Why should homeschoolers be allowed to participate in ps sports?

[ThisIsTheDay]

I don't understand, and I wonder if I'm missing an argument here.

 

I've always held the opinion that we've already opted out of ps; we shouldn't be allowed to handpick certain opportunities. Additionally, schools are not getting our tax dollars--ETA for my specific child to attend the school--, so they shouldn't be forced to absorb our students in team sports.

 

Please enlighten me. I know I can find insight and other valid POVs here.

Edited January 22, 2012 by ThisIsTheDay2
Sorry--needed clarity on my meaning.

[Samiam]

Where do you live that the school is not getting your tax dollars??

 

Everywhere I have lived and owned a house, my tax dollars DO go to the school. My property taxes go directly to the schools in my area. Doesn't matter if my child goes there or not, THEY get my money. I do not have the option to direct where my tax dollars go.

 

So in this case, why shouldn't my child be allowed to utilize some portion of what the school offers, especially extracurricular, which normally has an extra out-of-pocket expense anyway that I would still have to pay?

 

 

Perhaps you are referring to the federal money, which is based on the head count at the school, though?

 

I often feel that those who do not want/understand wanting to use the public school for sports/music, etc is because they do not have a child that it affects.

If you had a child who desperately wanted to play football and was REALLY good at it, or play music, or whatever it was, and had no options in their area to do that, especially in high school, I bet you would feel differently.

[DawnM]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Where do you live that the school is not getting your tax dollars??

 

Everywhere I have lived and owned a house, my tax dollars DO go to the school. My property taxes go directly to the schools in my area. Doesn't matter if my child goes there or not, THEY get my money. I do not have the option to direct where my tax dollars go.

 

So in this case, why shouldn't my child be allowed to utilize some portion of what the school offers, especially extracurricular, which normally has an extra out-of-pocket expense anyway that I would still have to pay?

 

 

Perhaps you are referring to the federal money, which is based on the head count at the school, though?

 

I often feel that those who do not want/understand wanting to use the public school for sports/music, etc is because they do not have a child that it affects.

If you had a child who desperately wanted to play football and was REALLY good at it, or play music, or whatever it was, and had no options in their area to do that, especially in high school, I bet you would feel differently.

[Laura in MI]

Where do you live that the school is not getting your tax dollars??

 

I often feel that those who do not want/understand wanting to use the public school for sports/music, etc is because they do not have a child that it affects.

If you had a child who desperately wanted to play football and was REALLY good at it, or play music, or whatever it was, and had no options in their area to do that, especially in high school, I bet you would feel differently.

 

:iagree: Everywhere I've lived (only in one city) gets my tax dollars. In our small town once you get to junior high/high school level sports the only opportunities are through the ps.

[kalanamak]

Where do you live that the school is not getting your tax dollars??

 

 

 

I pay taxes for schools, but I think schools get more if their nose-count is higher. I might be wrong. Perhaps they do get more if there are part time students (say, football or chemistry).

 

Flexibility=good.

[ma23peas]

http://www.timtebowbill.com

 

 

Many of your questions answered on faq page.

[clarkacademy]

Where do you live that the school is not getting your tax dollars??

 

Everywhere I have lived and owned a house, my tax dollars DO go to the school. My property taxes go directly to the schools in my area. Doesn't matter if my child goes there or not, THEY get my money. I do not have the option to direct where my tax dollars go.

 

So in this case, why shouldn't my child be allowed to utilize some portion of what the school offers, especially extracurricular, which normally has an extra out-of-pocket expense anyway that I would still have to pay?

 

 

Perhaps you are referring to the federal money, which is based on the head count at the school, though?

 

I often feel that those who do not want/understand wanting to use the public school for sports/music, etc is because they do not have a child that it affects.

If you had a child who desperately wanted to play football and was REALLY good at it, or play music, or whatever it was, and had no options in their area to do that, especially in high school, I bet you would feel differently.

 

:iagree:

[snowbeltmom]

I don't understand, and I wonder if I'm missing an argument here.

 

I've always held the opinion that we've already opted out of ps; we shouldn't be allowed to handpick certain opportunities. Additionally, schools are not getting our tax dollars, so they shouldn't be forced to absorb our students in team sports.

 

Please enlighten me. I know I can find insight and other valid POVs here.

 

I don't understand how the public schools are not getting your tax dollars? Do you get a tax rebate for homeschooling?

In my neck of the woods, homeschoolers get no type of rebate, and my public school definitely is still taking my thousands in tax dollars each year.

