Home School Athletes in Public

Home school athletes in public school sports programs. Home education has been expanding in the United States for the last several decades, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA, 2004). With this expansion has come a variety of complex issues regarding the rights of home educated students. In previous years, questions over the legality of home education and socialization of home schooled students were the focus of many debates, but in more recent times, the questions are much broader, focusing on the rights and freedoms of these students (HSLDA, 2004).

One such complex issue for the home schooled is that of the question of equal access to public school sports programs. Many high school athletic associations believe home schooled students and parents have made a conscious choice to segregate themselves from public education, and thus should not be allowed to participate in the extracurricular activities of that educational system. On the other hand, the parents of home schooled students believe they are tax-paying citizens who deserve equal opportunity for their children, regardless of their choice for regular education (HSLDA, 2004).

This split of opinion occurs on all levels, including within local school boards, state education associations, and even within the Federal court system. This paper discusses home schooling in terms of common regulations regarding curriculum, teaching certification, and grading, and how those regulations can affect the outcome of equal sport participation decisions. Additionally, this paper will discuss some of the problems associated with these regulations in terms of allowing home schooled students to participate in public school sports programs, and will discuss common opinions on both sides of the issue.

This paper will also analyze existing school systems which allow home educated students to participate, and will explore how those programs manage complex issues such as eligibility and liability. Finally, this paper will discuss strategies developed to allow home schooled student participation, and the effectiveness of these strategies. Before discussing home schooling in terms of the right to equal participation, it is important to understand the scope of the issue at hand.

According to the United States Department of Education (2003), approximately 1,100,000 children between the ages of five and 18 are home schooled each year. Considering that in 1999 the estimate was only 850,000 children (USDE, 2003), it is obvious that home schooling in on the rise. Over 75% of the home educated are white, with an equal distribution between male and female students. Often, home schooled children are from families with three or more children, where both parents live within the same home and where only one parent is in the workforce.

However, contrary to popular belief, the home educated are not of any primary income range, but instead come from all socioeconomic conditions (Princiotta, 2003). It is also important to understand why many parents choose home education over an education provided in a public school setting, since through this understanding, one can begin to understand why some parents still wish for their children to participate in public school sports events.

According to a study by Lines (2000), most parents choose home schooling as a means of integrating religious and moral beliefs, or due to dissatisfaction with the public school educational system. For those choose based on religious beliefs, parents cite the unsafe atmosphere of today's school systems. Often, these parents do not want their children involved in situations of drug use, "bad influences," or other destructive behavior that can often be found in young individuals.

For those who choose home education based on dissatisfaction, the issues cited are often a lack of trust in the level of education received in public schools, and the evidence of lower test scores for public school students. Other reasons for the choice include convenience for large families or families living in rural areas, economic reasons, safety issues in larger urban areas, and concerns about curriculum that may go against beliefs, such as instruction in evolution for certain religious children (Lines, 2000).

After reviewing these reasons for home education, it is not difficult to understand why these parents would still like the ability to enroll their children into sports activities in public educational systems. Sports activities and the lessons learned while participating rarely go against moral or religious beliefs, and there are often lessons that actually reaffirm religious and moral belief, such as lessons in teamwork and assisting others. For those who believe the educational system is flawed, signing their children into sporting activities does not negate this perception.

In short, public school sports rarely go against the morals or principles that resulted in the choice to provide home education. However, while the parents and children involved in home education may wish to expand their school day to include sporting activities, there are currently only 14 states that require equal participation rights for home schooled students.

Even within those states, which include Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, the laws and requirements for equal participation vary greatly, both between counties within each state, and between the states themselves (HSLDA, 2004). In some states, such as Florida, home school students are allowed equal access to school's interscholastic, curricular and extracurricular activities (Florida Statutes, 232.425, 2003).

However, in states such as Idaho, students wishing to participate must dual enroll in the public school system to gain access (Illinois Compiled Statutes, 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24, 2003). Since there is no Federal law or guideline in relation to the topic, governments are left to themselves to determine whether or not such participation will be allowed, and if so, how the many obstacles involved will be overcome. One such area of complexity involves the eligibility requirements for sports participation.

In most public schools, students wishing to participate in sporting activities must maintain a specific grade point average, have a specific attendance record, and adhere to all school district requirements for behavior. The concern, then, for home educated students is how these requirements would be enforced, since the students are not under the supervision of the school system. An example of the eligibility concerns can be seen by examining the statutes regarding sport participation in Florida.

