All Play No Work

You are being silly.

 

You would have to take all the students in your district and you could take all the out of district students you have space for. Most schools take care of this issue by testing incoming students.

I don't follow you.

You want schools with no boundaries. How do you do that? Wouldn't it be like musical chairs?

Like 2004:

North 800

South 800

East 800

Then 2005: (100 students from North leave and 50 go to South, 50 to East)

North 700

South 850

East 850

Then what happens in 2006 if only 500 want to go to North... and South and East can only handle 900 students?

That dosen"t seem right . That the football coach could influence whether or not another sport is offered at his school . Surely Beechwood has more than enough male athletes to field a very competitive soccer team, athletes that do not want to play football .

What about Girls that play soccer? They have nothing to do with football but do not have a team.

What is the problem with no boundaries for all schools?

Well obviously a school could have 50 students enroll, while a school 3 miles away is trying to fit 750 kids into a school that holds 400.

If you mean that after Boone Co. has enrolled all the students that reside in its district and they decide they can handle 60 more students then kids from Ryle, Conner, Lloyd, Scott have a shot at those 60 spots then that's different.

I assume because most girls don't play football...

But Boys do not play volleyball so the number of Sports stay equal.

Now you could argue that there are greater numbers of Boys playing Football than Girls playing Volleyball but that probably isn't true at say Bellevue and because volleyball cuts.

How do you address Title 9?

 

Also, there are only so many athletes to go around in the small schools and with too many sports it will be hard for most small schools to be good in anything.

If you offer both Sports in a same sex sport how could it be a Title IX violation?

I believe Bellevue has Boys and Girls track teams, Boys Baseball and Girls softball, Boys ans Girls basketball teams, Boys Football and Girls Volleyball. Now the also have Girls soccer but no Boys.

Since there is much chatter about schools never having a "fair" chance to be champions should the KHSAA mandate that all Public schools be required to offer a KHSAA sport provided there is enough interest among the student population at that school.

For example Walton-Verona does not field a Football team. Should they be required to if say 40 Boys express an interest?

For example Bellevue fields a Girls Soccer team but does not have a Boys Soccer team. Should they be required to field a Boys team if 20 Boys express an interest?

Make your own thread for this issue.

Man, that's like major keystrokes. :banana:

to classify basketball?

 

Here is a quote from the most recent article on the public/private debate:

 

 

 

IMHO, nothing is more inequitable than making Class 1A and 2A schools compete with schools several times there size in postseason play like we do in basketball and baseball in KY.

 

If guys like Sears want high school athletics to be equitable they need to look at basketball and baseball long before they take issue with private schools.

How about this too?

1. Help/facilitate/mandate that ALL public schools offer a KHSAA sport as long as there is enough interest to field a team and it is financially feasible. That means Boys and Girls Soccer teams, Boys and Girls Track teams etc. It is amazing that in a public school Girls can have a soccer team, but Boys in the same school cannot.

2. Classify ALL sports uniformly. Why are there 4 football classes, 1 basketball class, 1 volleyball class, 3 track classes?

I may be a little off here but wouldn't Lexington Catholic's and/or Lex. Christian's boundaries be pretty large???

What is the nearest Catholic high school to Lexington Catholic in all North, South, East, West directions?

Plus would public independent school districts have to define boundaries too and not except students from other areas?

To answer your first question, huh?

Your second question: If you live in Southgate and go to high school your school is Newport. If you want to go to HHS, CCHS, DHS or BHS, you pay the ADA to attend.(Currently $4125) Unless Newport releases you.

Your third question: Yes

How can this be in the USA?

So you want to set up private school districts by what public school district they reside in?

So if I live Taylor Mill do I have to go to Scott or Calvery Christian? I can't go to Holy Cross? What if I live in Latonia? Can I go to Holmes or Holy Cross but I can't go to Calvery or Latin school?

Yeah that would work.

Does anyone else see the economic side of APNW's ramblings? It jumped out at me.

Well you would be tempted to say "country-club sports" (tennis, golf, swimming) are dominated by private schools.

However, most private schools in NKY don't even offer swimming and more public schools do.

Again, assign districts to public and private schools. If you're in that district, you can go to that school and play sports. If you're not, you play for the school in your district in which you live. For example, you can choose NCC or Newport for high school if you live in Newport. Ft Thomas has one high school, you go there or you move.

Where do you move to ..........Russia?

What if you live in Southgate? Right now you can go to Highlands, Newport, Campbell County, Dayton, Bellevue, any private school. So if my house is in Southgate I can do that, but if you live next door to me in Newport you have two choices and the guy across the street in Fort Thomas has one?

