Con_Alma;1176054 wrote:I never spoke of football at all. The HS choice I make for my children isn't based on football. My son does play...he wrestles also. There's no doubt that sports are "extra"-curricular.

I know others choose a school based on sports but that's their decisions and right as much as choosing a schools based on environment and culture.

A school doesn't own a kid or family based on where that family lives. Why that ever became part of the mentality as it relates to athletic rules, I'll never understand.

Then why troll in the HS Football forum, in a thread about "OHSAA's Competitive Balance Initiative?"

Did I say the R word?

BTrev;1176068 wrote:Then why troll in the HS Football forum, in a thread about "OHSAA's Competitive Balance Initiative?"

????

It wasn't a trolling effort.

If you read my first post in this thread it was a response to a particular comment. School choice matters and it's important. Sports as an extra curricular is part of that school experience...sometimes a big part. In our household it's very important...but not the primary determinant in the decision we made.

We purchase educational services. Shouldn't we get to decide the service that we are destined to pay for when it relates to our kids?

BTrev;1176059 wrote:So throw any loyalty to your residential city out the window, I guess...

I firmly believe that if a kid is that damn good at football, basketball, baseball, track, etc... they'll be able to attract intrest from colleges wherever they're at.

That is what we're talking about, right? Sending kids elsewhere so they can get looks from scouts and have a chance at a scholarship?

Keep Preaching...I think you are spot on, but it also goes back to an easier time in LIFE when folks were proud of their community, proud of where they came from, proud of their school and dreamed about the rivalries...this ain't 1960 any longer, where Letter Jackets were cool and local pride was appreciated.

Con_Alma;1176064 wrote:Loyalty isn't a given it is earned.

Talented athletes are found no matter where they are. It's not being recruited that I speak of. It's being in the right school for that kid and his/her personality and needs.

Todays "Soccer Mom", Helicopter parents put lil Johnny where they want with regards only to how good the football/basketball team is. It doesn't have damn thingto do with science or math or "needs".....Put the mini-van back in the garage!

1_beast;1176085 wrote:Keep Preaching...I think you are spot on, but it also goes back to an easier time in LIFE when folks were proud of their community, proud of where they came from, proud of their school and dreamed about the rivalries...this ain't 1960 any longer, where Letter Jackets were cool and local pride was appreciated.



Todays "Soccer Mom", Helicopter parents put lil Johnny where they want with regards only to how good the football/basketball team is. It doesn't have damn thingto do with science or math or "needs".....Put the mini-van back in the garage!

There can be and is still pride in community. I think we sometimes lose perspective with regards to the role and place sports has in the big picture of education. There's nothing wrong with being proud of a great HS team's run but if the community's pride is dependent on a HS sports team then the pride really isn't very deep.

I agree that some parents may put a kid in a school solely based on sports. I see it and hear it. In the end, it's still their kid, still their choice with regard to what they feel is best for him/her...and it's still their money purchasing the educational experience.

Balancing competition is just a crazy idea fundamentally to me. I'd rather see all schools provide their services to whomever wanted to seek them out. Let the extra curricular athletics compete without rancor or disdain for segregated sizes and and benefits others might have. The school my kids attend is small but I would rather they step on to the mat with the big boys an y day than have a sanctioning body decide they aren't good enough to compete in the playoffs with those with greater numbers to pull from.

It's just an extra curricular event put in place to teach them life lessons.

1_beast;1176085 wrote:Keep Preaching...I think you are spot on, but it also goes back to an easier time in LIFE when folks were proud of their community, proud of where they came from, proud of their school and dreamed about the rivalries...this ain't 1960 any longer, where Letter Jackets were cool and local pride was appreciated.

Thanks... I wasn't alive in the 60's, or even the 70's. And I really don't even remember the 80's. I'm only 25.

I'm just a big fan of the old school, I guess. I am a 4th generation native here though, too.

And I really don't mean to tell anyone how to raise their kids, or pretend to know what's really best for anyone. I just hate when families send their kids to schools outside of their home district because they think they're more likely to get offered a scholarship elsewhere.

I agree with everyone about Academics being top priority, and Athletics just being extracurricular and a way for kids to learn life lessons.

1_beast;1176085 wrote:Keep Preaching...I think you are spot on, but it also goes back to an easier time in LIFE when folks were proud of their community, proud of where they came from, proud of their school and dreamed about the rivalries...this ain't 1960 any longer, where Letter Jackets were cool and local pride was appreciated.