 

By homeschooling, I've opted out of the public school education. I would still like my kids to have the opportunity to participate in all the after-school activities that my tax dollars are supporting.

[Impish]

It's not an option here in Alberta, Canada.

 

In fact, I'm fairly certain that it's not an option in any province in Canada, but not 100% on that.

 

And yes, we pay taxes to the schools too.

[ThisIsTheDay]

I don't understand how the public schools are not getting your tax dollars?

 

Sorry, they are not getting specific funding for my child. Mea culpa, I knew what I was thinking, I just didn't actually say it. I'll go back and remedy my OP, but it may be too late.

 

I'm still looking for an argument to sway my opinion though.

[TracyR]

I pay tax dollars therefore my children should participate. Plus at around the age of 13 in our area there are not really any opportunities past that point as far as sports concerned because all the kids go to the public school to do them. So our local YMCA stops at age 12 for group sporting activities. So there just isn't that opportunity otherwise.

I wish we had the opportunity for music but since its a graded class we can't participate in that. We have to outsource for music.

If I pay for other children to utilize it then my children should be able to participate too.

 

Its only been the past few years though that we've been able to do this ( maybe a little bit longer then that) in PA. It hasn't always been that way though either.

[snowbeltmom]

Sorry, they are not getting specific funding for my child. Mea culpa, I knew what I was thinking, I just didn't actually say it. I'll go back and remedy my OP, but it may be too late.

 

I'm still looking for an argument to sway my opinion though.

But they are still getting the money, I don't see why it matters how it is earmarked?:confused:

 

By taking my kids out of the system, my public school now has MORE money to spend on the remaining kids.

[ThisIsTheDay]

I wish we had the opportunity for music but since its a graded class we can't participate in that. We have to outsource for music.

 

Why should there be any difference between sports and a graded music class? Why should one be okay but not the other?

[Ellie]

I don't know why they should.

 

We make the choice to take our children out of public school and teach them at home. I don't think the public schools owe us the right to pick and choose which activities our dc will participate in, regardless of the taxes we pay.

[Samiam]

I don't understand, and I wonder if I'm missing an argument here.

 

I've always held the opinion that we've already opted out of ps; we shouldn't be allowed to handpick certain opportunities. Additionally, schools are not getting our tax dollars--ETA for my specific child to attend the school--, so they shouldn't be forced to absorb our students in team sports.

 

Please enlighten me. I know I can find insight and other valid POVs here.

 

So you are saying, that you are 100% perfectly fine and dandy paying them $$$ out of your pocket every single year, and them saying that your child is not allowed to do ANYTHING to utilize that $$?

 

Say your taxes are $3000 a year. (just throwing a random number out here).

 

So you are completely fine handing $3000 every year to your school district, and saying "Oh, spend it any way you want. Oh no thanks, no need for me to get anything out of it! Don't worry about me getting ANYTHING out of my hard-earned $3000! I am happy to hand it to you and completely walk away :D"

 

Really?

 

Please convince me on your POV.

[Mommyof4ks]

But they are still getting the money, I don't see why it matters how it is earmarked?:confused:

 

By taking my kids out of the system, my public school now has MORE money to spend on the remaining kids.

 

:iagree: Kids can go to speech therapy as a not attending student, so I do not see why sports is different. Here a child is counted as a non-attending student of the school for speech in order to get more funds for the school to provide help for the child. There is research out there supporting the idea that kids who have outside activities do better academically (no cause and effect, just correlation, who knows why this seems to be true). I pay taxes to the school anyway (a lot I might add), and the little bit it would cost for them to be in sports is a very small portion of the amount we pay in taxes to help other kids.

 

We are blessed to have wonderful opportunities in our area for homeschoolers, but I know other places do not have such a wide selection. We have a homeschool sports group, there is a homeschool band, and our local university offers music classes. I wish we had more art options, but i am thankful for what we do have.

[snowbeltmom]

I don't know why they should.

 

We make the choice to take our children out of public school and teach them at home. I don't think the public schools owe us the right to pick and choose which activities our dc will participate in, regardless of the taxes we pay.

 

If it were a private school, I would agree with your comments. However, this is a public entity that I am forced to support with my tax dollars.

 

I should have the right to choose which services I would like to participate in since I am paying for all of them.

 

I don't think the public school should have the right to deny us access to services that I am funding through involuntary taxes.

[SonshineLearner]

I don't know why they should.

