What are your thoughts about sports at schools?

[momofkhm]

HOME SCHOOLERS BEWARE!!! In several states, "sports access" is being debated now. This refers to the right of home schooling families, as taxpayers, having the freedom to put their kids in public school sports programs. This is how Tim Tebow got his start in football. Although it sounds neat on the surface, this is a great Trojan horse. It is the camel's nose under the tent. First, kids participating in sports will see only the fun side of public school and some of them will be misled into wanting to attend and see what else school has to offer. Second, public school sports are offered at government expense, and government services never come without a price in freedom. Sports access will doubtless lead to some requirements on the child's family--grade reporting, schedule control, partial enrollment, etc. With the shekels come the shackles. This is a sugar-coated poison and there is absolutely no benefit available thru sports that is worth the compromise this would mean. It would be sinister and subtle and it would end up in the gradual surrender of the freedoms that we home schoolers of the 1980's fought so hard to win. Please don't be deceived by the carrot. Take it from the generation of the 80's.

 

This is from The Learning Parent. But is it valid? Has someone used the local schools for sports and not had problems? Has someone used the local school and actually had problems? Or is this a "it will happen down the road" but not for a while kind of issue?

[LaxMom]

It's no longer being debated here. Until a couple of years ago, participation in sports or electives was at the discretion of the district; now it is explicitly not allowed.

 

When I made the choice to homeschool, I chose to not partake of the school system. I don't really see how it is now scandalous that the schools are saying we can't have it both ways.

[Mommyfaithe]

This is from The Learning Parent. But is it valid? Has someone used the local schools for sports and not had problems? Has someone used the local school and actually had problems? Or is this a "it will happen down the road" but not for a while kind of issue?

 

We have never been permitted to use the schools fr anything in our district. It seems somewhat arbitrary....because the supt. can choose to or NOT grant permission, and they choose NOT unless there is an amazing talent....and this is more with music than sports. I think they claim insurance reasons, although my friends kid broke his wrist during marching band.....( he was a ps kid, but still.)

 

I think it is stupid! In ny, We need to submit all sorts of paperwork, So you would think they would encourage school participation. I told a lady from the gym yesterday that I was going to sneak dd into her English class....( she teaches 10th grade English which I think dd would love). Ooooops, sorry to digress.

 

It just seems to me that if I pay school taxes, and taxes pay for these extras....and I have kids who are of eligible age......they should be able to participate.

[regentrude]

No access here. Competition rules (and that includes choir) require enrollment for 6 hours to participate.

 

From the title, I thought you asked our general thoughts about sports in school. I think schools should be for academics, and sports should be a private activity and not tied to the schools at all. (It is like that in my home country)

[JeanM]

My state allows participation in school sports, but my dc have not chosen to participate. They are both in the band at school though, and that has been a very positive experience. The school has been very helpful to us, and while my dc enjoy band, they really prefer to continue to homeschool.

[mom2scouts]

We don't have access here, but I wish we did so my son could do marching band. I would expect there to be some rules just like with any group my children join and in Ohio, the OHSAA has specific rules that govern eligibility. Honestly, I would love to see sports taken out of schools and run as community clubs, but that's a whole different conversation.

[amy g.]

I know friends who have homeschooled all the way through, used PS sports and had a great experience with both.

 

It is not an option here, and I wouldn't use it if it were.

 

We exercise for health in my family, but I do not agree with competitively pushing bodies that are not fully grown.

 

I know too many teenagers getting knee replacements. Just yesterday, my daughter called me crying because her friend can't swim any more. She developed a lung condition from the chlorine. She is only 13.

 

We only get one body.

[Word Nerd]

.

Edited August 31, 2012 by WordGirl

[amy g.]

Frankly I think sports should be separate from schools in general anyway.

 

The only reason I do not agree with this is because I feel like participation in sports should not only be available to families who can pay out of pocket.

 

It is expensive!

 

I'd like it if schools were only allowed to use 10%-20% of their funds for sports, and maybe another 10%-20% on administrators. The rest should be spent on children, teachers and academics.

[TravelingChris]

I am all for access to school sports and other extracurricular clubs. We pay for it with taxes and I think we should be able to do these things.

[EKS]

Homeschoolers have access to all aspects of public education here in WA. I know lots of people who have chosen to use parts of the public schools but not the whole deal and they have all been very pleased. However, I don't know anyone whose child has participated in school sports specifically.

[SailorMom]

Around here there are very few organized/team sports options after the age of 13 or 14 unless you can pay ridiculous fees for travel teams or you play in the school system.

We are fortunate that we do have access to our PS's sports. My ds will be trying out for the high school soccer team in October.

Honestly - the OP's copied paragraph sounded kinda "tin-foil hat" ish to me...

Kids only seeing the fun side of PS?? Uh - most PS's don't have team sports until (at the earliest) middle school. I would hope by that age kids are discerning enough to realize they are playing a sport and not sitting in a classroom. And as far as getting the government involved - many states already have reporting requirements - including the one I live in.

