Parochial Schools
- Thread starter custercounty
- Start date
I do not favor one side or another. But it seems clear that most states have had this discussion. Looks like there has been different ways for each state to handle it.
I don't doubt that some of these parochial schools have great tradition that contribute to all of their program's success. They probably have coaches that are experienced who know exactly what to do in certain situations and can push the right buttons on kids to get the most out of them. The issue here, like someone stated before, is the schools at the C1 and C2 level. I would love to sit across from some of you and hear you say that being a class C school in a class A sized town is not an advantage. When your prospective pool of kids is ten times larger than that of everyone else on your schedule, it's a huge plus for your program. Anyone who denies this has their head in the clouds. Regardless, I actually enjoy reading you guys' thoughts about it. On both sides of it. It's an important issue in our high school sports and I'll be interested if the NSAA has anything to say about it.
What about the schools that are in a coop. Do the kids from Lindsey Holy Family count as 1.35 and the kids from Humphrey count as 1? What about Elgin/Pope John?
Winnebago has had a number of transfers this year, its no coincidence that some of them will be starring on the basketball team that won a state title last year. Players want to win and they will go to a school that has had continued success. i.e. Fremont Boys basketball This happens everywhere now that student can opt out of their districts.
To your first statement, spirits are good, I do enjoy them. Yes free and reduced kids and ESL can and do play sports, but a large number do not because of their situations (i.e.; working after school to support themselves/family or babysitting siblings because mom & dad work evening/night shift; language barrier; zero knowledge of sports offered; family values and belief; etc.) It's not that they can't play sports, but there are a number of factors that play into maybe why they don't. If you have 15 to 25 of these types of kids in a C2 school that drastically impacts your athletic programs, no "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it.
To your second statement, I in fact stated that private schools do have ESL students and Free-Reduced students, they just don't have them to the numbers that a public school has. The impact on their student population is small or minimal. If you believe otherwise, that is your perspective. As for recruiting, not going there, some schools do it and others don't, and EVERYONE in Omaha and Lincoln most certainly do it.
This happens in public schools as well, and it's easier to do at a public school because those parents don't have to pay for tuition. Believe me, saw it happen when I was in high school at my school and other schools.
For what it's worth, I've taught and coached at both private (religious) and public schools. In my opinion, the private schools have an advantage over public schools. In some places it might be a big advantage... in others, there may not be an advantage at all (although I believe the possibility for an advantage still exists in the private schools). I've seen "recruiting" happen at both public and private schools (example: when there is a choice to be made- private vs. public- in a community, from a young age kids will be "encouraged" to choose one school over the other).
To me the biggest advantage comes from the fact that private schools (in general) can tell disadvantaged families, "I'm sorry, but we don't have the resources to help your child." Public schools can't do that; they have to obey all kinds of gov't regulations (some of which you wouldn't believe if I told you). Private schools are exempt from- at least some- of those requirements/restrictions. On the other hand, if a kid is a good enough athlete, the private schools can usually find a way to help them.
Admittedly, I cannot (and would not) want to try to speak to every situation. I can only speak from my own experience.
To me the biggest advantage comes from the fact that private schools (in general) can tell disadvantaged families, "I'm sorry, but we don't have the resources to help your child." Public schools can't do that; they have to obey all kinds of gov't regulations (some of which you wouldn't believe if I told you). Private schools are exempt from- at least some- of those requirements/restrictions. On the other hand, if a kid is a good enough athlete, the private schools can usually find a way to help them.
Admittedly, I cannot (and would not) want to try to speak to every situation. I can only speak from my own experience.
There needs to be a multiplier since having the private schools form their own playoffs isn't an option because of the geography of the schools. A way higher % of private schools student body participates in sports, this is where the true advantage takes place. Schools like NC and Aquinas having 55-65 players on a roster doesn't happen at public schools the same size. The quality of kid is way higher on average at a private schools. The parents care more, they are paying for their kid to go there. I really hope the NSAA gets something done with this. I don't want to take away from the accomplishments from our private schools but they do have a competitive advantage over public schools their same size, especially in the smaller classes. Year in year out this proves to be true.