 

We make the choice to take our children out of public school and teach them at home. I don't think the public schools owe us the right to pick and choose which activities our dc will participate in, regardless of the taxes we pay.

 

I disagree:) I believe that we should be able to opt in and out of classes, as we wish. In our city, we can opt in and out of classes, as our Principal offered. She commented that we need to do "what's best for our child." And, by law here, band, dance and other sports are all "equal." We can take whichever of these we want, guaranteed by our laws. If the schools were better than me, I'd put my child in them. And for sports, they are.

 

If we couldn't, I would think we should get a part of the $$$ back to secure education in other locations. Of course, if we didn't have sports/music etc in the schools, then I wouldn't feel that we as homeschoolers should get $$$ to do them on the side. As it stands now, it's part of the public schools plan for students here :)

[mom2bee]

I'm still looking for an argument to sway my opinion though.

 

Your opinion doesn't need to change. Just remember to refuse your kids should they ever want to opt-in to certain extra curricular activities at your local schools.

 

My parents refused me when I was in HS and I'm still mad about it at times.

[kalanamak]

 

I'm still looking for an argument to sway my opinion though.

 

Okay. Why shouldn't they? If enough do it, they will probably change the rules on funding. :)

[ThisIsTheDay]

So you are saying, that you are 100% perfectly fine and dandy paying them $$$ out of your pocket every single year, and them saying that your child is not allowed to do ANYTHING to utilize that $$?

 

Say your taxes are $3000 a year. (just throwing a random number out here).

 

So you are completely fine handing $3000 every year to your school district, and saying "Oh, spend it any way you want. Oh no thanks, no need for me to get anything out of it! Don't worry about me getting ANYTHING out of my hard-earned $3000! I am happy to hand it to you and completely walk away :D"

 

Really?

 

Please convince me on your POV.

 

You can't be serious! After all the other taxes I pay for things which I don't agree, and you think I'd have a problem with public schools?:D

 

My kids can take advantage of any ps opportunities, but I believe I cancelled those opportunities when pulling them out of ps.

 

I pay taxes for the post office, but I don't think my kid should get to sort mail just because they feel like it (regardless of how well they might do). I pay library taxes, but my kids don't get to choose what books the library orders (even if my kids' choices would have a positive impact on other readers). (All of those parenthetical reasons mirror the reasons given on the AL Tebow Bill Q&A.) I don't get to dictate snow removal, war policy, bailout money, mandated health care . . . just an endless list. I do, however, choose to exercise my vote for those who make the decisions, just as I vote or might otherwise be moved to support school board members, county commissioners, and state representatives.

 

I thought there might be a reason that would sway me. The issue has come up again in our state legislature. I'd already typed up my email to my rep, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything before I press send.

[Jean in Newcastle]

A. They do get my tax dollars.

 

B. At least around here, people pay extra for p.s. sports (esp. at the high school level) anyway so you would be paying the same as everyone else in that regard.

 

C. I don't know for sports, but for speech therapy, the school does get to count my dd as a part-time student and does get federal money for the privilege.

[DianeW88]

My local PS wanted my dd on their drill team desperately. She went to try out with her friend for fun, and they were blown away by her dance ability (she is now a professional ballerina and attending college on a ballet scholarship, as well). They moved heaven and earth to make sure she participated.

 

It was a great experience for her, as she saw a lot of the bureaucratic idiocy that is involved in high school. Kids are allowed to participate in extra-curriculars here, but you have to jump through some hoops to get approved. When I had to show a portfolio of her work to make sure it was "on par" with what the high school kids were doing, the two comments that stood out to me from the vice-principal were, "Wow, she reads a lot of books," and "Latin? We don't even offer Latin." :lol:

 

She had a great time participating and contributed a lot to the team. There were some bumps, as she was the best dancer there (because she'd spent every day up to that point in a ballet program from 11 AM to 6 PM....duh...she had BETTER be the best one in the room :D), and some of the other girls who had been on the team for years got their noses out of joint when she was always placed in front or given solo numbers, but she worked it all out, and it was great. We'd never do it again, but she did say to me, "Mom, I am so glad I was homeschooled. The public school drama and the things they make you do are ridiculous. Why do they keep doing things one way, when another way clearly works better? Can't they see that?" Um, no, honey....it's called government bureaucracy. :lol:

[justasque]

--Say a kid gets pulled out because they need intensive one-on-one help with mom to get a good foundation in reading, and will be put back in two years later. Better for the school (down the line, not having to deal with a kid who is behind) and society (better educated kids = better for all of us) that he gets this help. If continuing to have connections to his local school and his public school friends, though after-school activities such as the school play, or the tennis team, or the band, can be of benefit to him, why would we want to restrict that? Flexibility = good.

