SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Sophomores take center stage

I realize that a home schooled kid is not part of a school district (cannot keep up with every one off home schooled kid), but they could prove residency within a given school district if "recruiting" was a concern.

My point is SCHSL makes an exception for an educational choice in one instance, but do not make similar exception for the educational choice to home school. Other states allow home school kids to participate (i.e. the Georgia reference), so I was curious if anyone knows the reasoning behind the SCHSL decision? Or, is it that they just don't want to be bothered with additional proof?

Contact info: Call them and ask.
Contact Us!
South Carolina High School League, PO Box 211575, Columbia, SC 29221

Shipping address: 121 Westpark Blvd., Columbia, SC 29210

Phone: 803-798-0120, FAX: 803-731-9679, Email: schsl@schsl.org

And in basketball anyway, the local home-schooled kids have teams that play exhibitions vs. mostly SCISAA opponents.

public schools teach 1 way and 1 way only and have been teaching the same way for 100 years. some go the home school route so their child can advance academically but need to learn in another way or format. It’s not that the schools aren’t good enough it that their child can’t learn the way the public school teach. FYI – Bill Gates and his foundation have a focus in the area.

As the coach of the the Covenant Central Cougars--a homeschool soccer team from Sumter, let me add my 2 cents. First there are at least four homeschool soccer programs in SC that play against public and private Schools. Covenant Central, Providence Athletic Club (PAC)Panthers, Greenville Hurricanes and the Palmetto girls team in Florence. Plus the Easley Guradians play in the Fall. Additionally, there are homeschool basketball teams that I know of with Greenville and PAC--there may be others, I just don't know of them.

There are over 20 states that allow homeschool students to participate in public school activities (band, drama, sports, etc.) The rationale is fairly obvious, in that these families pay taxes in the community and public institutions are supported by tax dollars. The arguments against participation can be made by both sides. For example, many homeschool families do not want government intruding into any aspect of the education of their children. Some public educators may be against it because they believe that if a family chooses to not be involved in the local school, then they should not benefit from some "perks" that extracurricular affords them. That argument can be debated from many angles and I don't think it will do any good to argue that here.

Another idea that many speak about (not just homeschoolers, btw) is to delink athletics from schools. Thus everything becomes either privately financed OR use public funds, but disassociate the funding from schools. Then you get away from school eligibility questions, and everything because a free market question (albeit with public funding). Again, those are debatable questions, that have good merit from all sides.

Tim Tebow is a prime example of a homeschool athlete who was permitted by Florida law to play for a public high school. Interestingly in SCISA, a homeschool student may not play on a SCISA team unless he/she is taking at least four academic courses in the school.

Finally, SC is actually a fairly favorable state for homeschool teams, in that we may play any private or public school that desires to play us. Fortunately for us we've had opportunity to play some very high quality SCHSL teams over the last four seasons (Airport, Dutch Fork, BC, Andrew Jackson, Andrews, and others) and we are very appreciative of those opportunities. My only negative comment is that there are some who will not play us simply because we are homeschoolers.

Bill Gates found a way to do it...he just started his own company so that his "boss" would let him work at any pace and method he wanted! Not sure if that business model will work out quite as successfully for the average student as it did for old Bill though.

There are a number of issues about home-schooled students as it has been explained to me.

First of all, there is the issue of representation. As ccscoach says, home school students are allowed to form their own teams and compete against SCHSL-affiliated teams. In doing this, they are representing the organization with which they are affiliated. If a home school student plays on a high school team, he is representing in competition a school/organization with which he has no affiliation.

Also, the issue of "everyone pays taxes that support the school" is true, but somewhat misleading. Everyone pays taxes, yes, but schools receive an allocation based on the number of students enrolled. If a student is not enrolled in the high school but is instead home schooled, the school does not, in point of fact, receive the financial support they would have if the student was enrolled, so the "equal taxes, equal privilege" argument really does not hold.

Other states do permit it and valid arguments can be made for either side; these are just a couple that have led to the decision that we currently have in SC.

Coach Chass,

I value your opinion and knowledge on this soccer forum, but will have to agree to disagree with you on this one.

If home schooled kids were allowed to play on their school district teams, I doubt there would have been any home school teams. I know of two kids that drive 1+ hour to Greenville to practice/play on a home school team. Their father has lamented to me personally that he wished SC would allow them to play sports for their local high school team.

As far as representation, I do not see the point? The Greenville home school team brings in players from all over the Upstate. Why would they represent that team any more or any better than they would represent their local school team if they were allowed to play there? If a home schooled kid is wearing the colors of a team, are you saying he would not represent that team/school to the best of his/her ability, but they would represent a home school team that they have to travel to? Hard to fathom the logic. Maybe I am missing something?

I understand your argument that the school would get some more money if the home schooled kid was actually enrolled, however, the home school families are paying taxes and all public schools in SC are benefiting. The average dollars per student goes up if the same amount of money is funding fewer students. So, the home school kids are actually helping fund the education of the public school kids without receiving any of the benefits - sports programs being one of the benefits. No public school is benefiting more than another because kids are home schooling as all the home schooled family's taxes go into the the overall kitty. What you did not talk about is the private schools that SCHSL allows to play in the public leagues. Those families tax money goes into the overall kitty for all public schools as well. Once again, creating more dollars per student for the public schools. Is it because they are more organized and have enough kids to play under their own banner that gives them more privilege by SCHSL over a home schooled kid?