Totally agree. You couldn't have said it better.
:thumbup:

I guess we just have different meanings for the word community. As a kid, I had no say in the area in which my parents bought a house and decided to raise me. To me, community can mean the area you lived in...OR it can refer to the people you associated with and those that you went to school with or played sports with. For me...my community was the parochial school kids throughout the Youngstown area. And I have a lot of pride in that community.

Community certainly can be applied with differences.

Con_Alma;1177613 wrote:Community certainly can be applied with differences.

Exactly. And I have a lot of pride in the community of students I attended classes with and played sports with throughout my times at parochial schools.

sherm03;1177623 wrote:Exactly. And I have a lot of pride in the community of students I attended classes with and played sports with throughout my times at parochial schools.

Doesn't count as community unless it's some inbred sticks town.

Con_Alma;1176097 wrote:
Balancing competition is just a crazy idea fundamentally to me. I'd rather see all schools provide their services to whomever wanted to seek them out. Let the extra curricular athletics compete without rancor or disdain for segregated sizes and and benefits others might have. The school my kids attend is small but I would rather they step on to the mat with the big boys an y day than have a sanctioning body decide they aren't good enough to compete in the playoffs with those with greater numbers to pull from.

Ok... This is a little out there and slightly a reach to make a point, but I am just curious. Are you in favor of HS kids using steroids? I know that isn't the issue at hand, but the reason for having a governing athletic body is to ensure that competition is fair for those who choose to become a member of that organization. OHSAA is trying to find a way to create fair competition between the 2 different types of schools.

I personally believe there is an issue. There are far fewer private schools than public, yet the privates win a larger majority of the titles available despite the much smaller numbers... There is something going on there, especially when we always are bringing up the same few schools year after year. I think that is why they came up with the "tradition factor". All OHSAA is trying to do is find a way to address the issue to create a fair competition. (At the least a "fix" that is perceived to be fair)

I don't agree with how OHSAA is trying to fix the issue in its current form, but I applaud them this time for listening to schools, recognizing an issue (one that will most likely never be fixed), and attempting some sort of compromise that doesn't separate the public/private schools from competing with each other come playoff time.

well i think that in some cases their is some level of unfairness such as africentric or hartley or eastmoor getting to pick from a large selection of students in columbus but playing in division 3-4 against schools from bodunk bfe in the state tournament.

sherm03;1177612 wrote:I guess we just have different meanings for the word community. As a kid, I had no say in the area in which my parents bought a house and decided to raise me. To me, community can mean the area you lived in...OR it can refer to the people you associated with and those that you went to school with or played sports with. For me...my community was the parochial school kids throughout the Youngstown area. And I have a lot of pride in that community.

No argument from me, about any of that.

I just don't agree with kids going to one school their entire life, with the same peers and friends, and then switching "communities" because they're under the impression that they'll get a scholarship if they're at a "better" school. Whether they're going from Closed Public to Parochial, Open Public to Parochial, Closed Public to Open Public, Closed Public to Closed Public, Open Public to Closed Public, or Open Public to Open Public.

Also... I'm just curious here. Say a family lives in *insert city here*, but their kids commute to a Parochial school. Does that family usually vote yes or no when *insert city here* has a school levy on the ballot?

queencitybuckeye;1177625 wrote:Doesn't count as community unless it's some inbred sticks town.

That was classless...

BTrev;1177899 wrote:No argument from me, about any of that.

I just don't agree with kids going to one school their entire life, with the same peers and friends, and then switching "communities" because they're under the impression that they'll get a scholarship if they're at a "better" school. Whether they're going from Closed Public to Parochial, Open Public to Parochial, Closed Public to Open Public, Closed Public to Closed Public, Open Public to Closed Public, or Open Public to Open Public.

Also... I'm just curious here. Say a family lives in *insert city here*, but their kids commute to a Parochial school. Does that family usually vote yes or no when *insert city here* has a school levy on the ballot?

As far as the first part of your post...I would only say that it is completely up to the parents to decide what is best for their children. If a father thinks his kid has a better shot by going to Mooney and he diced to make that sacrifice, more power to him. If a family thinks their son or daughter should go to Boardman because the band is great, they can make that decision.

As to your second point, I can't speak for everyone, but I know my dad based his school levy votes on what they were saying they needed the money for. Now that I am older and own a home (even though I don't have kids and plan on sending them to Catholic schools when I do have them), I have voted for and against school levies in my area. It just depends on the situation.

BTrev;1177899 wrote:...
Also... I'm just curious here. Say a family lives in *insert city here*, but their kids commute to a Parochial school. Does that family usually vote yes or no when *insert city here* has a school levy on the ballot?

