Booray said:

---

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.

---

Yes, public schools are terrible. I went to both a public and private high school. The private school was one of the top private schools in a major metro area and the public school was a suburban school and one of the top public schools in that metro area. I can tell you, the difference is night and day. I was a good student at the private school, but when I transferred to the public school because of personal reasons, I immediately was in the top of my class and I tried about 10% as hard as I did at the private school. The public school system is a joke. And anyone that has attended both or taught in both will tell you that. And yes, a big part of that is the parent involvement, but that goes more to the results of the education. I'm actually talking about the expectations. And the expectations of the public school are well-below private schools and what most people get from a homes schooling environment.

As long as the public schools are this bad, there will be a need for alternatives.

With respect to your user fee, I agree. But you are missing a big point, the "affluent" (most of the home schoolers I've met aren't overly affluent, and most would identify as middle class, but just want the best education for the kids, which, in their opinion, can't be achieved at a public school), would still be "supporting the more challenging parts." They are still paying their property taxes. All they are asking for is to be included in the extracurriculars, which are also paid for by property taxes, even though football is not necessary to have an "educated citizenry", which is what you claimed was the point of the public school system.

Robert Wilson said:

---

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.

---

Problem number 1: incentive for "home schooling" for athletes who desperately need school structure.

Problem number 2: teachers, band directors, theater sponsors now have to deal with kids with less equal platforms, different types of conflicts.

Problem number 3: motivation for the participants is less about the group, more about the individual.

Problem number 4: school funding from the state on a per school basis comes from attendance. This bill causes resource use by individuals without a corresponding revenue increase

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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.

---

Depends on the public school. Some do a great job. Some do an ok job. Some suck.

What I think some who are against this don't value as highly as others is the autonomy of parents to make decisions for their children.

We give people a cafeteria approach to high school in other venues. You can do all kinds of work study stuff where your kid goes to high school on a reduced basis while going to trade schools and/or working. Why not have the same kind of cafeteria approach at high school with extracurriculars for people who think they've found better ways to teach math, English, science, whatever?

And if folks like LImited think the home school kids are being gipped either by being overly sheltered, coddled, allowed to sleep in, or not exposed to other kids, wouldn't this reduce all those issues? They'll be mixing with their peers in their community in a real way, having to show accountability to those peers and to coaches who aren't going to be cutting them in special favors for sure. Likely, they'll have to do more to prove themselves.

Booray said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

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.

---

Problem number 1: incentive for "home schooling" for athletes who desperately need school structure.

Problem number 2: teachers, band directors, theater sponsors now have to deal with kids with less equal platforms, different types of conflicts.

Problem number 3: motivation for the participants is less about the group, more about the individual.

Problem number 4: school funding from the state on a per school basis comes from attendance. This bill causes resource use by individuals without a corresponding revenue increase

---

1 - You haven't stated your issue clearly. My guess at your meaning is that you assume home schooling kids are getting the short end of the stick by being at home. I'd say you undervalue the autonomy parents/families to make choices for their children in what can be wildly varying scenarios.

2 - That is so vague as to be without meaning. i bet band directors, theater sponsors, coaches, etc also get a lot of good talented kids. Let them snag a few of those, and I bet their attitudes begin to shift. To the extent you think the homeschool kids are currently getting a raw deal at home, exposure to the school structure/system/people is good for them and might draw them into the school full time.

3 - That's an assumption. It might be true to start. That won't last long once you're thrown into a team activity. If it is, they'll fail and wash out like any other selfish participant.

4 - That's an administrative hassle that can easily be wired around.

We've got public and private schools giving HS kids all sorts of cafeteria approaches to attendance and education right now. This one isn't much of a stretch. It's also been done in other states for a long time.

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Statistics show that our public schools are indeed pretty terrible compared to other Western countries. Look at where our students on average rank compared to other countries, and you will get a general sense of what I am talking about.

I don't think this is entirely the govt.'s fault of course, as there are not enough assets and teachers, and unfortunately often times the class is having to pace itself with those who perform the worst.

I am the product of a public school, so I do not knock those who try it. I am just stating the facts - homeschooled kids generally far exceed their public school counterparts.

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Yes, public schools are terrible. I went to both a public and private high school. The private school was one of the top private schools in a major metro area and the public school was a suburban school and one of the top public schools in that metro area. I can tell you, the difference is night and day. I was a good student at the private school, but when I transferred to the public school because of personal reasons, I immediately was in the top of my class and I tried about 10% as hard as I did at the private school. The public school system is a joke. And anyone that has attended both or taught in both will tell you that. And yes, a big part of that is the parent involvement, but that goes more to the results of the education. I'm actually talking about the expectations. And the expectations of the public school are well-below private schools and what most people get from a homes schooling environment.

As long as the public schools are this bad, there will be a need for alternatives.

With respect to your user fee, I agree. But you are missing a big point, the "affluent" (most of the home schoolers I've met aren't overly affluent, and most would identify as middle class, but just want the best education for the kids, which, in their opinion, can't be achieved at a public school), would still be "supporting the more challenging parts." They are still paying their property taxes. All they are asking for is to be included in the extracurriculars, which are also paid for by property taxes, even though football is not necessary to have an "educated citizenry", which is what you claimed was the point of the public school system.

