|
Post by iknownuthing on Apr 11, 2016 12:42:07 GMT -6
At it's current level of membership, there is a break even point for the LHSAA a loss of 1/3 of its membership revenue will more than likely shift total revenue below that BE point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 10:23:49 GMT -6
Shhhhhhh, it doesnt matter. A thankful butthurt buh-bye
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Apr 12, 2016 11:45:37 GMT -6
Shhhhhhh, it doesnt matter. A thankful butthurt buh-bye There he is. I knew he couldn't stay away for long. Still trying to shush people who can prove him wrong. Good luck with that, bob.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 12:22:30 GMT -6
Nothing to prove. Ship has sailed. SELECTIVE enrollment. Look up the word "select"
Your opinion or mine matters not. Whats done is done. Cat is out of the bag boys.............never to be put back in.
|
|
|
Post by pioneer on Apr 12, 2016 12:32:41 GMT -6
Did you see the States budget cuts for this coming school year? ? 52 MILLION for k-12 PUBLIC schools!!!! HMMMMM, Good luck guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 12:47:55 GMT -6
Did you see the States budget cuts for this coming school year? ? 52 MILLION for k-12 PUBLIC schools!!!! HMMMMM, Good luck guys. It may be better in the long run for public schools to stop even offering athletics. The way they make decisions demonstrates that they really aren't using athletics for its intended purpose anyway. Maybe the budget cuts pushes all athletics to the schools who appreciate competition... Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Apr 12, 2016 14:29:42 GMT -6
Nothing to prove. Ship has sailed. SELECTIVE enrollment. Look up the word "select" Your opinion or mine matters not. Whats done is done. Cat is out of the bag boys.............never to be put back in. Bang that drum.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Apr 13, 2016 8:25:04 GMT -6
Did you see the States budget cuts for this coming school year? ? 52 MILLION for k-12 PUBLIC schools!!!! HMMMMM, Good luck guys. It may be better in the long run for public schools to stop even offering athletics. The way they make decisions demonstrates that they really aren't using athletics for its intended purpose anyway. Maybe the budget cuts pushes all athletics to the schools who appreciate competition... Just a thought. Public school budget problems do not arise out of state funding. It comes from mismanagement and in some cases malfeasance. It boils down to having administrators that are educators with an agenda, duplication of jobs, job protection in the home (central) office and failure to maintain facilities. Those schools who have abandoned the parish school board system of control and moved to independent district status such as Zachary, West Monroe and Central or have been shifted to the charter system, are both financially and academically (and lately athletically) more successful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2016 10:07:18 GMT -6
It may be better in the long run for public schools to stop even offering athletics. The way they make decisions demonstrates that they really aren't using athletics for its intended purpose anyway. Maybe the budget cuts pushes all athletics to the schools who appreciate competition... Just a thought. Public school budget problems do not arise out of state funding. It comes from mismanagement and in some cases malfeasance. It boils down to having administrators that are educators with an agenda, duplication of jobs, job protection in the home (central) office and failure to maintain facilities. Those schools who have abandoned the parish school board system of control and moved to independent district status such as Zachary, West Monroe and Central or have been shifted to the charter system, are both financially and academically (and lately athletically) more successful. Actually the problem in public schools funding is MUCH simpler than that. By federal law, public schools must attempt to educate EVERY breathing child in their assigned zone. Mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, those on drugs, born into drugs, poverty, broken familys, non nuclear families, emotionally unstable, chemically unstable, special education, so on and so forth. With that, public schools are required by law, to provide necessary goods and services to help or try to help these children. That costs LOTS and LOTS of money. Some, many of these children, require CONSTANT one on one attention an supervision just to get through a day. Its an ominous task that the public school system attempts to tackle. Now, private schools, dont have too. Simple. PRIVATE SCHOOLS, BY LAW, DO NOT HAVE TO ADMIT ANY OF THESE TYPE STUDENTS!!! Oh, I know, on occasion, if its the right kids (Senators son, wealty heir, etc) they are admitted and tended to. However, let Joe Shmoo walk in off the street with his emotionally distrubed son who has a penchant for biting, spitting, and cursing his peers and teachers, well, Joe Jr. aint gettin in. Nothing wrong with that. I love private schools. Attended and graduated from one myself. Served me well. However, I know how it works. Apples and Oranges boys. Inherent Advantage.
