Monday, March 30, 2009

Making Tim Tebow Mad By Voting Against His Bill Will Lead To Your Ultimate Demise

Florida's Equal Access Policy — which allows home-schooled children to participate in public school programs — allowed a son of missionaries to fling some pigskin around.

Worked out pretty well for both him and the state which allowed him.

I can't see any reason why Sen. Gilbert Baker's bill to allow Arkansas' home-schoolers to do the same thing should fail.

What's the detriment? So long as the insurance is up, the student academically qualifies according to state standards, and the kid lives within driving distance of the school, what's the rub?

The rub I hear most often is that the school would have to finance a person who is not a student. "They've made their bed," opponents say. "Now they have to sleep in it. Now they have to pay the consequences of this decision."

The argument that the priorities of some outsiders shouldn't take the priority over an insider, who attends the school, has some merit. If there is a roster limitation or something (which I'm not sure there is), perhaps there is a reasonable argument that says if there's no room, the kid who goes to the school in question should get the spot.

But I bet that there will always be enough room for another kid. So long as he can contribute to the team, and he isn't a detriment, and all of the aforementioned qualifications are met, why not let the kids play? Is some legislator worried that his boy won't be in the pocket come fall?

At the very least, we can make the pool a little deeper for those Razorbacks. God knows their running a little thin these days. Although, I heard decent things from Spring Practices this past week.

3 comments:

  1. Everyone should get a chance to compete in interscholastic athletics, but it's still one rule that needs to be regulated.

    I'm not familiar with the actual bill, so please excuse my ignorance.

    Now let's take a little trip to sports world.

    First thing, I understand the taxpayers' complaint over this rule. (assuming they went out of district) Sports do get a small amount of public funding, and the costs are more than just insurance. If anything I think a pay to play rule would be beneficial.

    Second: I think you would have to have a provision that states the athlete must play in the district they reside in. Here is a little scenario. Johnny Stud is home schooled. he lives in Suck High's district, but State Power high is right down the road. Without this provision Johnny Stud is essentially a free agent. Now, all the other parents see what Johnny Stud does, they take their son Billy Awesome out of the public schools and into the home. Now Billy Awesome can choose which school he plays for. Then other parents see this etc. etc.

    Is this any different than private schools? Not really, but I think without certain restrictions you could see a lot of kids home schooled so they can focus on athletics. Which would be a shame.

    Ok back to politics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think anyone should complain about the kids playing on the tax payers dime. The parents of home schoolers will pay the same property taxes in their district to support the local school, but they don't use the service. At least this way they will be able to cash in on some of their tax dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nick that's the problem.

    The student athlete would have to stay in district in order to make this fair.

    Education is funded (90% give or take) on the local level.(property tax levies) You could view this as a regressive tax but the fact remains that unless a student remains in district, someone is on the hook.

    Which is why I think there should be some residence stipulation to the rule.

    ReplyDelete