[Aelwydd]

I understand that cost and transportation can be barriers to participation by low-income families, but that doesn't mean that the only solutions to this is to have sports entwined with school.

 

In my area (DFW metroplex), most communities offer inexpensive or even free sports and activities. For example, a child in Fort Worth can sign up for community baseball, softball, football, and several other sports for a yearly $10 annual fee, plus $6 registration for the sport.

 

Nearby, there is a police athletic league that sponsors competitive boxing, as well as soccer camps, kayaking trips, and archery. Cost: nothing. It's totally free for children ages 8-18. It is right down the street from bus and train stations. The cost to ride the train is $.50 for a minor.

 

This area is not good for public transportation, but it still manages to provide enough access to sports that most families can afford at least one community sport.

 

Obviously, there are some sports that are prohibitive anyway, but being a public school sport does not really change that. My ds plays ice hockey for a local travel team. High schoolers here who play hockey still have to pay for ice time as a team, plus all the costs of equipment and uniforms. Furthermore, if you are wanting to get scouted for college, the high school leagues are not where the competition's at: it's the private travel teams and their tournaments.

 

Dance and gymnastics would be other examples of expensive sports, as well as martial arts. Nevertheless, there are still community rec centers that offer classes such as the Tae Kwon Do 8-week progressive classes in the next town over, that are $80. There are community swim leagues that cost ~ $50/month.

 

Long story short, I'm really tired of sports being used as a cash cow for schools, and as a funnel for many athletes to "pass" with subpar grades.

 

As for the article in the OP, I thought it was sensationalist and over-the-top. It sounds like something H.S.D.L.A. would write, to be honest.

[LaxMom]

The debate here brought out the points:

 

* access is an issue.

 

School sports cost is subsidized to the point that the poorest children can participate. The costs are less as uniforms are reused and there are no participation trophies.

Rec sports here are very low cost, and county run with business sponsors. The same equipment is issued in Rec as in the schools (e.g. Jerseys are provided, personal gear is the responsibility of the family. I'm pretty sure there is scholarship available as well.

 

* transportation is an issue

 

School sports have busses or they have enough parents who will take those who don't have transport to the away events (high school athletes have to provide their own transport to invitationals here, so if the booster club didn't make enough for a bus to be hired, parents must provide). Community sports don't so students who can't come up with transportation to practice and to events are excluded.

true, but kids who participate in school sports need a ride home. There is not "activity bus" here, as there was when I was in highschool.

* coaching

 

Coaching is more neutral at the high school than on a community team. Basically, less coaches kids' cliques hogging playing time once the coaches aren't parents of team members.

that happens more in school sports (favorite players, etc) than in our rec league, where there is a policy of everyone playing.

* facilities

 

Rural areas don't have strip malls with large parking lots to house inddor soccer, volleyball etc. The parking lots at the parks are not sufficient for the number of leagues that would have to fill up the parks. The community would need to build facilities, which is ridiculous as the community has already funded the school district which has the facilities. Many people felt that shared services should be the goal, not duplication of services.

our rural area has fields and courts for every sport, huge regional sports complexes, and facilities available for indoor sports in winter. The majority of schools do not have indoor pools and also rely on community resources for their swim teams. It goes both ways, facility wise, and we get it done.

 

 

To clarify my original post: I don't think there is anything wrong with participation. It simply wasn't an option - de facto, if not legally - when we were making the choice to homeschool, and we made our choice with that knowledge.

[jujsky]

To be blunt, I think the quote is a load of crap. Kids can participate in sports and other activities here. We did Lego League through the school last year and there were no problems at all. He didn't want to go to school.

 

Geez, when you think about it, there are much better scholarships for very good athletes than there are academics out there. If you are lucky enough to have a kid who is talented in a sport and could get a sports scholarship from being on a high school team, why would you deny them that opportunity? College is expensive! If an athletics scholarship is a viable option it would be crazy not to take advantage of that.

[Sara R]

Honestly - the OP's copied paragraph sounded kinda "tin-foil hat" ish to me...

 

:iagree:

 

Utah students have been able to participate in public school sports and other activities (band) since about the time homeschooling was legal (late 80s or early 90s; before I moved here anyway). And Utah has continues to have no reporting or testing requirements: you just fill out an affidavit every year that says you will teach these courses for this many school days and away you go.

 

We have used this option many times, never for sports, but for band and to allow part-time homeschooling for students who had a temporary special educational need. It's great.

[snowbeltmom]

Honestly - the OP's copied paragraph sounded kinda "tin-foil hat" ish to me...

Kids only seeing the fun side of PS?? Uh - most PS's don't have team sports until (at the earliest) middle school. I would hope by that age kids are discerning enough to realize they are playing a sport and not sitting in a classroom. And as far as getting the government involved - many states already have reporting requirements - including the one I live in.

:iagree:

I think it is ridiculous that my kids have to partially enroll in the public school in order to participate in an afterschool activity that my tax dollars are supporting, but the state athletic association does not share the same view.

