by sheer force of numbers (or even effective rhetoric), homeschoolers, as about 2% of the population, will intimidate elected school boards all over the state to do our bidding. As I said, we haven’t done so yet on another issue we care about.

     If the issue does become one of local choice, and if school boards do overwhelming choose to allow homeschooled students to try out, then I am confident it will be because they believe that it is the right choice to make for the communities they represent. If the majority in those communities feel strongly in opposition, as you do, they will elect new representatives and change the decision.

     But right now, school boards can’t make a choice.

     I’m not interested in changing your mind (I mean, that would be great, but you’ve said it’s impossible, and I’ll take your word for it). I am interested in continuing to debate the substance of the issue, though, if anyone would like to.
172. Heather Parkinson | April 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm

     “Sure it is all just a big red herring, a straw man, because as we have seen here, you all do not work as a group, you do not bombard anyone with your POV and your reasons and most of all your insinuations that you are being wronged. No, not you. No school board member will have to face speaker after speaker telling how special your athlete is to the division. How big the community is, how exceptional these kids they are “hurting” are. No, not you. None of you will ever assure them that all you want is a chance, for a “handful” of kids and they can always just say no…cause they have a “choice”. No, not you.”

     Sandi – Wouldn’t it be amazing if the parents of publically schooled kids were this passionate about education, not only for their own kids but for kids in general? Wouldn’t it be great if every school board member had to face speaker after speaker telling them how special their kids are to the division? What an amazing world (dare I say community) we would live in if that were to happen.

     We don’t work as a group. The names I see repeated here are mine, Amy’s, and Jeanne’s. I’ve never met either of them.

     Is this forum not here for the sake of expressing one’s POV? Isn’t that what our government system (from the school board to the state legislature) here for? For the constituents to express their POV?

     Isn’t it great when it works, when people care enough to make it work? Isn’t that what being a citizen is all about?
173. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm

     Gee, and Lake Claytor is usually so quick to agree with and support me. Was it something you said? I think that those who left a school system they found wanting but now want to avail themselves of certain select aspects from are the ones being both punitive and demanding. You will, in many cases, and more to come, displace a kid who attends that school and if that position and not supporting you pushing your limited and selective way back into the system you left makes me “punitive”, then punitive I am proudly.
174. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 5:07 pm

     I think most parents whose kids attend public school ARE just as passionate about education as most homeschooling parents are. If they have an issue to advocate for on behalf of their children, or the children in their community, they speak out and work hard. On an everyday level, they volunteer in classrooms, in the school library, and more. They help with homework, attend teacher conferences, make phone calls and send emails. I think all good parents do whatever they can.

     I saw parents speaking out on both sides of this topic at the General Assembly hearings this session. I admired all of them for taking the time to get involved — and I knew many more cared deeply, but could not be there because they were working, or tending to little ones, or volunteering, or teaching — at home and in schools.

     We’re not different kinds of families, in my view. I actually think that, for the most part, we all have the same priorities: to raise healthy, happy, well-educated kids who will contribute to our society and support themselves and any family they have in the future. We’re just making different choices about some of the turnings along the way.
175. Karen Phaup | April 26, 2012 at 5:17 pm

     I have been reading with interest all of the posts here. At the risk of being accused of receiving some “bulletin to pile on”, here goes. I’d like to specifically address Jordan’s post #73 as he mentions being a Senior at the high school my 2 teen sons would attend if they were in public school. They did attend public school in Hanover County years ago. It was a mutual decision to begin homeschooling and each year the decision has been revisited. At this point, the decision about where they are educated is left up to them. If they wanted to be at PHHS, like most of their friends, that is where they would be. They’ve decided to continue with their self-directed learning at this time and continue to school at home. Now, what if they were interested in competitive athletics, of which they are not, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s say they were. How would this affect you, Jordan? It wouldn’t. It wouldn’t even affect you if this sports access bill had passed this year. How do I know this? Hanover County is one of the school divisions that doesn’t allow partial enrollment. If they don’t allow homeschoolers into the classroom, I think it’s reasonable to assume that they also wouldn’t allow homeschoolers onto the playing field. Your concerns over your classmate being cut from the team because a homeschooler beat him out is a non-issue for you.
     I’d also like to comment on Sandi’s post #134 Chuck, wanting “new voices” with more than one POV on a blog is one thing, the bulletin to pile on is quite another. While it is fine here, my point was that this is only a taste of what it will be when a school district is bombarded with the same zeal. That is a whole different kettle of fish. I am sorry you don’t see that, but I think it is glaring.
     Well, it’s not glaring to me. Let’s use the example of Hanover County again relating that to Sandi’s concerns above. If I’m understanding your concerns correctly, Sandi, you worry that passing sports access legislation will “open the flood gates” and overzealous homeschoolers will be flocking to the field for try outs. Is that correct? Well for years, the gates have been opened for partial enrollment, but Hanover schools aren’t drowning with students rushing into the classrooms for chemistry or biology, nor are homeschool parents applying pressure to the school board to let them in. My point is, Hanover is an area where homeschool needs are being met for the most part outside of the public school system. It’s some of these rural school divisions, as others have pointed out, that could benefit from public school sports access. If the school division needs more players to field a team, then why not let the individual school divisions have the authority to decide this for themselves?
176. Bruce Harper | April 26, 2012 at 6:29 pm

     Beth asks in #168, “As for the earlier comment… “Now along comes a home-schooled player who is a soccer phenomenon and the coach has no choice but to put the player on the team (more on the tryout process later). ” — how is this any different than a soccer phenom transferring INTO the school from another district or another state??”

     You make your point right there in all caps — he would be transferring INTO the school, so therefore would be competing for a spot on the team with all the other students from the school interested in a spot on the team to represent the school in competition against other schools. He wouldn’t be someone just showing up just because he wants to play soccer because he is a soccer player. That seems to be the difference that no one wants to understand or admit to. Jordon gets it — when you are playing on a team for your high school, you are out there for your fellow students and you expect that your classmates are behind you and cheering for you.

     If these teams represented a community, then perhaps it would be something like the Salem Red Sox or the Washington Redskins or the like (or the Blacksburg “something” if the town had some identity). But when the sports teams at Blacksburg High School take the field, the uniforms don’t say “Blacksburg Something” they say “Blacksburg Bruins” to identify the team as part of and representing the HIGH SCHOOL — not the whole community. Yes, some people may identify with the high school as part of their community but it isn’t the be and and end all of the town’s existence. Pretend as much as you want, propagandize as much as you like, but a high school isn’t THE public community you want it to be, to make it to be to justify forcing you way onto the field, into the gym, onto the team just to make your kid feel better.

     And, no, I’m not a hard-hearted person who hates kids. If there were a better way to do this, I would be all for it. I spent a number of years in soccer, from age-group coordinator to league president to board member, then years and miles in travel and high school soccer. I’ve also put in 20 years as a Scout leader, plus a number of other activities in support of youth and youth programs. I just don’t see being able to pick and choose what you want — especially the tactics being used to force the issue — as being anything but detrimental.
177. Jordan B | April 26, 2012 at 6:46 pm

     I dont have a lot of time but I would like to address the argument that public schools represent the community (or in the case of PH communities) that happen to lie within their attendance zones. Do high school athletic teams represent the local private school kid. How about the student who gets permission to attend the cross town rivals? Do they play for the lady across the street who complains about the stadium noise? Or what about the family with middle schoolers? These are all undisputably members of the community but clearly they are not invested in the success or failure of the public institution (save maybe the middle schooler).
     Look at it this way. When public schools fail they get less money from the state meaning everything from sports to athletics take a hit. Meanwhile the local homeschool family, whose kids do not contribute to the pass fail rate, can continue to provide the same quality education. If homeschoolers want to gain access to public sports the first step is taking the sols which every homeschooler I know could pass easily. This will help raise the high schools scores and show genuine commitment to its success.
     There is a school community. It includes the faculty, parents, and students who are raised up or put down in response to a high schools performance on and off the field. If a school is going to select a team to represent it in competition against other schools it should draw from this pool.
     As for restricting homeschoolers to practice and junior varsity teams I really don’t see the problem. This is the same capacity in which homeschoolers use academic rescources. There is loads of competition in practice and for running it can sometimes be as intense as a race itself. But that’s beside the point because junior varsity events mean that the student will be able to run in actual races or play in actual games against other schools no less just like homeschoolers want. I am only asking for a restriction from varsity athletics because I don’t believe a person who is not part of an institution or invested in its success should represent it. Please try to understand this point of view
178. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

     Hi, Jordan. I do understand your POV. However, I don’t think that the philosophy that athletic teams should represent the current student body outweighs the arguments in favor of allowing homeschooled students to try out — particularly if local school boards (and the citizens who elect them) can have a say in deciding that policy at the local level.

     I do think that people other than current students have an interest in our public high schools. People other than those students contribute when students come to their doors for fundraisers (I just bought two $29 candles from the middle-school student down the street, for example). Citizens (including homeschooling families) attend the games. Couples who don’t yet have kids have an interest in their local schools being strong and performing well. Retired people whose kids are grown want the children in their communities to be well-educated by good schools.

     I agree with you that the current students of a given school do have the strongest interest in that school. Homeschoolers on sports teams would also have that strong interest and allegiance, bonding with their teammates and being proud of their team. Some of them might even opt to attend public school as a result.

     Homeschoolers can’t take the SOLs, of course, because their purpose is to measure how well the school’s academic programs are performing — how well the teachers are teaching the material.
179. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

     No Karen Phaup, my “worry” is not “that passing sports access legislation will “open the flood gates” and overzealous homeschoolers will be flocking to the field for try outs”. My concern is that while insisting this is totally about the schools having a “choice”, I do not for one moment believe that is the goal or the honest intention of any of you who have posted so much about “choice”. You all will quite obviously not rest until the VHSL is forced to accept your kids. You will upset the entire system with legislation that bars schools from participating with them at all so that your choice is available and then you will indeed pile on the school division to get your way. There is no choice, there is no effort to have choice and the only choice you all will accept is getting your way. I would appreciate a little more honesty in admitting what is so plainly obvious.

