Re: ‘Tebow’ bill to let home-schoolers play high school sport killed by VA Senate
Posted by:
hmmm
()
Date: March 01, 2012 02:48PM
I think it wrong to generalize about home schooled kids. I think this is so even though as a policy matter I think homeschooling a poor choice for many, including a majority of the families who engage in the practice.
In the recent times, two NCAA cross country champions have been home schooled. Both were from states which permitted home schooled athletes to participate in their local high school athletic programs. From what I can see, the local team, the kids on the local team, and the homes schooled athlete all benefited from the process. The home schooled athlete had to pay the cost of athletic participation, but that is a reasonable requirement.
The all or nothing mantra is just a theoretical statement. If it is good for the local teams (and the kid must truly be local), and the home schooled athletes benefit, and the families pay the freight, I just don't see the problem. Obviously there is a lesser need for a policy to permit home schooled participation in a sport like basketball, where sadly AAU team participation has become far more significant than high school team participation, or a sport like soccer, with an abundance of travel type teams. But there are a number of sports - track, football, lacrosse, and so on, where the action remains at the high school team level.
The meme that home schooled kids may not be well socialized may be accurate in some cases. But if that is so, wouldn't the right policy be to encourage these kids to participate in sports? It has to be a good way to socialize kids. Who is actually threatened by this?