|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 12:01:46 GMT -6
Look if you want to say otherwise that is fine. I am talking form experience. You asked for facts, so I gave you facts. I believe you when you say that you don't know of any that do, but I'm telling you that some do. For legal reasons, its obviously not as overt as it once was, but it does go on. Yes you are correct, that many private schools starting around 1970 sprung up as a knee jerk reaction to integration. Most failed within a few years. During that time period I went to a private school that was established in 1907 not 1970, and nearly 25% of that schools population was minority. But it had a far higher academic standard than what was being forced upon the public system here in Louisiana. When I entered that private school I had to be tutored in several subjects to get caught up to my classes standard. As I said, I do not doubt your experience and am in no way calling you a liar. But my experience leads me to think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 26, 2017 12:04:12 GMT -6
Sorry, I think you may be grinding an un-provable personal axe. I do not know a single private school that has an agenda to keep out minorities. In fact, I know several that go out their way to bring in and recruit minorities. If it could be proven, the schools would be sued into non-existence and we would not be having this conversation. As I said before, if you chose not to believe it, fine, but it does happen. I agree we would not be having this conversation if you hadn't brought this up. This is exactly how the "split" got the extra help it needed, the private schools recruit and the LHSAA/governing board looks the other way and it's not fair. If it is said enough times, some will start to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 12:10:16 GMT -6
If it could be proven, the schools would be sued into non-existence and we would not be having this conversation. As I said before, if you chose not to believe it, fine, but it does happen. I agree we would not be having this conversation if you hadn't brought this up. This is exactly how the "split" got the extra help it needed, the private schools recruit and the LHSAA/governing board looks the other way and it's not fair. If it is said enough times, some will start to believe it. Every school recruits in some way, shape, form, or fashion, that isn't what fueled the split. Attendance zones did that, that is the black and white issue that anyone can point to and see the difference.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 26, 2017 13:21:29 GMT -6
I agree we would not be having this conversation if you hadn't brought this up. This is exactly how the "split" got the extra help it needed, the private schools recruit and the LHSAA/governing board looks the other way and it's not fair. If it is said enough times, some will start to believe it. Every school recruits in some way, shape, form, or fashion, that isn't what fueled the split. Attendance zones did that, that is the black and white issue that anyone can point to and see the difference. Here is a rebuttal from one of the Principal's that started this split. Jane Griffin.....Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. So if a private school has less than 25% "out of zone" they should be able to be non-select, according to this statement.Jane Griffin .....Griffin referenced football power John Curtis of River Ridge, which won its national-record 25th total state title in the fall, beating Evangel Christian Academy for the 2A crown. The Patriots have appeared in 17 straight title games. Winnfield lost to Curtis in the 2011 2A title game. Griffin talked about issues the LHSAA has policing recruiting by football powers and noted that “recruiting is recruiting, whether it’s in the fifth grade or the eighth grade.” Seems to me that recruiting was the issue, at least for Mrs. GriffinJane Griffin......Things are not fair and equitable. We’ll see what happens. If it doesn’t work, we can go back, and I’ll be leading the charge. I wonder if they think it's working with all the teams with losing records getting into the playoffs?
