VA Senate Sacks Tebow Bill

[ThomasDenton 79]

http://www.tricities.com/news/local/article_ce656c9e-76cf-11e2-a261-0019bb30f31a.html

 

Looks like homeschoolers in Virginia won't be able to play sports at public schools. Those on the homeschoolers' side have a good point about their tax money going to public schools and funding those schools' athletics, but Sen. Saslaw made a better point when he told one parent "Your taxes also purchase an F-22 jet fighter, but that doesn't give you the right to fly it."

[Deleted Account 5,203]

http://www.tricities.com/news/local/article_ce656c9e-76cf-11e2-a261-0019bb30f31a.html

 

Looks like homeschoolers in Virginia won't be able to play sports at public schools. Those on the homeschoolers' side have a good point about their tax money going to public schools and funding those schools' athletics, but Sen. Saslaw made a better point when he told one parent "Your taxes also purchase an F-22 jet fighter, but that doesn't give you the right to fly it."

 

Senator Saslaw's point is moronic in a multitude of ways. First, education in the United States is compulsory, while joining the Air Force is not. Second, any child has the right to join athletic programs in a public school with positive attendance and academics, while only elite, trained individuals have the privilege of flying a jet. Third, Saslaw fails to recognize the state/federal funding divide in his analogy.

 

I could go on.

 

I am on Senator Saslaw's side on this particular issue, but I despise when people on my side make stupid arguments to justify it. The justification is as important, if not moreso, than the result you're trying to achieve.

[Hacker 82]

Senator Saslaw's point is moronic in a multitude of ways. First, education in the United States is compulsory, while joining the Air Force is not. Second, any child has the right to join athletic programs in a public school with positive attendance and academics, while only elite, trained individuals have the privilege of flying a jet. Third, Saslaw fails to recognize the state/federal funding divide in his analogy.

 

I could go on.

 

I am on Senator Saslaw's side on this particular issue, but I despise when people on my side make stupid arguments to justify it. The justification is as important, if not moreso, than the result you're trying to achieve.[/quote

 

Truth is most of our elected representatives can be quite smug in committee and on the floor. Go to a few sessions of the General Assembly and you will see what I mean.

[sup_rbeast 296]

IMO, if a kid wants to play a sport for a public school, the kid needs to enroll and attend a public school. If he or she (or the family) doesn't feel that attending a public school is good enough for them, they why should they feel that playing a sport for a public school is good enough for them? It's time that society learns that life isn't like Burger King...you can't always have it your way. Here's how I frame this argument: As a citizen you are guaranteed the right of a free education. You are not guaranteed an education on your own terms. As a citizen you are also expected to pay taxes...and reap the benefit of revenue spent. BUT if you CHOOSE to home school or be home schooled, you basically are CHOOSING not to be a part of the public school, and its sports teams as well. If the argument is going to be that the parents pay taxes and therefore, the kids have the right to participate; the answer needs to be that they have opted out of the public school and therefore have opted out of the public school extracurricular activities as well. Establish the precedent, by law, that the 2 are one and the the same and end this debate.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

 

Truth is most of our elected representatives can be quite smug in committee and on the floor. Go to a few sessions of the General Assembly and you will see what I mean.

 

Oh, I know very well, having to deal with representatives on occasion while wearing one of my many hats. Power trip city.

[bucfan64 307]

The old "I pay taxes, so my kids should get to play public school sports," argument. Goes without ever considering the fact that a lot of other people "pay taxes," that benefit public schools, and they don't even have children, or their children are long out of high school.

 

A la carte public school participation would eventually lead to parents choosing to homeschool their child in subjects that they felt were inferior or subjects that their child struggled in, while allowing him or her to take other subjects in the public classroom. There is no end as to where this could go. Some could start arguing that since their tax dollars help pay for school bus transportation that their child should be able to ride the big yellow bus to town, or to nearby neighborhoods etc.

 

I am a huge proponent of homeschooling, but I also think that attempting to mix the two is disasterous.

 

This argument is growing in popularity but in my opinion it would do nothing but make a mockery of competitive high school sports. (there is a joke in this last sentence somewhere, but I'll stop for now)

[Deleted Account 5,203]

The old "I pay taxes, so my kids should get to play public school sports," argument. Goes without ever considering the fact that a lot of other people "pay taxes," that benefit public schools, and they don't even have children, or their children are long out of high school.

 

A la carte public school participation would eventually lead to parents choosing to homeschool their child in subjects that they felt were inferior or subjects that their child struggled in, while allowing him or her to take other subjects in the public classroom. There is no end as to where this could go. Some could start arguing that since their tax dollars help pay for school bus transportation that their child should be able to ride the big yellow bus to town, or to nearby neighborhoods etc.

 

I am a huge proponent of homeschooling, but I also think that attempting to mix the two is disasterous.

 

This argument is growing in popularity but in my opinion it would do nothing but make a mockery of competitive high school sports. (there is a joke in this last sentence somewhere, but I'll stop for now)

 

You make a jump from "homeschool participation in athletics" to "a la carte subject participation" that is neither sequential nor logical.

[bucfan64 307]

You make a jump from "homeschool participation in athletics" to "a la carte subject participation" that is neither sequential nor logical.[/QUOT

 

If the athletic participation argument, which is based on the "because I pay taxes, " position, is deemed acceptable, then it could open the door for other outlandish suggestions based on the same position. This very idea was discussed at the VHSL principals meeting last year. If the can is opened for athletic participation for homeschoolers it could change the entire dynamics of how and what portions of public education could also be affected by a decision that would have allowed homeschool participation. Thus my reason for the a la carte comment.

Edited February 21, 2013 by bucfan64

[sixcat 2,922]

It should be noted that Tim Tebow shouldn't be the "poster child" for allowing home school athletic participation. He did't even play for any of the schools in the "district" in which he lived. His mother secured him an apartment through contacts from their church so he could go to a better program as well as play quarterback. The schools in his "district" all wanted him to play defense or tight end.

 

Kohl said there is a common misconception about the bill’s namesake that he wanted to clear up. “Tim Tebow did not play for his local high school,†he said. “In fact, Tebow moved to a different school district with his mother in order to play his desired position on another team.

“I am not sure that [Tebow] is the best example of someone who played by the spirit of the rule, but more of an example of someone who looked for a loophole to benefit himself,†he said.

 

Copied from an article I pulled from the internet about the bill being defeated in Virginia.