Has anyone posted about the 'Tim Tebow' bill in TX?

[KRG]

 

 

 

[chiguirre]

I've seen lots of posts about it locally, mostly by those opposed to it. I'm not sure what I think yet. It would be great for T to be able to do the middle school orchestra, but I do think it will undermine the current hs structure of activities. There won't be hs bands, teams and clubs if the kids can easily access ps activities.

[Whereneverever]

We have access to this in Wyoming and I think it's great.

[Whereneverever]

We have access to this in Wyoming and I think it's great.

[Cricket]

I've seen lots of posts about it locally, mostly by those opposed to it. I'm not sure what I think yet. It would be great for T to be able to do the middle school orchestra, but I do think it will undermine the current hs structure of activities. There won't be hs bands, teams and clubs if the kids can easily access ps activities.

 

Hopefully that won't happen. Here in AZ our hs kids have access to the public schools for sports and activities. We still have huge amounts of private sports teams and other clubs.

[mamajudy]

I've seen lots of posts about it locally, mostly by those opposed to it. I'm not sure what I think yet. It would be great for T to be able to do the middle school orchestra, but I do think it will undermine the current hs structure of activities. There won't be hs bands, teams and clubs if the kids can easily access ps activities.

 

Homeschooled kids in Florida can participate in these activities in the public schools, but there are still plenty of homeschool activities. Many families don't want to be involved in the ps system at all or just prefer to be with other homeschoolers.

[Ravin]

Glad to hear about it! We might wind up in Texas after I graduate, in the area I'm from, and there aren't the kind of options there we have here in the big city. DD is very music/art oriented and being able to give her access to those resources without settling for ill-fitting core educational options is a big deal for us.

[teamturner]

I'm happy it looks like it will pass. I don't know if we'll ever use UIL activities through the public school, but I'm glad that I will have the option should I choose to.

[Slartibartfast]

We have something like that in South Carolina :)

[Ellie]

The wording is problematic because "homeschooling" does not actually exist in Texas laws. A court case back in the 80s decided that homeschoolers were equivalent to private schools, which are unregulated by the state. If the law has allowed *private school* students to play, that would have been fine, but any law which specifies "homeschooler/homeschooling" opens the door to regulations. There is no way to prove that homeschoolers are, you know, homeschooling, so homeschooled students will have to submit to testing (at a minimum) in order to play, and it is not unimaginable that public school officials will see this as a way to control homeschoolers which has not been possible before.

[Dandelion]

I've seen lots of posts about it locally, mostly by those opposed to it. I'm not sure what I think yet. It would be great for T to be able to do the middle school orchestra, but I do think it will undermine the current hs structure of activities. There won't be hs bands, teams and clubs if the kids can easily access ps activities.

 

 

We have this option in Colorado, and it does not appear to have impacted the availability of homeschooling options and activities.

[Spy Car]

I believe making opportunities at local schools (like sports programs) is the right move. As is some sort of testing or mechanism for determining academic eligibility, just as students enrolled in public schools need to meet academic eligibility requirements. Otherwise "pretend" homeschooling could be a dodge by which public school athletes who would be academically ineligable might declare themselves "homeschoolers" to get around academic requirements. And that could potentially be a bad development if the "homeschooling" was a farce.

 

I know some people want zero accountability to anyone but themselves, but without some academic accountability as a prerequisite to play on PS sport teams there could be serious unintended consequences. But this issue aside, letting local kids play is a move I support.

 

Bill

[Violet Crown]

What Ellie said. IANAL, but I gather the worry is that Texas homeschooling is currently controlled by the Leeper case (Texas Supreme Court), which found parental control over a child's education to be a form of private schooling. But once you have a statute that explicitly separates private schooling from parent-directed education*, you've given the Legislature, or relevant state agencies (perhaps TEA) the obligation to distinguish the two. The "Tebow" law could be handing a state agency (that has been historically hostile to Texas homeschoolers) the ability to promulgate regulations defining what children do and don't count as homeschooled. And that would be a very, very bad thing.

 

*I'm not being coy with this phrase: "under the direction of a parent" was language deliberately employed by the court , such that in Texas, a "homeschooling" family can have their children taught entirely outside the home and entirely by other people, and you can "homeschool" other people's children.