My kids go to public school, so I do not have a dog in the fight so to speak. I just cannot see any rational reasoning behind the decision, and thought someone might know the actual decision criteria. I was not trying to stir up controversy which I obviously did. As Coach J states, it is probably best to ask SCHSL directly. If they answer, I will post their reasoning.

Never said it was my logic; note above that I did post "as it was explained to me." We have had a number of home schooled students who have asked to play on our team, so I have danced that dance with the powers that be. Since I have a natural inclination to play devil's advocate and see/argue both sides of an issue, I do see some rational reasoning behind the decision whether I think it's the "right" one or not. Discussion and debate don't have to be controversy--it's a valid question, and one that bears discussion!

To your points:

1. Totally agree. If home schooled students were allowed to play for the school in their attendance area, few if any would form separate home school teams and travel to practice and play. I've had a number of parents call me and ask if there was any way for their home-schooled child to play on our team. On the flip side, there are some very bright young home-schooled students and I have heard administration lament that they wished parents would allow them to come and represent the school academically. It's a two-way street. We have a private school right down the street from us that does not have a soccer team. Again, school choice...their parents chose to send them to a private school the same way other parents chose to home school their children. The League will not allow a private school student to play on a League team either, because they are not part of the same school district as the team they wish to play on, regardless of residency. Should we allow private school students to play on their local public school teams as well if the private school chooses not to form a team? They are essentially in the same situation of choice/residency/taxes as the home schooled student.

2. Again, I think you're right--a home-schooled student who puts on the colors of a public school team would certainly represent that team to the best of his/her ability, just as well as they would a home school team. The question, though, is not whether they would be willing and able to represent that team, but whether they are ELIGIBLE to represent that team under the rules of the League that apply to everyone else as well. There are plenty of players around SC who would be more than happy to suit up and represent a team other than the one of the school they attend, but that's not the issue. From the SCHSL Constitution:

Section 5. School Enrollment and Attendance
A. A student must be enrolled in the school at which he participates. If a school district assigns
students to a school in the same district and that school has no athletic program, the
district can request that these students be considered as enrolled in the district’s school in
whose attendance area they live. This request must be made in writing by the school
district and must apply to all students assigned to that school. This would be for athletic
purposes only. Enrollment is defined as actual matriculation (complete registration) and
physical attendance in classes for one day or participation in a contest prior to either
semester. Enrollment must be continuous while participating.

In other words, in order to be considered eligible to represent a school athletically in competition, you actually have to be a part of that school. Sounds fairly reasonable. Exceptions are when a student is assigned BY THE DISTRICT (not choice, but through attendance lines beyond their control) to a school that does not have a sports program, they can play at a school in the same district that does offer it. If a student by choice defers the opportunity to attend a school that offers a sports program, well, that's a choice, and choices have consequences. If a different education opportunity is more important than the opportunity to play on a sports team three blocks from your house, well, I'd have to agree. Lots of people live in nice houses in the suburbs and commute to the city for good jobs based on much the same logic. If you choose not to work where you live or live where you work, there is some travel and inconvenience involved, but it's generally considered to be worth it. If it's not, then either move to the city or take the job near your house. It's a choice.

3. You're right; the home school families are paying taxes that are partially used to support public schools. So are a lot of families who don't have children, home schooled or otherwise. Why? Because public schools support the economy and overall welfare of their communities and therefore provide indirect benefits to citizens even if they are not directly involved in the school. With public schools, if you have indirect involvement through simply paying taxes, you get the indirect benefits of the education system. If you have direct involvement through matriculation, you get the direct benefits of the education and athletic programs. I can see that logic.

As for the private schools, we are back to the question of eligibility to represent their respective teams. Bishop England students are eligible to represent the B-E soccer program because they are part of B-E school. First Baptist players are eligible to compete for First Baptist because they are part of the FB student body. Pinewood players are Pinewood students. So yes, you're correct...it is because they are able to compete under their own banner...the students represent in competition the schools that they actually attend. That's not actually "more" privilege...private home school teams are allowed to compete with SCHSL teams as long as they can meet the same requirement of competing under their own banner. Public home school district teams are allowed to compete against SCHSL teams as long as the home school organization becomes a member of the League--the same requirement for any other type of public school.

Here's a link to the SCHSL Constitution, which outlines all of their rules, including eligibility for competition. http://www.schsl.org/2010/10-11constitution.pdf The above quote was an excerpt. There is nothing in the Constitution that directly addresses or excludes home schooled students; the simple fact is that in their situation, unless they form their own teams in the case of private home schools, and additionally become members of the League in the case of public home school, they do not meet the requirements that are laid out for any and all to be eligible to represent a team in competition.

All of that said...do I have any personal objection to home schooled students playing on their local teams? Nope. There have been a few over the years who probably would have helped us out, and personally, I'd love to see every kid who wants to play a sport suited up and on the field or court. I love what sports can do for young people and I'd like to see any who are drawn to athletics get the chance to play. That's largely an emotional response, though, and you asked for rational reasoning--which often requires a certain detachment from personal feeling.