The Private advantage - A new perspective

This is an excellent article by Mark Story of the Lexington Herald-Leader.

It shines a light of truth on the perception that private schools have an "unfair" advantage in state competition.

I will agree with him about the two big cities and rest of the state view. I will not agree with him on the last 20 years argument because the only issue is the trend now and not 20 years ago. Look at the figures in the last 10 years. As the proposal itself states from 1995 to present.

Also, from a public school viewpoint, it is not JUST about state championships. It is about district and regional championships too. Now the private school supporters want to make it about JUST state championships but the public schools are not just looking at that. My school has very little chance of winning state championships. But district and regional championships mean a bunch to us. And if one of our teams even gets to the regional championship game, it is a good year.

If we want to view things from this perspective no reason to complain about gas prices. I am sure if we average out gas prices over the past 10 years, it does not approach $3.00 per gallon, so why are we complaining.

I will agree with him about the two big cities and rest of the state view. I will not agree with him on the last 20 years argument because the only issue is the trend now and not 20 years ago. Look at the figures in the last 10 years. As the proposal itself states from 1995 to present.

 

Also, from a public school viewpoint, it is not JUST about state championships. It is about district and regional championships too. Now the private school supporters want to make it about JUST state championships but the public schools are not just looking at that. My school has very little chance of winning state championships. But district and regional championships mean a bunch to us. And if one of our teams even gets to the regional championship game, it is a good year.

You can's have it two ways here. In the first paragraph you say that the proposal very clearly states that the problem as you and others see has manifested in the last 10 years so anything before that is not relevant to the argument because it wasn't specifically addressed in the proposal. Then in the second paragraph you state that it's not all about state championships when one of the rationales very plainly listed in the proposal is to allow more schools the pride of winning state championships. No where does it say anything about district or regional championships. If anything the public school sponsors of this proposal made it all about state championships, not the private schools

If the last 20 years is irrelevant because that time frame is not specifically addressed in the proposal then why are district and regional championships relevant when they were not addressed in the proposal?

You can's have it two ways here. In the first paragraph you say that the proposal very clearly states that the problem as you and others see has manifested in the last 10 years so anything before that is not relevant to the argument because it wasn't specifically addressed in the proposal. Then in the second paragraph you state that it's not all about state championships when one of the rationales very plainly listed in the proposal is to allow more schools the pride of winning state championships. No where does it say anything about district or regional championships. If anything the public school sponsors of this proposal made it all about state championships, not the private schools

 

If the last 20 years is irrelevant because that time frame is not specifically addressed in the proposal then why are district and regional championships relevant when they were not addressed in the proposal?

Let me clarify than. In the proposal, the last 10 years is the time frame being addressed.

For many of the school districts that will vote for the proposal, it is not just about state championships but also about district/regional competition.

Let me clarify than. In the proposal, the last 10 years is the time frame being addressed.

 

For many of the school districts that will vote for the proposal, it is not just about state championships but also about district/regional competition.

So then because the proposal only brings into question the last 10 years all other history should just be ignored?

If your schools district is of the opinion that their chances of winning state championships will not be greatly enhanced because of Prop 20 then they should vote against it by your logic, because all that can be considered is what is specifically brought up in the proposal.

The biggest problem not many people talk about is the fact that middle school students are the target of recruitment. I know the KHSAA has no policy governing middle school students and basically turn the other cheek.

As a public school person, I see no reason to create a separate sector among public/private athletics...however, perhaps the KHSAA can look into school's that target athletic advantage via the middle school route. And I'm sure Public school's probably do this as well, but I think that is becoming a problem throughout the state...that is middle school recruitment for athletic advantage.

So then because the proposal only brings into question the last 10 years all other history should just be ignored?

 

If your schools district is of the opinion that their chances of winning state championships will not be greatly enhanced because of Prop 20 then they should vote against it by your logic, because all that can be considered is what is specifically brought up in the proposal.

Not ignored but the Prop is based upon the results from the last 10 years. The stats in the article were a little misleading. But to use my analogy earlier, when complaining about gas prices today should you consider what you were paying 15 years ago and feel good about it?

As I stated, public schools are looking at more than just state championships and when you are changing the playoff system, you are dealing with regional/district championship.

The biggest problem not many people talk about is the fact that middle school students are the target of recruitment. I know the KHSAA has no policy governing middle school students and basically turn the other cheek.

 

As a public school person, I see no reason to create a separate sector among public/private athletics...however, perhaps the KHSAA can look into school's that target athletic advantage via the middle school route. And I'm sure Public school's probably do this as well, but I think that is becoming a problem throughout the state...that is middle school recruitment for athletic advantage.

