Second bill opens public school clubs, teams to outside students
Per my earlier blog on this issue, Senate Bill 55 is now posted on the state web site. From my reading of the bill, it opens public school extracurricular activities to any public students in the district. So, students attending magnets or charters outside the district or zone can join clubs or teams offered at their home school.
In that sense, it seems to duplicate Senate Bill 34, which allows nonenrolled students in charter or virtual school to participate in extracurricular programs at their local school. The only difference is that SB 34 uses “shall” while SB 55 uses “may.”
SB 34 states: Public school shall allow any nonenrolled student to participate in any extracurricular activity offered or conducted by such public school outside of regular school hours in the same manner as any student currently enrolled at such public school.
But when I called Senate sponsor Renee Unterman’s office for clarification of what seems duplicate intent to me, I was told the bill applies to “any student residing that district.” I asked if that meant homeschooled or private school students, and Unterman’s aide said that it did. That doesn’t sound right to me based on the language of the bill, so I asked the aide to doublecheck and get back to me. When I get the clarification, I will post.
Regardless, this bill and SB 34 raise a slew of questions on liability, responsibility and accountability.
Are the four Senate sponsors of this bill ignoring the fact that many of these after-school activities do not run on tax dollars but on the willingness of teacher and parent volunteers to donate their own time and money to help their students?
Many posters on the first blog on this bill said that as teacher sponsors of clubs they’d be unwilling to take on students from outside their classrooms as they see the clubs as ways of enhancing their bond with their students. Is it fair to ask teachers — most of whom are not paid for their after-school clubs — to donate their time to kids outside of the school?
I have read all the posts on the first blog on this issue, and understand the desire of homeschooling and private school parents to take advantage of the clubs and activities at their local public schools. I remain concerned about the burden on the public schools to sort out this law, if it is passed.
The bill does put some discretion in the hands of the principals to set rules, but only if those principals are in accord with regulations yet to be established by the state Board of Education. It also includes language that the students seeking to join after-school clubs or teams at their local public schools be in good standing at their own schools. (The bill does not make clear whose task it is to check on the student’s standing and keep up with it.)
The Senate sponsors are Unterman, David Shafer, Chip Rogers and Don Balfour.
I have to ask those senators behind this bill: Given the deep cuts to public education funding, given your own constituents’ concerns over how their schools can continue to do more with less, is it a good idea to ask them to take on this new responsibility?
The bill states:
Nonenrolled public school student means a public school student in grades kindergarten through 12 who resides within the attendance zone of a school but who is not enrolled in such school.
A public school may allow any nonenrolled public school student to participate in any extracurricular activity offered or conducted by such public school in the same manner as any student currently enrolled at such public school. A nonenrolled public school student desiring to participate in an extracurricular activity shall register with the principal of the public school, or his or her designee, such intent to participate in extracurricular activities of the public school in accordance with rules and regulations established by the State Board of Education.
The final approval for such participation shall reside in the discretion of the principal in accordance with local board policies, or in accordance with State Board of Education or Georgia Charter Schools Commission policies, for a state chartered special school or a commission charter school, respectively.
In order to be eligible to participate in an extracurricular activity pursuant to this Code 45 section, a nonenrolled public school student shall maintain at his or her school of attendance compliance with all academic and nonacademic rules and requirements governing participation in such extracurricular activity at the public school.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
115 comments Add your comment
East Cobb Parent
February 10th, 2011
4:52 pm
@Ann I was only addressing the nay sayers regarding home school. I’ve tried in the past to show that they are often bright, well adjusted children. Bloggers retaliate with every tale of poor performing home school student they know or perhaps makeup. The comment was meant to show them well, if you say they are often behind their peers then why worry. I have one home schooled child. He was just accepted into the John Hopkins Talented and Gifted program. The child takes a proctored test. GA doesn’t get to grade it or mess with the cut scores. The home school children I know, are home schooled because the parents did not have the funds for a Pace or Westminster and the public school was not meeting the needs.