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 13:33:50 GMT -6
Every school recruits in some way, shape, form, or fashion, that isn't what fueled the split. Attendance zones did that, that is the black and white issue that anyone can point to and see the difference. Here is a rebuttal from one of the Principal's that started this split. Jane Griffin.....Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. So if a private school has less than 25% "out of zone" they should be able to be non-select, according to this statement.Jane Griffin .....Griffin referenced football power John Curtis of River Ridge, which won its national-record 25th total state title in the fall, beating Evangel Christian Academy for the 2A crown. The Patriots have appeared in 17 straight title games. Winnfield lost to Curtis in the 2011 2A title game. Griffin talked about issues the LHSAA has policing recruiting by football powers and noted that “recruiting is recruiting, whether it’s in the fifth grade or the eighth grade.” Seems to me that recruiting was the issue, at least for Mrs. GriffinJane Griffin......Things are not fair and equitable. We’ll see what happens. If it doesn’t work, we can go back, and I’ll be leading the charge. I wonder if they think it's working with all the teams with losing records getting into the playoffs?When did this rebuttal take place? The first vote on the split took place in the 90's. This is far from the spark that started the fire. Mrs. Griffin's issue may have been with recruiting, but she wasn't the only person to vote on the issue. I've said it before and ill say it again...every school recruits in some shape, form, or fashion. I don't think that was the driving force behind the split.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 26, 2017 13:40:00 GMT -6
Here is a rebuttal from one of the Principal's that started this split. Jane Griffin.....Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. So if a private school has less than 25% "out of zone" they should be able to be non-select, according to this statement.Jane Griffin .....Griffin referenced football power John Curtis of River Ridge, which won its national-record 25th total state title in the fall, beating Evangel Christian Academy for the 2A crown. The Patriots have appeared in 17 straight title games. Winnfield lost to Curtis in the 2011 2A title game. Griffin talked about issues the LHSAA has policing recruiting by football powers and noted that “recruiting is recruiting, whether it’s in the fifth grade or the eighth grade.” Seems to me that recruiting was the issue, at least for Mrs. GriffinJane Griffin......Things are not fair and equitable. We’ll see what happens. If it doesn’t work, we can go back, and I’ll be leading the charge. I wonder if they think it's working with all the teams with losing records getting into the playoffs?When did this rebuttal take place? The first vote on the split took place in the 90's. This is far from the spark that started the fire. Mrs. Griffin's issue may have been with recruiting, but she wasn't the only person to vote on the issue. I've said it before and ill say it again...every school recruits in some shape, form, or fashion. I don't think that was the driving force behind the split.
Let's look at part of your statement ...... Attendance zones did that, that is the black and white issue that anyone can point to and see the difference.
Let's look at Mrs. Griffin's statement again.... Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. Seems to me that she was willing for up to 25% to be out of zone.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 13:43:41 GMT -6
When did this rebuttal take place? The first vote on the split took place in the 90's. This is far from the spark that started the fire. Mrs. Griffin's issue may have been with recruiting, but she wasn't the only person to vote on the issue. I've said it before and ill say it again...every school recruits in some shape, form, or fashion. I don't think that was the driving force behind the split.
Let's look at part of your statement ...... Attendance zones did that, that is the black and white issue that anyone can point to and see the difference.
Let's look at Mrs. Griffin's statement again.... Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. Seems to me that she was willing for up to 25% to be out of zone.Right, but as I have pointed out to our friend Indy on multiple occasions, 25% is still 75% more restrictive than private school requirements.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 26, 2017 13:53:18 GMT -6
Let's look at part of your statement ...... Attendance zones did that, that is the black and white issue that anyone can point to and see the difference.
Let's look at Mrs. Griffin's statement again.... Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. Seems to me that she was willing for up to 25% to be out of zone.Right, but as I have pointed out to our friend Indy on multiple occasions, 25% is still 75% more restrictive than private school requirements. Look at what Mrs. Griffin stated..... Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. How is that more or less restrictive to any school, this is how she defined "SELECT SCHOOLS", for the vote to split the playoffs. If the definition has changed please show me where it changed.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 14:00:54 GMT -6
Right, but as I have pointed out to our friend Indy on multiple occasions, 25% is still 75% more restrictive than private school requirements. Look at what Mrs. Griffin stated..... Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. How is that more or less restrictive to any school, this is how she defined "SELECT SCHOOLS", for the vote to split the playoffs. If the definition has changed please show me where it changed. Look, I don't know if I'm just not at all following what you are saying or we are on two different planets, but Select Schools today have no attendance zones, while non-select (even with the 25% rule in play) still have to adhere to the schools zone with a 25% allowance.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 26, 2017 14:18:50 GMT -6
Look at what Mrs. Griffin stated..... Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. How is that more or less restrictive to any school, this is how she defined "SELECT SCHOOLS", for the vote to split the playoffs. If the definition has changed please show me where it changed. Look, I don't know if I'm just not at all following what you are saying or we are on two different planets, but Select Schools today have no attendance zones, while non-select (even with the 25% rule in play) still have to adhere to the schools zone with a 25% allowance. This has to do with the definition of a "select" school according to Mrs. Griffin. The way that I'm reading her statement is that to be a "select" school, said school has to draw at least 25% of their students from outside a "traditional attendance zone". So Menard for example, Rapides Parish is open enrollment, go to any high school you want, then at least 25% of their students have to come from outside Rapides Parish. If you go back to when they had the same zone as Bolton, then at least 25% of their students would have to be from outside that area, to be defined as a "select" school. I hope that this helps.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 14:38:40 GMT -6
