Should homeschoolers be allowed to play on public school teams?

Wow--we got the fields, and the umps, but everything else we provided--and that cost us about $30 for the liability insurance. That was late 70s, early 80s.

I can't tell you how pleased I am to hear that, Missy.
Public schools receive so muck flack, so often .... & sometimes completely unfairly.
It's great to hear about the terrific things they do, too. (often with totally inadequate funding) For a wee bit of a change!
(Big supporter of public education here! As you might have gathered ...
Ha.)

I just read that there are 13,604 public school districts in the US.
Wow.
And each school, in each district, would work out it's own policies on various
aspects of the curriculum, including sport?
It's not surprising that there are so many differences of approach, from area to area ....

You have no idea of how mindboggling 13,604 different districts sounds, compared to the experience here in oz ....
Here each state administers the public schools (which is why they're called "government schools"). With local input from each school's Council.
Not arguing that this is necessarily a superior system (some "edicts from above" have not exactly been met with wild approval from the schools themselves! ) but it does create a more uniform approach between schools.

Anyway ... apologies for the digression, boomerang, but I find these things fascinating.
Really.

Thanks for the insight into your schools, Missy & soz. Much appreciated.

Please carry on now, all .....

Oh good!
More digressors.

Thanks for your input, too, Setanta & Rocky.
I think I'm getting a much clearer picture now ...

Boomerang, may I suggest a remedial raping & pillaging class for Mo?
He obviously needs considerably more tuition in this field to be up to scratch!

Here the states dictate some policy, and provide curriculum guidelines, as well as teaching materials. The variances come in areas such as textbooks--some states buy all the textbooks, in other states they provide a list of approved textbooks, and the schools buy them. The states pay the school districts based on attendance, and there is Federal money which is allotted in a similar manner.

Organized, competetive sports between schools, as others have pointed out, is an extra. The states will organize district, regional and state competitions, and bear some of those costs, but basically, the local school has to find the money for themselves. In most states, schools are supported by property tax levies, and those have to be approved by the electorate. A relatively wealthy area in which the voters are willing to pay the tax levies could have very well supported teams, while relatively poor districts (in regard to property tax) aren't necessarily going to have a lot of cash to spend on sports. There is also "boosterism"--local people contibuting money, holding events like bake sales or raffles to raise money for specific things like uniforms or equipment, well-off, influential people going around to solicit donations. School sports are a big deal here, and most districts find a way to come up with the money. States have their own particularies, too. I mentioned Texas, which is football crazy, and even has leagues with smaller teams for the smaller schools. Indiana, which is an agricultural state with many, many small towns is crazy for basketball (which makes sense, since there's only five players on the floor at a time). Larry Bird is about the most famous Indiana basketball player still living. He was born in a town with fewer than 600 people, and played on a school team in a town with fewer than 2,000 people. That's pretty much par for the course in Indiana, and the rural areas of many states. Larry Bird became "somebody" because of an extraordiary natural talent. Someeon with equivalent talent in a sport such as football might never get the opportunity to attract the atention of the scouts.

Please elucidate and give specific examples. I want to know ... Seriously.

(If you'd prefer, a PM would do.)

Rather similar to here, Setanta.
Except that the states prescribe the broad curriculum guidelines, which all public schools are obliged to adhere too, with more flexibility up until year year 10. And student's are required to supply their own text books.
At senior level (years 11 & 12) called the VCE (Victorian Certificate of Education) in my state, schools must adhere to the guidelines, including prescribed textbooks .... assessment is on a whole-state level, with some assessment being school-based, and a (whole state) examination at the end. Assessment at year 12 is carried out by external (to the schools) examiners.
The school-assessed course work (at year 12) is closely monitored by external state authorities.

As to organised sports at the senior level, there's a VCE subject called Outdoor Education, which sports-inclined students can take. There's an "academic" component to the course (which is assessed, like all other VCE subjects)... there is a requirement that all VCE subjects include a prescribed academic component. Students who do not undertake Outdoor Studies are able to participate in senior school sports teams (& inter-school competition) but their contribution will be noted (in their school record) as a positive contribution to extra-curricula activities of the school.


That seems to be the major difference between our two systems. That it is treated as an "extra".
Just about any worthwhile activity, academic or other, within the school curriculum is acknowledged (either within the formal context of an area of study or less formally, as a positive contribution to the school, via voluntary extracurricular activity. A school "reference", if you like. Potential employers & (to some extent) tertiary institutions pay attention to both.)

