Originially, sports were considered important parts of the school curriculum for their civic functions — teaching fair play and cooperation, increasing military readiness and fitness among young urban workers and middle-class/elite college men who generals feared were going soft at their desks and factory jobs, for its Americanizing properties (baseball as shorthand for core American values). For American girls, it was intended as a way to encourage healthful outdoor pursuits and get them out of the kinds of garments that critics believed warped girls’ reproductive organs and made white elite educated women less fertile. Undeniably, in a pre-TV age, high school sports used to be the thing that brought small towns together to cheer for a common symbol of the town. It was entertainment and served to enhance the sense of community belonging for those who participated.

It’s clear that whatever purpose they serve now, their purpose has changed. I guess I’d want to think about what benefits we get as communities from high school sports and whether we really want to keep footing the bill for it. If we’re totally getting out of the business of trying to build better citizens, can we also scrap the “character counts” BS?

Thanks for the background, bridgett. In light of your political leanings, I’m wondering whether you mean that character really doesn’t count or whether you mean that schools can’t teach character or . . . what do you mean?

I mean that schools teach character badly. I teach at a college that trains a whole lot of educators. We train them in pedagogy and we train them in area content; we don’t give them prep in teaching ethics and values to children and adolescents. Many of them graduate with at most one intro religion or philosophy course under their belts — and so, when they are told by their public school superintendent that they have to do a secular values-based currciulum because they’ve gotten a grant from somewhere to do one, they don’t have a clue about what to do. They don’t get any money for this activity (the grant money goes to hiring a “fun” entertainer and printing up T-shirts), so the teachers are left to download some stuff off the Internet.

Most of the free pre-packaged curriculum kits (and trainers, and school speakers, etc…it’s quite an industry) that are out there are financed by either right-wing Bob Bennett sort of groups, evangelical groups who have applied for a secular-sounding 501(c)(3), lefty peace and social justice groups, or corporations like Chick-Fil-A or Knight-Ridder who use the curriculum to prepare the ground to sell your kids stuff. There are some very good ones out there — I happen to like the 4-H civics and leadership curriculum — but there is a lot of crap out there as well. Teachers often lack guidance and time even when they are motivated to do a good job; they might also have a particular agenda of a school board or principal to satisfy, so their powers of selection are restricted.

I guess my main kicks are that there is no quality control and that these things take time away from what I see as a more critical role of the school in American life. Character ed is one of those programs that sounds good on a t-shirt and gives the school board a big warm fuzzy, but teachers are being asked to do a job that they aren’t trained to do with materials that aren’t developed by educators (mostly) to push agendas that fall outside of the school’s purview. Depending on the school system, it’s either religion with the mention of God taken out (like kids are too stupid to figure out what a Higher Power might be) or it’s “why can’t we all just get along” Kumbayahing. With critical thinking skills at an all-time low and basic math/writing skills tanking fast, do we really need to take scant class time to teach Johnny that kindness is important and lying is bad?

Well, I’m glad I asked. But you’ll get no argument from me about grandiose purview creep in our public education system.

One problem in my public high school, at least according to me, was that coaches couldn’t just be coaches - they were also put in teaching positions. I had a couple of coach/teachers who were good, but many of them seemed less interested in doing an excellent job teaching academics than in their respective sports.

Yes, this is another way that the conflation of sports and educational excellence can harm the teaching mission of the school. Great coaches can be great teachers; still, there’s only 24 hours in a day and their coaching is more visible (and probably more fun) than the class prep, grading, and daily grind of teaching. During the season, their attentions are divided. In my high school, our football coach taught all the required courses in social studies and during football season, we outlined the textbook and watched movies until state championships were over. The better the teams did, the worse the instruction even when the coaches had strength in their area content.

So they don’t want to participate in the public education in teh school rooom but want to be part of the extra-curricular activities? I have to say that’s a big no….

You can’t pick and choose the pieces you want. Sorry, doesn’t work that way.

Sure it can work that way.

From a social experience standpoint, it could be a good way for homeschooled kids to have interaction with other kids their age. At least with sports these kids have an outlet to be with other kids their own age.
As for whether sports should be part of education or privatized, I can’t say. My only question would be about the kids that couldn’t afford the out of school activities. It adds up. My 5 year old does Taekwondo and will start Soccer this summer. At that time it will be countless hours sitting and watching and driving on my part and $100+ monthly just to participate. That’s not including gear, testing fees for belts, travel costs for soccer games. URG!