|
|
|
Post by pioneer on Apr 13, 2016 10:42:59 GMT -6
Public school budget problems do not arise out of state funding. It comes from mismanagement and in some cases malfeasance. It boils down to having administrators that are educators with an agenda, duplication of jobs, job protection in the home (central) office and failure to maintain facilities. Those schools who have abandoned the parish school board system of control and moved to independent district status such as Zachary, West Monroe and Central or have been shifted to the charter system, are both financially and academically (and lately athletically) more successful. Actually the problem in public schools funding is MUCH simpler than that. By federal law, public schools must attempt to educate EVERY breathing child in their assigned zone. Mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, those on drugs, born into drugs, poverty, broken familys, non nuclear families, emotionally unstable, chemically unstable, special education, so on and so forth. With that, public schools are required by law, to provide necessary goods and services to help or try to help these children. That costs LOTS and LOTS of money. Some, many of these children, require CONSTANT one on one attention an supervision just to get through a day. Its an ominous task that the public school system attempts to tackle. Now, private schools, dont have too. Simple. PRIVATE SCHOOLS, BY LAW, DO NOT HAVE TO ADMIT ANY OF THESE TYPE STUDENTS!!! Oh, I know, on occasion, if its the right kids (Senators son, wealty heir, etc) they are admitted and tended to. However, let Joe Shmoo walk in off the street with his emotionally distrubed son who has a penchant for biting, spitting, and cursing his peers and teachers, well, Joe Jr. aint gettin in. Nothing wrong with that. I love private schools. Attended and graduated from one myself. Served me well. However, I know how it works. Apples and Oranges boys. Inherent Advantage. So a kid whow has drug or behavior problems is assigned to his or her own teacher? You are stretching it!!
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Apr 13, 2016 10:51:12 GMT -6
Public school budget problems do not arise out of state funding. It comes from mismanagement and in some cases malfeasance. It boils down to having administrators that are educators with an agenda, duplication of jobs, job protection in the home (central) office and failure to maintain facilities. Those schools who have abandoned the parish school board system of control and moved to independent district status such as Zachary, West Monroe and Central or have been shifted to the charter system, are both financially and academically (and lately athletically) more successful. Actually the problem in public schools funding is MUCH simpler than that. By federal law, public schools must attempt to educate EVERY breathing child in their assigned zone. Mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, those on drugs, born into drugs, poverty, broken familys, non nuclear families, emotionally unstable, chemically unstable, special education, so on and so forth. With that, public schools are required by law, to provide necessary goods and services to help or try to help these children. That costs LOTS and LOTS of money. Some, many of these children, require CONSTANT one on one attention an supervision just to get through a day. Its an ominous task that the public school system attempts to tackle. Now, private schools, dont have too. Simple. PRIVATE SCHOOLS, BY LAW, DO NOT HAVE TO ADMIT ANY OF THESE TYPE STUDENTS!!! Oh, I know, on occasion, if its the right kids (Senators son, wealty heir, etc) they are admitted and tended to. However, let Joe Shmoo walk in off the street with his emotionally distrubed son who has a penchant for biting, spitting, and cursing his peers and teachers, well, Joe Jr. aint gettin in. Nothing wrong with that. I love private schools. Attended and graduated from one myself. Served me well. However, I know how it works. Apples and Oranges boys. Inherent Advantage. This is absolutely true, bob. Each public school board must make an attempt to educate every student within its sphere of influence. That is how it should be and it is the reason why everyone pays taxes to support public education. It's for the good of the community as a whole. However, that does not necessarily apply to each public school under that school board's direction. In EBR for example, there are at least 3 public schools specifically designed to take children with learning and/or behavioral disabilities and one alternative school set up to handle particularly violent students. While they are small and don't offer athletics, they do serve the purpose of keeping the more disruptive students out of the regular public schools. In this way, public schools can absolutely be proactive in selecting which kids can attend their schools. I know not every school system is as big as EBR and most of the small ones don't have the budget to open a new facility just to house problem students. But by that same token, they don't have the number of problem students that a larger parish would have to deal with, making it easier to help those kids on an individual basis. I'm not arguing in favor of nor against the idea of alternative schools. That is really a different discussion. I'm only trying to show there are ways that public schools can control their enrollments in ways that other public schools may not be able to. And if they can, and if you truly believe that controlling enrollment is the single biggest factor in athletic success, then you must also agree that these public schools have the same advantage that private schools do. More in fact, since they can control their enrollment without having to charge any tuition. You're not really comparing just apples and oranges. You've also got pears and bananas and a whole fruit salad of different types of schools that have different advantages and different ways they can use those advantages should they choose to do so. So how many of them would you vote to separate? By the time you narrowed the field of competition to just apples vs apples, there may only be 5 teams left in the state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2016 11:16:00 GMT -6