Look, I don't know if I'm just not at all following what you are saying or we are on two different planets, but Select Schools today have no attendance zones, while non-select (even with the 25% rule in play) still have to adhere to the schools zone with a 25% allowance. This has to do with the definition of a "select" school according to Mrs. Griffin. The way that I'm reading her statement is that to be a "select" school, said school has to draw at least 25% of their students from outside a "traditional attendance zone". So Menard for example, Rapides Parish is open enrollment, go to any high school you want, then at least 25% of their students have to come from outside Rapides Parish. If you go back to when they had the same zone as Bolton, then at least 25% of their students would have to be from outside that area, to be defined as a "select" school. I hope that this helps. Understand, but you are citing her argument for the rule, not the rule itself. If the rule uses the term "traditional" without a clear definition what traditional means, that's another story.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 26, 2017 14:51:15 GMT -6
This has to do with the definition of a "select" school according to Mrs. Griffin. The way that I'm reading her statement is that to be a "select" school, said school has to draw at least 25% of their students from outside a "traditional attendance zone". So Menard for example, Rapides Parish is open enrollment, go to any high school you want, then at least 25% of their students have to come from outside Rapides Parish. If you go back to when they had the same zone as Bolton, then at least 25% of their students would have to be from outside that area, to be defined as a "select" school. I hope that this helps. Understand, but you are citing her argument for the rule, not the rule itself. If the rule uses the term "traditional" without a clear definition what traditional means, that's another story. You are saying that because "select" schools don't have an attendance zone is the reason for the split. What I was showing you was what Mrs. Griffin stated was her definition of a "select" school...that at least 25% have to come from outside a "traditional zone", she was quoted saying this at the 2013 convention. This is the year that the split started and Griffin and Booker were the leading Principal's pushing the "split". I showed in the example with Menard (Rapides Parish) that by definition they should not be a "select" school if they don't have at least 25% of their students from outside Rapides Parish, currently and with the Bolton "zone" in the past.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 14:59:57 GMT -6
Understand, but you are citing her argument for the rule, not the rule itself. If the rule uses the term "traditional" without a clear definition what traditional means, that's another story. You are saying that because "select" schools don't have an attendance zone is the reason for the split. What I was showing you was what Mrs. Griffin stated was her definition of a "select" school...that at least 25% have to come from outside a "traditional zone", she was quoted saying this at the 2013 convention. This is the year that the split started and Griffin and Booker were the leading Principal's pushing the "split". I showed in the example with Menard (Rapides Parish) that by definition they should not be a "select" school if they don't have at least 25% of their students from outside Rapides Parish, currently and with the Bolton "zone" in the past. I understand your point, but while Booker and Griffen may have had the loudest voice, they weren't the only voice. The coaches and Proncipals that I have discussed this with were much more concerned with attendance zones then recruiting.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 26, 2017 15:05:32 GMT -6
You are saying that because "select" schools don't have an attendance zone is the reason for the split. What I was showing you was what Mrs. Griffin stated was her definition of a "select" school...that at least 25% have to come from outside a "traditional zone", she was quoted saying this at the 2013 convention. This is the year that the split started and Griffin and Booker were the leading Principal's pushing the "split". I showed in the example with Menard (Rapides Parish) that by definition they should not be a "select" school if they don't have at least 25% of their students from outside Rapides Parish, currently and with the Bolton "zone" in the past. I understand your point, but while Booker and Griffen may have had the loudest voice, they weren't the only voice. The coaches and Proncipals that I have discussed this with were much more concerned with attendance zones then recruiting. Even if "attendance zones" were the problem, what is your definition of a select school? According to Mrs. Griffin and Mr. Booker who wrote the bill for the vote, their definition was "Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone." So if a school didn't/doesn't have at least 25% they should not be a "select"school according to their definition.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 15:23:13 GMT -6
Even if "attendance zones" were the problem, what is your definition of a select school? According to Mrs. Griffin and Mr. Booker who wrote the bill for the vote, their definition was "Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone." So if a school didn't/doesn't have at least 25% they should not be a "select"school according to their definition. Look, we all know what the real problem was. The majority of the state got tired of two teams kicking everyone's a** on a regular basis. 4A and 5A sent them back down to 1A & 2A. When everyone had enough, the public schools (who had the numbers) got together and said the good had to suffer with the bad and voted on the split. They pointed out the one obvious and indisputable difference between select and non-select, that being attendance zones (which yes for the majority of schools, both select and non-select is regarded as an advantage) and used that as a way to get rid of those two schools that have kicked everyone's a** for the last 30 years or so. We can split hairs and legally dissect this for years, but it won't change anything. Until non select schools agree to the same attendance zones as public, it's a guaranteed losing battle. If you want the split to go away, be realistic about what brought us to this point and propose a realistic solution. The old way is dead and gone, but that doesn't mean there should be a unilateral split.
|
|
|
Post by brprepfan on Jul 26, 2017 15:59:36 GMT -6
Are the two schools John Curtis and Evangel or am I off target?
