[Purple Haize]

As a parent who has sent their child to public school, homeschool, and private school and having spoken to many other parents in our same boat i can say that it wasn't the extra-curricular activities that drove them away from the public school.

You yourself stated "you are mixing 2 different things. Athletics are extra curricular activities and not subject (pardon the pun) to the same regulations as academics. SCHOOLS have to take any and everyone. Athletic organizations are not."

There is a big difference between sending your child to class every day in a public school and having them compete/perform in public school sponsored extra-curricular activities.

As an adult I've helped run public high school extra-curricular activities but still would not send my child to a public school unless I was forced to. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't think so. I believe that the classroom time and the time spend on the field/stage/whatever serve two different purposes.

I never said that extra curricular activities drove people away from Public Schools. That wasn't even on my list. I don't think you are a hypocrite at all for helping out or running public school extra curricular activities.
And again you don't understand the quote. For example, Lynchburg City Schools must take every student from their zone. The VHSL does not have to take every school in the State. They are allowed to put rules into place stating who and who is not eligible to compete for their Championship. And as long as the rules are the same for everyone, that's fine.

If you chose to homeschool or send your kids to a private school, Bully for you. But in doing so, you forfeit, IMO and others including the State of Virginia, the opportunity to come in and represent that school that your kids would have attended.
The bottom line, if LCA wants to undergo a huge paradigm shift and follow the same rules as every other school in the VHSL, they'll have a great case. If they don't want to follow the same rules,they won't.

[Yacht Rock]

I think in the end, what's best for the children is what's most important. Holding kids back from competition in public vs private vs homeschool is silly. At the end of the day, what kids get from participating in a sport is much more important than the school they went to or if they earned a championship or not. Like I said, that's what I teach my kids. Some folks are threatened by the possibility of LCA doing well against the competition. If I were the competition I would welcome a challenge.

As an example, when I was a public school student years ago, we competed against private schools that were allowed to recruit. I learned more from competing against higher calibre players and a more organized system than I would had I not competed against them. I feel like I walked away with a more complete experience having done that.

I also learned some life lessons that sometimes, in competition, there are people better than you, and while you may think you are number 1 in the bubble you get to compete in, sometimes it's good to be humbled a bit.

These are all good things for kids to learn.

If there are standards set in the league LCA wants to be a part of, by all means, they should abide. And yes, it does produce a tricky situation when you have legitimate cases where people may relocate to send their kids to LCA and sometimes those kids might be pretty talented. It can be tough to judge the motives behind those actions sometimes. I think the league would have to evaluate how often does it happen and what is the actual impact vs. perceived impact. Also, to be fair, it would be worth it to evaluate each of the public school's athletes as well to see who is using their grandma's address to attend school in a certain area, etc. Just like with Liberty, while there is a benefit to sending kids LCA for parents, sometimes there is a negative stigma attached to it as well. Perhaps some parents or students may not want to send their children to a school with a strict dress code or a strict honor code. Perhaps they don't want to be associated with the "conservative religious values" of the Liberty bubble. Who knows.

Overall, I don't believe that homeschooling/private schooling your child forfeits the right to compete against public schools. Representing a school as part of a team which is the case that can occur with homeschooled students is a tricky question. I do believe there should be standards for homeschool students to be allowed to join a public school's team but in the end, I believe it should be up to that individual school on whether or not they can participate. Some home schools, such as the one I sent my daughter to was actually a public charter school home study program. We just never met in a building or anything, the teacher would come to our house once a month to meet.

My point is, regarding standards, etc. It's not an impossible challenge to have a set of standards and ensure schools abide by them and have penalties for not. As far as LCA, depending on what they need to do, it's a matter of priorities for them I assume. Since my daughter has no interest in sports and my son has many years to go before he would be impacted, it doesn't matter to me much whether they play other private schools or public schools. However, it would be nice to see more local rivalries and more local kids get to play each other. I think in the long run that's best for everyone.

[Sly Fox]

So in other words you view athletics as a special privilege that should be hoarded as punishment for those who choose other options. The schools will gladly take the tax money but not our kids who live a block away. Makes perfect sense.