---

I guess I am an exception to "anyone." Been part of the public and private school systems in Dallas. Daughter number one went to Good Shepherd Episcopal from kindergarten through eight grade and then a year at Ursuline; daughter number two went to Good Shepherd from kinder through third grade. Both did very well in private school.

We moved and they attended Richardson Schools from that point forward (Pearce high school for both, Parkhill middle and Brentfield elementary for the younger). Both did well in public school.

From the educator side: Wife taught elementary in Highland Park, Coppell, and Richardson. She now runs a private school in Waco. Daughter number two taught and coached for four years at Highland Park and Pearce.

Have tons of friends whose kids attended every private school in Dallas and all the good public schools.

My personal experience is that with the exception of the very best private schools-Hockaday, St. Mark's Cistercian-there is virtually no difference between the upper part of the good public schools and a good private school. The quality public school systems are better than most private schools because "private schools" encompasses much more than elite private schools. Many good private schools (Ursuline included) rely on large workloads (doing 100 versions of the same math concept problem when 10 would show mastery) as a substitute for "rigor." Some privates are objectively awful.

In the end, both daughters and almost all of their friends turned out to be well educated citizens. Daughter number one excelled at Baylor and then got her Doctorate of Physical Therapy from UT Southwestern. Daughter number two got her chemical engineering degree from Alabama and just finished her first year of med school at UT McGovern. Both of them test in the 99th percentile of the general population in most subjects. More to the point-they were not the smartest kids in their high school classes.

And the monster advantage elite private schools have are self selection and funding. The great private schools have to be great-the kids and families make sure of it and pay for it. But those situations are outliers. Saying that the better public schools are a joke compared to all private schools, either in terms of process or result, is just know nothingism.

And I am not missing the point about extracurriculars. The idea behind athletics, art, music and drama is that those subjects are part of the education you receive. Football may not be necessary for an educated citizenry but it builds a community, as does the band, the theater program and the choir. If you want sports for sports sake, go play club.

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Statistics show that our public schools are indeed pretty terrible compared to other Western countries. Look at where our students on average rank compared to other countries, and you will get a general sense of what I am talking about.

I don't think this is entirely the govt.'s fault of course, as there are not enough assets and teachers, and unfortunately often times the class is having to pace itself with those who perform the worst.

I am the product of a public school, so I do not knock those who try it. I am just stating the facts - homeschooled kids generally far exceed their public school counterparts.

---

My point is that the term "public schools" encompasses much more in the United States. Our poor performing urban districts make the international comparison difficult. Like so much else in this country we have two systems, one for the affluent, one for the poor. The affluent system includes private schools, suburban public schools and the majority of rural schools. The system for the poor includes urban schools and rural schools in the southeast.

Those arguing that "public schools are terrible" are over generalizing.

quash said:

---

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?

---

Support your statement. It's not true, so this should be fun.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Booray said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

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.

---

Problem number 1: incentive for "home schooling" for athletes who desperately need school structure.

Problem number 2: teachers, band directors, theater sponsors now have to deal with kids with less equal platforms, different types of conflicts.

Problem number 3: motivation for the participants is less about the group, more about the individual.

Problem number 4: school funding from the state on a per school basis comes from attendance. This bill causes resource use by individuals without a corresponding revenue increase

---

1 - You haven't stated your issue clearly. My guess at your meaning is that you assume home schooling kids are getting the short end of the stick by being at home. I'd say you undervalue the autonomy parents/families to make choices for their children in what can be wildly varying scenarios.

2 - That is so vague as to be without meaning. i bet band directors, theater sponsors, coaches, etc also get a lot of good talented kids. Let them snag a few of those, and I bet their attitudes begin to shift. To the extent you think the homeschool kids are currently getting a raw deal at home, exposure to the school structure/system/people is good for them and might draw them into the school full time.

3 - That's an assumption. It might be true to start. That won't last long once you're thrown into a team activity. If it is, they'll fail and wash out like any other selfish participant.

4 - That's an administrative hassle that can easily be wired around.

We've got public and private schools giving HS kids all sorts of cafeteria approaches to attendance and education right now. This one isn't much of a stretch. It's also been done in other states for a long time.

---

1.. No, I was talking about home schooling as a way for athletes to avoid academic requirements. Not worried about current home schooler, but star athletes who struggle academically no have an avenue to avoid that whole bothersome school issue. And their enablers will take advantage of it.

2. Sure, they are good kids. And talented too. But lets say you have two musical actors of equal talent with auditions next week and finals this week. Home schooler arranges her schedule to allow for the best preparation; public schooler does not have that option. The reverse: home schooler is the better performer but the director making the selection loves the public schooler from seeing her in class every day for four years. Either way there will be new types of conflict that stem directly from the differing situations.

3. Your assumption is that parents will just accept the "washout." My experience is that folks who say "my kid has a right to participate "will be in the principal's office or at the school board meeting complaining about the coach who washed the kid out.

4. Then wire around it in the bill that is creating the right. But that won't happen because Dan Patrick and his minions don't give a crap about public schools. If this causes headaches for those schools, so be it, is their philosophy.

contrario said:

---

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.

---

And I am saying almost all NCAA student athletes are real students. The few star football players who major in basket weaving does not materially change that.

There is a lot of interesting posts & positions on this thread, but only a few things that I haven't heard before over the 12+ years as a homeschooling parent.