 

--Say a kid wants to play a particular in college, but in his small town the only team around is the high school team. He's a good player, and can get significant scholarships for college if he plays well in high school. But say academically he's gifted and the small town school just doesn't have the courses he needs. Why should he have to compromise his education in order to get access to the sports scholarships? Again, flexibility = good.

 

--In some cases, a hsed kid's participation gives specific benefits to the public school kids as well. For example, for several years a local high school team practiced on a homeschool family's field, as their school's field had issues of some sort. The hs family had a kid on the team, and I think the hs dad ended up coaching the team. So the team really benefited from the hs family's contributions. We're all part of the same community. Flexibility = good.

 

--In another local example, a hs mom had run an afterschool Great Books club when her kids were in school. Once she pulled the kids out, she continued to run the club, and both hs and schooled kids benefited. Again, hs families' participation can be a win-win situation. Flexibility = good.

 

Should public schools be flexible when it comes to kids from private schools or homeschools participating in extracurriculars? I think so.

 

Should homeschoolers take them up on the opportunity to participate? That's a whole 'nother question; many families don't need or want to, for good reasons, and that's OK. But I think the option should be there for families who need or want it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

You can't be serious! After all the other taxes I pay for things which I don't agree, and you think I'd have a problem with public schools?:D

 

My kids can take advantage of any ps opportunities, but I believe I cancelled those opportunities when pulling them out of ps.

 

I pay taxes for the post office, but I don't think my kid should get to sort mail just because they feel like it (regardless of how well they might do). I pay library taxes, but my kids don't get to choose what books the library orders (even if my kids' choices would have a positive impact on other readers). (All of those parenthetical reasons mirror the reasons given on the AL Tebow Bill Q&A.) I don't get to dictate snow removal, war policy, bailout money, mandated health care . . . just an endless list. I do, however, choose to exercise my vote for those who make the decisions, just as I vote or might otherwise be moved to support school board members, county commissioners, and state representatives.

 

I thought there might be a reason that would sway me. The issue has come up again in our state legislature. I'd already typed up my email to my rep, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything before I press send.

 

I don't know about the Tebow Bill, but you pay taxes for the post office so that you can use the post office not so that you can sort mail. You pay taxes for the library so that you can borrow books from them, not so that you can order the books. You pay taxes for schools so that you (or your kids) can learn/participate in them, not so that you can teach in them.

[justasque]

I'd already typed up my email to my rep, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything before I press send.

 

Would you be willing to share your email with us, so we can address your thoughts directly?

[EKS]

I pay taxes for schools, but I think schools get more if their nose-count is higher. I might be wrong. Perhaps they do get more if there are part time students (say, football or chemistry).

 

 

 

At least in WA, where homeschoolers are allowed by law to use as much or little of ps offerings as they like, schools get funding for the time students spend in class. I'm not sure how the funding works for after school sports though.

Edited January 22, 2012 by EKS

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

[Samiam]

 

I pay taxes for the post office, but I don't think my kid should get to sort mail just because they feel like it (regardless of how well they might do). I pay library taxes, but my kids don't get to choose what books the library orders (even if my kids' choices would have a positive impact on other readers). (All of those parenthetical reasons mirror the reasons given on the AL Tebow Bill Q&A.) I don't get to dictate snow removal, war policy, bailout money, mandated health care . . . just an endless list. I do, however, choose to exercise my vote for those who make the decisions, just as I vote or might otherwise be moved to support school board members, county commissioners, and state representatives.

 

 

 

I believe that is all nonsensical. You pay for snow removal with your taxes and EVERYBODY how pays for that in their taxes GETS IT! Your taxes pay for the library services, and EVERYBODY who pays taxes for the library GETS to USE IT! Mandated health care,*yep, EVERYBODY gets to use it (not saying this is good at all. just say'n). Every single thing that you listed, EVERYBODY has the right to partake/benefit. So no, you don't have the right to dictate where your tax money goes, unfortunately, but at least for everything else you mentioned, you get to utilize the services your tax money is paying for.

 

But EVERYBODY who pays school taxes does NOT get to utilize what is funded by those taxes.

