"Tim Tebow Law" Would Let Homeschooled Virginia Kids Play Public School Sports, Already Lets Columnists Complain About Too Much Choice
Sometime this week Virginia lawmakers are expected to vote on a law which would allow the state's "tens of thousands of" homeschooled kids to play sports on public school teams; in fact it would prevent public schools from being part of any intramural-type organizations which barred the presence of homeschoolers.
HB 947 is known to its friends as as the "Tim Tebow law" because the Denver Broncos quarterback was homeschooled in Florida, but played on his local school's football team after pushing for the bill which gave him permission to do just that. Said bill is expected to pass in in the State House, having already cleared the House Education Committee.
Fourteen states allow for homeschooled kids to play public school sports. Thirteen more allow kids to play with certain conditions attached.
So, who are the folks objecting to this bill? (You know they're out there.) Various news reports summarize objections along the lines of: hey, public school kids have to keep up certain academic standards to do extracurriculars, why do those pajama-clad-until-noon, weirdo spelling champs get out of that? The Governor of Virginia supports the bill, but the 60,000-strong Teacher's Association is not keen for reasons both tentatively practical (public schools say their belts are tight enough as it is) and school spirit-heavy (you didn't want to be a part of this whole experience, so no, you don't get to play soccer!).
Washington Post columnist John Kelly is also displeased with this legislative notion. After mentioning the problem with Teacher Mom or Dad grade-inflating so that little Josiah can be the school's starting quarterback, and comparing the bill to Kelly's old drama teacher casting students from a girl's school and a college student in high school plays, the columnist continues:
[M]y main objection is philosophical.
School does a lot of things, just one of which is educating students. School is a place children learn to get along, learn what it means to work in a group, to navigate the shoals of cliques and conflicts. It's where you learn some of the basics of what it means to be a citizen.
We often despair about our public schools in this country, but they've been a common experience for millions of us. If you happen to not agree with that common experience, you might decide, as is your right, to home-school your child.
You may have all sorts of reasons. Perhaps our public schools are too secular for you. Or maybe our public schools aren't rigorous enough for you. Maybe our public schools aren't safe enough for you. Maybe you love your children more than the rest of us love ours and you just want them around you all the time.
Whatever the reason, you've made a decision. You have the courage of your convictions. Except now, supporters of this bill want to loosen their convictions a bit.
"They just want to try out," the bill's sponsor, Del. Robert B. Bell (R-Charlottesville), told The Washington Post's Anita Kumar. "They just want a chance to participate with their friends, their neighbors, their community members."
Guess what: They do have the chance. They can go to public school.
And the vital point, which everyone else who objects to the bill seems to be making in one way or another:
I'm not against home-schooling. I'm against people wanting to pick and choose the parts of a public education they agree with.
Libertarians or homeschoolers who vehemently dislike public schools are often accused of being purists, but the people making these arguments are real hard-liners.
One choice is being opened up to students here, the choice to be homeschooleled and also to play sports with
kids their own age. Even without the compelling hey, my parents pay the taxes which help this school exist argument, what's so terrible about one more choice for kids and their families? Kelly's column is carefully in favor of homeschooling's legality, but he really doesn't seem to like the practice, he's more wearily resigned to it.
Bob Cook over at Forbes.com is initially less snotty about the fact of homeschooling, but this attitude of "you made your education bed, now lie in it" still lingers throughout. That gets real, as the kids say, about here:
I just find it so rich that homeschool advocates are more than happy to run down public schools and explain why they're just not good enough for their little budding geniuses, yet they're begging to lean on and cherry-pick the public school for things they can't provide.
"So rich" is a pretty strong rhetorical cue. Cook thinks homeschoolers are elitist egg-heads! But he then goes on to make the point that private school families have to pay taxes but are not offered this option.
Fair point.
But why aren't they? If a private school doesn't have a football team or a soccer team, but the local school does, well, why not let kids get their chance to play? Or even let each school decide instead of mandating at the state-level, which the Tebow bill admittedly does?
Maybe that's a bad idea, but having just celebrated School Choice Week at Reason DC, I'm feeling particularly keen on choosing. The columnists and other dissenters say kids can't have an education buffet, but why can't they? Why can't they take physics at school, but read history at home, or any another variation?
I suggest that with super-optimism and a general love of freedom but also, dammit, if you want the parents' tax dollars, there should be some education options. Parents pay, so you had better let in a thousand homeschooled Christian dorks so that they too can be future football stars who provoke an ire I cannot began to understand. That's fair. And that's one small step towards real school choice.
(Still, in my day in Pennsylvania we played touch football in the park near the house where we had our homeschool group. We didn't need no dad-gummed public school for that. Sometimes we didn't even have shoes. Really, there was a memorably muddy spring day in about seventh grade where we all played shoeless.)
Reason on education and homeschooling; Veronique de Rugy on how increased school spending doesn't seem to produce smarter kids.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Another fang is bared by the anti-school-choicers.
Mostly, the same people who want choice for abortion and gay marriage, but want to force parents to send (I almost typed "their") children to public schools... while politicians get to choose to send the offspring to Sidwell Friends on the public dime.
Fuck you, that's why.
Hey, it's okay when we send OUR kids to expensive private schools.
Now, be a good prole, pay your taxes, and eat your peas.
Obama would send his kids to the DC public schools if it wasn't for eliminationists preaching fire and brimstone toward everything Obama. Do you have any idea what his daughters would go through every day with the other DC public school kids repeating to each other what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity said on the radio last night?
They'd learn that their father is lying sack of shit?