 

My boys want to play for the high school tennis team. Our state leaves it up to each individual district to decide whether or not to permit partial enrollment of homeschoolers. My district is the only system in my area that permits partial enrollment.

 

The principal at the high school has agreed to allow my boys to partially enroll in the high school, but take an "independent study" class of my choosing. I have to take my boys in to the high school for 85 minutes each day. My oldest does his online AP calc class, and my younger son does his online English class. It is an inefficient use of their time and a waste of gas, but this is the best possible solution with the current rules and regulations.

[SailorMom]

I understand that cost and transportation can be barriers to participation by low-income families, but that doesn't mean that the only solutions to this is to have sports entwined with school.

 

In my area (DFW metroplex), most communities offer inexpensive or even free sports and activities. For example, a child in Fort Worth can sign up for community baseball, softball, football, and several other sports for a yearly $10 annual fee, plus $6 registration for the sport.

 

Nearby, there is a police athletic league that sponsors competitive boxing, as well as soccer camps, kayaking trips, and archery.

 

 

.

 

I wish more areas were like that :)

Here, there are few sports opportunities outside of school once a kid turns 14. I guess the assumption is that they will play school sports. Gymnastics is different, and dance, but I can't think of anything else.

Even tennis and golf - outside of paying for a private coach, there is no organized teen group outside of the high school.

My son is now in a travel soccer league because he aged out of the rec league here. One year in this league (about 6 active months of soccer) will cost us about $2000. Sadly, I can imagine there are a lot of talented soccer players who could never come up with this kind of money to play a sport. It is certainly painful for us. Therefore, high school would be the only option in this area.

[snowbeltmom]

Even tennis and golf - outside of paying for a private coach, there is no organized teen group outside of the high school.

 

I can't comment on golf opportunities, but there are many opportunites to play tennis through the United States Tennis Association. Tournaments are held at the local, regional and national level throughout the entire year.

 

Many of my boys' peers do not even play for their high school teams - they focus soley on the USTA tournaments.

 

The USTA has a website that will list the tournaments taking place every weekend throughout the nation. Kids sign up for the tournaments via this website - you don't need a coach or belong to a club to participate.

[Doodle]

Frankly I think sports should be separate from schools in general anyway.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[myfunnybunch]

the OP's copied paragraph sounded kinda "tin-foil hat" ish to me...

 

:iagree:

 

I am not a victim of sinister underhanded poison if I choose to allow my children to participate in local school activities. If my kids see only the fun side of ps and wish to go, I am in no way obligated to allow them to attend any more than I must allow any other activity that they think would be fun. If the school district or state adds additional requirement with which I am not comfortable, such as partial enrollment, I am in no way obligated or trapped into continuing my child's participation.

 

Of course, my experience is colored by living in a state that allows homeschoolers to participate, in a school district that is very open to working with homeschoolers.

 

Cat

[regentrude]

* access is an issue.

* transportation is an issue

* coaching

* facilities

 

School facilities can still be shared without the sports being organized by the school and paid for from the school budget.

 

In my home country, school gyms and fields are used by private sports clubs after school hours. Those are typically non-profits which provide free or low cost sports. If transportation is an issue, maybe one should rethink the insanity of travel teams. Coaching is done by volunteers which are not necessarily parents of kids on a team.

 

But then, I am not American and do not get the obsession with sports in this country... I remember kids taking a soccer ball to a nearby park and just playing, without uniforms, coaches, moms on the sidelines.

 

Anyway, I'd rather schools hire qualified math and science teachers than football coaches. (And do NOT get me started on college sports...)

[redsquirrel]

I also think sports should be separated out from school. Organized PE? I think that is fine in the schools, and I would keep music and art instruction as well. But, I would like competitive sports out of the school system.

 

Anyway, I believe in NY it is up to the discretion of each school superintendent to allow or not allow hs and private school students to participate in sports etc. In my district they had allowed students who attended a small private school and a public 'alternative' school to participate. To my knowledge no homeschool students were allowed access. To be fair, I doubt any had asked. Then a charter school opened up and there was a fair amount of public school outcry against it. The school district made it a district policy to not allow any students not enrolled in the school to participate in any activities. They specifically mentioned homeschool students in their discussion/decision.

[dirty ethel rackham]

We don't have access here unless you are willing to have the child go to school part-time (and this is only at the high school level.) These are competitions rules to make sure that only "eligible" athletes (re: academics and attendance boundaries) are playing. Things like band and art are classes which, we do have access to, as long as the principal agrees.

 

I do not want to see any change in this because I do not want the government interfering with my homeschool. We don't have any registration, reporting, or approval requirements and I would like to keep it that way. In a perfect world, sports would not be associated with schools. However, if you look at the history of education and extracurriculars, these were introduced to inculcate children(especially immigrant children) with "American culture" to prepare a mass workforce. It was especially to reduce the influence of the family when the family had a cultural background not consistent with what the workforce then needed. The captains of industry pushed hard for this so they would get the workforce they wanted. (At least this is what I remember from my Educational Policy class in college during my short stint as a secondary education major.)

