I will comment on the Donald Brooks example. Just because he chose to attend prep school does not mean he is not academically qualified to attend college. He did not have any major D1 offers coming out of Trinity, so by choosing to attend prep school vs. JUCO or smaller division, he gets to improve academically and athletically for a year and doesn't lose any NCAA eligibility. Unless you were his high school counselor how do you know what he is and isn't qualified for academically?

 

I read a great interview from Kevin Sumlin when Charlie Strong got the Texas job. Coach Strong was kicking kids off the team left and right. Coach Sumlin said something to the effect that the easy thing to do is to kick kids off the team (or "weed them out") than to hold them accountable for their actions and teach them how to be men. Give them consequences and they must own up to them, but also give them incentives, like sports, to continue to have something to work towards, as that might be all some kids have as motivation.

 

You used the story about the wrestler to tout the St X way, but I would say that is absolutely ridiculous. My wife is a therapist and she would say in this instance if you want to have real consequences they must be related to the offense. How does taking away the privilege to wrestle relate in any way to bringing tobacco to school? What did they expect the young man to learn in this instance? Make him clean up tobacco in the bathroom, have him attend substance education and counseling, have him speak to elementary kids to teach them the dangers of tobacco use. These would all be more effective.

All Tell. Ok pal I must ask you a question. So if you feel that you can not offer the programs or educate a student to their specific needs should you accept them or recommend them to go somewhere where they can get the attention they need?

 

I think my question would be this: Why does St.X refuse to offer programs for students with special needs and other disabilities? They have an alumni base that could easily afford to donate for such programs. If an X education is so good then why are they trying to limit so extensively who can have access to it?

 

While neither X or T can afford to do what the public schools can for students with special needs T at least has put forth a concerted effort to open their doors to those who would have otherwise been denied a Catholic education otherwise. Is that not at the heart of what a Catholic school should be?

From your previous post:

 

St. Xavier has a placement exam to get into school. Trinity does as well but St. X actually turns kids away that do not score well enough. St. Xavier does not offer classes to accommodate students that are not in certain levels of classes. Trinity does offer classes for kids that have learning issues and therefore can accept kids with scores that St. X can not take in for academic reason. St. X will not accept a student they feel will not have the ability to graduate with the curriculum standards to make it to college.

 

This says nothing about special needs. I know that Trinity has turned away students with special needs that were beyond their ability to successfully merge into Trinity's program. What you said was that if a kid isn't smart enough to meet their standards they don't get into X. That's elitist. Don't back pedal.

I will comment on the Donald Brooks example. Just because he chose to attend prep school does not mean he is not

academically qualified to attend college. He did not have any major D1 offers coming out of Trinity, so by choosing to attend prep school vs. JUCO or smaller division, he gets to improve academically and athletically for a year and doesn't lose any NCAA eligibility. Unless you were his high school counselor how do you know what he is and isn't qualified for academically?

 

I read a great interview from Kevin Sumlin when Charlie Strong got the Texas job. Coach Strong was kicking kids off the team left and right. Coach Sumlin said something to the effect that the easy thing to do is to kick kids off the team (or "weed them out") than to hold them accountable for their actions and teach them how to be men. Give them consequences and they must own up to them, but also give them incentives, like sports, to continue to have something to work towards, as that might be all some kids have as motivation.

 

You used the story about the wrestler to tout the St X way, but I would say that is absolutely ridiculous. My wife is a therapist and she would say in this instance if you want to have real consequences they must be related to the offense. How does taking away the privilege to wrestle relate in any way to bringing tobacco to school? What did they expect the young man to learn in this instance? Make him clean up tobacco in the bathroom, have him attend substance education and counseling, have him speak to elementary kids to teach them the dangers of tobacco use. These would all be more effective.

 

 

If a young man signs a substance abuse contract with consequences in it should you not hold the young man accountable? Does the punishment for the crime you ask. Is it so much of the tobacco? No sir it is a rule you broke that has consequence so stand up be a man and do the time that's stated for the crime. That is teaching a young man to be accountable

All tell twist the words how you like. If a young man can not pass a basic skills test call it smart or call it he is not up to the lowest level being taught then they will wash out and that would be worse for the young man. If he can not pass the placement test then I blame the parents and educators before who have not prepared him. It boils down to this.

I think my question would be this: Why does St.X refuse to offer programs for students with special needs and other disabilities? They have an alumni base that could easily afford to donate for such programs. If an X education is so good then why are they trying to limit so extensively who can have access to it?

 

While neither X or T can afford to do what the public schools can for students with special needs T at least has put forth a concerted effort to open their doors to those who would have otherwise been denied a Catholic education otherwise. Is that not at the heart of what a Catholic school should be?

 

Refuse to offer? They do not have the resources to help special needs young men that is all I can say. Why? Well that's not for me to answer but feel free to call mr. Espinoza and ask.

