Will probably be vetoed by the Gov..
There is also a bill in committee to allow proportional VHSL voting by school size.
There is also a bill in committee to allow proportional VHSL voting by school size.
Tebow Bill Passes Senate Today
- Thread starter tommythecpa
- Start date
My question is, why is the Virginia Government trying to legislate the VHSL? Why bother? The Regions and the schools run the VHSL. Everyone thinks the VHSL dictates whether homeschoolers can be admitted. They don't. Again, the Regions and schools set this policy. Simply sue the VHSL. It's a lot easier and the plaintiff will win. LCA has already proved this. Everyone who pays taxes has the right to play. Simple as that and the Constitution supports it. No contest.
The Governor should not sign it. It's not a VA Government responsibility and they should have nothing to do with it.
I do not object to allowing home schooled kids to play at a public school, however, the devil is in the details of implementation of rules to ensure as level of a playing field as possible and eliminate as many potential loopholes for abuse as possible. The abuse scenarios also create a lot of other potential problems as by products/offshoots. As far as your tax argument goes I don't believe it is "simple as that". Both you and I pay taxes but, that does not entitle us to get in the cockpit and fly a military jet or avail ourselves of a host of other public resources that our tax dollars fund. There are clearly precedents in place to establish rules for access and participation. As far as the analogy to the LCA situation, it is at least questionable whether there is the collective will and deep enough pockets amongst home school advocates to fund a lawsuit and see it through to fruition. The LCA situation was settled by the VHSL because in the final analysis the cost to defend and the risk of an adverse outcome far outweighed the actual cost to implement. It became abundantly clear there would not be a rush among private schools to join the VHSL and accommodating LCA ultimately caused minimal disruptions to the VHSL's business as usual model. The same cost/benefit/risk/reward scenario is not as clear cut in the home school issue. There might be a firm out there whose partners home school their kids and would tackle the issue pro bono but, burying them in documents and minutia and stringing it along would make it an expensive proposition.
The landscape of high school sports is being reshaped with more ESPN demand for inventory and now that Nike is gearing up for "AAU football" the picture is going to get even messier so the home school issue may go away on its own because nobody is going to fight to keep them out if high school sports in essence becomes just a more advanced rec league level. I believe this will happen if the great athletes migrate to these "show" teams. Travel teams have already surpassed high school in basketball, baseball, and girl's softball and the decline in on the field/court products at high schools is apparent. Football at present is the last holdout and if football follows suit the implications are huge from a budget and ongoing operations perspective for high school sports programs as a whole since just like in college football pays the lion's share of the bills.
"...the decline in on the field/court products at high schools is apparent."
I wondered if I'd been imagining things the past several years. I haven't attended a high school basketball game in almost three years, but this had already started to be evident for awhile even back then. I still watch the highlights of local games every evening, and many of today's public school teams look like middle school squads compared to the teams I saw play from the mid-70's until about the mid-to-late 00's. Both in the physical attributes of the players, and their skill sets.
Good reply but taxes is as simple as that. Paying taxes does give you the right to attend a public school. That is a Stae and Federal mandate. Indisputable. Obviously not fly a fighter jet. That analogy has no place here. Good points everywhere else. Doesn't change my view that homeschoolers being allowed to play Public HS sports is inevitable. Right or wrong has no meaning here. It's the legality of it that will superceed everything else. Really, not much different tha Title IX.
You've changed horses in mid stream, to begin with. First you said that paying guarantees one the right to play, and that the Constitution upholds that right. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but even a cursory Internet search reveals that the US Constitution grants zero authority over education to the federal government. In fact, education - let alone extracurricular activity - isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, as the founding fathers saw education as a matter better managed by state and local governments. See "Education and the Constitution" at Cato.org. (I've tried to link to it).
In your next post, you said that paying taxes allows one to attend public school. Well, "attending" and "playing" without attending are two different things, which is why cutnjump's fighter jet analogy is indeed an apt one. Imagine two people. The first tells a judge, "I paid my money. I demand to fly a fighter jet." The second person tells the judge, "I paid my money. I demand that my home-schooled child be allowed to tryout for the local public high school's football team."
How are these two demanding individuals analogous to each other? The judge's response to each will show us:
"First person - you have none of the requisite training or experience to fly a fighter jet. If you somehow acquire the necessary training, and are eligible for the military, you are free to pursue that goal. But for now - you are not qualified.