We decided to homeschool because we realized with our first child, that she was already about 2 grades ahead of her peers. She was 4 years old, and already reading on her own. She was picking up Spanish from my interactions with neighbors down the street from Mexico City. She was gifted. No big deal, because our local school was rated one of the best elementary in Bexar County (Hardy Oak Elementary NEISD in the mid 2000s). Some of the teachers went to our local church in Stone Oak, and we got to know them pretty well. From our conversations with them, we quickly realized that our daughter would do very well, even though she wouldn't need or receive much attention from the teachers. At the time teachers were focusing all their time on the worst students, to bring up their scores. We decided that this wasn't a good fit for our daughter. Abby was already showing signs of arrogance due to her realization that she was smarter than everyone else her age. She needed parenting of her character, more than she needed anything else. Shipping her off for 7-8 hours a day, to a place which would only re-enforce her feelings of superiority while providing no positive character development... this was a disaster scenario.

The private schools in our area ain't cheap at all. We really wanted to send her to one of those, as they made it part of their mission to develop Godly character as well as push for elite academics. We were already paying a ton in NEISD taxes, so adding another $5-$8 thousand in tuition was not even close to an option for us. We already knew a number of homeschooling families in our church, so we decided to talk with them. Most of the families were of the homeschool for elementary / public or private for HS variety of homeschool. There were only 2 families which planned to homeschool all the way thru, and one of those ended up doing that for half of their kids while the other has done it for 3 of their 5 so far. So we decided that we would give it a year with our first child. As I said, it's been 12+ years now. I can't see us doing anything else, but I will always leave that option open. For example: if true school choice was ever realized, we would strongly consider using our vouchers for one of the excellent private Christian schools in the Bexar County area, but never for a public school.

This is already really long, and I apologize for that, but it is a HUGE topic. Let me break it down by categories of discussion from here.

SOCIALIZATION
This is traditionally the first concern of the grandparents, in my experience anyway. I suppose it is socialization instead of academics due to the fact that the grandparents have seen all my babies knowing the ABCs by 3 and reading books by 4... so Academics takes 2nd place as an issue.
Our family enjoys a vigorous social life. We have been involved in our church, neighborhood activities, YMCA and i9 sports, etc. Our kids also attend a once-a-week educational Co-Op, with about 32-40 other families (varies from year to year). The education provided is decent, but it's more about giving our kids exposure to classroom settings, other teachers, and more interactions with other students. Our Co-Op is less than $7k per year for 4 students. Others in our area are up to $4k per student per year. Usually the local Co-Op will be less than half the expense of a private school, so it's still a bargain.
The biggest thing about socialization is that my kids are getting exposed to "the real world" in a manner which allows for my wife and I to be a true part of their social development. My kids are in youth group with over 100 other kids, the vast majority attend the local NEISD public schools... some of the top rated in the state of Texas. My daughters are horrified by the stories they have to hear every week. Pregnancies, abortions, rape, violent assaults, school shooting drills, cutting, online bullying, porn addictions, eating disorders, rampant homosexuality, gender confused kids, disrespect and violence towards teachers & staff... it's pretty dang horrifying stuff. If THAT is what passes for "socialization"... you can have it! No thanks to all of it! Before you say, "well, that's the REAL world".... look at that list above, and ask yourself how many of those items you deal with at your job on a weekly basis? How many co-workers are cutting themselves? How many are getting raped by their boyfriends? How many workplace shooting drills did you endure last year? And if you did have to deal with these things on a weekly basis, would you just say, "That's the REAL world"?? Really??
On the one hand, many people agree that these are the horrors of public school, but it is really odd that they will then laud the exposure to such horrors as "proper socialization" or "necessary preparation for real life".
It is really crazy that we often hear someone say that an athlete is "just an 18 year old kid" and "you can't expect them to always make an adult decision"... and yet we seem to think it is normal for these adult level horrors to exist every week in a place filled with 14, 15, and 16 year old kids. And remember, these are the top rated NEISD schools in the very affluent suburbs of the Stone Oak area... not some inner-city, poor performing school.
One thing I teach my kids, is the same thing I teach in our local parenting classes... to be a true follower of Christ, is to be "different". Our world today is a very, very dark place. True Christianity is seen as a very weird and strange life, compared to what passes for "normal" today. If someone says that you are a "weirdo" or a "freak", you should see that as an ultimate compliment.
As a parent, the very LAST thing you should want is for your kids to appear "normal". If your kids are following Jesus, they will always be seen as odd, different, unusual, strange, weird, etc.
You may disagree, but ask yourself this: If you met a teenager who said "yes sir' all the time, looked you in the eye instead of staring at a phone, was able to have a pleasant conversation about something meaningful, was able to ask you thought provoking questions, showed genuine love & care for their younger brother or sister, never showed disrespect for an elder, and displayed genuine contentment in life... would you say "gee, that teenager is totally normal"... or would you wonder why they were so "different"?
My goal is for my kids to be FAR from normal... I value them being "different".

ACADEMICS
I'm not going to waste a lot of time here with stats & figures. I think most on this thread are aware of the realities... the average homeschooler scores WAY better than the average public schooler... and it's not even close. Even the worst homeschool kid I have ever met, was only slightly below the average public school student. So let me express something different.