LN,
That thought crossed my mind, too (but being a Republican, I quickly dismissed it–just kidding). I think that organizations like Boys and Girls Clubs meet that need in a lot of communities, and private or charitable organizations doing it would help in the respect that it would likely help focus the mission of public schools. And it is a fair question to debate whether “athletic opportunities” should be treated as an entitlement, I think.

But speaking of socialization of homeschoolers, I don’t see that as an issue at all. Though like in every demographic group there are weird homeschoolers, I have long believed that if you are a good parent, your homeschooled child will be much more socialized than if such socialization is done by “peers.”

NED-
Good points. That’s my issue with the can’t say. You also have to wonder about the families that put more emphasis on sports than education. Or the schools, (somewhere in TX someone will read this and plot my doom), that offer educational passes to athletes. As a future educator, one who hopes to be paid, I wonder how much money schools would have for the actual education if sports weren’t part of the funding. It’s a difficult issue.

Yes, as someone else alluded, it would be interesting to see numbers on cost of athletic programs to school systems. Having public sports might still be worth it (even if there was a net “cost” involved), but the $$$ are not irrelevant it seems to me.

You can’t pick and choose the pieces you want. Sorry, doesn’t work that way.

What? People who homeschool still pay taxes, but they don’t use the school’s resources. They have every right to be in on extracurricular activities.

And Ivy, you neglected to mention how good it would be for Big O Michael’s kids to be around my kids.

Michael, homeschoolers decrease class size and still pay for the product, you just being petty in excluding them from your public schools?

Haha, Ned, Big Orange Michael doesn’t have any kids, but I bet your kids would be just as traumatized from hanging out with Big O’s imaginary kids as they would be hanging out with mine.

(On a somewhat serious note, I totally grilled Megs to make sure she was nice to your daughter and didn’t cause her too much trauma. According to Megs, your daughter and Megs got along fine, haha.)

Back to the actual subject at hand, I can’t see how homeschooling kids can be anything but a win/win. One of the big arguments opponents of homeschooling have is that homeschooled kids don’t get enough socialization.

Now, that’s a whole nother argument, but letting the homeschool kids come in for extracurricular activities would definitely solve the “socialization issue”. Additionally, having that option might encourage people who are on the line about homeschooling (like me) to go ahead and homeschool their kids, thus freeing up more space in school.

Everybody wins. Except the kids on the losing football teams, that is.

Home schoolers are not just home schooled for academic reasons. Playing sports with the riff-raff could be very bad for their spiritual and social development.

dc, though “riff raff” is your word not mine, I agree (we homeschool); but isn’t that a decision for homeschoolers to make?

I think the problem most people would have would be the lack of academic standards for home school students.

To participate in athletics, public school students must have minimum grade point averages. While I’m sure most home school students are very bright, it simply isn’t a fair system when mom or dad are setting your GPA.

Also the potential for abuse is substantial. A freshman phenom struggles academically, so as a sophomore, dad pulls him out to home school. Suddenly, he’s rockin’ a 3.5.

It’ll happen.

Good points, s&f, and I have read of cases (up north, mainly) where kids are “homeschooled” by AAU coaches . . . which reminds me of my question, do sports need to be public?

Since I’m fairly sure schools are obligated to provide standardized testing at parents’ request why not simply require the standardized testing for participation in sports?
That law may vary by state and I’m not in TN.

Heather,
That’s a good thought–but most homeschooling parents (especially the activist and not slacker ones) bristle at the notion of having to submit to dictates of the State about educating their children, it seems.

That being said, those who really wanted the privilege of playing sports could fairly be expected to meet those standards out of fairness.

Ned:

Homeschoolers keep their kids out of public schools becaue they think they can do a better job than the professionals. Now, if it was only public schools they kept them out of that would be one thing. But they keep them out of all schools. The “we pay taxes” thing doesn’t work for me. I pay school taxes and I have no children. So, by that line of reasoning I’m getting screwed (I don’t feel that’s the case).

There are also huge liability issues for non-students who might be injured in a school sanctioned game of football. I think it’s a safe bet that the school’s insurers would not be willing to cover non-students without some huge riders.

With the exception of HS football and hockey, not too many scholastic sports are exclusively limited to organized teams with large infrastructural costs.

Liability? Kids that competed would be covered just like any other student–and if they weren’t that could be changed.

I’m not following the, “Now, if it was only . . .” argument.

Fair point about property taxes, but I’m not seeing many reasons not to allow them to participate. Unless hurting the feelings of the professionals counts as a reason.

Ned:

It’s not at all simple to change the insurance coverage for a school system to include coverage for the sort of thing you’re talking about. When the school takes responsibility for your student athlete it’s not just between the lines or on the court. They are responsible for them as long as the child is in their custody/control.