For the record, there are other reasons to not be involved in public schools beyond what you listed. None applied to us.

[Hold My Own]

A bit off topic from the current discussion but another funny firsthand experience observation: My neighbor in the city limits had a pretty talented son and a VHSL coach would pick him up for school everyday. Problem is that school he took him to was an hour away (and obviously not in the district) so he could play football for him. He scored 6 TD's in one game so I'm sure the end justified the means

Perhaps the kid would have dropped out if he had to play for E.C. Glass and that personal relationship with the coach kept him in school....who are we to say

[Purple Haize]

So in other words you view athletics as a special privilege that should be hoarded as punishment for those who choose other options. The schools will gladly take the tax money but not our kids who live a block away. Makes perfect sense.

For the record, there are other reasons to not be involved in public schools beyond what you listed. None applied to us.

If you want to make an argument about vouchers and letting kids and their tax dollars go where they want, I'm sure we agree.
Your kid who lives a block a away has every opportunity and possibility to to go to the school that is taking your tax money. They have every opportunity to participate in athletics etc for that school. Representing the school you attend IS a special privilege. But if you don't attend that school, you can't really represent them. You made a choice to not have your kid attend the school a block from your house. What you CAN do is represent the school you DO attend. If your educational option does not have athletics, theater etc, and that's important to you, than that is something you need to consider before you decide where you are sending your kid.
I have absolutely no idea where anyone thinks I have ever said Public schools shouldn't play Private schools. What I have said, and firmly believe is that unless they are all playing by the same rules, they shouldn't be competing for the same Championships.

YACHT - what competition am I advocating holding back? Kids can compete and learn from competition at any level. Your anecdotal story is an example. I have many more. What you can learn from competing has absolutely 0 to do with whether you compete against a Public or Private school. Every single lesson you say you learned from competition can be learned regardless of the level you compete at. Having LCA play Gretna in football will not teach the football players anything they aren't already learning playing Woodberry Forest.
As for the VHSL policing their own we are in agreement there. However, I would caution, that residency is not necessarily a cut and dry issue. Many kids actually DO live with Grandma or an Aunt in a different zone than their parents. Some of the Family dynamics of these kids are interesting to say the least. The single parent rate is huge and brings all sorts of things into play.

So to summarize:
LCA plays against Public Schools in all other sports except football.
The reason they can't play football against Public Schools is because of the VHSL point system for football (a point no one has brought up)
Some Public Schools don't want to schedule LCA in any sport, for a host of reasons. While I think its short sighted, it's their right to have that policy. They shouldn't be forced by law to play or not play anyone.
LCA wants to join the Public School association for the State of Virginia. LCA is a Private school playing in a league for Private schools. Each association has different standards.
If LCA changes their standards, I don't see a reason why the VHSL shouldn't let them in. But I'm not sure being forced in is the answer.
How the 'Tebow' rule discussion got started and how it applies to LCA I have no idea. I don't see how the concept of not allowing someone to represent a school they do not attend is novel. It seems pretty cut and dry, you represent the school you attend.
I'm a big fan of vouchers
I have been told my list of reasons why parents send their kids to private schools is incomplete and I agree. I did leave 'Prestige' and 'Control Freak'out of the mix but I'm not sure they apply. So please try to enlighten me where I left something off the list.
I'm a huge LCA Rocco fan

[JK37]

West Virginia, where I grew up and attended private school, is another example of a state that allows homeschooled children the opportunity to compete athletically for a school within their district.

Paying taxes grants my children the right to public education. Freedom grants me the right to pay additionally to send my child to a private institution or to homeschool them. But as my taxes pay for ALL of the curricular and extracurricular activities of the public education system in my district, I believe I should have the right to pick and choose what portions I attend. I have the right to choose to attend, but also the right to choose not to attend.

The inclusion within that right of extracurricular activities is not about representation of the institution, PH; it's about how the extracurricular works hand-in-hand and enhances the curricular. That element has nothing to do with representation of a particular institution.