 

You know, I've heard of senior citizens who grumble about having to pay school taxes when they don't have children in schools anymore...but what's funny, is EVEN THEY can still utilize the schools. In three states that I have lived in the school district offers "Adult Education classes" on various topics like computers, foreign language, cooking etc.

 

So in your theory, it's perfectly okay that part of your tax money is earmarked for snow removal, and that your local government decides they are not going to plow your particular street but do the next street over twice a day? You are perfectly okay with paying taxes to fund a library, but you can't check out books from there, and your neighbor gets unlimited books? That's all okay for you??

 

I prefer it to be my choice. Take my tax money to run the library since I have no say in the matter, but let me choose if I want to check out books or purchase them on my own. Take my tax money to run the Post Office, however poorly but let me choose if I want to use the Post Office or UPS. Take my tax money to educate the children, but let me decide if my child will participate in the extracurriculars, as long as he is eligible based on the criteria the other children have to follow.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Samiam

[myfunnybunch]

Where do you live that the school is not getting your tax dollars??

 

Everywhere I have lived and owned a house, my tax dollars DO go to the school. My property taxes go directly to the schools in my area. Doesn't matter if my child goes there or not, THEY get my money. I do not have the option to direct where my tax dollars go.

 

Here too. A portion of our property taxes goes directly to the school district within which we reside, even if it's not earmarked for my child. We are helping to pay for the buildings, the books, the paper, the teachers, none of which we use. I see my portion of those taxes as a contribution to the education of children in my community even though we don't use the facilities ourselves. Regardless of whether the tax dollars I pay are earmarked for my child particularly, I am still paying money to support the school.

 

It might make a difference if funds based on head count were the primary funding source for extracurricular activities. But my child's inclusion in the enrolled student head count makes very little difference in the amount of money available to the extracurricular activity funding. I will still have to pay activity fees and volunteer my time if I want my child to participate.

 

Cat

[snowbeltmom]

My kids can take advantage of any ps opportunities, but I believe I cancelled those opportunities when pulling them out of ps.

I don't agree with this assessment.

 

I pay taxes for the post office, but I don't think my kid should get to sort mail just because they feel like it (regardless of how well they might do). I pay library taxes, but my kids don't get to choose what books the library orders (even if my kids' choices would have a positive impact on other readers). (All of those parenthetical reasons mirror the reasons given on the AL Tebow Bill Q&A.) I don't get to dictate snow removal, war policy, bailout money, mandated health care . . . just an endless list...

I don't think your kids should be entitled to any special treatment either that is denied to all the other tax payers.

 

I have opted out of using the post office when paying all of my monthly bills because I have found a better option...online billing. Since I have opted out of the post office system, does that mean that I can no longer choose to send an occasional letter via the post office system, or did I cancel that opportunity by finding a better day to day solution than the post office?

 

I have opted out of the public school because I have found better educational opportunities outside the public school building. However, I should still be able to choose an activity (especially after school activities) that are taking place at my public school since I am still paying for the service.

Edited January 22, 2012 by snowbeltmom

[ktgrok]

You can't be serious! After all the other taxes I pay for things which I don't agree, and you think I'd have a problem with public schools?:D

 

My kids can take advantage of any ps opportunities, but I believe I cancelled those opportunities when pulling them out of ps.

 

I pay taxes for the post office, but I don't think my kid should get to sort mail just because they feel like it (regardless of how well they might do). I pay library taxes, but my kids don't get to choose what books the library orders

 

I don't think these are good analogies at all. I don't send invitations via mail, or packages, but that doesn't mean I give up my right to use it for thank you cards. I don't check out videos or biographies at the library, but that doesn't mean I give up the right to check out books on tape. I don't use the school for math, but that doesn't mean I give up the right to use it for art, or volleyball. I'm paying for it, and should be able to choose how much of it I use, if at all.

 

Here in Florida you can send the kid full time, or for just a few classes, or just one, or just for afterschool sports. Not an issue. For the first year we homeschooled my son went one day a week for the gifted pull out, and homeschooled the rest of the week.

[snowbeltmom]

Here in Florida you can send the kid full time, or for just a few classes, or just one, or just for afterschool sports. Not an issue. For the first year we homeschooled my son went one day a week for the gifted pull out, and homeschooled the rest of the week.

 

This is how it should be in every single state.