Not all kids learn in the exact same way. If you have had 3 or more kids, you already know this, but you may not have realized that it applies to academics as well as parenting. My first daughter almost taught herself to read, just by watching. My younger daughter struggled with the basics of reading. We discovered that she had a vision problem, and we were able to transform her academic program into a vision therapy program. She was 2 grades behind in reading by the time she was in 4th grade, but her math was ahead... how is that possible? My wife and I had to do all of her lessons orally, while we continued her vision therapy, and worked on her reading skills. The therapy worked, and by 6th grade she was at 5th grade level reading. She is now in 8th grade, and reading classical literature which you might find in Freshman English at Baylor. She hated Algebra 1, but loves Geometry... needless to say that I connect easily with this child! LOL

The reason that academics work so well with homeschooling is simply because you are not trying to use one system of education for all students. You can discover what works and what doesn't, and then use the proper system to educate effectively. My teenagers now know themselves enough to develop their own systems for each subject, and they do very well. My wife and I are always there, if they hit a hard spot... and it does happen quite a bit. Is this not proper preparation for "the real world"? Doesn't that sound like what you do in your own life? Figure it out, and lean on a mentor when you hit the wall?

ATHLETICS & EXTRAS
I said before that we do YMCA and i9 sports with our kids at a young age. We have also done some Homeschool vs. Private School sports, but that wasn't a fit for us in the long run. The Homeschool athletic teams required us to drive deep into the heart of San Antonio for practices and games, and we now live out in the county, which is almost an hour drive each way, with traffic. My kids are also involved in school plays, musicals, Christmas specials, etc through their Co-Op. The performing arts class is far more than I had expected with such a small Co-Op... so I guess we got lucky there. While it is expensive and possible for my kids to take piano lessons, I would much prefer to have the local programs available from our public school, and would consider it if this bill passes into law. There would be some logistics to figure out, but it could be worth it if they could learn an instrument and be part of an orchestra.
As for sports... I'm not sure yet. I remember what it was like to be part of the football team in a public High School. I would definitely need to prepare my boys for that insanity... but I have no idea how bad it may have gotten since the 1980s... I shudder to think. My girls would be interested in Volleyball, but especially tennis for them. I have no idea if we would actually attempt it, but it sure would be nice to have the option.


COMMUNITY
I saw some comments on this, and found it hilarious. Some made it sound as if these kids will be shipped in from outer space, with no connection to the community... as if the only way to be a part of the community is to attend the local public classroom.... really??? My kids are highly involved in our church. They play and interact with the kids in our neighborhood. We see friends when we go to the local HEB or Costco or coffee shop or restaurant. We LIVE here... we ARE the community!
My daughters are leaders in the youth group. This came about because they were recognized as girls with something to offer. They take part in counseling and praying for their friends who are traumatized by the events happening in their classmates lives. Many of the girls in our youth group are great kids, but they are emotionally distraught by the violence, sex, and other horrors they witness every week in public school.


This is so freaking long..... I'm gonna stop here, even though I haven't touched on Christian education, Discipling rather than just Discipline, Civic duty & service, Sacrifices vs. gains, and my very favorite... Lifestyle education.
If you read this far... what is wrong with you!! LOL

Homeschooling isn't for everyone... but with the right level of sacrificing & dedication, it could be an option for almost everyone.

Good post. I agree with that. From our experience, most private schools (even ones that are considered strong) aren't better than good AP programs at good public schools. They just make kids do a lot more work. Then you've got to sort through what you prefer re: the social aspects of one versus the other. That's obviously very personal. The super heavy hitter private schools are outliers, but that's largely based on selection (inputs have a lot to do with outputs) and funding which has to do with who you can hire as teachers. I would still have other reservations about those places right now, but that's all for another thread.

Good point re: some star athletes or other high extracurricular performers pulling out of school to be homeschooled. I hadn't thought about that possibility. I would not expect to see much of that because I think that could blow up their college recruiting (much different than a kid who is getting rigorous homeschool then decides to go use the local school for extracurriculars), but would be interesting to see it play out.

Make no mistake, objections to homeschool are pretty much all a defense of public schools. If there's one good thing that came from COVID, it's the knowledge that virtually anyone can be a teacher...a good teacher....and most parents will be better K12 teachers than any public employees their kids will ever have. It prompted us to pull our kids out of the most expensive private school in our city and into a second private school that still sucked, but shut down so often, we were defacto homeschool parents.

My son leaped ahead in his writing and math (and he was already a grade ahead) while my daughter went from tentative reading to burning through books on her own in a day. They both started learning Spanish and guitar/piano respectively. The best teachers your kids will ever have are their parents.

The only justification for public school now, IMO, is babysitting. That's a valid justification when both parents need to work. But if you let the homeschooling stop when you are home, you are short changing your kids, because very few teachers actually care.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good post. I agree with that. From our experience, most private schools (even ones that are considered strong) aren't better than good AP programs at good public schools. They just make kids do a lot more work. Then you've got to sort through what you prefer re: the social aspects of one versus the other. That's obviously very personal. The super heavy hitter private schools are outliers, but that's largely based on selection (inputs have a lot to do with outputs) and funding which has to do with who you can hire as teachers. I would still have other reservations about those places right now, but that's all for another thread.

Good point re: some star athletes or other high extracurricular performers pulling out of school to be homeschooled. I hadn't thought about that possibility. I would not expect to see much of that because I think that could blow up their college recruiting (much different than a kid who is getting rigorous homeschool then decides to go use the local school for extracurriculars), but would be interesting to see it play out.