     Jordan, ask some of the kids at your school to post their feelings on the matter too, if they would. If I am wrong about the feelings of kids in a high school athletic situation, I would love to know that from them. I have not been in high school since 1976 and while my best friend is still the same and I still keep in touch with “the old gang” on Facebook, my kids have been out of high school since 2002 and did not play any sport. I would love to hear from more public school kids, coaches, parents and teachers on the issue.
180. Heather Parkinson | April 26, 2012 at 9:45 pm

     Amy – I didn’t mean to belittle those parents – and there are many – who are as passionate (or more) than we (and, of course, some homeschooling parents aren’t so). But, I think perhaps, the percentage of those active proponents in the schools (I see the same handful of parents in my daughter’s school doing everything) is a smaller one than you will find in the homeschooling community. Homeschooling itself requires that passion. Unfortunately, for a significant number of kids in public school, the kids are there simply as a free childcare provider. But, I didn’t mean to issue a blanket statement or judgment.
181. Amy Wilson | April 26, 2012 at 9:50 pm

     Sandi, at the same time that you insist that homeschoolers are trying to force their way in with legislation such as that proposed by Del. Rob Bell this year, you still haven’t explained how local school divisions would be forced to allow homeschoolers to play.

     You raised the completely unrealistic specter of bullying homeschoolers cowing school boards into submission all across the state, while that has not been the case on other issues at all. You insist that the rule I cited from the VHSL handbook doesn’t give schools choice, while that rule clearly states that principals can bar eligibility for any students, no questions asked (and while different school divisions already have different eligibility rules on academic standards, demonstrating clearly that choice is possible even when VHSL has a specific eligibility standard in a given area).

     What is the basis for your assertion that homeschoolers are some kind of unstoppable force that always get their way?

     What is the basis for your assertion that, under legislation like that proposed this year, school divisions would have no choice at all?

     Even while I disagree, I can understand many of the other opposing viewpoints that have been expressed in this debate. But these two sticking points of yours simply don’t make sense to me.
182. Heather Parkinson | April 26, 2012 at 9:52 pm

     Sandi – I still don’t understand how you can see that this legislation offers no choice. As it stands now, public schools CANNOT allow homeschoolers to play. Period. Should this legislation pass (which wouldn’t come as a result of “us” upsetting “the entire system with legislation,” it would come as a result of the state’s representatives voting hopefully the way the majority of their constituents desire), the school systems will be able to decide for themselves whether or not to allow homeschoolers to play. They will be given a choice. They will be able to choose not to allow homeschoolers to try out; they will be able to choose to allow homeschoolers to try out. As it stands now, they CANNOT. That’s not a choice.

     Excellent idea on having public school kids and employees post. I’ll ask my kids’ friends and coaches and friends’ parents if they can find time to do just that.

     However, I would ask that anyone posting educate himself on the wording of the bill – read the actual bill and do some research into the facts surrounding the bill – and not just post emotional responses based upon what he’s heard or read about the bill. As any good student knows, investigate your source of information.
183. Karen Phaup | April 26, 2012 at 11:02 pm

     Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding of your “worries”/concerns. Did you notice that in my post I asked if I was understanding you correctly? I made an assumption, but asked if I was correct? It would have been nice if you had afforded me the same courtesy. I don’t allow anyone to get inside my head or my heart and tell me what my motivations or intentions are. Only I can know that. My reality is this: I will never ask the VHSL to accept my kids and my “honest intention” is that this is about choice, choice at the local level. You absolutely have made your position clear here and have stated you will not change your position on this topic. I accept that. What I won’t accept is that you can tell me what I think or how I feel.
184. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 11:27 pm

     Yes, you will all respect the school’s “choice”, just like you have accepted mine, Bruce’s and Jordan’s and with 100 times the gusto. Again, who is it you are trying to kid by couching this in terms of “try-outs” and “choices”? It is not what you are after and it is not what you are going to settle for. Why you can’t admit that obvious truth is just beyond acceptable candor.
185. Sandi Saunders | April 26, 2012 at 11:31 pm

     Heather, as hard as it might be for you to believe, some parents have to work during the school day, or sleep so they can work at night. Public school students have many advocates and loyal parents who speak up for them and work hard to make the schools the best they can be and your attitude of superiority over them is not pretty. Maybe that is indeed the crux of my ire. The schools on the whole, are not good enough for you all but the good parts of the school should still be at your disposal. No sale.
186. Bruce Harper | April 27, 2012 at 5:38 am

     Back in 159, Amy claims I threw up a red herring earlier when I asked people from private schools hadn’t joined them in their crusade.

     “I think that blocking local kids from athletic opportunities in their own neighborhoods is shameful, if there exist avenues for making it work. I think those avenues exist.

     As for private schools, first homeschoolers are told they can’t have sports access because “private schools will be next” and now you’re saying they shouldn’t have an opportunity to try out because private schools aren’t lined up, too. It’s hard to know which red herring to counter first.”

     It isn’t a red herring, it is a legitimate question, which Amy lays the groundwork for in the paragraph right before her “red herring” comment. The crux of this whole thing is that public schools are this big open community with great sports programs, except the big bad VHSL is prohibiting everyone but a few from participating. Along come the homeschool people, who are trying to change the rules, but only to allow them to come into the inner circle. Still excluded are those who attend private schools because there is no mention of what they are supposed to do.

     So the kid who is a good baseball player and who lives for Dixie league in the summer, but attends a small Christian school, is left out of the warm-up for Dixie league — high school baseball in the spring. After all, there is no provision for him to try out or play on his community high school team because he doesn’t attend the high school. The VHSL rules prohibit that.

     This could be changed, but your campaign only addresses homeschoolers exclusively. So much for community. There will still be young people on the outside looking in, because a special interest group was only looking out for its own narrow special interest, not the whole well being of the full community it is claiming exists. Were this something to allow all “local kids . . . in their own neighborhoods” access to athletic opportunities, it might make a little difference — but I still would not be in favor of opening up high school sports to just anyone who walked in the door and wanted to play on the team, over students who attend that school full-time.
187. Amy Wilson | April 27, 2012 at 7:06 am

     Bruce, as I have explained multiple times, the author of this year’s bill was Del. Rob Bell, not homeschoolers. We did not write this bill, and we were not consulted as it was being written. We were only able to respond, as citizens, to this legislation after it was introduced in the General Assembly. I do not know Del. Bell’s reasons for limiting it to homeschoolers and not including private school students. This was the bill we had, and we supported it.

     My guess is that if private school students and their families had had a significant interest, they would have spoken up. To my knowledge, they did not. It could be that they have sufficient athletic opportunities, or that they did not wish to be in the middle of the hoopla that the bill raised — or there could be many other reasons.

     Personally, I would wholeheartedly support the participation of private school students as well. I think most homeschooling families would, and yes, I do see them as part of the community. A workable scenario I have seen in other states is to allow private school students to participate in programs only in sports for which their school does not already field a team.

     In fact, VHSL’s rules already allow private school teams to enter into competition with public school teams. Homeschool teams (where they exist), cannot.
188. Amy Wilson | April 27, 2012 at 7:09 am

     “Yes, you will all respect the school’s “choice”, just like you have accepted mine, Bruce’s and Jordan’s and with 100 times the gusto.”

     Disagreeing with someone in a debate forum is somehow denying them “choice”?
189. 89Hoo | April 27, 2012 at 8:51 am

     Well, Mrs. Wilson, see there’s the problem.

     The actual text of the bill – HB 947 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+HB947E) – does not contain the words “choice”, “home school”, “athletics”, or any of the other buzzwords the statists on this forum throw out; ergo, it cannot POSSIBLY be about expanding choice to school districts. It also does not disparage those parents who choose to educate their children themselves, so it MUST be a plot to abolish public schools.

     It’s very literal, the statist mind, and wrapped tightly in tinfoil.

     In fact, the bill really only tangentially relates to athletics. What the bill does is prohibit public – taxpayer-funded – schools from joining groups that exclude certain segments of the public (i.e., taxpayers). Such as the VHSL. It does NOT force the school district to accept home-schooled or private school students (they can still establish rules and criteria for eligible players, including enrollment requirements), but the fact that there is no sentence in the legislation that says, “This bill does NOT force the school district to accept home-schooled or private school students (they can still establish rules and criteria for eligible players, including enrollment requirements)” means, obviously, that it DOES force the school district to accept home-schooled or private school students.
190. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 9:33 am

     Bruce, I accept that you personally don’t see homeschoolers as part of the school community. It’s not been my experience that this is way most people take homeschoolers in any of the places I’ve lived and homeschooled, but that’s all been in small rural southern towns in three southern states – maybe there is some kind of cultural difference or something, I don’t know.

     I think that outsider status, or lack of being in the in-group, is difficult to overcome for two percenters – but I think that extending community services equally to them might help de-vilify them and increase support for schools, which you have earlier noted, are facing hard times.

     We’ve hosted an exchange student who attended public schools (and by the way, he was allowed to play high school soccer!), we’ve attended a zillion games and plays and elementary school fun nights, and, as I said, our family was instrumental in getting the facility built where our high school plays soccer, I coached a lot of the kids who are currently on the high school team and more who will be on it next year, my son was coached by the high school coach for YEARS, and so on. Where we have lived and where we had no high school sports opportunity, I really did feel very much like the school/community “boundary” was not at all this impermeable membrane that it apparently it feels like to you – it just felt like we were one town of people trying to work together for their kids, y’know? No bright line.