[Ellie]

I believe making opportunities at local schools (like sports programs) is the right move. As is some sort of testing or mechanism for determining academic eligibility, just as students enrolled in public schools need to meet academic eligibility requirements. Otherwise "pretend" homeschooling could be a dodge by which public school athletes who would be academically ineligable might declare themselves "homeschoolers" to get around academic requirements. And that could potentially be a bad development if the "homeschooling" was a farce.

 

I know some people want zero accountability to anyone but themselves, but without some academic accountability as a prerequisite to play on PS sport teams there could be serious unintended consequences. But this issue aside, letting local kids play is a move I support.

 

Bill

 

 

Of course allowing private school students opportunities to play public school sports is the right move. Had this bill specified "private school students" instead of "homeschoolers" it would have been a good bill, and it would have allowed homeschoolers to participate, along with the thousands of other private school students who are still shut out. In states where "homeschool" legally exists, it would have been a good bill. It is not a good bill in Texas.

[Samiam]

We got that right this past fall in SC. It's not been a big deal here...not a lot of HSers using the option, that I've heard. I was excited to that the bill passed, as sports is a major factor for my oldest son. We would have exercised the right, but in the end, he went to public school full time for a host of reasons anyway.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Hopefully that won't happen. Here in AZ our hs kids have access to the public schools for sports and activities. We still have huge amounts of private sports teams and other clubs.

 

Yes, it works out quite nicely here.

 

Besides, it only seems right to have this option since our tax dollars still support the schools.

[Stayseeliz]

Like others mentioned, they passed the same law in SC last year. It's exciting to me since my kids love to swim and there isn't a homeschool swim team. They do swim for the YMCA but if they want to get serious about it they might want to swim with the high school swim team.

[Unicorn.]

I agree w/ Ellie and Violet Crown. I think the concept is a great idea, but unfortunately, it could end our homeschooling freedoms, and open the door to too many regulations. I don't have a problem w/ testing to participate, but would not want testing to become mandatory for everyone. One the greatest things about homeschooling, especially in states like TX, is that if your 12 yo needs to work at a 4th grade math level, they can. My dd would love it if she were able to swim for the HS next year, without actually having to go to HS at ps. But I can't support that if we aren't still guaranteed the freedom of educating our kids the way we are now.

[texasmama]

I agree w/ Ellie and Violet Crown. I think the concept is a great idea, but unfortunately, it could end our homeschooling freedoms, and open the door to too many regulations. I don't have a problem w/ testing to participate, but would not want testing to become mandatory for everyone. One the greatest things about homeschooling, especially in states like TX, is that if your 12 yo needs to work at a 4th grade math level, they can. My dd would love it if she were able to swim for the HS next year, without actually having to go to HS at ps. But I can't support that if we aren't still guaranteed the freedom of educating our kids the way we are now.

I agree with this. Our freedom is something we value highly here, and I would be hard-pressed to trade that for a spot on the basketball team or choir. Also, we live in a very impoverished, smallish school district so the offerings may not be very appealing.

[Upward Journey]

I agree w/ Ellie and Violet Crown. I think the concept is a great idea, but unfortunately, it could end our homeschooling freedoms, and open the door to too many regulations. I don't have a problem w/ testing to participate, but would not want testing to become mandatory for everyone. One the greatest things about homeschooling, especially in states like TX, is that if your 12 yo needs to work at a 4th grade math level, they can. My dd would love it if she were able to swim for the HS next year, without actually having to go to HS at ps. But I can't support that if we aren't still guaranteed the freedom of educating our kids the way we are now.

 

This has not happened in AZ. If your student wishes to participate in the school sports program you simply need to provide a signed affidavit stating their current grade in each "class" (letter or percentage). It was quite painless and did not impact what I taught my son at all.

 

AZ is also a low regulation homeschool state, no yearly testing or reviews are required.

[Spy Car]

I agree w/ Ellie and Violet Crown. I think the concept is a great idea, but unfortunately, it could end our homeschooling freedoms, and open the door to too many regulations. I don't have a problem w/ testing to participate, but would not want testing to become mandatory for everyone. One the greatest things about homeschooling, especially in states like TX, is that if your 12 yo needs to work at a 4th grade math level, they can. My dd would love it if she were able to swim for the HS next year, without actually having to go to HS at ps. But I can't support that if we aren't still guaranteed the freedom of educating our kids the way we are now.