Actually the problem in public schools funding is MUCH simpler than that. By federal law, public schools must attempt to educate EVERY breathing child in their assigned zone. Mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, those on drugs, born into drugs, poverty, broken familys, non nuclear families, emotionally unstable, chemically unstable, special education, so on and so forth. With that, public schools are required by law, to provide necessary goods and services to help or try to help these children. That costs LOTS and LOTS of money. Some, many of these children, require CONSTANT one on one attention an supervision just to get through a day. Its an ominous task that the public school system attempts to tackle. Now, private schools, dont have too. Simple. PRIVATE SCHOOLS, BY LAW, DO NOT HAVE TO ADMIT ANY OF THESE TYPE STUDENTS!!! Oh, I know, on occasion, if its the right kids (Senators son, wealty heir, etc) they are admitted and tended to. However, let Joe Shmoo walk in off the street with his emotionally distrubed son who has a penchant for biting, spitting, and cursing his peers and teachers, well, Joe Jr. aint gettin in. Nothing wrong with that. I love private schools. Attended and graduated from one myself. Served me well. However, I know how it works. Apples and Oranges boys. Inherent Advantage. This is absolutely true, bob. Each public school board must make an attempt to educate every student within its sphere of influence. That is how it should be and it is the reason why everyone pays taxes to support public education. It's for the good of the community as a whole. However, that does not necessarily apply to each public school under that school board's direction. In EBR for example, there are at least 3 public schools specifically designed to take children with learning and/or behavioral disabilities and one alternative school set up to handle particularly violent students. While they are small and don't offer athletics, they do serve the purpose of keeping the more disruptive students out of the regular public schools. In this way, public schools can absolutely be proactive in selecting which kids can attend their schools. I know not every school system is as big as EBR and most of the small ones don't have the budget to open a new facility just to house problem students. But by that same token, they don't have the number of problem students that a larger parish would have to deal with, making it easier to help those kids on an individual basis. I'm not arguing in favor of nor against the idea of alternative schools. That is really a different discussion. I'm only trying to show there are ways that public schools can control their enrollments in ways that other public schools may not be able to. And if they can, and if you truly believe that controlling enrollment is the single biggest factor in athletic success, then you must also agree that these public schools have the same advantage that private schools do. More in fact, since they can control their enrollment without having to charge any tuition. You're not really comparing just apples and oranges. You've also got pears and bananas and a whole fruit salad of different types of schools that have different advantages and different ways they can use those advantages should they choose to do so. So how many of them would you vote to separate? By the time you narrowed the field of competition to just apples vs apples, there may only be 5 teams left in the state. First of all, even though a child attends an "alternative school", they are counted on the enrollment of the school district school in which they are assigned. This is true for Dept. of Education AS WELL as LHSAA purposed. They increase enrollment while normally offering no academic or athletic benefit to the home school Nope, apples and oranges. Either you can and do control your enrollment by 25% or more (select), or you dont. Its really very simple. Also, I see where you avoided all Special Education students in your reply. Apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 13, 2016 11:39:15 GMT -6
Public school budget problems do not arise out of state funding. It comes from mismanagement and in some cases malfeasance. It boils down to having administrators that are educators with an agenda, duplication of jobs, job protection in the home (central) office and failure to maintain facilities. Those schools who have abandoned the parish school board system of control and moved to independent district status such as Zachary, West Monroe and Central or have been shifted to the charter system, are both financially and academically (and lately athletically) more successful. Actually the problem in public schools funding is MUCH simpler than that. By federal law, public schools must attempt to educate EVERY breathing child in their assigned zone. Mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, those on drugs, born into drugs, poverty, broken familys, non nuclear families, emotionally unstable, chemically unstable, special education, so on and so forth. With that, public schools are required by law, to provide necessary goods and services to help or try to help these children. That costs LOTS and LOTS of money. Some, many of these children, require CONSTANT one on one attention an supervision just to get through a day. Its an ominous task that the public school system attempts to tackle. Now, private schools, dont have too. Simple. PRIVATE SCHOOLS, BY LAW, DO NOT HAVE TO ADMIT ANY OF THESE TYPE STUDENTS!!! Oh, I know, on occasion, if its the right kids (Senators son, wealty heir, etc) they are admitted and tended to. However, let Joe Shmoo walk in off the street with his emotionally distrubed son who has a penchant for biting, spitting, and cursing his peers and teachers, well, Joe Jr. aint gettin in. Nothing wrong with that. I love private schools. Attended and graduated from one myself. Served me well. However, I know how it works. Apples and Oranges boys. Inherent Advantage.