     There, in that kind of small town not close to any metro area, there just aren’t all these duplicated facilities and groups to choose from – there is no other place to play soccer, no private high school at all. There is no rec department. There is no high school age competitive team outside the school and not enough kids to make one. There is no homeschool sports league. There are barely enough homeschoolers to have a tea party if you include the toddlers, much less enough to have a team of any kind. But there, right THERE, playing on a non-school-owned field, is “our” high school team, crossing right over all those boundaries to play on (“gasp!”) a COMMUNITY field, but prohibited from allowing my son to try out.

     Now again, in my son’s case, he’s ok. I don’t have any little kids (he’s a youngest), so I am able to “take the consequences” as Sandi is always wanting me to do, and drive past town after town, school after school, to get to a city with club soccer. I actually LEAVE the community where I was a volunteer with school kids, so that I can do this. This has actually worked out well for us – we’re really happy with the quality of the program and it meets our kid’s need. Sadly – next spring my son will age into the U15 program – which doesn’t play in the spring – because this is a break for the kids TO PLAY HIGH SCHOOL SOCCER. Once again, we’ll be back in the boat of no place to play.

     Now, if he continues playing and can get a rung or two higher and be eligible for the MOST elite team, they have actually begun PROHIBITING the kids from playing high school soccer so that they can train with the club year round. (This is a national initiative by US Soccer and will be coming to a club near you!) However, that’s an extremely, extremely competitive level of soccer – and my son is currently not that good and may not ever have that opportunity. Which SHOULD be ok, because at the level he plays at, his club presumes he’ll have high school soccer to try out for. Again – no pity party here – we’ll find a way for him to train during that season if he wants to continue soccer – but it is just amazing the gyrations we will have had to go through by that time, when our community’s team – which to ME it IS as much as to YOU it is NOT – is playing right there on the field where my son was welcome for so many years.

     (As an aside, in soccer at least, we’re going to have to see what happens as these super elite academy programs develop and siphon off the most competitive kids from high school teams. I guess it would not be enough kids to generate open spots on the more urban/suburban teams, but it might shift scholarship focus??? I don’t know. Remains to be seen).

     So the things that we participated in there with our school friends, and the things that we did for and with the schools, certainly that felt like our community. I can understand that perhaps if you or Jordan haven’t picked up rocks alongside a homeschooler on the soccer field where the high school plays etc, maybe you haven’t experienced that. In our small town, it was just the way things were done. In other places, where homeschoolers have perhaps been circled out with a brighter line, or where there are simply so many alternatives that there has been no particular demand, perhaps playing sports together could indeed be a good way to provide some of that experience.

     Anyway. I get what you are saying. I just have a different experience. And my family will be fine. But my rural community will be better off if engaged, committed families don’t leave it and could continue to work together in the only sports programs in town. And, frankly, if I had to imagine myself doing this when our family was younger, with fewer resources and more kids we are busy educating, it just would be a missed opportunity. I understand that is a “consequence” that I have to accept- but I am not sure how it is indicative of a public truly being served. It’s unlikely my kid will play high school sports at this point – but I’d sure like a chance for others to do so in the future. In MY community – it could be a win-win.

     Now on the other hand, I do have trouble understanding your private school point. The schools don’t accept private school students or homeschooled students into their public programs, but somehow because the legislation I supported as a homeschooler is specific to homeschoolers, it’s exclusive? Like…more exclusive than the public schools excluding people? The private school folks do have an association and the ability to vote, lobby etc. – I trust them to look out for their interests. I don’t think homeschoolers should or would be able to speak for private school folks. I know that homeschoolers would not like it if private school folks spoke for us – we are not the same. However, certainly if it feels like an inconsistency, I imagine that VHSL could address that at the same time that it works with homeschoolers. Maybe, though, there just is not a need? I’m not sure. I don’t know the deal with private schools and sports access.

     Anyway, I hope this helps you see the nature of what we are dealing with, and how, since communities can be so different, it is good for communities to be able to affect their own outcomes, rather than face a blanket prohibition that does not consider local needs.
191. Sandi Saunders | April 27, 2012 at 9:51 am

     Yeah 89Hoo, and federal funds for Planned Parenthood cannot be used on abortions, but somehow that NEVER stops those non “statists” and non “tin-foil hat” wearers from claiming it does every day they breathe.

     Sure, we all believe that after FORCING the VHSL to accept these private and non-public school children, that the schools will be left in peace to make that “choice”.

     That is pure and stale baloney and you know it.

     I have not disparaged the people who choose to home school, or send their children to private, religious or any other kind of school and I have not encouraged anyone to do so. I have characterized, and I believe rightly so, their choice to leave the public school system and then demand access and accommodation on their terms as elitist because that is how I see it. Those are two entirely different issues. Oddly enough, I did not take you for a special interests supporter. I thought you had expressed that everyone wanting to have their own piece of the system was not good. Sorry, I obviously misunderstood that your despising the government is stronger than your dislike for special interests.
192. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 10:12 am

     Wow, 89Hoo, the way you put it makes it sound like grounds for legal action based on unequal access…

     Now THAT would be a tough direction to go for all concerned.

     Again, I would just like to see this worked out – not even in the Legislature, much less in court. Just at the table. (The in-joke among homeschoolers would be – anywhere but the kitchen table, which everyone presumes is where we do all our educational activities!)

     Because I can’t imagine the resources such a suit would take and how it might impact high school sports or VHSL if went to that point. Yikes, and the hard feelings it would create.

     Far better to take Mr. Henderson’s interest in homeschoolers more seriously. He says “Furthermore, instead of fighting in the state legislature, it would be best to work together on solutions to help make the home-school athletic programs already in existence stronger.”

     That is, rather than fighting in the legislature or seeing VHSL in a court battle, which you raise the specter of (again – yikes!), why not work WITH homeschoolers? Perhaps now, since the RT has provided an opportunity for VHSL to understand that homeschool athletic programs already in existence can not serve families like ours (since they don’t exist in our areas and there is no way for them to exist to serve one person per team), they really will be willing to strengthen opportunities for homeschoolers!
193. 89Hoo | April 27, 2012 at 10:22 am

     191 – Sandi, the legislation places no burden on VHSL, doesn’t even mention them. It says publicly funded schools cannot belong to groups that exclude segments of the people that fund them. But I guess your fear is that once schools are given the choice to accept home-schooled kids they will see the benefits of doing so and start allowing them to participate. In which care your argument is not with Richmond but with your local school district.

     You certainly HAVE misunderstood me, if you truly thought that felt “everyone wanting to have their own piece of the system was not good”…I have no idea how you could have gotten that notion. Everyone should have access and opportunity, and the means to achieve their own piece of the system, but they shouldn’t have it handed to them. So if a home-schooled kid wants to play football at the local public high school, he has to keep his grades up, he has to pay whatever fees the other kids have to pay, he has to try out and risk getting cut, he has to obey they team rules. But he should have the opportunity.

     It has nothing to do with my despising the government (a bit strong…let’s say I distrust the government and am convinced the private sector is more efficient and effective at damned near everything…a different discussion) and everything with choice and opportunity.
194. 89Hoo | April 27, 2012 at 10:26 am

     192 – Jeanne, I agree – working to make the home school athletic programs stronger and more robust is ultimately the best solution. But it still doesn’t de-obligate public schools from allowing access for all children.

     As an aside…are the home school athletic programs exclusive to home-schooled kids, or would they allow participation from other kids as well? I’m not trying to be contentious, I’m just curious.
195. Sandi Saunders | April 27, 2012 at 10:35 am

     NOW you are talking Jeanne! You folks get the schools, the parents, and that community you are such an integral part of, to convince the VHSL and the schools to adapt and adopt guidelines that serve BOTH public schools, varsity sports teams and home/private schools and I will support whatever decision they all agree on.

     This legislation is forcing what should have been a natural consensus if it was the right thing to do. I am sick and tired of the special interests and money in this nation riding rough shod over the institutions that have served us for over 200 years. Entirely too many issues are “settled” by way of some bogus legislative action that no one likes and it causes animosity that festers for years. Public schools have taken the brunt of that from the SOL’s to NCLB and any other political issue people can foist onto them instead of letting them handle their business and letting things progress naturally.

     You do this the right way, the hard way sure, but the right way, by building a consensus, compromising and coming to a good outcome for all and I will back you 100%. You insist on legislating your way into the schools and I will never do so.
196. Sandi Saunders | April 27, 2012 at 10:40 am

     89Hoo, I am not sure whether you are that naive or you believe I am. It is simply not the truth that “the legislation places no burden on VHSL”. That is just false. They exist to run the athletic programs at public schools in Virginia and ANY legislation that bars public schools from even being a member of the VHSL, is nothing short of a HUGE burden. If the legislature passed a law that said no one could become a client of any business that…and then went on to describe your business, down to the tiniest detail, even if they did not use your name, I am pretty sure you would figure it out fast enough. That is just not an honest characterization. It is much like the “choice” you all insist is available.
197. 89Hoo | April 27, 2012 at 11:38 am

     196 – Sandi, you need to read a little more carefully. It’s as if you are intentionally reading the opposite of what is written.

     I am NOT insisting that choice is available, I am stating outright that there is currently NO CHOICE. School districts cannot include home-schooled students if they CHOSE to do so. This legislation would provide the means for local school districts to HAVE a CHOICE, but it does NOT compel or mandate that accept that they accept those students. If they choose not to, they don’t have to. It’s a matter of CHOICE.
198. Chuck | April 27, 2012 at 11:48 am

     “This legislation is forcing what should have been a natural consensus if it was the right thing to do.”