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 16:01:49 GMT -6
Are the two schools John Curtis and Evangel or am I off target? Bingo.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2017 19:35:28 GMT -6
Look at what Mrs. Griffin stated..... Griffin’s proposal defines select schools as private schools, charter schools, full magnet schools, laboratory schools and dual-curriculum schools that draw at least 25 percent of their magnet component enrollment from outside a traditional attendance zone. How is that more or less restrictive to any school, this is how she defined "SELECT SCHOOLS", for the vote to split the playoffs. If the definition has changed please show me where it changed. Look, I don't know if I'm just not at all following what you are saying or we are on two different planets, but Select Schools today have no attendance zones, while non-select (even with the 25% rule in play) still have to adhere to the schools zone with a 25% allowance. Read the rules, you are delusional. Private schools have zones. For 40+ years we had Crowley Highs zone. Any kids that came out of zone was ineligible for a year. Now we have our feeder schools as a zone. Any kid from a public elementary even if they live across the street from ND is ineligible for a year. Plus a heafty tuition is involved. Whereas any student in Sabine parish can attend Many high with no penalty or tuition. Whom do the rules favor? And take your glasses off before you answer.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 19:44:23 GMT -6
Look, I don't know if I'm just not at all following what you are saying or we are on two different planets, but Select Schools today have no attendance zones, while non-select (even with the 25% rule in play) still have to adhere to the schools zone with a 25% allowance. Read the rules, you are delusional. Private schools have zones. For 40+ years we had Crowley Highs zone. Any kids that came out of zone was ineligible for a year. Now we have our feeder schools as a zone. Any kid from a public elementary even if they live across the street from ND is ineligible for a year. Plus a heafty tuition is involved. Whereas any student in Sabine parish can attend Many high with no penalty or tuition. Whom do the rules favor? And take your glasses off before you answer. We've been over this a million times, being ineligible to play sports for a year is not equal to not being able to attend at all. You always bring up tuition, but that is not a factor in the discussion what so ever.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2017 19:51:21 GMT -6
Read the rules, you are delusional. Private schools have zones. For 40+ years we had Crowley Highs zone. Any kids that came out of zone was ineligible for a year. Now we have our feeder schools as a zone. Any kid from a public elementary even if they live across the street from ND is ineligible for a year. Plus a heafty tuition is involved. Whereas any student in Sabine parish can attend Many high with no penalty or tuition. Whom do the rules favor? And take your glasses off before you answer. We've been over this a million times, being ineligible to play sports for a year is not equal to not being able to attend at all. You always bring up tuition, but that is not a factor in the discussion what so ever. You are really delusional if you think tuition is not an issue or a hindrance. It's a bigger advantage and much easier for Kinder to get out of zone kids from the surrounding area. It's much easier and cheaper to play the lack of football or baseball rule or lie about an address. Many draws from 945 but are still 2A.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 26, 2017 19:53:32 GMT -6
We've been over this a million times, being ineligible to play sports for a year is not equal to not being able to attend at all. You always bring up tuition, but that is not a factor in the discussion what so ever. You are really delusional if you think tuition is not an issue or a hindrance. It's a bigger advantage and much easier for Kinder to get out of zone kids from the surrounding area. It's much easier and cheaper to play the lack of football or baseball rule or lie about an address. Many draws from 945 but are still 2A. Keep saying that, maybe you will convince yourself one of these days.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 27, 2017 6:59:31 GMT -6
Read the rules, you are delusional. Private schools have zones. For 40+ years we had Crowley Highs zone. Any kids that came out of zone was ineligible for a year. Now we have our feeder schools as a zone. Any kid from a public elementary even if they live across the street from ND is ineligible for a year. Plus a heafty tuition is involved. Whereas any student in Sabine parish can attend Many high with no penalty or tuition. Whom do the rules favor? And take your glasses off before you answer. We've been over this a million times, being ineligible to play sports for a year is not equal to not being able to attend at all. You always bring up tuition, but that is not a factor in the discussion what so ever. It's starting to sound that the biggest problem you have is that you don't like private schools. If this is the problem that's a "you" problem. Some of us have tried to point out several things wrong with the split and suggested better ways to solve the problem for everyone (all schools), but you don't seem to want to understand or can't. I went to a public school, Many High to be exact, but sent my son to private schools. We struggled with the tuition, that goes up every year it seemed, so tuition is a big part of it.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jul 27, 2017 7:11:23 GMT -6
