Seems like that's what some on here think for sure.

NoahAg said:

---

I've wasted tens of thousands of dollars on the local ISD with nothing in return. So yeah my homeschooled kids are entitled to every school resource I'm paying for. I'm actually doing the ISD a favor by keeping them home.

---

They actually lose $1,000s of dollars a year by them not attending. They're still getting your tax dollars, but part of their funding comes from attendance.

Lose may be a strong word, but they're missing out on additional money.

True, but not nearly as much as the tax dollars they're getting anyway especially in districts with highly appraised values.
School choice that allows a family to take its tax dollars to the school they attend would be terrifying to a school. So, I think this bill at least creates some equity for those who want to homeschool and are still paying their share of the schools M&O as well as I&S. This law is only right and can't be seriously argued otherwise IMO.

Catag94 said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

Because maybe they like football or baseball or basketball or band and want to engage In these activities (which again, are being funded by their taxes already), and want to engage with other kids while getting a better, more challenging education than what the school can provide? What right do you have to keep them out? What benefit is there to the community for keeping them out?

---

Life is about choices.....if you choose to not go to public school, then that is your choice. But, there are consequences to every choice, and I believe they should attend the school if they want to play for the school. Wouldn't it benefit the community to have the kids in the school and if they are so brilliant, then they can help raise the educational level of their fellow students and community members?

---

You think "brilliant" kids in the classroom help raise the education level of the classroom? As other have said, it only works the other way around. The level of instruction tends to be diluted to accommodate the less apt.

And, so long as they live in the district and pay the school taxes, why shouldn't the kids being homeschooled be able to participate? C'mon man!

---

Not every teacher aims to teach to the bottom, or even the middle as you insinuate. A good teacher can differentiate if need be, and challenge all students at high levels. Why cant the "brilliant" ones bring their ideas and thoughts to add to the discussion, and thus help bring higher learning skills/ideas to the others in the room? As for the other, I personally can't see why a kid would want to wear a jersey and sing a school song of a school they aren't willing to attend. I think athletics is a huge part of the overall "school" experience, and attending classes and being a part of the "school" is an important aspect of being a community. Just me...

So many Aggies against freedom and Liberty. Damn some of y'all are control freaks

You can't understand why a kid would want to play football or be in marching band when the alternative is doing neither?

Fore Left! said:

---

You can't understand why a kid would want to play football or be in marching band when the alternative is doing neither?

---

Actually the alternative/opportunity is there to be a part of it all....

Bighunter43 said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

You can't understand why a kid would want to play football or be in marching band when the alternative is doing neither?

---

Actually the alternative is there to be a part of it all....

---

What's the harm in letting them play though? You've acknowledged some need work socially, yet you'd prefer they stay home 100% vs hybrid.

Fore Left! said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

You can't understand why a kid would want to play football or be in marching band when the alternative is doing neither?

---

Actually the alternative is there to be a part of it all....

---

What's the harm in letting them play though? You've acknowledged some need work socially, yet you'd prefer they stay home 100% vs hybrid.

---

What's the harm in attending the school you want to represent on the field?

Funny how I've asked you this same question in many ways and you simply do not have an answer

And the list of why people homeschool is long, including many reasons provided on this thread. Funny that a so called educator is asking that.

Fore Left! said:

---

Funny how I've asked you this same question in many ways and you simply do not have an answer

And the list of why people homeschool is long, including many reasons provided on this thread. Funny that a so called educator is asking that.

---

I have continuously answered "I believe" students should attend the public school if they want to play for that school. It's just what I believe....I like it the way it's been. I believe wholeheartedly in public school....but I can and do believe a parent should have the right to educate their child however they want. It's their choice. I do not feel the need to attack you personally or berate you because we don't agree....no disrespect intended.

TAMU1990 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Curious the boards thoughts on homeschoolers participation in UIL. The senate just passed HB547 16-14 so it looks like this will happen after other failed attempts.

We homeschool our son and I personally don't have a major leaning either way, however my wife is pretty fired up. She didn't want this to pass as it may potentially blaze the path to invite more government into our homeschool choices.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB547/id/2215800

---

Don't like it. The kids aren't going to the HS but can show up to play? The biggest issue is no pass/no play. Who is going to make that decision? The teacher is the parent and they will pass their kid regardless of performance or rigor. How much testing is required to be considered passing in a subject? Kids that go to HS have an independent party (the teacher) deciding if the student is allowed to play

---

In a perfect world you MIGHT have a point, but in reality, not only is NP/NP abused, comparing school districts alone is doing exactly what you're saying here. Passing in Allen, Southlake or (pick your SA or Houston area prime ISD) vs. Fort Worth or Houston ISD is like hitting a home run in co-ed slow pitch vs. MLB. Some of these districts have been busted cheating on the various state tests -- i.e., not that they just LET the students cheat, the teachers or whoever are administering the tests are (sometimes not so) creatively giving them the answers by the way they're asking the questions.

