What you say sounds fair. So I am assuming that you want to give the home school parents a tax break so they can form their own social/sport events or it could go into an account that would help pay for their college education, seeing as how they will not be able to get sports scholarships. Surely you're not suggesting that some kids don't deserve to get to play sports like the other kids, are you? That would be horrible. God, how cruel.

I didn't think democrats, especially liberal democrats felt that way. And you complain about George Bush not being compassionate. But we both know the "George Bush is not compassionate" bullshit is just one of those liberal collective thought things. Kind of like the Vince Foster thing you were whining about in another post.

I have mixed feelings about homeschooling. I'm not a fan of telling parents how to raise their childen. But, personally I don't think homeschooling is in the best interest of the child. I wonder if most parents' motivation in homeschooling is to shelter their children from elements in society that they consider objectionable.

This statement "Homeschool families pay taxes to fund these activities at public schools, yet we are not allowed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by them." by Will Boyd hit me as not very well thought out. I pay taxes to support the public schools and don't get a direct benefit from them either because I don't have children. But, since public schools serve an overall benefit to society, I don't have a problem with my taxes being used to fund them.

This attitude reminds me of people that want tax breaks when they send their children to private schools. Their logic falls apart also. If they deserve a tax break because they are not utilizing the public school system, then where's my tax break since I don't have children at all? I'm not utilizing the public school system either. With that logic, you could also argue that after your children are old enough to be out of school that you should get a tax break also. If only the people using the schools are required to support them, then what do you have: a private school, not a public school system.

No, sorry. They shouldn't be allowed to participate in the public school system's extracurricular activities. That is what "Homeschool Leagues" are for. Yes, the DO exist in Knox County, so, Will Boyd, go find yourself one.

A question for you parents. Aren't funds for a particular school based on the number of students that attend? If so, what Will Boyd suggests would be putting a financial strain on the school because they are not receiving funds for their child that is not enrolled.

Ron,
What's to keep a homeschooled kid from getting a sports scholarship? Other than football, every sport has a club team that's better and more well respected anyway.

"Homeshoolers such as I have chosen to take the core academics at home, and we have proven that these subjects can be effectively taught in the home by the fact that nationally, our average test scores are higher than public school students' average scores."

Let me proctor the tests and THEN tell me those stats are accurate.

Cake, have, eat, mak eup your f*cking mind homoschoolers!

How would your proctoring of the test have any different results. Unless you change something that was written or said then it would be the exact same results. And homoschoolers? What the hell is that about?

Shit/Brains/Best-you-can-do

Well Ron, my "shit for brains" still makes me look genuis compared to you. :-)

As to the proctoring the exams, I thought it would be glaringly obvious that tests which are not properly supervised allows ample opportunity for CHEATING.

Sorry. Nothing will make you look like a genius. And if the results are not what you like then you simply claim cheating. Fuck off.

I wouldn't call it cheating but I think it's reasonable to assume that, in the words of the author, learning the "core academics at home" better prepares you for tests on the core academics.

But school isn't just about core academics is it?

Let me see if you can let me know a little more of the democrats position on this. Let's say that there are Undocumented Workers (politically correct)/Illegal aliens children going to these schools. Who are not being taxed. Do you think these kids should get access to these facilities? Seeing as how it was just a "no" with you guys on the tax payers kids I am assuming that I can just get a yes or no answer.

And Paul you are quite correct. School now days really has nothing to do with core academics but a lot to do with social engineering. It's basically a big daycare system with an agenda. Valedictorians should not be awarded because it makes the less motivated feel better according to a lot of school systems. How to roll on a condom should be taught to second graders according to your sides point of view and yada yada yada it never ends. The teachers do not want accountability. Just more money. Not pay based on merit. However it's not nearly as bad as the universities around the country. You heard about the heckler at the Ann Coulter speech at the University of Texas didn't you? In front of kids younger than 10 he was asking Ann about guys F'n their wives up the a** and he didn't use the apostrophe and asterisks. If you are going to look down your nose at conservatives and claim they are all like Rush and some preacher who hates gays then I am going to view all liberals the same as the moron heckler. It's always your side that acts in the bizarre and abnormal ways. We're just evil because we're rich (according to you), believe in God and believe in defending the nation. Something the new left just doesn't get or understand. That is why you are losing elections. I can't remember anything positive about Iraq mentioned on ABC News, CBS News or NBC News before the last presidential election. It was an all out assault on the President of the United States yet he won the election. The Republicans picked up House seats and Senate seats. You lost Tom Daschle the minority leader of the Senate. There is a reason. The left is playing with a very old play book. They think the big three networks can still carry their water for them. If the new left doesn't wake up then they need to get used to losing.