Not one in ten thousand kids in DC public schools knows who the fuck Limbaugh or Hannity are.
Hey, everyone! Hobie's back, and he's gonna put us in our place, lemme tell ya!
god damn you are a retarded piece of shit Hobie.
Datebi* C O M ?????????c o m m u n I ty?????????????bi s e x u a l and b I ?c u r Io u s In d I v I d u a ls ? You'll find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.?Join it right now and have fun?tes it is so nice
I'm against people wanting to pick and choose the parts of a public education they agree with.
No you're kidding me, really. This is my suprise face.
since those people have to pay for ALL parts of education, perhaps taking advantage of parts they like is a small price. Besides, there are no guarantees that one of these home schoolers is going to be great; it's about opportunity.
How about the people with no kids? What part do they get to pick?
EVERYONE pays for a public education because EVERYONE benefits. It's not a fricking babysitting program, but a system for ensuring an educated, productive populace. Without it we would all be much poorer and less safe.
Without it we would all be much poorer and less safe.
[Citation needed]
I've got a textbook somewhere around here that proves it, hang on...
"ensuring an educated, productive, and obedient workforce/future Team Blue voting base for the State"
FIFY'd. No charge.
Right. Because if we didn't have public school, nobody would learn anything.
Shit, kids learn more from the internet than they do in public schools. Which is really fucking sad.
"Shit, kids learn more from the internet than they do in public schools. Which is really fucking sad."
No. No it's not.
It's not a fricking babysitting program
No, it's a make work system for the semi-retarded, aka education majors.
Why are you all laughing? It's not funny. Public schools are not a baby sitting program. That's not funny, why are you laughing? I don't get it. It's a system for ensuring an educated, productive populace. Stop laughing! What's so funny? I don't get it. Without it we would all be much poorer and less safe. Shh Shhh, how do you even know that was funny if you laughed over me telling it. Something wrong with you people.
It's not a fricking babysitting program, but a system for ensuring an educated, productive orderly, compliant populace.
ftfy
Fuck you for besmirching the name of Nathan's everywhere.
... I'm so tired of these moochers. All they want to do is mooch off of our public schools.
I know, right? How dare they pay property taxes and expect a fraction of what they paid for in return! The gall of some people!
It's for the freakin' children!
public schools say their belts are tight enough as it is
but hey, the homeschool kids could could just attend public school to get access to the sports, and then belts could be even tighter.
(or stop being dicks, let the homeschoolers participate, and be grateful of the favor they're doing your budget.)
"public schools say their belts are tight enough as it is"
I'll take things a bloated megalomaniacal, narcissistic fuck says for five hundred, Alex.
Yeah, that's odd cuz in my town, the school administrators put in a $40,000 barbeque pit behind their building (bringing the ire and much gnashing of teeth from local taxpayers).
Don't schools get funding based on attendance?
I don't pay taxes based on attendance.
Schools in towns get funding based on the school budget.
It's been noted that the Va schools count homeschoolers for purposes of federal education funding.
Lucy, I know how much you're into yaoi slash fan-fiction, but you really shouldn't post while watching gay porn.
Tim Teblow?
Is that the angry lament of a Pittsburgh fan I see?
This music is appropriate.
Worst portmanteau I have accidentally invented lately.
TANSTAABP*
*There Ain't No Such Thing As A Bad Portmanteau.
I knew I liked you. Here's a joke I assume I invented:
What do you call a frat brother who enjoys combining two words into one?
Portmanbreau.
Thank you, thank you.
Outstanding. You are clearly a master of the bad pun game microaggression.
With a German name, young lady, you have absolutely no right to fuck with the English language. I am offend. Very offend.
*Fury*
BOOOOOOOOO
No! No puns! AIIIGHHHHH
I would blame that joke on sitting next to Suderman for eight months, but I am pretty sure I invented it last year.
But if anyone asks, it's Suderman's fault. Or Riggs'.
What do you call a frat transsexual who enjoys combining two words into one?
Portmanfrau.
Or, ya know, a German woman who enjoys that.
Still deserves a golf clap.
Public money should not be spent on sports teams. Public school is enough of an outrage, the public school football team is just insult to injury.
We will not be free until all sports teams are private.
They should be private, but at at least many, maybe most, schools these days the extramural sports are funded largely, principally, or even exclusively by donations & fees.
And profits from concessions or franchising revenue.
I am familiar with one public district where the "booster" type groups were restricted from funding the foundational shit that a team needs such as the field, jerseys, and equipment. So they spend thousands of dollars on shit like a marquee sign and banners and some bullshit that was totally not necessary but the school gladly accepted, stating, "we can only use this money for the thing that the group specified".
Every time a tax referendum comes up they threaten to cut sports programs, too.
I'd like to see some moron pull that tactic in a locality where the kids sports programs are paid for by the non-govt-funding methods listed by others above.
(and I would hope to know about it enough in advance to let a whole bushel of tomatoes get good and rotten)
MSM logic:
PREMISE #1#: "School does a lot of things, just one of which is educating students. School is a place children learn to get along, learn what it means to work in a group, to navigate the shoals of cliques and conflicts. It's where you learn some of the basics of what it means to be a citizen."
PREMISE #2: ?????
CONCLUSION: Deny homeschooled children the benefits of public school team sports, which provides the very sort of socialization I just got through praising!
Why not have a division of labor:
The public schools can teach social skills - preferably through sports.
Parents can teach academics.
Let each focus on their core competencies.
School becomes some sort of mandatory summer camp?
There was a hint of sarcasm in my post, but sure, summer camp.
