Texas Senate passes 'Tim Tebow' bill letting home-schoolers compete in public school sports and activities
The bill now heads back to the House, where members can accept the Senate changes or try to hash out the differences in a conference committee.

AUSTIN Texas is poised to let home-schooled students compete in public school sports and other extracurricular activities, after the Senate advanced the proposal in one of its closest votes this session.

The bill passed 16-14 on Saturday and now goes back to the House, where representatives can accept the Senate's changes or convene a conference committee to hash out differences.

Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, said the legislation would ensure that home-schoolers who live within the community and whose families pay taxes have the option to participate.

"This opportunity helps all kids learn, grow and develop their gifts," she said.

Under the legislation, school districts and charter schools would have discretion to let home-schooled students participate in University Interscholastic League activities, such as sports, debate, theater and band.

The move is gaining unprecedented momentum this year despite opposition from the state's largest coaches associations and education advocacy groups.

Several senators from both sides of the aisle raised concerns on Saturday. They worried that student athletes could game the system by dropping out of public school to train all day.
[url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2021/05/12/homeschoolers-get-closer-to-public-school-competition-as-tim-tebow-bill-clears-hurdle-in-texas-house/][/url]
"If I didn't have to be in school and I could be taking my lessons with my pro in the morning and then do my classes whenever I want to do them and I get to play for the school, there could potentially be some incentive for me to drop out of school and just be a home-schooler because I can be better at my sport if I spend more hours playing it," said Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brehnam.
Similarly, Sen. Jos Menndez, D-San Antonio, said he worried that star athletes on the brink of failing their classes could drop out of public school, begin home schooling and keep playing for their teams to skirt the "no pass, no play" rule.
"I am worried we may be opening a huge can of worms," he said.
Paxton, however, said the bill has safeguards in place to prevent against that, such as having home-schoolers pass grade-level testing each year. A student who leaves public school mid-semester couldn't continue participating in the school's extracurricular activities for the rest of the year.
"This is working so well in 36 other states. I look forward to Texas being one," she said.
If the bill, which is being called the Tim Tebow Bill after the Jacksonville Jaguars tight end who played in public schools as a home-schooler in Florida, becomes law, the changes would be in effect for the next school year.
Some lawmakers who voted for the bill said the state needs to closely monitor the rollout to make sure there are no unintended consequences.
"As always, someone's thinking of how to beat it, how to beat the system," said Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., D-Brownsville. "I want all of us to keep an eye on how this develops and how it works out."
The 2021 legislative session ends May 31.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/05/22/texas-senate-passes-tim-tebow-bill-letting-home-schoolers-compete-in-public-school-sports-and-activities/

To gripe about potential gaming of the system kind of ignores the gaming that currently exists. Could be a win-win.

My kid won a state title by being teamed with three other kids who were the only members of shooting sports in their schools (some schools had over a hundred). Not much different.

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm curious.
Does No pass, no play rule apply to home school athletes?
Are they required to take Staar tests like public schoolers?
Transferring from one school to another in a different attendance zone is a relatively rigorous process. It requires the 2 schools (one from which student is transferring & one to which student is transferring) to declare whether it is for sports participation.
Will the district EC have jurisdiction over home schoolers like it does over public schoolers?
Grade inflation?
Academic rigor?

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm curious.
Does No pass, no play rule apply to home school athletes?
Are they required to take Staar tests like public schoolers?
Transferring from one school to another in a different attendance zone is a relatively rigorous process. It requires the 2 schools (one from which student is transferring & one to which student is transferring) to declare whether it is for sports participation.
Will the district EC have jurisdiction over home schoolers like it does over public schoolers?
Grade inflation?
Academic rigor?

---

When the legislature answers these questions, I'll let you know if I'm for or against it.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

Yep. US public schools as a whole suck. Most home schooled kids I encounter tend to read way more than the typical public school counter part. Do more work in less time when kids are home schooled

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm curious.
Does No pass, no play rule apply to home school athletes?
Are they required to take Staar tests like public schoolers?
Transferring from one school to another in a different attendance zone is a relatively rigorous process. It requires the 2 schools (one from which student is transferring & one to which student is transferring) to declare whether it is for sports participation.
Will the district EC have jurisdiction over home schoolers like it does over public schoolers?
Grade inflation?
Academic rigor?

---

When the legislature answers these questions, I'll let you know if I'm for or against it.

---

I'm against it because the public school coaches I deal with on a near daily basis are pretty staunchly against it.

This reeks of the type of attack on public school norms we've seen Dan Patrick lead in recent years.

If you don't want to send your kids to public school, fine. But you shouldn't get to demand the benefits of public schooling from outside of that system.

