School Choice=No Separate Divisions

[BigShow1]

I've been away for a while and apparently we have everything but death threats happening in this post. This is quite funny. Again back to the original topic. My concern is that if a student has the ability to learn and to acheive at a sport, why should that student be forced to stay in a school if they really want to leave. If the parents pay taxes and the state does most of the funding, should a student not be able to choose where he/she attends school? This is for that player that wants to play for a Jody Wright, or now an Aaron Green, or coach blevins at Bearden but is stuck somewhere where the coach has no motivation to become better by reading and studying about the game. All I was concerned with is whether you believe it is right that a student who could earn a scholarship to get a college education should be allowed to maximize their efforts at pursuing this by allowing school choice so that that students could attend a school with better facilities, a great coach, and a chance to play competition that can get them ready for the next level. Is that not what school is about? I believe sports should be treated the same way.

[PHargis]

Good post. I agree. How is it organized legally? With magnets its a long way there. Idealism doesn't always work though. Any time some one wants to move they can go anywhere they want. Thats one way its done now. Or can travel and pay extra to go to a private

Or get involved with your school system and insist on it being better. BUT not every one fits in the same mold, do they. But, thats what you are saying.

[rick7425]

I've been away for a while and apparently we have everything but death threats happening in this post. This is quite funny. Again back to the original topic. My concern is that if a student has the ability to learn and to acheive at a sport, why should that student be forced to stay in a school if they really want to leave. If the parents pay taxes and the state does most of the funding, should a student not be able to choose where he/she attends school? This is for that player that wants to play for a Jody Wright, or now an Aaron Green, or coach blevins at Bearden but is stuck somewhere where the coach has no motivation to become better by reading and studying about the game. All I was concerned with is whether you believe it is right that a student who could earn a scholarship to get a college education should be allowed to maximize their efforts at pursuing this by allowing school choice so that that students could attend a school with better facilities, a great coach, and a chance to play competition that can get them ready for the next level. Is that not what school is about? I believe sports should be treated the same way.

Seems you could be talking about the same type of athletic competition that occurs in travel soccer or baseball or AAU basketball. I think there is a difference between these types of athletic competition and the athletic competition that is conducted among schools. There are some missions served by school sports that are a different than just maximizing an individual student's opportunities for athletic success. These include the missions of insuring that school sports are kept in their proper perspective (secondary to and supportive of the primary academic mission of secondary education) and avoiding the potential for exploitation of kids in their education for the sake of athletics. In addition, sports competition is not just about the individual student-athlete. I believe that in the setting of school sports, there is value in some limitations that promote a level playing field among schools with widely differing resources, so that the benefits of competition and success can flow to a broader range of students and schools.

 

So, when you are talking about educational athletics, as opposed to the various types of athletic competition independent of the school setting, I don't think your idea is necessarily a good one. It may be fine in a particular case, but rules are written to serve larger programmatic purposes, some of which I do not think your idea takes sufficiently into account.

[PHargis]

I've been away for a while and apparently we have everything but death threats happening in this post. This is quite funny. Again back to the original topic. My concern is that if a student has the ability to learn and to acheive at a sport, why should that student be forced to stay in a school if they really want to leave. If the parents pay taxes and the state does most of the funding, should a student not be able to choose where he/she attends school? This is for that player that wants to play for a Jody Wright, or now an Aaron Green, or coach blevins at Bearden but is stuck somewhere where the coach has no motivation to become better by reading and studying about the game. All I was concerned with is whether you believe it is right that a student who could earn a scholarship to get a college education should be allowed to maximize their efforts at pursuing this by allowing school choice so that that students could attend a school with better facilities, a great coach, and a chance to play competition that can get them ready for the next level. Is that not what school is about? I believe sports should be treated the same way.

Seems you could be talking about the same type of athletic competition that occurs in travel soccer or baseball or AAU basketball. I think there is a difference between these types of athletic competition and the athletic competition that is conducted among schools. There are some missions served by school sports that are a different than just maximizing an individual student's opportunities for athletic success. These include the missions of insuring that school sports are kept in their proper perspective (secondary to and supportive of the primary academic mission of secondary education) and avoiding the potential for exploitation of kids in their education for the sake of athletics. In addition, sports competition is not just about the individual student-athlete. I believe that in the setting of school sports, there is value in some limitations that promote a level playing field among schools with widely differing resources, so that the benefits of competition and success can flow to a broader range of students and schools.

 

So, when you are talking about educational athletics, as opposed to the various types of athletic competition independent of the school setting, I don't think your idea is necessarily a good one. It may be fine in a particular case, but rules are written to serve larger programmatic purposes, some of which I do not think your idea takes sufficiently into account.

This is a very good post also and very idealistic also but may not show the differences the emphasis, however minor, between students and for that matter parents. The students may participate for one reason, and the parents may show interest for another not particularly programmatic but without a doubt just as important in the scheme of things for the general betterment of the student. And who is right. Likely both and deals with the motivation mostly and the realiuzation that students cannot all achieve athletic success nor can all reach nor have the motivation to reach the academic success. Each are individual but quickly the student finds ot something that is difficult to be told but easy to be seen and that is it takes both to achieve success. However, its not a 50 50 proposition as idealism might project as best and deals with individualism and interest and not being in the same mold not unlike females generally not having interest in science or other subjects and males generally not having interest in others.