[Aelwydd]

I wish more areas were like that :)

 

Me, too. I wish more communities would commit to such leagues, and I do think there are many opportunities out there.

 

Here, there are few sports opportunities outside of school once a kid turns 14. I guess the assumption is that they will play school sports. Gymnastics is different, and dance, but I can't think of anything else.

Even tennis and golf - outside of paying for a private coach, there is no organized teen group outside of the high school.

My son is now in a travel soccer league because he aged out of the rec league here. One year in this league (about 6 active months of soccer) will cost us about $2000. Sadly, I can imagine there are a lot of talented soccer players who could never come up with this kind of money to play a sport. It is certainly painful for us. Therefore, high school would be the only option in this area.

 

I hear you. Our ds has signed on to a travel hockey team that costs $2500. We are applying for a scholarship that could cover half or the entire amount, however, so that is a valuable resource our rink offers. There is also a lot of team fund raising activities being planned to offset the costs of tournament fees and travel expenses for the coaches (which the whole team is responsible for).

 

But even so, the costs of playing means that a lot of families cannot afford to play the sport, and so we end up really eliminating a huge pool of talent. I'm a huge fan of community sports and rinks for that reason.

[catz]

Locally, homeschoolers are allowed to part time homeschool or utilize after school sports and activities. We have not done so, but I know families that have with good success. We live in a fairly large metro area, so we have many options in terms of reasonably priced community Ed, expensive programs, etc. even many nicer programs have available scholarships and/or sliding scale fees. We have a couple public magnets that let kids specialize in arts, theater, dance, etc.

 

Anyway, I think it's always better to have more options for parents rather than less. If you don't want to use public school programming or sports, don't use it. As a taxpayer, I think his families are entitled as any PS family. I would like to see more sorts move out of schools too, but barring that change.

 

And I do agree with the tin foil hat analysis of the original quote. I can't imagine being that paranoid. :001_huh:

[Stayseeliz]

Our governor here in SC just sign a bill allowing access for homeschoolers. I don't see the big deal. I'm happy to have the option later on. My son plays little league football but he's already 11 so he'll age out in two years. If he wants to continue on I'd like for him to have the chance to play on a team. There is a flag football team that practices almost an hour from here but that's just not a good option for me. I don't think they'll put huge restrictions on it. We live on "football country" so if there is a kid that's decent they'll let him play.

 

ETA: We won't use public school activities if there is a homeschool alternative. There is a homeschool competition band so we'll go that route if my kids are interested instead of using a school band. But for football there isn't another option.

[momto10blessings]

In our state homeschoolers are not allowed access to sports or most anything else in the public schools. You have to be enrolled at least part time.

 

It's very unfortunate because most league sports (except expensive travel leagues which are also impossible with a large family) end around age 12-13.

 

I have some very talented boys who love to play baseball and it really stinks that once they are 13 they will either have to stop playing or go to public school. Our public middle and high schools are not the best so that it really not an option. Moving is not an option either. I really hope that the sports bill gets passed soon so that they AT LEAST HAVE A CHANCE to try out for the middle and high school baseball teams.

 

I also do not see any chance for them to get a baseball scholarship or play college or major league baseball if they do not play on a high school team. Not that they are definitely going to pursue that, but at this point they don't even have a chance.

[happypamama]

Here, homeschooled students are allowed to participate in extra-curricular clubs and sports, as well as public school classes. My oldest is only in fifth grade, so we haven't looked into it, but I could see where it might be useful in some way at some point. I guess I don't really have a feeling about sports at the public schools; I see ups and downs to them.

 

I think it's totally reasonable that my homeschooled children should be able to participate in sports, clubs, and classes at the public school. To me, it's not a matter of paying taxes to the school; lots of people do that who don't have children in the school, and while I don't like that they demand so much of my money for taxes, that's life. My opinion is that my children should be allowed to participate in those things because our state's law requires us to report to the public school. If they wanted to leave us alone completely, not make us turn in portfolios, etc., then I would have no problem with them telling us we couldn't use them for classes and extra-curriculars. But since they don't want to sever the relationship completely, I think it's totally reasonable that I should be able to take advantage of any benefits I could, if I so wanted.

[catz]

I think it's fair to be paranoid if you are currently participating as a homeschooler and it is important to you because I think plenty of people could make the argument against allowing homeschoolers to participate.

 

When I said paranoid, I meant the thought that the government was going to get their claws deeply entrenched in your homeschool by participating in part time enrollment or after school activities and your kids would be magically brain washed. I'm just not seeing it locally. And I would be very sad if they decided to outlaw this in our state, and I would love to see more people have the option! I really do think more options for families are better than less. I have no problem with online PS charters, etc that some people use.

 

ETA - our state already has reporting and testing requirements. Although, I consider our requirements very easy. Test scores don't even need to be reported.

