|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 249
Corner Kick
|
Corner Kick
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 249 |
I do believe that much of the stance of the HSL changed when the new law passed to allow home-schoolers to participate in athletics at their respectively zoned high schools. Thus, WHY is their a need for a PAC or other organization? Surely, those PAC-players are zone to some public school, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 478
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 478 |
1. Are students required to try out for a team?
2. If a student wants to play for a school team, expresses, that desire, has the grades, meets all the qualifications of attending that school, does that mean that he will automatically be placed on that team?
3. Are athletic teams a requirement by the law?
4. If a student in a certain district attends a school that does not have a sport that he wants to participate in and another school in that same district has that sport, is he required to transfer to that school or can said student participate in that sport at a school he does not attend as long as he is a student in that district?
The answers should help shed some light on your questions
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
1. Are students required to try out for a team?
2. If a student wants to play for a school team, expresses, that desire, has the grades, meets all the qualifications of attending that school, does that mean that he will automatically be placed on that team?
3. Are athletic teams a requirement by the law?
4. If a student in a certain district attends a school that does not have a sport that he wants to participate in and another school in that same district has that sport, is he required to transfer to that school or can said student participate in that sport at a school he does not attend as long as he is a student in that district?
The answers should help shed some light on your questions
1. No, participation in athletics is completely optional--unless you're asking if students have to try out in order to be placed on a team, in which case the answer in most cases is yes.
2. No--see #1.
3. No, except for Title IX requirements that mandate a balance of opportunities for both genders.
4. According to League rules, a student attending a school that does not offer a particular sports program can play that sport at another public school that is a member of the same district.
So...how do these answers help to distinguish between the family who chooses home schooling as an alternative placement to public schools (currently allowed to participate on the local public school team), and the family who chooses private school as an alternative placement to public schools (currently NOT allowed to participate on the local public school team)?
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 374
Corner Kick
|
|
Corner Kick
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 374 |
Following this with (somewhat vetsed) interest.
Having myself before faced some of these challenges with my kids at one time attending a public charter school with no athletic program.
I took the club route at the time to form a (school) team to compete where we could (U13/14/15 girls mix). Of course it helped that I could since I had immediate access to a club and a friendly registrar. I opted this route quickly because it gave me some access to fields and necessary insurance coverage. Also I tried to decipher what it would take to become a member of SCHSL (since the school was public) and soon became lost and gave up. I never once thought it would be OK to compete against JV or HS teams since I imagined they must, in turn, have policies and rules in place to cover all the necessary liability and insurance needs. Just like SCYS has rules to cover sanctioned play only (another great debate), I certainly accepted HS teams had something similar. For the record, our approach was not succesful since to be registered to play, certain families would have to transfer or relinquish existing club ties, or at best 'guest' only at tournaments. This of course limited the pool of players ready to commit to the school (really club) team since the depth of talent was shallow and they were (rightly so) quite happy with their existing club situation.
Could PAC somehow apply to become members and 'get in' that way ? Still I am confused now reading here that the students can readily apply to their zoned teams now which means the whole need for the home schooled, & charter type teams goes away as Hatch suggested. I certainly accept that it may be hard to compete for a roster spot on a public high school (particularly in soccer rich communities) but how is that any different than young Susie (playing MPRD U14 rec ball) from Cario looking to get on Wando's team with 48 classic/challenge/ecnl players ahead of her. I am certain however that there are several schools who will take a warm body to fill a roster in less (soccer) rich communities. Again, just one of those life isn't fair, or life choice considerations on where we choose to love and public school options.
My eldest is now approaching high school (9th grade next year) and some of these challenges exist since we will likely opt out of her zoned public high school (and probably choose private). Our choice thankfully is not based on athletics since she'll have to sit out an entire year because of another policy that is in play to offset other recruiting concerns. All way too bizarre and heavy handed for kids who really have little to no choice where we parents put them for their schooling based on our goals, preferences, location, informed insight and often economic situation. Coach Chas, in our situation, we have a family that is choosing to attend private school (over public) but can not participate in athletics because this private school participates in public school leagues (and not private). Way too confusing (-: So be it.
satus quod perago validus - start and finish strong
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Some of the arguments are ridiculous saying that since the child doesn't attend the school, they shouldn't be allowed to compete in SCHSL sanctioned events and the reason is that we don't get to drive a police car? That is illogical. A child from 6 to 16 is required, by state law, to attend some sort of school. Not everyone is required by law, in all circumstances, to use the services of the police or fire department.
Playing on a sports team, which is, arguably, a benefit to the development of those who participate, is certainly not the same as letting everyone drive the fire truck or the police car, which has no clear developmental benefit to the joyrider and creates a hazard to the community and a disruption of the function of the department. Faulty analogy--point awarded.