Second person - you willingly chose to not avail your child of the public educational system. Your child is not enrolled at the public high school. If you enroll your child at that school - which you may do, because no person or entity has denied or will deny your child the right to attend public schools - they are free to tryout for any sports they choose. But for now - your child is not qualified."
There's the analogy - neither person is qualified. Because sports, clubs, and all other extracurricular activities are not separate entities from their schools. You have to be a student there to have access to them. What do you think would happen if I strolled in to Salem High and plunked myself down in the middle of a French club meeting? Think they'd let me stay once I told them my taxes gave me the right to sit in? Think the administration at West Salem Elementary would let a grown man come in and shoot ball in the gym everyday? After all, I paid my taxes, right?
Hardly. It's not nearly as simple as paying taxes. Even when taxes are paid, there are qualifications and conditions that must be met for every situation. And in my mind - and I suspect in the minds of many in the legal trade, if it ever comes to that - the qualification that must be met in order to participate in a school's athletic program is enrollment in that school. As I stated above, none of a school's sports teams are clubs that are open to all comers from anywhere. No one is stopping any of these home-schoolers from getting back into the "free" public educational system. If they want to play, that's what they should have to do. As opposed to being able to unfairly cherry-pick only the most fun aspects of schooling, from a system that they've otherwise rejected. However, as you said - and I do agree on this count - right and wrong rarely factor into such decisions.
Last edited:
Also, concerning the "taxes as free pass" issue:
I don't think the folks at a school district's central office are going to know, or care in the least, if a child's parents have paid their taxes or not. They'll just want to know the child's age and address - basic eligibility.
Now, if the parents haven't paid up, the Treasurer or Commissioner of Revenue might like a word with them. But public schooling is still available, regardless of the family's tax situation.
So - the Constitution doesn't give a flip, and taxes are irrelevant. In light of that, I'm wondering from whence would derive the homeschoolers' right to access extracurricular activities, while still not participating in the system? I don't see it.
I don't think the folks at a school district's central office are going to know, or care in the least, if a child's parents have paid their taxes or not. They'll just want to know the child's age and address - basic eligibility.
Now, if the parents haven't paid up, the Treasurer or Commissioner of Revenue might like a word with them. But public schooling is still available, regardless of the family's tax situation.
So - the Constitution doesn't give a flip, and taxes are irrelevant. In light of that, I'm wondering from whence would derive the homeschoolers' right to access extracurricular activities, while still not participating in the system? I don't see it.
Last edited:
SpartanofYore, you went a little out there in your misinterpretation. I did not mention the constitution at all so you wasted a lot of time.
The analogy of the using a USAF jet remains inappropriate. Paying taxes does not give you the right to fly one. Paying taxes and being eligible does allow you to go to Public School. As you can see from the proposed legislation and the legislation in VA and from other States that allow homeschoolers, they also have requirements to fulfill, mostly regarding academic requirements and some attendance. And in that regard, home schoolers statistically have far better scores in standardized testing Nation Wide than Public Schoolers.
Home schoolers participation in public school activities is now the precedent in the USA. They are enrolled in their schools. They just take classes somewhere else. My kids were enrolled at Courtland but their class's were at the local Governor's school. They played sports at. Courtland. VA just can't hide from this happening anymore. IMO.
The analogy of the using a USAF jet remains inappropriate. Paying taxes does not give you the right to fly one. Paying taxes and being eligible does allow you to go to Public School. As you can see from the proposed legislation and the legislation in VA and from other States that allow homeschoolers, they also have requirements to fulfill, mostly regarding academic requirements and some attendance. And in that regard, home schoolers statistically have far better scores in standardized testing Nation Wide than Public Schoolers.
Home schoolers participation in public school activities is now the precedent in the USA. They are enrolled in their schools. They just take classes somewhere else. My kids were enrolled at Courtland but their class's were at the local Governor's school. They played sports at. Courtland. VA just can't hide from this happening anymore. IMO.
You did mention the Constitution("Everyone who pays taxes has the right to play. Simple as that and the Constitution supports it. No contest") so IMO at least Spartan of Yore did not waste a lot of time. You are entitled to your opinion of my analogy and my thanks to Spartan of Yore for saving me the trouble of typing a response to adequately defend my opinion of the analogy's relevance. The remaining fallacies in your argument are: (1) there is an attendance component to eligibility in addition to academic requirements and "home schools" in Virginia do not satisfy that component and in fact is the biggest question in how to equitably implement the Tebow Bill if it is not vetoed.. Your kids attending governor's school does satisfy that component as the school while maybe not in the same physical location still operates under the same basic guidelines as all public high schools in the State of Virginia.. How are the test scores of home schooled kids relevant to the issue under discussion? Just because this practice is the norm in other states does not make it the norm or even imply it should be the norm in Virginia, one of the unique and great concepts of state sovereignity within our democracy.