     This is so hypocritical. I guess this means Obamacare wasn’t the right thing to do. Obvioulsy if it was there would have been a natural consensus, right? How about gay marriage, or immigration. Not much of a natural consensus on those issues that I can see. Does that mean they shouldn’t be legislated? How many times have you argued that the whole point of having laws is to protect minorities from mob rule? Now you think it isn’t the right thing to do unless there is a natural consensus?
199. Chuck | April 27, 2012 at 11:54 am

     Oh and Sandi, about your post @154. Thank you for demonstrating what I’ve been saying for a long time now. You assume that everyone is as partisan as you. I take a position based on the issue, not the political party and I do not assume I know how others feel about one issue because I disagreed with them on the other. For the record, your position here is quite inconsistent with most of your others as well, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t genuine.
200. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 12:08 pm

     Sandi, I am not sure what makes you think that a great many non-homeschoolers were not supportive of this bill. This bill IS a result of that consensus. That is how the democratic process works – people already DO support the bill, and that is why it passed through the House of Delegates with a majority vote. Homeschoolers, at 2% of the population, have no ability to ram anything anywhere.

     Homeschoolers have many friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens who support the idea that VHSL should not be able to prohibit homeschoolers from access to public sports teams, and it is they, along with homeschoolers who supported the legislation. We have already done the consensus building over many years!

     We are seeing the fruit of that now.
201. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm

     Oh, and unfortunately, legislation IS sometimes required to enforce consensus, if an organization with control of a public resource does not have accountability. It is the only way to hold them accountable.

     At any time, VHSL has in its power to be more responsive – but the citizens of Virginia – not just homeschoolers, but ALL the voters who put legislators in place – have no way other than legislation to require them to do so. (Sigh – that is the crux of this problem!)

     And again, keep in mind that homeschoolers did not write this bill. I presume that Del. Bill presented something he felt his constituency would favor, and I presume that delegates from around the state who voted in favor of the bill were doing so because they believe that is what the majority of voters in their districts wanted.

     Unlike VHSL, delegates have to seek re-election (which is sort of why we keep calling VHSL “private,” though I think that Bruce is thinking that because it has representatives from schools, we should be ok with that. (I mean, nobody loves coaches more than I do. Seriously. But I can’t elect them). The problem is that VHSL can be self-perpetuating, since it is not accountable. Under the current system, VHSL is able to not only ignore localities’ wishes, it is also able to ignore what you are calling “consensus”.

     But again, if they are not responsive, at least the General Assembly has within its power to follow what the majority of voters support.
202. Lake Claytor | April 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm

     197

     Futility.
203. Sandi Saunders | April 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm

     I can read and comprehend perfectly well 89Hoo.

     You said: “the legislation places no burden on VHSL, doesn’t even mention them“. When the bill clearly stated: “No public school shall become a member of any organization or entity whose purpose is to regulate or govern interscholastic programs that does not deem eligible for participation“… variously described home schooled children. I was responding to you that it most definitely puts a HUGE burden on the VHSL when it bans schools from being a member because the VHSL does not accommodate home schooled children. It is legislated, change or die for the VHSL.

     The issue of supposed “choice” comes in when the same people backing this change or die legislation insist the schools will be allowed to have the choice and I think this blog alone has proven that the reality is that the schools will have no choice either. They too will be labeled “punitive” and all sorts of bad faith insults for daring to deprive these special children their rightful choice such that they too will cave in just like the VHSL was meant to do. I do not believe that no home schooler had influence or any part in the wording of the bill. This is a concerted and divisive effort to force change rather than a consensus to explain and work for change. For those who need the jargon, this is ramming it down the throats of those who either like it or lump it.
204. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm

     And just in case those don’t know the history, it is my understanding that homeschoolers have offered for many years to work on this issue, but that VHSL has never agreed even to a meeting, as far as I know. (If there have been such meetings, someone can correct me – I am neither a VHSL expert nor a legislative expert).

     While it would be nice to think there is some way to do this without legislation, and I happen to think there is, such an approach would indeed require VHSL’s involvement.

     Personally, I think that would be a good thing.
205. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 1:02 pm

     “I do not believe that no home schooler had influence or any part in the wording of the bill.”

     Well I am not sure it has been stated that NO homeschooler had influence – I’m not sure how in the world we’d know that.

     Amy Wilson, director of government affairs of The Organization of Virginia Homeschoolers, simply pointed out neither she nor that org had anything to do with it.

     I absolutely have no knowledge of any homeschooler having a part in writing that bill, but you’d have to ask Delegate Bell that. Because I’m sure you wouldn’t want to insinuate that people here are being dishonest.
206. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm

     “This is a concerted and divisive effort to force change rather than a consensus to explain and work for change.”

     Actually, this is the result of having built consensus and worked for change!
207. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 1:20 pm

     I want to go back and beg pardon, Sandi. I did say this — “And again, keep in mind that homeschoolers did not write this bill.”

     And then I contradicted myself in a later post.

     In both cases, what I intended to communicate was that as far as I know – as far as any homeschoolers I know – homeschoolers did not write the bill. I know that the statewide homeschooling organization that ended up supporting this bill definitely did not have a hand in crafting it.

     I apologize if I sounded like I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth. This was hurried posting, not intent to obfuscate.
208. Amy Wilson | April 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm

     ” I think this blog alone has proven that the reality is that the schools will have no choice either.”

     You have yet to demonstrate that point, Sandi. I gave very clear evidence to support the argument that under this year’s legislation, school divisions would have been able to establish their own eligibility policies for homeschooled students. Where is the evidence that they would not?

     “I do not believe that no home schooler had influence or any part in the wording of the bill.”

     Delegate Bell’s family did homeschool his younger brother, so I suppose in a sense, Bell himself is a “homeschooler” who influenced the bill, and he has worked on this subject for a couple of years now, and has spoken with many homeschooling constituents. But The Organization of Virginia Homeschoolers did not see the content of this bill until it came out on the General Assembly’s Legislative Information System in January, nor did we have any input into it. We did not request this bill. We responded to it.

     Supporting a bill in the legislature, using the established democratic process, is not “ramming it down the throats” of anyone. You expressed the view that VaHomeschoolers is “intimidating” — on the contrary, being a volunteer with no legislative experience (which is what I was before this General Assembly session), standing up in the Virginia Senate to speak in favor of a bill that is opposed by more than half a dozen large organizations, each with their own professional lobbyists lined up — THAT was intimidating. You’re portraying homeschooling families as an unstoppable force with great political power, when we’re a small group that has been trying to work out a solution for a long, long time.
209. Amy Wilson | April 27, 2012 at 1:46 pm

     To clarify my post # 208 — I’m still a volunteer. Now I have a little bit of experience in the General Assembly.
210. Bruce Harper | April 27, 2012 at 1:56 pm

     Jeanne, I posted yesterday the membership and the means for change to the VHSL, yet you continue to talk of the organization as if it is an unapproachable monolith that meets in the dark of night in the middle of the Great Dismal Swamp. There is a difference between the “VHSL is able to . . . ignore localities’ wishes” and the members choosing to either not take up an issue or voting down the change in its rules. Perhaps that will be addressed by someone from the League. But there is a way to try to effect a change from the bottom up, starting with a meeting with a local school principal who is a member of the VHSL. Per the rules I posted yesterday, he can propose an amendment to the bylaws or rules. If he (or she) is unwilling, then perhaps a chat with the district superintendent might be in order to determine why that administrator is being unresponsive. Next step would be to enlist the school board to the cause. They all have a stake in the matter if they really are interested in your quest and could find at least one principal or other administrator in the district with a seat at the VHSL table to start the change process. Whether it gains traction is then up to the Executive Committee, again, made up of people from the public schools across the state.

     As to the point of the legislation, it puts schools between a rock and a hard place and pretty much forces the hand of the schools to make the rule change. No one could easily pull out of the VHSL without damaging their athletic program, since that is the umbrella organization for how competition works across the state. A school would be left with no other schools to play since it could not participate in district, regional, or state games. Its athletes, debate and theatre students, and cheerleaders would be left high and dry, practicing for games and events that would not happen.

     To clarify my comments about private schools, yes, there is a provision to allow competition against those schools that have an athletic program. The example I was giving was for those schools that are to small to have any kind of program. Here in Blacksburg, Dayspring Christian Academy has a very successful sports program for both boys and girls. Down the road in the Ellett Valley is Gateway Christian Academy, which to my knowledge doesn’t have any sports teams. It is the student at that latter school who is being left out of your “community” by not being able to participate in a sports program.

     But I still don’t believe that high schools sports should be for anyone except the students at the high school. It is just a whole different dynamic, which still hasn’t been explained — if someone who isn’t a student at the school is on the team, who is he playing for and representing? Himself? The team? The school?
211. Jordan B | April 27, 2012 at 4:25 pm

     Thank you very much Mrs. Faulconer for sharing you expirences. Its through stories like yours that this debate can see the human side of the issue. I can’t say your predicament is unique (nor do I suspect it is) but I can confirm your assumption that line between homeschoolers and those who attend public schools is much bolder in Roanoke city.
     My brother is a chess player and competes against the homeschool chess team. This seems to say that if homeschoolers have the capacity to compete they will form their own team which represent their style of education. However if the rescources and personel are not available for a specific sport then they would like the public schools (the same ones they compete against in chess) to service their need.
     Of course judging by your post your community does not have its own homeschool chess team. It seems to me that your family has not separated itself from the others accept in the way you do education. Even in that department you have supported neighbors and consequently the school itself. I think you anecdote lends great support to the argument that individual districts should decide and I wish the best for a healthy continuation of your son’s soccer playing career.
     That said I maintain that varsity sports, so far as my distinct is concerned, should be kept off limits. PH will be very close when it comes to passing its math SOLs this year (I know this because my dad teaches at the school). If the school fails there will consequences. The handful of honeschooled kids who live in the attendance zone could help raise those scores if they switched into public schools. When a family, by choice, no longer contributes to the academic success of the local school then it makes little sense for them to represent this school in competition. Whether PH passes or fails, the homeschool kids in our community will be able to maintain the same quality of education. At the same time, If they could play sports they would benefit from the schools athletics. Thats what I call the best of both worlds.
     Your thoughts as always
     – Jordan
212. Sandi Saunders | April 27, 2012 at 5:48 pm

     Chuck, my post #154 did not “demonstrate” that I “assume that everyone is as partisan” as I am; quite the contrary. I too decide my “position based on the issue, not the political party” and I am well aware that there are liberals, and Democrats with whom I usually align who are supportive of this idea and even the legislation.