And don't forget my first question. I really would like to know who the democrats think should get to use tax payed facilities. Seeing as how you are a democrat I will believe you are speaking for the entire collective.

It's hard to keep up with you Ron. Your post goes from reasonable to hateful bile in about 3 sentences.

Illegal aliens should be made to pay taxes like the rest of us without fear of automatic deportation. And yes, they should have access to our schools.

I'm not sure if a line has been crossed by public schools regarding "social engineering". They are, after all, mostly academics even now. The distinction I was trying to make wasn't with requirements for phys-ed and home economics but with just dealing with a fixed schedule, people you hate and teachers that don't like you. Things that adults have to deal with and public school students learn to deal with.

Things that homeschoolers do not have to deal with.

The rest of your hate will get filed under "dung". Rush/Fox must've really been on fire yesterday.

Oh you poor baby. Is Rush bothering you again. I'll jump on him at the next right wing conspiracy meeting. It's good to know that the democrats support letting non tax payers illegals use public facilities but not tax paying citizens. Par for the course. And you are a scratch player.

"Blah blah blah. mega-dittos. amen."

Nice twist too. I said illegals should be made to pay taxes.

But they aren't paying taxes and you are advocating letting their kids use the facilities but not the tax payers. Nice twist Ajai Raj.

Googled him so I know WTF you're talking about. If we're going for nicknames now I'll go with Mini-rush for you.

Micro-dittos.

I was just pointing out that all liberals are like college boy. Tantrum throwers. Call me what you like. And super-size mega dittos to you too.

BTW... after reading about the heckler incident and Mr. Raj's response I have to say that this is just more evidence of how stupid you are. Or is it willful ignorance. Maybe that deserves its own post.

Yes please, let's compare the tasteless heckling of some nobody college student to the tastless books and speeches of someone truly admired among conservatives. Yes, it's true, we have idiots on our side, but who's their leader? Who's writing books calling conservatives traitors, saying they deserve to die and portraying them to be worse than terrorists?

You're not being portrayed as worse than terrorist. You are being portrayed as weak on defense, terrorist sympathizers who think we should try and feel the terrorist pain. No thanks. Oh yeah, the rest of Raj's buddies were out there squealing like stuck pigs, it wasn't just one guy. And this is happening at colleges all across the country. Your Pie-Qaeda bunch running around throwing pies. And in the words of Ann, They throw like girls. What else could they throw like. Raj defines your side perfect. He is not the exception, he is the rule. You can deny it if you wish but it doesn't make it any less so. You call him Mr. which shows your respect for the guy. And if Ann came to town you would probably be the nutjob in the next news cycle. I see no difference between you or Raj. You all back each other up.

Let me be clear, I do not support disrupting rallies. I'm all for letting a right-winger spew their nonsense. Which is why it's just fine with me for you to be here.

YOU might not have called us worse than terrorists but the people you love so much HAVE. It seems clear that a pie in the face is a worse offense to you than one of your idols calling for the death of liberals.

I'd rather be on the disruptive pie-thrower side than the demagogue side.

Raj probably baked the pie himself. How cute. Do you bake too?

Can't believe I stumbled onto this blog while googling "Trainwreck in Lenoir City", but I'm glad I did. I am a local conservative interested in liberal ideology, and appreciate opportunities to converse with people who view things differently than I do.

Also, this subject is important to me, because we homeschool our 7 children, 5 of which are school aged presently.

Currently, I believe there are fourteen states that do not allow home educated student access to extra-curricular activites in some way or another. Obviously, Tennessee is one of them. Academic standards are enforced in a number of ways in Tennessee, primarily by the mandated registration of homeshoolers either with the state requiring TCAP testing, or with an umbrella school that has recognized and approved academic standards. While homeschoolers who register with the state aren't monitored as closely (except for the TCAP scores), their test scores are every bit as good as public educated students. How can they be as good, if the students aren't at least learning at the same level as public school students? Obviously, they are, and so I can only assume that the issue is attendance. So, are you saying that what is being learned isn't as important as just being there?

