Have any idea on how old they are?:confused:

 

Middle school age?

It is always a sign that the athletic program at Rose Hill is on the rise when others, usually with some association with the Ashland schools, start nitpicking about, among other issues, the school and its student body.

 

I would venture a guess that parents send their children to Rose Hill for many reasons- athletics being among them. Other, I would think, more prelevant reasons would include the inclusion of Christian standards in the curriculum, smaller classes, and the general family atmosphere that accompanies a smaller school. Also, it should be mentioned that the desire to avoid the many discipline problems (including but not limited to drugs, etc,) and the inability of the government schools to handle these problems plays a major role in the decision.

 

Academically there is really little difference. Government schools, due to funding, offer more fluff. In the end, that means little. Graduates of Rose Hill and graduates of other schools are on equal footing when it comes to admission to college.

 

Where is the difference? Well, for one, Rose Hill, though not remotely as costly as X or T, is expensive. If it weren't for the tuition and other costs, I believe Rose Hill, and other private schools, would burst at the seams with increased enrollment. Why? The atmosphere for learning, for safety, and for moral teachings is far superior to that of its neighboring schools.

 

To imply that students are less than genuine because they attend Rose Hill for other than a "Christian education" is really not a valid thesis and those who like to make the argument are well aware of the weakness of their statements. So, why do they bother? Fear, of course. Fear that, from all indications, the little private school will once again (and for an extended period) compete with and, heaven forbid, beat the local government schools including the school with the self annointed "tradition". Very transparent.

 

What else could it be?

It has been over forty-eight hours since I posted. Since there have been no responses disputing my analysis and conclusion, I must assume that other posters agree that I am correct.

It has been over forty-eight hours since I posted. Since there have been no responses disputing my analysis and conclusion, I must assume that other posters agree that I am correct.

 

Nothing quite as gratifying as patting yourself on the back........Surely you know what happens when you assume.....

I assumed my bait would catch a fish. It did.

 

Seriously, I know there are a goodly number of people who hawkeye everything that happens in regard to the RH athletic program. That doesn't normally happen in regard to other schools. I presented what I believe to be the reason for the scrutiny and I am inviting someone else to rebut my conclusions. I know the interest is not generated because of "concern" for the mission of the school. I believe it is actually quite the contrary.

 

No patting of the back here. Merely observations that those who are usually quick to take both veiled and direct shots at RH, are for whatever reason, now dodging the discussion.

 

I guess we can pass it off as the typical whining of government school vs. private school.

The atmosphere for learning, for safety, and for moral teachings is far superior to that of its neighboring schools.

 

Please enlighten me with FACTS about the learning atmosphere being "far superior" at RH, rather than your random opinion. What studies have independent "learning atmosphere experts" conducted at RH? Also moral education can take place anywhere, public or private. Moral education and religious education are two different things. To imply that public schools do not present students with proper morals is completely false. The attitude every school system should be holistic, and I would venture a guess that most are. The simple difference being that public schools do not get to choose those they educate. Which in my opinion makes public schools and their employess that much more selfless.

Please enlighten me with FACTS about the learning atmosphere being "far superior" at RH, rather than your random opinion. What studies have independent "learning atmosphere experts" conducted at RH? Also moral education can take place anywhere, public or private. Moral education and religious education are two different things. To imply that public schools do not present students with proper morals is completely false. The attitude every school system should be holistic, and I would venture a guess that most are. The simple difference being that public schools do not get to choose those they educate.

I garee.

Competely false. When I taught in private schools I instilled the morals of the land. When I taught in the public schools I instilled those same morals. The oly diference is withe the private school I added the teachings of the Bible , I believe that most public school teachers try to give their students good life lessons.

I garee.

Competely false. When I taught in private schools I instilled the morals of the land. When I taught in the public schools I instilled those same morals. The oly diference is withe the private school I added the teachings of the Bible , I believe that most public school teachers try to give their students good life lessons.

 

 

:thumb: Thanks!

Kingfish, FWIW I tend to agree with your observations.

Well, I guess we will never get an explanation from those who scrutinize RH so closely as to why they do so. But, then, I believe I stated the obvious reason in a post above.

 

There are many good, moral teachers in the government schools. No one should dispute that. However, because those schools are controlled by the various levels of government, the teachers employed there cannot teach morals. They, within narrow parameters, can teach ethics. Ethics are not morals. Ethics have no real religious connotation. Morals do. In reality, moral teaching, by law, is not allowed in government schools. Ethics, a humanistic concept, is allowed so long as it doesn't get "religious".

 

You may think I am merely playing on words. If so, you are not familiar with modern education principles, practices, and edicts. If some of you recently taught morals you were in violation of the modern policies existing in the government school arena.

 

The oft-used retort that the government schools must accept all comers while the privates can pick and choose is actually an endorsement of what I contend. One of the real draws of private schools is that such schools can "monitor" the student body and, thus, minimize the presence of negative influences. That's just how it works.

 

And, Golden Gopher, I would think anyone would agree that it doesn't take an independent study to ascertain that a school in which there are few and only minor disruptions produces a better atmosphere for learning than does one in which there are, shall we say, a material number of various and sundry disruptions. I am not condemning the government schools. I am merely pointing out differences that will, by the nature of the two types of schools, always exist.

 

But, all of this has nothing to do with ascertaining why so many government school partisans, particularly those within the Ashland city limits, are so interested in the reasons why parents send their children to RH. Obviously, there are many valid reasons- including athletics.

Well, I guess we will never get an explanation from those who scrutinize RH so closely as to why they do so. But, then, I believe I stated the obvious reason in a post above.