Hopefully the Governor will veto tis stupid bill again. Every senator and delegate who voted for it should be thrown out of office.
As for AAU football, everyone should do whatever is necessary to prevent this crap from getting started. It will ruin high school football, even more than AAU has ruined high school basketball. ESPN should stay out of high school sports.
As for AAU football, everyone should do whatever is necessary to prevent this crap from getting started. It will ruin high school football, even more than AAU has ruined high school basketball. ESPN should stay out of high school sports.
This is up to each locality to implement and I think it has a sunset provision. Some school will abuse this if given the opportunity. I can see it now, a few football, basketball, and baseball teams
full of home schooled players .Players that began home schooling when the bill passed. What about the minimum academic requirements that public school athletes face? Here is your loophole.
full of home schooled players .Players that began home schooling when the bill passed. What about the minimum academic requirements that public school athletes face? Here is your loophole.
1. You did mention the Constitution, as others have pointed out.
2. Governor's school is not at all the same thing as home schooling.
3. Home schoolers' test scores have zero relevance here.
4. "Paying taxes and being eligible does allow you to go to Public School."
This seems rather obvious, but ...home schoolers don't go to public school. They go to school at home. They've made that choice. A child who lives in Salem but who is not enrolled, and takes all their classes at home is not a Salem High School student. They are a home school student.
So, as people outside of and not participating in the educational system, home schoolers will need to prove what right they have to that system's fringe benefits. And it has nothing to do with taxes. A kid's parents could be carted away for tax evasion, but that kid still has the right to attend public schools. Or to choose to be home schooled somewhere, in which case they forfeit the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of attending public school, such as playing for that school's sports teams. And once again - that's by choice.
A smart high school coach could divert his players into home schooling, and then he could have the players to practice all day, while opponents are in class. Those home schoolers could be full time athletes.
I found the reference to the Constitution. My bad.
Why do home schoolers test scores have no relevance? Don't better test scores mean the parents made better decisions? What they lack is athletic facilities. They shouldn't be denied that.
Home schoolers, by the standards of the majority of states, still have public school criteria they need to succeed in to play sports. Even the current Bill has them.
The thing is, you're pissing in the wind here. Litigation will make this happen in VA. Just no question about it so bring your objections if you want. Just don't forget your umbrella.
No need to go back to Oz. It could easily happen as I posted. Every heard of those 5-10 student private high schools that some AAU coaches create for their basketball team.
I did mention the Constitution. That was my bad for not only adding it to the argument but denying having done so. You all have my apologies.
But now irrelevant. This is legal precedent. It always wins. It's gay marriage and legalized marijuana. Virginia may be the last but it will still be. Home schoolers will eventually be allowed to play in the CommonWealth.
"Don't better test scores mean the parents made better decisions?"
Wow. Talk about going out there. I'd like to see you, or anyone, try to prove the positive response to that question. Better test scores could be due to any of a wide variety of factors.
And (even if true), the fact that the average home schooler scores better than the average public school student on a standardized test proves that home schoolers should be allowed to play public school sports - how, exactly? It doesn't. It has no bearing on the issue. Read the statement, "Home school kids on average score higher on standardized tests, so they should have access to all the activities at schools they don't attend." There is no logical connection between the parts before and after the comma.
As for "What they lack is athletic facilities. They shouldn't be denied that", you seem to insist upon continuing to ignore the obvious. The parents of home schooled children chose to remove their kids from that environment. No one is denying them anything.
Home schooled kids being granted access to public school extracurriculars in Virginia might indeed happen, someday. I won't need an umbrella for that. The only time I need an umbrella (or in this case, a king-sized tarp) is when I make the mistake of even reading such non-stop torrents of BS - such as "the Constitution guarantees it", "they pay their taxes", and "they have higher test scores" - to begin with.
Or when you try to defend the inevitable and indefensible. But I again must conceed the Constitution comment was not applicable to this case. The others are absolutely correct. Your denial to accept is your prerogative.
