Should homeschool kids be allowed to play school sports?

The saving grace, Bob -- I guess -- is that in 10 years none of this is going to matter anyway, because anyone who's anyone is going to be playing exclusively club sports. High school is going to be the lowest rung of competition.

 

There is already precedent when it comes to inclusion with public school programs. For instance, if your community qualifies for the summer free lunch program (I don't know what it's technically called), there is federal money that pays for schools to provide meals to just about anyone who walks in. Don't even have to be a student at that district. There are often parents in there with students from the local parochial schools and home school parents with their kids.

That and the co-ops I mentioned earlier in the thread where teams are already opened to private school students when the private school doesn't offer a program. Those seem to work out just fine.

 

In those cases, though, the school is fully funded (or as funded as it can get) to accept them. Same with resource help. In the case of athletics, it isn't. It seems like nickels and dimes, but funding sources do matter. As does the philosophy of what school extracurricular activities are -- a way for students to represent the school, or a community activity, like a park district? If homeschool families had to kick in a little extra cash to play (hey, a lot of schools already charge pay-to-play fees to their own students), and private schools were also allowed to send kids in, I would have less of an objection to laws that force public schools to open up those activities. (You mention the co-ops, and those are fine -- what I'm talking about are laws forcing schools to institute them, basically.)

 

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. It is not the same thing to pull kids from outside the district as it is to allow a kid who lives in the district to play.

 

This is where my small-town naivete kicks in. I can see the problem if it's a school of 2500 and there's 24 spots between JV and varsity basketball.

But I've had a lot more contact with schools where basketball would probably be the only sport in danger of hitting any roster limitations. And I've seen lots of situations where tiny private schools do co-op with the larger public school to give their kids a chance to play sports, which couldn't possibly be offered otherwise.

I can understand the logistical and financial objections, and those need to be addressed in any situation. But the "screw you, how dare you homeschool and then try to get some benefits" argument is petty and self-defeating.

Why do we have extra-curriculars? Besides to create jobs for all the thousands of mediocre sportswriters who can't make it to the big time, it's because we believe that they further the goals of our public school system: To help children in our area become better citizens. If you have a program that helps kids in your district become better citizens, and you have a kid in your district who wants to join, and you can find a way to do that without causing an undue burden, then you should do it.

Do I think there should be some unfunded national mandate forcing schools to do it? Probably not. But I think they should be encouraged to find a way to do it if it can be done without undue burden.

 

I don't think we're that far apart. I also don't see the need for laws forcing schools to allow them, but also don't want any laws preventing this from happening either.

Unfortunately, I could see case law being made somewhere down the line leaning one way or the other.

 

Slick and subtle, but you kind of glossed over the main difference here. It is not to help children "in our area." I don't think it ever has been. It is to help children "in our school," and the ones who go to a different school have always taken that guidance to becoming better citizens. Sports are also very much to create a sense of togetherness and community -- think pep rallies, guys wearing their jerseys to school on game day, the cheerleaders and band, the whole bit. Done right, it's about a lot more than the team.

And again, you can't do it without causing "undue burden." In some way, putting the kid on the field/court/track keeps another kid off it. That is an undue burden.

 

It's the "without undue burden" part that schools object to. If the homeschool family had to pay for the academic review (to ensure eligibility) and some fair fee associated with participation, I think there would be less of an objection. At this point, it's still a philosophical discussion. I don't know that states where Tebow laws are in effect have been overrun by homeschooled kids wanting to play. I can't imagine this would come up with any regularity in any scenario. I think public schools and their supports legitimately get their nose out of joint that a homeschool family doesn't want anything to do with the public school, and then lo and behold, suddenly they discover its wonderfulness when it's time for sports, and they say, dammit we're taxpayers and you should let us in. There is an entitlement mentality that rubs people the wrong way. I'm sure, too, there are schools who don't want to deal with, say, a potential lawsuit/shitstorm if they cut a homeschool kid.

But, yeah, there should be a way to work this out, and it could be to the school's advantage, because you never know -- activities could be step one to getting the kid back in your school. I'm thinking of someone my wife knows who home-schools, and had her daughter tour my son's high school. She clearly was scared shitless at the transition from the kitchen table to 1,800 kids of wildly varying background and hormones. Would being an activity with some of these kids help? (I think the girl is going to continue to be home-schooled.)

 

No. In our area.

You can't define the purpose of the school to help children in the school. If that were the the purpose, we wouldn't ever need to build a public school, because before they are built, the group "children in the school" is empty and we don't need to help an empty group.

And again, that "one kid on, one kid off" mentality is simply not true for a lot of the schools I've been contact with.

 

Well, 27 states already have laws saying schools have to allow them in, so it's already leaned one way. I don't imagine in this environment there is going to be a law saying that CAN'T come in. As others have mentioned, there are small schools that would probably appreciate the extra bodies.

 

They build the schools because of the belief in public education as a societal good. So the schools are there. The "in our area," much like the taxpayer, is just a dodge around the issue.

And there is no way to have a sports team and give playing time to a non-student and not take it away from a student. It is not possible.

 

Why is it a societal good?

Someone's never covered a swim meet.