 

Why do you think the freedom of homeschoolers would be infringed in Texas if Texas recognized that there is such a thing as "homeschooling?"

 

Bill

 

 

[Unicorn.]

Why do you think the freedom of homeschoolers would be infringed in Texas if Texas recognized that there is such a thing as "homeschooling?"

 

Bill

 

 

Most people already get upset that homeschoolers don't have rules and don't have to test. I guess it makes them mad that their kids spend all their time learning to take tests and we don't have to. Trust me, there are plenty of people that are just waiting for a foot in the door so they can change TX to a state with more stringent homeschool regs.

 

Sports are a huge deal in TX, and schools spends millions on sports (football) while allowing libraries and real student needs go unfunded. In other words- don't mess w/ sports in TX! (mostly football) People will not take kindly to allowing homeschoolers (private schoolers) to participate. They'll use this as their excuse to start requiring all homeschoolers to follow the same testing guidelines as public schools.

[Unicorn.]

This has not happened in AZ. If your student wishes to participate in the school sports program you simply need to provide a signed affidavit stating their current grade in each "class" (letter or percentage). It was quite painless and did not impact what I taught my son at all.

 

AZ is also a low regulation homeschool state, no yearly testing or reviews are required.

 

Yeah, but sometimes I think AZ is the only state w/ any common sense. And they don't eat, sleep, and breathe sports (football) like TX does.

 

 

 

 

and the common sense remark has to do w/ no daylight savings, and how they run their prison systems. :D

[TheReader]

Of course allowing private school students opportunities to play public school sports is the right move. Had this bill specified "private school students" instead of "homeschoolers" it would have been a good bill, and it would have allowed homeschoolers to participate, along with the thousands of other private school students who are still shut out. In states where "homeschool" legally exists, it would have been a good bill. It is not a good bill in Texas.

I agree w/ Ellie and Violet Crown. I think the concept is a great idea, but unfortunately, it could end our homeschooling freedoms, and open the door to too many regulations. I don't have a problem w/ testing to participate, but would not want testing to become mandatory for everyone. One the greatest things about homeschooling, especially in states like TX, is that if your 12 yo needs to work at a 4th grade math level, they can. My dd would love it if she were able to swim for the HS next year, without actually having to go to HS at ps. But I can't support that if we aren't still guaranteed the freedom of educating our kids the way we are now.

 

Have you guys looked at this? Texas Home School Coalition addresses this concern, and a few others:

 

http://thsc.org/about-thsc/lobby-the-texas-legislature/tim-tebow-bill/

 

re: testing, etc, the bill states:

The bill requires that the primary instructor of the student submit written verification to the public school district of the student’s academic record indicating whether the student is:

• Receiving a passing grade in each course being taught
  
• Maintaining satisfactory progress towards academic achievement
  

and re: home school vs. private school, the website clarifies by stating:

• Why are we distinguishing home schools from private schools?
  Distinguishing between a home school and a private school is sometimes necessary. Private schools and home schools have many differences. In 2011 the Texas Legislature attempted to regulate private schools by introducing HB 2535, which would have mandated that students wear reflective clothing when playing sports at night. The bill was trying to regulate students of both private and public schools. The author included a section that said “home-schools†were not included in the bill and therefore were not to be regulated. Refusing to differentiate between home schools and private schools would bring regulations that no parent would want for their child.
  
• Will the fact that the Tebow Bill differentiates between home schools and private schools lead to future regulation?
  The Tim Tebow Bill references a definition of “home school†that was written into Chapter 29.916 of the Texas Education Code six years ago. Texas law already distinguishes between home schools and traditional private schools in at least 10 separate locations and has done so for many years. No increased regulations have arisen as a result.
  
  If the Tim Tebow Bill passes, the only way that the state could regulate home schooling would be to pass a law through both houses and have is signed by the governor. Not only is this already an avenue for regulation, but it always has and will continue to be so. The Tim Tebow Bill in no way opens up new avenues for regulation. We already fight regulation on this front every legislative session, and this dynamic will not be altered by the passage of the Tim Tebow Bill.
  

