Home-schooled girl fights for band spot

Lincoln Journal Star ^ | June 18, 2005 | Kendra Waltke

[Born in a Rage]

FYI, more teachers homeschool their kids than any other demographic group. I know plenty of them.

[durasell]

Really? I thought they were sending their kids to Swiss boarding schools with all the money they were making because of the unions.

[wyattearp]

Some kids who attend public school don't participate in any 'extracurricular' activities...by your definition they are also only 'part-time' and not fully participating.

Wow. I don't know how you managed to define what I said in this manner, but you sure did do it. I guess I'll try this again.

If a student is enrolled in a public school they can either participate in that school's extracurricular activities or not. If a student is NOT enrolled in that public school then they do not have any right whatsoever to participate in that school's activities.

If a student is enrolled in a public school and they are learning disabled or don't speak english well, and they spend half of the day with tutors, they are still enrolled in that public school. If they are enrolled in that school then they can participate in extracurricular activities.

If a student has been pulled out of the public school system, and is being home-schooled, then they should have no expectation whatsoever of being able to participate in extracurricular activities of the school that they are not even enrolled in.

[oldbrowser]

if they pay taxes into the school system, then she should be allowed.

This could actually get quite complicated if taxpayers can pick and choose between public and home schooling in a cafeteria style.

[Born in a Rage]

That is your opinion. However, it isn't justifiable due to the points I've made in other posts. It's prejudicial, discriminatory, and a matter of taxation without representation.

[DaGman]

"It never ceases to amaze me how home-schooling parents consistently demand that they should get MY money back in THEIR pocket. I want MY money back in MY pocket!"

Ain't it the truth. That's along with making up the rules to fit them as they go along. I have a problem with people that want it both ways. Either go to public school or don't go to public school. Choose, then live with the decision.

[durasell]

...a matter of taxation without representation.

Don't you vote for the local school board? If so, then you have representation.

[wyattearp]

Listen here...we pay school taxes AND pay for our children's educations AND pay for all their music/art/fencing/whatever lessons AND make it so that every other taxpayer pays less because our kids aren't in the public school.

Keep something in mind here: THAT WAS YOUR DECISION, NOT MINE. Don't blame me for your decisions.

YOU have a lot of nerve. YOU and some other public schooled or childless people are the ones screaming for refunds.

Nope. The only time that I am "screaming for refunds" is when home-schoolers want vouchers, etc. Part of that voucher that they are demanding isn't their money. It's mine. That is when I start demanding my money back.

All the homeschoolers are saying, is to let our kids use the facility we pay school taxes for.

If people want to participate in the public school system, and use the facilities of the public school system, they need to be enrolled in the public school system. Otherwise, if they want their kids to participate in certain activities then they need to provide it themselves.

[sweetliberty]

"No one can play in the band unless they are registered, full-time students at the school, he said."

By the same token, anyone whose child is not registered in the school shouldn't have to pay to support it.

[beavus]

You SHOULD get your money back.

[Amish with an attitude]

My source is the good old fashioned (not dumbed down) "Iowa test". Our children have taken it annually for the past four years. The test results rank the student's performance based upon state and national averages as well as home schooler's as a group.

[wyattearp]

HOMESCHOOLERS AREN'T TAKING YOUR MONEY.

They try, and they try, and they try, and I fight them every step of the way. Whether it is vouchers, or charter schools, or whatever, they are trying to take my money without giving me any control over how it is spent. That is wrong, and I will continue to fight them over it.

If people want to home-school their kids, fine. I have no problem with that. It's when they have their hand out that I get "a bit irritated." In nearly every election cycle in my state, home-schoolers submit initiatives to attempt to take money from the public school system and put it into their own. It is an ongoing battle here, and I will not stop fighting it.

Once again: if you want to home-school your kids, fine. Leave me out of it.

[wyattearp]

What control do you have over the "education" kids get at the public school? LOL!

Ever heard of a school board? It isn't much, but at least it is something.

[Born in a Rage]

Technically, yes. However, homeschoolers are being taxed so that the state can provide for the education of their children. We, have a right to deny that assistance. However, when a homeschooler wants to take advantage of those tax dollars by sending their child to a public school part-time, they are often denied. They are not promoting the education of these children as they are obligated to do. It's ridiculous. Imagine a person who is eligible for welfare saying they don't want it, but they do want the food stamps that go along with it. Now, imagine the government saying they can't get the food stamps unless they take the welfare check, too.

[sweetliberty]

"YOu can't really choose to keep your kids out of the public school, and then pick and choose which programs you want them to participate in."

While I agree with you in principle, the fact is that the parents are paying taxes to support the public school, which they should be able to opt out of when they choose to homeschool their kids. Unfortunately, the almighty government trumps the people it is supposed to serve...again. As long as the parents are supporting the virtually worthless public education system, they are entitled to avail themselves of some benefit from it should they choose to do so.

[wyattearp]

However, it isn't justifiable due to the points I've made in other posts. It's prejudicial, discriminatory, and a matter of taxation without representation.

I re-read what I posted, and what you have posted, and I have no idea where this comment is coming from. I said nothing prejudicial or discriminatory, and I feel that I addressed the points in the post that I was responding to.

As for taxation without representation, that is exactly the point that I am trying to make with regards to vouchers. If tax money is taken out of the public school system and delivered to home-schoolers, or charter schools, or whatever, then I have no representation whatsoever on how that money is being spent. It is a direct violation of my rights as a taxpayer and a citizen.

[Born in a Rage]

Most people aren't on the school board and most school boards don't cater the educational program of their school to suit an individual. The only people who have control over the education of their children are homeschoolers.

[sweetliberty]

"Then why entrust them to the PUBLIC SCHOOL BAND TEACHER?!"

You got an opinion on this?

[beavus]

What about me? I don't have kids. Why don't I get the percentage of MY taxes that goes to public schools refunded?

You should!!

[Born in a Rage]

I'm not for vouchers. I never said I was. I've posted tons of articles at FR over the years about why people should be against vouchers.

The discrimination lies in letting some kids partake in school activities and not letting others partake in those same activities even though they clearly want to and pay for them.