FINAL SUMMARY: 1A

[RHSfan]

jsh969,

 

Actually, PhantomII did a better job of finding the origional reference than I did. He made a good point!

 

Yes, public schools probably do need to do a better job of educating (some more than others!). But there comes a certain point in which public schools can get no better, and that point is well below that of the private schools. The public schools by federal and state law have to deal with inclusion, modification, resource students, chapter students, social promotions, disruptive students, free lunch kids etc. Private schools don't have these problems. One simple way to get better, is do away with all those students (the way the private schools have done), but the public schools must take those students---that's why they're called PUBLIC schools. When pujo speaks of selective enrollment, that is what he is talking about. The very nature of a private schools' enrollment policy is selective enrollment. Boyd DOES have selective enrollment. Otherwise, they would be no better than a public school. If the private schools were no better than the public schools, how would the privates get students?

 

Just as bright students are attracted to schools providing better education, better athletes are attracted to schools providing better athletic programs. That is SELECTIVE ENROLLMENT. It is not something you actively do, it is inherently built into the system.

 

You said " if the public schools did better with education.....". I could turn my Ford into a Lexus if I only changed the body, wheels, engine, transmission, and interior. 'IF' is a big word.

[VolunteerGeneral]

RHS...I have one problem with your post. You make it seem as though the kids you talk about can`t play ball. That is what we are talking about. Being involved with a public school myself, I know that just because a kid may not be private school material does not prevent them from being fine athletes. In fact being on a school lunch program as nothing to do with being a good athlete or a good student. You should retract that because it`s an insult to those kids are less fortunate than yourself.

I`m not sure why you want to come down on kids that may not be private school candidates. Some kids may not enjoy school and may not be competitive in the classroom, but it does not mean they are not athletic and can`t compete on a sports field. I know lots of kids who struggle in school but are great athletes.

Also, there are a lot of prop 48 kids every year who have to sit out a year before becoming eligilble for college ball. Public schools have the market cornered in this area. Just because private schools may have above average students, doesn`t mean they get the above average athletes. It takes more than smarts to be an athlete. Genes come to mind. I can just as easily say that private schools are at a disadvantage because they can`t get the kids that you belittled in your post. They are limited to kids that have money. You tell me what having money has to do with being a good athlete.

I`m sorry you feel that these kids are a hindrance to you and your school. I`ll only say this though about that. Your comments about these kids and the types of kids you included that cause your school to be at a disadvantage has hit home personally with me. I have a child that falls into one of the groups of students you seem to think hold public schools back. My child goes to a public school and starts in 3 sports and happens to be a very good student. Please think before you start claiming these kids cause public schools to fall behind. I`m sorry that your public school has "to deal with" kids like mine.

 

 

VG(who is sick and tired of hearing about public school disadvantages)

[Edited by VolunteerGeneral on 12-15-02 7:57A]

 

[pujo]

The difference is motivation and partipation. Private schools get a much higher percent .Its also easier to coach kids who are smart. Vol, we all know you are smarter than this. Can you honestly say you can't see the advantages. Plain and simple,our 250 kids are not going to equal 250 at a private school.

[Indian]

Participation is the key...not all of your big, strong, fast students will be able to play sports in a public school because some will be flunking, others will have problems I've gone over before, and some just choose not to participate. A private school student is less likely to be flunking, be a discipline problem, and so on, if he is then he probably will be asked not to return. Some choose not to play, certainly, but that seems like one of the only obstacles. Yes, private school students have problems but it has to be at a far less rate since public schools represent the whole population equally. As for smart athletes, I don't think it's so important, but it can't hurt. I remember Ezell-Harding's coach last year saying their offense wouldn't run so efficiently if the quarterback wasn't so smart. Boyd-Buchanan's Healy appears to be in the same category. Sure there are smart kids in public schools but the chances are less of having a smart athlete.

[RHSfan]

VG,

 

Nowhere in my post did I indicate that those kids I spoke of could not play ball. Don't try to twist the post around. jsh969 indicated if public schools did a better job educating, there would be less need for privates; therefore, privates wouldn't be as dominating. IF cows had wings, they could fly!! The point I tried (but failed) to communicate was: The very nature of private schools precludes their having to deal with some of the problems, programs and disruptive students that hold back public schools.

