This is what should have been done long ago. The public and non-public schools shouldn't play each other. There should be Classes A, B, C, and D for public and Classes A and B for non-public. Each can have there own playoff. Problem solved!
OT: NSAA proposal on classifications
- Thread starter CheeseRunza
- Start date
That doesn't solve the problem of the same programs dominating at certain sports. It would eliminate the non-public schools, but there would still be programs (Crofton, BDS) that dominate. The Plattsmouth AD quoted in the article thinks it is unfair for certain teams to win all the time. Unless they are going to just eliminate winners and losers and go to participation trophies for all, I don't see how bumping teams up or down a class or eliminating them altogether is going to make much difference.
Yes, I do....BUUUUUUT it kind of overlooks three main points , at least to me:
1.Many private schools with means stink at sports, because they don't care
2.WE stink at a variety of sports, because no one cares
3.at least around here, the amount of public school 'recruiting' might be more prevalent and TOTALLY sports related
More later...but I have to run
About a decade ago there was some momentum with a 15% clause for parochial schools. If you had 200 students and were a private school, your magic number for activities would be 230 as an example. It was argued that this would "level" the playing field as private/religious schools were able to be more selective (vetting) in who they were allowing into their school. There are a few states who do something similar if memory serves, but I cannot recall which ones.
At the time, I was in support of this....... but now I live in Montana and haven't followed it for the last 7 years. At the lower levels, C and D, it also appears the public schools are holding their own a little better in most sports/activities.
At the time, I was in support of this....... but now I live in Montana and haven't followed it for the last 7 years. At the lower levels, C and D, it also appears the public schools are holding their own a little better in most sports/activities.
An ex coach offered some perspective to me one day. He probably generalized his numbers some but here is what he said.
A public school is required to have special ed as part of their curriculum. In a public school that could be 25%, many kids fall into sped and it would surprise you, and a school has to count them in their enrollment numbers. He said you can assume most schools probably have 25% of the kids that do not participate in activities. So a public school essentially has 50% of their enrollment to work withm
A private school has no sped, so if you assume the same 25% do not do activities, you have 75% of your students to work with. Add in other advantages , recruiting, likely higher parent income for camps and coaching, and kids playing organized sports as a group for much longer, and you get a potential for more dominance.
I think a student multiplyer makes more sense then what was offered in this legislation. A win tax seems ridiculous
A public school is required to have special ed as part of their curriculum. In a public school that could be 25%, many kids fall into sped and it would surprise you, and a school has to count them in their enrollment numbers. He said you can assume most schools probably have 25% of the kids that do not participate in activities. So a public school essentially has 50% of their enrollment to work withm
A private school has no sped, so if you assume the same 25% do not do activities, you have 75% of your students to work with. Add in other advantages , recruiting, likely higher parent income for camps and coaching, and kids playing organized sports as a group for much longer, and you get a potential for more dominance.
I think a student multiplyer makes more sense then what was offered in this legislation. A win tax seems ridiculous
My kids play(ed) at a school that sits towards the bottom of class B in enrollment and sucks in most sports and have gotten embarrassed in quite a few games this year and I don't like this idea. What happens if a school has a couple kick ass classes come through the system that win enough to push them up a class and then graduate with absolutely nothing behind them and get completely embarrassed the next couple years till they move back. That's not fair to those kids. Something does need to be done with class B especially, but IMO this isn't it. There is no reason why schools with an enrollment of 283 students should have to compete in the same class as a school with 886 students. That's too much of a spread.
the problem is the number of schools that are below 250 in enrollment.
279 high schools and only 60 are above 250. Only 141 schools above 100 in enrollment.
Class C (c1 and c2) have 87 schools
Class D (D1 and D2) have 107 schools
Six man 25
But class B only has 32 and class A only 28.
North Platte and Norfolk (enrollment of around 900) have at least 400 less students than 17 of the 28 Class A schools. And a 1000 less than Millard West. The biggest gap in Class B is 603.
There will always be a school with the lowest numbers in a class. I just don't see how you reduce the number of schools in Class A and B and still keep enough schools in each of those classes to make it fair for the smaller schools who have 40-50 in their classes.
279 high schools and only 60 are above 250. Only 141 schools above 100 in enrollment.
Class C (c1 and c2) have 87 schools
Class D (D1 and D2) have 107 schools
Six man 25
But class B only has 32 and class A only 28.
North Platte and Norfolk (enrollment of around 900) have at least 400 less students than 17 of the 28 Class A schools. And a 1000 less than Millard West. The biggest gap in Class B is 603.
There will always be a school with the lowest numbers in a class. I just don't see how you reduce the number of schools in Class A and B and still keep enough schools in each of those classes to make it fair for the smaller schools who have 40-50 in their classes.
What is the enrollment at McCook, Aurora and Norris? They seem to do well all the time. Are they in the 500 range?
I don't know how it would or will play out, but I think this could have unintended consequences of forcing consolidation of smaller schools. Maybe that is what NSAA wants. It is getting closer to just going to county schools. Especially with the taxes that farmers and ranchers are getting hit with.