     And I beg to disagree if you believe that you “do not assume” you “know how others feel” about an issue.

     BTW, how is it that you argue the schools get the same money but less students due to the home school decision in the same paragraph as you argue that they won’t kick a “dangerous” kid out because they get funding per student enrolled?

     Hokie24, it is actually the home school crowd that is making public school sound like the place their children go to be abused and die. To the point that even a “gifted” athlete cannot possibly “make it” in such an environment, except of course on their terms. Obviously enrolling in the school would be the “punishment” THEY are trying to avoid.

     There is no rage being expressed here, fierce debate is what I do, but I have expressed no rage at anyone. I have not said “that parents who choose to homeschool aren’t helping their community”. I have no children in a public school, what can I possibly be “jealous” of? I do not know any of these people, though I certainly know some parents who home school their kids and I admire that commitment. I have not expressed or implied any “hate” and neither has anyone else.

     Chuck and Brian, perhaps we need to re-define what “A free and public education is”. It has not been a cafeteria plan before and that certainly smacks of an elitism that will not serve the most nearly as well as the least but that has hardly been a concern for many people or politicians so mayhap it should be revisited. Until it is, the rules are the rules and I do not support forcing the hand the way this legislation does.

     If there had been a “public consensus” built in this state, the bill would have passed. Certainly in the current Virginia General Assembly, it would have passed with even a whiff of it, so I am seriously doubting that to be accurate.

     The “primary question” IMO, remains, what is best for the most students in the public school system. If that is allowing home schooled, private schooled or institutionalized children to attend on their own terms, that should still be determined by the education system not legislative mandate.

     I am curious too, are the home school athletic programs exclusive to home-schooled kids, or do they allow participation from children in the community or “school division” as well?

     I am sorry that some of you seem to think that I normally support legislated change being forced on the majority in favor of the minority but I am not sure where that opinion comes from. I did not want the military to “allow” gay citizens to serve; I wanted the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that the US Constitution says they can not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I do not want states to make gay marriage legal; I want the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that the Constitution of the United States means that homosexual couples have the exact same civil rights that heterosexual couples have, including marriage, tax and inheritance laws. I do not want states to decide that abortion is legal. I want the Supreme Court to declare that the Constitution of America protects the private reproductive decisions of women in every state. I do not want states and localities to decide to hang the Ten Commandments or pray to Jesus at government meetings, I want the Supreme Court of the Nation to declare that the Constitution does not allow them to mix government and religion, any religion. If you will not build consensus to change the rules of the private VHSL, then you should leave them alone or, get the Supreme Court to declare that the “public education system” means whatever it is you want it to mean. I am totally consistent IMO.

     LOL Amy, “Supporting a bill in the legislature, using the established democratic process, is not “ramming it down the throats” of anyone”. Would you explain that to Chuck? Thanks!
213. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 10:12 pm

     Sandi, actually some homeschool organizations have quite specific membership tenets, requiring families or board members to sign or adhere to a specific statement of faith. This would not only exclude many public schoolers, but it excludes many homeschoolers as well. This comes as a surprise to many non-homeschoolers and further narrows the playing field (no pun intended) for some homeschoolers. I can’t speak for specific sports groups, since the community where we ran out of sports options does not have a large enough homeschooling community to support such an organization at all. I expect policies vary from community to community.

     I would defend the right of those homeschoolers to associate as they like – no public funds are involved – but it does perhaps provide insight as to why some homeschooling families might have more in common with their public school neighbors – and why their personal opportunities are limited when it comes to “homeschool sports alternatives” that everyone has seemed to assume are so prevalent and available.
214. Jeanne Faulconer | April 27, 2012 at 10:38 pm

     Jordan,

     Yes, you are right that in the community where we ran out of sports options, there is no homeschool chess team. There is also no homeschool robotics team, no football team, no soccer team, and no basketball team. This is not because homeschoolers are lazy or not trying hard enough, but because there are too few homeschoolers!

     I appreciate your acknowledgement of the differences in our communities, and I acknowledge the same.

     I think it is very hard for people to realize how different some areas of Virginia are. When I moved to that part of southern Virginia about five years ago, I looked up the net population growth there for the past ten years. I chucked aloud that the growth was documented as “1″. You read that right. While many people thought of Virginia as booming during that time – that specific statistical area had increased by one person in ten years. Since homeschooling appeals to a narrow number of people – 2% of students it the generally accepted figure, I think you can imagine just how few homeschoolers there are in an area that grew by one person when the rest of the state was growing like crazy. This speaks to the very different situations specific communities are facing, including some areas that have really faced hard times, particularly as the tobacco and textile industries have declined so dramatically.

     One way to handle making public sports programs more equitable would be as the legislation last year did – allowing your school division to make a decision that reflects the situation there, and allowing the rural southern Virginia school division to make a decision that reflects its situation.

     As to SOLs, I’d be careful about that one. You may personally know bright homeschoolers, but those of us who have been homeschooling a long time realize that because exceptional homeschoolers are often featured in the news, it can be a stereotype that all homeschoolers are bright and do well in testing. The truth is probably closer to this: homeschooled kids have a range of academic skills that is similar to that of the general population. For instance, many people choose to homeschool struggling learners BECAUSE they can offer them individual assistance at home. And we often hear people say that they homeschool average kids because “they don’t qualify for special needs and they don’t qualify for the gifted program” and were getting lost in the shuffle.

     Homeschooling allows many students of varying abilities to flourish, and it provides those who might not excel academically in a classroom setting a chance to catch up on things – or to focus on things like their entrepreneurial ability or a special hobby or interest, so that they may be able to learn general skills in unusual ways. But unless you found a way to selectively encourage only homeschoolers who are good test takers, you might find your SOL scenario not to be that great.

     That is a good thought, though, Jordan, and I understand why you came up with it. Again, I think this is a function of people presuming that all homeschoolers are like the particular ones they know or have heard about. However, even positive stereotypes can be misleading.

     In any case, I appreciate your concern for both the homeschoolers in my area who don’t have a place to play and for your fellow athletes you attend school with.
215. LBelle | April 28, 2012 at 12:40 am

     And so we see at long last that Sandi truly is a statist, because she would prefer that nine appointed justices overrule elected legislatures representing the Constitutional will of their citizens. At least the veil is off. Perhaps a homeschooling family with a high school age athlete who wants to try out for a team should just sue their local school district and the VHSL for unequal access and see what happens.
216. Heather Parkinson | April 28, 2012 at 2:03 am

     I’ve been a bit out of the loop, dealing with work and the homeschool prom today and tonight, but I quickly wanted to respond to Sandi’s post way back (185). If you’d asked, you’d have known it is not at all hard for me to believe that parents work during the day, or night. My husband has two full-time jobs (112 hours a week, as a firefighter and EMT) and I work from home full-time (often up until the wee hours of the morning to complete what is due the next morning). Yet we still homeschool. There are even single working parents who homeschool. It’s all about priorities and choices. It’s difficult, yes, but not impossible.

     If I’ve come across as feeling superior, please forgive me. That is not at all my intention (nor that, I’m certain, of any one else here). Certainly, we are not superior to any parents working as hard as they can to do what is best for their children, actively participating in their children’s upbringing and education. We are simply folks who have managed to find a way, struggle though it is, to do something different, something that works better for us than the system offered by the government (or private institutions). There are those for whom that system works, and works well; there are those for whom it does not. If anything, we often feel quite inferior as that is how we are typically treated by those who choose not to homeschool and who often don’t take the time to understand homeschooling before judging.

     Now I’ll try to go get caught up on the rest of the posts and hope I haven’t put my foot in my mouth by responding before having read everything!
217. Richard J Beason, CPA | April 28, 2012 at 7:59 am

     In reading the many comments by home schooling Moms, it appears that you are most congenial, fair, intelligent,and multitasking. You also appear to be highly protective of your children as you should be. But one of the biggest problems in public schools is not the parents that do not care about their children, it is the parents that only care about their children. Public schools must care about each child equally, and quite honestly, they are constantly barraged with parents who believe their child deserves exception, can do no wrong, and is smarter and better than the other children. You are asking the public school administrators, teachers, and coaches to go out on a limb and bring in parents who have demonstrated their supreme protection of their children and are telling us that you only want the opportunity to compete. The school systems resist bringing in more headaches as they have enough already. You have demonstrated that your children need, deserve, or you want your child to have exceptional treatment that public schools cannot provide. Yet you are asking the Public schools to step into a quagmire for you and you will not expect special treatment for your child? The fact is your child deserves the right to play sports. The fact is public schools have all the headaches they can handle. The fact is you want your child to have benefits public schools cannot provide in its one of the herd process. The fact is, public schools are not going to ask for the additional headache of bringing in parents that expect individual exceptional treatment of their child to their sports when there are already more than enough headaches there already. The practical matter is that the schools cannot handle an additional problem and one that is certain to rise due to the parents involved not wanting their children to be part of the herd.
218. Sandi Saunders | April 28, 2012 at 6:20 pm

     Yes LBelle, you have “outed” me as believing in the role of the Constitution and how it is confirmed. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that was the role of the Supreme Court of the United States as defined by the writers of the Constitution. Trusting the will of the majority was never the goal of the Founders. Protecting the rights of citizens and systems as they relate to the Constitution is what this nation was founded on and the reason it survives today, regardless of what the majority desires.