Edited August 31, 2012 by kck

[Joshin]

I'm in the camp that my taxes pay for it, so therefore we should have access to it. In my state, we can do any extracurriculars or even sign on for a single class. I could get access to the school library or computer lab if I wanted to, as well. While we currently do not take advantage of any of these things, I do know homeschooling families that can only afford to homeschool because of access to these services. I don't think it's a slippery slope, at all. In fact, some of the PS families we know are actually less critical of homeschoolers because of these programs. Why? Because the PS parents and kids have more acquaintances that are homeschooled because they are around them, resulting in a better understanding of homeschoolers in general. In other words, I see it as opposite of the blog referenced: Homeschoolers participating in PS activities leads to greater understanding and eventually more freedom for homeschoolers. It erases some of the unease and fear school officials and PS parents feel around homeschoolers. It humanizes us.

 

Although I think some high schools put too much emphasis on sports, I also would hate to see them phased out completely. Drawing that line in the sand is too easy. What's next? Music, art, foreign language study? Do school's decide to just focus on the three R's and phase out everything else as non-academic (which I know some do). From my PS days, I knew plenty of students where school sports were their one area of achievement. Many would have given up on school otherwise. The promise of sports is what made them put in effort in their academic classes and eventually go on to college. Not all kids are academically inclined, so should we only foster the growth of those kids that are? I just see it as a slippery slope. Although my kids choose not to participate in PS activities, I do not want to limit any opportunities for PS kids or homeschool kids.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Joshin

[Stayseeliz]

In our state homeschoolers are not allowed access to sports or most anything else in the public schools. You have to be enrolled at least part time.

 

It's very unfortunate because most league sports (except expensive travel leagues which are also impossible with a large family) end around age 12-13.

 

I have some very talented boys who love to play baseball and it really stinks that once they are 13 they will either have to stop playing or go to public school. Our public middle and high schools are not the best so that it really not an option. Moving is not an option either. I really hope that the sports bill gets passed soon so that they AT LEAST HAVE A CHANCE to try out for the middle and high school baseball teams.

 

I also do not see any chance for them to get a baseball scholarship or play college or major league baseball if they do not play on a high school team. Not that they are definitely going to pursue that, but at this point they don't even have a chance.

 

This is our situation as well. DS will age out of little league football in either two or three years and I want him to be able to play football if he wants.

[catz]

OH! LOL

 

Ok. No I don't believe that. The government is way too disorganized. :tongue_smilie:

 

Exactly! Pretty sure they have their hands full. ;)

[snowbeltmom]

I have some very talented boys who love to play baseball and it really stinks that once they are 13 they will either have to stop playing or go to public school. Our public middle and high schools are not the best so that it really not an option. Moving is not an option either. I really hope that the sports bill gets passed soon so that they AT LEAST HAVE A CHANCE to try out for the middle and high school baseball teams.

 

I also do not see any chance for them to get a baseball scholarship or play college or major league baseball if they do not play on a high school team. Not that they are definitely going to pursue that, but at this point they don't even have a chance.

:grouphug:

It is a crime when a child would have to sacrifice his academic studies in order to participate in an after-school activity - especially when his parents' tax dollars are funding that program.

 

I hope the bill passes in your state.

[DaisyMay]

In my state, homeschoolers can access anything at the public schools. My two older kids have both done multiple sports at the middle school. It's been a wonderful experience for both of them. For us, it's the best of both worlds. My dc are very athletic and do travel sports as well, but the school teams have had great coaches and I've seen a lot of growth in my kids, both athletically and maturity-wise.

 

I'm very grateful for the opportunity for my children.

 

Gayle

[Colleen]

This is from The Learning Parent. But is it valid? Has someone used the local schools for sports and not had problems? Has someone used the local school and actually had problems? Or is this a "it will happen down the road" but not for a while kind of issue?

 

No, it's not valid, based on my experience. It's a standard misinformed commentary from a paranoid homeschool advocate. Students here in Washington state have access to school programs in the district in which they live. I've had guys participate in school sports for years now and can assure you, the bogey man is not out to get us. It's a breeze, with nothing required of me that isn't required of anyone else. I have yet to encounter even one person in the school system who is remotely hostile toward homeschooling participation in school athletics.

 

Now, having said that, I should add that I'd much prefer sports and extra-curricular activities be disassociated from schools. I would prefer a system like that I'm familiar with in Switzerland, whereby schools provide academic education and athletics, etc are pursued in clubs not affiliated with schools. But sports & school in bed together is the American way. It will never change.

[Jackie in NE]

This is from The Learning Parent. But is it valid? Has someone used the local schools for sports and not had problems? Has someone used the local school and actually had problems? Or is this a "it will happen down the road" but not for a while kind of issue?

 

 

It's not valid here in Wyoming, and honestly, this kind of alarmist thinking irritates me. My oldest dd has participated on public school swim teams for 5 years, and there have never been any "strings" attached. Everyone pays a fee to the high school ($25.00), and homeschoolers pay an additional fee of $100.00 to the state which is necessary because we do not attend the school. All this was communicated ahead of time. It is worth it to me to have access. There are no testing requirements.