School does a lot of things, just one of which is educating students. School is a place children learn to get along, learn what it means to work in a group, to navigate the shoals of cliques and conflicts. It's where you learn some of the basics of what it means to be a citizen subject. By blindly trusting authority, asking permission to crap, letting authority figures abuse and molest at will, etc. etc..
FIFY
Pretty much everything me, or my three sons, went through in public school had nothing much to do with learning to work in a group. It had more to do with how to avoid groups, because often they're toxic.
In my experience, people who did well in groups in school, were socially handicapped once school was over. For the most part they have had to unlearn what they got out of school.
Bitchy rejection almost drips from those writers' words. It's like they're pissed that some parents have chosen to not have their children go through the "communal" public school experience and these fucking retards are taking it personally.
The fact is, homeschool parents are paying for an education they're not using. They might as well get some value for their money.
Yes, it's exactly this.
This is why we can't allow too much choice. Certain undesirables like Beloved Lucy and her other awesomely coiffed cohorts will inevitably make a choice the authorities disapprove of. Who the hell is monitoring what these homeschoolers are eating for lunch, for starters?
Look, Kelly and Cook just think that everyone should get the same shitty education they got. I mean, that's only fair, right? In fact, I think Lucy owes them a portion of her income just for having parents who cared enough to educate her themselves.
I think your utter lack of substance and low income should be proof enough for those retards that the public school system just ain't cuttin' it.
Look, Jimbo, I've studied wealth distribution in the school system extensively, and I can say with a lot of confidence that I probably make more money than you. Also, you're probably at a tractor pull right now.
Is he flying the Blood-Stained Banner, too?
Look, Jimbo, I've studied wealth distribution in the school system extensively
Beating up kids for their lunch money doesn't count.
You're just bitter. Now give me your XBox or you get an atomic wedgie.
Microprocessoraggression!
awesomely consummately coiffed cohorts
ftfy
I stand corrected. Capitalizing on gratuitous alliteration opportunities is a moral imperative.
http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20.....h-trouble/
Teeblow
...(public schools say their belts are right enough as it is)...
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
It would be difficult to find a belt that goes all the way around their waists, much less a belt that isn't tight.
I think you're missing my point. Check the spelling in the original.
Yes, I got it.
"the 'Tim Teblow law'"
Is an example of RC's law. Nice going!
Also...racism.
But, but, these homeschool kids haven't been "socialized". They haven't been put into classes based on the arbitrary basis of age, nor have they had their accomplishments judged by government employees who get to both tell them what they should know and grade them on their performance.
How will these homeschool kids get through life without being trained to accept being put into arbitrary categories by government employees and judged on the basis of what the government thinks is right?
But, but, these homeschool kids haven't been "socialized".
I know a home schooler who steals her kids lunch money and beats him up once a week so he can get the same socialization kids get at public schools.
What about swirlies? Without those, the socialization is incomplete.
Blowing aside, you'd think the people behind this law would be HS coaches who can recruit kids with a curriculum flexible enought to concentrate on the fundamentals, and not be distracted by social studies and math.
There'd be just as many shoes on the other foot. "We'd've won by forfeit in that weight class if they hadn't had that ringer they said was home schooled."
Math isn't a fundamental?
Calculus don't score touchdowns, egghead.
Yes, because as we all know, public schools do an absolutely FANTASTIC job of teaching kids to "get along."
/sarcasm
Why can't we be like Australia and various other countries and just separate academics from athletics. What, exactly, does athletics contribute to a students learning?
pretty much the same things that band, chorus, and the debate team teaches. You wanna get rid of those, too?
Yes. Why not?
It's publicly funded, so you might as well be frugal. Extracurricular activities, including sports and various club activities, which are non-standard and optional should be paid for with "extracurricular money".
Debate! You equate learning how to communicate complex ideas the same as band?
Next, they'll be requiring a National ID Public School Card for kids to be allowed to play in public parks, visit public museums, and purchase contraceptives from public school vending machines.
purchase contraceptives from public school vending machines.
Purchase? Public schools give them away.
Yep. Private schools have sports teams as well. In fact my highschool required you do either PE or be on a team just like they required you to do some sort of art/theater/music. It's part of the education and if you are arguing getting rid of sports you have to argue getting rid of all of them.
Intrinsically paternalistic!
Mark fucking Wahlberg shot your dumb ass in your own apartment. Screw you.
+100
Teblow. Classic.
Sigh.
You would think that. You're probably even a Broncos fan. You sicken me.
Dude, Broncos fans are born that way. We can't help it that we're born in Denver okay?
No, it's not OK. It's like being born in Rochester. Well, maybe not quite that bad. But close!
I'm so totally with you on this. But in the education pieces especially, it's good to proofread and spell check.
Also, I think you missed a chance to kick the schools in the shins for a culture of tribalist choicelessness. The anti-buffet mentality is a denial of the real world in return for base, dumb loyalty. If I want to buy my computer at the Mac store, but my hard drives at WalMart, that's my choice. If I want to Get my engine overhauled at the dealership, but get the oil changed at JiffyLube, that's also my choice. If those businesses want to have 100% of my business, then the onus is on them to motivate me to do that (as WalMart generally does). It is not out of some loyalty that I pay 20% more for a thumb drive. But school spirit stuff encourages just this kind of "dumb" behavior.
I think you're right that the authors were pretty much grudgingly accepting homeschooling and seemed pretty spiteful of the "geniuses" whose "parents loved them more" than their own did, or whatnot. I'd say this is a better indictor of what is learned in school under the banner of "spirit." I would call it highly dispiriting, and the bitterness of those who caved to the state-mandated public school disaster may be appropriate, but it should hardly be taken out on those, like TT's family, brave enough to buck the trend.