My oldest son can't play baseball for a public school team because TSSAA requires he be present in three (I think) classes the day of the game. Obviously, he can't, because he isn't enrolled. I have no doubt he could meet any academic standard they have, except attendance. Exactly what is it about attendance alone that academically qualifies a student to participate in a tax funded activity?

Randy's comments (April 30) do not hold up logically either. Since we all pay taxes to provide a public school system, and we all benefit from it in some way, what is wrong with allowing homeshooled students to benefit from a fraction of it? Wouldn't that leave more resources for those who attend? I have advocated that homeschooling families should receive some sort of tax break to refund to them some of the taxes they pay, for a system they are not allowed to participate in. I believe the average (national) amount given to the school is around $6000 a year, why not give a homeschool family a percentage of that to pay for curriculum and supplies?

Some homeschooling families do homeschool in order to protect their children from objectionable elements. I do. Why wouldn't I?

Later, Randy says correctly that schools receive funding for each student who attends. I would say that the school runs at a surplus, if they are receiving funds from families that aren't allowed access to the services. He already established that we all benefit, and therefore should be happy to pay for it. I just want to be able to receive a portion of the services, and that should be my right as a taxpayer.

For Gonzone, I repeat my earlier point, that TCAPP is proctored, my kids have taken them at public schools with the public school students, where they have to be taken. They have also taken tests under umbrella schools, where I would be happy to arrange for him/her to observe some time next year.

Paul, did you really say illegals should be forced to pay taxes?

Big post, sorry. I think I will enjoy the site, and plan to participate if that is okay. I have been looking for a forum like this, and being local, appreciate this one. If there is room for a local, open-minded conservative in the discussions, I will look forward to participating.*** Sorry about the huge paragraph, I can't seem to get the breaks in here where I started new paragraphs.

Thanks for stopping by. "Trainwreck in Lenior City" huh? Weird.

I really wish these comments allowed quoting or HTML tags.

Anyway.

Yes, I do believe that illegals should pay taxes. But remember, I'm a liberal, I don't see taxes as a burden. I see them as something more like membership dues.

"Some homeschooling families do homeschool in order to protect their children from objectionable elements. I do. Why wouldn't I?"

Because it won't work. It can't work. What happens when they go off to college? What happens when they start their career? Speaking from experience, all your doing is delaying the inevitable and not properly preparing your kids for the harsh realities of life.

Plus, depending on the kid, you might create an obsession with what they can't have.

"I believe the average (national) amount given to the school is around $6000 a year, why not give a homeschool family a percentage of that to pay for curriculum and supplies?"

Now granted, I haven't looked it up but I believe that schools get money based on the number of students. So if your kids aren't there they're not getting the money.

"I have no doubt he could meet any academic standard they have, except attendance. Exactly what is it about attendance alone that academically qualifies a student to participate in a tax funded activity?"

What is it about attendance that qualifies me to receive a paycheck?

"While homeschoolers who register with the state aren't monitored as closely (except for the TCAP scores), their test scores are every bit as good as public educated students. How can they be as good, if the students aren't at least learning at the same level as public school students?"

You're talking about today's homeschoolers. If you allow homeschoolers to play, for example, football, you can bet that the meatheads that can't stay academically eligible will start being homeschooled where all they have to do is pass one test a year.

Oh and if you're really trying to protect your kids from objectionable elements then that would obviously exclude all school related activities. My high school football team was not a Christian environment. Coaches and players both screaming obscenities. LOL

Rich,

You state that my comments don't hold up logically. But, you don't present a logical argument to the contrary. All you did was state your selfish desires to have tax breaks that you don't deserve. You have made a choice to not enroll your kids in public school. I say that you should live with that decision and quit whining. You didn't even address why I shouldn't get a tax break if you do since I don't directly utilize the public schools either. Why? because your argument doesn't hold up. Your argument really isnt' a valid argument but rather a whining post about what you want. "I want, I want, I want!"

