Continuation of the "CCH dominating NKY" debate

[jbwill2]

In another forum, the guru stated that with the right coach at CCH, the Colonels could dominate all of NKY in football. He then posted that if the new CCH coach could go out and promote the benefits of a good Catholic education (the guru's words), the material at CCH would provide them with a dominant advantage in NKY.

 

I then posted that the guru summed up the reason why privates and publics should be separated. It was clear that the guru did not support this claim, however, basically claiming that neither the privates nor the publics have any significant built-in advantages.

 

However, the guru already mentioned the built-in advantage in his postings: that "good Catholic education," which can be provided at private schools. A lot of people want to send their kids to catholic schools because they want ethics/religious-moral values taught formally in their kids' academic setting. With some of the negative things going on in our culture/society, who can blame them from wanting this for their kids. Public schools by constitutional law cannot provide their kids with "good religious educations." All they can do is the basic secular stuff that many people are now getting tired of. That is the built-in advantage schools like CCH have.

 

When a school like Highlands is given permission to teach religious morals and ethics as part of the formal instruction, then I will concede that the private schools have no significant advantage. But we all know that this can never happen.

 

What say all of you???

[colonel-fan]

Does the tuition disadvantage (over $6,000 per year) offset the "advantage" of offering religious instruction?

 

 

To answer the original question - I don't think CovCath will dominate NKY because there are similiarly sized schools that put as much empahsis on football as CovCath. There is limited space in Park Hills as well and the school will not achieve the critical mass numbers necessary to "dominate" NKY.

[scooterbob]

If I can "muster up" the money and buy my child a better education in a safe and nurturing environment where good moral teachings are woven throughout the curriculum as with CCH, I will obviously do so. If I am looking for the mass production, low cost alternative, then I'll stay public.

 

There are obvious differences between private and public education and there are many reasons given, some legitimate and some not, for the differences. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the differences exist, will only get more glaring, and either help or hurt our children. I chose the better of the two options.

 

It is all a matter of priorities. I recently heard a friend use a variation of an old saying. She said, "Those who can do. Those who can't send their children to public schools." Harsh? Yes, but many people feel that way.

[Oldbird]

If I can "muster up" the money and buy my child a better education in a safe and nurturing environment where good moral teachings are woven throughout the curriculum as with CCH, I will obviously do so.

 

Does Cov. Cath. have "good moral teachings woven throughout the curriculum?

[scooterbob]

My extensive experience with Catholic education and with public education has taught me that the odds are far more favorable at CCH than at one of its public "neighbors". I believe in playing the odds particularly when they are highly in one direction.

[110764]

In another forum, the guru stated that with the right coach at CCH, the Colonels could dominate all of NKY in football. He then posted that if the new CCH coach could go out and promote the benefits of a good Catholic education (the guru's words), the material at CCH would provide them with a dominant advantage in NKY.

 

I then posted that the guru summed up the reason why privates and publics should be separated. It was clear that the guru did not support this claim, however, basically claiming that neither the privates nor the publics have any significant built-in advantages.

 

However, the guru already mentioned the built-in advantage in his postings: that "good Catholic education," which can be provided at private schools. A lot of people want to send their kids to catholic schools because they want ethics/religious-moral values taught formally in their kids' academic setting. With some of the negative things going on in our culture/society, who can blame them from wanting this for their kids. Public schools by constitutional law cannot provide their kids with "good religious educations." All they can do is the basic secular stuff that many people are now getting tired of. That is the built-in advantage schools like CCH have.

 

When a school like Highlands is given permission to teach religious morals and ethics as part of the formal instruction, then I will concede that the private schools have no significant advantage. But we all know that this can never happen.

 

What say all of you???

The fact that public schools can't teach morals and ethics formally may say a lot more about our society today than anything else. IMO the vast majority of highlands parents would probably like morals and ethics ( not specific Religious classes ) taught in the schools, but we all have crumbled to the minority voices over the years that prevent that. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

[KY1234]

HIRING GOOD PEOPLE will result in the "in"formal teaching of ethics and morals. Schools should highly consider the "good person who teaches" vs the "good teacher" who may or may not care. There is a direct correlation between the results of achievement in the classroom and the respect they have for their teachers. At the end of the day, you as a parent should hope for the most part that your kid likes and respects their teachers. If this is the case, good things are happening. Highlands and CCH both have this going on.

[Diogenes]

Northern Kentucky public schools, for the most part, are several cuts above most of the rest of the public schools in the state. Therefore, I do not think a vast number of people will part with $6000 for tuition because in that part of the state they will not see "a good Catholic education" as worth that much more than the market already offers for free. That said, I disagree that "with the right coach at CCH, the Colonels could dominate all of NKY in football". I have concluded that good Catholic football and good public football are, on balance, equal. Unfortunately, the examples cited in favor of Catholic football are usually St. X and Trinity. Both are fine schools, St. X with far more overall National Merit scholars and total state athletic titles and Trinity perhaps more of a football school. Both have dominated 4A football. But both have 35% to 65% more male enrollment of many of their opponents in football. They dominate because, primarily, they have a vast numerical advantage. Would St. X and Trinity win as often if Male or Manual had 1500 boys and they had 800 boys?

 

Where numbers are similar, Beechwood, Fort Thomas, and Boyle County win at least as frequently as Lexington Catholic, Covington Catholic, DeSales or Holy Cross.