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 13, 2016 11:55:35 GMT -6
Public school budget problems do not arise out of state funding. It comes from mismanagement and in some cases malfeasance. It boils down to having administrators that are educators with an agenda, duplication of jobs, job protection in the home (central) office and failure to maintain facilities. Those schools who have abandoned the parish school board system of control and moved to independent district status such as Zachary, West Monroe and Central or have been shifted to the charter system, are both financially and academically (and lately athletically) more successful. Actually the problem in public schools funding is MUCH simpler than that. By federal law, public schools must attempt to educate EVERY breathing child in their assigned zone. Mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, those on drugs, born into drugs, poverty, broken familys, non nuclear families, emotionally unstable, chemically unstable, special education, so on and so forth. With that, public schools are required by law, to provide necessary goods and services to help or try to help these children. That costs LOTS and LOTS of money. Some, many of these children, require CONSTANT one on one attention an supervision just to get through a day. Its an ominous task that the public school system attempts to tackle. Now, private schools, dont have too. Simple. PRIVATE SCHOOLS, BY LAW, DO NOT HAVE TO ADMIT ANY OF THESE TYPE STUDENTS!!! Oh, I know, on occasion, if its the right kids (Senators son, wealty heir, etc) they are admitted and tended to. However, let Joe Shmoo walk in off the street with his emotionally distrubed son who has a penchant for biting, spitting, and cursing his peers and teachers, well, Joe Jr. aint gettin in. Nothing wrong with that. I love private schools. Attended and graduated from one myself. Served me well. However, I know how it works. Apples and Oranges boys. Inherent Advantage. Bob The parents that send their child to a private school have to pay tuition, even if reduced. They also pay taxes to the Parish in which they live, in most instances. Therefore the public schools in the Parish they live in are getting money that they aren't having to use on their child but can be used for a student that goes to the school they're zoned for, whether it's an A student or a troubled student. I asked earlier about this: Some Parishes only have 1 school that offers football, if a student that is "zoned" for a different school in that Parish but wants to play football they are allowed to go to the school that has football. This may not be true in all Parishes but I know it is allowed in Sabine Parish where Many High School is located, according to the School Board/Central Office. Now is this an Inherit Advantage for MHS? Should they be considered Select now? I know the 25% rule, but is it an advantage over schools who aren't allowed to do this? I agree that Public & Private schools are different in many ways, but are alike in many ways also. All Public schools aren't failing academically, just like all Private schools aren't superior academically. All Private schools aren't superior athletically to Public schools, because if you look at the record of some Private vs Public schools in sports the Public schools win more often than they lose.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Apr 13, 2016 11:59:21 GMT -6
This is absolutely true, bob. Each public school board must make an attempt to educate every student within its sphere of influence. That is how it should be and it is the reason why everyone pays taxes to support public education. It's for the good of the community as a whole. However, that does not necessarily apply to each public school under that school board's direction. In EBR for example, there are at least 3 public schools specifically designed to take children with learning and/or behavioral disabilities and one alternative school set up to handle particularly violent students. While they are small and don't offer athletics, they do serve the purpose of keeping the more disruptive students out of the regular public schools. In this way, public schools can absolutely be proactive in selecting which kids can attend their schools. I know not every school system is as big as EBR and most of the small ones don't have the budget to open a new facility just to house problem students. But by that same token, they don't have the number of problem students that a larger parish would have to deal with, making it easier to help those kids on an individual basis. I'm not arguing in favor of nor against the idea of alternative schools. That is really a different discussion. I'm only trying to show there are ways that public schools can control their enrollments in ways that other public schools may not be able to. And if they can, and if you truly believe that controlling enrollment