.

Can you explain why you asked this question? Why does it matter. Shouldn't people be able to vote however they want without repercussion or disdain not matter what the motivation is for their "no" vote?

I have always voted for levies in my town even though we are aware that more money does not directly correlate to better education.

Can a private school block the admittance of anyone they want into their school, answer is yes. Does a private school have a geographical boundary in which to draw from be it rural or urban, answer is no. Does a private school inadvertently block a segment of the population from attending their school be it because of money or strict rules, answer is yes.

Does a public school have a geographical boundary, answer is yes. Can a public school block the admittance and anyone living within that geographical boundary, answer is no. Does a public school block a segment of the population by charging or because of strict entry rules, answer is no.

Does this sound like they are playing on a level playing field when it comes to how many kids walk through their hallways, answer is NO!

Now there are some public schools that operate like privates, ex. Africentric and Eastmoor. I lump them right in their with privates.

Now bring on the privates dont block anyone from coming, their money is as good as the next persons. To that I remind you that just the thought of PAYING for tuition is enough to keep a percentage of the population from even TRYING to enroll! Next, you will say, but we offer scholarships and work programs. Yeah, every kid out there is ready to line up for that! lol They have to be forced by LAW just to go to the public, they dont want to be in school but they have to. So they take the path of least resistance, public.

It is true that private schools INADVERTENTLY gain an advantage by keeping out a percentage of the population that a public cant. That is an undeniable FACT!

redstreak one;1178519 wrote:Can a private school block the admittance of anyone they want into their school, answer is yes. Does a private school have a geographical boundary in which to draw from be it rural or urban, answer is no. Does a private school inadvertently block a segment of the population from attending their school be it because of money or strict rules, answer is yes.

Does a public school have a geographical boundary, answer is yes. Can a public school block the admittance and anyone living within that geographical boundary, answer is no. Does a public school block a segment of the population by charging or because of strict entry rules, answer is no.

Does this sound like they are playing on a level playing field when it comes to how many kids walk through their hallways, answer is NO!

Now there are some public schools that operate like privates, ex. Africentric and Eastmoor. I lump them right in their with privates.

Now bring on the privates dont block anyone from coming, their money is as good as the next persons. To that I remind you that just the thought of PAYING for tuition is enough to keep a percentage of the population from even TRYING to enroll! Next, you will say, but we offer scholarships and work programs. Yeah, every kid out there is ready to line up for that! lol They have to be forced by LAW just to go to the public, they dont want to be in school but they have to. So they take the path of least resistance, public.

It is true that private schools INADVERTENTLY gain an advantage by keeping out a percentage of the population that a public cant. That is an undeniable FACT!

Agree 100%. You worded it much better than I did.

redstreak one;1178519 wrote:Can a private school block the admittance of anyone they want into their school, answer is yes. Does a private school have a geographical boundary in which to draw from be it rural or urban, answer is no. Does a private school inadvertently block a segment of the population from attending their school be it because of money or strict rules, answer is yes.

Does a public school have a geographical boundary, answer is yes. Can a public school block the admittance and anyone living within that geographical boundary, answer is no. Does a public school block a segment of the population by charging or because of strict entry rules, answer is no.

Does this sound like they are playing on a level playing field when it comes to how many kids walk through their hallways, answer is NO!

Now there are some public schools that operate like privates, ex. Africentric and Eastmoor. I lump them right in their with privates.

Now bring on the privates dont block anyone from coming, their money is as good as the next persons. To that I remind you that just the thought of PAYING for tuition is enough to keep a percentage of the population from even TRYING to enroll! Next, you will say, but we offer scholarships and work programs. Yeah, every kid out there is ready to line up for that! lol They have to be forced by LAW just to go to the public, they dont want to be in school but they have to. So they take the path of least resistance, public.

It is true that private schools INADVERTENTLY gain an advantage by keeping out a percentage of the population that a public cant. That is an undeniable FACT!

Fair enough. But to counter that point, I would argue that a lot of closed-enrollment public schools have an advantage built in. Schools like Poland and Canfield have an advantage because they don't have to have any of the trouble makers from inner-city Youngstown, and they are able to limit attendance because not everyone can afford to pick up and move to Poland or Canfield. Yet, these are the schools that are getting the most protection under these proposals.

