No pass no play is basically a joke these days

Tanya 93 said:

---

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.

---

Your school board will determine the policies for this once it becomes law.
But somehow, it will work. I just hope you're not the type to discriminate against a homeschooled kid who attends all the required practices etc.

Catag94 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.

---

This^

---

I'm as about as far right conservative and old school as you can get....raised by public school conservative educators with an appreciation for small public school education. My school is mostly conservative, with strict discipline, strict dress code and high expectations! It has always been a success, and thus might explain my bias towards public school. Growing up and being a part of that "whole" education experience, athletics and classroom, with school pride has been a huge part of my life. I have witnessed thousands of kids use the opportunities of public school and go on to be a great success. I am aware that all public schools are not alike, and if some were extremely liberal or totally undisciplined I'd probably move my family to one that fits what I would want for my kids. I have said that I am personally for having kids attend the school they will play for, and believe that is best for the kids and the community as a whole, especially on a small school level. I don't believe that makes me "wrong" in my thinking, and I believe kids will miss out on being a whole part of a school....no disrespect to those that don't view public school as I do.

Fore Left! said:

---

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?

---

Just because you choose to ignore our reasons doesn't mean they aren't reasons. The public school isn't good enough to meet their needs, so go meet your extra needs elsewhere as well.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

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?

---

Just because you choose to ignore our reasons doesn't mean they aren't reasons. The public school isn't good enough to meet their needs, so go meet your extra needs elsewhere as well.

---

Would you be in support of us taking our tax dollars with us?
I think HB 547 is a better solution perhaps than school choice for now.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

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?

---

Just because you choose to ignore our reasons doesn't mean they aren't reasons. The public school isn't good enough to meet their needs, so go meet your extra needs elsewhere as well.

---

Thank you for demonstrating tit-for-tat so thoroughly. Always great to see someone demonstrate exactly what I've been describing

Catag94 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

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?

---

Just because you choose to ignore our reasons doesn't mean they aren't reasons. The public school isn't good enough to meet their needs, so go meet your extra needs elsewhere as well.

---

Would you be in support of us taking our tax dollars with us?
I think HB 547 is a better solution perhaps than school choice for now.

---

I've always been pro-choice when it comes to the money. My only stipulation is that all actors will need to prove the money was used appropriately.

I remember playing on little league teams with kids from other school districts. We never realized we were doing it wrong.

Yeah this whole school and community pride thing is foreign to me. Maybe for small towns? I went to HISD schools and no one cared about the "community". A good chunk of the students were magnet from across town anyway.

Even if you buy the community bit, it's better to take the opportunity we do have to help socialize them and make them a part of the community vs have them 100% excluded.

The school is there to play a role in developing the youth of our community into productive adults. So what if they find the classroom experience to be inferior, the extracurricular is an opportunity to help meet this goal. And they are already paying for it

Tanya 93 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Yes

It is a much needed change.

---

No

I had practice during class periods

If my teaching is not good enough for classes, then I am not good enough to be their coach.

Get over it and find something else

---

Probably is not good enough, but it is free and available, therefore I will get over the poor coaching so my child can play organized sports

Bighunter43 said:

---

Catag94 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.

---

This^

---

I'm as about as far right conservative and old school as you can get....raised by public school conservative educators with an appreciation for small public school education. My school is mostly conservative, with strict discipline, strict dress code and high expectations! It has always been a success, and thus might explain my bias towards public school. Growing up and being a part of that "whole" education experience, athletics and classroom, with school pride has been a huge part of my life. I have witnessed thousands of kids use the opportunities of public school and go on to be a great success. I am aware that all public schools are not alike, and if some were extremely liberal or totally undisciplined I'd probably move my family to one that fits what I would want for my kids. I have said that I am personally for having kids attend the school they will play for, and believe that is best for the kids and the community as a whole, especially on a small school level. I don't believe that makes me "wrong" in my thinking, and I believe kids will miss out on being a whole part of a school....no disrespect to those that don't view public school as I do.

---

Does it actually hurt anyone to allow the homeschoolers to participate? Maybe they don't get the whole experience in your opinion but why would that bother you if it doesn't them?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

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?

---

I'm not sure what experience you're claiming to have or where I said you using it was obnoxious. Tanya saying she owns things she manifestly doesn't is obnoxious.

Tanya 93 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 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

---

You a mind reader now? How do you know my intentions? Calling stuff yours that isn't is silly. That's all I'm saying. My first job was at a Taco Bell and I always laughed when one of my coworkers talked about everything as though it were his.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Cassius said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

If public schools suck so bad, homeschooling extras should be better as well. Create your own teams and move on.

---

Are you bitter?

---

Not in the least. I'm for parents doing what they think is best but there are consequences to actions. If the same person isn't good enough to teach your child, why are they good enough to coach them?

---

Because they're completely different functions? One guy is "good enough" to make a pizza. The other is "good enough" to roll sushi. When sushi guy makes pizza I choose not to use him. This is an absurd argument on your part.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Muy said:

---

Why is Tanya against kids being able to get the social and health benefits of participating in extracurricular activities of the school their parents pay for?