 

For my dd, the "fun" side theory did not apply. She is perfectly happy to be on the team, but school at home. Her interaction with team-mates has actually reinforced her desire to homeschool because she sees that her education is better, and she will be better-prepared for college. She really dislikes the drama of the high school scene. This is just my dd. Ymmv.

 

Our district is always working to find more ways to accommodate homeschoolers. I'm sure they would love to lure more homeschoolers to enroll, but that hasn't happened with my circle of friends. In fact, the head of the homeschool/district liason office homeschools his children. He gets it. I think, if anything, access will be easier and easier in the future. The homeschooling numbers are growing, not decreasing. I think we are a force to be reckoned with.

 

This is in Wyoming. My experience in Nebraska was not as good. The individuals in the school district were accommodating, but the district policies were more restrictive. It's a process. I think the more we engage in the process, the better the results will be.

 

Just mho.

[Upward Journey]

It's not valid here in Wyoming, and honestly, this kind of alarmist thinking irritates me. My oldest dd has participated on public school swim teams for 5 years, and there have never been any "strings" attached. Everyone pays a fee to the high school ($25.00), and homeschoolers pay an additional fee of $100.00 to the state which is necessary because we do not attend the school. All this was communicated ahead of time. It is worth it to me to have access. There are no testing requirements.

 

For my dd, the "fun" side theory did not apply. She is perfectly happy to be on the team, but school at home. Her interaction with team-mates has actually reinforced her desire to homeschool because she sees that her education is better, and she will be better-prepared for college. She really dislikes the drama of the high school scene. This is just my dd. Ymmv.

 

Our district is always working to find more ways to accommodate homeschoolers. I'm sure they would love to lure more homeschoolers to enroll, but that hasn't happened with my circle of friends. In fact, the head of the homeschool/district liason office homeschools his children. He gets it. I think, if anything, access will be easier and easier in the future. The homeschooling numbers are growing, not decreasing. I think we are a force to be reckoned with.

 

Just mho.

 

Different state, same experience.

[magic]

We have access at a higher cost. My oldest is in public school and it costs $60 per sport for him. My second is homeschooled and runs on the same cross country team as my oldest but his cost is $90. He is considered out of district and out of district kids are allowed at a highter cost. I think it has to do with the fact that there are many small schools around (with 6 or 8 man football) and this allows the schools to offer only a few sports but give their students the opportunity to be in more. There are students from several small schools who also run on their team.

 

In no way is public school glamorized- at least with my boys' cross country. The average gpa of the team is 3.74. Most of their meets are 2+ hours away. Yesterday, they boarded the bus and worked on homework the entire way. They quiz eachother for tests and practice Spanish while warming up and stretching. They take their schoolwork very seriously and keep eachother accountable. My son said that he is going to take homework on the ride to the next meet because no one talked the whole way up because they were doing homework. Even his brother was working the entire time. On the way home it is too dark to do homework so they talk then. Cross country is also a very un-glamorous sport that does not get much attention. The kids work hard with long, hot practices and receive very little peer (or any other) recognition outside of the cross country team themselves and their families.

[Riverland]

nm

[redsquirrel]

We have access at a higher cost. My oldest is in public school and it costs $60 per sport for him. My second is homeschooled and runs on the same cross country team as my oldest but his cost is $90. He is considered out of district and out of district kids are allowed at a highter cost. I think it has to do with the fact that there are many small schools around (with 6 or 8 man football) and this allows the schools to offer only a few sports but give their students the opportunity to be in more. There are students from several small schools who also run on their team.

 

In no way is public school glamorized- at least with my boys' cross country. The average gpa of the team is 3.74. Most of their meets are 2+ hours away. Yesterday, they boarded the bus and worked on homework the entire way. They quiz eachother for tests and practice Spanish while warming up and stretching. They take their schoolwork very seriously and keep eachother accountable. My son said that he is going to take homework on the ride to the next meet because no one talked the whole way up because they were doing homework. Even his brother was working the entire time. On the way home it is too dark to do homework so they talk then. Cross country is also a very un-glamorous sport that does not get much attention. The kids work hard with long, hot practices and receive very little peer (or any other) recognition outside of the cross country team themselves and their families.

 

I know! My son is in a ballet school and a theater company and the ps kids are working their butts off! The high school aged kids are all high achieving and take their studies very seriously. I see them with their geometry books and novels, taking notes etc. My kid is rereading something like a D&D book for fun. It is almost embarrassing. He's just starting 7th grade and is often one of the younger kids there, but still, it stands out that the homeschool kid is reading for fun. :lol: I am guessing it will be different when he gets to high school and is one of the 'big kids'.

 

That said, we are able to arrange his schedule so that he can participate in such demanding activities as a younger teen. None of his ps friends can manage their middle school academic load and participate in such demanding activities. So, he is one of the youngest ones there, but he is getting lots more experience and training.

