Interesting story from the Washington Post.

Interesting. Just curious, who is considered to be the worst school in the country?:sssh:

There are things I like about the DC concept and things I don't. I do believe that allowing kids to attend the school that they want to forces schools to be competitive or fall behind. In my mind, that's a good thing for athletics. Its already present in other areas of high school education, why not athletics? If a school has a really good band program and kids want to be in a good band program, they leave the schools not committed to band for those that are and the kids don't have to worry about sitting out a year before they play in the band. If a school has a really good science program with create chemistry labs and a lot of favorable recognition and accomplishments and kids are really interested in the sciences, they can transfer to the school with a really good science program without any ramifications. If a school is very highly regarded academically, with a lot of AP classes, high test scores and a high percentage of graduates going to college, a kid can transfer into that school without any ramifications. Why should it be different for athletics?

 

I don't like the ability for the coaches to actively recruit students from other districts however. That crosses the line for me.

There are things I like about the DC concept and things I don't. I do believe that allowing kids to attend the school that they want to forces schools to be competitive or fall behind. In my mind, that's a good thing for athletics. Its already present in other areas of high school education, why not athletics? If a school has a really good band program and kids want to be in a good band program, they leave the schools not committed to band for those that are and the kids don't have to worry about sitting out a year before they play in the band. If a school has a really good science program with create chemistry labs and a lot of favorable recognition and accomplishments and kids are really interested in the sciences, they can transfer to the school with a really good science program without any ramifications. If a school is very highly regarded academically, with a lot of AP classes, high test scores and a high percentage of graduates going to college, a kid can transfer into that school without any ramifications. Why should it be different for athletics?

 

I don't like the ability for the coaches to actively recruit students from other districts however. That crosses the line for me.

If the school district put an ad in the paper promoting the benefits and successes of their football program and that paper is seen by students that are not in their district, is that actively recruiting?

 

My problem with competition is that schools are already being told that we have to be everything to everybody. State guidelines mandated that public schools have to provide services to every level of child that comes in the door. Privates don't have to do that. They could focus on a science area, a math area, etc, etc. Public schools are mandated by the state to focus on the austitic kid, the AP math kid, the art kid, the kid who does not give diddly nor squat about anything and so on and so on.

 

So what competition is going to produce academically is the perception as it is now that publics are not as good as privates but that has been proven to be INACCURATE when comparing the same type of kids that are attending both schools. Whether people want to believe it or not, privates are no better academically than publics.

There are things I like about the DC concept and things I don't. I do believe that allowing kids to attend the school that they want to forces schools to be competitive or fall behind. In my mind, that's a good thing for athletics. Its already present in other areas of high school education, why not athletics? If a school has a really good band program and kids want to be in a good band program, they leave the schools not committed to band for those that are and the kids don't have to worry about sitting out a year before they play in the band. If a school has a really good science program with create chemistry labs and a lot of favorable recognition and accomplishments and kids are really interested in the sciences, they can transfer to the school with a really good science program without any ramifications. If a school is very highly regarded academically, with a lot of AP classes, high test scores and a high percentage of graduates going to college, a kid can transfer into that school without any ramifications. Why should it be different for athletics?

 

I agree with everything you say here, but the problem is kids who can't afford to travel to a better school get hosed. There has to be some sort of incentive to impede a crummy school from remaining crummy. Or at least provide some sort of option for those who want to go to another, better school who don't have the means to. At least this way the crummy school would eventually (hopefully) have no students attending.

I agree with everything you say here, but the problem is kids who can't afford to travel to a better school get hosed. There has to be some sort of incentive to impede a crummy school from remaining crummy. Or at least provide some sort of option for those who want to go to another, better school who don't have the means to. At least this way the crummy school would eventually (hopefully) have no students attending.

 

If all the "crummy" kids go to the better school - do the students better themselves or does the better school get "crummier"?

This is one of those feel good points as if all will work out well if so much choice is allowed. So I will ask this. We are a KY High School site, name the high schools in Kentucky that are bad and students are forced to attend. I hear these comments about how and such, so taking it up a notch where would this apply in our state? Which schools do you consider to be failing and/or doing poorly?

If all the "crummy" kids go to the better school - do the students better themselves or does the better school get "crummier"?

 

A building has never made a good student. A teacher sometimes makes a difference to a student. Most of the time it is the parents that make the student how they become.

A building has never made a good student. A teacher sometimes makes a difference to a student. Most of the time it is the parents that make the student how they become.