---

Because they are not the students in the school of the coaches.

Coaches should know how they participate among others, what their grades are, and be able to work with them in the school day, every day

---

I never interacted with my coaches outside of practice, so this is a laughable argument

wargograw said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Cassius said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

If public schools suck so bad, homeschooling extras should be better as well. Create your own teams and move on.

---

Are you bitter?

---

Not in the least. I'm for parents doing what they think is best but there are consequences to actions. If the same person isn't good enough to teach your child, why are they good enough to coach them?

---

Because they're completely different functions? One guy is "good enough" to make a pizza. The other is "good enough" to roll sushi. When sushi guy makes pizza I choose not to use him. This is an absurd argument on your part.

---

Not really. What evidence have you used that they aren't good enough to teach your child or what evidence have you used to determine they are good enough to coach your child? The answer is probably none at all except your preconceived bias.

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of my HS baseball coach giving a talk to players and parents where he summed up some point by saying "...because I'm a winner." I remember my best friends dad (brilliant engineer and D1 catcher) snorting pretty loudly at that. The older I get the more I understand that...

cjg89 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Muy said:

---

Why is Tanya against kids being able to get the social and health benefits of participating in extracurricular activities of the school their parents pay for?

---

Because they are not the students in the school of the coaches.

Coaches should know how they participate among others, what their grades are, and be able to work with them in the school day, every day

---

I never interacted with my coaches outside of practice, so this is a laughable argument

---

I went to a small school but there is not a single coach I had that I didn't have in class at least once or see every single day of school.

My head FB coach had a masters in biology and was an absolutely brilliant science teacher.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Fore Left! said:

---

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?

---

Just because you choose to ignore our reasons doesn't mean they aren't reasons. The public school isn't good enough to meet their needs, so go meet your extra needs elsewhere as well.

---

Would you be in support of us taking our tax dollars with us?
I think HB 547 is a better solution perhaps than school choice for now.

---

I've always been pro-choice when it comes to the money. My only stipulation is that all actors will need to prove the money was used appropriately.

---

That is fair. However, I bet your local school administration and board of trustees would much rather have the tax dollars and the homeschool kid participating in their extracurriculars than lose both.

Why cant we just do what is best for these kids?

Especially when there is nothing to lose.

Cassius said:

---

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.

---

You might be right but concerns of government mission creep and overreach are always logical especially when you're dealing with the TEA and education system.

Just saw that the Texas High School Coaches Association has come out against the bill.....

c-jags said:

---

cjg89 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Muy said:

---

Why is Tanya against kids being able to get the social and health benefits of participating in extracurricular activities of the school their parents pay for?

---

Because they are not the students in the school of the coaches.

Coaches should know how they participate among others, what their grades are, and be able to work with them in the school day, every day

---

I never interacted with my coaches outside of practice, so this is a laughable argument

---

I went to a small school but there is not a single coach I had that I didn't have in class at least once or see every single day of school.

My head FB coach had a masters in biology and was an absolutely brilliant science teacher.

---

My head FB didn't teach at all

It's not that I think the other kids aren't good enough to be around my kids. I don't trust what the teachers are trying to teach my kids anymore.

MediAg13 said:

---

It's not that I think the other kids aren't good enough to be around my kids. I don't trust what the teachers are trying to teach my kids anymore.

---

So you realize that those same teachers will be coaching your kids, right?

Coaching a sport and teaching CRT or some *******ized version of American history are not the same thing.

MediAg13 said:

---

Coaching a sport and teaching CRT or some *******ized version of American history are not the same thing.

---

If they teach those things, they clearly aren't smart enough to coach your child well.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

MediAg13 said:

---

Coaching a sport and teaching CRT or some *******ized version of American history are not the same thing.

---

If they teach those things, they clearly aren't smart enough to coach your child well.

---

They probably are not, but there are not many other options for organized HS sports.

I am all for eliminateing all extracurriculars

Tanya & Ghost of Eaton:

So what about those kids talented/smart enough to get into Houston School for Performing and Visual Arts, etc? They have no sports, so they play for school they are zoned to.

Should they not be allowed to play sports? Quite a punishment for being talented.

LOL. Those coaches would be drooling over homeschooled Tim Tebow.

Does it actually hurt anyone to allow the homeschoolers to participate? Maybe they don't get the whole experience in your opinion but why would that bother you if it doesn't them?

This works well in other states. Don't be afraid of change.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Tanya & Ghost of Eaton:

So what about those kids talented/smart enough to get into Houston School for Performing and Visual Arts, etc? They have no sports, so they play for school they are zoned to.

Should they not be allowed to play sports? Quite a punishment for being talented.

---

It is my understanding that HSP is a public school.

It is.

But earlier today it was said if the student wasn't good enough to be taught by Tanya, then they can't play sports there.

Going to a special magnet school is no different than being homeschooled with regard to their relationship to the sports team at a school they are zoned to

Yet they find it superior to the school they are zoned to and they aren't walking the halls with the kids they play sports with. So in substance, how's it different than the homeschool kids who are paying the same $$$ as these kids? We just want to exclude the homeschool kids just because?