According to that, Texas Education Code already does define & distinguish home school from traditional private school.

I think the bill is a fantastic idea, in particular for the rural home schoolers. And I don't think any public school will have a problem with it --- students will still have to try out for the teams and such, and I can't imagine any school refusing a qualified player if he/she is eligible for the team.

[redsquirrel]

In NY state it is up to each school district to allow or not. And they group homeschoolers in with private and charter school students. So, some districts allow it and some don't. Some just seem to leave it up to the principal and in others (mine) the school board takes a vote. But, it a local, not state, decision.

[Upward Journey]

Yeah, but sometimes I think AZ is the only state w/ any common sense. And they don't eat, sleep, and breathe sports (football) like TX does.

 

 

 

 

and the common sense remark has to do w/ no daylight savings, and how they run their prison systems. :D

 

Totally and completely agree with this, esp. now that I'm living somewhere else and being subjected to it twice a year!

[Violet Crown]

 

 

Why do you think the freedom of homeschoolers would be infringed in Texas if Texas recognized that there is such a thing as "homeschooling?"

 

Bill

 

We're the unintended beneficiaries of Texas private schools being almost totally unregulated, with any attempt at regulation being political suicide (thank you, Southern Baptist Conference). Regulating homeschoolers isn't unpopular in Texas; but as long as we're private schools under the law and not some separate entities called "home schools," we can't be touched.

[Lady Florida.]

 

Homeschooled kids in Florida can participate in these activities in the public schools, but there are still plenty of homeschool activities. Many families don't want to be involved in the ps system at all or just prefer to be with other homeschoolers.

 

 

Yes, it's good to have choices.

[Spy Car]

 

We're the unintended beneficiaries of Texas private schools being almost totally unregulated, with any attempt at regulation being political suicide (thank you, Southern Baptist Conference). Regulating homeschoolers isn't unpopular in Texas; but as long as we're private schools under the law and not some separate entities called "home schools," we can't be touched.

 

 

I'm surprised that you in Texas feel you've got people chomping at the bit to regulate homeschools. Even here in California, which strikes me as a state where people are rather more inclined towards sensible regulations generally speaking than my perception of Texas, there is no movement I'm aware of to clamp down on homeschooling.

 

In fact here, homeschoolng has largely gone "mainstream." To the point where even the state wants in on the action with "virtual schools" and what not. I just don't see homeschooling beng under threat here.

 

So I'm surprised the situation would seem different to you in Texas. But what do I know?

 

Bill

[Violet Crown]

 

 

 

Have you guys looked at this? Texas Home School Coalition addresses this concern, and a few others:

 

http://thsc.org/about-thsc/lobby-the-texas-legislature/tim-tebow-bill/

 

re: testing, etc, the bill states:

The bill requires that the primary instructor of the student submit written verification to the public school district of the student’s academic record indicating whether the student is:

• Receiving a passing grade in each course being taught

• Maintaining satisfactory progress towards academic achievement

and re: home school vs. private school, the website clarifies by stating:

 

• Why are we distinguishing home schools from private schools?

  Distinguishing between a home school and a private school is sometimes necessary. Private schools and home schools have many differences. In 2011 the Texas Legislature attempted to regulate private schools by introducing HB 2535, which would have mandated that students wear reflective clothing when playing sports at night. The bill was trying to regulate students of both private and public schools. The author included a section that said “home-schools†were not included in the bill and therefore were not to be regulated. Refusing to differentiate between home schools and private schools would bring regulations that no parent would want for their child.

• Will the fact that the Tebow Bill differentiates between home schools and private schools lead to future regulation?

  The Tim Tebow Bill references a definition of “home school†that was written into Chapter 29.916 of the Texas Education Code six years ago. Texas law already distinguishes between home schools and traditional private schools in at least 10 separate locations and has done so for many years. No increased regulations have arisen as a result.

   

  If the Tim Tebow Bill passes, the only way that the state could regulate home schooling would be to pass a law through both houses and have is signed by the governor. Not only is this already an avenue for regulation, but it always has and will continue to be so. The Tim Tebow Bill in no way opens up new avenues for regulation. We already fight regulation on this front every legislative session, and this dynamic will not be altered by the passage of the Tim Tebow Bill.