     I do not always like the decisions of the Supreme Court, but in supporting the Constitution, I recognize their role in judging controversial legislation and the interpretation of laws as they apply to citizens. I am not sure what you call people who don’t, but it can’t be good.

     I do not believe that the home school movement and the courts are exactly strangers. Go for it.
219. Amy Wilson | April 28, 2012 at 6:50 pm

     This has been one of the better online discussions of this topic, and on behalf of The Organization of Virginia Homeschoolers, I’d like to thank the Roanoke Times for hosting, for choosing this topic of importance to many of Virginia’s homeschooling students, and for inviting me to participate.

     I’d also like to thank the many participants who shared their varied viewpoints. An honest exchange of opinions is very valuable when it comes to any public policy issue. VaHomeschoolers very much appreciates the fact that all of you took some of your valuable time to contribute your ideas and thoughts.

     The Organization of Virginia Homeschoolers hopes that it will indeed be possible to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution on this topic, via earnest dialogue with VHSL.
220. Heather Parkinson | April 28, 2012 at 11:04 pm

     Mr. Beason – I’d ask you, as I’ve asked others, to go talk to those states who have been doing this successfully for years, some more than a decade. See for yourself if this has brought headaches upon the school system. The information is there; seek it out. Don’t assume. Investigate! Learn!

     I’m not going to word what I’m about to attempt to express well, and for that I apologize; I just hope I don’t word it so poorly that it is misunderstood or misconstrued or offensive. I also am in no way stereotyping or criticizing anyone by what follows. Realize, too, as I say this, I am not calling out ALL kids (or even a majority of kids) who go try out for public high school sports teams any more than I guarantee this 100% across the board for homeschoolers, but the contrasting percentage of these behaviors in these two types of students is significant.

     All that said (phew!), one benefit to the school system that most don’t seem to realize and few have discussed is that homeschoolers rarely pursue activities or subjects or sports for which they don’t have a passion or at least a strong desire. Beyond the “basics,” they usually have this luxury. This phenomenon is a huge benefit to school systems for allowing them to attend part time. These kids are in these classrooms – these specifically chosen classrooms – because they WANT to be, not because they HAVE to be. It is hard for them to be there, it is a sacrifice to their family to allow them to be there. They don’t just get on a bus every day at 7 am and return at 4 pm. It’s not that “easy.” Homeschoolers have a different currency and reason for signing up for and attending these classes. They will pay attention, they will study, they will participate. You won’t find them texting or talking or not doing their homework or falling asleep in class. Having a child like this in a class benefits the ENTIRE CLASS, just has having a disruptive child in a class is detrimental to the entire class. You’ve been there; you’ve taught this to your own kids. Take the Honors and AP classes – they’re BETTER classes. Why are they better? Not because the teachers are better (they’re the same teachers as for the regular classes). Not because the material is better (might be a bit more demanding and challenging and thorough, but won’t necessarily actually teaching them more of the subject matter). Not because the textbooks are better (many use the same text, they just have more individual and group work to do). Certainly not because the classroom is better. Why? Because the STUDENTS are better. The students are serious about their education. The students WANT to learn. The students want to be in school. The students raise the bar. The students make the class better. Homeschoolers are not in a class they’re not interested in just because they have to take something for fifth period, they’re not in French III because they have to take three years of a language in order to graduate, and they’re not (typically) pushed by their parents to do A, B, or C after school for whatever reason. Some kids on teams are there, one must admit, because their parents made them play a sport – any sport, or perhaps a particular sport. Or do drama. Or join the band. Something. Anything! Some kids on teams are there more for personal, social reasons than athletic reasons/teamwork reasons. Some kids are on teams because it makes them more popular, gains them friends. Some kids are on teams because it’s more fun than going home after school and gives them something to do on Friday nights. I am not saying that any of these reasons are bad reasons – for the individual. But, unless they come with a 110% commitment to the sport and the team, they are bad reasons for the team. I am also not saying this is true for all (or even a majority) of kids on public high school sports teams, but it is true for at least some. I think you will find that homeschoolers will not (likely) try out for a team for any of those reasons, though they may be benefits reaped by making the team. That homeschooler is there because of a passion for that sport; a desire to learn the sport and teach the sport and condition himself to better play the sport; a desire to be an active, participating, contributing member of that team. The homeschooler will help raise the bar of that team – in terms of behavior and commitment and participation – and make it a better team (not in any way different than those public school kids who actually LOVE the sport and are there JUST for the sport – not for any of those additional, potentially deleterious reasons stated above.)

     Does that make any sense at all? I fear it doesn’t (or I fear it’s coming across in a demeaning, stereotypical way), but it’s really an important enough aspect of this debate that I hope it does (or that it doesn’t). Can anyone help me express this more clearly and more fairly?
221. R. Martin | April 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm

     I don’t know if discussion is over for this topic but I have been mulling things over in my head all week and feel compelled to put my thoughts out there.

     First, I would like to comment on the numerous statements that we, as homeschooling families, are no longer part of our communities, that we took ourselves out of our communities via our choices and that we should stay out. I feel that I am very much a part of my community even though we homeschool our youngest son. I have put two other children all the way through the public school system and only homeschool this last child because it is an awesome way of life that provides more family time, many more opportunities for learning and because it is a choice that my family wanted to make. I am not snubbing my local school system. We’ve already partaken, thank you very much. I also have owned a small business in my community for eight years and I guarantee you that every customer of mine feels that I am part of the community. I have never once turned away a kid at my door who was selling fruit, cookies, candy or mulch. I’ve supported the local sports teams by buying ads in their programs. I’ve gone to games; football, basketball, volleyball and so on. A community is WHERE YOU LIVE. There are housing areas, police, fire, medical facilities, retail stores, a library and yes, a school. That is a community. I have also volunteered in this community by planting trees and cleaning trash. So please don’t tell me that I am no longer part of a community in which we live.

     Another topic that I wanted to address is the idea that homeschoolers want to have our cake and eat it too, in a cafeteria-style manner. It seems to me that the schools are trying to get by with the exact same rationale. We all pay taxes that fund the school system — people with children, retired folks, the childless families and singles. Even the teenager with his first job is paying taxes, right? If I’ve paid for but then have chosen not to use a benefit, and then later decide I want to use a small part of that benefit, why can’t I? I can’t pick and choose how my ‘community’ uses the tax money that I pay them but they can choose to deny me the right to one of those benefits because I have chosen not to use their school system.

     Consider this analogy; if you work in Virginia a portion of your paycheck goes to pay for unemployment benefits should you unfortunately lose your job. So now let’s say that the unthinkable happens and you have lost your job BUT you choose to ride it out and NOT partake of those unemployment benefits because you think for sure you’ll find a job soon. Now, months later, you decide that this has gone on long enough and you haven’t found a job. Should you be ineligible for those benefits because you chose not to partake of them all along? I say not.
     It is a similar scene with the homeschooling vs. public schooling benefits. Homeschoolers have lessened the burden on the school system by paying their takes AND taking on the expense of educating their children at home (actually reducing the tax burden on the rest of the public, who are now funding the education of fewer students) as have parents who send their children to private school, to the tune of almost $9500 per student in my locality(VDOE). Because we have chosen not to take the public schools up on their offer of a free education we are barred from most of their offerings, sports access being one of them. Like the unemployed worker in the above example, why, now that we want a small piece of the offering, are we being denied access to benefits that we already have paid for?
222. Heather Parkinson | April 29, 2012 at 10:23 pm

     Here’s hoping comments aren’t closed, as long as there are new thoughts to discuss, and Mr. Martin brings up one.

     Along those lines, it seems to me the public school system itself is going more cafeteria-style (at least in our community and the ones immediately surrounding) so I don’t see how it can be argued that that is somehow a bad thing for others.

     First, many school systems have allowed this “cafeteria-style” use of school resources for homeschoolers, for quite a while in many counties, by allowing part-time equal access to core and enrichment classes. Secondly, with their own students there are a multitude of choices for their education. A neighboring school system has “early bird” classes (I think just PE?), where the kids can start school before school “officially” starts. That way they can either take an extra class any given semester or get out of school early, particularly for the reason of going to work after school. There are, as has already been mentioned in this thread, vocational classes, often at a different building, at an entirely different school, that kids can take. There is afterschool care at the school. There is before school care at the school. There is breakfast should you desire or need it. There are options in the cafeteria regarding entrees, salads, drinks, deserts (yep, even for elementary school kids – they can buy themselves ice cream or have pizza every single day of the week). There is an alternative education program. There are virtual classes (www.virtualvirginia.org), where they sit in a classroom with no teacher, learning from a lecture on a computer. There is the option of only taking as many classes as you actually need for that semester, opting out of “extra” ones such that you come to school “late” or leave “early.” Along those lines, there are advanced studies diplomas and standard diplomas. There are AP classes. There are honors classes. There are standard classes. There are remedial classes. There are gifted programs. There are special education programs. There are high-school credit classes at the middle school level. There are college credit classes at the high school level. There are satellite-site, regular school hours programs. There are distance education programs. There is homebound instruction. There are six-year plans that include a career component. Our county even offered year-round school for several years (not in place of the traditional calendar year offerings but as an alternative for those who chose to do it). It wasn’t successful/cost-effective so they stopped offering it, and parents signed a petition requesting it be continued. There is an extended-day program for kids needing extra help to pass the SOLs. There is SOL camp. There is summer school. There is pre-K for at-risk kids. There is speech pathology and occupational and physical therapy. There is dual enrollment with community and other colleges (spring break is interesting for those kids because the spring break at the college doesn’t necessarily line up with spring break from high school). Some of these kids take the classes via the internet while sitting in a high school classroom; some actually attend the college during or after high school hours.

