What is a MSA?

Metropolitan Statistical Area -- The census bureau uses it to define metro areas.

What is a MSA?

 

Officially:

 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html

 

Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas (metro and micro areas) are geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics.

 

...

 

Each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core.

 

Basically an urbanized county and all its 'bedroom communities/counties".

Here are links that clearly show how the Census people look at 'communities' (i.e. MSAs):

 

National view:

 

http://www.census.gov/popest/gallery/maps/CBSA_perchg_2000_2006.pdf

 

Louisville MSA:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LouisvilleMSA-Census04.jpg

 

Cincinnati MSA:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati-Hamilton%2C_OH-KY-IN_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area

 

Lexington MSA:

 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/maps/metro/33000us336m.pdf

 

MSA are the truest definition of a 'community'. States and counties geopolitical boundries are interesting but they are not Berlin walls. If they were the 'Cincinnati airport' would not be in Kentucky.

 

The problem with that is the organization that we compete in is the KENTUCKY High School Athletic Association, not the Tri State organization. Trying to say that Cincinnati is part of the local community, or that Indiana is part of the Jefferson County community, so kids who live in these areas should be able to attend and play in Kentucky, is not a very good argument. A community for a school, for that matter, USUALLY, means the immediate community in which the school exist. Not a tri state area.

Metropolitan Statistical Area -- The census bureau uses it to define metro areas.

 

Officially:

 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html

 

Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas (metro and micro areas) are geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics.

 

...

 

Each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core.

 

Basically an urbanized county and all its 'bedroom communities/counties".

 

Thanks. I kept trying to run the initials through my brain but like normal, I kept coming up empty.

Well just talking about NKY. If you want the best education for a child here, check out the Covington Latin website. I make this comment based soley on the imformation I read on their website.

Well just talking about NKY. If you want the best education for a child here, check out the Covington Latin website. I make this comment based soley on the imformation I read on their website.

 

Only issue there is that they end up graduating when they are around 16.

 

I am not reading for my kids to grow up that early.:irked::sssh:

 

My child will get a good education at our public county school, because as their parent, I won't settle for my child putting anything but their best into it. That is the main determination of a child's education. Parents not teachers are the key point in a child's education.

Is this thread still about LCA and the KHSAA?

I agree LBBC, My child goes to public school, He is right at the top of his class, and plays three sports, and he plans on becoming a Dr. I sometimes have a hard time with the reasons given, why people are sending their children to the "best school" for there education. I push my child to excell, and he wants to excell, and I believe he will no matter what school he attends. public or private. As for LCA and the middle school team, I believe there are other private schools that do the samething to a point, they do not have the numbers for a competitive football team so they bring in children from surrounding private K-8 schools that may or may not play for that high school, but no one has brought that up

I agree LBBC, My child goes to public school, He is right at the top of his class, and plays three sports, and he plans on becoming a Dr. I sometimes have a hard time with the reasons given, why people are sending their children to the "best school" for there education. I push my child to excell, and he wants to excell, and I believe he will no matter what school he attends. public or private. As for LCA and the middle school team, I believe there are other private schools that do the samething to a point, they do not have the numbers for a competitive football team so they bring in children from surrounding private K-8 schools that may or may not play for that high school, but no one has brought that up

 

 

I put my children through 13 years of private school. It wasn't because I was rich and could afford it. It was because the schools worked with me in pushing my kids to excel. There was the committment of the school to not only educate my children, but develop their sense of community through service, and sense of living a a life within the Christian (specifically Catholic) set of values. Granted, that can be taught by the parents, but how wonderful is it that the educational institution is as committed to the same? I do believe that the education my children received was superior to most public school options we had. And again, it wasn't all about the classes offered, but the enviornment within the institution that demanded excellence regardless of your ability; the daily challenges to do more than what you thought you could do; the expectation that the student not settle for what came easily, but conquer what was difficult.

I put my children through 13 years of private school. It wasn't because I was rich and could afford it. It was because the schools worked with me in pushing my kids to excel. There was the committment of the school to not only educate my children, but develop their sense of community through service, and sense of living a a life within the Christian (specifically Catholic) set of values. Granted, that can be taught by the parents, but how wonderful is it that the educational institution is as committed to the same? I do believe that the education my children received was superior to most public school options we had. And again, it wasn't all about the classes offered, but the enviornment within the institution that demanded excellence regardless of your ability; the daily challenges to do more than what you thought you could do; the expectation that the student not settle for what came easily, but conquer what was difficult.

 

I agree. Private schools are a very important part of our society. I personally wish we have a voucher system that would open up the private schools to even more people.