One of the props and I am not sure which, partly addresses that. If a MS athlete participates in a postseason contest with one HS, than there eligibility has been established and transfer rules would kick in.

By the way, Prop 20 does NOT address recruiting or any recruiting issue. Only competition in a "level playing field."

Not ignored but the Prop is based upon the results from the last 10 years. The stats in the article were a little misleading. But to use my analogy earlier, when complaining about gas prices today should you consider what you were paying 15 years ago and feel good about it?

 

As I stated, public schools are looking at more than just state championships and when you are changing the playoff system, you are dealing with regional/district championship.

When a major basis of the argument is that historically private schools have won a disproportionate number of championships then I would say that yes, arguing what happened 20 or 30 or even 50 years ago would be relevant.

The KHSAA is not designed to address societal issues or trends in education just athletics. And there is NO doubt that for whatever reason that the private schools have an unfair advantage on the athletic field. It started about 10-14 years go when KERA came into place and has peaked at this time with (from the article)Yet, private schools claimed 17 of the 31 team state championship trophies the KHSAA awarded in 2004-05.

Why? Some of that is earned, some is because of societal issues, (reasons that is not in the spectre of being addressed by the KHSAA) whatever the case, KHSAA is simply going to have to decide if this is a big enough issue to address with one, multiple or all of the props they are voting on. If these props fail, the issue still hangs over HS athletics and will need to be addressed or it will continue to fester.

The next 17 days leading up to Oct 20th should be interesting.

If as you say there is NO doubt that private school have an unfair advantage then why are there some sports that the public schools dominate?

I don't understand bringing KERA up at all. This was another self imposed policy. If as a result of it the public schools are not able to compete with the private schools on the athletic field what logic is there is penalizing the private schools?

One of the props and I am not sure which, partly addresses that. If a MS athlete participates in a postseason contest with one HS, than there eligibility has been established and transfer rules would kick in.

 

By the way, Prop 20 does NOT address recruiting or any recruiting issue. Only competition in a "level playing field."

How in the world does Proposal 20 level the playing field. Henderson, with 1000 boys will still be in a football class with Southern, with less than 500. Male, Manual, Central and Butler continue to draw from the entirety of Jefferson County while the other schools are saddled with "resides" districts and a cumbersome paperwork process for any kid wanting to come from anywhere else. And how does Proposal 20 help Pineville compete with Bell County? How does it help Caverna compete with Hart County? Or Silver Grove with Boone County.

It is not about leveling the playing field and never has been. It's about penalizing the private schools for what they have done lately, which is emphasize facility development, coach development and retention (many times, on much less salaries than their public school counterparts and certainly not the lucrative retirement system), and in an outstanding manner, emphasizes the involvement of the entire school "community" around the school.

It is not about leveling the playing field, furthermore, it is about "dumbing down" the criteria for a state title. Kentucky remains the one state where at the end of the day, the state champion is not one of many (with the lone exceptions of Track/Cross Country and Football), but rather, the singular state champion. The nerve of those folks who came before us, to actually think that being the best didn't mean being the best of a smaller group, but rather, the best of the entire state.

It is not about Title IX either. If your moniker is accurate, then you know first hand that at a time in the 1970s and 1980s when the primarily male administrations at public schools did everything they could to fight the onset and development of girls sports through Title IX, their private school counterparts were embracing and developing these new opportunities. And finally in the last ten to fifteen years, those seeds planted years ago have matured. Now, certain members of the group who chose to sow the seed of discord and negativity towards girls' sports, seem somehow surprised that those who emphasized the sports are now successful.

Yes, the article yesterday was terribly accurate. Did it say the same views that were espoused in the spring by a statistically flawed and unbelievably skewed presentation that went throughout the state? No, this time, the author sought accurary. But it would have been made even more accurate by the inclusion of the entire 30 years of Title IX history. The truth is that a minimal number of the public schools are now reaping the rewards of program neglect and in many cases, sitting around with a "woe is me" attitude while some counterparts sought positive change. The cold hard truth is in stats available when I called the volleyball contact at the KHSAA. More than 120 schools have added volleyball since the State of Education directed KHSAA to rigidly police Title IX. So for those groups, after having been drug kicking and screaming into compliance, they now scream bloody murder at the success of longer established program.

And let it not be said that this is totally a girls' sports argument. The football classes remain imbalanced. But the most skewed area is certainly not 4A, but a system that allows for a school with 120 kids to be in the same class with one that has almost 500. But since no private school wins that class, no one seems to mention it.