Thanks for the articles Ponchn7138....interesting reading. Sounds like this issue is being discussed everywhere. Not sure if a multiplier is the answer, sounds like it had no impact in Missouri after 8 years. Think Minnesota is on a better track with a subtractor maybe. Each side on here can give a very convincing argument. Colorado has made it difficult for kids to transfer from one school to the other, maybe that's the answer, impacts both public and private. Points systems that determine success or lack there of which allow schools to move up or down could be an avenue, again impacting both public and private. What probably happens is nothing changes, the kids that only have success through high school and never have to deal with failure will be punched in the face by life sooner or later and hopefully they can deal with it. The kids that continually get their butts handed to them at least learn to deal with failure sooner in life. I think the concerning issue this past football season was the higher number of schools from C2 down that are struggling to field football teams and are playing players that are not physically or emotional ready to compete at the varsity level. Do private schools have an advantage? Probably just for the fact that their pool of students to pick from is more active, probably the reason they picked the private schools in the first place. Some Private/Public schools recruit, others build their legacy off reputation. So is life, businesses recruit and others have future employees flock to them because they are "thee" place to work. A multiplier probably falls under the "participation ribbon" theory, there will never be a "fair" playing field. I just don't want to see small school football vanish because it is viewed as dangerous or unsafe, that is the issue that needs to be addressed, not a private school multiplier.
Last edited:
Utilitywood, how would you handle the Lindsey HF/Humphrey coop and Elgin/Pope John? Also, what about 8man schools that get pushed to 11 man and even with their large % of participation are now at a disadvantage. Lastly, do you think Omaha South, South Sioux, Lexington, etc...should be multiplied in because of their high levels of particpation in soccer compared to other schools? Just asking you directly because your the last to post.
In my mind were only discussing a hand full of schools that have a perceived advantage....Norfolk Catholic, Columbus Scotus, Fremont Bergen, Hastings St Cecelia, Kearney Catholic, GICC, and maybe Wahoo Neumen and DC Aquanis. Many of these would not be affected by a 1.34 multiplier and would remain in the same class. Too me the NSAA has other bigger matters to deal with then a handful of schools success.
In my mind were only discussing a hand full of schools that have a perceived advantage....Norfolk Catholic, Columbus Scotus, Fremont Bergen, Hastings St Cecelia, Kearney Catholic, GICC, and maybe Wahoo Neumen and DC Aquanis. Many of these would not be affected by a 1.34 multiplier and would remain in the same class. Too me the NSAA has other bigger matters to deal with then a handful of schools success.
I can agree with the Buff-alo post. I am definitely not for a participation model. I do see both sides of the argument on this however. Teaching kids to lose is a huge part of having sports in schools. Maybe these handful of private schools that win every year do really do it better than anyone else and that's the reason they win. I think other factors, uncontrollable factors help their cause but respect their success and being "the standard" for their classes of football. High School sports has its glamour jobs just like college football does. Its easier to win at certain places than it is others. That's life though. I don't think making some changes to level it out a little bit more is that absurd though. Having the same schools dominate every year (mostly the private schools) does tell me something is wrong with the system.
I would like to see a system based upon a number of player participants versus size of school. Declare your participant number for 2 year cycle and then classify and make schedules. That's the problem more than the public/private thing. Private schools most generally have the larger roster sizes. People who know football understand its a numbers game and the more kids you have out the better your chance for success is. Scheduling could be a little tricky but I think it could get done. The blowouts and safety concerns would be helped by this. Enrollment numbers really do mean nothing. The classifications should be based upon your participants, not your enrollment number.
Well than public schools need to do a better job of getting kids out like Norfolk Catholic does. Don't fault Catholic for public schools lack of awareness and lack of effort to get kids out.
So just because a coach or team (public or private) has developed a culture that draws more students to participate in a certain sport, they should be punished?
I don't agree with the participation idea. I think it would cause schools to discourage students from participating - that's not what the sport of football needs these days.
I can see a school that gets a bunch of kids out for football (with many who will never play a meaningful down in their careers, but are part of the team and that is a good thing for them, as well as the team), then discouraging those students from playing just so the team can participate in a lower class.
I do think this discussion that we've been having for a long time is becoming more serious. If the NSAA and many other states are at least discussing possible changes, then something is probably going to happen - to what degree is probably the big question.
I can see a school that gets a bunch of kids out for football (with many who will never play a meaningful down in their careers, but are part of the team and that is a good thing for them, as well as the team), then discouraging those students from playing just so the team can participate in a lower class.