If a young man signs a substance abuse contract with consequences in it should you not hold the young man accountable? Does the punishment for the crime you ask. Is it so much of the tobacco? No sir it is a rule you broke that has consequence so stand up be a man and do the time that's stated for the crime. That is teaching a young man to be accountable

 

Every school has behavior contracts, but that is ridiculous. Making that kid miss out on competing for a state championship that he spent untold hours preparing for because of a can of dip? If you really believe that is how you reach kids or they learn anything from that experience, then I need to stay as far away from Poplar Level Rd as possible.

I can name more kids who left Trinity and played for X (some for discipline reasons) then vice versa.

 

What was the name of the X grad who went to UK who was videoed tackling a hotel security guard into a pool?

 

Didn't some kids a X get busted a few years back for trying to make their own money on a copier?

 

Please don't act like X is above such shenanigans.

 

As to the whole restrictive nature of admissions at X, that's fine. If X wants to be restrictive and elitist and deny young men who may benefit from a Catholic education that opportunity so be it. We'll give them a chance at Trinity.

 

Eats, never said bad or inappropriate things don't happen at X, he was implying more accountability. Here are the rules, black and white, you break a rule and there are consequences.

Every school has behavior contracts, but that is ridiculous. Making that kid miss out on competing for a state championship that he spent untold hours preparing for because of a can of dip? If you really believe that is how you reach kids or they learn anything from that experience, then I need to stay as far away from Poplar Level Rd as possible.

 

This is just like saying your parenting style is better than the other. You know what you're getting when you decide to attend either or for that matter all schools. If you sign a contract why should the signee not be held to it.

 

Kids make their decisions and as a administrator, teacher, or coach it is there job to hold them accountable. Sometimes you only get one chance to do the right thing, some people/schools take that serious while others just give lip service.

 

On the special education side, while X does not exactly have a label of "special education" they for sure have students who need certain services and they are working on provided additional services for students in need. I have masters degree in Special Education and I am a special education teacher, but I would be willing to bet the special education classes at T are nothing like the special education classes I teach. I'm glad T is offering those services just bring in down a notch because you're dealing with kids who are lowest in a population of very bright students, instead of students who can't read, spell, or can't be talked to in a certain way or they become very aggressive and ready to punch their hand through a glass window.

I am torn on this argument because part of me thinks X having Vic and Duece might have sparked issue. Although, Duece going to Boston College indictates he likely had more than football on his mind in coming to X. Bottom line is X leadership has chosen a different direction and Trinity "like Coach Cal" is winning with a different philosophy.

Both work and produce high results.

 

Go Tigers.

Both schools have students & athletes who attend their school that are not Catholic and did not attend a CSAA school. It's just the way it is...some years one school has more than the other.

All tell twist the words how you like. If a young man can not pass a basic skills test call it smart or call it he is not up to the lowest level being taught then they will wash out and that would be worse for the young man. If he can not pass the placement test then I blame the parents and educators before who have not prepared him. It boils down to this.

 

Blame the parents or prior educators? Its obvious that this conversation is over your head. You can not blame any one for learning disabilities. Often they take years of education to overcome and rarely does a teacher or school system see the fruits of their labor until long after secondary school is over. I can not think of a better story than a school that takes a chance on a student that may not meet "standards" and helps that student turn themselves into the best they can be. Putting blame on parents and educators for lack of knowledge of a upcoming 9th grader is the most ridiculous comment I have read on this thread. A thread were a lot of ridiculous things have been said.

This is just like saying your parenting style is better than the other. You know what you're getting when you decide to attend either or for that matter all schools. If you sign a contract why should the signee not be held to it.

 

If they signed the contract then by all means follow up. But again, do those consequences really fit the offense?

 

I played for a coach who began his teaching career at St. X (just a coincidence in this case, probably would've applied to many people at many schools in the 60s and 70s). He eventually moved to a new county and started the football program at my high school. Frequently I will wear a school shirt and someone will stop me and ask if I played for coach, because they had him in class at St. X. Then, without hesitation they all tell me how if anyone slept in class this coach would turn his ring upside down and smack them in the head to wake them up.

 

I don't tell this to get into a debate about punishment in school. My questions is do those former students remember the punishment, or do they remember the lesson that was trying to be taught that led to the punishment? Same with the wrestler, will he remember the lesson that someone was trying to teach him, or just the punishment?

 

You're right it is a difference in personal style, but I know which one I think is more effective. I will share that for the team I coach we also have a behavior contract, but we let a group from each grade level establish the rules and consequences each season and I think it is amazing how kids do a better job holding each other accountable in a lot of instances. Just my two cents.

Okay, what's going on here? Is this game losing its luster?

 

Usually we have a bunch more pages by now. St. X guys where are you? T guys, we're being awfully quiet.

 

This is going to be the highest attended game in the state all year, what gives?

 

I think this game has lost some of its luster due to the fact that it is not so much a competition of players who played against each other in grade school, which was once the case in this rivalry.

 

This is not an indictment on the admissions philosophy of either school; it is simply a matter of fact.