There are some generalizations in these comments. The numbers seem a bit high based on my experiences over the last 30+ years. Remember that special ed can vary from state to state and in KS includes gifted, speech services, and others that you would most likely expect. My son was in gifted but labeled special ed and was a very good runner. Being in spec ed does NOT mean you can't play sports or participate in activities.
Private schools have some advantages in that they can offer a complete package of academics and activities. I know of several schools that focus on particular sports and have people who support them financially to keep the programs going. As spartan knows you can have a great football team but lousy track. As I said earlier, privates do recruit but it is often subtle and scholarships are given based on academics. Privates have a lot to offer and this attracts the families with more to spend on their kids. You will have a much higher participation rate at the private in all activities as it is expected and the overall student body expectations is much much higher.
It is not always true that privates do not offer spec ed. There is a federal law called child find that says that students must be provided services. It doesn't matter where they are at - public, private, or home. However, privates can deny entrance based on grades, special needs and even religion. They just say, we cannot meet the needs of your student with out limited staff and resources. That is legal. I had many kids at private schools who were special ed qualified - speech and gifted were the primary areas so the general statement about spec ed is not always true.
I can tell you that from my experience, coaches love to coach at privates. Your discipline issues and family support issues go way way down. Money is not always there but it is adequate. It is a trade off. I have met tremendous kids and families at both private and public but if I had to chose I would take private personally.
So true...now, sometimes the family issues go WAY UP because of helicopter parents but what you say is pretty much spot on.
How is giving scholarships to attend private schools for free an advantage over public schools allowing students to attend for free?
Most of the recruiting by private schools is within their feeder schools, for example you might have Prep, Skutt and Gross recruiting an eighth grader from a Catholic elementary school and offering scholarships (most are partial). Private schools recruiting public school kids is not that common (at least in Omaha), in part for the reason that you raised.
Let's not forget that parents and students will seek out an opportunity to play and oe win championships. Would explain how my non catholic, half Jewish nephew ended up playing ball at a Catholic high school coming out of a public middle school.
They went shopping for a school to meet their sport.
They went shopping for a school to meet their sport.
That happens some for sure, but with both public and private schools. Schools get a reputation for excellence at a sport (eg. Kearney in track) which attracts athletes in that sport.
AND that also applies to public schools, at least in Kansas... When Hutchinson was at their pinnacle, they had players from Haven, Buhler and Nickerson playing significant roles....
Private schools have a competitive advantage in athletics. I know of large private schools that do not even have a sped department let alone having to count some of the riff raff that comes and goes in public schools. There's a lot of "dead weight" in public schools when it comes to kids that can make a meaningful contribution on the athletic field. Doesn't mean that they aren't good kids-- they just haven't had the opportunities that others have had as they grew up.
From my experience there are multiple numbers of families who desire to have their children in private schools but the costs keep them from attending. I think sometimes we think private means Christian or some other religion. That is not always true. Spartan teaches at a private school that is not religious based but it is extremely strong academically. I know another school that is Christian in Wichita that regularly gets students in Ivy League and similar schools. It is easy to say, wow, 10K a year for a private education is a lot but then you see them getting scholarships to play football and moreover to compete academically, all of the sudden a 40K private education seems small compared to a 40K a year college and a life time of learning and earning.
Valor in Denver is a good example. This school was started by intentionally building around a strong sports program while being Christian. Some private schools, frankly will not put much emphasis on sports - Valor chose to go the other route. I believe they thought they could build both at the same time and one complimented the other.
Not all things are good with Valor and in Colorado. Take a look at this. Note it was in 2012.
This battle has been ongoing across the country with no apparent answers. I can see both sides of the argument having been on both sides to a certain extent. I think the comment was made that public schools were recruiting here in Kansas which is illegal and there are strict standards for parents moving. There can be variables at some places but most of the time the rules are very clear. Parents can get around them by moving 30 miles or 10 miles and in some cases, just a few blocks. These kids know each other and know the coaches around their area and parents are often willing to do whatever it takes for their kids they think is best.
I don't think there are clear answers to all of this. If I had the choice and the money I would send my kid to a private school and if he/she was good at sports it would be a no brainer.
Interesting. So are you saying that a school that has a program in place that assists athletes with learning disabilities, emotional issues, speech problems, etc or meets the needs of high ability learners, with tutoring, training, counseling, therapy and enrichment is at a disadvantage competitively to a school that doesn’t have those services? It seems like every year during recruiting season, it is mentioned that the husker athletic department academic support program is such a big asset for borderline qualifiers and at-risk athletes as well the high academic achievers.
The free choice in Nebraska can benefit publics as well. York drew a 3 year starter ar QB from McCool Jct.
Mazry Mapieu also opted in to York for football. Why, good coaching, better chance at winning.
Who's to say that if York had a viable private school option that the top level athletes would maybe gravitate to. Would be a smaller school, with a greater chance at winning state championships.
Mazry Mapieu also opted in to York for football. Why, good coaching, better chance at winning.
Who's to say that if York had a viable private school option that the top level athletes would maybe gravitate to. Would be a smaller school, with a greater chance at winning state championships.
Public schools accept all comers, most if not all of those struggling students, will not participate in athletics. NU accepts "at risk" athletes only if they have exceptional athletic ability.