[Farrar]

I pay taxes for the post office, but I don't think my kid should get to sort mail just because they feel like it (regardless of how well they might do). I pay library taxes, but my kids don't get to choose what books the library orders (even if my kids' choices would have a positive impact on other readers). (All of those parenthetical reasons mirror the reasons given on the AL Tebow Bill Q&A.) I don't get to dictate snow removal, war policy, bailout money, mandated health care . . . just an endless list. I do, however, choose to exercise my vote for those who make the decisions, just as I vote or might otherwise be moved to support school board members, county commissioners, and state representatives.

 

:confused: Your children aren't allowed to administer the library or the post office, but they have equal access to it along with everyone else - ditto the snow removal, the protection of the military, etc. They shouldn't be allowed to set the rules for or coach the teams, but they should have equal access to them, like every other kid.

 

I think there is something to the idea that school is a community and you either opt into the whole thing or out of the whole thing, I just don't personally agree. But the argument you make above makes no sense to me. And from a purely money-based argument, I do think kids should be able to opt into whatever part of the school they want. College campuses that have open policies and allow people to take single classes or enroll in different programs aren't hurt by this, they're enriched. High schools in particular would be too.

[LucyStoner]

Why not? I don't see how excluding a hs child helps make the school better. My state has had this for a long time (I took cello as a hs 7th and 8th grader in the early 1990s) and schools receive funding for partially enrolled students. Access to opportunities is not a bad thing. Why get your nose out of joint over it? It's not harming you or anyone else.

Edited January 22, 2012 by kijipt

[catz]

 

Here in Florida you can send the kid full time, or for just a few classes, or just one, or just for afterschool sports. Not an issue. For the first year we homeschooled my son went one day a week for the gifted pull out, and homeschooled the rest of the week.

 

It's similar here as well. I live in a state where part time homeschooling is a completely legal and viable option chosen by many families. It goes from just doing after school activities (like sports or clubs), to just being pulled out to homeschool for one or 2 classes a week. Aren't more educational options better than fewer? If people don't want their children to participate in any PS activities, that's totally fine. But why shouldn't that be an option for people paying into the system. I know our local schools get a % of the funding for a part time student.

[brownie]

How about arguing from the opposite perspective. Our district spends $10,000 on each child. If I choose cyber school for my kid next year, the cyber school gets most of the money earmarked for my child. Our school district has empty seats as a result and is looking to start their own cyber school to keep that money in-house. I'm saving them $30,000 by not cyber schooling my 3 children. Shouldn't my kid be able to run on the track with the ps kids after school? I'm doing them a favor and my kid would be an asset to their programs (music, sports) so he makes them look good.

 

The economy is such right now that the schools are charging for participation in programs anyhow so my kid is unlikely adding any incremental cost to the program...at least until the homeschoolers charge the school in swarms all expecting music and sports. (BTW I have only been able to locate 1 homeschooler utilizing the music program in our huge district and they required dual enrollment...you know that means they now get money for that child).

 

Brownie

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'll take the unpopular view that homeschoolers have no place in public school sports. When I opt out of the p.s. system, I'm opting out of ALL of it. Period. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

jmho

 

You are opting out of it. That is your choice. Someone else might want to opt out of part of p.s. but not the rest of it. Depending on the law in their state, that is their choice. I like having as a choice because I think that it benefits not only those who want to take that choice but also the school.

 

opt (pt)

intr.v. opt·ed, opt·ing, opts

To make a choice or decision: opted for early retirement; opted not to go.

Phrasal Verb:

opt out Slang

To choose not to participate in something: "give individual schools the right to opt out of the local educational authority" (Newsweek).

[happypamama]

Maybe someone else in PA could enlighten me a bit here. My child is indeed considered to be a part of our local school district, because of how the law works, right? So the SD does indeed receive funding for her? Is that right? If that is indeed the case, then yes, I think she should be allowed to participate in sports, activities, speech therapy, classes, even breakfast and lunch -- basically, whatever services she could receive if she attended there daily. If they get to count her in their unit count and get money for her, then essentially, they're making money from her being homeschooled -- an allocation is given for her seat on a bus or in a classroom, and they're not having to pay out for it (and they sure aren't giving it back to me, and what they have to pay someone to oversee the homeschoolers isn't making up for what they'd have to spend if they taught her every day). As long as they receive money for her and feel that they have the right to oversee us, I feel that I have the right to pick and choose whatever services of theirs I want to use.