Also, once the insurance company’s limits of coverage were reached the school district (ultimately the taxpayer) would be on the hook for any costs arising because of injury other damages awarded by a court in the case of injury or death. Don’t take my word for it (the situation differs from one state to another); ask your local authorities.

There are plenty of private schools available to educate children. If you genuinely think you do a better job of educating yours than both the public and the private school systems than it seems to me that you’re choosing to opt out of the communal educational experience. I don’t know why you homeschool your children but unless you have degree level skills in the field of education then perhaps your children are not getting the best education in all areas. If the reason you homeschool is because you don’t think your children are being inculcated with proper moral values or that they are being exposed to bad influences then I don’t think most scholastic sports programs are going to make you happy either. Just a hunch on my part.

Fealty to “communalism” much less hurting the feelings of “the professionals” aren’t driving factors behind the decisions I make about my children, dc.

I have to say you’re talking like a real lawyer (I are one) when you start pulling out the “liability” argument. Probably “liability” is the perceived ace in the hole of every middle manager that ever existed.

I could be wrong (I doubt it) but you wouldn’t be expanding the number of children covered by an athletics rider for a school system if homeschooled students were allowed to participate. These numbers are hardly static, dc. And even if you would be, so? Cost or hassle doesn’t interfere with any other democommie policies, does it? But using the whole “unacceptable costs argument” you’re forgetting that these families are already lessening the “liability” and costs by otherwise taking responsibility for educating their children at home.

This isn’t a thread about the quality of education that homeschooled students get (though you’re oddly enough attempting to exploit it as a chink in the armor of allowing equal access to public extracurricular activities), but suffice it to say, I think you’re operating on old perceptions about the subject.

Lastly, whether it will make these unqualified, pretend “teachers” happy that their 18-year-old son is around boys who use curse words or tell naughty jokes should probably be more of their concern than yours, isn’t that right?

Ned:

Addrss the issue. You’re a lawyer, then you know it’s not hard to pick up the phone and call the school district and simply ask them about the liability situation. Insurance companies exist to deny claims and make money for shareholders (yeah, I know, that’s not what their ads say). Liability insurance is very specific as to coverages, usually. But, like you say, you’re a lawyer. I’m just a guy who’s bought general liability a few times and been told in great detail what the insurer will and will not cover. BTW, I never said the costs were unacceptable, I said they are what they are. Homeschooling does not really relieve the community of the costs of schooling your child in the are I live in. If your child is not enrolled, hence reducing the student population, the school gets less money from the public coffers. I know taxes never go down but if fewer new students are added to the rolls they might not go up so fast.

I don’t know anything about the schoo systems in TN, but in the Northeast it is not uncommon for parents to pay for their childrens participation in scholastic sports. The amount that they pay is usually a modest fraction of the true cost, but it makes them think about how many extracurricular activities they want their children involved in.

Once again, I didn’t say:

” unqualified, pretend “teachers” “, not did I suggest that. What I said is pretty clear. You are right that it’s not my business to worry about what your or anyone else’s children might hear in the way of gutter language or adolescent humor. I do know some people who homeschool. Without exception they point to the moral permissiveness and “liberal” policies of the school systems as paramount reasons for keeping their kids out of the system.

Ned:

Address the issue.

You’re a lawyer, then you know it’s not hard to pick up the phone and call the school district and simply ask them about the liability situation. Insurance companies exist to deny claims and make money for shareholders (yeah, I know, that’s not what their ads say). Liability insurance is very specific as to coverages, usually. But, like you say, you’re a lawyer. I’m just a guy who’s bought general liability a few times and been told in great detail what the insurer will and will not cover. BTW, I never said the costs were unacceptable, I said they are what they are. Homeschooling does not really relieve the community of the costs of schooling a child in the area I live in. If someone’s child is not enrolled, hence reducing the student population, the school gets less money from the public coffers. I know taxes never go down but if fewer new students are added to the rolls they might not go up so fast.

I don’t know anything about the school systems in TN, but in the Northeast it is not uncommon for parents to pay for their childrens’ participation in scholastic sports. The amount that they pay is usually a modest fraction of the true cost, but it makes them think about how many extracurricular activities they want their children involved in.

Once again, I didn’t say:

” unqualified, pretend “teachers” “, not did I suggest that. What I said is pretty clear. You are right that it’s not my business to worry about what your or anyone else’s children might hear in the way of gutter language or adolescent humor. I do know some people who homeschool. Without exception they point to the moral permissiveness and “liberal” policies of the school systems as paramount reasons for keeping their kids out of the system. Most of them would prefer that their children spend less time with those students, not more.

