Home-field advantage:Should homeschool kids be able to participate in public-school activities?

World Magazine ^ | dec 6, 2003 | By Lynn Vincent

[bigcat00]

We can do that here, too....with this irony: While my kids could easily go to a high school in ANOTHER district if they had transportation, it would be much more difficult to get them into a different high school in THIS district than the one they live nearest to. Then again, I live in a school district where the school board's main preoccupation seems to be getting rid of the one charter school we have and preventing any others from being founded.

[bigcat00]

If I'm thinking of the same case, the girl who was entirely homeschooled wanted to be recognized as a co-valedictorian. Wasn't that it? In either case, as a homeschooler myself, I thought her position was ridiculous, since she had not competed for that honor with the kids who actually went to school. I heard of a case like this in another state, where a girl who took most of her classes at a private school and only a couple at a public school, wanted similar recognition. That too was ridiculous.

But isn't there a difference between being recognized as a valedictorian and simply taking some classes at the school? You would not object to the latter, would you? The latter is more like the homeschooled kid who wants to play football or basketball. He's not insisting on being homecoming king or student body president...just playing football. Why is that unjust to anybody?

[FrdmLvr]

Absolutely, yes. At least so long as the homeschoolers parents have to pay property taxes to support the public achools, even though they are smart enough not to want to send their kids to them!

And even if they don't. Libs say everyone is entitled to a free education, this is part of their education.

[bigcat00]

In our state, sports are entirely self-funded. So having a homeschool kid participate makes no difference. Plus, there is a fee for participation which everyone has to pay anyway.

[bigcat00]

I'm not a fan of public school, but if it helps my kids, I'm for it.

[bigcat00]

I think this is a great idea. We have have privately funded sports for kids (Little League, Optimist Football, etc.) and it works real well.

I'm surprised liberals haven't picked up on this, since it would eliminate grades as a criteria for participation and thus allow more "disadvantaged" kids to participate.

[bigcat00]

As far as just sports go, it seems like your idea would also have the following advantages: (1) Allowing you and other adminstrators to avoid hiring coaches to teach, when their heart is really in coaching, not teaching; (2)Allowing some folks who could be good coaches, but can't coach because they don't have teaching certificates, to coach; (3) Potentially allowing more kids to participate becaue the possible number of teams is not linked to the number of schools.

Great idea.