is the single biggest factor in athletic success, then you must also agree that these public schools have the same advantage that private schools do. More in fact, since they can control their enrollment without having to charge any tuition. You're not really comparing just apples and oranges. You've also got pears and bananas and a whole fruit salad of different types of schools that have different advantages and different ways they can use those advantages should they choose to do so. So how many of them would you vote to separate? By the time you narrowed the field of competition to just apples vs apples, there may only be 5 teams left in the state. First of all, even though a child attends an "alternative school", they are counted on the enrollment of the school district school in which they are assigned. This is true for Dept. of Education AS WELL as LHSAA purposed. They increase enrollment while normally offering no academic or athletic benefit to the home school Nope, apples and oranges. Either you can and do control your enrollment by 25% or more (select), or you dont. Its really very simple. Also, I see where you avoided all Special Education students in your reply. Apples and oranges. There was no avoidance of special education. Those are the students attending alternative schools as well. I never said they didn't count against enrollment, I said the schools were able to control who was attending. Big difference. Still an advantage. Not apples and oranges. You are ignoring the real question of public schools being able to limit their attendance. That is the students that are actually attending that school. I'm not talking about funds, I'm talking about actual kids in the seats. Getting the problem students out of regular schools is an advantage according to the logic you use against the "select" schools. That you would even try to deny this is either you just being willfully obstinate or shows that the only goal of the split was to get rid of the private schools so that more public schools could win championships.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 7:04:38 GMT -6
Nope, wrong again. HERE is my logic..............and its inarguable
Is there an inherent advantage to being able to get students from multiple areas or attendance zones?
Is there an inherent disadvantage to being locked into a single area to attract students while other schools can attract students from your area?
Is there an inherent advantage in being able to select or reject students attending your school?
Is there an inherent advantage in being able to dismiss students in your school when you deem such action necessary?
Is there an inherent advantage in not having to provide a full menu of services, whether social or educational?
Is there an inherent advantage in not having to adhere to state mandates or administer state mandated testing?
|
|
|
Post by pioneer on Apr 14, 2016 7:48:28 GMT -6
Nope, wrong again. HERE is my logic..............and its inarguable Is there an inherent advantage to being able to get students from multiple areas or attendance zones? Is there an inherent disadvantage to being locked into a single area to attract students while other schools can attract students from your area? Is there an inherent advantage in being able to select or reject students attending your school? Is there an inherent advantage in being able to dismiss students in your school when you deem such action necessary? Is there an inherent advantage in not having to provide a full menu of services, whether social or educational? Is there an inherent advantage in not having to adhere to state mandates or administer state mandated testing? Your logic is always changing. I thought your whole argument was being able to select enrollment. I guess public schools do this as well so you add to your "logic"
|
|
laprepfb
All-District 1st Team
Posts: 227
|
Post by laprepfb on Apr 14, 2016 8:04:08 GMT -6
Nope, wrong again. HERE is my logic..............and its inarguable Is there an inherent advantage to being able to get students from multiple areas or attendance zones? Many public schools do this as well. They are still considered "non-select".
Is there an inherent disadvantage to being locked into a single area to attract students while other schools can attract students from your area? Many public schools are not locked into a single area. They are still considered "non-select".
Is there an inherent advantage in being able to select or reject students attending your school? If this selecting and rejecting done with athletics as a factor, then of course. I'm not aware of many, if any, private schools who reject students and their tuition money because they aren't good at sports.
Is there an inherent advantage in being able to dismiss students in your school when you deem such action necessary? Is this done with athletics in mind? Are public schools dismissing great athletes who run afoul of the law or school rules - think North Webster...
Is there an inherent advantage in not having to provide a full menu of services, whether social or educational? Is there an inherent advantage in having to self-fund every single service or program in your school without state funds?Is there an inherent advantage in not having to adhere to state mandates or administer state mandated testing? Perhaps the most inane of all these...have you looked at a comparison of average ACT scores at most private schools? I hardly think the LEAP or PARCC or whatever they are taking nowadays would be intimidating to kids from Jesuit, Loyola, etc.I'll add some of my own:
Is there an inherent advantage in going to school for free, getting a free ride to and from school, and in many cases getting two free meals a day?