So you hate school spirit?
But in the education pieces especially, it's good to proofread and spell check.
What are you, some kinda homeschool nerd?
Also, he talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.
I'm going to start going onto the tweeter every night when I get home and "tweeting" all of M. Steigerwald's misspellings to my literally dozens of followers.
literally dozens of
Jimbo's a nevernude?
Want to be even more impressed? Half of them are just horror movie fan groups or random people associated with college football teams, who just followed me back because I followed them.
Do it. I have nothing left to lose! [crazed inhalation of cigarette.]
Lucy, you have nothing to fear. As an atheist, libertarian leaning, homeschooler of a 7 and a 10 year old, I enjoy your views on this issue greatly. How many journalists out there today can say they were home schooled? It is a unique perspective.
Lucy Steigerwald's support of Tea-Bagger anti-government insurrectionism, of which homeschooling is a huge component, is a sign of a very worrying trend among libertards. I believe in due process and the 64th Amendment to the Constitution of the American States of the USA, but really, it's in our best interests and for the sake of the public good that these would-be rebels and non-conformist anarchists be fined and/or imprisoned for their insolence and harmful effects.
/San Francisco Chronicle
Also, for the fucking children, ALRIGHT???????
I am reluctantly satisfied with some form of publicly subsidized schooling. But they could all just ditch the sports and let private organizations draw in the slack.
I dunno, kids learn stuff from playing sports too.
And the community can watch the games. It's like a joint Public School-Parks and Rec production.
and let private organizations draw in the slack.
No no no. Public school is government, and government is society. Obviously, if schools don't have sports, than no sports will be had by anyone.
Obviously.
Don't know what it's like in other places, but here in NJ sports are run by private organizations or the towns until High School.
My kids play with home schooled and Catholic school kids on the town teams (everyone pays the same fee and has to take a turn at the concession stand).
I can see why people would not want to encourage homeschooling. I doubt it's good for any polity or society to have everyone want to insulate their kids from a huge chunk of the views and kinds of people that surround them in life.
Having said that, this one seems simple to me. The parents of homeschooled kids have paid for the schools and their sports teams and facilities like everyone else, they deserve to get a benefit from that too. In fact, liberal supporters of public schools should see homeschoolers as kind of heroes: they pay into the fund for schools but take out nothing, leaving more for the public school project.
I can see why people would not want to encourage homeschooling. I doubt it's good for any polity or society to have everyone want to insulate their kids from a huge chunk of the views and kinds of people that surround them in life.
-------------------
I'm not fucking with you, MNG -- you should be Jon Stewart's eventual replacement, because that's some hilarious shit right there. High-five!
Look, you think its good for a polity for people to wall their children off from any views or people they disagree with?
Too much of that gets you, well, things like H&R...
Spoof. Too obvious.
Really, if you have some kind of actual argument as to why that's something we should want to encourage, I'd love to hear it.
Please don't try to sell us the product called "liberals would *never*'wall their children off from any views or people they disagree with'", m'kay?
Yes, because its indoctrination 24/7 in liberal households Mr. Fify. Right after the daily abortions and stuff.
Dude, project much?
Then both Teams do it. At least we're being honest.
"Daily abortions", however, is good for a laugh. No woman could possibly have an abortion on a daily basis.
Seriously... do you think the Obamas *don't* indoctrinate their kids on a daily basis? (Just for instance... they're not the only Team Blue politicians out there, after all.)
Seriously, though. Do you believe liberals would just let their kids grow up with anything but THEIR values instilled in their noggins? Or right-wingers, for that matter?
At least, with homeschooling, it's not the state doing the instilling.
Most people I know are not die hard liberals or conservatives, and even many of the ones of them I know don't try their hearts out trying to keep their kids from ever coming across a contrary view.
Still happens, though.
And, like I said, better to let the parents do the indoctrinating, than take the chance on other peoples' kids having to listen to it.
Bu-bu-but SOCIETY!
Y'know, MNG, when you've hit the right notes, I've been one of those to give you props.
Not this time, though.
"insulate their kids from a huge chunk of the views and kinds of people that surround them in life."
Who is trying to do this? Not the parents who want their kids in public-school sports teams. Getting your kids on such teams is a funny way of insulating them from other people.
It's the anti-choicers who want to insulate kids - they want to shield their public-school kids from the contaminating influence of home-schoolers.
"Who is trying to do this?"
Homeschooling in general dude. The whole idea is "I don't want my kid going to the same school all his neighbors do, think of what they'll tell or show him!"
When you wall yourself and your kids off you pay a certain price, like not being able to play on the team. They'd like to have some cake and eat it too here.
But like I said, they've paid for it, they should have it. And like you said it can be seen to work against their objectionable general motivation. So I'd vote for the bill.
Yes, I get what you're saying, but right now, it's the homeschoolers who are subjecting their kids to more socialization.
If I wanted to paint with such a broad brush, I could snark about the public-school parents who (by your own account) want their kids to socialize only with their neighbors, and to confine that socialization to the institutional environment of a govt school.
I mean that it's the homeschool parents who are looking for socialization opportunities for kids - like sports, for example.
The degree of socialization would presumably depend on the circumstances. Are there other homeschoolers (like in Lucy's neighborhood?). Why is socializing with other homeschoolers in any way worse than socializing with other kids in the same institutional building?
"I mean that it's the homeschool parents who are looking for socialization opportunities for kids - like sports"
In this one area, yes. Cake and eat it too.
