Should homeschool kids be allowed to play school sports?

I'm not sure there would ever be a district that would hire an additional teacher because of one ... 1 ... student. Perhaps it's that marginal student that, because the district/school is already over its ratio, makes the case more compelling. But if that district/school is right on the button with its ratio, I doubt very seriously that there's going to be an additional teacher hired just because one kid walks through the door.

Who in the hell said they shouldn't pay taxes? I sure didn't.

 

And I'm saying changing the minimum standards to make them more inclusive is a good thing.

I feel like the problem is that homeschooling is politically charged because it is en vogue with a certain ideological/religious bent right now. If a parent has the resources and ability to effectively turn themselves into a private tutor for their children, I don't consider that to be a bad thing or some kind of intentional insult to the public school system. And I see nothing wrong with schools offering an a la carte philosophy.

 

And I see very much wrong with the a la carte philosophy, and allowing it in extracurriculars is kind of defeating the purpose of the extracurriculars, which are to offer your students more opportunities. It's not Baseball-Mart. Why play if there's no pride in the school you're playing for? There are club and traveling teams in every single sport that can meet the kids' competitive needs.

But, probably just a philosophical divide that can't be bridged in this discussion.

 

Oh you got that right.

 

In fairness, it does typically come with an explanation about the GANGS! and the DRUGS! and the TEEN PREGNANCIES! that are all the rage in the public high schools, but if you want to send your kids there, I'm sure they'll be fine. I just wouldn't do that to my kids.

So there's judgment all around!

 

I like the idea of homeschooling. The actual people who homeschool are an ... interesting ... bunch or the most part.

I feel like it should be more province of liberal free thinkers, to be honest.

 

I don't know what the law is in New Jersey.

However many school districts in NJ, to help fill the budget gap are going with a pay-to-play system where parents have to pay an activity fee if their kid(s) are going to play sports.

Set the rule where the home-schooled kid's parents have to pay the fee to the home district for the right to tryout for the team. Then let the coach decide if the kid is good enough talent-wise to make the team or let the other kids decide if chemistry-wise a kid who only shows up for practices and games but isn't in classes with them during the day fits in with the team.

If the parents want the kid to play for a private school the parents have to pay full tuition for the kid to play for the team - no scholarships, advances, or other financial awards allowed.

 

That's the way it works. If your SOQs say at most 27 students per classroom at a certain grade level and you have 108 students in four classes, when that one student rolls in over the summer and gives you a class of 28, that is when the fifth teacher is brought in to give them classes of 21, 22, 22, 22 and 22.

 

So presuming a better student/teacher ratio is preferable, thanks to the extra kid for making education better for everyone.

 

Yes, but it just cost an extra $60,000 to educate those students. Not saying it's a bad thing, but I am just pointing out there really is no such thing as "one more student doesn't cost a school division anything."

 

And no matter how you slice it, that's not true. That's wrong, wrong, wrong.

Yes, perhaps, on occasion, the additional student tips the balance. But that is the exception, not the norm.

 

I thought Republicans understood budgets better than this.

If only happens once in a while, we won't plan for it or mention it? Jesus.