 

There are many good, moral teachers in the government schools. No one should dispute that. However, because those schools are controlled by the various levels of government, the teachers employed there cannot teach morals. They, within narrow parameters, can teach ethics. Ethics are not morals. Ethics have no real religious connotation. Morals do. In reality, moral teaching, by law, is not allowed in government schools. Ethics, a humanistic concept, is allowed so long as it doesn't get "religious".

 

You may think I am merely playing on words. If so, you are not familiar with modern education principles, practices, and edicts. If some of you recently taught morals you were in violation of the modern policies existing in the government school arena.

 

The oft-used retort that the government schools must accept all comers while the privates can pick and choose is actually an endorsement of what I contend. One of the real draws of private schools is that such schools can "monitor" the student body and, thus, minimize the presence of negative influences. That's just how it works.

 

And, Golden Gopher, I would think anyone would agree that it doesn't take an independent study to ascertain that a school in which there are few and only minor disruptions produces a better atmosphere for learning than does one in which there are, shall we say, a material number of various and sundry disruptions. I am not condemning the government schools. I am merely pointing out differences that will, by the nature of the two types of schools, always exist.

 

But, all of this has nothing to do with ascertaining why so many government school partisans, particularly those within the Ashland city limits, are so interested in the reasons why parents send their children to RH. Obviously, there are many valid reasons- including athletics.

 

Just for example, what if negative influences were star athletes at a private school?

Are they allowed to stay?

Just a hypothetical question.

There are many good, moral teachers in the government schools. No one should dispute that. However, because those schools are controlled by the various levels of government, the teachers employed there cannot teach morals. They, within narrow parameters, can teach ethics. Ethics are not morals. Ethics have no real religious connotation. Morals do. In reality, moral teaching, by law, is not allowed in government schools. Ethics, a humanistic concept, is allowed so long as it doesn't get "religious".

 

You may think I am merely playing on words. If so, you are not familiar with modern education principles, practices, and edicts. If some of you recently taught morals you were in violation of the modern policies existing in the government school arena.

 

And, Golden Gopher, I would think anyone would agree that it doesn't take an independent study to ascertain that a school in which there are few and only minor disruptions produces a better atmosphere for learning than does one in which there are, shall we say, a material number of various and sundry disruptions. I am not condemning the government schools. I am merely pointing out differences that will, by the nature of the two types of schools, always exist.

 

There are so many problems with this post I dont know where to begin. Your idea of ethics/morals holds no water. It is simply your opinion and interpretation of what those words personally mean to you. Now onto the last quoted paragraph. I dont know how you have the ability to know what goes on at all public and private schools. To "ascertain" that only public schools have "a material number of various and sundry disruptions" while private schools have only "few and minor disruptions" is narrow minded and unrealistic. I'm simply looking for you to provide me with some facts rather than your opinion or interpretations. So far I havent seen any facts.....

Just for example, what if negative influences were star athletes at a private school?

Are they allowed to stay?

Just a hypothetical question.

 

An interesting and good question. Even though I'm sure most of us know the answer.

Just for example, what if negative influences were star athletes at a private school?

Are they allowed to stay?

Just a hypothetical question.

 

I would suppose it would depend upon the nature of the "negative influences". Are we talking about drugs or fighting or criminal activity of some type? Or, on the other hand, are we talking about general negativity and/or the inability to get along with fellow students in a more passive way?

 

The former behavior, I feel sure would not likely be tolerated at all in a private school while it is, to some degree, tolerated in the government schools. It's just the nature of the two types of schools. These students, regardless of how undesirable they may be, are legally entitled to an education. Government schools are required to provide it. Privates are not. The latter behavior is tolerated in both settings although the period of toleration will likely be much less in a private school. Since, as you said, we are speaking in hypotheticals, a government school would put up with the poor behavior of X much longer than would a private school. In other words, hypothetically speaking, the private school would not put up with it for 8 or 10 years or more. The government school often does so out of necessity.

 

As for special treatment for superior athletes, I am a realist. Regardless of what may be claimed, in all schools the superior athlete would be given an extra inch or so. However, in regard to remaining a part of the student body, that inch would not extend to a yard in the private schools as, again by law, it likely will in a government school. Removal from athletic participation does not remove X from the school environment.

There are so many problems with this post I dont know where to begin. Your idea of ethics/morals holds no water. It is simply your opinion and interpretation of what those words personally mean to you. Now onto the last quoted paragraph. I dont know how you have the ability to know what goes on at all public and private schools. To "ascertain" that only public schools have "a material number of various and sundry disruptions" while private schools have only "few and minor disruptions" is narrow minded and unrealistic. I'm simply looking for you to provide me with some facts rather than your opinion or interpretations. So far I havent seen any facts.....

 

Golden Gopher, we all are aware of your loyalty to Ashland and its schools. However, even in light of that, you surely don't believe what is contained in your post. Teachers and parents in your beloved system certainly tell a different story. I see a lot of Ashland students in juvenile court. On the other hand, it is rare for me to see any from Rose Hill or Holy Family.

 

I'm not knocking your schools. I am merely being realistic. By their very nature, government schools will always have more and more serious problems than will private schools.

 

And, as to the morals vs. ethics issue, if you really believe it holds "no water", you are uninformed and, I suspect, you know better.

 

Still, you are one of the parties "interested" in the motivation of families for sending their children to RH. All I did was to give you a few of the reasons. Now, I again ask, why do you care? I suspect you are aware of how RH's younger athletes have fared against your kids in the last four or five years (even in middle school football) and you are, shall we say, "concerned". Am I not correct?