You think public school parents don't let their kids play with kids in the neighborhood? I guess we should assume that given they are ok with...their kids spending most of the day...with...the other kids in the neighborhood?
In this article, the only ones I see trying to "insulate their kids from a huge chunk of the views and kinds of people that surround them in life" are the public-schoolers who are trying to shield their kids from the homeschoolers. And the ones seeking greater socialization opportunities for their kids are the parents trying to get their kids onto public-school sports teams.
And it's the *homeschoolers* who are trying to insulate their kids? Again, putting them on local school sports teams is a really funny way to shield your kids from different kinds of people.
And keeping the homeschoolers away from your kids is a funny way of teaching tolerance and multiculturalism to public-school kids. Maybe these public school kids should reach beyond their comfort zones and meet kids from different backgrounds, no?
"Cake and eat it too."
Overlooking the reference to sugary foods, which not all public schools approve of, I simply am baffled by this sort of either/or thinking.
Are public-school kids obliged to join *all* the cliques and clubs at their school? Do they have to take *all* the electives? If they only join a few, are they trying to have their cake and eat it too?
Or are you referring to the great social and bonding experience of sitting in Biology together?
Look, it's the homeschoolers who, in general, are trying to insulate their kids. After all, they are keeping them from where most of the neighbor kids go for most of the day.
You're right that in wanting to play sports with public school kids these parents seem to be lightening up on that. But you're totally missing the point of those opposed, and I'm not sure why. Here it is in a nutshell: since homeschooling in general is about insulating your kids from society, and since that is undesirable, we should not remove dis-incentives to homeschooling and allowing them to get the benefits of school sports would be to do that.
You can disagree with the premises there, but you're too smart to not get the argument.
since homeschooling in general is about insulating your kids from society
Ah, no. Not only is that simply wrong it is an incredibly bigoted viewpoint. There's no reason one should have to entertain an argument that is based upon such a faulty premise.
"the neighbor kids"
MNG, I will say this much: I don't know many liberals who praise the concept of neighborhood public schools as much as you do. Good show!
"since homeschooling in general is about insulating your kids from society, and since that is undesirable, we should not remove dis-incentives to homeschooling and allowing them to get the benefits of school sports would be to do that."
This is almost a word-for-word recap of my joke post of 7:07. Only you're not joking. You're not endorsing the reasoning, but you're saying it's rational. It's not rational. Not by conventional definitions of rationality.
"Homeschooling insulates kids from society. Therefore we must discourage homeschooling by insulating homeschooled kids from society. QED."
Can you think of anyone, other than a public-school graduate, who accepts such logic?
You can disagree with the premises there, but you're too smart to not get the argument.
We could, however, liken it to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Basically, your anti-homeschool argument is 'the ends justify the means.' It's a common argument used by both political teams, and one that has absolutely no rational merit.
So yes, I understand the argument. But I find it lacking.
You think public school parents don't let their kids play with kids in the neighborhood?
Sure, because the other children's potential bad influence, which obviously exists only in the minds of the paranoid, is the only reason people home school? It doesn't have anything to do with the "educators" who produce pathetic results and often even use the children as objects for political propaganda? How about the fact that "common" public schools produce the lowest common denominator? How about the idea that it would be immoral for me to steal from my neighbor to educate my children?
Your obtuseness seems to know no bounds.
It doesn't have anything to do with the "educators" who produce pathetic results and often even use the children as objects for political propaganda? How about the fact that "common" public schools produce the lowest common denominator? How about the idea that it would be immoral for me to steal from my neighbor to educate my children?
True, but the homeschooled mis out on socialization opportunities like this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....47637.html
want their kids to socialize only with their neighbors of the same age group
ftfy
Obviously, you don't know any homeschoolers. So kindly shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about, MNG.
So kindly shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about, MNG.
And MNG was never heard from again.
Homeschooling in general dude. The whole idea is "I don't want my kid going to the same school all his neighbors do, think of what they'll tell or show him!"
You've created a homeschooling world out of your own imagination. I know scores of homeschoolers and none of their parents do it to separate their kids from different ideas.
You really ought to know something about a subject before you talk about it.
'Homeschooling in general dude. The whole idea is "I don't want my kid going to the same school all his neighbors do, think of what they'll tell or show him!'
Or maybe they just want their children to get a decent education, and the public schools in their area are shit. Or they're crime-ridden and they'd prefer that their kids not be exposed to beatings and robbery.
But hey -- if someone reject your religion and don't want you to force it on their kids, deal.
Exactly. While not all public schools are necessarily full of violence, the middle school a block away form my house was rated the worst in the state for suicides and bullying, and between my dad and his parents, there was expertise in all the major academic fields. My mom's first language was Spanish, so we even got the foreign language covered. They gave me a better education than any of our neighbors received, with a lot less risk of violence and/or wasted time.
"Who is trying to do this?"
Homeschooling in general dude. The whole idea is "I don't want my kid going to the same school all his neighbors do, think of what they'll tell or show him!"
or they don't want their kids fed spooge. it could be any number of reasons.
Being subjected to bright achievers might make the slow public school kids feel bad about themselves. And it's all about self-esteem, you know. If you disagree, we will dose you half to death with Ritalin. Ah fuck it, we'll just do that anyway.
Oh my, I like how you stuck the anti-meds thing in there with the usual right wing rant.
Don't forget "participation ribbons", KC.
Available at fine suppliers like:
http://www.jonesawards.com/pro.....bbons.aspx
and
http://www.trophycentral.com/p.....bbons.html
Give shitloads of 'em to your kids today!