You acknowledge that schools receive funding based on the number of students enrolled. But, then you say that unenrolled students should be able to use some of the resources. The money simply isnt't there for your child since they are not enrolled. You sir are the one with a logic deficit. You have even shown the ignorance to say that schools operate with a surplus. What planet do you live on? If schools operate at a surplus, why are teachers buying school supplies with their own money? Why are marching bands going door-to-door selling items to funds their activities? Why are many music programs being cut? Personally I think you are blinded by your own selfishness and willfull ignorance.

And, on a final note. If you want to attempt to shelter your children from reality by trying to prevent them from being exposed to "objectionable elements", you are doing them a grave disservice IHMO. Quick cover your ears, someone is saying a bad word! Hurry, run away, someone is teaching science and evolution ! LOL! Eventually your child will have to deal with the real world in which there are things that are apparently objectionable to you. You can't force them to have their heads up their asses forever.

Paul:
My point about objectionable elements I am protecting my children from was misunderstood, to an extent. I think you assume that I hide my children in a cell somewhere and deny them access to "the real world." I must tell you, that is not the case. On the contrary, my children are not locked in a classroom all day, exposed to a small group of educators and their opinions. They are out in the real world, daily. As a matter of fact, we make a point to talk about what is going on in the world, even the ugly parts, and address them ourselves. Like parents, responsible for developing our children and preparing them for the world and it's harsh realities. I can assure you, my children are more mature and prepared for the "real world" than most of their friends who are not exposed to this stuff. Children don't need to be exposed to a fellow student with a handgun to understand that the ramifications can be deadly. They don't need to engage in, or witness oral sex on a school bus to realize that it is degrading. They don't need to smoke crack in order to formulate an opinion that it ruins lives. We all make decisions about where our children spend their time, and sometimes base the decision on who they will be spending it with, and what they will be exposed to when they are there. We just disagree on what we consider objectionable. This is an appropriate disagreement to have. As far as obsessing about what they can't have, that statement cannot be backed up with data. All children experience that when they get to college, my intent is to limit exposure to what I consider objectionable until they are reasonably mature. Hell, I hope they do experiment a little-just not in middle school. Oh, and believe me, harsh language is not something homeschooling has shielded them from, at least not when I am home.

Schools receive funding based on daily attendance. I pay taxes, and the money goes into the fund. You come up with the $6000 approximation by dividing the pool of money (amount determined by the amount allocated before attendance is calculated) by the attendance figures (which obviously doesn't account for my children.) Believe me, tax rates don't go down when school attendance figures lower. My point is that as public school students leave the system, there is more money available per student. At least there should be, maybe we need to take a closer look at what happens to the money. All I was saying is that my taxes didn't lower when I took my kids out of the system, so it appears to be a net gain for the public school system, but not the school itself necessarily. Where does the money go?

My children "attend" school daily. Merely attending at a job does not qualify anyone for a paycheck, it is performance that we are paid for. If you can perform at home in your occupation, you should be paid for it just as if you were there. Like I have said, my children perform measureably as well as those in public schools academically.

Now for my good friend Randy: "Whining" is a bit of an exageration, don't you think? If you had children, would you encourage them to hang out with crack heads, prostitutes, or gangbangers? Of course not. You would make decisions about who they associate with, and for a variety of reasons that are YOUR business, and not mine. And you would base those decisions on what you believe is best for them. If you think sending them to public schools for 6 or 8 hours a day is a good decision, then do it. I never once said you or anyone else shouldn't. That is a decision that free people should be able to make in a democracy. What makes you think you have a right to tell me where, or how my children should be educated, or for what reasons? Like most left wing fanatics, you act as though I need the villages' blessing on how I educate my children. My children know more about Darwinian Evolution than 90% of the government educated students in east Tennessee, I assure you. For one thing, they know it is a "theory." So far, you, my friend, have shown yourself to be the only person I have had contact with in the past week who's head seems to be lodged firmly in their ass.

As for the surplus comment, I can assure you, I do a better job on a fraction of the amount allocated per student in the public school system. Ever wonder why I can do it so much better on a fraction of the cost? Maybe you should look into it, and see why I produce a better product on a fraction of the amount the public school system collects per student. Maybe money could be more wisely allocated, so teachers wouldn't have to buy their own supplies, and bands wouldn't have to go door to door. The money came out of my paycheck, where did it all go?