[Purple Haize]

West Virginia, where I grew up and attended private school, is another example of a state that allows homeschooled children the opportunity to compete athletically for a school within their district.

Paying taxes grants my children the right to public education. Freedom grants me the right to pay additionally to send my child to a private institution or to homeschool them. But as my taxes pay for ALL of the curricular and extracurricular activities of the public education system in my district, I believe I should have the right to pick and choose what portions I attend. I have the right to choose to attend, but also the right to choose not to attend.

The inclusion within that right of extracurricular activities is not about representation of the institution, PH; it's about how the extracurricular works hand-in-hand and enhances the curricular. That element has nothing to do with representation of a particular institution.

Are you picturing me staring at the ceiling?
I disagree with the argument that you can pick and chose what portions of Public School you can attend. If that is the case, why would a student who attends Heritage High School not be allowed to play Tennis at Glass? Both are Lynchburg City Schools and, as a resident of the City of Lynchburg, your taxes go to fund both schools? Now if one school offers an activity the other does not, like they do with academics, then I don't have a problem with it.
Further, extra curricular activities have everything to do with representing the institution you attend. It's a given that extra curricular activities are there to enhance the curricular. But it seems difficult to add anything extra to a curricular you are not a part of.

[flamesfilmguy]

There was a huge stink down here in GA about Private vs. public school in the GHSA. It wound up that the Private schools (with a few exceptions) broke off and formed their own Class. So now Class A has two sub Classes. so now the GHSA is comprised of A(private, A (Public), AA,AAA,AAAA,AAAAA,AAAAAA

The only exceptions are the larger private schools who fit into the larger classifications and still have strict "non Recruiting" rules. That doesn't stop public or private from recruiting. down here kids will transfer from one 6A school to another and live with their "aunt or cousin" so they have a better chance at a college scholarship.

[Sly Fox]

I would argue that you are not representing a particular school but instead a particular community based on your taxation for a particular attendance zone. But denying access to kids who are part of the same neighborhood, you essentially are declaring the extracurricular activities private. That opens up a whole new can of worms.

And for the record, many public schools don't have programs for kids with special needs. Today's public school system is not set up to handle these types of case due to the financial hurdles. So if the public school system isn't equipped to handle these kids, the needy kids should be the ones punished under your mindset. Let those families underwrite the opportunities of the other kids and deny it to them. That makes perfect sense. Wait, what?

This is a debate down here in Texas right now with the explosive growth of homeschooling. The two private schools who are part of the massive public school league down here hardly represent all privates. But there hasn't been a huge push from private schools to force their way into the public league considering the very robust private competition in a much larger state than Virginia. Public schools are free to schedule privates in the non-conference portion of their schedules and are not punished for doing so. Homeschool kids fit an entirely different category and allowing them to compete in their attendance zone with their neighbor friends is the only logical solution.

[Purple Haize]

I would argue that you are not representing a particular school but instead a particular community based on your taxation for a particular attendance zone. But denying access to kids who are part of the same neighborhood, you essentially are declaring the extracurricular activities private. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
.

Then why are the names of the schools on the uniforms? Just about every community has an opportunity for kids to participate in Community activities. You are not denying access to kids in the neighborhood to anything. They are free to attend the local school and participate in those events. If you don't go to the school and participate in curricular activities, how can you expect to participate in 'Extra' curricular activities? You want basically 'Omni' curricular activities where everyone in the community, regardless of the school they attend can participate in any extra curricular activity at any school in the District.

And for the record, many public schools don't have programs for kids with special needs. Today's public school system is not set up to handle these types of case due to the financial hurdles. So if the public school system isn't equipped to handle these kids, the needy kids should be the ones punished under your mindset. Let those families underwrite the opportunities of the other kids and deny it to them. That makes perfect sense. Wait, what?