---

If only they thought that far ahead...

Canon said:

---

Make no mistake, objections to homeschool are pretty much all a defense of public schools. If there's one good thing that came from COVID, it's the knowledge that virtually anyone can be a teacher...a good teacher....and most parents will be better K12 teachers than any public employees their kids will ever have. It prompted us to pull our kids out of the most expensive private school in our city and into a second private school that still sucked, but shut down so often, we were defacto homeschool parents.

My son leaped ahead in his writing and math (and he was already a grade ahead) while my daughter went from tentative reading to burning through books on her own in a day. They both started learning Spanish and guitar/piano respectively. The best teachers your kids will ever have are their parents.

The only justification for public school now, IMO, is babysitting. That's a valid justification when both parents need to work. But if you let the homeschooling stop when you are home, you are short changing your kids, because very few teachers actually care.

---

Utter and complete BS.

And the vast majority of people could not wait for schools to open back up because they found teaching while parenting extremely difficult.

Finally and as usual, your worldview is incredibly narrow. You may have the education to help a high schooler with physics, chemistry, etc. but a huge chunk of our society does not.

And note-I have never attacked home schooling; it is just an unrealistic option for about 90% of the population.

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.

---

But you should still have to pay $2000 to $10,000 taxes a year to support the local public school. Right?

I'm pretty ambivalent here. My brother is retiring as a Jr. High Athletic Coordinator this year, he doesn't care really. Most legit Home School kids are good kids. Most are not all that athletic compared to a 5A/6A school athlete.

My child won the shot put at his TAAPS 4A district area meet a couple years back, I made sure to let him know he would have been 7th in the Arlington middle school district meet. Which is pretty good out of the 30 that competed.

That said, most Home School or small private school kids are not competitive with a top 6A school athlete or shoot even a top 3A athlete, a real home school kid would usually just be along for the ride and not make any real contribution to an average suburban Public school team.

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

Make no mistake, objections to homeschool are pretty much all a defense of public schools. If there's one good thing that came from COVID, it's the knowledge that virtually anyone can be a teacher...a good teacher....and most parents will be better K12 teachers than any public employees their kids will ever have. It prompted us to pull our kids out of the most expensive private school in our city and into a second private school that still sucked, but shut down so often, we were defacto homeschool parents.

My son leaped ahead in his writing and math (and he was already a grade ahead) while my daughter went from tentative reading to burning through books on her own in a day. They both started learning Spanish and guitar/piano respectively. The best teachers your kids will ever have are their parents.

The only justification for public school now, IMO, is babysitting. That's a valid justification when both parents need to work. But if you let the homeschooling stop when you are home, you are short changing your kids, because very few teachers actually care.

---

Utter and complete BS.

And the vast majority of people could not wait for schools to open back up because they found teaching while parenting extremely difficult.

Finally and as usual, your worldview is incredibly narrow. You may have the education to help a high schooler with physics, chemistry, etc. but a huge chunk of our society does not.

And note-I have never attacked home schooling; it is just an unrealistic option for about 90% of the population.

---

Yea, the bolded I agree with. Most teachers do care. They may get overwhelmed by the system they are in,
but they do care.

Of course the best teacher you own kid will ever have is their actual parent.

That said most parents I know can't teach Algebra or Chemistry or Trigonometry competently and would need tutors to help.

Wife's cousin, who has a master's from Baylor, and her husband, not a college grad and a guy who couldn't hold a sales job because of his nutty religious views, homeschooled their 5 kids. They only stopped having kids because Hubs wasn't bringing in any money with his Guitars for Worship ministry.

The family lost their house in Ft Worth. There was a period when people from their church were letting them housesit while they were out of the country so they'd have a place to live. Wife finally went back to work over husband's objections because, with a Baylor degree, she could get a job and put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

None of the kids went to college. One went on some kind of Quiverfull mission trip and married at 18 into a quiverfull family in east jesus, Nebraska. Hubs didnt care about a college education for his kids because he didnt have one. Notice he didnt have a job that would support his family for most of his career either.

He also thought God would provide. God did. Wife got a job.

Her late uncle was a hard-core Baptist but even he started to question the wisdom of an educational curriculum that didn't prepare the kids for college or the job market and made marriage at 18 a better fate than staying at home for a hand to mouth existence.

Good thing there are no negative anecdotes about public schools or people who have attended them.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Good thing there are no negative anecdotes about public schools or people who have attended them.

---

Meaning 80% of American students?

J.B.Katz said:

---

Wife's cousin, who has a master's from Baylor, and her husband, not a college grad and a guy who couldn't hold a sales job because of his nutty religious views, homeschooled their 5 kids. They only stopped having kids because Hubs wasn't bringing in any money with his Guitars for Worship ministry.

The family lost their house in Ft Worth. There was a period when people from their church were letting them housesit while they were out of the country so they'd have a place to live. Wife finally went back to work over husband's objections because, with a Baylor degree, she could get a job and put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

None of the kids went to college. One went on some kind of Quiverfull mission trip and married at 18 into a quiverfull family in east jesus, Nebraska. Hubs didnt care about a college education for his kids because he didnt have one. Notice he didnt have a job that would support his family for most of his career either.

He also thought God would provide. God did. Wife got a job.

Her late uncle was a hard-core Baptist but even he started to question the wisdom of an educational curriculum that didn't prepare the kids for college or the job market and made marriage at 18 a better fate than staying at home for a hand to mouth existence.