According to the Craig Dickinson Act, or Florida Statute 232.425, the Legislature of the State of Florida "recognizes the importance of interscholastic extracurricular student activities as a complement to the academic curriculum." As such, the Legislature has outlined a number of requirements for participation in these activities, defined as any school related or school authorized activity occurring within the school day or outside of the school day (Florida Statutes 232.425, 2003).

First, students are required to maintain a grade point average of 2.0 or above on a 4.0 scale in those courses specifically required by Florida law (Florida Statutes, 232.425, 2003). These courses include English, with concentration in composition and literature, mathematics, which must include Algebra, sciences, which must include at least two lab requirements unless the school district can show inadequate resources, American history, world history, economics, and American Government, which must include a study of the U.S. Constitution and Florida law.

Also required are course in practical arts, also known as exploratory career courses, fine arts, such as dance, choir, or speech, life management skills courses, which include consumer education, positive development, relationship education, nutrition, health, and sexual responsibility. Additionally, physical education classes and elective courses such as psychology, sociology, and other course are required throughout high school (Florida Statutes, 232.246(1), 1993). Second, students are required to sign and fulfill the requirements of an academic performance contract between the student, the school district, the State of Florida, and the parents.

This contract assures that any students whose grade point average falls below 2.0 will attend summer school classes (Florida Statutes, 232.425, 2003). The school district may add to this minimum contract as they see fit. Third, any student participating in sporting activities must maintain "satisfactory conduct." This conduct is regulated based on school district policies, but must include provisions against felony activities. Additionally, these regulations must include statements against sexual harassment and discrimination (Florida Statutes, 232.425, 2003).

Finally, students are required to fulfill all attendance requirements, as decided by the local school board and Florida Statute 232.01 (Florida Statutes, 232.425, 2003). Statute 232.01 and 232.02 require that all children ages six through 16 participate in one of the following school formats: a public school, a religious school, a private school, a home education program, or a private tutoring program (ESSS, 2002). All students are also required to miss no more than 10 days per school year, unless special permission is granted in cases of illness or other distress (ESSS, 2002).

As one can see, there are numerous requirements, which must be met in order for a public school student to participate in sporting activities. Florida Statute 232.425 continues by discussing the requirements for home educated children to participate in those same activities. First, the student can only participate in the activities offered by the public school to which the student would be assigned. Secondly, the student must meet the requirements for a home education program, which include the same curriculum as listed in Florida Statutes, 232.246(1) (Florida Statute 232.0201, 1993).

During the time of participation, the student must show evidence of academic progress, as determined by an evaluation which may include a review of the student's work by a certified instructor, grades obtained through correspondence courses or community colleges, or standardized test scores (Florida Statute 232.0201, 1993). The student must register with the school at the beginning of the term in which they wish to participate (Florida Statute 232.425, 2003).

These requirements are difficult enough to enforce, but as noted, with proper testing and evaluation by qualified instructors, the curriculum and grading of home educated students appears to be very manageable. In the State of Florida, then, the academic requirements for sport participation are equal for both public and home educated students. Although there is certainly more room for fraud and improper grading techniques for home educated students, the evaluations necessary can alleviate much of this concern.

However, while the academic requirements may be manageable enough, the other requirements are not as easily supervised. For example, in order for home educated students to participate in the public school sports programs, they are required to maintain the same attendance requirements as those in the public school system (Florida Statute 232.425, 2003). The problem with this concept is that this requirement relies on input from the parents instructing the home educated. Since the parents obviously wish for their children to participate, the result can be a dichotomy.

If their children do not meet the attendance requirements, there is no motivation, other than morality, to dictate their disclosure of this information. Additionally, there is not a practical way for public school officials to determine attendance of home educated students. Still another requirement, which is difficult to enforce, is that of the behavioral requirements. While actual felony charges or convictions are easily obtained for home educated children, other behavioral issues are not.

Since the Florida Statute for home educated children specifically requires adherence to local school board policies for behavior (Florida Statute 232.425, 2003), the parents are again responsible for enforcement. Without a logical way to monitor home educated student's behaviors, there is again a large possibility of improper disclosure. In addition to the above issue regarding behavioral enforcement, there is another concern among parents, administrators, and the students themselves.

In some person's opinions, in order for a team member to effectively fit in and represent the school they are competing for, they need to be involved in the every day happenings within that school (Griffith, 1995). Without proper socialization with other team members outside of practice and competitions, some believe the teamwork aspect of the sports team is lost, which is a disservice to all who compete and support the team.

Further, some coaches believe that the relationship between coach and student is vital to the athletic team, and to the athlete in general, and that without constant access to them, the coaches cannot foster this relationship (Griffith, 1995). While the requirements above are specific to Florida Statute, they certainly mimic those in other states, which do currently allow home educated students equal participation rights, as do some of the other issues facing equal participation rules such as teacher and paraprofessional certification.