Look, I don't know if I'm just not at all following what you are saying or we are on two different planets, but Select Schools today have no attendance zones, while non-select (even with the 25% rule in play) still have to adhere to the schools zone with a 25% allowance. Read the rules, you are delusional. Private schools have zones. For 40+ years we had Crowley Highs zone. Any kids that came out of zone was ineligible for a year. Now we have our feeder schools as a zone. Any kid from a public elementary even if they live across the street from ND is ineligible for a year. Plus a heafty tuition is involved. Whereas any student in Sabine parish can attend Many high with no penalty or tuition. Whom do the rules favor? And take your glasses off before you answer. I THINK and I may be wrong about this but if a student chooses to attend Many he must still sit out a year. Reason being because all the schools except Many are B/C schools and when they play a varsity sport in the 7th grade that goes down as their school of choice, so if they choose to transfer to Many, they have already made a school of choice and must sit out a year. I also THINK the move must be approved by both principals and the school board. This is very similar to what you are saying happens at ND.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 7:17:38 GMT -6
We've been over this a million times, being ineligible to play sports for a year is not equal to not being able to attend at all. You always bring up tuition, but that is not a factor in the discussion what so ever. It's starting to sound that the biggest problem you have is that you don't like private schools. If this is the problem that's a "you" problem. Some of us have tried to point out several things wrong with the split and suggested better ways to solve the problem for everyone (all schools), but you don't seem to want to understand or can't. I went to a public school, Many High to be exact, but sent my son to private schools. We struggled with the tuition, that goes up every year it seemed, so tuition is a big part of it. Like you, I graduated from a public school. Also, like you, I put two children through private school and one through a private college. I have no problem with private schools. They are great for many reasons. What I am saying is that tuition has no merit when discussing the "split". The "split" divided schools that play by a certain set of rules vs a group that doesn't. Yes, there will always be schools that bend the rules, so please don't use the exception to prove the rule. Is the split a perfect solution, NO. Am I proponent of the split, NO. Do I understand the logic behind it, yes. Until people are willing to acknowledge the facts here, we will never get anywhere.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I am certain it lies somewhere between what is going on today and John Curtis playing against a six win 2A team with 175 lb lineman in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 27, 2017 7:51:58 GMT -6
It's starting to sound that the biggest problem you have is that you don't like private schools. If this is the problem that's a "you" problem. Some of us have tried to point out several things wrong with the split and suggested better ways to solve the problem for everyone (all schools), but you don't seem to want to understand or can't. I went to a public school, Many High to be exact, but sent my son to private schools. We struggled with the tuition, that goes up every year it seemed, so tuition is a big part of it. Like you, I graduated from a public school. Also, like you, I put two children through private school and one through a private college. I have no problem with private schools. They are great for many reasons. What I am saying is that tuition has no merit when discussing the "split". The "split" divided schools that play by a certain set of rules vs a group that doesn't. Yes, there will always be schools that bend the rules, so please don't use the exception to prove the rule. Is the split a perfect solution, NO. Am I proponent of the split, NO. Do I understand the logic behind it, yes. Until people are willing to acknowledge the facts here, we will never get anywhere.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I am certain it lies somewhere between what is going on today and John Curtis playing against a six win 2A team with 175 lb lineman in the playoffs.