---

I always love these fictional, over-the-top in their stereotypes, anecdotes. They are as humorous as they are unbelievable. Thanks for the laugh, jinx.

Booray said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Boo, I totally agree. I fear that speaking up about solutions or mitigation strategies leaves me open to charges of racism or that I'm making class distinctions.
It was easier to just move somewhere where the peer group was less damaged.

What do we do?

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Boo, I totally agree. I fear that speaking up about solutions or mitigation strategies leaves me open to charges of racism or that I'm making class distinctions.
It was easier to just move somewhere where the peer group was less damaged.

What do we do?

---

You do for you and yours first and give as much help to others as you can.

I think each end has problems. People who homeschool their kids should not lose the privilege of playing school sports, not least because as an old official the 'only shows up for practice and game day' thing was pretty common at a lot of urban schools. But I also think it's wise to put some limits on just where a home-schooled kid gets to play, and how he/she is determined to be eligible.

For home-school kids who want to play at a public school sports, the rule should be they are assigned to the public school geographically closest to where they live. Those kids would need to pass the same physical exam and have the same vaccinations as athletes at the school. The kid would have to provide proof of passing a proctored exam showing academic proficiency at the declared grade level, or pass a two hour survey-type exam at the school to demonstrate that proficiency.

And no home-schooled kid gets to automatically make the team or be guaranteed playing time. Just like anyone else, you earn your spot.

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Wife's cousin, who has a master's from Baylor, and her husband, not a college grad and a guy who couldn't hold a sales job because of his nutty religious views, homeschooled their 5 kids. They only stopped having kids because Hubs wasn't bringing in any money with his Guitars for Worship ministry.

The family lost their house in Ft Worth. There was a period when people from their church were letting them housesit while they were out of the country so they'd have a place to live. Wife finally went back to work over husband's objections because, with a Baylor degree, she could get a job and put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

None of the kids went to college. One went on some kind of Quiverfull mission trip and married at 18 into a quiverfull family in east jesus, Nebraska. Hubs didnt care about a college education for his kids because he didnt have one. Notice he didnt have a job that would support his family for most of his career either.

He also thought God would provide. God did. Wife got a job.

Her late uncle was a hard-core Baptist but even he started to question the wisdom of an educational curriculum that didn't prepare the kids for college or the job market and made marriage at 18 a better fate than staying at home for a hand to mouth existence.

---

I always love these fictional, over-the-top in their stereotypes, anecdotes. They are as humorous as they are unbelievable. Thanks for the laugh, jinx.

---

I'm more than willing to say that there are at least a few stories like this out there. I know firsthand that the quiverfull thing was real, right up until the mid 2000s (thanks Duggars and TLC). I can also tell you firsthand that it was never more than a single digit percentage of the homeschoolers across the nation... but they were very outspoken and got a ton of media attention.
Within that movement, there was a tiny fraction would could fit this story. The majority of the quiverfull folks, actually took education very seriously and produced some very well educated graduates.

You really have to look at the percentages and outcomes.

If this story represents the most common "horror story" of homeschooling... how does that match up to the most common "horror story" of public school? Are you really willing to compare kids with a lack-luster education who get married at a young age to kids with zero education, a criminal record, multiple kids with multiple partners, etc??

If you were forced to choose between all of the greatness and worst of homeschooling vs all the greatness and worst of public schooling... could you honestly say that you would choose public schooling?

what percentage of people on death row were homeschooled? what percentage went to public school? what percentage are the dreaded "quiverfull" group?

Of course, homeschool isn't perfect, but the story you relay isn't even representative of a full 1% of current homeschoolers. And how many of the kids in your story went on to a life of crime... and this is probably the worst homeschooling story that you encountered?

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

Make no mistake, objections to homeschool are pretty much all a defense of public schools. If there's one good thing that came from COVID, it's the knowledge that virtually anyone can be a teacher...a good teacher....and most parents will be better K12 teachers than any public employees their kids will ever have. It prompted us to pull our kids out of the most expensive private school in our city and into a second private school that still sucked, but shut down so often, we were defacto homeschool parents.

My son leaped ahead in his writing and math (and he was already a grade ahead) while my daughter went from tentative reading to burning through books on her own in a day. They both started learning Spanish and guitar/piano respectively. The best teachers your kids will ever have are their parents.

The only justification for public school now, IMO, is babysitting. That's a valid justification when both parents need to work. But if you let the homeschooling stop when you are home, you are short changing your kids, because very few teachers actually care.

---

Utter and complete BS.

And the vast majority of people could not wait for schools to open back up because they found teaching while parenting extremely difficult.

Finally and as usual, your worldview is incredibly narrow. You may have the education to help a high schooler with physics, chemistry, etc. but a huge chunk of our society does not.

And note-I have never attacked home schooling; it is just an unrealistic option for about 90% of the population.

---

The mass teacher objection to returning to teaching suggests you are wrong. Some teachers care. Most do not. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Teachers used to care, once upon a time. No longer.

People couldn't wait for schools to open back up for exactly the reason I pointed out...babysitting. Teaching K12 material is literally child's play. People would just rather have free time to do other things or they need to work.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think each end has problems. People who homeschool their kids should not lose the privilege of playing school sports, not least because as an old official the 'only shows up for practice and game day' thing was pretty common at a lot of urban schools. But I also think it's wise to put some limits on just where a home-schooled kid gets to play, and how he/she is determined to be eligible.