According to that, Texas Education Code already does define & distinguish home school from traditional private school.

I think the bill is a fantastic idea, in particular for the rural home schoolers. And I don't think any public school will have a problem with it --- students will still have to try out for the teams and such, and I can't imagine any school refusing a qualified player if he/she is eligible for the team.

 

 

The THSC has its view, and not all Texas homeschoolers agree. Some responses: http://txlege.ocati.org/d/tebow_talking_points.doc

 

Yes, there are places here and there in Texas law where "home schools" are mentioned. And a lot of homeschoolers fought those fiercely. But mentioning homeschoolers in the law isn't like losing your virginity - courts considering the question of whether the Leeper definition has been superseded by legislation will look at the totality of legislation and its import. And a statute that doesn't just distinguish homeschoolers for some trivial health and safety reason, like reflective clothing, but distinguishes us in a way as significant as UIL eligibility and specifying academic eligibility requirements, has a good chance of being seen as the Lege superseding Leeper.

 

I'm glad other states have arrangements that work for their homeschoolers. But our legal situation is unique.

[Ellie]

I disagree with THSC, and I'm surprised that they don't get it.

[Ellie]

In NY state it is up to each school district to allow or not. And they group homeschoolers in with private and charter school students. So, some districts allow it and some don't. Some just seem to leave it up to the principal and in others (mine) the school board takes a vote. But, it a local, not state, decision.

 

And see, NY has statutes that specifically describe and define and regulate "homeschool." Texas does not. It has a court case which decided that homeschoolers are the equivalent of private schools and as such are unregulated by the state.

[Violet Crown]

 

 

I'm surprised that you in Texas feel you've got people chomping at the bit to regulate homeschools. Even here in California, which strikes me as a state where people are rather more inclined towards sensible regulations generally speaking that my perception of Texas, there is no movement I'm aware of to clamp down on homeschooling.

 

In fact here, homeschoolng has largely gone "mainstream." To the point where even the state wants in on the action with "virtual schools" and what not. I just don't see homeschooling beng under threat here.

 

So I'm surprised the situation would seem different to you in Texas. But what do I know?

 

Bill

Bill,

 

You're putting words in my mouth, and I don't understand why. I said exactly what I meant: that regulation of homeschooling isn't an unpopular idea in Texas. This is a modern, increasingly urban state. School vouchers are shot down every time they're introduced, to the repeated amazement of the non-Texan media. When the Tebow bill was discussed in the Lege, there were comments about how it might be a good thing for homeschoolers to be tested.

 

Look, just because Certain National Homeschool Organizations rely on sky-is-falling alerts to drum up membership doesn't mean that sometimes there isn't really bad legislation pending. And this is one of them. It will remove the immunity we've long enjoyed from regulation.

[Spy Car]

 

Bill,

 

You're putting words in my mouth, and I don't understand why.

 

I'm not trying too, honestly. I'm not sure I understand the "Texas is different" thing.

 

 

I said exactly what I meant: that regulation of homeschooling isn't an unpopular idea in Texas. This is a modern, increasingly urban state.

 

What does "regulation" mean in the Texas context? Something onerous and draconian, or "some minimal accountability." Or are these two seen as the same thing?

 

I take it no one really feels homeschooling is under threat in Texas?

 

 

School vouchers are shot down every time they're introduced, to the repeated amazement of the non-Texan media.

 

That's good news.

 

When the Tebow bill was discussed in the Lege, there were comments about how it might be a good thing for homeschoolers to be tested.

 

If I were homeschooling might want my child tested. It isn't a completely crazy idea. As it is, this bill would not require such, would it?

 

Look, just because Certain National Homeschool Organizations rely on sky-is-falling alerts to drum up membership doesn't mean that sometimes there isn't really bad legislation pending. And this is one of them. It will remove the immunity we've long enjoyed from regulation.

 

Parents in lots of states don't have "immunity" but home education goes on smoothly none-the-less, no?