Readers can judge for themselves what you were asserting about people who homeschool.

And I’m not concerned enough about purported, increased costs of liability insurance to call anyone . . . that’s your argument.

Parents paying for their kids’ extra-curricular activities sounds fine. But then why have it done through the school?

Your response about decreasing the number of students not relieving costs because tax increases will be harder to justify is humorous, dc.

If you proposed legislation to completely severe athletics from public schools, I would have no heartburn.

I go back to the basic competitive advantage home schoolers would have over public school counterparts.

When I was in HS, we started at 7:00 am and were released at 2:15 pm. That’s 36 hours and 15 minutes per week.

A home school kid only has to attend 4 hours a day. The home school kid has an additional 16 hours per week to train and rest.

The public school athlete has a minimum GPA and attendance requirements. One bad flu in the spring and the public school kid is ineligible for the next fall.

Home school kid gets marked present by mom and is “taught” between trips to the potty.

I think the home vs. public experiences are too disparate to allow fair play. What rules would you change to level the playing field?

Good points, s&f. I guess it all comes down to what purposes (and who) one believes the public schools are intended to serve.

I think that public schools primarily exist to serve the parents of students (as opposed to “parents of student athletes”). So I’d probably concluded providing equal access is more important than trying to level some playing field for athletic exploits. But these are good questions to ask, and frankly, most of the opposition to equal access to extracurricular activities is based on lame arguments–like dc’s ;).

I can’t see how homeschooling kids can be anything but a win/win.

I’m a fan of homeschooling in general, but it’s certianly not always a positive thing. There are two main reasons why parents decide to homeschool their children: they want to give them a better education than they might get in public school, or they want to give them a worse education than they might get in public school.

Unfortunately, the latter is a rapidly growing movement.

But on the topic of sports. I say let the homeschoolers play.

At least with sports and other truly extra-curricular activities. Dramatic plays, band, choir, etc may be a different story because, while they often involve time outside of class, they are usually an extension of classroom curriculum.

dolphin,
Sorry for it to appear as if I’m ignoring your input. I think those are sound bases for making this policy decision. And while I suspect you mean teaching ideas that you might categorize as prejudice or flat-earthism when you say “worse education,” I agree that parents need to soberly consider their obligation to provide a quality education/preparation for their child. That being said, many who are not a part of the homeschooling “movement” generally don’t realize the exceptional nature of curricula and teaching tools. The key ingredient to excellent instruction seems to be individual attention and high standards. Homeschooling can provide that in spades and it is merely a matter of resolve for most homeschoolers. Most schools have impediments that don’t exist for homeschoolers.

Whether home schooled or not, the quality of the result is directly related to the quality and skills of the teacher and the effort put in by the student. I know people from both ends of the education spectrum who have home schooled. The biggest lack they face is the lack of social interaction with other children. That, as are most things, is a double-edged sword. It’s bad and good. You may not be as socially adept and you know fewer swear words.

Ned:

Your last comment to me:

“Readers can judge for themselves what you were asserting about people who homeschool.”

Yes, they certainly can, Ned. It appears that you’ve decided my comment was insulting to homeschoolers. If I wanted to say they were unqualified to teach, I would have said as much.

“And I’m not concerned enough about purported, increased costs of liability insurance to call anyone . . . that’s your argument.”

Not concerned? Or too lazy to take the time to make the call? or, afraid they might say that risk averse policies are in place?

“Parents paying for their kids’ extra-curricular activities sounds fine. But then why have it done through the school?”

You either didn’t read my comment in its entirety or you deliberatel misconstrued it. I said,

“The amount that they pay is usually a modest fraction of the true cost, but it makes them think about how many extracurricular activities they want their children involved in.”

I did not suggest that they should forego those extarcurricular activities.

“Your response about decreasing the number of students not relieving costs because tax increases will be harder to justify is humorous, dc.”

Actually, I misspoke in a sense. I meant to say that of all of your arguments that is the only one that I think might get some traction. However, like I said, TN may be different but in this neck of the woods when a student is subtracted from the enrollment numbers, funds are reduced accordingly and reapportioned.

You say you’re a lawyer, I’ll take your word for it. Perhaps that makes you feel that you can be dismissive of the people with whom you disagree. I really get the impression that you view your opinions to be immutable facts and the opinions of those who disagree with you as silly, unjustified (and unjustifiable) speculation. That is too bad. You choose to be non-responsive to questions that are posed by me or others. That is certainly your privilege, but don’t expect folks to take you at your word when you do that.

democommie,
I try to be responsive–I’m not sure if I could say much else in response. My answers aren’t likely to satisfy someone coming from your worldview, and I am surprised–judging from your past comments, that I’ve been too snarky, but I’ll try to do better going forward. Can I count on the same from you?