[Sahamamama]

Here's what I think would work for most of the citizens in a community:

 

1. No tax-payer supported, school-based sports at all. Instead, the schools would focus on academics :D and do a great job with that.
   
2. The tax dollars the community would have spent on school-based sports could be channeled into (a) municipal parks; (b) a community recreation center; and © community fields/tracks/hiking trails, for use by all tax-paying township citizens. Existing school-based sports facilities would revert to the ownership of the township; there would be no connection of the facilities to the school itself. School students would not utilize the facility as students, but as township citizens.
   
3. This could result in the academically-focused "school day" becoming shorter, but with every student encouraged (and permitted) to be involved in an after school recreation club.
   
4. The entire community would work to shift the focus away from competitive, team-based sports with their heavy dependency on facilities, large fields & pools, faculty/coaches, equipment, uniforms, insurance, transportation, parking lots, etc., etc., etc. Instead, the community would encourage life-time fitness for all its members, by providing access to fitness opportunities for all its members -- e.g., hiking trails & clubs, walking tracks & clubs (indoor/outdoor), bike trails & clubs, running trails & clubs, and so on.
   
5. All citizens would be encouraged to make use of their community's resources to promote life-long fitness. Instead of school sports teams purchasing and laundering expensive uniforms, citizens would wear and launder their own clothes! Instead of school districts building pools for the use of only their students, communities could build parks and trails and fields for the use of all their tax-paying citizens. Wouldn't it be great if, rather than pay for a pricey high school football team, any of our citizens could check out a bicycle from the township "rec center?" Wouldn't it be great if, rather than pay for an expensive high school swim team, any of our citizens could jog at the indoor/outdoor track in any season?
   

That's what I see as a better... and fairer... and healthier use of tax-payer dollars. AND, doing it would help the overall school budget, when we don't have to pay for all those P.E. teachers/coaches and their benefits. :tongue_smilie:

Edited August 31, 2012 by Sahamamama
typos

[Caitilin]

We don't have access here. I could care less.

 

:iagree:, or rather, I could not care less. :tongue_smilie:

[Caitilin]

Here's what I think would work for most of the citizens in a community:

 

1. No tax-payer supported, school-based sports at all. Instead, the schools would focus on academics :D and do a great job with that.
   
2. The tax dollars the community would have spent on school-based sports could be channeled into (a) municipal parks; (b) a community recreation center; and © community fields/tracks/hiking trails, for use by all tax-paying township citizens. Existing school-based sports facilities would revert to the ownership of the township; there would be no connection of the facilities to the school itself. School students would not utilize the facility as students, but as township citizens.
   
3. This could result in the academically-focused "school day" becoming shorter, but with every student encouraged (and permitted) to be involved in an after school recreation club.
   
4. The entire community would work to shift the focus away from competitive, team-based sports with their heavy dependency on facilities, large fields & pools, faculty/coaches, equipment, uniforms, insurance, transportation, parking lots, etc., etc., etc. Instead, the community would encourage life-time fitness for all its members, by providing access to fitness opportunities for all its members -- e.g., hiking trails & clubs, walking tracks & clubs (indoor/outdoor), bike trails & clubs, running trails & clubs, and so on.
   
5. All citizens would be encouraged to take use their community's resources to promote life-long fitness. Instead of school sports teams purchasing and laundering expensive uniforms, citizens would wear and launder their own clothes! Instead of school districts building pools for the use of only their students, communities could build parks and trails and fields for the use of all their tax-paying citizens. Wouldn't it be great if, rather than pay for a pricey high school football team, any of our citizens could check out a bicycle from the township "rec center" instead? Wouldn't it be great if, rather than pay for an expensive high school swim team, any of our citizens could jog at the indoor/outdoor track in any season?
   

That's what I see as a better... and fairer... and healthier use of tax-payer dollars. AND, doing it would help the overall school budget, when we don't have to pay for all those P.E. teachers/coaches and their benefits. :tongue_smilie:

:party: Can we vote for you? :D

[Mom in High Heels]

Personally, I don't think sports should be associated with schools, period. So many subjects (mostly the arts) that are being cut, yet there is always money for sports. I know some sports pull in money (football), but a lot of money has to go into them too.

Here in Germany, there are no school sports. Kids go to school to learn, not play sports. There are a million and one sports teams in each town though that are entirely independent of schools. Many are free to he public, run by volunteers and all the kids/parents have to provide is their sports kit.

[Elinor Everywhere]

I think schools should be for academics, and sports should be a private activity and not tied to the schools at all. (It is like that in my home country)

 

YES. I completely agree with this. But in this sports-obsessed culture that is the U.S., it'll never happen. No high school football? Gasp!!! How will the town survive? :tongue_smilie:

 

I prefer the European method of academics being outside of school. Our good friends in France have various town clubs, and their son plays tennis for one of them. So, it's kind of town-against-town, or, in bigger population areas, club-against-club.