ImwithBU said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

Yep. US public schools as a whole suck. Most home schooled kids I encounter tend to read way more than the typical public school counter part. Do more work in less time when kids are home schooled

---

The two home-schooled children that live next door to me are brilliant. They're also super socially awkward. And that's been true of most of the home-schooled people I've come in contact with over the years.

I have little doubt that home schooling can be a more efficient way to educate children on an individual basis, but there is something to be said for daily unmanufactured/uncontrolled social interaction with people your own age.

If parents do not want their kids to go to class and be a part of the general student body of a school then I do not think they should get to be on their sports team.

Perhaps they should check out club sports

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

It strongly depends on which homeschoolers you are adding to your statistics.

A superintendent friend said that the best homeschool setups were mini-private schools where parents pooled kids and talent. But he also got the kids who came back to public schools two years behind.

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

It strongly depends on which homeschoolers you are adding to your statistics.

A superintendent friend said that the best homeschool setups were mini-private schools where parents pooled kids and talent. But he also got the kids who came back to public schools two years behind.

---

The statistical population is all homeschooled kids. That's how statistics work.

Homeschool kids statistically do much better academically than public school kids.

https://admissionsly.com/homeschooling-statistics/

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

It strongly depends on which homeschoolers you are adding to your statistics.

A superintendent friend said that the best homeschool setups were mini-private schools where parents pooled kids and talent. But he also got the kids who came back to public schools two years behind.

---

The statistical population is all homeschooled kids. That's how statistics work.

Homeschool kids statistically do much better academically than public school kids.

https://admissionsly.com/homeschooling-statistics/

---

Like I said.

If you exclude the homeschool failures you get gaudy numbers. Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, though.

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

It strongly depends on which homeschoolers you are adding to your statistics.

A superintendent friend said that the best homeschool setups were mini-private schools where parents pooled kids and talent. But he also got the kids who came back to public schools two years behind.

---

The statistical population is all homeschooled kids. That's how statistics work.

Homeschool kids statistically do much better academically than public school kids.

https://admissionsly.com/homeschooling-statistics/

---

Like I said.

If you exclude the homeschool failures you get gaudy numbers. Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, though.

---

You are the one excluding some homeschool kids. Why are you doing that?

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

We are a small school. Three home schooled students enrolled this year...all three below grade level...two hadn't done anything in a couple of years. This is a bad idea. I've called my rep to say no.

fadskier said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

We are a small school. Three home schooled students enrolled this year...all three below grade level...two hadn't done anything in a couple of years. This is a bad idea. I've called my rep to say no.

---

We've been homeschooling for more than 12 years now. We know about 40 other homeschooling families over the years.
I've never personally heard of a kid that far behind.
There are far more failing kids in public schools than homeschool... not even close.

There are two extremes in home schooling in Texas. One includes families like Shooter and Mothra. Their students probably do test higher than average. They would also test higher than average if they went to public school. The other extreme are the parents that pull their kids out of public school to avoid the truancy fines. The kids sleep till noon and then watch tv or worse.

One aspect of the experiment of democracy is a free public education. It was a revolutionary concept. My three kids went to public schools and thrived. They earned scholarships and got good educations. Good enough to include a ride at Michigan Law.

In my opinion, the trend towards home schooling hurts not only the students that become excellent test takers while hanging out in the family womb away from the unwashed riff raff, but it also hurts the students that are left at school. If you take the best and brightest students out of a school who is left to become the leaders and examples for those left in school?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

There are two extremes in home schooling in Texas. One includes families like Shooter and Mothra. Their students probably do test higher than average. They would also test higher than average if they went to public school. The other extreme are the parents that pull their kids out of public school to avoid the truancy fines. The kids sleep till noon and then watch tv or worse.

One aspect of the experiment of democracy is a free public education. It was a revolutionary concept. My three kids went to public schools and thrived. They earned scholarships and got good educations. Good enough to include a ride at Michigan Law.

In my opinion, the trend towards home schooling hurts not only the students that become excellent test takers while hanging out in the family womb away from the unwashed riff raff, but it also hurts the students that are left at school. If you take the best and brightest students out of a school who is left to become the leaders and examples for those left in school?

---

One might think public schools would up their game. One, would be wrong.

Extracurriculars, as the name implies, are outside of normal school activities. As long as everyone's tax dollars in a school district are used to pay for extracurriculars, then everyone in that school district should have access to the extracurriculars.

As far as the education for home schooled kids, of course that can vary. Some parents are better at being home teachers, but the system kind of weeds the bad parent teachers out as the bad ones give up relatively quickly. On the whole, home schooled kids are well above average, and it isn't even a question. There are some anecdotal cases of home schooled failures, but that is not the norm. The norm is if a parent is even willing to consider taking on the duties of being both a parent and a teacher, they usually do it very well.

Abuse of the system is what concerns me as there will be some people that game the system by "home schooling" their kids. But as long as some tests and safeguards are in place to try to limit that, I'm ok with this.