     All of the above options are/have been available to full-time students enrolled in public high schools in Virginia. Public education at the high school level is no longer what it once was: Classes from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in one building taught by a teacher in the room in order to earn a high school diploma.

     Realize, too, that once students are dual enrolled at the college, they reap all the benefits of being a student of that college (access to the library, use of the gym, tutoring, clubs, teams, socials, etc.) – even if they are only taking one class and sitting in a high school classroom during high school hours to do so. Interestingly, these kids don’t seem to disassociate with their high school and stop supporting their high school. They don’t pick and choose; they support both and recognize themselves as a member of both. They don’t have to give up membership to one to take advantage of membership to the other. It’s not an either/or situation. Why should sports access be?
223. Amy Wilson | April 30, 2012 at 8:11 am

     In Mr. Henderson’s rebuttal this Sunday, he suggested that, instead of asking to try out for public high school sports programs, homeschoolers should “either send their children to public schools or work together with the Virginia Home School Athletic Association to make that league stronger.”

     Suggesting that a student’s athletic programs should be prioritized above his academic program is unacceptable to most Virginia families. If homeschooling is the best choice for a particular student, and if her parents have decided to invest in providing that choice, it’s absolutely the wrong message to abandon that approach so that she can play sports. Just like public school students, homeschoolers deserve to have the right academic program AND athletic programs.

     As for the Virginia Home School Athletic Association, Mr. Henderson may not realize this, but that organization only offers basketball, and only a small number of teams for the entire state. Not much of a choice there.

     In larger metropolitan areas of Virginia, there are more athletic choices outside the public school system, and homeschoolers are grateful for these options where they exist. There are also a limited number of homeschool-specific programs, limited in size, scope and variety of sports offered, and (in many cases) with specific faith-based foundations. These programs are also wonderful for those students who are fortunate enough to play the sports they offer, live where they exist, and share the faith in question. In some cases, private schools are generous enough to allow homeschoolers to participate in their programs as well — these opportunities are also very limited and scattered.

     For Virginia homeschoolers in many communities, particularly smaller, rural areas, the truth is that public school programs are truly the only realistic option for accessing competitive athletics at the high school level. These families are asking VHSL to create reasonable and appropriate eligibility requirements that will allow their children to try out for their own communities’ local sports programs, offered through the public schools.

     VHSL’s answer, offered via Mr. Henderson, appears to be that homeschooling families should either give up homeschooling or else re-invent the wheel and attempt to create an entire separate sports league. I hope VHSL will instead research the eligibility rules created by numerous other states to see how they have successfully included homeschoolers. There are many models out there that are working.
224. Jeanne Faulconer | April 30, 2012 at 11:13 am

     Sigh. Yes. I am glad Mr. Henderson has homeschool sports and community baseball in his area. I’d challenge him to come find any homeschool sports or competitive soccer in the area where we ran out of options outside of school programs.

     Not only are there absolutely NO homeschool sports teams within reach of that community nor enough players to form any, but there are actually NO competitive soccer options for any segment of the public during the high school years outside the high school. The high school “meets” the need of that small population.

     I know this intimately – having organized and run the homeschool group (this group consisted of about eight families with kids ranging in age from infancy to age 14, with one baseball player and one soccer player) in that area AND having been a founding member of the soccer org offering rec soccer to that area, as well as by becoming a trained and state certified coach in that community.

     By the time the kids reach 7th grade or so – all of them, not just homeschoolers – are out of soccer opportunity outside the schools – but that is considered okay because “all” the serious soccer players can “just” go play at middle school and then high school.

     Applying what things are like in one person’s back yard simply does not address the problem of shutting kids out of their own community’s only sports programs in other places in the state. It begins to feel like a kind of willful nearsightedness.

     VHSL can keep saying “expand existing homeschool sports” opportunities all it wants, but this is a kind of separate but not equal situation. I suppose, in fact, in a Modest Proposal (see well known satirical essay by Jonathan Swift) they could BUS homeschoolers in to some areas of the state in order to create enough homeschooled kids to “expand” a nonexistent program for which critical mass cannot exist.

     I’d like to go back to Mr. Beason’s assertion that homeschoolers would be too demanding of special treatment for their own kids for a school to handle. First, Mr. Beason, I think you would find the same percentage of “helicopter parents” among homeschoolers as among nonhomeschoolers. Again, you are presuming a character trait among homeschoolers based on a stereotype. Many homeschoolers highly value independence in their kids, and I’d guess that those who are supporting their kids playing high level sports are among those who are expecting kids to go to bat and take responsibility for themselves and operate as part of a team.

     I doubt if you asked my kid’s club coaches if we’d been any kind of special headache to them that you’d get a “yes.” In fact, they’d probably say, “Well, he has missed one practice when he was sick and never missed a game in two years, but we really don’t hear much from his parents. Oh yes, they did attend the team meetings and the one-on-one meeting I called.”

     Second – it is kind of ironic in that this is where we can’t win. On the one hand, some criticize homeschoolers for having taken their perceived brand of involvement and “withholding” it from the schools, thereby “leaving others behind” with less concerned parents and lower scoring students. Then others criticize homeschoolers who want to participate as potentially being over-involved and seeking out special treatment. Is it that homeschoolers being interested in the welfare of children is good? or is it bad?

     Are there pain in the neck homeschoolers? I have no doubt. Because I have met pain in the neck people in all walks of life. However, just as I have met many involved sports families who are positive public school parents, there are many involved sports families who are positive homeschooling parents. They aren’t seeking special treatment for their kids. In fact, this may indeed be one of the lessons they hope for their kids to learn from participation in high level sports.

     When my older kids were on the trail to becoming Eagle Scouts, the only time I personally asked for a private meeting with one of their scout masters was in fact to intervene for a child NOT my own, and one that was not particularly friends with my kids. I had simply observed that the rules and setting were a special disadvantage to him, and I was pretty sure that the leaders did not realize this. In eight or nine years of Boy Scouting (not counting Cubs), I think this is a pretty minimal record of seeking anything special.

     And by the way, the Scoutmaster was appreciative and able to adjust some things so this kid’s particular issues (transportation problems) were not held against him as far as his eligibility to take advantage of opportunities. Meanwhile, I did do all I could to fulfill the Scoutmasters’ requests – from serving on committees to selling hotdogs to leading merit badge workshops. This was no more or no less than the public school parents did. We were excited to work together to support a great program for the benefit of all our sons.

     Good grief. Give us some credit. We are like regular people. In fact, we may even BE regular people.

     What we have heard many times is that hypothetical homeschooling parents may some day be over-involved, or that hypothetical homeschooled kids may some day be discipline problems, etc. If we based our development of public programs on these types of conjectures, we’d never offer anything to anyone. Because, you know, hypothetically, a public school kid somewhere might be a discipline problem or hypothetically, a public school parent might seek special treatment. You know. In the future. Hypothetically. But I’m sure (smiling sarcasm) that NEVER happens with public school families.

     Again, from my involvement with coaches and teachers and principals, I find that they have experience in dealing with these things. It’s not a pleasant part of their job, but we see from the experience of other states that it’s been a non-remarkable aspect of including homeschoolers.

     These professionals have had to deal with these sorts of things without homeschoolers for many years; I feel confident that the potential addition of a homeschooled player would not overburden them. And perhaps, if the OTHER stereotypers are correct, it would even raise the level of the ship! But I’m not sure, because individual agents within a minority group will actually act individually, regardless of the pre-conceptions of others as to their hypothetical future actions.

     Let’s play ball!
225. Chuck | April 30, 2012 at 12:40 pm

     Hey Sandi. Thanks for thinking of me. Maybe while Amy explains democracy to me she can also explain how that Constitution you talk about loving so much actually works. The Supreme Court can’t “declare” anything. The US Supreme Court is, for all intents and purposes, an appelate court. Its original jurisdiction is very limited. Instead the Supreme Court is limited to ruling on laws and cases that already exist. So even though you may want the Supreme Court to make unilateral declarations without input from the people, our government just doesn’t work that way. The legislature has to pass a law before the Supremes can rule on it. For all of those issues you cited, the Supreme Court can’t “declare” anything until some legislative body passes a law.

     While you may see no inconsistency in your position, it is glaringly obvious to anyone who has been here a while.

     ” For those who need the jargon, this is ramming it down the throats of those who either like it or lump it.”

     You mean like the position you advocated with Obamacare?
226. Bruce Harper | April 30, 2012 at 2:21 pm

     Perhaps dodgeball should be added as a high school sport. The homeschool crowd sure excels at it. They have stayed on track with their talking points, hammering hard about about how perfectly normal and acceptable homeschooling is (not that that is the issue, it isn’t), working in how public schools are becoming more like “cafeteria plans” for everyone else, mentioning how the plan to improve other options beyond forcing their way into public school sports won’t work, and even going on to tell us that adding homeschooled athletes will bring about a marked improvement to many teams across the Commonwealth.

     What they dodged were answers to just who a student will be representing when he is on a high school team — himself, the team, or the school that he isn’t even enrolled in? Tim Tebow is held up as the prime example, but he didn’t identify with the school he attended, he was proud of his homeschooling. If one of these homeschooled athletes gets a full ride from Virginia Tech, on signing day will the TV cameras set up in the Cave Spring High School library or in his parent’s dining room? “Community” keeps getting bandied about, but there is a big difference between the tight-knit “community” of a high school and the broader “community” of that attendance zone. Sure, it may be “Blacksburg High School” but the attendance zone for that school pulls from the town of Blacksburg and almost half of northern Montgomery County. That includes Prices Fork, Merrimac, McCoy, Brush Mountain, out Mt. Tabor Rd., and down into the Ellett Valley — a pretty broad community.