To pass in most schools districts today, you have to show up and log in. Where you actually have to turn in work, you don't have to turn it in on time -- you can turn it in ANYTIME during the year. So no, the schools today are not a valid check on students' performance. Maybe a few are, but nowhere near all.

This doesn't even speak to all the recruiting and moving around that is going on now -- all of it supposedly illegal. If a parent is conscientious enough to have their kid learn at home, I would hope they would be more apt to have them do work and at least try to abide by the rules. At the very least, it couldn't be any worse than it is.

et98 said:

---

The unintended consequences could be devastating for certains groups.

It will be great for financially stable & educated parents like most of us on TexAgs who consider our kids' education to be a top priority. However, many families don't see education as important as we do.

The only incentives under the current system to send their kids to school are those extra-curricular activites. These activities are also the only incentives these kids have to actually learn something.

I expect many of these families to merely pretend to homeschool. If you think star athletes (or even worse, wannabe star athletes) who can barely spell their own names is bad now, just wait until they never go to school at all.

---

If it keeps kids who don't want to learn and won't or can't accept authority out of the way. And keeps thugs who are disruptive, away from kids who are there to learn and better themselves this is great news. At graduation give the so called athletes who aren't going to be paid to play in college a one way ticket to Portland or Seattle. It sounds like a win-win to me.

The other issue is that some districts have magnet or academy campuses that those on the main campuses go to part or full time yet, if they are in band, athletics or another activity, they are in that activity via the main campus. There is no magnet band or athletics. There is hardly any difference between this and home schooling -- the student is attending another place for PART of their education but seek to do extra-curricular stuff at a particular campus.

The question of why they would want to be involved in band or athletics at a school they don't attend full time at best, misses the point and at worst, is ridiculous. If they had the exact same opportunities through another institution, they probably would choose that, but they don't. Home school athletic teams exist but the experience is nothing like even 2A UIL athletics. Heck, it isn't even like TAPPS or SPC (other Texas/OK private school league). This question is a little like asking "why do you want to go into the office on Friday if you don't go into it the other 4 days of the week?" One thing has little if anything to do with the other.

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

This^

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

It is interesting yet completely unsurprising how those against it here are teachers, all while offering nothing of substance as to why it's bad

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Or if you are going to be in my activity, you need to be in my class

Who says they can't be at practice when scheduled?

We got it, yiu like to repurpose classroom time to practice your extracurricular (kind of ignoring "extra" in extracurricular, but whatever). But set your practice time and the kids that want to participate bad enough will be there. If that's during class, find a couple of extra chairs

Fore Left! said:

---

Who says they can't be at practice when scheduled?

We got it, yiu like to repurpose classroom time to practice your extracurricular (kind of ignoring the point of "extra" in extracurricular, but whatever). But set your practice time and the kids that want to participate bad enough will be there

---

I did not say practice
We scheduled that class because they were also in multiple sports.

If my theatre class was not good enough to attend, we were not in need of you behind stage.

1939 said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

The public school system we all pay for is failing miserably.
There are bigger issues to worry about than this one.

---

I don't believe that, and there really isn't any evidence to back it up. Smarter kids and those with a good family will excel and stupid ones with no family support don't. It's always been that way and always will.

If you don't think public school is good enough for your kid, you shouldn't get to pick and choose what parts you like and want to participate in. What if I like everything but the math classes, can I pull my kid out and homeschool them for math only?

---

There are plenty of examples of public schools doing great things and meeting the needs of 100,000s of students. When you want to say they are failing, you'll find that information.

Whatever you want to call it, give them a time and place

Tanya 93 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Or if you are going to be in my activity, you need to be in my class

---

What's with all the "my"? It's a little strange. You don't own the school. You don't own the classroom. You don't own the athletic field. Lose the arrogance about it.

In most cases teachers don't even live in the district so it's even LESS "theirs" than it is the parents'.