Do you agree then that, the LHSAA/Pricipal's could have enforced the rules on the books better? If yes, then the split was not necessary. As far as JC playing a 6 win 2A team, what about Many or Kinder playing a 0 win 2A team in the playoffs? Is this any better? As far as playing by the rules, they are set by the LHSAA and enforced by the LHSAA. If the private schools were playing by the rules as they were written how can they be at fault? I understand that you don't support the "split", but have you talked to your principal about trying to come up with a different solution? I have talked to at least 5, both public and private principals including Mr. Booker at MHS. If you haven't talked to your principal and or coaches about trying to fix the problem then you and everyone else who doesn't is part of the problem not the solution.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 8:25:24 GMT -6
Like you, I graduated from a public school. Also, like you, I put two children through private school and one through a private college. I have no problem with private schools. They are great for many reasons. What I am saying is that tuition has no merit when discussing the "split". The "split" divided schools that play by a certain set of rules vs a group that doesn't. Yes, there will always be schools that bend the rules, so please don't use the exception to prove the rule. Is the split a perfect solution, NO. Am I proponent of the split, NO. Do I understand the logic behind it, yes. Until people are willing to acknowledge the facts here, we will never get anywhere.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I am certain it lies somewhere between what is going on today and John Curtis playing against a six win 2A team with 175 lb lineman in the playoffs.
Do you agree then that, the LHSAA/Pricipal's could have enforced the rules on the books better? If yes, then the split was not necessary. As far as JC playing a 6 win 2A team, what about Many or Kinder playing a 0 win 2A team in the playoffs? Is this any better? As far as playing by the rules, they are set by the LHSAA and enforced by the LHSAA. If the private schools were playing by the rules as they were written how can they be at fault? I understand that you don't support the "split", but have you talked to your principal about trying to come up with a different solution? I have talked to at least 5, both public and private principals including Mr. Booker at MHS. If you haven't talked to your principal and or coaches about trying to fix the problem then you and everyone else who doesn't is part of the problem not the solution. I whole heatedly agree with you that the rules should been enforced better. If they had been, we would not be in the situation we are in. But we are here now.
I have not lived in Louisiana for years, so there is no "my principal", but I have discussed this with Kinder & Oberlin Principals, as well as several coaches from both sides and I can promise you that the toothpaste is not going back into the tube.I would be fine with the old system that allowed teams to voluntarily play up in classification, but the bigger schools have the numbers and wont allow that.
There was a problem with the old system, but instead of acknowledging the problem, people turned a blind eye until schools were threatening to forfeit district games rather than playing JC and Evangel. It was completely out of hand and something had to be done. Unfortunately a unilateral split was adopted because it was the easiest and most obvious solution. It should have never got that far, but both sides have their share of blame to own up to.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2017 9:36:21 GMT -6
Do you agree then that, the LHSAA/Pricipal's could have enforced the rules on the books better? If yes, then the split was not necessary. As far as JC playing a 6 win 2A team, what about Many or Kinder playing a 0 win 2A team in the playoffs? Is this any better? As far as playing by the rules, they are set by the LHSAA and enforced by the LHSAA. If the private schools were playing by the rules as they were written how can they be at fault? I understand that you don't support the "split", but have you talked to your principal about trying to come up with a different solution? I have talked to at least 5, both public and private principals including Mr. Booker at MHS. If you haven't talked to your principal and or coaches about trying to fix the problem then you and everyone else who doesn't is part of the problem not the solution. I whole heatedly agree with you that the rules should been enforced better. If they had been, we would not be in the situation we are in. But we are here now.
I have not lived in Louisiana for years, so there is no "my principal", but I have discussed this with Kinder & Oberlin Principals, as well as several coaches from both sides and I can promise you that the toothpaste is not going back into the tube.I would be fine with the old system that allowed teams to voluntarily play up in classification, but the bigger schools have the numbers and wont allow that.
There was a problem with the old system, but instead of acknowledging the problem, people turned a blind eye until schools were threatening to forfeit district games rather than playing JC and Evangel. It was completely out of hand and something had to be done. Unfortunately a unilateral split was adopted because it was the easiest and most obvious solution. It should have never got that far, but both sides have their share of blame to own up to.
If recruiting and zones were the problem before the split why not after. Basically no zones or enforcement. In fact, it is now legal for public schools to RECRUIT up to 25% of their enrollment of out of ZONE students. we have s and hypocrites running the show and s cheering them on.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 9:42:29 GMT -6
I whole heatedly agree with you that the rules should been enforced better. If they had been, we would not be in the situation we are in. But we are here now.
I have not lived in Louisiana for years, so there is no "my principal", but I have discussed this with Kinder & Oberlin Principals, as well as several coaches from both sides and I can promise you that the toothpaste is not going back into the tube.I would be fine with the old system that allowed teams to voluntarily play up in classification, but the bigger schools have the numbers and wont allow that.