 

But, RM, don't sell yourself short. Despite what T offered and demanded if you are not there demanding it yourself, they probably wouldn't have done it.

 

I treat my students the same and give them a fair chance. More often than not, the ones that have parents who are trying to demand them to do what they are responsible for, will meet with more success than the ones with parents who didn't care.

 

T gave you a great resource but the success of your children, I truly believe, lies more with you than with the school.

I agree. Private schools are a very important part of our society. I personally wish we have a voucher system that would open up the private schools to even more people.

 

But, RM, don't sell yourself short. Despite what T offered and demanded if you are not there demanding it yourself, they probably wouldn't have done it.

 

I treat my students the same and give them a fair chance. More often than not, the ones that have parents who are trying to demand them to do what they are responsible for, will meet with more success than the ones with parents who didn't care.

 

T gave you a great resource but the success of your children, I truly believe, lies more with you than with the school.

 

Believe me, the job was much easier because of those schools-Assumption and Trinity. As a single mom, working two jobs, there's no way I could have pushed them enough by myself. Those insitutions at the very least share equal credit.

Believe me, the job was much easier because of those schools-Assumption and Trinity. As a single mom, working two jobs, there's no way I could have pushed them enough by myself. Those insitutions at the very least share equal credit.

 

I agree that they deserve credit as great places of learning. But it is my belief that you take the student body of Holmes and switch out with student body of Trinity or Assumption and your child's education would not be much different.

 

 

The only constant is the parents and the children that those parents created.

 

 

We, teachers, get too much of the credit with the children of parents who care succeed and too much of the blame when children of parents who don't care fail.

 

 

Where we earn our paycheck is for those kids whose parents don't care and we get them to succeed.

 

Based on my reading of your posts, your children would be very easy to teach. I could challenge and know that their work WAS going to get done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmom Believe me, the job was much easier because of those schools-Assumption and Trinity. As a single mom, working two jobs, there's no way I could have pushed them enough by myself. Those insitutions at the very least share equal credit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach I agree that they deserve credit as great places of learning.

I think you're selling the schools short. I also think that until you've been in the environment, you don't understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach But it is my belief that you take the student body of Holmes and switch out with student body of Trinity or Assumption and your child's education would not be much different.

I disagree.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach The only constant is the parents and the children that those parents created.

Again, you're selling the schools short.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach We, teachers, get too much of the credit with the children of parents who care succeed and too much of the blame when children of parents who don't care fail.

I disagree. I think you don't get enough credit for doing all that you are legally required to do, within the bounds of what you are not legally able to do.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach Where we earn our paycheck is for those kids whose parents don't care and we get them to succeed.

I agree here.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach Based on my reading of your posts, your children would be very easy to teach. I could challenge and know that their work WAS going to get done.

For one of my kids what you say is true. For the other, it was a constant struggle to not relax the demands because she just hated school.

---

Last edited by rockmom : Today at 10:54 AM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmom Believe me, the job was much easier because of those schools-Assumption and Trinity. As a single mom, working two jobs, there's no way I could have pushed them enough by myself. Those insitutions at the very least share equal credit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach I agree that they deserve credit as great places of learning.

I think you're selling the schools short. I also think that until you've been in the environment, you don't understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach But it is my belief that you take the student body of Holmes and switch out with student body of Trinity or Assumption and your child's education would not be much different.

I disagree.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach The only constant is the parents and the children that those parents created.

Again, you're selling the schools short.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach We, teachers, get too much of the credit with the children of parents who care succeed and too much of the blame when children of parents who don't care fail.

I disagree. I think you don't get enough credit for doing all that you are legally required to do, within the bounds of what you are not legally able to do.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach Where we earn our paycheck is for those kids whose parents don't care and we get them to succeed.

I agree here.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach Based on my reading of your posts, your children would be very easy to teach. I could challenge and know that their work WAS going to get done.

For one of my kids what you say is true. For the other, it was a constant struggle to not relax the demands because she just hated school.

---

Last edited by rockmom : Today at 10:54 AM.

 

Is it funny that we are arguing about a) me wanting to give you all the credit; b) and you wanting to give a teacher like me all the credit and neither of us willing to accept that it us that did the best job.:lol:

 

I think that speaks volumes to a good teacher and good parent. They work hard to do their job but don't demand credit for doing a good job but willing to give the credit to others.

Is it funny that we are arguing about a) me wanting to give you all the credit; b) and you wanting to give a teacher like me all the credit and neither of us willing to accept that it us that did the best job.:lol:

There's nothing more annoying than a polite argument! :irked: