But I know that some have an advantage that others will never have. And that advantage makes it easier to have success. NOT guaranteed but easier.

It's not an advantage that has been bestowed upon them from some governing body to see that they can oppress the poor schools. It's an advantage that has been earned by those who care enough about their schools to bestow a gift that makes life a little easier for them. In other words, it may be an advantage...but not an unfair one.

Honestly, I don't know.

 

But it gets real frustrating when a school with no resources cannot do the things that raises the level of the program and there are no other avenues for them to consider.

 

The rich get richer and the poor are left to sit back and wonder.

 

How can a school have no resources. Are there no alumni? You're last statement sums up a much bigger problem than a football field. The poor are left to sit back and wonder?? :cry:

In post 107, cshs81 did a good job of posting my thoughts.

 

It is not the act of giving, that is great. It is simply that whether they wanted to or not, many rural areas, this is not an option for them.

 

I just can't understand how one person's generosity can be so badly misconstrued. I don't care where it is, anybody that wants to open their wallet to help a school should be allowed to do so. I cannot believe that I am reading that the KIDS would be better off if we turned back these types of donations. The primary reason so many of these donations have gone private, versus being public gifts to school boards, is because of all the red tape in trying to GIVE AWAY your money.

 

I say bravo, how many people would do the same given the chance? What, exactly, is wrong with wanting to give back to your community?

 

I understand that in many rural areas the odds are against something like this happening. First, the odds are against it happening just about EVERYWHERE!! How many places get million dollar gifts comparatively? Second, if your school does not have these advantages I ask why? Have they exhausted all available avenues to ascertain said advantages? (now that's a lot of A's:D) Are they busting their hump to try to make it happen? Sponsorships can come from anywhere these days, we certainly aren't limited to the communities that we live in. All it takes is a little hard work. But it is easier to complain.......

I just can't understand how one person's generosity can be so badly misconstrued. I don't care where it is, anybody that wants to open their wallet to help a school should be allowed to do so. I cannot believe that I am reading that the KIDS would be better off if we turned back these types of donations. The primary reason so many of these donations have gone private, versus being public gifts to school boards, is because of all the red tape in trying to GIVE AWAY your money.

 

I say bravo, how many people would do the same given the chance? What, exactly, is wrong with wanting to give back to your community?

 

I understand that in many rural areas the odds are against something like this happening. First, the odds are against it happening just about EVERYWHERE!! How many places get million dollar gifts comparatively? Second, if your school does not have these advantages I ask why? Have they exhausted all available avenues to ascertain said advantages? (now that's a lot of A's:D) Are they busting their hump to try to make it happen? Sponsorships can come from anywhere these days, we certainly aren't limited to the communities that we live in. All it takes is a little hard work. But it is easier to complain.......

 

Well said:thumb:

First of all, I am surprised that no one has located and referenced a thread on the situation in Ft. Thomas when Cris Collinsworth and others put together financing for its turf. In spirit and content, the arguments were very similar.

 

The problem, as cshs81 has raised several times, is what do you do when a benefactor wants to donate money to a public school, and wants to dictate how that money is spent? I understand the whole "public schools must be equal" thing, but let's look at the reality here. Ms. Borland, or Mr. Collinsworth, or Jim Huff or Staple's CEO Ron Sargent (two examples of affluent Holmes High school benefactors - see, there are some) decide they want to donate money for turf, or a scoreboard, or a solid gold chess set, whatever - the BOE says "great, you write the check and we'll figure out how to spend it". The benefactor says "thanks but no thanks - I can donate my money to a lot of other entities that will honor my wishes".

 

All the BOE will have done then is denied the kids at Ryle, or Highlands, or Holmes the improved facilities. The "have nots" will not have had their lots improved.

 

Maybe its me, but I don't see any positives there. I say let schools, private and public, accept contributions applied as the donors wish. The government still has its role to oversee public education, and I am not offended by the notion that wealthy alumni can give back to their alma mater without offending the "separate but equal" doctrine.

 

My mother always says, "never look a gift horse in the mouth":thumb:

I am really sorry for the people whom are not in support of what Ryle has done. I was called last week by a very good friend who is helping with this endeavor and everything he has showed me or talked to me is in good taste. I am very happy for Ryle and the donation they are getting and it will really help out the Ryle Family sports complex. And from what I have been told after the Football/Soccer/Track are complete they will start on another venture to get the other sports areas fixed up. Keep up the good work in Union and don't let anyone get you down. Great Job! JD

I think this one has ran it's course.