I do think this discussion that we've been having for a long time is becoming more serious. If the NSAA and many other states are at least discussing possible changes, then something is probably going to happen - to what degree is probably the big question.
Agree that is all about developing a culture like Norfolk Catholic has....It's just easier to build that culture at a private school than at a public school because of the type of students walking through your doors. Most private school students are highly motivated individuals that went to their private school of choice because of what the school has to offer them. They are most of the time students that are academically or athletically motivated and want to be active in as many things as possible. Therefore the quantity of these students is much greater at a private school. As stated in many of those articles posted by Ponch7138 earlier, Public schools typically have between 30 to 35 percent of their student population that are not active in activities, this is a nation wide norm. Where that number is typically closer to 100% in a private school. Not impossible to build that culture at public schools, just two totally different subsets of students and completely opposite situations. It's easier to build successful programs when you have 100 of 100 students involved and not 65 to 70 out of 100 students involved. That participation number is not always the fault of the public school. There are so many factors that impact that number they are too numerous to list. As someone stated earlier, if I'm paying $5000 a year for my kid to go to private school then they damn well better make the most of it. That is the nature of the beast, right or wrong. It will never change, this conversation will go on forever and never be resolved. Let's just not sit here and compare public and private like they are under the exact same situations and the chances at success are equal. Obviously this is being looked at nationwide because the success rate of private schools is much higher. There is an advantage, it will never be fair. So deal with it, and if you are a public school, make sure you enjoy your success when you have it, because as we know in small town public schools it's a roller coaster ride.
Not punished, just level the playing field. That's all I am saying. Its not easy getting kids to play football at a school that isn't traditionally strong. This isn't a whine session. I see both sides of the fence. Those who can't see it both ways here are clueless. I want the classes to competitive as possible. We shouldn't have the same teams winning every year and winning by 40-50 points in a lot of situations. This isn't a "don't like it stop it situation". I am just for making the classes more competitive. Level the playing field. Having teams with 60 plus players playing teams with 20-25 players isn't right and not good for either team.
Please help me understand. Not real knowledgeable in this realm.
Many kids have learning disabilities that are not severely disabled and/or autistic. I fully understand that severely disabled and/or autistic kids will not help a schools athletic teams out but how about a kid with ADD or ADHD? They can and do compete in athletics, correct? Are they at a disadvantage, other then mentally, to not succeed? If at a disadvantage mentally, how would ADD or ADHD affect an athlete?
Lastly, at a C1 school with a 3 year enrollment around 200, what is a realistic estimate on the high end of how many kids are not able to participate because of a disability?
Many kids have learning disabilities that are not severely disabled and/or autistic. I fully understand that severely disabled and/or autistic kids will not help a schools athletic teams out but how about a kid with ADD or ADHD? They can and do compete in athletics, correct? Are they at a disadvantage, other then mentally, to not succeed? If at a disadvantage mentally, how would ADD or ADHD affect an athlete?
Lastly, at a C1 school with a 3 year enrollment around 200, what is a realistic estimate on the high end of how many kids are not able to participate because of a disability?
Buffalo you need to add "RELIGION" to your reasons for families sending their kids to parochial schools. It is not the only reason, but believe me it is the #1 reason why families send their kids to these schools instead of the public school down the road.
And poor people have religion, too, and parochial schools have students in them that are from poor families.
And poor people have religion, too, and parochial schools have students in them that are from poor families.
McCook and Aurora are two of the best Class B football teams year in and year out. Do they have an unfair advantage? Would they also be subjected to a multiplier? How about Elkhorn South?
I know girls basketball isn't football. How about Crofton in girls basketball? They've won a ton of state championships in a row. Do they have an unfair advantage?
I know girls basketball isn't football. How about Crofton in girls basketball? They've won a ton of state championships in a row. Do they have an unfair advantage?
Exactly. Same could be said for Howells , Dodge, Bancroft-Rosalie in the 2000's. They ran over everyone in Classes D1 and D2 in all sports, should they have been subjected to a multiplier?
Pierce, Oakland-Craig, Ponca, Stanton all in football. Should their be a multiplier at those schools? This is such a stupid proposal. If your school isn't competitive than get parents and kids involved to make it better. Or send your children elsewhere, don't punish someone else who is successful because you aren't.
I agree with “just average32” when he says “Create and sustain a winning culture. Success breads (sp) success. Most of the successful programs that have been talked about, have great coaches, kids, families, and communities that continuously support the program. And you can find these programs in any class, private or public.”
