November 29, 200619 yr :thumb: allrighty then! Just wanted folks to know there are those of us who have tried and who will try to change things. And hopefully they will continue the fight!
November 29, 200619 yr Although your response is amusing with the cute little faces, it doesn't make much sense. Of course it is a local problem, however the point you were making was that it was "my district". The point I made, was NOT! And since you are not here and do not know the situation or me, I can tell you that everyone who has influence has done everything we can to affect the situation. Locally, politics reign in the county system, which is larger, thus carries more votes, so politicians either take their side or remain maddingly silent on the issue. Thus the need for statewide reform such as happened in Michigan. You cannot tell me that a statewide money follows the child to any public school system wouldn't create a postive effect on education. It is the law of competive commerce applied to the schools. The parents can "buy" the best product with the same money, putting the onus on the schools to improve to attract the kids. Sports would be a side beneficiary of this also, as is some folk's arguement on the public/private debate. I'd be interested to know what part of the state you reside in. Also your tone indicates you believe I am out to "show you". I'm merely participating in the debate, since my shool is affected. Now here is my cute little face. Besides, it took me two years to figure out that those dancing little figures on the right of a post could actually be used in a message.
December 2, 200619 yr 3 private champions one merger champion. Would you care to count the number of turn overs for the losing teams. You'll find that their loses, outside of Ryle, had less to do with an unfair advantage, and more to do with lack of execution. That's if you'd like to see that, b/c it'll be damaging to the public's case.
December 2, 200619 yr Would you care to count the number of turn overs for the losing teams. You'll find that their loses, outside of Ryle, had less to do with an unfair advantage, and more to do with lack of execution. That's if you'd like to see that, b/c it'll be damaging to the public's case. I guess turnovers occur when the playing field is not level. Private schools won all three of their finals because their teams were better. The imagined tilt of the field had nothing to do with it. Congratulations to Trinity, CovCath, and NCC from everyone at Rose Hill.:ylsuper:
December 7, 200619 yr Private schools make up 37.5% of the teams in the State Title games, but less than 10% of the schools playing football in KY. Something is just wrong with that. This is the part that shocks me people blow over this fact like it is okay. This can not be just because the private schools work harder. I think admitting their is a problem is the 1st step. In basketball the publics winning more often reflects the numbers but a group that represents less than 10% should not win 75% of the championships. I am not in favor of a split I just get sick of hearing we work harder that is why we win.
December 7, 200619 yr I guess turnovers occur when the playing field is not level. Private schools won all three of their finals because their teams were better. The imagined tilt of the field had nothing to do with it. Congratulations to Trinity, CovCath, and NCC from everyone at Rose Hill.:ylsuper: Absolutely correct on the bolded. Question though is not whether they are or not but do they have an unfair advantage in getting better.
December 7, 200619 yr This is the part that shocks me people blow over this fact like it is okay. This can not be just because the private schools work harder. I think admitting their is a problem is the 1st step. In basketball the publics winning more often reflects the numbers but a group that represents less than 10% should not win 75% of the championships. I am not in favor of a split I just get sick of hearing we work harder that is why we win. Dewey 47, How many different schools have played for the Class A championship in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006? Hint you can count them on one hand. Danville, Mayfield, NCC, Beechwood. All have won at least one championship. 4 of the 54 class A teams. How can less than 10% of the schools play for 100% of the championships? How can people just blow this off? Obviously its because they are all private..........oops wait a minute... 3 of the 4 are public schools.
December 7, 200619 yr Dewey 47, How many different schools have played for the Class A championship in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006? Hint you can count them on one hand. Danville, Mayfield, NCC, Beechwood. All have won at least one championship. 4 of the 54 class A teams. How can less than 10% of the schools play for 100% of the championships? How can people just blow this off? Obviously its because they are all private..........oops wait a minute... 3 of the 4 are public schools. Great point. Here is another interesting stat there are 4 private schools in class 3a and 4a since 2004 everyone of them has won a State Championship, there are 104 public schools in those 2 classes and ONE has won a State championship in that span. We can use numbers and situations to prove our points as we both just did. I do not support a split I would much rather beat these schools.
December 8, 200619 yr Absolutely correct on the bolded. Question though is not whether they are or not but do they have an unfair advantage in getting better. "Unfair advantage" is always in the eye of the beholder. Losers in present day society usually hunt for someone or something to blame rather than facing the fact that someone was better. Maybe the publics would have won more if the dog hadn't eaten their playbooks.
December 8, 200619 yr "Unfair advantage" is always in the eye of the beholder. Losers in present day society usually hunt for someone or something to blame rather than facing the fact that someone was better. Maybe the publics would have won more if the dog hadn't eaten their playbooks. Pretty wide brush you paint with there. "the publics"? Kinda arrogrant. Try toning it down.
December 8, 200619 yr Pretty wide brush you paint with there. "the publics"? Kinda arrogrant. Try toning it down. :lol:
December 8, 200619 yr Pretty wide brush you paint with there. "the publics"? Kinda arrogrant. Try toning it down. Pretty similar to the mega-references on here to "the privates" don't you think?? :confused:
December 8, 200619 yr "Unfair advantage" is always in the eye of the beholder. Losers in present day society usually hunt for someone or something to blame rather than facing the fact that someone was better. Maybe the publics would have won more if the dog hadn't eaten their playbooks. Some do and some don't. Or would you argue that the Yankees/Red Sox do NOT have an unfair advantage when they can put a $200 million payroll on the field and the Reds cannot? Sometimes there is an unfair advantage and sometimes there is not. The question is "Is there one here."
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.