The last part of your argument is completely ridiculous. Everyone, whether they have kids or not, underwrite opportunities for the Public Schools in their District. What benefit does the retired empty nesters get out of it? Unless you are advocating only couples with children should pay the taxes that underwrite Public Schools. Then I'd be all for it.
As for the first part, I don't know how it is in Texas, but everywhere I've lived there have been tracts for Special Need students. There certainly is in Virginia. If you want to argue about the quality of that education, not only would that fall under my list, I would also sit down with an adult soda and we'd probably agree. Generally teachers fall into 2 categories in those classes. The first are the really dedicated who go the extra mile and have a grasp of the needs and requirements for individual students. The 2nd are the teachers that no one wants or knows what to do with so they ship them there. The over crowding in those tracks needs to be addressed and can see why Parents in that situation may look into Homeschooling. What you rarely see is a Private School that has the abilities to handle Special Needs kids. Finally, how is the kid being punished? Are there not Home School leagues their student can participate in? I know there are in Texas. They have a National Home School hoops tourney every year at LU.

This is a debate down here in Texas right now with the explosive growth of homeschooling. The two private schools who are part of the massive public school league down here hardly represent all privates. But there hasn't been a huge push from private schools to force their way into the public league considering the very robust private competition in a much larger state than Virginia. Public schools are free to schedule privates in the non-conference portion of their schedules and are not punished for doing so. Homeschool kids fit an entirely different category and allowing them to compete in their attendance zone with their neighbor friends is the only logical solution.

Up until the last sentence, I agree 100%. Your last sentence is very inaccurate. The other logical solutions would be for them to either attend the school in their attendance zone or form an team/conference whatever along with those who Home School and have similar interests. You want to compete with kids in the neighborhood? Parks and Rec, Free time, summer leagues etc. lots and lots of LOGICAL choices. Also, remember for every kid from somewhere else who participates you are taking an opportunity away from someone who actually attends the school. I guess their feelings etc are not as important

[JK37]

FWIW, ph, the options I was discussing were all initiated by the current school not offering the desired programs. Otherwise, there's no school-jumping.

[Purple Haize]

FWIW, ph, the options I was discussing were all initiated by the current school not offering the desired programs. Otherwise, there's no school-jumping.

If Public School A offers something Public School B does not and they are in the same School District than sure

[Yacht Rock]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree obviously. As a parent, I look out what's best for children. As someone who has a connection to the public school system, you want what's best for the school. Obviously we both have our biases. I just want what's best for the kids. I don't care about the school's pride, or the name of their jersey, or any of that.

And it's not always as black and white as "start your own homeschool program," etc. Not everyone may live in a robust homeschool community and I have seen more than enough failings at the classroom level in public school to warrant parents sending their kids to other places for very good reasons.

In my case, my daughter had to deal with sexual harassment in the public school system and the general response from the teachers and administration was, "Well there really isn't anything we can do about. Kids will be kids." We homeschooled for a few years after that and now have our child in LCA, understanding that she may be exposed to some of the same challenges from peers, but with more support from teachers and administration for actually holding the kids to a moral standard and having consequences for their actions.

I guess by your way of thinking, public schools should be able to bully people out of the school system and out of involvement in any of their activities. Is that correct?

Because the public school failed, I don't believe that our family has to forfeit our rights to participate alongside public school children in an activity. It's not as cut and dry as you would say it should be PH. Everyone's reasons and scenarios are different.

[ATrain]

But in that vein, Yacht Rock, one could make the argument that your daughter would again be exposed to the things that are the very reason you left the public school system: kids that she will be playing against will continue their behaviors w/o anyone holding them accountable for their actions.

[Purple Haize]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree obviously. As a parent, I look out what's best for children. As someone who has a connection to the public school system, you want what's best for the school.

.

Sorry but that is complete Your statement infers that I don't want what's best for children, and that I want what's best for Public Schools. Why are they mutually exclusive?
It also infers that since I don't have kids (the one in Cleveland doesn't count because my lawyer said I didn't have to take the test ) I'm incapable of knowing 'what's best for children. I guess my years of working with kids don't count.

I guess by your way of thinking, public schools should be able to bully people out of the school system and out of involvement in any of their activities. Is that correct?