@old school doc, your comment is interesting so the parents of kids outside the school would have to stay but not the parents of kids that attend the school? I could take that to mean you believe students within your school and other students are not. I’m sure that is not the case.
I asked a few of the leaders – KidChess and Club Scientific because those were the clubs meeting today – not only did they not care if students outside of the school attended I was informed they had such students. Looking at the classes I couldn’t tell you which students attended the school and which did not. AND the instructors were calling all the students by name.
East Cobb Parent
February 10th, 2011
4:54 pm
Sorry went to say “in your school behave and others do not”
Toto: Exposing naked body scanners...
February 10th, 2011
5:58 pm
@Warrior Woman
Thanks for your specifics. Question: Do public high school football teams (501c3’s) pay for the cost of a stadium? Do they rent it for each game? If they meet in the locker rooms after school during practice, is the school paid a monthly rental fee? If a high school has no sports teams, why would it allow a stadium to be built on the property? Sounds like a HUGE amount of tax $$ are going to benefit A VERY SMALL MINORITY.
“to serve the female student-athletes of XYZ High School” or “to support leadership, sportsmanship, and learning through ABC sport at XYZ High School.”
If what you say is true, then home school and private school students can also file a 501c3 stating, “to serve home school and private school athletes zoned for the XYZ High School” and can insist on using the same high school facilities. On what LEGAL grounds could the high school refuse access by this group over the public school one???????
Ann
February 10th, 2011
7:16 pm
@East Cobb Parent – Thanks for clarifying. I understand your point now (with the sarcasm you intended) and it is a good one.
@Warrior Woman – I have not made any derogatory comments about public school students. I am a product of public school myself. My past comments were about the frustrations and resentment of “some” parents regarding families who make other choices, the expansion of opportunities with a wider participation pool in activities, and comments about the “school system structure” and it’s limitations, such as the disconnect between what employers need and how students are prepared for the world.
I believe there are many paths to becoming “educated” and that there is not one right or wrong way that applies to everyone. Maybe one day we will have meaningful reform in public schooling. The answer cannot be found in throwing money or time (such as extended hours) at the problem. I think most people would agree that there is much room for improvement.
Atlanta mom
February 10th, 2011
7:36 pm
Ann,
You stated ” There was a higher percentage of literacy before formal schooling was established, when everyone was home schooled.”
Really? Can I have a cite for that fact? I’m finding it difficult to believe that ALL the population ws included in that finding.
Toto: Exposing naked body scanners...
February 10th, 2011
9:18 pm
@Atlanta mom
This website indicates that at the time of the Revolution, the literacy rate was nearly 100%.
I doubt that 100% of the children were home schooled, but most began their education (reading and writing) at home. There were few quality public schools at the time.
“While Webster’s adult life was documented in his diary, not much is known about his childhood. However, it is very likely that Noah Webster had little formal schooling and was largely self-educated. He would have attended school for only a few months out of the year (from December to March) when his labor wasn’t required on the farm.
In fact, the majority of education in early America was done by the parents, church, tutors, and apprenticeships. Such training produced in our Founding Fathers the greatest group of men in character and reasoning of all time. Noah Webster was a contemporary of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton – all of whom were self-educated.
At the time of the Revolution, the literacy level in America was the highest that it’s ever been – virtually 100%! John Adams said that to find someone who could not read was as rare as finding a comet. And yet by the end of the American Revolution, many towns still had no public schools and few people went to college. Those students who did go to college were instructed by tutors – most often ministers – and we do know that Noah Webster’s parents hired a tutor so that he could enter Yale College at age 16.
After he graduated in 1778, Noah wanted to study law (at the first law school in America) but he could not afford it. By this time more schoolhouses were being built, so Noah became a teacher to support his own studies. He did not like the American common (public) schools, however, saying: “The general institution of schools in this country is full proof that …people never misapply their economy so much, as when they make a provision for the education of children.”
http://www.famoushomeschoolers.net/bio_noah.html
Atlanta mom
February 10th, 2011
11:00 pm
@Toto
ROFL. I guess if your landed gentry your literacy rate might be 100%.
