sherm03;640195 wrote:Question for you Viking...

My dad said that if I keep embracing the change, I'm going to go blind. Is that true?

Papa knows best. I believe that he was the pocket pool champ at Mooney.

Viking;640385 wrote:Papa knows best. I believe that he was the pocket pool champ at Mooney.

I don't think that's a real sport. And if it was, of course he was a champ. He was at a private school. And private school kids win everything.

^^^

Bravo!!!!

sherm03;640195 wrote:Question for you Viking...

My dad said that if I keep embracing the change, I'm going to go blind. Is that true?

Wear goggles, prevents stuff from getting in your eyes.



To anyone arguing against this change, please do me a favor and start advocating the elimination of all divisions and just have one tournament for one champion. Afterall, it's 11 boys against 11 boys at any one time. That's fair on the field, right?

Otherwise, your quiet approval of the division of big schools from small schools smacks of hypocrisy.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk;640550 wrote:Wear goggles, prevents stuff from getting in your eyes.



To anyone arguing against this change, please do me a favor and start advocating the elimination of all divisions and just have one tournament for one champion. Afterall, it's 11 boys against 11 boys at any one time. That's fair on the field, right?

Otherwise, your quiet approval of the division of big schools from small schools smacks of hypocrisy.

Sykotyk

I think we have too many divisions, but I know that will never be reduced because it is all about $$$$$$

Yet, you feel there should be divisions?

Still, hypocrisy. Afterall, why divide the teams up unless it is because there is some type of disparity between them? Right?

Same thing that they're going after here. To alleviate a disparity.

Sykotyk;640951 wrote:Yet, you feel there should be divisions?

Still, hypocrisy. Afterall, why divide the teams up unless it is because there is some type of disparity between them? Right?

Same thing that they're going after here. To alleviate a disparity.

Let's just go to 700 divisions and give everyone a championship. Everyone is trying to create ways to get a championship. We are looking at manipulations of the divisions based upon what religion someone is, what they ate for lunch, and we assume that they will be good football players because the kids in their town were good 4 years ago.


When these 3 things don't allow everyone to win, I'm sure we will make up some other excuses and create multipliers or dividers for those.

sherm03;640195 wrote:Question for you Viking...

My dad said that if I keep embracing the change, I'm going to go blind. Is that true?

You mean you are not blind ? or do you just fib repetitivly?

Sykotyk;640951 wrote:Yet, you feel there should be divisions?

Still, hypocrisy. Afterall, why divide the teams up unless it is because there is some type of disparity between them? Right?

Same thing that they're going after here. To alleviate a disparity.

Nothing hypocritical about it. The current divisions address the number one disparity - school size. No other disparity, real or imagined, is even close.

Thinthickbigred;641108 wrote:You mean you are not blind ? or do you just fib repetitivly?

I don't know what this means.

queencitybuckeye;641119 wrote:Nothing hypocritical about it. The current divisions address the number one disparity - school size. No other disparity, real or imagined, is even close.

This is my point as well. Comparing the disparity of school size to the "disparity" of private and public schools is apples to oranges. And where does it end? Do we have to separate everything based on any advantage a school has? Some teams have had a coach that has been at a school for decades. That's an advantage over schools going through a coaching change. Should teams getting a new coach be bumped down a division because they are behind the 8 ball learning a new system?

Using your logic...we should separate based on ALL "disparities." So if you are for this, then you should also be for a proposal that teams that play on turf all year should be in a different division than teams that play on grass all year because that is an advantage come playoff time.

Viking;640385 wrote:Papa knows best. I believe that he was the pocket pool champ at Mooney.

When I was a kid we were so poor that every year for Christmas I got a new pair of pants and my mom used to cut the pockets out so I had something to play with. I guess I would have qualified for free lunch.

Those things you mentioned can be controlled by those in charge of the school systems. The disparity of poorer districts unable to keep a percentage of the population out of their doors cannot be controlled by the school system, unless you are private.

Our school district has around 82% of kids on free and reduced lunch programs. Our village and surrounding area has 28.5% of families living below the poverty line. There have been countless studies about poverty and academic and athletic problems. Why do you guys not see this.

In comparison, areas such as Delphos, Coldwater, Coshocton, Chagrin Falls and such average about 4 to 5 % of families living below the poverty line. Pretty big hurdle to overcome.

However, in your guys opinions poverty means very little!

And before I get bombarded with the I overdcame poverty, or my dad did or so and so did, for every story you have, I have at least 2 more of kids who dont overcome it.

redstreak one;641493 wrote:Those things you mentioned can be controlled by those in charge of the school systems. The disparity of poorer districts unable to keep a percentage of the population out of their doors cannot be controlled by the school system, unless you are private.

Our school district has around 82% of kids on free and reduced lunch programs. Our village and surrounding area has 28.5% of families living below the poverty line. There have been countless studies about poverty and academic and athletic problems. Why do you guys not see this.

