I've listened to the debates for awhile now and the one thing that bothers me is the denial by some of the private schoolers that is there is an advantage in private schools, IMO educationally and athletically.

 

Let me pose this question. If a student lives in Louisville could he not choose to attend X, T, or M? My point being the student has choices without changing his address, whereas families in rural areas only have one choice of school; the local public high. And unless the parents are extremely focused on athletics they are not going to move. That is an advantage! Simply put, places like Louisville and Lexington that have the population to carry both public and private schools, have a larger population of talented players. And when a public or private school has success, that program will draw the more talented players. It is not the private schools fault or primary intention, but very often that is the way it happens.

Let me make it clear that I do not think private schools should be criticized, but the private schools should admit that they do have advantages. This is why private schools were established. To provide better educational opportunities, and with that will eventually come athletic opportunities.

 

There is no other reason for the private schools extraordinary success than the reason I have stated above. Public schools have seen short runs but with the changing of players and/or coaches the program cannot maintain a record such as the private schools have.

 

Public schoolers should stop complaining about the opportunities of metro areas and let their kids play. Some of the most talked about games are not the championship games but of the best rivalries.

 

As for private schoolers, just admit that there are advantages like mentioned above. To deny that would be to deny you dignity.

 

Let me pose this question. If a student lives in Louisville could he not choose to attend X, T, or M? My point being the student has choices without changing his address, whereas families in rural areas only have one choice of school; the local public high. .

 

So do the Kenton County schools go with the privates since those parents also have choices?

This is why private schools were established. To provide better educational opportunities, .

 

I'd imagine people in Walton, Ft Mitchell, Ft Thomas, and Ludlow (who all do very well academically according to state test scores) would take exception to the above.

 

As for private schoolers, just admit that there are advantages like mentioned above. To deny that would be to deny you dignity.

 

I don't think that most private school supporters deny there are some advantages. There are some disadvantages as well.

 

The point is that you cannot make blanket statements like you have made.

One more thing: As Guru likes to point out, the private schools do not impose any restrictions on public school decisions. Those would be self-imposed.

I've listened to the debates for awhile now and the one thing that bothers me is the denial by some of the private schoolers that is there is an advantage in private schools, IMO educationally and athletically.

 

Let me pose this question. If a student lives in Louisville could he not choose to attend X, T, or M? My point being the student has choices without changing his address, whereas families in rural areas only have one choice of school; the local public high. And unless the parents are extremely focused on athletics they are not going to move. That is an advantage! Simply put, places like Louisville and Lexington that have the population to carry both public and private schools, have a larger population of talented players. And when a public or private school has success, that program will draw the more talented players. It is not the private schools fault or primary intention, but very often that is the way it happens.

Let me make it clear that I do not think private schools should be criticized, but the private schools should admit that they do have advantages. This is why private schools were established. To provide better educational opportunities, and with that will eventually come athletic opportunities.

 

There is no other reason for the private schools extraordinary success than the reason I have stated above. Public schools have seen short runs but with the changing of players and/or coaches the program cannot maintain a record such as the private schools have.

 

Public schoolers should stop complaining about the opportunities of metro areas and let their kids play. Some of the most talked about games are not the championship games but of the best rivalries.

 

As for private schoolers, just admit that there are advantages like mentioned above. To deny that would be to deny you dignity.

 

 

You mention "M" in your post is that Manual or Male???? They are public schools...

First, you toss Male in with X and T. Male is a public school believe it or not.

 

Second, how is it an advantage when a kid has to pay $8,000 dollars a year and provide his own transportation to and from school?

First, you toss Male in with X and T. Male is a public school believe it or not.

 

Second, how is it an advantage when a kid has to pay $8,000 dollars a year and provide his own transportation to and from school?

 

 

LSU...don't you forget...our money grows on trees in our backyard so we can drop that $8000 a year for the unfair advantage!! :lol:

LSU...don't you forget...our money grows on trees in our backyard so we can drop that $8000 a year for the unfair advantage!! :lol:

 

A-HA! I knew you'd slip up with the truth sooner or later! Mwahaha, your goose is about to be COOKED, Danza, you hear me!? COOKED!:flame:

This is why private schools were established. To provide better educational opportunities, and with that will eventually come athletic opportunities.

 

Private schools were established to provide any educational opportunities. Private, religious education is a whole lot older, both in the United States and worldwide, than is public education.

 

As for the Catholic schools specifically, if our forebears could look and see what has happened to the school system they've established, I think they would be shocked by the progress. Catholic parish schools and high schools were started in communities of Irish, German and Italian Catholic immigrants. The fact that they have become so great is a testament to the efforts put forth by the Catholic educators of 100 years ago. The most upwardly-mobile social group in the 20th century was Roman Catholics. Much of that has to do with the efforts of these community schools. Not bad only 130 years removed from "No Irish Need Apply" and only 80 years removed from the destruction of Al Smith's presidential campaign by the KKK.

 

jwah00, you named Male in your post. That sums it up. We need to frame this not as a question of private v. public in totality, but (as so many other posters have said) at least in part as an urban v. rural discussion.

Jwah00, the truth is some drive Cadillacs and some drive Kias. Do we force all the Cadillac drivers to drive Kias? Or, on the other hand, should those with Kias learn to do better so they can someday drive a Cadillac?

 

As an unwavering "private schooler", I admit that we have advantages not available to the publics. However, with all that tax money, much of it mine, flowing into the public schools, I find it amazing that public school proponents don't acknowledge their enormous "greenback davantage". Of course, the money can't be continually squandered on some of these silly programs if you wish to be efficient. While on this point, I will admit that one of our main advantages is that we do not have to adher to the dictates of the, for the most part, irrelevant Kentucky Education Reform Act.

First, you toss Male in with X and T. Male is a public school believe it or not.

 

Second, how is it an advantage when a kid has to pay $8,000 dollars a year and provide his own transportation to and from school?

 

your call to pay the money, but because someone else chooses not to/can't, does that mean that they should be at a disadvantage in terms of athletics?

...does that mean that they should be at a disadvantage in terms of athletics?

...assuming, of course, that they are at a disadvantage.

Of course, it is someone else's fault if the publics are at a perceived disadvantage. In this age of modern education and "feelgoodaboutyourselfism", we can't possibly place blame on the allegedly "disadvantaged". After all, they are all "victims", aren't they?

jwah00, you named Male in your post. That sums it up. We need to frame this not as a question of private v. public in totality, but (as so many other posters have said) at least in part as an urban v. rural discussion.

 

 

Sorry for putting Male in with the privates, I honestly didnt know. But however I think that is the point that I was trying to make. So many public schoolers feel that it is a private/public debate when its actually an urban/rural situation.