Thankfully, Mr. Story chose to accurately portray the facts. Thankfully, the school delegates for the KHSAA meeting have a chance to bring logic and rational thinking to at least levelize the area that students can be drawn from, with Proposal 1, which represents an attractive alternative to Proposal 20. And yet, even some public schools don't like Proposal 1, as they feel like they would lose the same fertile ground they accuse their private counterparts of cultivating.

And thankfully yes, there remains another voice of reason beyond the vote of the schools. The fact that the proposals require some type of regulatory approval (I heard they go through the Legislative Research Commission before going into effect). In that way, at least a potential knee-jerk reaction which would manifest itself as an athletic train wreck could be averted.

How in the world does Proposal 20 level the playing field. Henderson, with 1000 boys will still be in a football class with Southern, with less than 500. Male, Manual, Central and Butler continue to draw from the entirety of Jefferson County while the other schools are saddled with "resides" districts and a cumbersome paperwork process for any kid wanting to come from anywhere else. And how does Proposal 20 help Pineville compete with Bell County? How does it help Caverna compete with Hart County? Or Silver Grove with Boone County.

 

It is not about leveling the playing field and never has been. It's about penalizing the private schools for what they have done lately, which is emphasize facility development, coach development and retention (many times, on much less salaries than their public school counterparts and certainly not the lucrative retirement system), and in an outstanding manner, emphasizes the involvement of the entire school "community" around the school.

 

It is not about leveling the playing field, furthermore, it is about "dumbing down" the criteria for a state title. Kentucky remains the one state where at the end of the day, the state champion is not one of many (with the lone exceptions of Track/Cross Country and Football), but rather, the singular state champion. The nerve of those folks who came before us, to actually think that being the best didn't mean being the best of a smaller group, but rather, the best of the entire state.

 

It is not about Title IX either. If your moniker is accurate, then you know first hand that at a time in the 1970s and 1980s when the primarily male administrations at public schools did everything they could to fight the onset and development of girls sports through Title IX, their private school counterparts were embracing and developing these new opportunities. And finally in the last ten to fifteen years, those seeds planted years ago have matured. Now, certain members of the group who chose to sow the seed of discord and negativity towards girls' sports, seem somehow surprised that those who emphasized the sports are now successful.

 

Yes, the article yesterday was terribly accurate. Did it say the same views that were espoused in the spring by a statistically flawed and unbelievably skewed presentation that went throughout the state? No, this time, the author sought accurary. But it would have been made even more accurate by the inclusion of the entire 30 years of Title IX history. The truth is that a minimal number of the public schools are now reaping the rewards of program neglect and in many cases, sitting around with a "woe is me" attitude while some counterparts sought positive change. The cold hard truth is in stats available when I called the volleyball contact at the KHSAA. More than 120 schools have added volleyball since the State of Education directed KHSAA to rigidly police Title IX. So for those groups, after having been drug kicking and screaming into compliance, they now scream bloody murder at the success of longer established program.

 

And let it not be said that this is totally a girls' sports argument. The football classes remain imbalanced. But the most skewed area is certainly not 4A, but a system that allows for a school with 120 kids to be in the same class with one that has almost 500. But since no private school wins that class, no one seems to mention it.

 

Thankfully, Mr. Story chose to accurately portray the facts. Thankfully, the school delegates for the KHSAA meeting have a chance to bring logic and rational thinking to at least levelize the area that students can be drawn from, with Proposal 1, which represents an attractive alternative to Proposal 20. And yet, even some public schools don't like Proposal 1, as they feel like they would lose the same fertile ground they accuse their private counterparts of cultivating.

 

And thankfully yes, there remains another voice of reason beyond the vote of the schools. The fact that the proposals require some type of regulatory approval (I heard they go through the Legislative Research Commission before going into effect). In that way, at least a potential knee-jerk reaction which would manifest itself as an athletic train wreck could be averted.

That was awesome. :thumb:

runningref made some very good points.

The Girls sports comments you may have had to live through to believe but runningref is dead on.

The KHSAA is not designed to address societal issues or trends in education just athletics. And there is NO doubt that for whatever reason that the private schools have an unfair advantage on the athletic field.

Winning does NOT constitute proof of unfair advantage. If you look at the time money and effort that winning schools put into their programs, that will be the single largest factor. In girls sports, the Louisville Catholic girls schools have had extensive sports programs for at least sixty years, long before Title IX "made" them do it. The Louisville area Catholic grade schools have huge sports programs for boys and girls. Those things translate into wins, but there is not one thing about them that is unfair.