02-08-2012, 09:55 PM
Here's a reason why not:
The state recompenses schools for the number of students who are attending classes, not those who participate in extra-curricular events. Sports programs are very--sometimes ruinously--expensive. Why should a school be forced to take a home-schooled child and not receive any state money for doing so?
The slippery-slope is also an issue. What certification that a child is actually being home schooled? In a lot of Virginia cities--Richmond, Petersburg, Roanoke, Newport News, etc.--most children who fail do so for attendance reasons. Why not keep your kid in the athletics program he loves, and simply say he's being home-schooled? What's the rationale for keeping the home-schooled from other extra-curriculars: band and theater appear to be exempted from the bill, but why?
The state recompenses schools for the number of students who are attending classes, not those who participate in extra-curricular events. Sports programs are very--sometimes ruinously--expensive. Why should a school be forced to take a home-schooled child and not receive any state money for doing so?
The slippery-slope is also an issue. What certification that a child is actually being home schooled? In a lot of Virginia cities--Richmond, Petersburg, Roanoke, Newport News, etc.--most children who fail do so for attendance reasons. Why not keep your kid in the athletics program he loves, and simply say he's being home-schooled? What's the rationale for keeping the home-schooled from other extra-curriculars: band and theater appear to be exempted from the bill, but why?