 

You stated, "In fact being on a school lunch program as nothing to do with being a good athlete or a good student. You should retract that because it`s an insult to those kids are less fortunate than yourself".

I didn't say that a kid on free lunch was not a good student or athlete; some are great in both catagories. The free lunch program in and of itself is a good program, but it is indicative of another underlying problem. When a school has 50% of its students on free lunch (True example), the school has problems. The very reasons students qualify for the free lunch program, are some of the same reasons you have problems with parts of the student body in public schools: poverty, single parent homes, kids not living with their parents, kids from families with drug problems, kids from families with members in trouble with the law etc. Yes, there are some great students on free lunch, but there are many who cause problems in the schools. If I have offended anyone, I do apologize. I should have worded my post differently.

 

You posted, "I`m not sure why you want to come down on kids that may not be private school candidates".

I am not coming down on the kids, I am pointing out programs (not kids) that hold public schools down, far below the level of private schools. jsh969 seems to think if public schools would do a better job of educating, everyone's problems would be over. Public schools will never reach the level of education private schools provide, in part, because of these programs which the private schools don't have to deal with.

 

You say, "I`m sorry you feel that these kids are a hindrance to you and your school. I`ll only say this though about that. Your comments about these kids and the types of kids you included that cause your school to be at a disadvantage has hit home personally with me. I have a child that falls into one of the groups of students you seem to think hold public schools back. My child goes to a public school and starts in 3 sports and happens to be a very good student. Please think before you start claiming these kids cause public schools to fall behind. I`m sorry that your public school has "to deal with" kids like mine."

VG, one of my children has a learning disability. I am indeed grateful that we have public schools "to deal with" kids like mine. You are fortunate to have a child that can start in 3 sports and is a very good student. I didn't mean to imply that a student in one of the above mentioned programs is a bad person, I tried to imply that because of these programs (good or bad), public schools will never attain the educational level of the privates.

 

Please read the two posts (pujo and indian) immediately following yours, they seemed to get their point across better than I did.

 

I do stand by my statements VG, although they probably could have been worded better. I also apologize to you and to anyone else I may have offended. My intent was not to offend, but to point out some of the reasons why the "if the public schools did better with education" attutude just doesn't fly.

[VolunteerGeneral]

RHS...You said

 

" The public schools by federal and state law have to deal with inclusion, modification, resource students, chapter students, social promotions, disruptive students, free lunch kids etc. Private schools don't have these problems."

 

I can see where that would give private schools an overall better learning environment. And that is the main reason that most people who can afford a private school choose to attend one. However, I can`t see the parallel as to how it hurts public schools athletically. Public schools have access to so many more kids than do private schools. If anything it is or should be an advantage for public schools. For example, there are many good black athletes that could never afford to go to a private school. That`s why you rarely see one at a private school and when you do they are accused of cheating. Look at how many black athletes sign college scholarships. I don`t know the exact numbers, but I`d say the majority are black. Public schools have a virtual lock on all this talent.

[RHSfan]

VG,

 

Actually, you are correct. The quote: " The public schools by federal and state law have to deal with inclusion, modification, resource students, chapter students, social promotions, disruptive students, free lunch kids etc. Private schools don't have these problems.", referred to academics rather than athletics.

 

pujo and Indian commented on your statement, "However, I can`t see the parallel as to how it hurts public schools athletically", much better than I could:

 

"The difference is motivation and partipation. Private schools get a much higher percent .Its also easier to coach kids who are smart. Vol, we all know you are smarter than this. Can you honestly say you can't see the advantages. Plain and simple,our 250 kids are not going to equal 250 at a private school." ---- pujo

 

"Participation is the key...not all of your big, strong, fast students will be able to play sports in a public school because some will be flunking, others will have problems I've gone over before, and some just choose not to participate. A private school student is less likely to be flunking, be a discipline problem, and so on, if he is then he probably will be asked not to return. Some choose not to play, certainly, but that seems like one of the only obstacles. Yes, private school students have problems but it has to be at a far less rate since public schools represent the whole population equally. As for smart athletes, I don't think it's so important, but it can't hurt. I remember Ezell-Harding's coach last year saying their offense wouldn't run so efficiently if the quarterback wasn't so smart. Boyd-Buchanan's Healy appears to be in the same category. Sure there are smart kids in public schools but the chances are less of having a smart athlete." ----Indian