However, counterpoint--a child is required, by law, to attend some sort of school, but that does not indicate that the child is required by law to participate in extracurricular activities. Therefore, the school attendance law has little bearing on the argument about sports participation.
Non sequitur...point nullified by counterpoint.
Please continue. 
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
I do believe that much of the stance of the HSL changed when the new law passed to allow home-schoolers to participate in athletics at their respectively zoned high schools. Thus, WHY is their a need for a PAC or other organization? Surely, those PAC-players are zone to some public school, aren't they?
Hatch, I thought about that too, that perhaps the change of stance about letting home school teams participate was due to the fact that those students now have an opportunity to play for public school teams%
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
I do believe that much of the stance of the HSL changed when the new law passed to allow home-schoolers to participate in athletics at their respectively zoned high schools. Thus, WHY is their a need for a PAC or other organization? Surely, those PAC-players are zone to some public school, aren't they?
Quote:
I do believe that much of the stance of the HSL changed when the new law passed to allow home-schoolers to participate in athletics at their respectively zoned high schools. Thus, WHY is their a need for a PAC or other organization? Surely, those PAC-players are zone to some public school, aren't they?
Hatch, I thought about that too, that perhaps the change of stance about letting home school teams participate was due to the fact that those students now have an opportunity to play for public school teams, so in the opinion of the League perhaps home school teams became unnecessary.
Still, I think decisions about who can and cannot participate in competition should be based on established rules and guidelines for said competition, not opinions about "needs" and relevance.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 478
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 478 |
Quote:
Quote:
1. Are students required to try out for a team?
2. If a student wants to play for a school team, expresses, that desire, has the grades, meets all the qualifications of attending that school, does that mean that he will automatically be placed on that team?
3. Are athletic teams a requirement by the law?
4. If a student in a certain district attends a school that does not have a sport that he wants to participate in and another school in that same district has that sport, is he required to transfer to that school or can said student participate in that sport at a school he does not attend as long as he is a student in that district?
The answers should help shed some light on your questions
1. No, participation in athletics is completely optional--unless you're asking if students have to try out in order to be placed on a team, in which case the answer in most cases is yes.
2. No--see #1.
3. No, except for Title IX requirements that mandate a balance of opportunities for both genders.
4. According to League rules, a student attending a school that does not offer a particular sports program can play that sport at another public school that is a member of the same district.
So...how do these answers help to distinguish between the family who chooses home schooling as an alternative placement to public schools (currently allowed to participate on the local public school team), and the family who chooses private school as an alternative placement to public schools (currently NOT allowed to participate on the local public school team)?
Private school =/= home school
bascially, my point on the first 3 were to say that just because one pays taxes, it doesn't give that person the automatic right to be on a team, but it does give them the opportunity.
To me, it is no different than a coach asking parents to host an exchange student to beef up their team. Here is a kid that comes to the country, does not have family that pays taxes, and could take the place of another kid that has grown up in that district because the coach just wants to win without developing their own players.
Isn't this really what this is all about...people don't want to lose? If you get beat by a home school team, then what does that mean? (rhetorical question there)
I don't see the problem with allowing them on teams or allowing them to compete in a league.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Private school =/= home school
I agree. My point was, strictly from the standpoint of the arguments that have been presented so far, the distinction has not been made. Families who pick home school are making an educational choice for their children; families who pick private school are making an educational choice for their children. Familes who choose home school pay taxes; families who choose private school pay taxes. Home schools are not a part of the district education system of the local public school; private schools are not part of the district education system of the local public school.
Home school students have a right of access to the the local public school's extracurricular offerings that are not offered by their academic and environmental choice,home schooling--private school students do not have a right of access to the local public school's extracurricular activities that are not offered by their academic and environmental choice, the private school.
I don't think any of the previous arguments have adequately distinguished why one student should have a right of access when the other does not.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 876
Brace
|
|
Brace
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 876 |
I am sorry I did not make my point more clearly. Let me try again (with the fire truck analogy). It was intended as a point of argument against allowing home-schoolers to play sports at public schools, and to refute the point that, by virtue of paying taxes, home-schoolers are owed the opportunity, by pointing out that most of us pay taxes for services we may never use, but still benefit from. My quality of life is better when the general population is better educated and most education occurs in public schools. So, I don’t have to attend or send my kids there to benefit. Otherwise, when my kids are out of school, I would not have to pay taxes for schools. My quality of life is better when the fire department puts out the fire down the street before my house catches on. So, I want and benefit from a good FD and a good educational system whether I use them or not.
I will say again that cherry-picking programs that meet our standards for our kids is wrong, in my opinion. But, that genie is out of the bottle and I don’t see her going back in.
The Weather Is Here. Wish You Were Beautiful.
|
|
|
|