How about this...your enrollment numbers are based solely on the number of kids that come out for the team. Nobody is cut, everyone makes it, and that number determines your division. Then all those kids that go to schools for other sports/activities/ or just because they have to would not affect your division.

sherm03;1178691 wrote:Fair enough. But to counter that point, I would argue that a lot of closed-enrollment public schools have an advantage built in. Schools like Poland and Canfield have an advantage because they don't have to have any of the trouble makers from inner-city Youngstown, and they are able to limit attendance because not everyone can afford to pick up and move to Poland or Canfield. Yet, these are the schools that are getting the most protection under these proposals.

How about this...your enrollment numbers are based solely on the number of kids that come out for the team. Nobody is cut, everyone makes it, and that number determines your division. Then all those kids that go to schools for other sports/activities/ or just because they have to would not affect your division.

The school district has no control over who comes into their school though. You want to go to Boardman? Pack up the family and go there. That has nothing to do with the choice of the school. They are not allowed to turn you away if you move into the district. That scenario is strictly economic. It has nothing to do with the schools personal choice besides requiring kids that attend to within the assigned tax district. I know it is unrealistic but those inner-city kids could move into Boardman. Mooney could tell them yes or no and if they can't afford the tuition they can "work" for it or get a "scholarship". (Maybe if you receive one of those you shouldn't be allowed to play sports. Maybe that could be a solution.)

Your idea about team size is even worse than the current proposal. Team size would be manipulated immensely. I can see the CVCA/EDs/Wadsworth wrestling team having just 15 members with the backup guys wrestling on a club team. Football would be a bit harder to manipulate but I'm sure there are ways.

Jmar25;1178703 wrote:The school district has no control over who comes into their school though. You want to go to Boardman? Pack up the family and go there. That has nothing to do with the choice of the school. They are not allowed to turn you away if you move into the district. That scenario is strictly economic. It has nothing to do with the schools personal choice besides requiring kids that attend to within the assigned tax district. I know it is unrealistic but those inner-city kids could move into Boardman. Mooney could tell them yes or no and if they can't afford the tuition they can "work" for it or get a "scholarship". (Maybe if you receive one of those you shouldn't be allowed to play sports. Maybe that could be a solution.)

Your idea about team size is even worse than the current proposal. Team size would be manipulated immensely. I can see the CVCA/EDs/Wadsworth wrestling team having just 15 members with the backup guys wrestling on a club team. Football would be a bit harder to manipulate but I'm sure there are ways.

First off...the school district does have a choice. Poland, Canfield, Boardman all CHOOSE to be closed enrollment and therefore limit their enrollment to only students in that area. So to say the school district has no control is a fallacy.

I don't really think basing the numbers on kids that go out for sports is a good idea. I was just being facetious. I still think my first idea is the best way to do it. But the OHSAA doesn't want to do that because they know that 95%I of the kids coming into a private high school come from a private grade school. In addition, they would never want to hurt their public schools who do get a decent number of kids from private grade schools.

Jmar25;1178703 wrote:The school district has no control over who comes into their school though. You want to go to Boardman? Pack up the family and go there. That has nothing to do with the choice of the school. They are not allowed to turn you away if you move into the district. That scenario is strictly economic. It has nothing to do with the schools personal choice besides requiring kids that attend to live within the assigned tax district.

I agree. Just because a school district chooses to be closed enrollment doesn't mean they can reject anyone... provided that the student live in that district... simply because they don't like them or feel that they aren't up to their Academic/Athletic standards.

Don't get me started on Boardman though. Where did their 2010 and 2011 QB live again?

sherm03;1178824 wrote:First off...the school district does have a choice. Poland, Canfield, Boardman all CHOOSE to be closed enrollment and therefore limit their enrollment to only students in that area. So to say the school district has no control is a fallacy.

I strongly disagree.

How can you disagree? Schools like Boardman, Poland, and Canfield have essentially said that the students that reside in that area are good enough. They haven chosen to limit their enrollment to just students within their geographical boundaries. Nobody told them they had to do this. They could very easily go open enrollment and accept students from Warren, Austintown, and Youngstown. They choose to limit their enrollment and not take that option.

BTrev;1178964 wrote: I strongly disagree.

What is there to disagree about?

I disagree that they're wrong, or that it's somehow their own fault that their enrollment numbers are limited, for choosing to be closed enrollment. And I really disagree that by choosing to be closed enrollment, they're essentially saying that students in the surrounding areas aren't good enough to attend.

You guys see it as them saying you don't live here, so you aren't good enough to come here.

I see it as them saying everyone is good enough to come here, provided that they actually live in the district.

I'm still just living in the stone age though, when people took pride in and supported the city they lived in, not just the High School they went to.