 

The opposition to the Tebow bill does seem (from an outside perspective) to have a somewhat paranoiac aspect to it. I really don't think wanting to extend opportunities to homeschoolers children is a "Trojan horse" designed to trick people into losing their freedoms.

 

Rather, I think it is a recognition by the larger society that homeschooling is a legitimate and mainstream alternative to public or private school (used in the non-Texas meaning of the term) education, and that it time to support those homeschooling families and students by opening up opportunities to those people to the greatest extent possible.

 

Bill

[Violet Crown]

Bill,

Since I'm probably just repeating myself, to the utmost boredom of other readers, here's the best and briefest responses I have for you.

 

1. Texas is different because homeschooling was never legalized (at least that's the judicial fiction): it was found always to have been an existing form of private education. And it's different in that private schools have political immunity from reglation. Finally, it's different in that our sole controlling law is case law at the highest level, which is a better thing than being controlled by statute. That last point will cease to be true if a court - state or federal - finds that later legislative action has created a separate category for "home schools."

 

2. "Regulation" means exactly that. There are currently zero regulations for Texas homeschoolers. I understand that you don't think it would be a problem for there to be some "accountability." Can you see that we do? We don't want the legislature to be able to create, or enable a state agency to create, regulations for us. That's why many of us oppose this bill.

 

3. I didn't mean to open a can of worms by bringing up school vouchers. I was trying to make the point that the Texas political climate, particularly regarding education, doesn't follow the national red/blue predictable battle lines. (I don't support them either, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)

 

4. NOBODY IS SAYING THIS BILL WILL END HOMESCHOOLING. Pardon the shouting: you seem a little deaf on this. We're not saying it will entail regulations, or that regulations would immediately ensue. What it WOULD do is give a future court more than adequate grounds to find that, since Leeper, the state legislature had created a separate classification for "home schools," distinct from that of private schools. The untouchability of private schools would then no longer protect us, and Texas homeschoolers would have to fight every single proposed regulation offered.

 

I understand that you think that's okay. The fact that you do - and you're an educated, intelligent person with a full, balanced view of homeschooling - tells me that we're right to be concerned.

 

Nothing else to add. Must go homeschool now instead of just talking about it. Thanks for the invigorating debate!

[Ellie]

Bill,

Since I'm probably just repeating myself, to the utmost boredom of other readers, here's the best and briefest responses I have for you.

 

1. Texas is different because homeschooling was never legalized (at least that's the judicial fiction): it was found always to have been an existing form of private education. And it's different in that private schools have political immunity from reglation. Finally, it's different in that our sole controlling law is case law at the highest level, which is a better thing than being controlled by statute. That last point will cease to be true if a court - state or federal - finds that later legislative action has created a separate category for "home schools."

 

2. "Regulation" means exactly that. There are currently zero regulations for Texas homeschoolers. I understand that you don't think it would be a problem for there to be some "accountability." Can you see that we do? We don't want the legislature to be able to create, or enable a state agency to create, regulations for us. That's why many of us oppose this bill.

 

3. I didn't mean to open a can of worms by bringing up school vouchers. I was trying to make the point that the Texas political climate, particularly regarding education, doesn't follow the national red/blue predictable battle lines. (I don't support them either, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)

 

4. NOBODY IS SAYING THIS BILL WILL END HOMESCHOOLING. Pardon the shouting: you seem a little deaf on this. We're not saying it will entail regulations, or that regulations would immediately ensue. What it WOULD do is give a future court more than adequate grounds to find that, since Leeper, the state legislature had created a separate classification for "home schools," distinct from that of private schools. The untouchability of private schools would then no longer protect us, and Texas homeschoolers would have to fight every single proposed regulation offered.

 

I understand that you think that's okay. The fact that you do - and you're an educated, intelligent person with a full, balanced view of homeschooling - tells me that we're right to be concerned.

 

Nothing else to add. Must go homeschool now instead of just talking about it. Thanks for the invigorating debate!

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: Well said!!!

[cbhrbooth]

Does anyone know where this stands in the Texas legislature now? I read that once the law passed the Senate it had about a month to go in the legislature - that was late April/early May, but I can't find any recent updates. I'm curious because my daughter has been asked (unofficially) to play with a local tennis team in the fall but we don't see how her participation is possible unless the law goes through.