Rich,
But if I don't attend my job I don't get paid. Attendance is part of the requirement for my pay. Turning that statement around is a logical fallacy. Nice try though.

So your children venture into and discuss the real world with their parent and you think that really exposes them to anything? I'm sure your kids are very mature, overly so. I've never met a homeschooled kid that wasn't a) too mature for their age and/or b) had a big friggin ego about their place in the world.

But you're right, that's your business, not mine. Where it becomes my business is when you want access to public schools.

Your view on public school finances are downright fictional. Sure you can do it cheaper. But try paying your wife (who I assume does the teaching in your home) an annual salary and don't forget to pay her extra for the role of school secretary, principal, cook and bus driver. That doesn't even count facility costs. Think $6000/kid is fair?

And thanks for letting us know that your kids are learning the "theory" of evolution. From your tone I assume you're teaching them mostly creationism or ID? LOL

Rich,

I never said that you need my blessing or that of the village on how to raise your children. You are free to raise them how you please. And I am free to state my opinion just like you are. I'm not even a liberal. You might discover that if you were paying attention and not making assumptions.

No, I don't think whining is an exageration at all. Now answer my question. Do I deserve a tax break too for not directly utilizing the public school system?

I hope that you are teaching your kids that evolution is a fact. Evolution as the origin of humans is a theory. And the only scientifically valid theory that we currently have.

I just stumbled onto this site. I believe the people who had posted pro-homeschooling thoughts, were really just standing up for their rights and their beliefs. Unlike Paul Witt, whom I feel, was unwilling to let these people air their legitimate thoughts. At every argument, Paul had something harsh to say about homeschooling or homeschoolers in general. I wonder, why is this so personal for you, Paul? Why the rigid, vindictive tone? I can feel the hate within your words. I'm neither pro nor con, but I'm willing to listen to both sides. And I'm willing to allow both sides their views. Why aren't you, Paul? Must be some personal reason in your life? So personal you refuse to divulge it?

Paul:

"But if I don't attend my job I don't get paid. Attendance is part of the requirement for my pay. Turning that statement around is a logical fallacy. Nice try though."

I am willing to bet that you are also required to perform at a certain level, or produce a certain product. Of course, many if not most jobs require a person to be there in order for that to happen, but some do not. Some jobs can be done from home, via a computer vpn connection. My point was that what gets you the paycheck in the end is performance, not attendance by itself. Logically, the work/school analogy is not a good one anyway, since all children have a right to a publicly funded and provided education by law. The government is not obligated legally to provide you with a publicly funded job.

I'm not sure why you are so concerned about what my children are exposed to. You seem sincere about it, so maybe you will let me know what exactly they are missing (that any reasonable parent would want them exposed to) by not being in public schools, that I can't provide with membership and participation in organizations like scouting, dance classes, music lessons, municipal sports programs, etc-programs that have nothing to do with any homeschool program. It is a shame your experience with home schooled students gave you the impression you have about them. I can assure you that my children do not fit your description, and neither do most of the students I know, but then I know more of them than you do, and so have a wider sample to draw from.

My view on financing public education is not fictional, it is factually accurate, allowing a little wriggle room on the exact numbers (it was a few years ago that I read the numbers.) We don't have to agree on whether or not I should be allowed partial access to public school programs, we have a democratic process to address the end result. We do have to agree that federal law mandates that all children have an opportunity to a free, public education. That is a fact. It is also a fact that we all pay taxes to provide that education, even those of us who don't have any children, because we all benefit from the product. It is a fact that if you have no children, you can't send them. Right now it is a fact that I am paying for a system that I do not use, because I can do a better job. I would like for my children to take advantage of part of the system I help pay for. I say again, I'm already paying for it. If the issue is money, then let the schools count my children present, or enrolled at least partially, so they can get some more money. Or, maybe it isn't really a money issue at all, since they all seem to need to do bake sales, and door to door sales to fund these activities anyway. Maybe my kids could pay their own way by helping out in the candy sales.

My children are taught that there are a number of theories about the origins of the universe, and of man. Both creationism and evolution (not specifically Darwinian, since many staunch critics of creationism see problems with Darwins theory) are examined, the facts and opinions in each are explored, at a level appropriate for their age, and I tell them what my personal opinion is, and why. What they decide to believe is their decision, just like the overwhelming majority of public school children do every day. My kids know that evolution is a fact within the species, that interspecial evolution has yet to be proven, and remains theory.