In comparison, areas such as Delphos, Coldwater, Coshocton, Chagrin Falls and such average about 4 to 5 % of families living below the poverty line. Pretty big hurdle to overcome.

However, in your guys opinions poverty means very little!

And before I get bombarded with the I overdcame poverty, or my dad did or so and so did, for every story you have, I have at least 2 more of kids who dont overcome it.

I completely understand the poverty issue as it applies to academics. However, I do not think that applies to athletics in the same manner. Look at the NFL, NBA, MLB. All those professional leagues are FILLED with guys that came from an impoverished background.

I would like to see one of these "countless studies" about poverty as it relates to ATHLETIC problems. As I said, I completely understand the academic portion of that. I just don't think it has much bearing on athletics and shouldn't be used as a way to decide division alignment.

The free-lunch part of this equation, along with the tradition factor, are the parts of this proposal that I think are absolutely asinine. Other than that, I don't have much problem with it (even if private schools are going to get completely bent over with the proposal).

Listed below are the schools in Mahoning County and the percent of students on free/reduced lunch. A couple of thoughts come to mind. 1) The top teams year in and year out don't have the lowest percentage. 2) Good luck getting schools such as Canfield, Western Reserve, and Poland voting in a system that will penalize them more than Mooney or Ursuline.

1. Canfield 6.77%
2. Western Reserve 12.88%
3. Poland 13.47%
4. Cardinal Mooney 17.58%
5. South Range 17.99%
6. Boardman 26.80%
7. Ursuline 28.19%
8. West Branch 28.44%
9. Lowelville 33.33%
10. Springfield Local 35.61%
11. Jackson Milton 36.27%
12. Austintown Fitch 38.30%
13. Sebring Local 46.04%
14. Youngstown Christian 55.93%
15. Struthers 72.53%
16. Campbell 71.55%
17. Youngstown Chaney 78.12%
18. Youngstown East 88.09%

How could there be such a high percetage of students recieve free/reduced lunches at schools like Cardinal Mooney or Ursuline? I thought at the Catholic schools the parents had to pay for their child's enrollment in those schools? Would you not first make sure your child is fed before you spend money that you don't have on tuition? I am sure if the child really wants to learn he or she can do it in any school. It is only a matter of wanting to excel in the classroom, much like on the football field.

Viking;640083 wrote:^^^

It depends what type of open enrollment the district has. There are 3 different categories for the open enrollment part of the equation, plus the "free lunch" factor will act as a divider.

With the number of food stamp receipiants at an all time high(which means the free lunchers have no doubt ballooned) + 75% of public schools with some form of open enrollment+ the private schools by the time the math is all said and done not much will change and the mob will still be whining.

I reject the change because 1. It's just silly and 2. It's a waste of time

jake1971;641707 wrote:How could there be such a high percetage of students recieve free/reduced lunches at schools like Cardinal Mooney or Ursuline? I thought at the Catholic schools the parents had to pay for their child's enrollment in those schools? Would you not first make sure your child is fed before you spend money that you don't have on tuition? I am sure if the child really wants to learn he or she can do it in any school. It is only a matter of wanting to excel in the classroom, much like on the football field.

Youngstown City Schools are a failing district, so students can attend private schools on vouchers. With the percent of students in Youngstown that qualify for free lunches very high, I would guess that the percent of voucher students that qualify for free lunches is also high.

I know Mooney and Ursuline are private schools, are there any other schools in Youngstown that are private? And I know this has nothing to do with the public-private debate, but what qualifies a school as a failing school?

jake1971;641787 wrote:I know Mooney and Ursuline are private schools, are there any other schools in Youngstown that are private? And I know this has nothing to do with the public-private debate, but what qualifies a school as a failing school?

Youngstown Christian is also a private school in Youngstown. The state gives each school district a grade based upon many factors. State report cards are listed on ODE's website. If a district is failing, students within that district may use state money toward tuition at a private school so that they have an opportunity to get an education at a school that is performing well instead of at the failing school.

Thanks Al

jake1971;641787 wrote:I know Mooney and Ursuline are private schools, are there any other schools in Youngstown that are private? And I know this has nothing to do with the public-private debate, but what qualifies a school as a failing school?

Lol one in Academic Emergency or Academic Watch

Al Bundy;641796 wrote:Youngstown Christian is also a private school in Youngstown. The state gives each school district a grade based upon many factors. State report cards are listed on ODE's website. If a district is failing, students within that district may use state money toward tuition at a private school so that they have an opportunity to get an education at a school that is performing well instead of at the failing school.

Yes, but if a student is a 0.5 GPA and held back three years, I seriously doubt the private school is just going to 'take the money and run'. More than likely, a child of that caliber will rot in the public school that, due to the loss of the best and brightest, will continue its downward trend.

Isn't it obvious that a private school can have elevated GPAs, level of achievement, participation, etc because they control which students can get in? A public can't. If you live in the district they must accept you into the school. It's a drain. One which the privates know nothing about. They get to skim the top.