I'll take as many as you can ship.
Do you have "General Participation" ribbons? Because we're starting a new program called "You Showed Up for Class!!!", and we're going to need something until we can get custom-printed ones...
Re: MNG,
You mean like sending them to college?
So, who are the folks objecting to this bill?
You forgot the folks that want to protect the fortunate homeschooled from the horrors of public school sports...shudder...I thought part of the draw was being spared the existence of jocks?
Hey, like my old battalion commander always said...if you can't be an athelete, at least be an athletic supporter.
That joke is perhaps even less funny than Lucy's up-thread.
at least be an athletic supporter
I guess if the football team needed help with their website...
athletic supporter = jock-strap
guess I just revealed precisely how non-athletic I am.
Haha, I didn't get that wylie hadn't gotten it.
As a woman, I, of course, understand the joke because of Grease (and my dad).
Shorter version of insufferable columnists:
Home schooled kids are not subjected to the leftist indoctrination of public school. Hence they may grow up to be free-thinking adults who do not see the government as the source of all things. This must be stopped. And if it can't be stopped, well then we'll just have to be extremely petty and deny these kids the opportunity to play sports. In other words, be ourselves.
" Hence they may grow up to be free-thinking adults"
Of course, because what better way to grow up to be a free thinking adult than to have your parents carefully control every piece of information you ever view as a child...
Sheesh.
You really know absolutely nothing about home schooling and should probably stop embarassing yourself now. But I bet you won't.
Yes, I imagine you were likely homeschooled yourself and know more about it...
You imagine wrong. Public school until I went to an expensive private universty that openly discriminates against poor people and those with IQs under about 130. But that's OK in everyone's book.
My kids are home schooled. They read about 5 years above grade level, are bilingual, and have many friends on the local (private) swimming and gymnastics teams. The reality of most home schoolers is completely different from what you assume.
that openly discriminates against poor people and those with IQs under about 130.
with a dresscode mandating monocles and top hats.
You have no idea what I assume, but I imagine that's normal for you when going off on rants about "leftist indoctrination" and liberals just hating "free thinking" adults.
I know lots of homeschooled kids. I know a lesbian couple that does so because they don't want their little girl exposed to "the patriarchy" at public school; I know a few religious conservatives who don't want their kids to learn about evolution and stuff; and I know a few who actually do so because they don't want their kids around black people. I also know one guy who does it because he thinks his kid gets a better education at home, period.
But in general a lot of homeschoolers are so because their parents are upset about what they will hear and who they will mix with at public school. That's a terrible way to think, not only of the socialization of your child, but for society and a democratic polity. That's my point.
Now you can return to your caricature-level movement conserative cliches and memes about how all schools are full of liberty hating union goons indoctrinating kids into global warming fanatics and providing abortions done by the school nurse. Sheesh, don't you people (meaning the movement conservatives who drift onto this site from FreeRepublic I guess [since a Democrat is in power and all]) get tired of being walking caricatures sometimes?
Can we still paint the caricature of all homeschoolers as evil, God-hugging gay-haters with guns in their homes?
Must have taken a few brain-cells to think up that lie.
I distort the way I see things to fit my prejudices. Good for the 'Crimestop', as Big Brother would want.
I know this one public school kid, he's a real asshole. And this other one is totally shy! I knew this one public school kid who didn't believe in evolution!
Using your reasoning, I know everything about public schooled kids.
Seriously, MNG, pretending to know why homeschoolers homeschool based on your limited experience with a few of them is the kind of reasoning one finds at FreeRepublic.
There are a wide variety of philosophies and approaches to homeschooling. You should look into them so you won't sound so much like a young-earth creationist speaking confidently on the subject of geology.
But in general a lot of homeschoolers -- I claim to know -- are so because their parents are upset about what they will hear and who they will mix with at public school. FIFY
If my daughters can learn more in 3.5 hours at home than they can in 7 hours at a private school, let alone at a public school, why in the hell would I make them go to public school?
I homeschool my daughters because I don't think the public schools are competent to educate them and it is my responsibility not to send them out into the world uneducated. Period.
They are done with "school" by 11AM and have four and a half hours or so to ride their bikes, read about supercells, draw, learn Photoshop, do a PowerPoint presentation on supernovas (all of which they have actually done in the past week), or whatever the hell else they want to do until they go out to play with their friends when they get home from public or private schools. And I guaran-damn-tee you that we spend more time talking about both sides of issues than they ever would in a public school.
You just don't know what in the hell you're talking about.
But in general a lot of homeschoolers are so because their parents are upset about what they will hear and who they will mix with at public school. That's a terrible way to think, not only of the socialization of your child, but for society and a democratic polity. That's my point.
___________________
Hey thanks for the parenting advice. And a lot of homeschool parents have decided that public schools just suck -- a point strongly supported by my own 12 year experience in them -- and that they have the resources and will to do better. What complete fucking assholes they are. Won't someone think of the democratic polity?
For a parent you really know very little about children, MNG. Children should be socialized by adults, not other children. When children "socialize" each other you end up with the Lord of the Flies. Thanks to government schooling kids are more influenced by peers than by adults, with predictably disastrous consequences. Watch Mean Girls for a (hilarious) demonstration of what I'm talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezXiaHydkAU
Posh! I maxed my reading level at 99 on Disc 2. Noob.
Dipshit. Just about every study done on the subject shows homeschooled kids have better social skills, higher self-esteem etc than publicly school kids.
Imagine that. Learning to socialize under the guidance of loving parents results in better outcomes than the free-for-all that is public school. Who'd have thunk it?