From a legal standpoint, they pay the taxes that allow access. Choosing an educational path that provides better academic results is a parent's choice but they cannot provide all the amenities in a home school environment. They have that right also and yes, they will be allowed to pick and choose.
You don't have to like it but that's what it will be.
Last edited:
If a school's classrooms are not good enough for little Johnny, then neither should the soccer team be.
If legal precedent always won there would be no need for appeals courts or the Supreme Court. Furthermore, unless you can point me to the case where the Supreme Court has ruled on home school participation in public school activities I am unsure how you conclude final legal precedent. Gay marriage is much closer to final adjudication than the legalization of marijuana but, there are still pending legal challenges before either issue would be termed fully adjudicated. Again, I am not against home school participation or even contesting that it MAY eventually come to pass, however, it is no where near the fait accompli or slam dunk in Virginia that you contend, in my opinion. The eventual success or failure of the proposal is still tied up in resolving the details of implementation and/or the politics of passing veto proof legislation. You can choose to ignore attendance component and any other established criteria used in defining participation eligibility for public schools, however, they are defensible assertions in a court of law with the concept of already established legal precedent that you cling to in earlier responses which, in my opinion, at least calls in to question your assertion of inevitability.
I personally spoke to Rob Bell about this.He said he will continue to propse this until it passes. I made it quite clear that I was opposed to it. I did, however, let him tell me his reasoning. He did explain the eligibility and grade issue to me. He also hid behind the "doing what my constituents want" argument. I will say the testing and residency requirements are very strict and sem to have some teeth. I think that is how he is pushing this through the legislature. He did not have any answer to "how are extra curricular activities a right?" He spoke in circles on that. He also was completely stumped when I said if his argument was based on paying taxes and a right to participate, how would that apply to private school students. I told him I could see using the same argument. I want my child to have a private school education and then send him/her over to be on the local public school teams. He tried to imply that I was making an apples to oranges comparison. I completely disagreed with him. Unfortunately, he has a very myopic view on this matter. He will not be convinced he is on the wrong side of this issue. Our conversation ended somewhat amicably. However, that might have changed when I suggested he shoud at least attend some high school sporting events before trying to change the landscape. I have never seen him at any at our high school (the attendance zone he lives in).
Thank you for the information and perspective. Hopefully some challenger will eventually arise in his district that will make his stance a hot button campaign issue. Then the validity of his "doing what my constituents want" argument can truly be put to the test. Just as important, force him to clarify his support for the merits for taking such a position over and over despite failure all the while representing a redundant argument requiring taxpayer resources that might be used to address new issues.
Excellent response. But as with gay marriage and marijuana, these issues do not get finally resolved through legislation or politics. They get finalized with litigation. This is how I see the home school issue. It will be forced somewhere, like LCA forced their way into the VHSL. No one but LCA wanted this. The VHSL fought against it. But when LCA went to court, the VHSL didn't want to spend the money on extended litigation they ultimately could not win. I don't see home schoolers being allowed to play any differently.
There is good information on home schoolers and their ongoing battle for full access to inter scholastic competitions here. http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000049.asp
FYI. I've really enjoyed this thread. Probably the most intelligent discussion (not including myself) that I've seen here in a long time. Nice. Not to end things but thanks to all that contributed. Refreshing.
Thanks for the link to the information! That is a good read on the current climate and references home school as well as certain "private school" considerations. You may want to read the document again if you haven't in a while because they specifically state in the conclusion section of the document that Courts have consistently said NO to homeschool access and home school successes albeit limited have come through legislative actions. Also, right in the opening it appears the issue has had some movement/progress in 22 states which is not a majority of states at present. I believe you have misinterpreted the LCA situation. You are correct that "the VHSL didn't want to spend the money on extended litigation", however, their decision was a purely a cost/benefit/risk/reward analysis rather than any conclusion the litigation was something "they could not win." That interpretation was relayed to me by a friend with VHSL ties. This would also seem to be a position fortified by the link to the homeschool info you provided that indicated court actions to date in almost unanimity restrict access to government education services as protected by rules and regulations and access, if granted, is considered a privilege rather than a right. I agree with you that this has been a good discussion.
I will, again, stand by my annual stance on this subject. Home schooling is a right allowed and granted based on the CHOICE that the student and parent make to separate themselves from a particular school or school system. If they make that choice, then I wish them the best of luck and at times certainly envy the fact that they have the ability to spend that time and effort with their children.
The luxury of that choice, however, should also come with a price.