 

If that's not the case, and they don't receive specific funding for her, then no, I don't think the school should HAVE to allow her to participate in any of that, even though state law allows for it. I pay taxes, not because my child is part of the SD, but because I own property in the SD; the same is true of the elderly gentleman down the road. If my child wasn't considered to be part of the SD, and they didn't receive funding for that child, I would feel that a) they did not have the right to oversee me or require anything from me beyond a simple letter stating that my child would not attend their school, and b) I did not have the right to use their services. I would certainly understand if they chose to allow me to use their services (especially if my child would be an asset to their sports team or band or something), at my own personal cost; that does not seem unreasonable to me. Why should they have to provide services for my child if they don't get to count her in their numbers and receive funding for her?

 

As to why a SD might allow it if they didn't have to, especially at the parents' personal cost, well, it seems to me that it would be a win-win for the SD. They get the chance to have a good athlete on a team, they look good to the community at large by being gracious, and they're not responsible for the student's grades and deportment outside of the team.

[pqr]

Because I pay for that right. I use it at my discretion.

 

Now if by opting out I kept the dollars that are wasted in ps I would jump at that. Nevertheless until such a time as I am offered a refund I have the right to utilize those services that I have paid for and may find useful.

 

End of discussion.

[NanceXToo]

I pay taxes to my school district.

 

I also have to "report" to my school district each year with portfolios, standardized testing certain years etc to their satisfaction.

 

So I guess if I had an interest in pursuing extra-curricular activities at the school district level, I'd certainly feel "justified" in doing so.

 

With that said, I have no interest in that at this point in time.

[In2why]

Here in Virginia it isn't the state so much as the Virginia Sports League. Their rules require that a child take certain classes and have certain grades, but home schoolers do not qualify. I feel that is another way of saying that I am not educating my child, and that home schooling is not a legitimate form of education.

 

There are not enough home schoolers to have competitive teams if your child is interested in sports. If they want to qualify for a sports scholarship to a college they do not get that opportunity. It isn't that it is necessary for every home schooler, but it should be an option. So parents have to make a choice if their child shows a gift in athletics. You either enroll them in public school or they don't participate in the sport. For many people that is a no brainer, but for some it is a hard decision to make. I know quite a few people who signed up for K-12 this year through our public school system so that their high school age children could play sports. It is win-win for the public school system. They get federal money for the child, they get the accelerated test scores that most home schooled children produce, they don't need to pay for a teacher for the child, and they get a above average child on their team and they also get to cut into the home school population since these kids are no longer considered home schooled even though they are learning at home. But the parent has given up a lot of freedom for the privilege. They no longer control curriculum, they no longer can opt out of state testing, and they belong to the state system.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Because I pay for that right. I use it at my discretion.

 

Now if by opting out I kept the dollars that are wasted in ps I would jump at that. Nevertheless until such a time as I am offered a refund I have the right to utilize those services that I have paid for and may find useful.

 

End of discussion.

 

I live in a non-reporting state. Homeschoolers can't participate in anything offered through public school in my state, even though the amount I personally pay in property taxes that goes directly to the schools would more than fund all of my homeschooling curriculum each year. It's a lot of money, and my kid can't even sit in on an Algebra class or be on the swim team.

 

I happily paid property taxes before my children were school-aged and I'll happily pay them after my kids are grown. But if we can't utilize anything offered by the schools I would really, really like a tax break for this time that I am forced, as a responsible parent, to choose an educational alternative to the public school for my own children.

 

Our local high school graduates fewer than 50% of male seniors every year. It averages two suspensions for fighting or drugs per day. I think I would be derelict in my duty to enroll my sons in that school. I feel forced to find an alternative.

 

Homeschooling is so expensive for us right now. All four of our boys are school-aged. I would like to be at work during the day because we are barely making our mortgage every month. But no, we have to live on one income so I can educate our children at home, and we have to find the money for their educational materials.

 

If anybody ever actually gets around to starting a tax revolt over this I will be on board.

[Maus]

I think this is how it works in Utah, but I know that this is at least how it works in our district:

 

If your child is homeschooled, the state money goes to the district office in which we live, where they can use it to pay the over-inflated salary of the superintendent or any other district expense. If I use *any* service at the local school, the money goes to the school instead of the district. Supposedly, the local schools are glad to offer stuff to homeschoolers, because they can have the money.

 

I've also looked at the breakdown of where my property tax dollars go. More than 3/4 goes to the school district (and they just got a new bond passed, so that's going to go up), with less than 1/4 going to everything else combined, like library, snow removal, police, fire, etc.

[Wheres Toto]

 

I thought there might be a reason that would sway me. The issue has come up again in our state legislature. I'd already typed up my email to my rep, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything before I press send.

