My View on the Problem and Band-Aid Solutions.

[Hasbeen]

After months of reading and considering the points of this forum, I have concluded we are attempting to treat the symptoms and not the real illness. To illustrate, I'm going to describe a hypothetical situation and I would like opinions on what would be the best course of action. Let's eliminate the Private/Public emotions by staging my scenario in the mountains of Eastern Ky and involving two public school systems. It goes like this:

 

School A and School B exist in neighboring counties of very similar size and economic status. They have a reciprical agreement that allows students to freely attend either school for reasons of convenience. For some reason, be it the excitement of a new coach, the arrival of an exceptionally gifted class of athletes or sheer dumb luck, School A has a noteworthy run of good football seasons. This does not go unnoticed by the athletes and especially the fathers of middleschool players feeding into school B, and more and more begin to show up at School A. School A does not recruit these kids but they do welcome them with open arms. Now, having recieved many of the best athletes from both counties for two or three years, School A becomes a powerhouse football team and the word in the area is "If you want to play football for a good coach, have a shot at a state championship and get colleges to notice, School A is the place to be." For the sake of this story, the coach at School B is just as good as his counterpart, his kids work just as hard in the off season, and the parents of the players who remain work just as hard providing for the team. Yet, with the constant flow of the best athletes heading for school A, they struggle to get above .500 year after year.

Contrary to what both sides have stated, I think this is the root of the problem and I believe their is no solution other than dividing schools into classes relating to what rules they choose to play by. If we take the private schools out of the equation, we still have the open enrollment districts to contend with. Some will say I'm watering down the championship. Some will call me a whiner, but I believe each player and team deserves an equal shot limited only by how hard they are willing to work toward that goal.

Opinions? Look at it with an open mind. You schools that have, get over the idea that your success is the sole result of a superior upbringing and work ethic. You schools that have not, stop complaining about recruiting, I've illustrated why it's not necessary. Show me a solution.

[ladiesbballcoach]

:thumb: I agree.

[Hasbeen]

Everyone knows that recruiting does go on, but my point is that it's not the major concern that some think it is. The really good programs don't have to recruit, they only have to accept those that come volunteerily. If we could find a way to eliminate this problem and still allow for the transfer of students for legitiment reasons i.e. change of address or academic needs, there would be no need for the public/private debate. The KHSAA has rules in place now, but they are almost impossible to enforce and easily gotten around.

[stick1]

I agree most of your good schools don't recruit, they get kids because of tradition etc.

[Hasbeen]

Everyone knows that recruiting does go on, but my point is that it's not the major concern that some think it is. The really good programs don't have to recruit, they only have to accept those that come volunteerily. If we could find a way to eliminate this problem and still allow for the transfer of students for legitiment reasons i.e. change of address or academic needs, there would be no need for the public/private debate. The KHSAA has rules in place now, but they are almost impossible to enforce and easily gotten around.

:irked: :lol: If I had been allowed to switch to a different school I might have known it is spelled v-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-i-l-y.

[sports fan]

Take successful programs, public or private (StX, Trinity, Danville, Highlands) and I'm willing to bet their players spend more time in the weight room, film room, practice field, etc. than do players from mediocre teams. For some reason proponents of prop 20 want to believe that coaching/work ethic is not a variable in the equation. I've seen I don't know how many H.S. football games where the team with the better athletes loses because of the above mentioned reasons.

[Hasbeen]

Take successful programs, public or private (StX, Trinity, Danville, Highlands) and I'm willing to bet their players spend more time in the weight room, film room, practice field, etc. than do players from mediocre teams. For some reason proponents of prop 20 want to believe that coaching/work ethic is not a variable in the equation. I've seen I don't know how many H.S. football games where the team with the better athletes loses because of the above mentioned reasons.

 

While that sounds reasonable on the surface and in some cases is true, I have to disagree. There are many, many teams who work just as hard without the success those teams have. My point is, serious players gravitate toward programs who are successful for whatever reason. Sure some teams work harder than others but that's not the case as often as some think.

[leatherneck]

While that sounds reasonable on the surface and in some cases is true, I have to disagree. There are many, many teams who work just as hard without the success those teams have. My point is, serious players gravitate toward programs who are successful for whatever reason. Sure some teams work harder than others but that's not the case as often as some think.