If school size was such an issue, explain how this would work:

Private School A and Public School B are in the same town. The only schools anywhere nearby. Hypothetically all students in town go to one of the two schools. There's 600 Males 9-11 in the entire town. You take the students and give them vouchers because School B is failing. Now, they're all free to go to whichever school they want. The only available option is School A. Now, hypothetically, if School A took all 600...... they'd be a failing school. They won't take all of them. Even if they do have room. Even if the money is rolling in. They can't tarnish their reputation by dragging themselves down in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. They will blacklist some students. Let's say, students below a 1.0GPA. Let's say 400 males 9-11 fail to exceed a 1.0 GPA. Now, B has 400 and A has 200. Private gets the best 200, the public is stuck with the worst (and any anti-Catholics who refuse to send their kids there on principle). If you put them on the field, according to the current setup, the public school will be better simply because there's 200 more warm bodies showing up (hopefully), right? Because that's what anti-change advocates are stating right now.

It's like picking teams on the playground. Rather than going one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me, etc. You instead say, "there's 20 kids here, you pick the first nine, I'll take the remaining nine". Wouldn't be logical, right? It's not an even split. Even though there's ten and ten.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk;642046 wrote:Yes, but if a student is a 0.5 GPA and held back three years, I seriously doubt the private school is just going to 'take the money and run'. More than likely, a child of that caliber will rot in the public school that, due to the loss of the best and brightest, will continue its downward trend.

Isn't it obvious that a private school can have elevated GPAs, level of achievement, participation, etc because they control which students can get in? A public can't. If you live in the district they must accept you into the school. It's a drain. One which the privates know nothing about. They get to skim the top.

If school size was such an issue, explain how this would work:

Private School A and Public School B are in the same town. The only schools anywhere nearby. Hypothetically all students in town go to one of the two schools. There's 600 Males 9-11 in the entire town. You take the students and give them vouchers because School B is failing. Now, they're all free to go to whichever school they want. The only available option is School A. Now, hypothetically, if School A took all 600...... they'd be a failing school. They won't take all of them. Even if they do have room. Even if the money is rolling in. They can't tarnish their reputation by dragging themselves down in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. They will blacklist some students. Let's say, students below a 1.0GPA. Let's say 400 males 9-11 fail to exceed a 1.0 GPA. Now, B has 400 and A has 200. Private gets the best 200, the public is stuck with the worst (and any anti-Catholics who refuse to send their kids there on principle). If you put them on the field, according to the current setup, the public school will be better simply because there's 200 more warm bodies showing up (hopefully), right? Because that's what anti-change advocates are stating right now.

It's like picking teams on the playground. Rather than going one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me, etc. You instead say, "there's 20 kids here, you pick the first nine, I'll take the remaining nine". Wouldn't be logical, right? It's not an even split. Even though there's ten and ten.

Sykotyk

Kids deserve a chance to learn. Let's look at the situation that is going on at Youngstown Chaney. There have been so many fights there, that it is basically impossible to have a learning environment. The school district refuses to expel kids because they don't want to lose the $$$$. The superintendent has asked pastors and mininisters to come in to watch the halls during class changes to help cut down on the fights. I know of two teachers who have been hit by students and none of the students have been expelled. Don't the kids that go there and truly want to learn and go to college deserve that chance?

how can i see what academic grades private schools are given by the state? i cant seem to find it on odes web page...al bundy can you direct me

Sykotyk;642046 wrote:Yes, but if a student is a 0.5 GPA and held back three years, I seriously doubt the private school is just going to 'take the money and run'. More than likely, a child of that caliber will rot in the public school that, due to the loss of the best and brightest, will continue its downward trend.

Isn't it obvious that a private school can have elevated GPAs, level of achievement, participation, etc because they control which students can get in? A public can't. If you live in the district they must accept you into the school. It's a drain. One which the privates know nothing about. They get to skim the top.

If school size was such an issue, explain how this would work:

Private School A and Public School B are in the same town. The only schools anywhere nearby. Hypothetically all students in town go to one of the two schools. There's 600 Males 9-11 in the entire town. You take the students and give them vouchers because School B is failing. Now, they're all free to go to whichever school they want. The only available option is School A. Now, hypothetically, if School A took all 600...... they'd be a failing school. They won't take all of them. Even if they do have room. Even if the money is rolling in. They can't tarnish their reputation by dragging themselves down in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. They will blacklist some students. Let's say, students below a 1.0GPA. Let's say 400 males 9-11 fail to exceed a 1.0 GPA. Now, B has 400 and A has 200. Private gets the best 200, the public is stuck with the worst (and any anti-Catholics who refuse to send their kids there on principle). If you put them on the field, according to the current setup, the public school will be better simply because there's 200 more warm bodies showing up (hopefully), right? Because that's what anti-change advocates are stating right now.

It's like picking teams on the playground. Rather than going one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me, etc. You instead say, "there's 20 kids here, you pick the first nine, I'll take the remaining nine". Wouldn't be logical, right? It's not an even split. Even though there's ten and ten.

Sykotyk

That right there makes absolutely no sense.