Nyet!

This info is from the article:

"But consider that since 1994, public schools have won 234 state team championships and private schools 185. If you factor in that there are 234 public schools - or five times as many public schools as there are private schools - it's obvious the private schools have an edge.

A private school has won every boys state swimming championship since 1994 and the girls have won 10 of 11. In soccer, private schools have seven boys titles to four for public schools. In tennis, it's nine boys titles for private schools and two for the public schools. Same with cross country where the private schools have 16 boys titles to 14 for the public schools.

Some numbers still weigh heavily with the public schools. In football, public schools have 34 state titles to 10 for the private schools. In boys basketball, it's 10-1 for the public schools"

So I guess we can conclude a few things:

1. Private schools have no clue whatsoever about how to recruit, coach, and assemble a Boys basketball team.

2. Public schools just can't find any good swimmers in their schools. Must all be on the football teams winning championships.

3. Private schools must hide in the bushes and scour the parks to find all those Tennis players.

Wouldn't this be solved by assigning districts to private schools? Although, I'm not sure they'd go for it.

How?

If you are a Catholic kid in Boone Co. and you want to go to an all-boys school and play football because your Dad went there (or if you are a girl and want to go to ND) why shouldn't you?

Now if you are a Catholic family living in Boone Co. and you have no ties to CovCath and your kid would like to go to St. Henry if they added football then why shouldn't you?

And how does districts effect kids that have their school closed or merged and they decide to go to a public school?

All the more reason to just split football between the publics and privates, don't you think???

I don't see where it has connection whatsoever.

All this talk about the upcoming KHSAA vote has got me thinking...

 

I remember that the guru wrote of BGP awhile ago that he didn't think the non-Big III 4A schools had much of an argument about Trinity and Saint X having an unfair advantage, mainly because he didn't think those other 4A schools put enough time and effort into building up their own football programs to compete with X and T. I also remember the guru writing on BGP awhile ago that he believes Highlands, more than any other football program in the state, historically gets more out of what they have to work with than any other program, with regard to things like time, effort, training, commitment, etc.

 

So, considering all that, here's a scenario I'd like the guru and others to consider:

 

Say that CovCath, under their new coach, returns the Colonels to a championship level (LIT has them tops in the entire state right now). This athletic success, coupled with the fact that CCH is an outstanding academic school, could very easily lead to CCH attracting even more NKY-area talent. Say that this cycle continues until CCH completely dominates Highlands in football on a consistent basis.

 

The guru's previous argument that catholic schools don't have an unfair advantage is predicated on the fact that many of the "complaining" schools don't work hard enough at building their own programs to compete. But this isn't the case for Highlands... in fact, they work as hard or harder than anyone in the state. If CCH begins consistently dominating HHS, even though HHS is working and preparing as much as they possibly can, then what would this say about the relative advantage of a private school's football progam compared to a public school's football program??? If this were to happen over the next 10 years, would (and should) Highlands be voting in favor of kicking out the private schools when the vote comes up again, say 10 years down the road???

 

If this scenario indeed played out, would it offer proof that catholic schools have an unfair advantage over public schools?

What happens if 10 years from now St. Henry has a football team and CovCath's enrollment declines. What happens if 10 years from now the diocese merges Brossart and NCC and many of the NCC Fort Thomas kids decide to attend Highlands instead?

If Highlands then dominates CovCath at an unheard of level is it proof that public schools have an advantage over private schools?

Lots of what ifs don't you think?

Does the Catholic Church set the tuition or is that determined by the each, individual school? Tied to that I believe someone on here mentioned that each school has it's own funds for financial aid. Is that correct or does the Catholic CHurch setup the funds for financial aid?

I am not 100% sure of this but I believe that each school contributes to its own financial aid fund. That is not to say if school A only raises $5000 and school B raises $50,000, there could be some help from the Diocese dedicated to school A's fund. I don't know.

In NKY some Catholic high schools are directed by the Diocese to charge the lowest amount of tuition possible because of the geographical and economic areas in which they reside.

My question was not on attendance on a daily basis but attending that school. The tuition is directly tied to attending a particular school, correct? Or would you receive the same financial aid no matter which of the Catholic schools in NKY you attended?

I believe it is directly tied to the school that the student would attend and the amount of money "in the pot" for that school.

So a student going to say Notre Dame might receive $2000 of the over $6000 tuition and a student going to Holy Cross might receive $1800 of the $4200 tutition. I assume that if the funds are running low that a student might get less in some years than others.

Thank you for corrected me and educating me. I did not know how that worked.

 

So does the funds come from that school or a representative directly tied with that school? The money through reduced and free lunch does not come from the local district and is not tied to whether the student can attend the public school or not. Are the financial aid funds for Catholic schools tied to their attendance in a Catholic school?

 

Is this the same procedure for private schools that are not Catholic?

 

 

One side note question not directed to All Play No Work but can a private school accept free and reduced lunch/breakfast reimbursement funds? If so, is there a tie in to accepting state funds that the school now falls under the state guidelines for testing, etc of schools?

I can't answer all of your questions but I'll tell you what I think I know.

Catholic school students can receive reduced lunch monies/reimbursement and I will assume there is not a tie-in to state testing since there is none.

As for Financial Aid funding. The schools themselves provide the funds through things like endowments, fund raisers, alumni donations, other donations etc. So if school A has $100,000 this year to give and 75 students apply for financial aid, the agency deciding knows the numbers they have to work with.

There is no tie in with attendance if I understand what you are asking. In other words, a student doen't have to be there 95% of the days to get your $2000 financial aid, or the school does not receive so much per day based on the student's attendance.

 

Contrast that with financial aid that private schools receive and I assume that each private school makes the determination for themselves on who receives financial aid.

 

So the argument that free/reduced lunch is somehow equilivant does not hold water. The local school system is NOT directly involved with determining whom is going to receive this money and whom is not. Where in the private school, the private school is DIRECTLY determining who will receive the money and who will not.

You would be wrong in that assumption. At almost all Catholic schools financial aid is decided by a "clearinghouse" out of state where information is submitted. Information like family income and size of household and ages of children. No names are used, no activities noted. So basically a family is assigned a number and a formula is applied to their statistics by the agency. Most schools allow up to 50% of tuition cost in financial aid and the majority of cases do not receive 50%. So if tuition is $6000 then a student could receive up to $3000 or less if they qualify.

I agree with what you are saying in the bolded. My post was simply to address the feeling out there that public schools just need to work harder and quit whining. As you stated and I agree, there are public and private schools that no matter how hard they work, not going to happen.

 

Now with that said, let me pose a question, since everyone agrees it is about the kids. Is it good for the kids that 90-95% of the schools in the state can work as hard as they can and not have a chance to win a state championship? Is that a good message? Work as hard as you can and still the ones with all the resources, traditions and advantages are going to win?

Sure.

95% of students in the state of KY (likely 99.9%) have basically no chance of becoming President of the United States. They don't have the money, opportunities, connections etc. They might be the hardest working political science students, the hardest working politicans, the most caring elected official ever, and they are not going to be President.

But there is no law or rule that says it can't happen.

90%-95% of the students in the state of KY might never have a legit chance at a state championship in basketball or volleyball. Doesn't stop them from trying as hard as they can.

If you think about it, some students in KY schools have 0% chance of being a soccer or swimming or football champion because it is not even offered at their school. Is it fair that you could be the best soccer player in your county and not have a team at your school?

Can the Reds work harder and beat the Cardinals? Not change personnel, line up the same players, simply work harder and ever hope to beat the Cardinals.

 

Sometimes it is about working harder and sometimes it gets to the point that no matter how hard you work on a year in and year out scenario, you can't do it. Year in and Year out will the Reds be able to compete with the Yankees and Red Sox?

 

 

.

You know I would agree with statement if it came from a public school that was clearly superior to all the other public schools .........and it still wasn't enough.

Let's say Male wins every one of their football games ever year except against X and/or Trinity when they get beat by 20 or more points everytime.

Then I could agree that no matter what they do it just isn't going to be enough.

But until the "best" public school in each sport declares that I do not see what splitting out private versus public schools will accomplish.

Sure there are some public schools that for a variety of reasons can work as hard as they want and they are not going to have a chance. But hey there are also some private schools that can work as hard as possible and they are going to encounter the same result.

If private schools are not allowed to compete for a state championship in football I believe you would see the GCL South (Moeller, Elder, St. X, LaSalle) extend an immediate invitation to Trinity and St.X to join.

More accurate than any of you like to admit and the comedy is in the fact that you you don't realize just how close this thing is to passing. It would be unfortunate but until some things change I believe its become necessary.

What certain incentives?

With the limited number of private schools around the state I doubt very much that they would have much of a following after a couple years. I'm truly not wanting to punish the Private schools at all. I just want things to be on a level playing field and currently they are not. Spin it anyway you want to make it work for you but they provide certain incentives for kids to attend their schools that public schools aren't able to do. Put them out for say 5 years and then lets review it again. I think the private schools would be begging to come back. Just my opinion though. :walk:

What certain incentives?