Is there an inherent advantage in certain sports of having a high percentage of minority athletes?
Is there an inherent advantage in having less than stellar academics, which allows students who can't even get into many private schools to participate in athletics at public schools?
There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides. Why do you refuse to see the ones you have?
|
|
|
Post by pioneer on Apr 14, 2016 8:07:45 GMT -6
Nope, wrong again. HERE is my logic..............and its inarguable Is there an inherent advantage to being able to get students from multiple areas or attendance zones? Many public schools do this as well. They are still considered "non-select".
Is there an inherent disadvantage to being locked into a single area to attract students while other schools can attract students from your area? Many public schools are not locked into a single area. They are still considered "non-select".
Is there an inherent advantage in being able to select or reject students attending your school? If this selecting and rejecting done with athletics as a factor, then of course. I'm not aware of many, if any, private schools who reject students and their tuition money because they aren't good at sports.
Is there an inherent advantage in being able to dismiss students in your school when you deem such action necessary? Is this done with athletics in mind? Are public schools dismissing great athletes who run afoul of the law or school rules - think North Webster...
Is there an inherent advantage in not having to provide a full menu of services, whether social or educational? Is there an inherent advantage in having to self-fund every single service or program in your school without state funds?Is there an inherent advantage in not having to adhere to state mandates or administer state mandated testing? Perhaps the most inane of all these...have you looked at a comparison of average ACT scores at most private schools? I hardly think the LEAP or PARCC or whatever they are taking nowadays would be intimidating to kids from Jesuit, Loyola, etc.I'll add some of my own:
Is there an inherent advantage in going to school for free, getting a free ride to and from school, and in many cases getting two free meals a day?
Is there an inherent advantage in certain sports of having a high percentage of minority athletes?
Is there an inherent advantage in having less than stellar academics, which allows students who can't even get into many private schools to participate in athletics at public schools?
There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides. Why do you refuse to see the ones you have?Very well said sir
|
|
|
Post by gentsandpios on Apr 14, 2016 8:08:49 GMT -6
Nope, wrong again. HERE is my logic..............and its inarguable Is there an inherent advantage to being able to get students from multiple areas or attendance zones? Is there an inherent disadvantage to being locked into a single area to attract students while other schools can attract students from your area? Is there an inherent advantage in being able to select or reject students attending your school? Is there an inherent advantage in being able to dismiss students in your school when you deem such action necessary? Is there an inherent advantage in not having to provide a full menu of services, whether social or educational? Is there an inherent advantage in not having to adhere to state mandates or administer state mandated testing? i'll play the game since you posted this 6 times this morning, depends how you answer the questions and yes everything is arguable. 1. Depends on the size of the zone and population density of the zone. School consolidations have forced what used to be multiple zones into one zone so does this create an inherent advantage? 2. Some parishes have established alternative schools for unruly students which have addressed the issue of being able to dismiss them from traditional HS but still provide them an education. 3. Inability to offer full range of social or educational services will rarely affect the athletic success of a school. 4. How does State Mandated testing affect ability to have athletic success unless you have the premise that schools that don't mandate those test attract athletes that can't meet the academic rigors required to pass them. Is that the argument you want to make? As a public school parent I reject your assertion that these or unarguable facts as to the logic of needing to split all sports. I do agree that something needs to be done to create more equity in competition but think split is wrong answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 10:54:06 GMT -6
Nah, you have an opinion. 30 states have facts.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Apr 14, 2016 10:58:51 GMT -6
Nah, you have an opinion. 30 states have facts. No all the states have facts. You only have your own agenda.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Apr 14, 2016 11:17:11 GMT -6
Nope, wrong again. HERE is my logic..............and its inarguable Is there an inherent advantage to being able to get students from multiple areas or attendance zones? Maybe. Would you rather have all the kids from Warren Easton's zone, or the ones willing to pay extra and follow extra rules from Grand Isle, Fishville, Golden Meadow, Pollock? And this presumption also still assumes that you are trying to build a football team. Taking the 22 best clarinet players in the whole USA would not give an advantage in football over taking every high school aged kid in Mid City NOLA
Is there an inherent disadvantage to being locked into a single area to attract students while other schools can attract students from your area? Again, you use the word inherent. I'd agree totally there is a POTENTIAL disadvantage. Depends what those other schools are trying to do. Also, depends how you elect to use the funding you have.