 

My dd plays tennis at a local club here, and it's done that way. Matches are between kids at various clubs, and have nothing to do with schools. Of course, there are kids on the high school tennis teams, and my dd might go that route, but it's not necessary.

 

With that said, my dd is taking band and choir at the local high school. She in NO way wants to go to the school full-time; she feels like she has the best of both worlds.

[MollyAnn]

Frankly I think sports should be separate from schools in general anyway.

:iagree:

[Julie Smith]

Here's what I think would work for most of the citizens in a community:

 

 

1. No tax-payer supported, school-based sports at all. Instead, the schools would focus on academics :D and do a great job with that.

2. The tax dollars the community would have spent on school-based sports could be channeled into (a) municipal parks; (b) a community recreation center; and © community fields/tracks/hiking trails, for use by all tax-paying township citizens. Existing school-based sports facilities would revert to the ownership of the township; there would be no connection of the facilities to the school itself. School students would not utilize the facility as students, but as township citizens.

3. This could result in the academically-focused "school day" becoming shorter, but with every student encouraged (and permitted) to be involved in an after school recreation club.

4. The entire community would work to shift the focus away from competitive, team-based sports with their heavy dependency on facilities, large fields & pools, faculty/coaches, equipment, uniforms, insurance, transportation, parking lots, etc., etc., etc. Instead, the community would encourage life-time fitness for all its members, by providing access to fitness opportunities for all its members -- e.g., hiking trails & clubs, walking tracks & clubs (indoor/outdoor), bike trails & clubs, running trails & clubs, and so on.

5. All citizens would be encouraged to make use of their community's resources to promote life-long fitness. Instead of school sports teams purchasing and laundering expensive uniforms, citizens would wear and launder their own clothes! Instead of school districts building pools for the use of only their students, communities could build parks and trails and fields for the use of all their tax-paying citizens. Wouldn't it be great if, rather than pay for a pricey high school football team, any of our citizens could check out a bicycle from the township "rec center?" Wouldn't it be great if, rather than pay for an expensive high school swim team, any of our citizens could jog at the indoor/outdoor track in any season?

 

That's what I see as a better... and fairer... and healthier use of tax-payer dollars. AND, doing it would help the overall school budget, when we don't have to pay for all those P.E. teachers/coaches and their benefits. :tongue_smilie:

 

I agree. :)

[Sahamamama]

Personally, I don't think sports should be associated with schools, period. So many subjects (mostly the arts) that are being cut, yet there is always money for sports.

 

:iagree:In our area, not only are the arts/music cut out due to budget constraints, but languages are cut, too. So, when the budget was tight, the elementary students in our PS no longer had:

 

 

• Art

• Music Theory/Band/Orchestra/Choir

• Spanish

 

But they did have "gym class," and tons and tons and tons of "special services." :tongue_smilie: I'm happy to say, Art, Music, and "World Languages" (i.e., Spanish) are back now.

 

 

 

I'm all for making academics the domain of the school, making the school day shorter to allow for active afternoons, and channeling tax dollars away from school-based sports and into community-wide recreational resources.

[regentrude]

Here's what I think would work for most of the citizens in a community:

 

 

1. No tax-payer supported, school-based sports at all. Instead, the schools would focus on academics :D and do a great job with that.

2. The tax dollars the community would have spent on school-based sports could be channeled into (a) municipal parks; (b) a community recreation center; and © community fields/tracks/hiking trails, for use by all tax-paying township citizens. Existing school-based sports facilities would revert to the ownership of the township; there would be no connection of the facilities to the school itself. School students would not utilize the facility as students, but as township citizens.

3. This could result in the academically-focused "school day" becoming shorter, but with every student encouraged (and permitted) to be involved in an after school recreation club.

4. The entire community would work to shift the focus away from competitive, team-based sports with their heavy dependency on facilities, large fields & pools, faculty/coaches, equipment, uniforms, insurance, transportation, parking lots, etc., etc., etc. Instead, the community would encourage life-time fitness for all its members, by providing access to fitness opportunities for all its members -- e.g., hiking trails & clubs, walking tracks & clubs (indoor/outdoor), bike trails & clubs, running trails & clubs, and so on.

5. All citizens would be encouraged to make use of their community's resources to promote life-long fitness. Instead of school sports teams purchasing and laundering expensive uniforms, citizens would wear and launder their own clothes! Instead of school districts building pools for the use of only their students, communities could build parks and trails and fields for the use of all their tax-paying citizens. Wouldn't it be great if, rather than pay for a pricey high school football team, any of our citizens could check out a bicycle from the township "rec center?" Wouldn't it be great if, rather than pay for an expensive high school swim team, any of our citizens could jog at the indoor/outdoor track in any season?

 

That's what I see as a better... and fairer... and healthier use of tax-payer dollars. AND, doing it would help the overall school budget, when we don't have to pay for all those P.E. teachers/coaches and their benefits. :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree: