The Tebow Bill

I post this letter to my senator to clear up any misconception that the majority of home educators are in favor of the Tebow Bill, passed in the senate but stalled in house education committee last session. Most home educators are in fact against it and against the corrupt use of the THSC voter’s guide by politicians and private team and league monetary interests to gain our vote. I am not backed by these monetary interest but will do my best to relay the truth to others. This small example of how monetary interests often trump those of students and their families might also illustrate the general state of education reform (standards, curricula, testing, technology for student records, etc) in our state.

Dear Dr Campbell,

As a member of your district and one who has campaigned and voted for you in the past two elections I would like to ask your position, going into the next session, on the Tebow Bill.

Last session it seemed you played a key role in getting this bill passed in the senate. I am not sure what prompted you to be so involved. I do know you reached out to home educators at Civics Class, Conferences, etc. Thank you! Many home educators supported your campaigns with votes, block walks, yard signs, etc. We agree with much of your platform and are thankful for your work in the senate last session.

The Tebow Bill, however, is not good for home educators. The wording compromises our right to home educate by distinguishing between home schools and private schools. Home Schooling was legalized in Texas when home schools were in fact defined as private schools. The truth is the distinction is only needed if you or the supporters of the bill are trying to protect the monetary interests of private school teams and leagues over the best interests of tax paying families. Why else would such a distinction between individual private schooled students and individual home schooled students be made? Many individual private schooled students have even fewer choices for extra-curricular activities than home schooled students, because their parents can only afford small private schools and don’t have the time many home school parents have. There are certainly many individual private schooled students who would, given the opportunity, try out for the community football team or cheer-leading squad. Removing the decades long discrimination, bullying carrot of the UIL would better unite communities, while providing a choice to parents that wouldn’t hurt public schools. The choice might very well bring needed resources (volunteer time and money) of some of the most involved parents currently invested in private school teams and leagues.

Most veteran home school parents know how damaging the distinction between home schools and private schools could be in the highly visible realm of UIL sports in Texas. Also, in light of recent cases like the Tutt family in North Texas, whose children were taken away and placed by CPS with strangers for months because, per the Texas Home School Coalition, they home school, this isn’t a season for risking home school rights.

Will you commit to taking out the distinction within the bill and replacing it with wording to give every individual passing student within his/her tax district equal UIL opportunity? Sweeden, S Korea, India, etc don’t link sports to academics the way we do. All do better academically, none have as large a percentage of parent income going to sports equipment, stadiums and such. All have a higher percentage going to academics, the latter two, private academics. Shall we not take steps in Texas to value those parents who do spend a larger percentage on academics by welcoming them to be a part of the extra-curricular community for which they are unjustly forced to pay but not participate?

If you must favor private team and league interests over giving equal privilege to all students, will you at least represent the best interest of loyal home school families by voting against the bill with any damaging distinction?

I look forward to understanding your position on the Tebow Bill.

Kind Regards and Thanks,
Julie Jumes