How in the world did you come up with that? Because I feel if a student does not actually go to a school you shouldn't be allowed to represent that school?

But in that vein, Yacht Rock, one could make the argument that your daughter would again be exposed to the things that are the very reason you left the public school system: kids that she will be playing ALONG SIDE OF AND THE TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORS WILL BE THE SAME PEOPLE will continue their behaviors w/o anyone holding them accountable for their actions.

I addendumized (yes, I made that word up) ATrain's statement because its a good point.

[Yacht Rock]

A-Train, as PH stated earlier, where the classroom is a right, the extra-curricular is a privilege and typically has higher standards than experiences in the classroom. Also, being involved in an extra curricular activity is very different then being in the same environment 6 hours a day, 5 days a week.

I think comparing what kids get out of the classroom and what they get in their particular sport/hobby are two completely different experiences. That was always my experience growing up and has been my observation as an adult.

And PH, yes, since you don't have kids, I don't believe you can understand what it's like to be a parent and the concerns and thoughts we have.

I understand you may disagree and I totally respect people who don't have children, but you will always come at how to handle situations involving children from a different prospective. Being a parent changes you and your perspective completely. Most parents I've spoken to also all agree on that.

I just don't believe non-parents will ever be able to completely understand what it's like to be a parent and want the most for your children until you actually have children. I don't think that's possible. Just like I don't think someone who's never ridden a horse can really give lessons on horseback riding.

[Purple Haize]

A-Train, as PH stated earlier, where the classroom is a right, the extra-curricular is a privilege and typically has higher standards than experiences in the classroom. Also, being involved in an extra curricular activity is very different then being in the same environment 6 hours a day, 5 days a week.

I think comparing what kids get out of the classroom and what they get in their particular sport/hobby are two completely different experiences. That was always my experience growing up and has been my observation as an adult.

And PH, yes, since you don't have kids, I don't believe you can understand what it's like to be a parent and the concerns and thoughts we have.

I understand you may disagree and I totally respect people who don't have children, but you will always come at how to handle situations involving children from a different prospective. Being a parent changes you and your perspective completely. Most parents I've spoken to also all agree on that.

I just don't believe non-parents will ever be able to completely understand what it's like to be a parent and want the most for your children until you actually have children. I don't think that's possible. Just like I don't think someone who's never ridden a horse can really give lessons on horseback riding.

Considering I'm not trying to tell you how to parent your horse analogy is not valid. Did I say you shouldn't home school your kid? Nope. Did I say you shouldn't send your kid to a Private School? Nope. Did I say you should have kept your kid in Public School? Nope. What I did say was you are free to make your decision, and face the pros and cons of that decision. That has nothing to do with parenting skills. But if it did, I think understanding the implications of ones decisions would be a great thing to teach kids.
Yes I come at it from a different perspective but that doesn't mean it is wrong. To say I don't want what's best for the kids because I don't have them is frankly patronizing and insulting. Not just to me and my wife but to the organizations and people who have hired either of us to work with their kids and do what is best for them. You obviously look at what's best for YOUR kid, which is understandable. But I have been in a position in looking out for what's best for many kids, from many families and many backgrounds. I guess they were all wrong to hire us.
You come at extra curricular activities with Rose colored glasses and that's surprising. A lot of time the only requirement is a willingness to do the activity. It still doesn't take away the fact your child will still have opportunity to have interactions with the very students and administrators you were trying to avoid by leaving the school. Not to mention periods of a lot less supervision.
No one is arguing that the experiences of the classroom and the experiences of extra curricular activities are different. And those extra curricular opportunities, and the gain or loss thereof, should factor into any situation when a parent moves a child from one school to another.
Finally, I'm just not sure why saying you should represent the school you attend is so radical

[Sly Fox]

In the 1950s, it wasn't radical. Today it seems quaint and dated.

[Purple Haize]

In the 1950s, it wasn't radical. Today it seems quaint and dated.