When you say that "the states pay the school districts based on attendance", does that mean enrollments or actual attendance?
In my own experience, public schools with "attendance problems" tend to be those with with the most daunting social problems. Like: high & often entrenched unemployment in those communities, lots of "dysfunctional" families, etc ...
It's always seemed a far better idea to address the social disadvantages within those communities, rather than use the schools to enforce attendance. We have lots of those schools here. I have taught in quite a few of them over the years. I know the challenges those schools are confronted with ... And I know (all too well) how little support they receive (despite their very best efforts) in achieving those goals. Unfortunately, so much comes down to any student's family & social environment. I have seen so many students who have made amazing efforts, over & above the call of what most of us would ever be required to make, to drag themselves out of poor family & social circumstances. Any public school with lots of students in situations like this requires extra support, if there is any fairness in the education experience at all. We used to call that the right to "equal opportunity" before it became so unfashionable.

-

This is a prime example of the lack of social skills, and appalling levels of education to be found amongst some home schooled individuals.

All the states require physical education (so that PE is such a commonplace that the acronym means that automatically to everyone). So organized, competetive sports are an extra, while PE is a requirement for all students.

Without expressing an opinion on the best way of dealing with poor attendance, to my knowledge, all states apportion a certain amount of their aid to schools on attendance (not enrollment) and the first act of the home room teacher on every school day is to "take attendance," which means calling out the names of the students and recording their attendance or absence.

Yes, attendance rolls are marked in every single class at schools I've worked at, Setanta.
I believe VCE (senior) students here are required to have attended a minimum of 80% of classes in any subject to be eligible for a "pass" result in that subject.

Thay shud all be legally entitled to play
in the schools' competitive gunnery teams!

Each grade shud have a GOOD prize for that year.





David

Well, here, in many states at least (i can't categorically say all of them), the attendance means X dollars per student per day from the state. It may be pennies, a fraction of a dollar, i don't know, but it's something they harp on. Even when we were just liddlies, we knew that state aid depended upon our attendance.

I've never known one's passing grade to be based upon attendance, but i can't speak to all school systems.

Ha. You don't "pass" because you attended .... but less than 80% attendance implies that you haven't actually participated in quite a sizable chunk of the course in any particular subject.

Yep, various allowances are available to support either families with their children's education costs .... or older, individual students undertaking education:
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/aboutschool/financial/default.htm#3

I think the kid who started all this (the Virginia flap) wanted to be on the local public school's rowing team.

BTW, there's apparently a national home-school sports network with chapters in Virginia and they're in opposition to the measure. (Probably don't trust those steenkin' government schools).

It's the Tim Tebow effect:

Late to the convo, I say not only no, but hell no!

If you want to be on a school team, go to the school.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps I should have been more precise: It's specifically team sports I'm objecting to. I applaud any teachers who take their classes for a run around the block after lunch. I applaud any students who strive for personal growth by getting fitter. But in competitive team sports, the system teaches impressionable young minds to obsess with zero-sum games and pack identities. This is where I part ways with mainstream American culture. This is where schools teach students bad lessons.

I support it, within the physical education context, but what I got wasn't what I should have. I finished the requirements without knowing that everyone on the basketball and football teams had specific positions and roles. Heck, I graduated without even knowing how many fetlocks made a furlong.

Ramen

I think you under estimate sport. It's not always about the competition. The are so many lessons to be learned, not all of them meant to be good or bad. Group sport can be found in almost every culture, from every era. It teaches camaraderie, hand eye coordination, to think on your feet, it dares you to take a chance, improve yourself. A good coach promotes team work, a slap on the back for a good play, discipline, and works with your weaknesses. All the things we look for in a good boss, or an employee.
A pack mentality can be shaped by many things, including family. I was never a star athlete or all that competitive, but I'd never discounted anything I've ever participated in to being zero sum, I try to learn something from everything I do.

I disagree, on the basis of having met plenty of young Germans and young Americans fresh out of high school. School sports teams are pervasive in America, practically non-existent in Germany. Nevertheless, I have found both groups practically equal in their capabilities for team work and fair play, discipline, and all of that. (I can't speak to hand-eye coordination.) The differences between the groups are negligible compared to the differences between individuals within each group. I'm not going to pretend I've run a controlled study, because I haven't. But if school sports made an important difference, I would have noticed that difference between the young German and American grown-ups I have worked with. And I haven't.