[torQQue]

Why am I against it? If the schools system is not good enough for certain children then why should it be good enough for them to be active in those school systems sports program? I asked this same question earlier and know one answered. Most of us know that so many kids are being home schooled by parents that can't even function on their own. I'm not trying tick anyone of here.

I ask you this, how do you determine whether or not a child is good enough for a particular school system? We are not talking about social status here. Because we are definitely not the type of people that think we are better, or have more money than others. The KEYWORD here is school/education. How do we, or I should say the state of Kentucky, measure the quality and effectiveness of an education? With testscores.

I would be willing to bet any amount of money, that my two homeschooled kids testscores, would greatly exceed the average KCCT, CAT, ACT, etc, scores. Furthermore, since we have to measure a school's effectiveness by testscores, and not by social status, I ask you, why aren't my kids good enough to participate in public athletics? It's definitely not because of their lack of education. If education isn't the deciding factor, then exactly what is? Isn't education the most important factor, and athletics are just a bonus? My kids deserve the bonus.

Also, no where in my post did I ever say the public schools system weren't good enough for my kids. I haven't had one issue with the teachers and/or faculty members from our district. The ones I know personally are certainly qualified and dedicated to the students. However, there simply isn't enough them.

I attended public school systems my entire life, and many of the same teachers then, are still teachers now. I received a quality education, however, it could have been better if the public schools didn't stretch teachers so thin.

The problem isn't the teachers at all, as mentioned, public school systems just need more of them, so they can decrease the size of the classrooms. Smaller classrooms equate to better student and teacher productivity. I challenge you to prove me otherwise. Take a look at the average public teacher to student ratio which is 17:1, compared to the private which is 6:1.
Then compare the Test scores. You will then understand where I am coming from.

Public school systems don't have the adequate funding to give more academic individualization to meet the needs of slower, average, and/or gifted children. For example, my kid is academically gifted, their solution is to throw him into a classroom, 2 or 3 grade levels higher. I am not going to do that, and run the possibility that the older kids may tease and pick on him because he is different from them. Self esteem and confidence is easily damaged at such a young age, and those problems can affect a person for a lifetime. Do you agree?

Another thing, why should I be satisfied with just "good" enough? What if my son wants a "great" education? My son loves to learn, and wants to be challenge academically. When he masters one subject and/or area of interest, he moves on to the next. There are no academic time frames/guidelines/teacher planners like you see in public school systems holding him back. If he completes the 5th grade math textbook in two months at home, he can move on to 6th grade at home. In a public school, he would have to move at the teachers pace. At home, we can work with him at "his" own academic pace.

In my opinion, the public school systems simply don’t have enough "people resources" to allow him to excel at that level. They have the quality, just not enough quantity to go around..

[FONT="]
[/FONT]