For home-school kids who want to play at a public school sports, the rule should be they are assigned to the public school geographically closest to where they live. Those kids would need to pass the same physical exam and have the same vaccinations as athletes at the school. The kid would have to provide proof of passing a proctored exam showing academic proficiency at the declared grade level, or pass a two hour survey-type exam at the school to demonstrate that proficiency.

And no home-schooled kid gets to automatically make the team or be guaranteed playing time. Just like anyone else, you earn your spot.

---

agree all the way through but, many coaches keep their jobs by winning. We already know coaches don't always make the beat choices for the kids but for that one upcoming game.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think each end has problems. People who homeschool their kids should not lose the privilege of playing school sports, not least because as an old official the 'only shows up for practice and game day' thing was pretty common at a lot of urban schools. But I also think it's wise to put some limits on just where a home-schooled kid gets to play, and how he/she is determined to be eligible.

For home-school kids who want to play at a public school sports, the rule should be they are assigned to the public school geographically closest to where they live. Those kids would need to pass the same physical exam and have the same vaccinations as athletes at the school. The kid would have to provide proof of passing a proctored exam showing academic proficiency at the declared grade level, or pass a two hour survey-type exam at the school to demonstrate that proficiency.

And no home-schooled kid gets to automatically make the team or be guaranteed playing time. Just like anyone else, you earn your spot.

---

agree all the way through but, many coaches keep their jobs by winning. We already know coaches don't always make the beat choices for the kids but for that one upcoming game.

---

Yes, but that is a coaching ethics issue, and has been common in public-school sports since the start of it all. Bringing in home-school kids won't change that one way or another.

Quote:

---

For home-school kids who want to play at a public school sports, the rule should be they are assigned to the public school geographically closest to where they live.

---

Absolutely agree. Don't see how or why it would be any other way.

Quote:

---

Those kids would need to pass the same physical exam and have the same vaccinations as athletes at the school.

---

Physical exam is a no brainer, but there are a ton of existing loopholes to vaccinations. The heart of your argument is absolutely correct here... all students should be held to the exact same standards.

Quote:

---

The kid would have to provide proof of passing a proctored exam showing academic proficiency at the declared grade level, or pass a two hour survey-type exam at the school to demonstrate that proficiency.

---

This is where the differences happen. There are some homeschool families which don't care if their student "falls behind" for a year or two, as it is pretty easy to catchup later on. In most homeschool families, this is rare at the high school level, but very common between 4th - 9th grade. It is common for a student to struggle with a certain skill/topic/fundamental, but once they finally get it they can blaze through and catchup. It is a nice feature of homeschooling that you can pause and take time, rather than putting insane pressure to keep on an arbitrary timeline. Again, once you get beyond the fundamental education levels and into High School levels, this is less of an issue.
So I think requiring testing would be a necessity for competitive sports, I would like to see that dropped for none-competitive extra-curriculars like music, art, drama, etc.

Quote:

---

And no home-schooled kid gets to automatically make the team or be guaranteed playing time. Just like anyone else, you earn your spot.

---

I have never met a homeschool family that would ever express this kind of attitude. Quite the contrary. Most homeschool families that I know focus a lot of time on teaching their students that "life isn't fair" and "you must earn anything worth having".
Honestly, I don't know how this could even be a necessary point to make, unless there are other students who are guaranteed playing time, and you are only requiring this of the homeschool kids? Just agree that all students must participate in the same way, and this takes care of itself. No differing expectations for anyone, for any reason.... done!

Canon said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

Make no mistake, objections to homeschool are pretty much all a defense of public schools. If there's one good thing that came from COVID, it's the knowledge that virtually anyone can be a teacher...a good teacher....and most parents will be better K12 teachers than any public employees their kids will ever have. It prompted us to pull our kids out of the most expensive private school in our city and into a second private school that still sucked, but shut down so often, we were defacto homeschool parents.

My son leaped ahead in his writing and math (and he was already a grade ahead) while my daughter went from tentative reading to burning through books on her own in a day. They both started learning Spanish and guitar/piano respectively. The best teachers your kids will ever have are their parents.

The only justification for public school now, IMO, is babysitting. That's a valid justification when both parents need to work. But if you let the homeschooling stop when you are home, you are short changing your kids, because very few teachers actually care.

---

Utter and complete BS.

And the vast majority of people could not wait for schools to open back up because they found teaching while parenting extremely difficult.

Finally and as usual, your worldview is incredibly narrow. You may have the education to help a high schooler with physics, chemistry, etc. but a huge chunk of our society does not.

And note-I have never attacked home schooling; it is just an unrealistic option for about 90% of the population.

---

The mass teacher objection to returning to teaching suggests you are wrong. Some teachers care. Most do not. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Teachers used to care, once upon a time. No longer.

People couldn't wait for schools to open back up for exactly the reason I pointed out...babysitting. Teaching K12 material is literally child's play. People would just rather have free time to do other things or they need to work.

---

The "mass teacher objection" didn't happen in the entire state of Texas. The teachers I know (hundreds of them) have all been teaching in purpose all year without objection.

As to "Teaching K12 material is literally child's play" -that is an absolute joke. As I mentioned, on a content level there are millions of parents who do not have the that ability. There are also millions of kids who present learning challenges.

