The Public vs. Private Finals

[kissinger]

I know who Coach Matney is rooting for.

He (and those closed minded like him) won't be happy until medium to large sized rural schools are in their own division without city schools, without private schools, with a margin of less than 2 % difference in free and reduced lunch, with less than 2% difference in dropout rates, basically, until there are about 35 classes in all sports regardless of the number of schools. For when you strip out the privates, which will probably eventually happen, you will be left with rural vs. urban split. Then next, it will be open vs. closed enrollment, and then pretty soon, the first games in August will determine district seeding for the 13 week playoff system to crown 35 state champions.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Sorry, but the "life isn't fair" phrase is not garbage. Being an American is all about taking advantage of opportunities and overcoming adversity. The same goes for creating a good football program. Metropolitan areas do enjoy certain advantages over rural districts, but that just makes state championships by teams like Belfry and Bourbon County all the more sweet.

 

I don't like and don't support the federal and state's involvement in local school district any more than absolutely necessary and I certainly don't support the KHSAA trying to level the playing field between the haves and have nots. Obviously, there are many examples of the government attempting to impose their vision of "fairness" on schools and invidividuals. My post was not about what is - but what should be. PepRock pointed out some of the reasons that open enrollment is not a panacea for rural Kentucky school disricts and I appreciate the fact that somebody from an urban background understands the tangible differences between urban and rural schools when it comes to building strong football programs.

 

Rural schools need to deal the hands that they were dealt, but (to paraphrase Ann Richards), supporters of certain strong urban programs, who find themselves on third base should not think that they just hit a triple.

:thumb: I can agree that what it should be and what it is, is definitely two different things. And I LOVE that last line.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I agree that it does nothing but widen the gap with rural schools but until we start seeing KHSAA proposals for separate championships for Urban and Rural schools I'll address the current proposals of Private versus Public. Once that is out of the way, I'll be right here to address the Urban versus Rural unlevel playing field.

:thumb:

[ladiesbballcoach]

You must realize what is meant by those who continually cite a need to "level the playing field". They only use the phrase when they and/or their favorites need a little "boast" to compete- whether it be in athletics, academics, business, finances, or any other area of life. If, by chance, they happen to be on the side of "advantage", then no leveling is needed.

 

The need to "level the playing field" is merely a new excuse for grown ups to use instead of the transparent excuses used by them as children to justify their own shortcomings.

 

I would suggest that maybe they should strive to reach the level of, for example, Trinity instead of trying to bring Trinity down to their level. This suggestion is not popular with many in present day America but It would have struck a positive note with earlier and more motivated generations.

 

The idea of equality (level playing field) in this country was never meant guarantee that all would have exactly the same advantages. That won't happen, athletically or otherwise, in a reasonably free (though hedging somewhat in recent years) society.

So the affirmative actions of the 60's and 70's were more of an excuse for grown ups to justify their shortcomings than it was to "level the playing field?"

 

I will agree that sometimes it is but sometimes it is not, also. Sometimes the unfairness is justified and needs to be looked at. The argument is, is this one of those times?

 

And as far as the earlier and more motivated generations, where do you think my dad and mom learned the Democratic mindset of tax the snot out of the rich, give it to the poor and provide all the tax breaks to the middle class? Some earlier and more motivated generation that included their parents and grandparents.

[ladiesbballcoach]

You do have the RIGHT as do all public school districts. The money does follow the child when the districts work together on an agreement. Your district has CHOSEN OF ITS OWN VOLITION not to exercise that right. Big difference. That means clearly that local politics has entered into the equation and now to solve it, you seek a state wide issue. Look locally, there's the answer!!

My school district has no final say in whether the tax money from a student moving into the district comes with them or not. That decision is based upon what the board from the district the student lives.decides.

 

So they can chose to open up their borders with no tax money to follow that student and then charge tuition with no opportunities of financial aid like they would at a private school. So that argument has a lot of holes in the bucket and is not a comparable situation.

 

Public School with Open Enrollment no guarantee and/or possibility of funding for the student who cannot afford to attend out of district.

 

Private School financial aid and scholarships for those that cannot afford tuition.

[scooterbob]

So the affirmative actions of the 60's and 70's were more of an excuse for grown ups to justify their shortcomings than it was to "level the playing field?"

 

I will agree that sometimes it is but sometimes it is not, also. Sometimes the unfairness is justified and needs to be looked at. The argument is, is this one of those times?

 

And as far as the earlier and more motivated generations, where do you think my dad and mom learned the Democratic mindset of tax the snot out of the rich, give it to the poor and provide all the tax breaks to the middle class? Some earlier and more motivated generation that included their parents and grandparents.

 

 

Actually, your first paragraph is an apt description of much of the affirmative action edicts of the 1960s and 1970s. Also, I would suggest that, if you truly examine the outcome of most of these programs, you would conclude that they did very little to "level" that playing field.

 

As for the "gouge the haves" tax approach, it has produced an abundance of revenue. However, it has done very little to make any meaningful change in "leveling" that economic playing field. Reality shows us that the generations that live off the system are merely increasing in number and in size of individual families (more "dependents").

 

The lesson to be learned is that you cannot continue to give largess to the have nots and expect them to pull themselves up to a "level" playing field.

All you will accomplish is to pull the sacrificing achievers down to a lower level.

 

Those who continually use the crutch of the unlevel playing field to justify their lack of accomplishment will not succeed merely because we put them on the welfare rolls and fund the "entitlements" by "overtaxing" the privates like Trinity, CovCath, St. Xavier, LexCath, NCC, etc. History proves that it doesn't work because, for every one that succeeds in being pulled up, many more will just look for more handouts.