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind act (USDE, 2003), all paraprofessionals are required to have additional training, beyond the previously required secondary school diploma. With the alterations to Title I, Part A, paraprofessionals must have also completed two years of study at an institution of higher education, obtained an associate's degree, or be able to demonstrate knowledge and ability to assist in instructing through formal assessment.

For teachers, the new requirements include a basic teaching dress, full state certification and licensure, and assessments to show the instructor has full knowledge in all areas they are responsible for teaching. Thus, teachers who obtained a degree in teaching with emphasis in English can no longer also teach American Government without first proving they have full knowledge of the subject. If these conditions are not met, the school employing the teacher or paraprofessional is ineligible to receiving funding under Title I, and is subject to other punishments (USDE, 2003).

However, home school educators are not generally required to obtain these same certifications or prove their knowledge in any subject they instruct. Only a few states require any sort of certification. In North Dakota, for example, those choosing to instruct their children at home must possess either a teaching certificate or a baccalaureate degree. Additionally, they must be monitored by a certified teacher during the first two years of home instruction.

This monitoring will continue if at any time, the child's test scores on required achievement tests fall below the 50th percentile. However, this type of requirement is rare. In fact, in more than 20 states, no certification or even qualification is required (HSLDA, 2004). The problem with this inequality of standards is that many state athletic associations now require schools participating in sports programs to adhere to the new Title I regulations (HSLDA, 2004). In these cases, even school districts willing to allow home educated athletes are unable to do so.

Often, association rules are created to disallow undereducated or failing students access to extracurricular activities. If a school were to accept home schooled athletes, they would be violating Title I, and thus, would often lose the sports programs entirely. Still another argument against home educated students gaining equal participation rights in terms of interscholastic activities is that of liability. Many institutions are concerned that allowing home schooled students onto their sports teams opens the door for lawsuits if the student were to be injured in a game.

In many cases, liability insurance for high school sports is limited to only those students attending the institution full time (Home School Sports Network, 2000). In the event that a home schooled student was injured, the liability insurance would not cover the medical needs of the student. In these cases, the districts are virtually unable to force parents of home schooled students to sign liability wavers, for fear of legal action claiming discrimination.

At the same time, if the districts were to increase their coverage to cover anyone using the sports facility, each student, whether an attendee of the school or a home schooled student, would be required to pay an insurance fee to play. This discriminates against public school students who would normally not have to pay such a fee. Even some parents of home schooled students disagree with the concept of equal participation laws, at least on a state or Federal level.

Part of the desire for home schooling is to avoid any governmental influence or regulation on the education of the children involved. For some, this is a choice based on religious beliefs, while for others; it is a matter of privacy. In both cases, forcing the government to allow equal participation would also allow the government to begin regulating home schooling (HSLDA, 2004).

Additionally, some fear that by allowing the government to regulate equal participation regulations, those previously opposed to government intervention will be more likely to accept even further interference, if that interference is presented in relation to equal participation. Even coaches, athletic instructors, and superintendents who are noted for their support of equal participation do note some drawbacks to these regulations. In Pennsylvania for example, where recent legislation aims to force equal participation in over 500 schools, Superintendent Gerald Huesken of the Conestoga Valley School District noted one particular area of concern.

Huesken's district has allowed home educated students to participate in activities for four years, and admits that it has worked well. However, he also noted a problem with enrollment figures in relation to class assignment for sporting events. According to Huesken, if the district allows four home educated students to participate in football, the district must count all home schooled children in their enrollment calculations (Meadows, 2005).

If there are 300 home schooled students within the district, this could drastically alter the district's competition, since they would be considered in a larger class group. For smaller districts with already limited resources and funding, this alteration could easily reduce the number of wins for a team, resulting in an even further loss of support and morale. In spite of all the issues against allowing for equal participation, there are a growing number of individuals who support the idea.

Their arguments are as varied as those in opposition are, but are equally compelling, and in some cases, have been upheld in a court of law. One such argument stems from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In accordance with that clause, some believe that denying children the right to participate discriminates against them, thereby violating their right to equal protection (HSLDA, 2004).

While this argument has certainly been struck down in some courts, Judge Louis Bloom in Kanawha County, West Virginia, agreed with the claim, and ruled that the school district of Kanawha County must draw up reasonable rules, which allow home educated students to participate in public school sports. On appeal, the West Virginia Appeals court upheld the decision (HSLDA, 2004a). Another argument often used in support of equal participation stems from the idea that the parents of home educated students pay taxes, which support the public school systems.