By removing your child from the public schools, you also remove them from being subjected to the same standards a public school student must meet to play sports or participate in extra-curricular activities sponsored through that school.
Your child does not have to sit in class all day and deal with the students that the regular student deals with. He isn't required to weave his way through the crowded hallways where fights sometimes break out. He isn't required to deal with a teacher possibly having a bad day or a fellow student being in a bad mood. Your child, by being home schooled, is removed from all of those possible bad situations that could result in a fight or bad grade that causes the regular student to be ineligible.
The regular public school student, by being forced to deal with the regular day to day happenings at school, earns his RIGHT to represent that school by being a part of it, good or bad.
If the home schooled students want to be a part of an athletic team, they are more than welcomed to join up with local recreation league teams, AAU teams and travel teams. Most communities have a YMCA that offers leagues throughout the year. A home school student who wants to compete in team or individual sports is more than able to do that with minimal travel or expense in a league or group that is NOT affiliated with the very school that they WANTED to remove themselves from.
I'm sorry, but paying taxes does not allow you to have your cake and eat it too while chanting "nah nee nah nee boo boo" at the rest of the world. If you want to represent a certain school, be a part of it.
The luxury of that choice, however, should also come with a price.
By removing your child from the public schools, you also remove them from being subjected to the same standards a public school student must meet to play sports or participate in extra-curricular activities sponsored through that school.
Your child does not have to sit in class all day and deal with the students that the regular student deals with. He isn't required to weave his way through the crowded hallways where fights sometimes break out. He isn't required to deal with a teacher possibly having a bad day or a fellow student being in a bad mood. Your child, by being home schooled, is removed from all of those possible bad situations that could result in a fight or bad grade that causes the regular student to be ineligible.
The regular public school student, by being forced to deal with the regular day to day happenings at school, earns his RIGHT to represent that school by being a part of it, good or bad.
If the home schooled students want to be a part of an athletic team, they are more than welcomed to join up with local recreation league teams, AAU teams and travel teams. Most communities have a YMCA that offers leagues throughout the year. A home school student who wants to compete in team or individual sports is more than able to do that with minimal travel or expense in a league or group that is NOT affiliated with the very school that they WANTED to remove themselves from.
I'm sorry, but paying taxes does not allow you to have your cake and eat it too while chanting "nah nee nah nee boo boo" at the rest of the world. If you want to represent a certain school, be a part of it.
Also maybe he can be made to be on the team but it does not guarantee that he can play
I agree but I think it gives him the right to try. I do not mind cuts. I don't care if he can't make the team. Frankly, there aren't many teams that have to make cuts. I just support their right to try.
I think the LCA issue and the home school issue are two different animals. I don't personally think home schoolers will be playing VHSL sports anytime soon.
AAU football??? this is the first I ever heard of that? Tell me people is not trying to make this happen??
7 on 7s is all that needs to happen in off season football
Football is too dangerous for this to happen. kids dont need to take any hits other than what they take during season and practice.
Lots of discussion going on but, nothing definitive. 7 on 7's and the showcase events popping up around the country are testing the waters for more. There are lots of factors including budget crunches affecting local school districts, liability issues, issues surrounding concussions, etc., etc. that could reshape the landscape of high school athletics. You couple those factors with ESPN demand for program inventory and Nike demand for market share and there is the potential for huge changes in the future. The latest shot across the bow was Nike's $1.7 million dollar deal with the Frisco, Texas school district. That money reportedly represents equipment donations and/or discounts and when coupled with the cross branding and the use of the Dallas Cowboys new indoor practice facility as the first domed high school facility the arms race continues to trickle down from the pros, to the colleges, to high school. ESPN even threw their hat in the ring with the Pop Warner championship games. In a nice bit of irony, because of Frisco rules, that require players to provide their own cleats a kid could be decked from head to ankle in Nike gear and wearing Adidas, Under Armour, etc. cleats. With all the technology affecting media(DVR, live streaming, etc.) these days sports is a huge battleground in the quest for consumers and it shifts a little more everyday at every level from being about the game and the competition to an entertainment, marketing and/or product placement opportunity. Been a high school fan for a very long time primarily due to the minimal nature of commercialization and focus on the game, however, shifts are making it harder and harder to see them as anything more than scaled down versions of their professional and college counterparts.
Last edited:
VA already opened the door to full time practice all year. What did you guys think would happen?
AAU football will be 7 on 7. This will allow the rogue coaches and street agents to get involved. It's happening now in some areas.
Similar threads