[pujo]

This all depends if you are talking about the small rural schools or all classifacations. Boyd had more black kids by themselves than our school and the other three schools we played in the playoffs combined. It was the same way last year with Ezell, more than the four teams combined. In our history we have never had a black kid on our football team. Thats really the difference at several of these private in the past few years, they started selecting a few good black atheletes to play the skill positions. Pretty good selections. SPEED

[VolunteerGeneral]

Posted by pujo:

This all depends if you are talking about the small rural schools or all classifacations. Boyd had more black kids by themselves than our school and the other three schools we played in the playoffs combined. It was the same way last year with Ezell, more than the four teams combined. In our history we have never had a black kid on our football team. Thats really the difference at several of these private in the past few years, they started selecting a few good black atheletes to play the skill positions. Pretty good selections. SPEED

 

 

pujo...this is where you are sadly misinformed my friend. If you are under the impression that private schools "select" black kids then you are wrong. "If" a black student shows up and applies and is qualified and can afford it then he or she will be admitted. The chances of a black student being turned away is virtually none. A private school cannot "select" anyone if they don`t show up at the door.

I don`t know how many black kids Boyd had, but overall not too many attend private schools. I applaud any black kids who go to a private school. They do so knowing that there won`t be many other black kids going to that school. It takes a lot for a high school kid to choose an environment that offers few peers of their race.

I have no idea if there are any blacks that live on Roan Mountain there may not be any, but that is certainly not the case at a lot of other 1A rural schools. My point is that public schools have a lock on a lot of kids that would not or could not go to a private school.

[supersteve17]

There were five African-American young men (if I remember correctly) on the BBS football team this past season. Three of them (Alex Jones, William Nelson and Tyler Miller) were seniors and played virtually all of the time on defense and much of the time on offense. Two others were underclassmen (sophomores, I think) and only one of them played very much at all -- almost exclusively on special teams. Alex Jones is a fine overall athlete. He is not a particularly big or fast kid, though he is an above average athlete with a great competitive drive. Tyler Miller is quite strong but is not a real big kid. He has tremendous heart and is as tough a player as you will ever see at the high school level. William Nelson is the only legitimate Division I type of player. He is 5-9, 225 and has been clocked at Nike camps (GA Tech and Alabama) at 4.53 and 4.59 in the 40. He should get a shot somewhere. Jones will probably get a shot to play somewhere in college primarily because of his great desire. This is not a knock on him at all. It is a tremendous compliment to him.

 

My point about these kids is that they are very good players who happened to be at our school at the same time. The fact that they are African-Americans is irrelevant to me.

 

If BBS has had one African-American player they have obviously had more than Cloudland the past few years. I don't think that is because of "black players" being selected for skill positions as has been implied or stated. It is more a consequence of living in a metropolitan area with more African-American population base.

 

Is that going to become part of the method for classifying schools under the new plan? Percentage of minority/ethnic population? Do minorities or certain ethnic groups have advantages over other segments of the population?

 

I don't really see what this has to do with public/private issues at all. To make this an issue seems to muddy the already murky waters.

[wildcatfan]

I haven't read the entire thread, but Moonie, the TSSAA gave out 8 golden balls this year, not seven, but you can't count 3 of them in your private school championship count since three were in D-II. Thus, privates won 2 of 5 state championships.

[VolunteerGeneral]

Posted by pioneer8991:

2 of 5 with only 17 pri schools participating (2 of the 17 in 2A).

 

 

I have to disagree with an earlier post about intelligent athletes. Having athletes that are smart and adaptable is a huge advantage. The more they can absorb, the more versatile you can be. It completely changes your outlook as coach on what you can do week to week. This kind if week to week change drives opposing coaches crazy. Same reason many publics use simpler O and D schemes.

 

[Edited by pioneer8991 on 12-16-02 6:13A]

 

 

That`s probably true if you think that public school kids aren`t intelligent enough to learn more schemes. If our expectations are low, then so will the results be low. Same as our current public education system. We have lowered our expectations.