[SilverShadow]

My extensive experience with Catholic education and with public education has taught me that the odds are far more favorable at CCH than at one of its public "neighbors". I believe in playing the odds particularly when they are highly in one direction.

 

Beechwood is its next door public neighbor. I wonder if it stuggles with morals, ethics, failing in its education efforts and does just a plain, horrible job or is this just another example of a real stereotype problem that is consistently laid out by this poster?

[DEWEY47]

Northern Kentucky public schools, for the most part, are several cuts above most of the rest of the public schools in the state. Therefore, I do not think a vast number of people will part with $6000 for tuition because in that part of the state they will not see "a good Catholic education" as worth that much more than the market already offers for free. That said, I disagree that "with the right coach at CCH, the Colonels could dominate all of NKY in football". I have concluded that good Catholic football and good public football are, on balance, equal. Unfortunately, the examples cited in favor of Catholic football are usually St. X and Trinity. Both are fine schools, St. X with far more overall National Merit scholars and total state athletic titles and Trinity perhaps more of a football school. Both have dominated 4A football. But both have 35% to 65% more male enrollment of many of their opponents in football. They dominate because, primarily, they have a vast numerical advantage. Would St. X and Trinity win as often if Male or Manual had 1500 boys and they had 800 boys?

 

Where numbers are similar, Beechwood, Fort Thomas, and Boyle County win at least as frequently as Lexington Catholic, Covington Catholic, DeSales or Holy Cross.

 

Great post.

[94 Camel]

Great post.

Agreed.:thumb:

[Henry521]

The fact that public schools can't teach morals and ethics formally may say a lot more about our society today than anything else. IMO the vast majority of highlands parents would probably like morals and ethics ( not specific Religious classes ) taught in the schools, but we all have crumbled to the minority voices over the years that prevent that. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

For the record, this Highlands parent believes that it is up to the parent to teach morals and ethics to their child. Schools need to stick to Math, Science, English, and History.

[tdyballgame]

For the record, this Highlands parent believes that it is up to the parent to teach morals and ethics to their child. Schools need to stick to Math, Science, English, and History.

 

I'm with ya. I will have four children that will go through Catholic grade schools and I think it is the best available schooling in my area. What makes me laugh is when an unfortunate situation occurs at a private "Catholic" school and you hear people say "they should know better" because they are Catholic. NO! They should know better because their parents and/or parent have taught them the best possible morals, values, and ethics. It all starts at home.

 

The high school that my son goes to has as many problems as the Catholic school that most of his friends he grew up with go to.

[rockmom]

I have to disagree with the premise that it's only up to the parents of a child to teach ethics and morals. I believe it's up to us, as a society to do so. I also believe this can be done without bringing religion into the process.

 

Essentially, morals and ethics are core values that everyone needs to learn. Where do we learn them? From each other. They are the basis of rules and policies.

 

We teach each other these basic principles primarily through example, and those who do not comply must bear consequences.

 

The fact that religiously affiliated schools seem to have better success in this are has nothing to do with the teaching of a specific religious curriculum, but with the ability to impose consequences and weave solid ethical thought processes into coursework.

 

Litigation of everyone's rights and legislation limiting public school's rights is where the breakdown occurs, IMO. The rights of the rebellious minority often supercedes the rights of the institution as a whole.

 

I believe all children have a right to be educated. But I don't believe that separate accommodation needs to be provided for every child that refuses to learn to simply behave or comply with school policies.

 

I know it's not a popular opinion that I hold, but I honestly feel that public education in the United States as a whole is bogged down and lagging because schools are limited in what they can do to address those who disrupt the process for the majority.

[94 Camel]

I have to disagree with the premise that it's only up to the parents of a child to teach ethics and morals. I believe it's up to us, as a society to do so. I also believe this can be done without bringing religion into the process.

 

Essentially, morals and ethics are core values that everyone needs to learn. Where do we learn them? From each other. They are the basis of rules and policies.

 

We teach each other these basic principles primarily through example, and those who do not comply must bear consequences.

 

The fact that religiously affiliated schools seem to have better success in this are has nothing to do with the teaching of a specific religious curriculum, but with the ability to impose consequences and weave solid ethical thought processes into coursework.

 

Litigation of everyone's rights and legislation limiting public school's rights is where the breakdown occurs, IMO. The rights of the rebellious minority often supercedes the rights of the institution as a whole.

 

I believe all children have a right to be educated. But I don't believe that separate accommodation needs to be provided for every child that refuses to learn to simply behave or comply with school policies.

 

I know it's not a popular opinion that I hold, but I honestly feel that public education in the United States as a whole is bogged down and lagging because schools are limited in what they can do to address those who disrupt the process for the majority.

I agree RM. We in our secular humanist society have moved to the idea that if it feels good, do it. If it makes us happy, do it. There are many parents that do a good job with teaching a moral and ethical background, and there are many parents that fail miserably at it. We have legislated the power of consequences out of our public school systems. Parents tend to go to a school and complain when their child gets in troulble, rather than back a teacher or principal and punish their child more severely at home. When a parent tells me, "He told me that he doesn't want to do it, so I can't make him," has that parent not failed miserably in transfering values and discipline to that parent's child. I would think so. If we completely rely on parents to be the only tranfer of discipline to the next generation, how does a cycle of poor parenting ever get broken?