I’m retired but still sub in both private and public schools. There are definite differences that I as a teacher see. In the private school if you won’t shave, fail to be respectful in class, and/or don’t follow the policies of the schools, then you can’t go there. In at least one there are rules about what tattoos are allowed and how much of them you can see. There is a discipline that you don’t see in the public schools that I sub in and in my opinion you see the same thing on the athletic field/court. A culture probably dictated by the parents who are willing to pay both the private school tuition and their state taxes and property taxes that support the public schools pervade the private schools.
The parents are involved in almost every aspect the private school and take a sense of ownership and pride in it that isn’t always seen in the public school. That is probably where some of the so called recruiting comes in. Parents, for a lack of a better word, bragging about their kids’ school. A stable environment that requires participation by the parents of their students carries over to their athletic endeavors.
Because parents are involved and they work hard to make their school successful it looks to me from these posts that people are envious and want to penalize them. When the NSAA should be talking about safety issues like only counting boys when developing football classes so that a school in the smaller classes with a low percentage of boys in their classes are playing teams whose players are at the same maturity level. they are devoting time on penalizing something that I believe we should be encouraging, which is parental and student involvement in their educational experience.
For the record when I taught full time I taught and coached in a public system.
I’m retired but still sub in both private and public schools. There are definite differences that I as a teacher see. In the private school if you won’t shave, fail to be respectful in class, and/or don’t follow the policies of the schools, then you can’t go there. In at least one there are rules about what tattoos are allowed and how much of them you can see. There is a discipline that you don’t see in the public schools that I sub in and in my opinion you see the same thing on the athletic field/court. A culture probably dictated by the parents who are willing to pay both the private school tuition and their state taxes and property taxes that support the public schools pervade the private schools.
The parents are involved in almost every aspect the private school and take a sense of ownership and pride in it that isn’t always seen in the public school. That is probably where some of the so called recruiting comes in. Parents, for a lack of a better word, bragging about their kids’ school. A stable environment that requires participation by the parents of their students carries over to their athletic endeavors.
Because parents are involved and they work hard to make their school successful it looks to me from these posts that people are envious and want to penalize them. When the NSAA should be talking about safety issues like only counting boys when developing football classes so that a school in the smaller classes with a low percentage of boys in their classes are playing teams whose players are at the same maturity level. they are devoting time on penalizing something that I believe we should be encouraging, which is parental and student involvement in their educational experience.
For the record when I taught full time I taught and coached in a public system.
Thanks 1234...if your correct then isn't the disability argument pretty pointless as well?
Probably the biggest valid argument that I agree with is looking at the boys/girls breakdown for classification like South Dakota does. This logically makes a lot of sense.
How is the three year enrollment figured? Isn't it frosh-junior or am I wrong? I hope I am. If so I don't understand why frosh or included instead of seniors, kids who are actually likely to be on varsity.
I started in a private school myself and finished in a public school....yes "religion" is a factor, but let's be realistic and honest here, athletics and academics usually take priority over "religion" in a lot of cases. I'm in agreement that a multiplier will only punish a private school. Yes they have an advantage, it is what it is, deal with it people. You all hit the nail on the head with the fact that private schools have parents, alumni, and administration that care which helps them succeed. That's not always the case in a public school. Coaches can't control parents who don't care...hell most of the time they don't care about their own damn kid, and that is what is really sad. So it's that public schools coach's fault? As far as "poor" students in private and public school....not even comparable, yeah private schools might have a few that alumni/boosters have helped get in. But public schools deal with this issue way more. Some of them do contribute greatly to their schools, but more often than not they don't because the have bigger issues to deal with than sports and activities. Just don't compare public and private it's not the same.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
The last 10 transfer stories I've read have all been public school to public school transfers. The latest one was the two Fremont basketball players who have transferred from Omaha Central.
The last 10 transfer stories I've read have all been public school to public school transfers. The latest one was the two Fremont basketball players who have transferred from Omaha Central.
"How is the three year enrollment figured? Isn't it frosh-junior or am I wrong? I hope I am. If so I don't understand why frosh or included instead of seniors, kids who are actually likely to be on varsity."
they take this years numbers for next year's classifications. why would want this year's seniors counted for next year's classification? they won't be in school.
they take this years numbers for next year's classifications. why would want this year's seniors counted for next year's classification? they won't be in school.