     Also not answered is how tryouts will work to ensure that everyone gets a fair shake and the correct balance of homeschooled students are represented. After all, if so much time and effort has been put into getting a spot at the table, it is hard to believe that if someone doesn’t make the team that there won’t be a fight about it. There will have to be some mechanism in place to ensure that blind tryouts are run for those sports that have limited rosters. The “other states have been doing this for years” doesn’t fly; Virginia isn’t other states and this is being proposed in the time of “me first” where fairness comes in second or third only after your and your child’s needs have been met.

     The bottom line, as it always has been, is that interscholastic sports are and should be for those who are enrolled in and attending each school — not for anyone and everyone who has a hankering to play a game. Those students on a varsity team were selected because of their displayed ability at tryouts, to represent their school in competition against other schools in their district, their region, and ultimately if they are good enough, in the state. They are cheered on by their classmates, who they see in classes, in the halls, at lunch, and before and after school. They don’t need the team diluted by someone who only shows up after school for practice and for games, who is there mainly for himself (or herself) and has no real connection to the school.
227. Sandi Saunders | April 30, 2012 at 3:08 pm

     Ah Chuck, I don’t think I am the one who is confused on the SCOTUS, but thanks!

     “Loving v. Virginia, …was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.”
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

     “The US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available”
     http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_laws_has_the_US_Supreme_Court_declared_unconstitutional

     “On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court declared segregation in public primary and secondary education unconstitutional.”
     http://www.bu.edu/historic/conference08/Goluboff.pdf

     “Of course, the United States Supreme Court can declare that something not mentioned in the Constitution is so closely related to something that is mentioned in the Constitution that the unmentioned power is a fundamental interest”
     http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/teacher_due_process.html

     You may not like it counselor, but the language of this nation says that the SCOTUS can “declare” or “rule”. No Sale!

     Ahem, if this IS an example of “ramming it down the throats of those who either like it or lump it” as I said, aren’t those of you who were OPPOSED to “Obamacare” FOR THAT VERY REASON, the ones who should not be supporting it?
228. Amy Wilson | April 30, 2012 at 5:23 pm

     “What they dodged were answers to just who a student will be representing when he is on a high school team…”

     Sorry, Sandi. You’ve dodged a few yourself. The homeschooled student would be doing exactly what his public school teammates do: representing the team, the school, the community and herself. I’m guessing that any media articles about that student if she has a big sports future will mention that she played for XX High School and was homeschooled. Chances are, though, that she’ll just be a regular kid, not a future superstar.

     “Also not answered is how tryouts will work to ensure that everyone gets a fair shake and the correct balance of homeschooled students are represented.” Are you advocating some kind of affirmative action program? I don’t think most homeschoolers would favor that. I think all they are asking is for they tryout process to work exactly the way it does now: tryouts are held, eligible kids show up, do what the coach asks, and the coach makes the decisions. Will some kids and families be disappointed? Possibly. I imagine there is disappointment at times already. Nothing will change from the way it works now. It’s always been up to the coach to make the decisions.
229. Richard J Beason, CPA | April 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm

     224. Jeanne – you misread my reasoning. I said that home schooling parents are obviously very attentive parents to their children’s needs. I did not say they were hard to get along with. But, I did say that Public Schools are up to their ears in problems already and they are not going to ask for more. At least some home schooling parents will be unhappy with the coaching results at the schools. many other parents will be unhappy with the influx of home schoolers to teams. Either way, it is one more grief that Public Schools do not need at this time as they are still adjusting to full inclusion. Is it right, just, correct? I really do not know, but in the scheme of things, high school athletics is not the most important element of any child’s life and certainly not the most important element of a Public School. Too many parents assess too much emphasis on athletics and it becomes detrimental to all.
230. Jordan B | April 30, 2012 at 11:55 pm

     I’ve attended this discussion for a week now but I feel with Mr. Harper last post nothing I have to say could be put better. This entire debate has reached a block where homeschooling parents cannot understand why something that will have almost no impact on others and ultimately be good for their children should be denied. And Mr. Harper and I simply will never understand how an institution can be represented by a person who is not an active part not to mention how playing time and try outs will be managed fairly with homeschool recruits. I repeat that I would love to homeschoolers come to practice and compete in junior varsity at any time (Half the races in cross-country JV and varsity runs together so there will certainly be opportunities for high competition). They have a right to a school’s athletic resources as much as they do the academic variety. Here’s to a new topic next week. See yall then.
     – Jordan
231. Jeanne Faulconer | May 1, 2012 at 11:27 am

     Jordan, the public athletic resources you refer to do indeed include the games. My kid doesn’t need a place to work out or practice. He needs a place to PLAY and a way to be a full part of a team. (And this is theoretical in our case, actually, since our family has indeed gone to great lengths to make sure he has these opportunities, which I actually feel is to the detriment of the community where I was formally able to be active in community sports programs as volunteer, coach, board member, etc., and where he played as a younger competitor, etc.)

     This is sort of like offering us the seat in the back of the bus. The public provides the opportunity to some kids in our community but is prohibited from providing it to other kids. The fact that in Virginia, some people can’t conceptualize kids playing for their community’s school where they are not enrolled full-time doesn’t jibe with the fact that this works well in a majority of other states, and that even in Virginia, virtual school students, among others, are allowed to play even though they may not set foot in that “institution” either. Our public institutions are supposed to serve the public.
232. Jeanne Faulconer | May 1, 2012 at 11:46 am

     Bruce said no one has explained how the proper balance of homeschooled kids would be achieved. I’m basically with the coach-as-god model, which I did indeed explain earlier in discussion. I’m unaware of any movement in competitive sports or in homeschooling that would seek to place people on teams for any reason other than their ability to help a team win.

     That’s what it’s all about.
233. Heather Parkinson | May 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm

     I’m with Jeanne on this one, and it is a nonissue. There has been no discussion of changing the way tryouts and cuts are held. They are currently not double-blind (Do seniors have preference in some way over freshmen? Perhaps. Does the kid who showed up to every practice last year have preference over the one that was overheard bragging how he’d missed practice every week to see his girlfriend? Perhaps.), and there would be no reason to make them so in the future. Acceptance or denial on an athletic team – for those who meet whatever requirements are laid out by that school division – at the competitive, high school level is, and should be, based on skill alone.

     But, again, address this with the multitude of other states doing this every season. Ask them if they’ve changed the way tryouts are done. In Virginia, there has been no discussion of this because there has been no need.
234. Jeanne Faulconer | May 1, 2012 at 12:50 pm

     Richard, serving the public is fraught with problems. This doesn’t mean a public program should be prohibited from choosing to serve a portion of its public. Along with the hypothetical negative “what ifs” come potential positives that no one wishes to foresee, because the status quo is entrenched and, as always, those with benefits from public programs would prefer not to share the resource with those currently blocked from access.

     While that’s understandable, I’m not sure that it’s something that Virginia’s voters – and thus its legislators – are going to allow to continue indefinitely.
235. PeterJ | May 2, 2012 at 1:45 pm

     Sandi, regarding your post @212,
     “The “primary question” IMO, remains, what is best for the most students in the public school system. If that is allowing home schooled, private schooled or institutionalized children to attend on their own terms, that should still be determined by the education system not legislative mandate.”
     That is exactly the point, currently the education system, i.e. the local public school system, is not able to determine if they will allow home schooled students to participate in sports. A state wide private institution determines what students are allowed to participate. If you read the proposed legislation there was nothing included that legislatively mandated that a local school system had to allow home schooled children to participate. It only mandated that the private organization could not exclude those children.
236. Sandi Saunders | May 2, 2012 at 2:27 pm

     #228 Amy Wilson, “Sorry, Sandi…” You are responding to Bruce and using my name, FYI.

     Peter J said: “…currently the education system, i.e. the local public school system, is not able to determine if they will allow home schooled students to participate in sports.” Yes Peter J, they are! As has been explained here on several posts, the schools are as free to bring this issue to the VHSL as the VHSL is to bring it to itself, then they can vote it up or down. that is how it should be done. Home school parents do not want to wait for that or build the consensus to make it happen naturally, they want to legislate and force the VHSL to change and then they will work on the individual schools. Kinda like DOMA instead of equal rights for all and then state by state fights. There should not be a government mandate from the legislature on this issue. The schools can change the VHSL rules by their support for admitting home schooled kids, if they want to.

     Heather said: “There has been no discussion of changing the way tryouts and cuts are held. YET.

     Jordan, thank you so much for your participation!
237. Amy Wilson | May 2, 2012 at 5:38 pm

     My apologies, Sandi! You’re right — my response was to a post by Bruce. Thanks for letting me know.
238. Amy Wilson | May 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm

     “Home school parents do not want to wait for that or build the consensus to make it happen naturally, they want to legislate and force the VHSL to change and then they will work on the individual schools.”

     It’s been more than 20 years, Sandi. Generations of kids have missed out on these opportunities. This legislation would not have been a mandate on school divisions — they still could have opted out.
239. Sandi Saunders | May 2, 2012 at 6:54 pm

     Oh please, that ragged excuse is just not going to cut it. Several of us have “opted out” of your way of thinking and it sure has not stopped the bombardment and repeated efforts to change minds, refute opinions and rehash the issue. No way on earth this legislation is as innocuous as you want to paint it. This is merely the choice for a ‘one fell swoop’ change that will start the ball rolling in high speed. You all and many more, will be all over school divisions to get what you want and not admitting that makes me even more firm in my opposition.

     You will first fight to get the legislation, then you will fight the schools for the “try-out”, then you will fight the decisions of those “try-outs” to get on the teams. Until you get what you want, this will never be over and not having the courage to admit that is just plain sad for such warriors.