 

So, you are so against allowing homeschoolers to participate in extra curricular at the public school that you are writing a letter in opposition to your representative? You feel so strongly that you don't want ANYONE to have that opportunity? Why are you so opposed? If you are opposed for your children that's one thing but why are you against anyone else being able to do so?

 

NJ just started allowing homeschoolers to participate in school sports. From what I've seen it isn't going to raise our taxes or have any effect except on the students who actually participate. Even if I didn't care one way or the other (which is the case for us since my kids are very young) I can't see being so opposed to it that I would be willing to actively work against it.

[eternalknot]

I don't subscribe to the "I pay taxes, I'm entitled" mindset as it applies to my homeschooled child being 'allowed' to participate in public school extracurriculars. My parents pay the same taxes I do, to the same city and district, and don't see any direct benefit -- why would it be any different for me? Because I coincidentally have kids of age that they could, were they enrolled in public schools? Nah, it's not enough meat for me to gnaw.

 

I live in a state where homeschoolers are left alone; no reporting, no overseeing. To me, then, it's reasonable that my homeschooled child not be eligible for participation in school-sponsored (funded or not) activities. I'm choosing to separate myself, and that's not without hard choices. I can't have my cake and eat it, too.

 

If I lived in a state where I was reporting to or being overseen by a school district or its representatives ... I might feel differently. I'd consider that the state opened the door for a "joint effort" between our respective institutions, and I'd feel more entitled to sharing the district's resources. The state can't have its cake and eat it, too ;)

 

My kids do participate in sports and extracurriculars, just not at school. We live in a small semi-rural town where options can be limited, but we work around those hurdles. IMO, that's the trade-off for choices we've made WRT homeschooling. It'd be nice to have "it all," but that's not realistic. So we make do.

 

I also have nephews in my local public schools, all of whom participate in school extracurriculars (and also have extracurriculars outside of school, alongside my own kids). We choose homeschooling year by year, as opposed to as a lifestyle calling, so that likely colors my opinion; I'm not against or hesitant to enroll my child in school if the interest and talents would be better served by access to those extracurriculars through school. My kids suffer no social or academic issues that would make school a poor choice, and our district is usually in the state's top three (always in the top five, and has been for the past 20 years). We homeschool because we like to sleep in and travel LOL. By high school, the kids can drive themselves and I can still sleep in and travel :P

 

I'm not convinced all homeschoolers should have open access to the public school's resources - be it extracurricular or therapeutic, or otherwise. I'm glad it's a state issue, and though it's inconvenient for me ... I support my state's refusal to allow homeschoolers to participate.

 

Life is about making tough choices, not about having it all.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think eventually schools will tart to do the sort of thing they do in WA state. They have both a sort of a la carte option and a "homeschool" classes where they teach music, art, have field trips, etc. Honestly, I think the kids receiving some outside instruction and the schools receiving credit for the students is probably beneficial to both.

[Harriet Vane]

Where do you live that the school is not getting your tax dollars??

 

Everywhere I have lived and owned a house, my tax dollars DO go to the school. My property taxes go directly to the schools in my area. Doesn't matter if my child goes there or not, THEY get my money. I do not have the option to direct where my tax dollars go.

 

So in this case, why shouldn't my child be allowed to utilize some portion of what the school offers, especially extracurricular, which normally has an extra out-of-pocket expense anyway that I would still have to pay?

 

 

Perhaps you are referring to the federal money, which is based on the head count at the school, though?

 

I often feel that those who do not want/understand wanting to use the public school for sports/music, etc is because they do not have a child that it affects.

If you had a child who desperately wanted to play football and was REALLY good at it, or play music, or whatever it was, and had no options in their area to do that, especially in high school, I bet you would feel differently.

 

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

So, you are so against allowing homeschoolers to participate in extra curricular at the public school that you are writing a letter in opposition to your representative? You feel so strongly that you don't want ANYONE to have that opportunity? Why are you so opposed? If you are opposed for your children that's one thing but why are you against anyone else being able to do so?

 

NJ just started allowing homeschoolers to participate in school sports. From what I've seen it isn't going to raise our taxes or have any effect except on the students who actually participate. Even if I didn't care one way or the other (which is the case for us since my kids are very young) I can't see being so opposed to it that I would be willing to actively work against it.

 

I agree. Even if I didn't want to participate, I would NOT actively campaign against allowing access for people who do want it.

[regentrude]

Because I pay for it through my tax dollars, even if I do not send my kids there full time.

So, why should my kids NOT participate?