 

Now, don't use the "R Word" as an excuse because that has little to do with the end result since, in reality all schools partake (a practice I fully support) at one level or another.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Actually, your first paragraph is an apt description of much of the affirmative action edicts of the 1960s and 1970s. Also, I would suggest that, if you truly examine the outcome of most of these programs, you would conclude that they did very little to "level" that playing field.

 

As for the "gouge the haves" tax approach, it has produced an abundance of revenue. However, it has done very little to make any meaningful change in "leveling" that economic playing field. Reality shows us that the generations that live off the system are merely increasing in number and in size of individual families (more "dependents").

 

The lesson to be learned is that you cannot continue to give largess to the have nots and expect them to pull themselves up to a "level" playing field.

All you will accomplish is to pull the sacrificing achievers down to a lower level.

 

Those who continually use the crutch of the unlevel playing field to justify their lack of accomplishment will not succeed merely because we put them on the welfare rolls and fund the "entitlements" by "overtaxing" the privates like Trinity, CovCath, St. Xavier, LexCath, NCC, etc. History proves that it doesn't work because, for every one that succeeds in being pulled up, many more will just look for more handouts.

 

Now, don't use the "R Word" as an excuse because that has little to do with the end result since, in reality all schools partake (a practice I fully support) at one level or another.

I will concede that giving to the have-nots and "leveling the playing field" will not have the same effect on everyone. Some it will provide the exact thing they need. Some will take advantage of it.

 

For those that do not take advantage of it, almost nothing will work. But I submit for your consideration that some will take advantage of it and do you penalize those who would need it, just because some will abuse it?

 

R word I guess you mean recruiting and I agree that all do it. When I say all, I am not talking the coaching staff, but the parents, alum, etc, that do most of the recruiting for schools. Especially if they are involved in AAU or club teams.

[SilverShadow]

I attended the Henry Clay-Trinity game last Friday at Henry Clay. What a beautiful facility HC has! Football field, softball/baseball field, etc. And it's all for free. Trinity would die and go to heaven for those types of facilites at no cost..........to say nothing of the school building (at least as it appeared from the outside). Is HC representative of most public schools outside Jefferson County? If so, then the playing field (literally) is pretty darn level right now.

 

 

How did the school get a facility for free?

[ladiesbballcoach]

How did the school get a facility for free?

Coupon drive. Also got 50cents off a bag of Ruffles for the concession stand.

[tcjkbt]

How did the school get a facility for free?

The school didn't pay for it. It was given to the school by the taxpayers. Private schools do not receive this type of largesse. I completely understand that private school parents do not have to spend extra money to send their kids to private schools if they don't want to. Obviously they choose to. The point of my post was merely to say that I was very impressed in HC's facilities and, to the extent that people say that the "field" in not "level" because of the private schools having better facilities, well I don't think that is necessarily true.

[ladiesbballcoach]

The school didn't pay for it. It was given to the school by the taxpayers. Private schools do not receive this type of largesse. I completely understand that private school parents do not have to spend extra money to send their kids to private schools if they don't want to. Obviously they choose to. The point of my post was merely to say that I was very impressed in HC's facilities and, to the extent that people say that the "field" in not "level" because of the private schools having better facilities, well I don't think that is necessarily true.

I think you are a little mistaken on how the funding for building projects at public schools go. And I am not the expert on it. There is something to do with bonding projects and a school system can only have so much bonded. If they are too close to the level, they then have to pay the bonds to open up enough money to sell more bonds that allow them to get funds to build. I also believe the state matches the bonding but could be mistaken on this.

 

It is NOT like the districts have an empty checkbook to do what they want. To build anything means other things do not get build or put on the backburner for a good time period.

[tcjkbt]

I think you are a little mistaken on how the funding for building projects at public schools go. And I am not the expert on it. There is something to do with bonding projects and a school system can only have so much bonded. If they are too close to the level, they then have to pay the bonds to open up enough money to sell more bonds that allow them to get funds to build. I also believe the state matches the bonding but could be mistaken on this.

 

It is NOT like the districts have an empty checkbook to do what they want. To build anything means other things do not get build or put on the backburner for a good time period.

Where does the money to repay the bond obligations come from? If it is from any source other than taxpayers, please let us know.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Where does the money to repay the bond obligations come from? If it is from any source other than taxpayers, please let us know.

I would assume that taxes make up a good portion of it. You gave the indication though that public schools have an easy road to build something. I have no knowledge of the Henry Clay facilities but I would guess that those facilities were many, many years in the planning and situating themselves to be able to afford to build it. I would assume that they didn't come up with the idea and 12 months later, there you go.

 

Presently, my school district is in the planning stage of an addition to the HS. It has been a year in the beginning planning stage after the board trying to get their bonding situation in the appropriate place to be able to afford it.

 

It still will be a minimum of 2-3 years before it gets done.

 

And BTW, any time a private school wants access to the "free" money that you talk about, tell them to start following all the educational guidelines that publics have to follow. CATS testing, portfolios, special ed requirements, taking court ordered students, etc, etc.

[SilverShadow]

Both of you are wrong. There is nothing from state funding that allows for the construction and maintenance of athletic facilities. The ADA is clearly spelled out along with state funding for any additional programs (transportation, food). Further, TC does not understand site base responsbilities vs. school district. What portion of state funds is allowed for non ciricculum construction is severly limited.

 

Lastly, what other portion of funding? What kind of question is that, you know booster clubs and fund raising does exist in public school. Just ask Beechwood and Highlands.

[SilverShadow]

 

And BTW, any time a private school wants access to the "free" money that you talk about, tell them to start following all the educational guidelines that publics have to follow. CATS testing, portfolios, special ed requirements, taking court ordered students, etc, etc.

 

AND follow unfunded mandates. Yep, all cash for the taking. Also do not forget to provide a free ride (literally) called transportation.