 

I'm sorry, but from my experiences I'll disagree with your second sentence. I've not found it to be true.

 

There is no solution to your problem because it is not a problem. Its the way it should be. Kids and parents being free to choose what high school they think is best. While I "understand" the need to limit transfers once a player has played varsity ball, any limitation whatsoever that affects choosing before that time is ridiculous. If I live on the family farm in Pendleton County, but believe my kids would be better off going to Campbell County high school, for the life of me I can't understand anyone telling me I have to move into Campbell County to have my kids go to school there, particularly if I am willing to pay as tuition, the incremental cost incurred by Campbell County for my kids to attend. Campbell County should not be forced to accept my kids f there is no space of course because I don't reside there, but if there is an unused desk, with room in a teacher's class, space in the lunchroom, it only makes economical sense for the Campbell County school board to accept out of district students, accept the tuition (or reciprocity money if there is an agreement) and help the bottom line. Heck the Campbell County school district has already invested in the cost of the classroom, is paying the teacher and the cafeteria workers, why not get some more dollars to help the district's bottom line?

[Hasbeen]

I'm sorry, but from my experiences I'll disagree with your second sentence. I've not found it to be true.

 

There is no solution to your problem because it is not a problem. Its the way it should be. Kids and parents being free to choose what high school they think is best. While I "understand" the need to limit transfers once a player has played varsity ball, any limitation whatsoever that affects choosing before that time is ridiculous.

 

I guess I need someone to give me an example of "working hard". I've seen teams that begin conditioning at 5 AM for road work, lift all year and practice 3 hrs. per day and still not win 5 games. "Working hard" is part of the equation but will only take you so far if the best athletes are going elsewhere.

As for your second paragraph, it's hard to argue against a parent doing what he thinks is best for his child, but using that same logic, why limit it to only those who have not played varsity ball? A lot of things can change in four years. For example, a change in coaches, teaching staff or corriculum. Would it not be just as wise to change schools at that time?

I know nothing of the situation at Pendleton or Campbell, but in your example you pointed out the reasons Campbell should accept the students and I agree, but what is the advantage for Pendleton?

Please understand I agree that a parent should be able to choose what is best for a particular student. My point is that if this freedom is abused, if parents use this freedom solely to build an "All-Star" team at a particular school, it creates an obstacle that is almost impossible to overcome for other schools regardless of how much "hard work" they put into their program.

I started this thread to point out that recruiting is not the viable excuse that many of the public supporters have been claiming and that giving the boot to the private schools will only strenghten an elite few of the publics who have more liberal transfer policies and better traditions than their neighboring schools. I expected the private supporters to see this as strenghtening their position but all I'm seeing is that tired claim that the schools I support are being out worked.

A few years ago, I witnessed a local school suffer through an 0-10 season. Several players had transfered at the beginning of the year, the coaching staff left a lot to be desired and the team was full of malcontents and problem students. There was however, a small group of about 8 players who could have transfered and been welcomed at any of the area schools. They chose not to abandon each other worked their butts off throughout this miserable season, sometimes being the only players to show up for practice. Fortunately, this did not go unnoticed by supporters and district administrators and led to huge changes in the program including a coaching change, facilities and budget.

[rockmom]

For those who support strict district boundaries, what of the educational limitations those boundaries produce?

 

I'm a huge fan of open enrollment. I feel strongly that competion for students forces schools to improve what they offer their students. The limitations for students are not just athletics. Is it fair to the students of "closed enrollment" schools to be taking the same CATS tests and being expected to meet the same KERA requirements as school districts with open enrollment?

[stickymitts]

For those who support strict district boundaries, what of the educational limitations those boundaries produce?

 

I'm a huge fan of open enrollment. I feel strongly that competion for students forces schools to improve what they offer their students. The limitations for students are not just athletics. Is it fair to the students of "closed enrollment" schools to be taking the same CATS tests and being expected to meet the same KERA requirements as school districts with open enrollment?