And the reason I'm ok with this is because there are no property tax credits for home schooling or sending your kids to private schools. As long as tax assessors collect money from everyone for schools, and fail most of the time at providing a learning experience in public schools, the extracurriculars should still be available.

Why do you think a huge majority are against it?

Firm believer a student gets as good of an education as he wants. Home schooling is great for a kid that will suck on the family teat till he is 25 years old, work for daddy and inherit wealth. 18 year old adults with a broken plate and a decent education will be mature enough to provide their own college education. They will thrive in a diverse modern world.

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Why do you think a huge majority are against it?

---

Because a lot of people make blanket statements about people without doing research and make conclusions without doing research. A big reason for this is because a majority of the people went to public schools and don't even realize how shtty public schools are because well, they went to public schools.

The public school system is terrible and we spend way too much money on it for these results. If the schools were better, there wouldn't be a need for private schools or home schooling alternatives. But the fact is, we need those alternatives. And as long as the government is going to hold a monopoly on public K-12 education (you pay for it even if you don't use it), the people in the districts should at least have access to the extracurriculars that they are paying for.

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

The NCAA is a completely different dynamic. And the reason they have the rules in place at the NCAA level is purely so they can pretend to maintain this idea that the student athletes are amateurs. But you are kidding yourself if the average football player is getting the same education as the other students on campus. They have special classes set aside for the student athletes, many football players graduate with useless degrees that they will never be able to use and the rules are flexible for the student athletes. (I know many student athletes work very hard and get real degrees, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the ones that don't).

Americans with their fascination of mixing athletics and school needs to stop. No other developed country mixes the two to the degree and to the passion that Americans do. It is just sports. It really isn't that big of a deal.

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

Wouldn't they be playing for their school?

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

You are comparing apples to orange basketballs. Not even close.

contrario said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Why do you think a huge majority are against it?

---

Because a lot of people make blanket statements about people without doing research and make conclusions without doing research. A big reason for this is because a majority of the people went to public schools and don't even realize how shtty public schools are because well, they went to public schools.

The public school system is terrible and we spend way too much money on it for these results. If the schools were better, there wouldn't be a need for private schools or home schooling alternatives. But the fact is, we need those alternatives. And as long as the government is going to hold a monopoly on public K-12 education (you pay for it even if you don't use it), the people in the districts should at least have access to the extracurriculars that they are paying for.

---

The public schools are not terrible. Most suburban and rural schools are just fine, many are much better than that.

One of the unfortunate side effects of the school accountability concept is that we have adopted the idea that schools are solely responsible for educational outcomes. Even the greatest schools, however, cannot consistently overcome poor parenting. To the extent urban schools do not achieve the objectives society sets for them, what goes on outside the school is more to blame than what goes on inside the school.

As to your second point, property taxes have never been a user fee. They are the price everyone pays to ensure an educated citizenry and to create a society of roughly equal opportunity. This bill is part of a continuing attack on those concepts by allowing the affluent to cherry pick the good parts without supporting the more challenging parts.

Coaches do not like this because success comes from being "all in." This is no way to model that concept.

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

Wouldn't they be playing for their school?

---

No, they wouldn't. A kid's school is the school he or she attends. Deals with the teachers, the administrators, the other students and the facilities. The good and the bad.

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

The NCAA is a completely different dynamic. And the reason they have the rules in place at the NCAA level is purely so they can pretend to maintain this idea that the student athletes are amateurs. But you are kidding yourself if the average football player is getting the same education as the other students on campus. They have special classes set aside for the student athletes, many football players graduate with useless degrees that they will never be able to use and the rules are flexible for the student athletes. (I know many student athletes work very hard and get real degrees, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the ones that don't).

Americans with their fascination of mixing athletics and school needs to stop. No other developed country mixes the two to the degree and to the passion that Americans do. It is just sports. It really isn't that big of a deal.

---

Your idea of student athletes is: (1) seriously outdated and (2) confined to big time college athletics. My daughter ran for UT and then Alabama while getting her chemical engineering degree. I don't recall her taking any "special classes for athletes." A friend's son played football for Georgetown-same thing. 95% of NCAA athletes are true student athletes.

We mix athletics and school because athletics can bond a community. Its a good thing and this bill degrades it.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

You are comparing apples to orange basketballs. Not even close.

---

I assume you are talking about the first point. How so? The idea of a school team is that it represents that community, meaning that team members come from within the entity. The point of the bill is to allow participation from outside the entity.

bear2be2 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm curious.
Does No pass, no play rule apply to home school athletes?
Are they required to take Staar tests like public schoolers?
Transferring from one school to another in a different attendance zone is a relatively rigorous process. It requires the 2 schools (one from which student is transferring & one to which student is transferring) to declare whether it is for sports participation.
Will the district EC have jurisdiction over home schoolers like it does over public schoolers?
Grade inflation?
Academic rigor?