There was a problem with the old system, but instead of acknowledging the problem, people turned a blind eye until schools were threatening to forfeit district games rather than playing JC and Evangel. It was completely out of hand and something had to be done. Unfortunately a unilateral split was adopted because it was the easiest and most obvious solution. It should have never got that far, but both sides have their share of blame to own up to.
If recruiting and zones were the problem before the split why not after. Basically no zones or enforcement. In fact, it is now legal for public schools to RECRUIT up to 25% of their enrollment of out of ZONE students. we have s and hypocrites running the show and s cheering them on. Sorry Indy, adults are trying to have a conversation here. Take your s, , , and other childish comments over to the playpen where it belongs.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 27, 2017 10:00:23 GMT -6
Do you agree then that, the LHSAA/Pricipal's could have enforced the rules on the books better? If yes, then the split was not necessary. As far as JC playing a 6 win 2A team, what about Many or Kinder playing a 0 win 2A team in the playoffs? Is this any better? As far as playing by the rules, they are set by the LHSAA and enforced by the LHSAA. If the private schools were playing by the rules as they were written how can they be at fault? I understand that you don't support the "split", but have you talked to your principal about trying to come up with a different solution? I have talked to at least 5, both public and private principals including Mr. Booker at MHS. If you haven't talked to your principal and or coaches about trying to fix the problem then you and everyone else who doesn't is part of the problem not the solution. I whole heatedly agree with you that the rules should been enforced better. If they had been, we would not be in the situation we are in. But we are here now.
I have not lived in Louisiana for years, so there is no "my principal", but I have discussed this with Kinder & Oberlin Principals, as well as several coaches from both sides and I can promise you that the toothpaste is not going back into the tube.I would be fine with the old system that allowed teams to voluntarily play up in classification, but the bigger schools have the numbers and wont allow that.
There was a problem with the old system, but instead of acknowledging the problem, people turned a blind eye until schools were threatening to forfeit district games rather than playing JC and Evangel. It was completely out of hand and something had to be done. Unfortunately a unilateral split was adopted because it was the easiest and most obvious solution. It should have never got that far, but both sides have their share of blame to own up to.
Not disagreeing that there was a problem. I do think, though, that a better solution could & should have been found. The principal's are the "leaders" of this association and the "leaders" of their school. I know on another thread the principal's are getting blamed for the low ranking of LA students/schools. But as leaders of a school, business, association, or any other endeavor blowing it up should never be an option. Identify the problem, find a solution, and implement said solution. If blowing up the "whatever" is the only solution you as a "leader" can come up with, then in my opinion your not much of a "leader". Just on this board there were several solutions brought up and discussed, some good, some not so good. But "cooler heads" should have been able to look around the country and use or combine the ways other states have used success metrics, multipliers, and many other to solve LA's problem.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 10:13:07 GMT -6
I whole heatedly agree with you that the rules should been enforced better. If they had been, we would not be in the situation we are in. But we are here now.
I have not lived in Louisiana for years, so there is no "my principal", but I have discussed this with Kinder & Oberlin Principals, as well as several coaches from both sides and I can promise you that the toothpaste is not going back into the tube.I would be fine with the old system that allowed teams to voluntarily play up in classification, but the bigger schools have the numbers and wont allow that.
There was a problem with the old system, but instead of acknowledging the problem, people turned a blind eye until schools were threatening to forfeit district games rather than playing JC and Evangel. It was completely out of hand and something had to be done. Unfortunately a unilateral split was adopted because it was the easiest and most obvious solution. It should have never got that far, but both sides have their share of blame to own up to.
Not disagreeing that there was a problem. I do think, though, that a better solution could & should have been found. The principal's are the "leaders" of this association and the "leaders" of their school. I know on another thread the principal's are getting blamed for the low ranking of LA students/schools. But as leaders of a school, business, association, or any other endeavor blowing it up should never be an option. Identify the problem, find a solution, and implement said solution. If blowing up the "whatever" is the only solution you as a "leader" can come up with, then in my opinion your not much of a "leader". Just on this board there were several solutions brought up and discussed, some good, some not so good. But "cooler heads" should have been able to look around the country and use or combine the ways other states have used success metrics, multipliers, and many other to solve LA's problem. I agree with you on all fronts. I am just trying to be realistic about what we have now because looking back will get us no where but angry and frustrated. I am all for a better solution than the unilateral split, but alternatives wont be reached when one side cant see the other's point. You cant find a solution when you can't be agree on, much less be honest about the problem.
|
|