So as long as the homeschool kids can make the sports class during the school day, I'm not sure what Tanya's objection is. Seems pretty easily resolved.

wargograw said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Or if you are going to be in my activity, you need to be in my class

---

What's with all the "my"? It's a little strange. You don't own the school. You don't own the classroom. You don't own the athletic field. Lose the arrogance about it.

In most cases teachers don't even live in the district so it's even LESS "theirs" than it is the parents'.

---

Or when I was teaching, if I am spending hours a week with you afterschool, I need to know who you are and are you dependable.

But think what you want.
I get it.
PUBLIC SCHOOL IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yay, strawman. My kids attend public school. My oldest will be graduating from Plano West next week and attending A&M. But I don't see why homeschool kids - which my kids do have homeschool friends- should not be able to participate in extracurriculars. The West feeder system has several activities where it would be great to see more kids participating, starting with football and drill team. One of the 1200 student 9th and 10th feeder schools (Jasper) will have 7 girls on the drill team next year.

wargograw said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Or if you are going to be in my activity, you need to be in my class

---

What's with all the "my"? It's a little strange. You don't own the school. You don't own the classroom. You don't own the athletic field. Lose the arrogance about it.

In most cases teachers don't even live in the district so it's even LESS "theirs" than it is the parents'.

---

Any evidence that most teachers don't live in the district they teach in?

Fore Left! said:

---

Yay, strawman. My kids attend public school. My oldest will be graduating from Plano West next week and attending A&M. But I don't see why homeschool kids - which my kids do have homeschool friends- should not be able to participate in extracurriculars

---

Because they've chosen to not be involved in the school for its most important job. They are picking and choosing because it's convenient to them. If the teachers aren't good enough for your kid, the same is probably true of the coaches.

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Well many homeschool advocates are against it because of no pass/no play. Homeschool advocates are fearful that UIL and ISDs will start to stick their noses into curriculums and testing of homeschoolers to verify results and programs. This 'checkup' by the government could be easily counterproductive to the autonomy of homeschool curriculums.

The ones we know are doing it for religious reasons, which I have zero issue with people exercising that choice and freedom, and I do not look for nonexistent reasons to tit-for-tat exclude them. I've coached some of these kids in softball. Should I exclude them because they chose not to go to school with my kids when they otherwise live where they would have?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

wargograw said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Or if you are going to be in my activity, you need to be in my class

---

What's with all the "my"? It's a little strange. You don't own the school. You don't own the classroom. You don't own the athletic field. Lose the arrogance about it.

In most cases teachers don't even live in the district so it's even LESS "theirs" than it is the parents'.

---

Any evidence that most teachers don't live in the district they teach in?

---

I'm from Westlake and it was obvious?

If it makes you feel better you can ignore that point. Referring to everything at a public setting as yours is obnoxious.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

wargograw said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Or if you are going to be in my activity, you need to be in my class

---

What's with all the "my"? It's a little strange. You don't own the school. You don't own the classroom. You don't own the athletic field. Lose the arrogance about it.

In most cases teachers don't even live in the district so it's even LESS "theirs" than it is the parents'.

---

Any evidence that most teachers don't live in the district they teach in?

---

I never lived in the districts where I taught, outside of student teaching
But those were my classes. They were mine and those kids were mine
My former students today will tell you they loved my classes and what they learned.

It is just more trying to bait so I get banned for a few days

tysker said:

---

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Well many homeschool advocates are against it because of no pass/no play. Homeschool advocates are fearful that UIL and ISDs will start to stick their noses into curriculums and testing of homeschoolers to verify results and programs. This 'checkup' by the government could be easily counterproductive to the autonomy of homeschool curriculums.

---

That's not logical either. The kids of homeschoolers are not being forced to participate. If your kids are not involved, you have nothing to worry about. The ISD would have no ground to verify results for those who are not participating.

wargograw said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

wargograw said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

There is no logical point to be made against this, thus the reason it's liberals opposing it, and teachers trying to protect the brotherhood.

---

Or if you are going to be in my activity, you need to be in my class

---

What's with all the "my"? It's a little strange. You don't own the school. You don't own the classroom. You don't own the athletic field. Lose the arrogance about it.

In most cases teachers don't even live in the district so it's even LESS "theirs" than it is the parents'.

---

Any evidence that most teachers don't live in the district they teach in?

---

I'm from Westlake and it was obvious?

If it makes you feel better you can ignore that point. Referring to everything at a public setting as yours is obnoxious.

---

So if I use my experience it's obnoxious and then you use your experience. Did I read that right?