Is there an inherent advantage in being able to select or reject students attending your school? Potential, yes. Inherent, again depends on what you reject and accept for. If you accept/reject for athletics? Sure. If you accept/reject for academics and behavior? Probably not. Is there an inherent advantage in being able to dismiss students in your school when you deem such action necessary? Potential, but a two way street here. What about a private school that kicks out stud RB for a single behavior incident that wouldn't even register at most public schools because the rank and file parents don't give 1 crap that he's a good FB player but don't want that behavior around their kid?
Is there an inherent advantage in not having to provide a full menu of services, whether social or educational? Are there no good athletes in remedial programs? I'd say you have it worded in a way to get the answer you want, but I'd also say there are a lot of stud athletes not available to school without such programs.
Is there an inherent advantage in not having to adhere to state mandates or administer state mandated testing? 1) What difference does this make? and 2) Are you saying that private schools typically have lower performance standards than public schools? See answers. Also, once again, please tell me why Ecole Classique is too much for public football schools to handle.
|
|
laprepfb
All-District 1st Team
Posts: 227
|
Post by laprepfb on Apr 18, 2016 5:16:03 GMT -6
Nah, you have an opinion. 30 states have facts. This has become another mantra for you guys. Forty-nine states have counties too, but we don't. We use the Napoleonic Code. Nobody else does. The demographics of our state and the rich history of Catholic schools is like no other. Why do you think we should be like those 30? How about the other 20?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 6:59:43 GMT -6
Nah, you have an opinion. 30 states have facts. This has become another mantra for you guys. Forty-nine states have counties too, but we don't. We use the Napoleonic Code. Nobody else does. The demographics of our state and the rich history of Catholic schools is like no other. Why do you think we should be like those 30? How about the other 20? Actually, we no longer use the Napoleonic Code......and the name "Parish" vs "County", does not really point out anything except that the fact that maybe you took Louisiana History at one time.....Maybe. The "rich history" of Catholic schools, also makes no difference. What, a rich history of Catholicism means that some schools can cheat the intent of the rules? Lets get real. Also, ignoring the other states similar plight is ridiculous and immature.
|
|
|
Post by deadman318 on Apr 18, 2016 8:42:17 GMT -6
This has become another mantra for you guys. Forty-nine states have counties too, but we don't. We use the Napoleonic Code. Nobody else does. The demographics of our state and the rich history of Catholic schools is like no other. Why do you think we should be like those 30? How about the other 20? Actually, we no longer use the Napoleonic Code......and the name "Parish" vs "County", does not really point out anything except that the fact that maybe you took Louisiana History at one time.....Maybe. The "rich history" of Catholic schools, also makes no difference. What, a rich history of Catholicism means that some schools can cheat the intent of the rules? Lets get real. Also, ignoring the other states similar plight is ridiculous and immature. My brother is an attorney and I just ran into a judge. Napoleonic Code is still used by the state of Louisiana. However, both told me that modern day laws are recognized more and there are a lot of crazy things still on the "books" in this state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 9:21:16 GMT -6
Law in the state of Louisiana is based on a more diverse set of sources than the laws of the other forty-nine states. Private law—that is, substantive law between private sector parties, principally contracts and torts—has a civil law character, based on French and Spanish codes and ultimately Roman law, with some common law influences.[1] Louisiana's criminal law largely rests on English common law. Louisiana's administrative law is generally similar to the administrative law of the U.S. federal government and other U.S. states. Louisiana's procedural law is generally in line with that of other U.S. states, which in turn is generally based on the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Not that that matters...............
|
|
|
Post by deadman318 on Apr 18, 2016 9:32:01 GMT -6
Law in the state of Louisiana is based on a more diverse set of sources than the laws of the other forty-nine states. Private law—that is, substantive law between private sector parties, principally contracts and torts—has a civil law character, based on French and Spanish codes and ultimately Roman law, with some common law influences.[1] Louisiana's criminal law largely rests on English common law. Louisiana's administrative law is generally similar to the administrative law of the U.S. federal government and other U.S. states. Louisiana's procedural law is generally in line with that of other U.S. states, which in turn is generally based on the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Not that that matters............... I was just reporting what they said...
|
|