Thus, some believe, these parents and their children have a right to participate in any activity those schools provide, including extracurricular activities. As the HSLDA notes, these members of the community are not excluded from other public institutions, such as libraries and hospitals, even though they home school, so it is unacceptable to keep them from publicly funded school programs (HSLDA, 2004). Even representatives in South Dakota, pushing for the passage of H.B.

1072, a bill designed to allow for equal participation, noted that the families were tax payers, and should be able to reap the rewards of those taxes (HSLDA, 2002). Furthermore, many parents of home educated students note that their decision to educate their children themselves actually saves money, and benefits the public school students. Their argument is that their funding actually increases the funding overall, without the school district having to teach another student.

Thus, they reason, choosing to participate in a small part of the package their tax dollars is already used is an entitlement (Colb, 2005). However, these arguments are based on a single false premise: the idea that tax payers are guaranteed rights to the programs those taxes fund (Colb, 2005). Tax dollars are used for a variety of programs, and not everyone uses those programs.

Those without children still pay taxes to public school systems, individuals without vehicles still pay taxes for road construction, and all citizens pay for maintenance of parks, even if they do not choose to attend them. Therefore, taxes should not be viewed as tuition, and do not guarantee access to portions of the programs funded from them (HSLDA, 2004). Still another argument in favor of equal participation in sports activities is that of the concept that those sports programs are not an inseparable part of the public educational system.

Unlike English or science courses, sports programs are designed as an option for students. Those who do not wish to participate do not have to. Additionally, sports programs are specifically designed to occur before or after the regular school day. Proponents of equal participation note that these two factors combined should entitle home educated students access to those programs, since doing so would not inconvenience existing public school participants (Colb, 2005). However, as some have noted, this concept is somewhat flawed as well.

Although it is certainly true that sports programs are not core courses in any school system, the eligibility to participate in those programs is obtained directly in relation to how the students perform in those core courses. Since one cannot participate without a specific grade point average, in most cases, the concept that the educational portion of the public system and the elective portion can be separated is incorrect (Colb, 2005). Without proper attendance and achievement in one, the other is not an option.

It is clear that the issues involved in the decision to allow equal participation for sporting activities are complex, and that all involved have very different viewpoints. Even in school districts that allow home educated students in their sports programs, opinions, and even compliance, is not common ground. For example, Utah Administrative Code Rule R277-438-4 states clearly that home schooled students are eligible to participate in public school sports programs if they comply with all regulations required of public school students.

However, in Carbon County in 2002, when a home educated athlete who qualified under the requirements attempted to try out, he was forbidden to do so. The assistant superintendent of the institution, Doug Hintze, held fast in his opposition, stating that the student could only participate if he enrolled in the school. When contacted by an attorney, the district reluctantly allowed home educated students into the athletic program, provided that they take tests proving they are learning the material required in academics (Somerville, 2002).

While this situation shows a reluctance on the part of even those within states requiring equal participation, Superintendent David Armstrong's further actions show an even more troubling issue, that of a continued negative attitude towards home educated students. Even after agreeing to allow participation of home schooled students, Armstrong continued to show a lack of respect in relation to these students.

In letters to parents of these students, Armstrong stated he was "not in favor of home schooling," that he believed "children miss many experiences," and implied that home schooled children were not taught to work together or to get along with others (HSLDA, 2002). These statements alone clearly show his opinions of home schooling, and such statements certainly discourage parents from sending their children to participate in a sports program under the supervision of Armstrong.

Armstrong continued in his letters by directing parents to the Department of Educations website to see what they "should" teach, noting that children in the public school system are required to learn a core set of courses and curriculum. He also stated he "hoped {the parents had} the skills and materials needed to cover what must be taught" (HSLDA, 2002). The problem with such statements is that they mislead home educators into believing they are required to teach these core curriculum concepts.

The state of Utah does not require such curriculum, but instead require only that the home educated students learn similar material. Since many home educators are such due to their religious beliefs, many strongly disagree with core concepts such as the teaching of evolution. According to Utah law, these children would not have to learn evolution, but would need to study the beginning of life, in whichever form the family felt was appropriate. Superintendent Armstrong's statements clearly mislead parents, and imply otherwise.

The above circumstances in Carbon County are not unique, and show an overall negative response to home schooling in general, as well as to the concept of equal participation. While lawmakers and judges may be showing signs of opening the doors for equal participation, it is obvious that this alone will not solve the current dilemma. While legal statues and regulations can force school districts to allow home educated students to participate in sporting activities, they cannot force educators, superintendents, parents, or students to accept the decision gracefully.

However, there are school districts whose sports activities are open to home schooled students, and some of those districts are seeing positive outcomes. One such.