After considerable discussion and listening to a member of the public speak, the South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education voted 5-3 to uphold current policy prohibiting home-schooled students from competing on district-sponsored sports teams.
In considering the issue, the district joins others around the state. Caldwell-West Caldwell in Essex County votes this month on revisions to the district’s policies that would prevent home-schooled students from participating in interscholastic sports.
The proposed policy changes come as a result of a November 2011 change to the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association’s (NJSIAA) bylaws that state home-schooled students may participate in interscholastic sports if the district allows.
The NJSIAA guidelines declare a home-schooled student is eligible to participate in interscholastic athletics, at the district’s discretion, subject to several conditions, including residency, compliance with required paperwork, compliance with NJSIAA requirements, and certification of academic eligibility.
NJSIAA continues, “The rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with all other student athletes attending NJSIAA member schools will apply to home-schooled students who have satisfied the requirements above.”
Board of Education President Beth Daugherty noted that this topic has been "sparking conversation."
The challenge, observed a number of Board members, is determining if a home-schooled student is academically eligible to play a sport.
Columbia High School students must maintain academic standards to participate on teams. If the district chose to permit home-schooled students to play, a means for determining that same academic eligibility would be established.
"Evaluating students one-on-one is a very involved process," said Superintendent Brian Osborne, while noting that "if the Board makes this a priority, we will figure out how."
Board of Education member Jeff Bennett spoke at length about the benefits for local homeschoolers on team sports. Wayne Eastman said that he saw both sides of the argument, citing "inclusiveness" as one reason to consider permitting home-schoolers to play public school sports.
Bill Gaudelli noted that, to create a means for the district to assess potential home-schooled athletes would be "a self-imposed, unfunded mandate to create more work" for administration.
In New Jersey, more than 38,000 school-age children out of roughly 1.5 million are being schooled at home, according to estimates by the website Homeschooling A2Z, which extrapolated data from census reports and state data reports to come up with approximate numbers of homeschoolers for every state.
What is unclear is how many of those home-schooled New Jersey students are of high school age, because the number is just an estimate. The New Jersey Department of Education does not require registration of homeschooled students. New Jersey is one of 10 states that do not require registration, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association; every other state in the nation requires varying levels of notification of homeschooling and proof that a student is receiving an equivalent education at home.
Clive
7:52 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
What were the 3 who voted yes thinking?
If you go to Columbia you play for Columbia - what's their logic?
What am I missing here - word to the wise start a league for home schoolers - set the rules you want.
Don't try to overrun logic or bend the arc of rational thinking.
John Davenport
5:26 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
I disagree with the BOE's decision on this and agree with the dissenters. There is no good reason why home-schooled students could not play on CHS sports teams. A little bit of extra administrative work is not a good excuse for denying them, when they use absolutely no other resources from the public schools, despite paying the same taxes -- not even aid-in-lieu transport money that students going to private schools get.
Moreover, the argument that their academic progress would have to be tested could be answered in two ways. (1) Waive this requirement for home-schooled students since it it the parents' responsibility to make sure they are making adequate academic progress in this kind of case. (2) Or, look at this as a positive: this way, the public school system is able to advise parents on whether their home-schooled child is making adequate progress. In my view, that should be happening anyway; and really state law should be changed to require it for all home-schooled kids.
Finally, the cost of this could not be significant as a percentage of our overall sports budget. We should be looking for ways to integrate home-schooled kids into their community, and maybe even attract them to join our public schools. The BOE's new policy on this totally contradicts their stated goal of serving ALL children.
I do not say any of this because I favor home-schooling; in fact I do not. But that is not the issue here. This is a bizzare decision..
Jenn L
11:31 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
They were probably thinking that homeschooled students' parents pay the same amount of taxes to the schools as public schoolchildren's parents do and that in most other states homeschoolers have the right to access ancillary services and sports.
Gregory LaMorte
12:00 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The parents make the decision to homeschool. The BOE is depriving the students of an opportunity. The BOE sided with the adult administration, they should best serve the students.