---

When the legislature answers these questions, I'll let you know if I'm for or against it.

---

I'm against it because the public school coaches I deal with on a near daily basis are pretty staunchly against it.

This reeks of the type of attack on public school norms we've seen Dan Patrick lead in recent years.

If you don't want to send your kids to public school, fine. But you shouldn't get to demand the benefits of public schooling from outside of that system.

---

The home school parents are paying their property taxes, so they're paying for the football facilities, coaches' salaries, etc., just like everyone else in the community. They're foregoing the benefit of most of what they're paying for (school buildings, curriculum costs, teachers, admin, etc.) because they think it can be done better, but some of them may want to use some of it (band, theater, art, athletics) because those things require a scale that really can't be done outside of the system. Not sure I really see a problem there.

I did not home school my kids. They went to nice private schools, urban public schools where they were a minority, and rural public schools at different points. I've seen benefits and drawbacks to all the options. I never thought homeschooling was on balance a good option. But these are all difficult decisions, and I don't begrudge any parent using their best judgment and effort here.

I also don't think coaches get the last say here. I am friends with lots of HS football coaches. A few of my closest friends from HS are head coaches now and have been for a long time. I'm friends with the coaches my kids played for. I respect them (most of them) and what they do, but this really isn't their call. Let one of them have 1, 2, 3 really good athletes who are also good teammates land in their lap from their community, and they'll change their tune quickly anyway.

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I have always seen athletics as a reward for those students that go to school on a regular basis and pass. Now a parent can check the boxes while Jr. sleeps in, does no work in school and gets to go to practice and play.

---

Statistics show on average that home school kids do far better than their public school counterparts on standardized tests and the SAT. They are typically one to two grades ahead of their public school counterparts in what they're learning. So I don't think you have any need to worry about home school kids cutting corners.

---

It strongly depends on which homeschoolers you are adding to your statistics.

A superintendent friend said that the best homeschool setups were mini-private schools where parents pooled kids and talent. But he also got the kids who came back to public schools two years behind.

---

The statistical population is all homeschooled kids. That's how statistics work.

Homeschool kids statistically do much better academically than public school kids.

https://admissionsly.com/homeschooling-statistics/

---

Like I said.

If you exclude the homeschool failures you get gaudy numbers. Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, though.

---

You are the one excluding some homeschool kids. Why are you doing that?

---

No, I want to include all of them, not just the ones who are homeschooled at the time of testing.

You want to exclude the ones who return to public school. Why are you doing that?

Booray said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

You are comparing apples to orange basketballs. Not even close.

---

I assume you are talking about the first point. How so? The idea of a school team is that it represents that community, meaning that team members come from within the entity. The point of the bill is to allow participation from outside the entity.

---

They will still come from the community that the school is located in. If anything, it makes the community more inclusive and more representative of the geographical community.

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

Wouldn't they be playing for their school?

---

Yes. They'd be playing for the school district in which they live, pay for, and attend for extracurriculars (they just don't go to all their classes). They're going to practice every day working their butts off and playing in games. I'd say it's "their school."

The only real rationale against this is "I don't like homeschoolers as a policy matter, and I think that keeping them from having extracurricular opportunities that can only happen at the aggregated public school may force them all the way back into the system."

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

If the NCAA announced that athletes no longer needed to attend the school they played for we would say the new rule destroys the purpose of athletics. The same thing applies to high school-athletes are supposed to play for their school, not a school.

As to academic performance, my guess is that Mothra's excelling home schoolers would also excel if they attended public schools.

---

The NCAA is a completely different dynamic. And the reason they have the rules in place at the NCAA level is purely so they can pretend to maintain this idea that the student athletes are amateurs. But you are kidding yourself if the average football player is getting the same education as the other students on campus. They have special classes set aside for the student athletes, many football players graduate with useless degrees that they will never be able to use and the rules are flexible for the student athletes. (I know many student athletes work very hard and get real degrees, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the ones that don't).

Americans with their fascination of mixing athletics and school needs to stop. No other developed country mixes the two to the degree and to the passion that Americans do. It is just sports. It really isn't that big of a deal.

---

Your idea of student athletes is: (1) seriously outdated and (2) confined to big time college athletics. My daughter ran for UT and then Alabama while getting her chemical engineering degree. I don't recall her taking any "special classes for athletes." A friend's son played football for Georgetown-same thing. 95% of NCAA athletes are true student athletes.

We mix athletics and school because athletics can bond a community. Its a good thing and this bill degrades it.

---

I made sure to add a statement that would cover what you are saying. I agree, most student athletes for the non-revenue sports actually take advantage of the education aspect of being a student-athlete. I was talking more specifically about football, as that is the sport that most people would actually make a fuss about this about.