(Not a statist like mng apparently)
The very premise of the statist is so fucked up. If forcing a segment of the population together was good for developing socialization skills, an automatic given that one should just take for granted is true, prisoners would not come out of prisons more anti-social than when they went in!
crap, overlapping editing never gives good results
an automatic given truism that one should just take for granted is true
"Home schooled kids are not subjected to the leftist indoctrination of public school."
Yes, because this is all that goes on in public schools.
Jesus, were you homeschooled?
No, but if I had been maybe I wouldn't have become so resentful of the statist, collectivist garbage I was forcefed in the public schools. Hell, you might have been able to covert me, MNG. No chance of that now.
Yes
All that insulation from society must be why you couldn't cut it in the fast-paced carpentry industry.
I never said it was all that goes on. But it does go on, and that's enough.
It goes on much less than fanatics on either side seem to think it does.
My daughter goes to a public school and the biggest indoctrination she seemed to get was that jump rope for heart is a good thing.
Tell us which school she attends, so we can fill her head with facts about global warming and the evils of capitalism.
Frankly, we're surprised she hasn't heard The Holy Words yet. You're a negligent parent, MNG.
Seeing as how your positions on major issues are aligned with the indoctrinators, I'm not surprised you don't think there's much indoctrination.
Teaching tolerance is indoctrination, and that's going on at every friggin public school, I guarantee. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it not indoctrination.
Don't forget the anti-bullying. Now fall in line and support an increase in teachers' pensions you fucking bully!
back in my school days there was a homeschool team that we always played. I don't think they had football (or they did six man or something) but they did beat us in basketball one year. we were bad.
but shit let the kids play. I bet they'd have fun.
Silence, heretic! It's not about fun, it's about idiotic scoring political points against homeschoolers.
Your so-called "fun" is getting in the way of self-righteous politics - it must be stopped!
I think that if the columnists quoted above had played sports with homeschoolers, they would have shown more understanding and tolerance. Heck, they should have learned these things already, being public-school graduates. Perhaps the tolerance training didn't take.
Heck, they should have learned these things already, being public-school graduates. Perhaps the tolerance training didn't take.
This should be underlined and bold. They intolerantly proclaim how public schools teach tolerance.
Let's rephrase that as a broadcaster might:
Or Team Blue/Team Red might phrase it:
Everybody's against Cablevision. The Dolans are some of the biggest pricks out there.
This is key: "the choice to be homeschooleled and also to play sports with kids their own age" ...
Item one: Any article about schooling needs to be proofrred xtra cairful.
Item two: Libertarians must agree that kids can play sports without playing them at public school. Lucy tries to finish her article with this point, but given her arguments right up to the end, she doesn't really stick the landing.
Having children is something selfish breeder homonormatives do, but I still think public school should be the ONLY option.
Except for politicians and rich liberals.
Good thing your Social Security is in a lock-box, so you won't need fresh waves of tax-payers to cover your retirement.
I have decided Tony is a spoof.
Look, if a columnist at the washington compost thinks it is a bad idea, it is probably a stellar idea.
Yep. What kids and parents need in this country is LESS choice about edumacation and athUHletics. LESS choice.
And higher taxes.
Hey - it's just like Michigan! Welcome to our world, bitches!
I have decided Tony is a spoof.
If only the rest of the noobs would catch on.
Proles. We pay education taxes to keep you in line and on the rez. Homeschooling makes no difference to us in the end. My family has been at Andover for four generations. Whose position and status do you think the Republicans and Democrats will protect?
Here's an idea: Why not simply NOT use in any way the public school's sports venues, at all?
The "we pay taxes too" argument is only superficially sound, but still meaningless: I *know* I pay taxes that go to keep the I-5 on enough of a good condition to be drivable, but that does not mean that I *have* to drive on it just to get my money's worth, especially because I know live in Texas.
Same thing here: You don't *have* to place your homeschooled kids in the teams of the underachieving fodder for bureaucrats. Just DON'T insist on putting your homeschooled kids on the public school teams but, instead, create private teams to kick the shit out of those poor Amerikan Pulbic Skooled bastards. Not to make the Teachers' unions happy, but to give the lot of them a big and very heartfelt fuck you.
I can definitely dig that. I had no interactions with public schools for my entire upbringing. No interest.
Mingling with public-school kids is a great idea, and (let us note for the nth time) it's the idea of the homeschoolers.
Flesh out the rhetoric about mixing with kids of different backgrounds - this means kids of different educational backgrounds, too.
It would benefit both groups to know something of each other, and a sports team would be a great way to do this socialization. Better to mix with each other in good old team sports than over food-fights in the lunchroom.
What's that, Lucy? You *didn't* wind up slaughtering dozens of people with a semi-automatic assault weapon???
Team Blue is disappoint.
All the jokes I want to make in response would just put me on a DHS watch list.
WATCHIN U
O______O
It was painful, but I looked up the bill and read the editorials in WaPo and Forbes
(incidentally, the link to the Forbes piece is http://www.forbes.com/sites/bo.....oled-kids/ - you're welcome).
The bill provides that the student must have shown evidence of academic progress over the previous two years, based on the standards of the homeschooling law. That generally means a high score on a nationally-normed test or evidence satisfactory to an education bureaucrat.
But WaPo man makes a joke about Mom inflating Junior's grade from C to B to make him eligible for sports. An honest argument would have been that the academic standards in the homeschool law are so inadequate that evidence of two years' progress isn't enough, but he obviously isn't even familiar with these requirements - at least he doesn't mention them.