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.

---

So a parent whose taxes go to pay for the public school system shouldn't be able to partake in the the benefits of what their tax dollars support? That doesn't make sense.

There have been laws on the books for years that special needs children who don't attend public school are allowed the benefit of special needs programs. Why shouldn't the same rule apply to sports?

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

So a parent whose taxes go to pay for the public school system shouldn't be able to partake in the the benefits of what their tax dollars support? That doesn't make sense.

There have been laws on the books for years that special needs children who don't attend public school are allowed the benefit of special needs programs. Why shouldn't the same rule apply to sports?

---

Special needs kids and special talent, 6'2", left handed fastball throwing kids deserve the same benefits.

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

So a parent whose taxes go to pay for the public school system shouldn't be able to partake in the the benefits of what their tax dollars support? That doesn't make sense.

There have been laws on the books for years that special needs children who don't attend public school are allowed the benefit of special needs programs. Why shouldn't the same rule apply to sports?

---

No one is saying that they can't participate in sports. The objectors are saying you can't participate in sports without full time enrollment. Its a parent choice to forego both the benefits and the detriments of public school.

Next-I'll take math class but not English? Or-I am not really interested in your rules around lunch time campus access so my kid won't obey them? I disagree with the whole evolution conversation so he will be sitting out the next three weeks?

Again, property taxes are not a user fee. You don't have to pay property taxes to use the schools; not having children does not exempt you.

ShooterTX said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Wife's cousin, who has a master's from Baylor, and her husband, not a college grad and a guy who couldn't hold a sales job because of his nutty religious views, homeschooled their 5 kids. They only stopped having kids because Hubs wasn't bringing in any money with his Guitars for Worship ministry.

The family lost their house in Ft Worth. There was a period when people from their church were letting them housesit while they were out of the country so they'd have a place to live. Wife finally went back to work over husband's objections because, with a Baylor degree, she could get a job and put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

None of the kids went to college. One went on some kind of Quiverfull mission trip and married at 18 into a quiverfull family in east jesus, Nebraska. Hubs didnt care about a college education for his kids because he didnt have one. Notice he didnt have a job that would support his family for most of his career either.

He also thought God would provide. God did. Wife got a job.

Her late uncle was a hard-core Baptist but even he started to question the wisdom of an educational curriculum that didn't prepare the kids for college or the job market and made marriage at 18 a better fate than staying at home for a hand to mouth existence.

---

I always love these fictional, over-the-top in their stereotypes, anecdotes. They are as humorous as they are unbelievable. Thanks for the laugh, jinx.

---

I'm more than willing to say that there are at least a few stories like this out there. I know firsthand that the quiverfull thing was real, right up until the mid 2000s (thanks Duggars and TLC). I can also tell you firsthand that it was never more than a single digit percentage of the homeschoolers across the nation... but they were very outspoken and got a ton of media attention.
Within that movement, there was a tiny fraction would could fit this story. The majority of the quiverfull folks, actually took education very seriously and produced some very well educated graduates.

You really have to look at the percentages and outcomes.

If this story represents the most common "horror story" of homeschooling... how does that match up to the most common "horror story" of public school? Are you really willing to compare kids with a lack-luster education who get married at a young age to kids with zero education, a criminal record, multiple kids with multiple partners, etc??

If you were forced to choose between all of the greatness and worst of homeschooling vs all the greatness and worst of public schooling... could you honestly say that you would choose public schooling?

what percentage of people on death row were homeschooled? what percentage went to public school? what percentage are the dreaded "quiverfull" group?

Of course, homeschool isn't perfect, but the story you relay isn't even representative of a full 1% of current homeschoolers. And how many of the kids in your story went on to a life of crime... and this is probably the worst homeschooling story that you encountered?

---

My m-in-law taught elementary school for 25 years. She's a quiet, conservative woman, and she was as disgusted as I've ever seen her about this situation.

The kids could read, write and do math, but the science curriculum was creationist and when our kids were reading Harry Potter she was warned by her niece that those books 'celebrated witchcraft."

None of those kids could score well enough on a college prep exam to get into Baylor. Which was where there mother went.

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

Make no mistake, objections to homeschool are pretty much all a defense of public schools. If there's one good thing that came from COVID, it's the knowledge that virtually anyone can be a teacher...a good teacher....and most parents will be better K12 teachers than any public employees their kids will ever have. It prompted us to pull our kids out of the most expensive private school in our city and into a second private school that still sucked, but shut down so often, we were defacto homeschool parents.

My son leaped ahead in his writing and math (and he was already a grade ahead) while my daughter went from tentative reading to burning through books on her own in a day. They both started learning Spanish and guitar/piano respectively. The best teachers your kids will ever have are their parents.

The only justification for public school now, IMO, is babysitting. That's a valid justification when both parents need to work. But if you let the homeschooling stop when you are home, you are short changing your kids, because very few teachers actually care.

---

Utter and complete BS.

And the vast majority of people could not wait for schools to open back up because they found teaching while parenting extremely difficult.

Finally and as usual, your worldview is incredibly narrow. You may have the education to help a high schooler with physics, chemistry, etc. but a huge chunk of our society does not.

And note-I have never attacked home schooling; it is just an unrealistic option for about 90% of the population.

---

What do you mean Booray? That most public school teachers aren't just in it for that massive paycheck and excellent healthcare?