Ned:

Try to answer the questions that are asked, instead of posing new ones.

I readily admit that I have no clue what motivates you. Otoh, you consistently tell me how I think and what I think. You don’t know me well enough to know how I like my coffee, never mind what informs my politics.

I don’t have children. If I did, they would not be homeschooled. However, if I felt that their education was not safe in the hands of the professionals who teach and administer the school, there isn’t a chance in hell that I would be sending them off to play sports or do other extracurricular activities that I could not control.

Ask me a question that I haven’t answered. (And giving me an assignment to go call my local school board so as to confirm/prove your point doesn’t count . . . I’ve got a freakin’ day job, dc).

But as to “motivations.” You seem hung up on that. First, I can tell by your screen-name where you’re coming from. I remember at some point hearing you explain that you proudly assumed the name based on criticism from right wingers or something along those lines. That explains a great deal about your view of government and individual liberty and economic policy . . . even if it is in jest (and you haven’t surprised me yet with a position).

Second, I’ve seen you going hard and fast after Evangelicals and Evangelicalism elsewhere–NiT, I believe. That tells me a lot about your view on issues of faith and religion.

Third, obviously I can infer a great deal from your (predictable) responses. Being “predictable” is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way. Principled folks have a tendency to respond “predictably.” And patterns of responses bespeak “motivations.”

I have a blog, I post under my real name, and I don’t “hide the ball” when posting/commenting, so I think my motives are pretty apparent–not to mention I have expressed them in a direct response to you previously. I definitely have “an agenda,” but I am very concerned about integrity, honesty and what God thinks of me.

As far as whether you would homeschool, obviously that is your decision. Interestingly, you seem very well educated and you are certainly capable of teaching your children–especially at the younger ages where they are more susceptible to peer pressure, bullying, clueless (as you perceive it) worldview instruction/propagandizing from authority figures. I’m much more concerned about the ideas that my children learn than anything else–it isn’t so much losing “control” over their activities.

As a mentioned (above–frankly, I think you skim what I write, so you perceive that I’m dodging things), I’m not worried about my 18-year-old son as much as my 6-year-old. Though I may trust “professionals” to make sure little Johnny wears his chin-strap, I don’t necessarily trust “professionals” (much less peers) to make sure he understands what I have concluded to be proper views of the Origin of Mankind or sexuality or morality in general. As I mentioned above, the resources available to educate are splendid and the potential for one-on-one instruction is splendid, so I have just concluded that it is feasible for us and best for us to homeschool.

But I’m still willing to field all the questions that you say I’ve been avoiding . . .

Ah, now we arrive at the crux of the matter. You’re a christian evangelical–I’m not. No wonder I’m never right, God’s not on my side.

I don’t care what your motivations are. I said that you don’t know what mine are, but you continue to tell me that you do. Some years ago I spent some time in counselling. My counsellor, a great and patient healer, didn’t know what my motivations were and I really worked at telling him.

I don’t attack evangelicals because they are evangelicals. I attack them because they are using religious hucksterism to gull the credible folks who trust them. I’m not sure what I believe in terms of christianity, but I am quite sure that christianity has no corner on truth, dignity, honesty or integrity. My integrity is a good deal more intact than a lot of the people that are so called christians.

I did not give you an assignment to call the school administrators, I suggested that you not take me at my word. You assume that you are correct and I’m wrong, not a problem for me. But, you being a lawyer, I would think you’d be quite concerned with who would be responsible for paying medical bills and disability claims if your son was injured while playing at a school where he is not enrolled. He’s not my child, it’s not my responsibility. And even if you have great health insurance to take care of your son in such a situation I would think that subrogation is as much a part of health insurance coverage/claims as it is for autos and real property.

I read your comments start to finish, when they are replies to me or on a thread I’m commenting on.

I think you’re implying that I’m a coward–because I don’t have a blog? because I use a nom de blog? Pretty thin beer. One of these days I may get a blog, it’s more an issue of having time/patience to get through the computerese. Am I the only person who comments here who “hides the ball”, or am I the only one whose conduct, in that regard bothers you? I really try to avoid insulting you, not because I respect you, but becauase I don’t dislike you. However, when you start telling me that you have a “day job”? I wonder about my reticence in that regard. I’ve worked for over 40 years, since I was in the 9th grade. I’ve done a lot of pretty hard work and I don’t need to justify my situation in that regard, to you or anyone else. I got issues out the ass, laziness isn’t one of them.