Likewise the Forbes fellow, who jokes about how he pays taxes for the Air Force, so he should be able to fly a fighter jet, giggle giggle.
Neither of these geniuses mentions that the bill allows schools to charge "reasonable fees" to homeschoolers on their sports teams.
Do journalists even research their articles any more? Did their public schools teach them the need to verify their assertions and do appropriate research?
Likewise the Forbes fellow, who jokes about how he pays taxes for the Air Force, so he should be able to fly a fighter jet, giggle giggle.
The irony is that he can actually do so. Anyone's free to join the Air Force and become a pilot and fly those tax payer funded planes.
Forbes was saying that public schools are like the Air Force - you know, you go there to develop such vital skills, and only with specialized training available nowhere else would you be able to fly sophisticated equipment (in the one case) or play ball games (in the other case).
So it's really a very convincing analogy, not.
Just got back from caucusing for Ron Paul in Minnesota.
WE ARE DOOOOOOOOOOMED!
Oh, again?
Hi. Where's the election chatroom?
If you didn't participate in the homeschooling thread, you can't participate in the election thread. That would be having your cake and eating it, too.
Put on this blindfold. I've got something for you to taste on a spoon.
Mad props to a girl who played football in the mud with no shoes on.
All I really want to hear about government-run education is that it's no longer happening. But I do love that the law is named after Tebow -- that probably sticks even harder in the craw of the anti-homeschooling crowd.
As mentioned above (though maybe not favored by everyone), if you are going to have public education, the simplest, neatest solution is to remove extracurricular activities out of its funding. You save everyone money, and makes core education more tenable. We already do not fund other things outside the classroom, like internet service the students use, extra books he/she may buy, extra software, etc so why should sports (and club activities) be any different when they are optional anyways? You want the extra stuff, pay for it. Problem solved and this whole issue becomes a non-issue.
But given the current situation, like every typical statist solution to every statist problem there's an issue of consistency, of principle. I agree that they should be able to partake since they are paying for it... now what about private schooled kids? We *should* let them participate too and the bill, according to the rationale used to justify it, should address that as well.
In principle, yes. But following principle, we would exempt homeschoolers and private-schoolers from school taxes altogether (and we'd also exempt charitable donations to such schools, since they get the same bang for the buck as school taxes).
But meanwhile, the best that can be said is that the private schools have their teams already, so there isn't such a need to have their students go to the govt schools. So to get their tax money back, private-school parents should be able to share the public school's equipment, for example, while keeping their own teams.
But then only the RICH kids will do extracurriculars!
You left out the part where you all got hookworm. Ugh.
I'm going to admit that I didn't read the rest of these comments, but doesn't it seem just to allow a child to participate in public school extracurricular activities since the parent is paying the taxes for his child's government education whether the child participates or not?
It really just sounds like whining that the public schools don't get to indoctrinate the child for eight hours a day.
Of course that's exactly what it is.
How about an actually libertarian option?
Stop spending my money stolen from me in order to pay for high school sports, and relegate all extra curricular athletic option to private clubs where anyone can join whichever strikes their fancy.
Stop spending my money stolen from me in order to pay for high school sports.
Texas would secede from the union.
Actually, now that I think about it, that's a great idea!
As a Texan, I agree that it would be great.
Great Article!
Libertarians: against freedom of association when it hurts paranoid home-schoolers, for freedom of association when it hurts black people.
I.E.: Makes completely unsupported points. Care to explain yourself? I missed where anybody was against freedom of association here, unless it's the freedom of government schools to associate with whom they wish. Also, how does freedom of association hurt black people?
Liberal: someone who cannot think.
Unless of course you are now going to explain how public schools are allowed to discriminate (especially against the people paying for it), and all those liberal actions against discrimination in public school did not somehow not happen.
Wait a minute. If home schooling gets you smaller class sizes in your public school while keeping the money flowing into the school (because it's based on the children that are zoned to go there, not on the actual enrollment), why aren't the educators all in favor? I thought smaller classes = student success. Think of it...if just about everyone starts homeschooling, the public school would have a ton of money and a class size of like three students. Imagine the achievement that would result!
My tax dollars pay for public school facilities, supplies, teacher salaries, etc. In addition, the fact that my homeschooled children are not sitting at a desk in the public school classroom nor are they utilizing any form of virtual public school tools, saves the school even more money. But, you need not worry...I won't be sending my children into your classroom or onto your sports fields.
And I cannot help but wonder...when did "basic education" start to include such frivolous items such as sports? Historically speaking, reading, writing and arithmetic constituted basic education. Now public schools don't even accomplish that.
I'm not sure where your're getting your information from, but I lived in Australia until I was sixteen years old and sports were a huge part of school activity, both public and private. Every bit as much as here.
That was not intended to be a disagreement with your larger point though. I actually doo believe that community sports (like Little League for example) are much better venues for childrens' sports, and possibility better at the socializing function too.
IIANM, the women who were on that first great US womens' soccer team in international competition all came up through community rather than school athletics.
The funny thing was that various talking heads at the time were gushing about how this proved how great Title IX was.
Now community soccer (and other sports) gets lots of government support (playing fields and even some direct cash) from local state and even federal governments. But to the best of my knowledge none of it has a thing to do with Title IX.
To the people that are calling homeschoolers moochers, can you please explain to me why I spend my income educating my own children while your public schooled children mooch off my tax dollars? Homeschooling families are tax-paying citizens and should be allowed to use the "PUBLIC" systems they help support as well. Sorry to burst your liberal bubbles!!!
These types of card games should be stopped in the schools because it does not give the right message.
good