 

My wife and I were talking the other night about siblings who turn out differently. One example: one child - straight A's, working on a doctorate degree, over-achiever, married to a great gal. Little brother is a drug adict high school drop out - lives alone and grows his own weed in a greenhouse on a farm he camps on.

Same parents, not divorced - church going family. Good $$$.

 

Who knows why people become who they are? I'd say sometimes it's the parents, sometimes it's the teacher, preacher, friend, building, neighborhood, whatever.

This is one of those feel good points as if all will work out well if so much choice is allowed. So I will ask this. We are a KY High School site, name the high schools in Kentucky that are bad and students are forced to attend. I hear these comments about how and such, so taking it up a notch where would this apply in our state? Which schools do you consider to be failing and/or doing poorly?

 

I'd guess we need to be careful naming schools...

I'd guess we need to be careful naming schools...

 

 

Why? Just be able to back it up with facts and I'd imagine you'd be fine.

ooops

This is one of those feel good points as if all will work out well if so much choice is allowed. So I will ask this. We are a KY High School site, name the high schools in Kentucky that are bad and students are forced to attend. I hear these comments about how and such, so taking it up a notch where would this apply in our state? Which schools do you consider to be failing and/or doing poorly?

 

In athletics it would be easy. Don't you think it would be just as easy with academics?

It seems like many people, not just people on this site, want to nail down one reason for a school to be better and one reason for a school be worse. In reality it is not that easy. There are many reasons; why one school is better at academics then the other schools, or why one school is better at football then the others, or why one school is better at band the all the others.

 

Some people say that the bigger schools are better at football. Maybe, maybe not. If this were true then all the big schools would win all the games against smaller schools. That just does not happen. 1A teams beat 3A teams, and 2A beat 4A teams. Sometimes the bigger school wins, and sometimes the smaller school wins. Which is better, for athletics, bigger schools or smaller schools?

 

Some people say smaller schools are better for academics. Maybe, maybe not. Some small schools have much better test scores and more students going to college then other schools. But, some big schools have higher test scores and more students going to college. Which is better, for academics, bigger schools or smaller schools?

 

Some people say that rural schools can not compete with urban schools. Maybe, maybe not. Some rural schools have built quality football, basketball, or baseball programs. Some of those rural schools beat urban schools routinely. Some urban schools beat rural schools routinely. Which is better rural schools or urban schools?

 

Some people say that private schools have an advantage over public schools. Maybe, maybe not. Some private schools beat every public school they play, some private schools get beat by most public schools. Some private schools have higher test scores then all the other public schools, some do not. Which is better private schools or public schools?

 

This goes back to the Ohio football versus the Kentucky football debate, just on a, per school scale. Here is the link:

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=125263

 

For the purpose of this post a school is: the teachers, administration, coaches, parents, students, and community. Because a school is not just a building, it is a community.

 

It comes down to what the school put an emphasis on. Does the school want their school to be the best football playing school in the area, or state? If the school wants that, then they will, more then likely, be the best football school. Does the school want to have the highest academic standards of all the schools in the area, or the state? If the school wants that, then more then likely, that school have the highest academic standards. Does the school want to be the most well rounded school in the area, or the state (which I think should be the goal of every school)? If the school wants that then the school will be the most well rounded school.

 

A school is ecosystem, if you will. It takes effort from the teachers, administrators, parents, students, and the community. You can not excel in anything with out all of these pieces being put in the puzzle. I get mad at some private schools sometimes. But, the fact is that most of the time, people are at those schools that want to be, and they put an emphasis on academics and/or athletics. They have the pieces to the puzzle that many public schools do not: all the parental and community involvement. Where most public schools fall short, like the story about DC recruitment is those schools do not have the parental and community involvement. If the DC schools want to stop students from jumping ship, they have to give the parents, community, and students a feeling of ownership. The one student who would not transfer because his parents went to that school has a feeling of ownership. He feels like he has a tie to that school a feeling of that is the school that he should be at. That is why he is staying there even though other students on his team have transferred. To fix the problem of transferring that school, as well as the other schools, have to give that feeling of ownership to more students and parents.

 

So, which is better: small/large, public/private, urban/rural? If one of these is your answer, then you are asking the wrong question. The question should be which school is putting emphasis on academics, athletics, social schools and which school has a high level of parental and community involvement. When you can answer that question then you will have the right school.

In athletics it would be easy. Don't you think it would be just as easy with academics?

 

 

NOPE!