 

:thumb: :thumb:

 

I do have a question though. Besides the obvious reasons of parent involvement and better backgrounds, how can we be so sure that private school education is that superior over public school education? I mean, I know that private schools are held in a higher regard than MOST public schools, academically. What I'm trying to figure out is, how do we know that? Private schools don't have to administer or monitor portfolio's, CATS testing or KERA requirements, correct? Is there more to it than just the involvement of parents? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't private school teachers make far less than public school teachers? Do some people love teaching that much to take a large pay cut in an already under paid profession?

 

These are questions, not necessarily my questions but questions I've heard asked not only on here but in "real life." :lol:

 

BTW, the comment about KERA, CATS and portfolios should not be used as a recruiting tool for privates.

[Hasbeen]

For those who support strict district boundaries, what of the educational limitations those boundaries produce?

 

I'm a huge fan of open enrollment. I feel strongly that competion for students forces schools to improve what they offer their students. The limitations for students are not just athletics. Is it fair to the students of "closed enrollment" schools to be taking the same CATS tests and being expected to meet the same KERA requirements as school districts with open enrollment?

 

I can't and never have argued with that. But with the topic being football and the advantages some schools have both public and private, is their a solution that is fair to all short of separation? I'm not asking for a "dumbing down" of anything, just an opportunity to compete. I don't think that is a dishonorable request.

[rockmom]

I can't and never have argued with that. But with the topic being football and the advantages some schools have both public and private, is their a solution that is fair to all short of separation? I'm not asking for a "dumbing down" of anything, just an opportunity to compete. I don't think that is a dishonorable request.

 

 

I guess I feel that the "ideal" is not achievable. There will always be those that have more, and those that struggle. That isn't something that is able to be "fixed" by separating schools athletically. Many of the components of successfull programs, public and private, are not going to improve for athletically underperforming schools even if you separtate private and public. Will the facilities suddenly improve? Will the number of kids who decide to join teams suddenly improve? Will the fan support and community support suddenly improve?

 

The problem is not an athletic problem. The problem is a societal problem, and one of many tangents. There's the parental, community and fan support; the interest of kids in playing; the level of involvement of the students in their school, whether athletics, interest-based extracurricular activities, etc; the socio-economic make up of the student population; the priorities the community place on the school and it's activities... I could go on and on.

[rockmom]

:thumb: :thumb:

 

I do have a question though. Besides the obvious reasons of parent involvement and better backgrounds, how can we be so sure that private school education is that superior over public school education? I mean, I know that private schools are held in a higher regard than MOST public schools, academically. What I'm trying to figure out is, how do we know that? Private schools don't have to administer or monitor portfolio's, CATS testing or KERA requirements, correct? Is there more to it than just the involvement of parents? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't private school teachers make far less than public school teachers? Do some people love teaching that much to take a large pay cut in an already under paid profession?

 

These are questions, not necessarily my questions but questions I've heard asked not only on here but in "real life." :lol:

 

BTW, the comment about KERA, CATS and portfolios should not be used as a recruiting tool for privates.

 

 

I'm not saying private school education is better than public school education, as a general statement. I'm saying that having private schools &/or open enrollment schools in the mix, create an environment whereby all schools must improve their offerings to compete with each other. I'm not putting one above the other, merely pointing out the advantages of using the capatilistic model in education!

 

I'm not using the CATS/KERA argument as any recruitment tool. I mention them because Open enrollment districts, IMO, offer better educational opportunities. I'm using it in reference to the fact that while some school districts are competitive in acquiring students (i.e. Jeff Co), it has increased the level of education offered at all the schools.

[stickymitts]

I'm not saying private school education is better than public school education, as a general statement. I'm saying that having private schools &/or open enrollment schools in the mix, create an environment whereby all schools must improve their offerings to compete with each other. I'm not putting one above the other, merely pointing out the advantages of using the capatilistic model in education!

 

I'm not using the CATS/KERA argument as any recruitment tool. I mention them because Open enrollment districts, IMO, offer better educational opportunities. I'm using it in reference to the fact that while some school districts are competitive in acquiring students (i.e. Jeff Co), it has increased the level of education offered at all the schools.

 

I agreed with what you are saying. I was actually just asking those questions. It wasn't because of your post, I just happened to quote you because I agreed with your earlier post. :thumb: