Playoff time. Pub VS Private

[tradertwo]

It all starts at home. Parents who are willing to sacrifice to get their kids the best education possible are also the parents that spend time with their kids, are out playing ball with the kid when he or she is pre-kindergarten, read to him/her, encourage him/her to be the best they can at whatever they do, etc. The privates can do a much better job of nurturing these kids once they get it, but they have a huge advantage because they aren't being overrun with kids whose parents use the public school system as a babysitter.

My point exactly!The publics are bound to accept the kids with the parents who couldn't care less the difference between an 85.5 GPA(respectable)and a 95.5 average.Same with athletics,some households strive to involve their children in any extracirricular activity possible,including(and especially)sports,to promote a healthy,socialy adjusted childhood,and some who just want their "rugrats" to not bother them while they relax after a hard day at work.Then there are the parents(or lack of them) who's children are left with pitiful little or no supervision to their own ideas about homework,school,sports,and life in general...basicly doomed(with the occasional exception) to the hardscrabble life of undereducated poverty despite the best efforts of school and staff.Guess what...if they "catch the bus" that comes to your public school,that school is held equally responsible for the scores,graduation rates,conduct,and general well being of each child,no matter the support(or lack of)at home.Compare that situation to one in which tuition charges eliminate most uneducated parents' children from consideration,a much larger geographic area from which to "draw" students,and the abality to deny enrollment to "undesirable" students,and if by chance athletics matter...wink;)wink;)...the luxury of considering that attribute as well,and the recipe for well rounded children who participate in sports at a 70% rate(and happen to win state championships)is complete.Hardly a level playing field,multiplier or not.

[KCHSCoach]

My point exactly!The publics are bound to accept the kids with the parents who couldn't care less the difference between an 85.5 GPA(respectable)and a 95.5 average.Same with athletics,some households strive to involve their children in any extracirricular activity possible,including(and especially)sports,to promote a healthy,socialy adjusted childhood,and some who just want their "rugrats" to not bother them while they relax after a hard day at work.Then there are the parents(or lack of them) who's children are left with pitiful little or no supervision to their own ideas about homework,school,sports,and life in general...basicly doomed(with the occasional exception) to the hardscrabble life of undereducated poverty despite the best efforts of school and staff.Guess what...if they "catch the bus" that comes to your public school,that school is held equally responsible for the scores,graduation rates,conduct,and general well being of each child,no matter the support(or lack of)at home.Compare that situation to one in which tuition charges eliminate most uneducated parents' children from consideration,a much larger geographic area from which to "draw" students,and the abality to deny enrollment to "undesirable" students,and if by chance athletics matter...wink;)wink;)...the luxury of considering that attribute as well,and the recipe for well rounded children who participate in sports at a 70% rate(and happen to win state championships)is complete.Hardly a level playing field,multiplier or not.

 

 

Now look at it from the flip side, Public schools do not charge tuition, free books, free bus, kids are automatically zoned for public schools. All the public schools have to do, get tax payers to fully fund their schools, put a good product out there and you would not loose as many kids to private schools. So don't blame the private schools, blame the "we can do more with less" attitude a certain political party preaches. You get what you pay for!

[buc1973]

Now look at it from the flip side, Public schools do not charge tuition, free books, free bus, kids are automatically zoned for public schools. All the public schools have to do, get tax payers to fully fund their schools, put a good product out there and you would not loose as many kids to private schools. So don't blame the private schools, blame the "we can do more with less" attitude a certain political party preaches. You get what you pay for!

Wow. What an unbelievably arrogant statement. Public schools have become the mother, father, coach, provider, and teacher for these kids whose parents can't or won't provide for them. I think it is great that you have such a well developed plan for education so that public schools don't "loose" ( I prefer the term lose as it is grammatically correct, but .. to each his own..) as many kids to private schools. Of course we can "

put a good product out there," when little Johnny and Susie come to school crying because momma cussed them out right before school, or there is no one who even cares if they have done their homework, and definitely did not help them with it.

It's fascinating that Bobby comes from a home in which the norm is to have the kids declared special ed as soon as possible so the family can receive more gubmint $$, yet the schools are once again to blame.

I do agree with one statement you made... and that is that we do need to blame the party with the "do more with less" philosophy. You hit that one right on the nose.

For the record I don't blame private schools. Nor do I blame parents who can for sending their kids to those schools where parental involvement is high and the teacher to student ratio is low. That is ideal for any child. and if the student has some athletic ability that makes them more attractive to the school, more power to 'em!

I do think that private schools should compete against other private schools. The playing field is not level. Those schools certainly don't deal with anything remotely like the above named scenarios on a day to day basis.

[KCHSCoach]

I teach at a parochial school, yes I have had to buy kids groceries, yes we have parents with drug problems, Yes we have parents that beat their kids, just because you are catholic and go to a catholic school, does not make you rich, we are not baylor, mccallie, ensworth type school. We should not lump parochial schools with private schools.

[tradertwo]

I teach at a parochial school, yes I have had to buy kids groceries, yes we have parents with drug problems, Yes we have parents that beat their kids, just because you are catholic and go to a catholic school, does not make you rich, we are not baylor, mccallie, ensworth type school. We should not lump parochial schools with private schools.

I hate to disagree with your post(because i DO agree with everything contained within it),but I can't completely agree either.The "potential" for constructing athletic advantages is there if any funding from an outside source is accepted(say that the church pays tuition for a needy child),even for a noble cause.Now say that this "needy" child is a potential Mr./Miss basketball.Who determines wheather this is a needed,legitimate finiancial aid or an athletic scholarship?Too hard to police the rules when the parallel lines become blurred as with the parochial schools,in my opinion.You,as a supporter of a parochial schools' athletic program are in the same disadvantaged position as some of the privates are in the fact that the potential exists,not that it's been exercised.If the differences were only at the far extremes of the spectrum it'd be easy to adopt a set of rules to ensure fairness,but it's not that black and white.If the potential is there you may rest assured that someone will excercise/abuse it.