Morrisa da Silva
9:07 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Actually, Michael what your comments regarding Mr. Bennett show is that rather than a quest for nuance and context you are engaging in sour grapes. You state that you do not have enough facts to form an opinion about the issue yet you believe that you are the person to critique Mr. Bennett's taking up this issue and doing outside research on how other districts are dealing with this issue and relaying this to the board. I would caution you to think twice before you post such comments as they reflect more on you than those you target.
Regarding the board and their interpersonal relations - I would recommend that you allow them to work it out. Mr. Bennett and any new board member are a peer among peers regardless of the length of time serving. Knowledge, by the way is not a trait only reserved for the old or older among us. It is more about those that seek out knowledge before making decisions. Something that Mr. Bennett does in spades.
Finally I say that the fact that Mr. Bennett read prepared remarks does not equate with being disrespectful. . I have seen disrespectful behavior by members of the BOE and this is not it.
MusicalMe
10:35 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
O c'mon, how many students are we talking about here? And our numerous and overpaid administrators can't find some time to evaluate them?
Michael Paris
1:34 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
I attended the board meeting Monday night. The 5 to 3 vote was actually over whether the board should send the question back to its policy committee for reconsideration. One member of the board's majority of five voting "no" on this issue noted that the substantive question had already been carefully considered and decided. Of course, no one would want to deprive students of the opportunity to play sports, but the devil seemed to be in proviso that allowing it would be "subject to certain conditions." It was not at all clear that the administrative burdens and costs would be minor or trivial. Mr. Bennett's new cause could not have been helped by the prepared, overly long, repetitive, strident, and condescending lecture he somehow thought it proper to deliver to his older and more knowledgeable and experienced colleagues on the board. I say all this not to say that the board necessarily made the right call (I'd have to know more facts to form an opinion), but just to add some nuance and context to the discussion about what the board actually decided and why.
Michael Paris
1:40 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Dear Marissa. Your point is well-taken. I've deleted my comment about it Mr. Bennett being disrespectful. He wasn't, and I stand corrected, and I apologize for that remark. I've reposted my comment without the offending sentence. I'm afraid I have to stand by my other statement, although this will strike many as overly personal as well. Here I'm simply offering my opinion (or characterization) about what Mr. Bennett did. I was there, and it seemed to me that his performance was not conducive to his own ends.
Best,
Michael
Devyani Guha
2:13 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Michael - Are you expecting Mr. Bennett to be quiet and not have any opinions in deference to his colleagues who are 'older, more knowledgeable and experienced'? What makes the others on the board more experienced or knowledgeable than him? And from when was the pecking order based on age? With regards to length of a prepared speech and condescension, I guess it depends on whether you support the point being made. I found Mr. Gaudelli's prepared speech at the BOE meeting regarding deleveling long, grating and very condescending. Yet, I did not take to public board to criticize him for that as he is entitled to his own opinion and has the right to make as long a speech as he wishes. You may be making nuanced points about the vote regarding homeschooled kids playing sports on the high school team, but it is lost in your negativity about one board member.
Michael Paris
2:53 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Yes, it is just horrible when people engage in such personal, nasty attacks directly on other people, isn't it? I offer a complete and sincere apology. It won't happen again.
Best,
Michael
Max_W
9:52 am on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
One of the major concerns I have with this is the loophole it would create in the academic standards requirement. Overly aggressive coaches or parents could withdraw a talented athlete who cannot or will not make the academic standards from the school, declare him or her 'home schooled,' and then play them. This would be a great disservice both tot he athlete who would be denied an education and the athlete who is denied a place on the team by being displaced by an unethical ruse. It would also open the door to bringing in 'ringers' who are not really students at all, but move to town just to play sports.
I think the state has opened a door but not properly furnished the room on the other side. I bet we will shortly see creative coaches taking advantage of this in other districts, and I am glad the BoE had the insight to foresee the pitfalls.
A lower-level concern for me is community. The school is a community and the introduction of outside athletes, even if they are from the same town, is disruptive. I am not sure if I care enough about this, if my concerns above could be addressed, to deny kids an opportunity to play.