You've had too many birthday beverages

How in the world does the issue of whether or not homeschool kids can represent a school they don't attend equate with segregated schools

Black kids couldn't go to white schools. Period.
Kids who are homeschooled have the opportunity to go to Public OR Private schools as well as the homeschool option.
Even when black kids went to white schools they were not allowed to represent the school they attended. Now ANY kid who attends a Public school has the opportunity to represent their school.

So, maybe in 1950 the concept actually is radical. But outside of the cool cars, I'm glad we don't live in the 50's anymore.

[Yacht Rock]

I am saying that if you are not a parent, what you feel is best for kids is not as valid as someone who has children. I'm sorry to say that but I do believe it.

For example, I believe folks who pay taxes should have more valid opinions for how their money is spent.

And you are saying what should and should not be available to my children. Once again, pulling our children from public school had nothing to do with segregating them from people involved with public school for the rest of their life, but ensuring that they were in a safe environment at a young age. Sure I could sue the school etc to get things done but all the while my kid would still be suffering and they don't have the time for that.

And I stand by my statement that what goes on in a classroom vs what goes on in extracurricular actives are vastly different. They both have their own challenges but I would be much more comfortable with my child involved in an extra curricular activity than the classroom. Would it be perfect? No. But changing hobbies or pulling someone from an activity is much less of a big deal than pulling someone out of school.

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly, the best solution would probably be to eliminate school sponsored sports and just spend the money on more robust community rec leagues ran privately. If school boosters wanted to sponsor a rec league team, they could do it, but that would allow participation from everyone.

Another example I would share is that there was a high school student in California I knew who played football. During the school day he was faced with a large amount of anti semitism. It led to kids vandalizing his locker, urinating on his clothes, etc. The administration chose to do nothing about it. His parent had to pull him out of school to protect him while pursuing a lawsuit against the school. In his case, he said his experience on the football team was positive but his experience as a student at the school wasn't. I guess under your standards it's just too bad. His parents could still subject him to anti semitism at school so he could play football or he can't play football at all. Those options stink. Thinking outside the box we see an option where the kid can play football, but not have to go to class with bullies anymore. I don't see a problem. By the way, at that school, everyone who wanted to be on the football team was on it. It was a small school so there were no tryouts. He wouldn't have been taking a spot away from someone else.

[Purple Haize]

I am saying that if you are not a parent, what you feel is best for kids is not as valid as someone who has children. I'm sorry to say that but I do believe it.

.

Guess I chose the wrong advocation. Guess my wife chose the wrong profession Guess the organizations and people, both Public and Private, made horrible decisions in bringing either of us on board. They obviously didn't know how little we could actually contribute. I look back at it now, and maybe you are right. Maybe we shouldn't have encouraged kids to go to college, lots of their parents didn't think it was worth it. Maybe we shouldn't have encouraged them to keep their grades up. Their parents didn't care. Sleep around? Go ahead, your mom is only 16 years older than you. Abortions? Sure, your mom had several. Drugs? No big deal. No no, prison is fine, that's what your dad said. I can't believe all these years we have been doing it wrong.

For example, I believe folks who pay taxes should have more valid opinions for how their money is spent.

If you are talking Vouchers I'm 100% behind you.

And you are saying what should and should not be available to my children. Once again, pulling our children from public school had nothing to do with segregating them from people involved with public school for the rest of their life, but ensuring that they were in a safe environment at a young age. Sure I could sue the school etc to get things done but all the while my kid would still be suffering and they don't have the time for that.

And I stand by my statement that what goes on in a classroom vs what goes on in extracurricular actives are vastly different. They both have their own challenges but I would be much more comfortable with my child involved in an extra curricular activity than the classroom. Would it be perfect? No. But changing hobbies or pulling someone from an activity is much less of a big deal than pulling someone out of school.

I'm not saying what should and shouldn't be available to your child. They could chose Public School and have all the Pros and Cons with that. Same with Private School or Homeschool. Each option has great benefits and several drawbacks.
As for your ExCur statement I agree. I never said they shouldn't interact, and quite frankly if you didn't let your kid 'out of their bubble', like some homeschoolers, you would be a bad parent. I don't think you are.
Not sure I read your last sentence correctly. If it's easier to change hobbies than classrooms, than your argument is sort of moot.