To say that education needs to be set up fpr either to the detriment of the other for excellence should not say that the extra sports training need not be degraded as should not be science fairs, summer jobs involving some special interests nor any other things concerning a special interest and parental support to achieve other goals for all have some educational value which are not covered in the educational school environment however some school idealists might not think so. But on the other hand there is the other side also. I guess it all means that we are not all the same and need to understand the other persons view and its values. Absolutes are interesting but all may not fit the same mold.

[BigShow1]

I just think it is sad that in America (what use to the the most free society in the world) an individual can not choose where he/she wants to be educated and play their prep athletic sports. Idealistic, realistic, whatever... Freedom is restricted. The most sad thing is that in this discussion the freedom to choose and make choices for one's own good has not even been brought up except my myself (and I apoligize if I missed someone). I just hate that citizens of our country are so far removed from the ideals of our founding fathers that no one can even consider that freedom is always the best choice in a society like we have in America.

 

This freedom would establish a competitive market for schools to compete for students and athletes. Thus offering them the best education and athletics they can in an effort to get those students to attend their schools. Currently there is very little competition to do such a thing. Coaches who run practices like youth club practices and do not win for years and lose their jobs and we have people online writing and saying that because these coaches have been a part of the community for so long and are good people that they should be able to keep their job. Other coaches/teachers are not even considered to be replaced. In a competitive market coaches and teachers who are not successful would be let go and better coaches and teacher would emerge thus improving our secondary education and athletic institutions.

 

I started this thread as an oppurtunity to show you that there would not need to be seperate divisions if we had this policy. In reality I have pushed for school choice for a while now and athletics had nothing to do with it. I just thought that this would be a good forum to look at it from yet another angle that is advantageous. Everyone keeps replying with how this is idealistic and in the real world could not work. It does in some countries already and what proof do you have that it doesn't with the exception of back in the day of Jim Crow laws, etc...? I know this would be the largest change our society has seen in years. But do you not think that our education system is worth it? Competition leads to greatness in every arena in America's capitalistic society. But how dare we allow it to affect our education system... is not the right attitude to have. I believe our education system is too vital to not allow capitalism boosts its production as it does every other walk of our life.

[PHargis]

Wow, no way to disagree with that when you are dealing with excellence. And when you are only dealing with that you will get very little objection. If it were that easy then there would be a lot of excellent schools. The sad part is that it is that easy. And the problem might be why does it have to get down to one best school with one best program. What's wrong with raising the level of all schools and not have to fight that battle. How about that? Public schools are diversified and have to deal with a lot of different cultures. By its nature its that way. You have the Doctors, Teachers, construction workers, laborers, truck drivers, management, union, farmers. It is a cross section of every day life in real time. Its brown, black, white, yellow and colors mixed between. Some times its not pretty and other times it borders on being beautiful.

Irregardless to some it fits all of the needs and to others fits little. I happen to agree with you in most of what you say. It's been my position for some time. Doing it gets tied up in things that eventually do not mean much. The only obvious difference in viewpoints is the number of students and logistics. The rest of it is a man made organization.

[tradertwo]

This thread reminds me of a couple of other issues debated into existance in my lifetime,title 9,and the no child left behind program.Very good base idealistic viewpoints,with so many avenues for the unexpected problems to crop up that it'd likely take our lifetimes to iron them out.without getting into all the intricate details, this has the look of a formula to create "super schools" in metropolitan areas,and for the smaller rural schools to suffer from it.On paper the no child left behind laws looked foolproof for bringing up grade point averages,as the teachers are obligated to,by stringent testing standards,increase test scores for the "bottom of the class". While this did improve those students scores slightly, it served to close the gap more by impeading the "gifted" ones.Teachers were focused by preformance ratings primiarily on the students who had no chance to excell,and the ones who had the chance to become the doctors and scientists,had less instruction.It'd probably take a few years, but the better schools enrollment would increase,the lesser decrease,until funding would force the smaller ones out(you wouldn't send your kid to a "bad" school,would you?). Great idea for each kid,maybe not so great for the school system. Just my opinion,I've been wrong before(A LOT).

[Bean0007]

I've read most of the posts. Intelligent, well-meaning people wanting the best, if not perfect environment for academics and in sports.....whether public or private, big or small, black or white. Ah, the perfect world. Unfortunately it doesn't exist, nor will it ever. But one can strive for better, and thus the debate. I think in an absolutely free choice system, many will be left behind because of intimidation, lack of experience upon which to base choices, lack of parental involvement, low self-esteem, and poor choices based on ego, pride, appearance, social judgement, etc. I think school choice would be much easier if it were solely based on academics. But HS is much more than than. It is learning how to fit in. How to manipulate your surroundings. Growing up, and dealing with adversity. Then there are sports. How many parents will make the absolute wrong choice for their child because THEY think he is sooo good? If one school monopolizes the best players, ever thought about the lack of playing time/development that others will incur? Only 2 or 3 HS 'stars'in the city? Where will the competition come from if the talent is not dispersed to a degree? Isn't competition, bragging rights, spreading the glory of HS stardom worth something? The same thing can be said for academics. Of course we don't have a perfect system. Nothing wrong to bring about change and make things better. I'm all for higher pay for teachers, but look how much society values all the wrong things. Also remember that the majority of HS athletes will not play in college, and more rare is the professional athlete. And practically speaking, none of those will be female. The kids do deserve our best at giving them oppurtunity, especially when the gov'mt spends over $10,000/yr per student.