How about this:
“The rates(literacy) for poor men (69%) are two-thirds of previous estimates and the rates for poor women (22%) are half of the most conservative previous estimates. These transient examinations also allow racial comparison: the rates for poor men of color (21%) and poor women of color (6%) are significantly lower than those for poor white men and women; and these rates for people of color are just a fraction of the previous estimates for men and women based on estate records. These dramatic differences suggest that estimates of literacy based on property documents overrepresent the wealthy and thus present an inflated view overall of New England literacy.
found at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_n4_v29/ai_18600988/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
Atlanta mom
February 10th, 2011
11:02 pm
your should be you’re
Guess I’m a little illiterate myself tonight.
Jen Downey
February 11th, 2011
9:50 am
@Warrior woman:
I don’t believe I made any negative generalizations, or said anything “unkind” about public school students in my two posts, so I’m not sure why you made your “Pot, meet Kettle” comment. Did I miss something? Generalizations are of exceedingly little value.
Ann
February 11th, 2011
11:25 am
@Atlanta mom – The literacy rate has been quite high in the past even among minority or disadvantaged populations. In the late 1800’s, early 1900’s in the U.S., a majority of African Americans were literate. There are, of course, variations in percentages depending on what research you look at, but 80% is often reported, although higher and lower figures are out there, too. The Armed Forces is now concerned about the significant drop in literacy since those times. Soldiers must have a minimum competency in reading (4th grade proficiency to read road signs, safety instructions, etc.). In World War II, the rate of literacy among applicants/draftees was 96%. By the Korean War, it had dropped to 81% and by the end of the Vietnam War, it had dropped to 73%. This was despite an increase of funds and more professionally trained personnel. The point being made is that literacy rates have dropped as more schooling has been formalized and more time and money is placed into the public school structure. This applies across racial and economic groups. So, why are the desired outcomes dropping? For more information on the Armed Forces illiteracy issue, see http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm
In the initial article of this blog, Maureen asks why we should expect schools to do “more, with less” by accepting other kids into the extracurricular programs. In regards to the literacy discussion, the claim is that schools did “more, with less” in the past. They can do “more, with less” now if they are free to “mix things up”. It is not the fault of teachers, students or parents. The problem is the overall structure of schools, the length of time spent in that structure (long days over many, many years). It takes less than 100 hours to actually learn to read. Long ago, people learned to read and write in a short time, then were out in the community or work world applying that skill and they could see the application and direct benefit of that knowledge. Now, because of the length of school time, that application is far removed, and boredom sets in and a lack of desire to learn.
teacher2010
February 12th, 2011
11:53 am
If you choose to leave the public school system, then you have to take what is offered at your new school or homeschool. Sorry, but you can’t decide that the education elsewhere is better but the athletics or whatever is better at the public school and want to jump back on that bandwagon.
AJinCobb
February 12th, 2011
11:58 am
@Ann,
Re literacy rates, I prefer sources such as this: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#illiteracy
Note that the table gives illiteracy rates, not literacy rates. So according to self-reported data on the 1870 census, for example, 20% of the population was illiterate, including almost 80% of African Americans. By 1900 this had fallen to 44.5%. These numbers hardly fit with your claims.
AJinCobb
February 12th, 2011
1:12 pm
Sorry, my preceding comment is grammatically muddled. I meant that between 1870 to 1900 the self-reported illiteracy rate of African Americans (actually, the “black and other” category) fell from 79.9% to 44.5%. Only in the 1900 census did African American illiteracy slip under 50%. These figures are not compatible with Ann’s claim that “In the late 1800’s, early 1900’s in the U.S., a majority of African Americans were literate.”
Value in letting non students join public school teams? | Get Schooled
February 12th, 2011
10:15 pm
[...] clear which kids each of these similar bills was representing. (See earlier blogs for background. This one is about 55. This one is about [...]
JM
February 16th, 2011
1:58 pm
I absolutely love this bill.