Randy,

You are right, you never said I need your blessing. I have a tendancy to assume people who give me unsolicited advice about raising and educating my children actually do it because they would like me to heed that advice. I will assume your statements are meant to be taken rhetorically in the future.

As for your tax break question, I will say again, I was trying to illustrate a point, apparently not very well. You do not deserve a tax break for not directly utilizing the system. As you stated earlier, we all benefit from educated adults that the system produces. Whether you like it or not, though, you are benefiting in the same way, for the same reasons, from home and privately educated students. The difference is, we pay taxes, and also pay the costs of educating our children. The benefit you receive from the product I produce is paid for by ME. I am also paying taxes that pay for the public school system, so you are benefiting from me twice, so to speak. I am trying to illustrate the falacy that I have no right to access to part of the public school program, since the school doesn't get the funding they would get if my child was enrolled. I can't control where the money goes once I pay my taxes, all I know is that I pay them just like everyone else. That money goes somewhere. What if local school districts receive funding for partially enrolled students, for the purpose of allowing them to participate in only some of the programs? Maybe the problem is how funding is allocated.

Or maybe the real issue is that this isn't about education at all. Maybe it is about socialization. Maybe some folks see the public education system as an opportunity to bypass the parents views in areas outside of academics, and expose them to different views. I think that is inappropriate. If you don't agree, drive on, as I will.

Rich,

I am not benefitting from you twice because you homeschool your kids. Your argument is that you are footing the bill for schooling your kids (as you should, it is you decision after all). Therefore, you think that your paying taxes and not directly utilizing the system is saving me tax money. Based on that argument, I am saving you tax money because I decided to not have children. Your argument still falls apart. If I don't deserve a tax break for not directly utilizing the public school system and saving the taxpayers money, then you don't either. You really just don't get it, do you?

BTW, I agree with you that the public schools shouldn't be in the business of social engineering. It's not their place to teach your children morals and values. That's your responsibility as a parent.

Rich,

On an additional note (can't edit posts here). You seem to think that I somehow benefit from you having children in the first place. "Producing a product" is how you put it. I strongly disagree. Producing more children is a strain on the limited resources that we currently have. The planet is already overpopulated. So, don't think that you are doing the world any favors by having more children.

Randy:

I added, "so to speak" to the comment about you benefitting twice, because I didn't mean it to be taken literally. Maybe a better way to put it would be to say that the money you paid in taxes went a little farther, since my children didn't use the funds, but "benefited society" any way, by becoming productive members inasfar as education provides this. My point, again, is simply that I pay my share, just like someone who sends their children to public schools. I don't get a discount, or tax break because my children don't attend. While I do have a choice to send them or not, I do not have a choice about whether or not I pay taxes. My children have a right to a publicly funded education. The right does not disappear when when I homeschool them. How can it make sense for me to have to enroll them, and have them attend all day in order to participate in extracurricular activities? You said yourself that most of them are financially suplemented with bake sales, or other fund raising activities. How much money would my children be siphoning away by playing baseball, or competing in a chess club?

My idea about receiving half of the $6,000 a year was to illustrate the accounting more than anything else. But, what if the local school was able to count my children for the purpose of allocating funds, and received half the $6000, and I received credits that could be used toward purchasing curriculum, supplies, and other costs associated like field trips etc? How about $1000?
To be honest, some homeschoolers would not be for such an arrangement, fearing the government would put stipulations on content, but for hypothetical consideration, would you be against this?

Either you or Paul mentioned that it is appropriate for all of us to fund education, since we all as a society benefit from the education of our youth. I mention it, because I agree. Not by merely bringing children into the world, of course, but by producing productive members of society. I would disagree about overpopulation and whether or not resources are finite at all, but that is another subject.

As a homeschooling mom I would disagree. Part of the decision to homeschool is weighing the pros and cons of public/private education vs. schooling at home. You shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too. Residents, whether home schooled or not, are obligated to support the local public school system. It's there for your use, not using it is your decision, like so many other things in life. My children participate in Parks and Rec activities (Little League, soccer, basketball) all year long as well as Cub Scouts. Homeschooled children are not "left out".