If you have an IEP, you're receiving special services through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
If you receive services through IDEA, you're classified as a Special Education student.
If you have an IEP, you are classified as an Special Education student.
The students classified as "SPED" on this by the NDE are on there because they have an IEP (possibly 504 plans too...not positive on that one): NeSA Reading Results
they take this years numbers for next year's classifications. why would want this year's seniors counted for next year's classification? they won't be in school.[/QUOTE]
Your right football2002, I didn't fully understand and thats why I was asking. Now that I know I think it is done correctly. Thanks for your help.
Your right football2002, I didn't fully understand and thats why I was asking. Now that I know I think it is done correctly. Thanks for your help.
Thanks for correcting me...just what I had heard. I was wrong, willing to admit that.
^^^^^^^
This.
I live in a public/private county. Many of my friends went to public schools. They now send their kids to a private school. Why? because the private school wins. Simple as that.
i coach here just as i have in 3 other states prior to nebraska. the previous being arizona where powerhouse fb program phoenix christian ruled the 2a level for years.
arizona coaches were invited to join the cardinals for their practice one summer and the conversation of recruiting came up (just exactly as it is here). a PC asst was adamant that they "never recurited...". with no proof just talk, we backed off. later that year my jr son ended up finishing in the top 3 discus throwers...as he walked away from the stand he was approached by a PC fb/track coach who asked if he "had any interest in playing/throwing for PC", he replied that the coach would have to speak to his dad as he pointed to me about 50 feet away...as my son added "...hes the head football coach at...". the coach walked away.
please do not try to sell that private school coaches do not talk to quality athletes, especially if they live in their city or nearby communities. they are steadfast recruiters of their city jr high, talent which i guess is fine, but small c1/c2 schools do not have this option..this is the basis of why a multiplier is essential to attempting to level the playing field.
...also, someone above said something about how the next class up would have to find something to complain about if the private school was successful at that level...uh, well..if they can complete at a quality level one class up (ie. #1 c2 aquinas v. #1 c1 scotus wk2, 2015) what the issue with a multiplier? does it have something to do with...dare i say...arrogance...bullying...fear?
arizona coaches were invited to join the cardinals for their practice one summer and the conversation of recruiting came up (just exactly as it is here). a PC asst was adamant that they "never recurited...". with no proof just talk, we backed off. later that year my jr son ended up finishing in the top 3 discus throwers...as he walked away from the stand he was approached by a PC fb/track coach who asked if he "had any interest in playing/throwing for PC", he replied that the coach would have to speak to his dad as he pointed to me about 50 feet away...as my son added "...hes the head football coach at...". the coach walked away.
please do not try to sell that private school coaches do not talk to quality athletes, especially if they live in their city or nearby communities. they are steadfast recruiters of their city jr high, talent which i guess is fine, but small c1/c2 schools do not have this option..this is the basis of why a multiplier is essential to attempting to level the playing field.
...also, someone above said something about how the next class up would have to find something to complain about if the private school was successful at that level...uh, well..if they can complete at a quality level one class up (ie. #1 c2 aquinas v. #1 c1 scotus wk2, 2015) what the issue with a multiplier? does it have something to do with...dare i say...arrogance...bullying...fear?
And I'll say please don't try to make our Nebraska private school coaches sound bad based on what some coach from Arizona did.
You've got to be freaking kidding me.
You've got to be freaking kidding me.
sounds like kind of a "God Complex" to say that nebraska parochial school coaches stand in a light nearer to their maker than another state...
...so you have got to be freaking kidding me.
Nothing like a good ole' catholic schools recruit/need a multiplier/unfair catholic schools advantage comment to get this board active!!!!!
ps - I wish Norfolk Catholic would 'recruit' some 'athletes' so my kids' tuition wasn't going up so much each year. All you 'multipliers' need to realize, even a 2.0 multiplier keeps NC in C1. You want to exclude parochial schools? Fine. Let me keep the property tax money I pay to help the public school system and I'll agree....
ps - I wish Norfolk Catholic would 'recruit' some 'athletes' so my kids' tuition wasn't going up so much each year. All you 'multipliers' need to realize, even a 2.0 multiplier keeps NC in C1. You want to exclude parochial schools? Fine. Let me keep the property tax money I pay to help the public school system and I'll agree....