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly, the best solution would probably be to eliminate school sponsored sports and just spend the money on more robust community rec leagues ran privately. If school boosters wanted to sponsor a rec league team, they could do it, but that would allow participation from everyone.
.

Not sure it's the best solution. In essence you'd end up running into the same problem with people who live in other communities who want to participate. I don't think the current system of representing the school you attend is broken

Another example I would share is that there was a high school student in California I knew who played football. During the school day he was faced with a large amount of anti semitism. It led to kids vandalizing his locker, urinating on his clothes, etc. The administration chose to do nothing about it. His parent had to pull him out of school to protect him while pursuing a lawsuit against the school. In his case, he said his experience on the football team was positive but his experience as a student at the school wasn't. I guess under your standards it's just too bad. His parents could still subject him to anti semitism at school so he could play football or he can't play football at all. Those options stink. Thinking outside the box we see an option where the kid can play football, but not have to go to class with bullies anymore. I don't see a problem. By the way, at that school, everyone who wanted to be on the football team was on it. It was a small school so there were no tryouts. He wouldn't have been taking a spot away from someone else.

In this case, I agree. I'm not a supporter of criminal behavior or negligence. It's unfortunate that they had to sue, but I hope the Administrators were fired and the kids punished. But, as you said it was a small school, if he were still to play football he would face these same kids and the same abuse. But having a law suit hanging over the district, I'm sure it made administrators hyper vigilant. I do think it is too bad. But I think anyone who has a crime committed against them is a bad thing

[JK37]

My understanding for awhile has been that the two of you are friends on some level. You've both stated your position multiple times, and as one said now may be the time to agree to disagree. Let's not allow this to become personal and relationally damaging.

If I pay taxes which in part support the public education system of my district, yet choose to only partake of a portion of those activities of which my taxes give me right to partake, who am I hurting? If I pay taxes that give me access to both crricular and extracurricular activities, yet I only choose access to the extracurricular, to whom do I do harm?

[Yacht Rock]

[Purple Haize]

I like that a lot better than

My understanding for awhile has been that the two of you are friends on some level. You've both stated your position multiple times, and as one said now may be the time to agree to disagree. Let's not allow this to become personal and relationally damaging.

If I pay taxes which in part support the public education system of my district, yet choose to only partake of a portion of those activities of which my taxes give me right to partake, who am I hurting? If I pay taxes that give me access to both crricular and extracurricular activities, yet I only choose access to the extracurricular, to whom do I do harm?

It is a good argument. But there really is no sliding scale as to how much an extra curricular activity costs. Do the taxes you pay cover the entire cost of your child's participation? If not, then you are asking someone else to fund your decision to leave the school AND let your kid participate in an activity. Sure, by pulling your kid out of Public School you are helping to fund the education and participation of others. But that is your choice. With any choice there are consequences.
I go back to the apparently radical idea that you should represent the school you attend.
You go to LCA? Awesome represent them with pride.
You go to New Covenant? Far out. Now that they got rid of that slacker coach from several years ago, I hope you go all the way. But don't expect to play football
You go to Glass? I'll pray for you
Heritage? You are the Chosen and future leaders of the World. But don't expect to play a sport for LCA.
You are Homeschooled? Great. You will probably be more intelligent than your peers. Probably graduate from college by 18. Outstanding. But your extra curricular activities may be limited.

I would LOVE to see LCA play more Public Schools. You found no bigger an advocate for it on 'the other side' than me. Why ship a team to Charlottesville for a mid week game when there is a better option. Playing LCA drastically reduces travel time and expenses, which is good. They travel REALLY well,which means your gate and concession revenue will increase. And the game should be competitive. IMO, they are leaving money on the table. Football is a whole different animal with its points scale etc so that makes it nearly impossible. But look at the draw the Amherst/LCA scrimmage brought in. Competing for State Titles is also a different animal.

[LUconn]

and now they're in