Classification of Private Schools

[CMM52]

Gongloff is by no means a coach that is loved by parents and his athletes.  He is, however, a coach that knows what needs to be done and how it needs to be done to achieve success.  End of the day Penn Cambria administration, the parents, and the kids weren't willing to allow him to do the things necessary to have success because it would hurt some feelings and require more of a commitment then those parents and players were willing to give.  Say what you want, but those BC girls sacrifice a lot of time, effort, and parents resources to have success.  

Bob Gongloff or any other coach for that matter isn't sitting in the admissions office at BC looking at shooting percentages and picking kids to come to his school to play basketball.  What you do have is girls who want to succeed who are tired of playing with other girls in their public school that don't care or aren't willing to put in the time and effort for the team to be successful.  Driven people want to be where they can succeed and want to be around other driven people.  That's why, if they have the means, these girls go to BC.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't compete with public schools in playoffs. They lack the kids that don't put in the effort, in the small public school you can't be picky. You just need bodies. Like you said, private schools get the sport driven/great players on the same team, then they dominate the lower classes. 

So it's the fault of private schools that kids who want to be successful come to them?  Public schools should have no accountability for not fostering an environment that encourages kids to work hard to be successful?  We spend $29.1 billion dollars on public education every year.  That is money from your wallet and mine.  So what we can start saying is hey, you don't have to work as hard as those girls there, we have a trophy that you can win too.  WOW.

[knowitall]

Gongloff is by no means a coach that is loved by parents and his athletes.  He is, however, a coach that knows what needs to be done and how it needs to be done to achieve success.  End of the day Penn Cambria administration, the parents, and the kids weren't willing to allow him to do the things necessary to have success because it would hurt some feelings and require more of a commitment then those parents and players were willing to give.  Say what you want, but those BC girls sacrifice a lot of time, effort, and parents resources to have success.  

Bob Gongloff or any other coach for that matter isn't sitting in the admissions office at BC looking at shooting percentages and picking kids to come to his school to play basketball.  What you do have is girls who want to succeed who are tired of playing with other girls in their public school that don't care or aren't willing to put in the time and effort for the team to be successful.  Driven people want to be where they can succeed and want to be around other driven people.  That's why, if they have the means, these girls go to BC.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't compete with public schools in playoffs. They lack the kids that don't put in the effort, in the small public school you can't be picky. You just need bodies. Like you said, private schools get the sport driven/great players on the same team, then they dominate the lower classes. 

So it's the fault of private schools that kids who want to be successful come to them?  Public schools should have no accountability for not fostering an environment that encourages kids to work hard to be successful?  We spend $29.1 billion dollars on public education every year.  That is money from your wallet and mine.  So what we can start saying is hey, you don't have to work as hard as those girls there, we have a trophy that you can win too.  WOW.

What the heck are you blabbering about?  Public school kids work as hard as private school kids.  In fact with the uneven playing field in sports, it can be argued that public school kids work even harder.  Please explain the tangent you arced off on.

[12HankQB]

Gongloff is by no means a coach that is loved by parents and his athletes.  He is, however, a coach that knows what needs to be done and how it needs to be done to achieve success.  End of the day Penn Cambria administration, the parents, and the kids weren't willing to allow him to do the things necessary to have success because it would hurt some feelings and require more of a commitment then those parents and players were willing to give.  Say what you want, but those BC girls sacrifice a lot of time, effort, and parents resources to have success.  

Bob Gongloff or any other coach for that matter isn't sitting in the admissions office at BC looking at shooting percentages and picking kids to come to his school to play basketball.  What you do have is girls who want to succeed who are tired of playing with other girls in their public school that don't care or aren't willing to put in the time and effort for the team to be successful.  Driven people want to be where they can succeed and want to be around other driven people.  That's why, if they have the means, these girls go to BC.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't compete with public schools in playoffs. They lack the kids that don't put in the effort, in the small public school you can't be picky. You just need bodies. Like you said, private schools get the sport driven/great players on the same team, then they dominate the lower classes. 

So it's the fault of private schools that kids who want to be successful come to them?  Public schools should have no accountability for not fostering an environment that encourages kids to work hard to be successful?  We spend $29.1 billion dollars on public education every year.  That is money from your wallet and mine.  So what we can start saying is hey, you don't have to work as hard as those girls there, we have a trophy that you can win too.  WOW.

No, it's not the private school's fault. The public schools have to work harder than the privates. The public school can only rely on what they have in hand. 
Neunann-Goretti
Is this fair? Home grown Central Cambria may have to run into this hand picked group of monsters. It's CC's fault that nobody moves to Ebensburg from out of country to play bball that is 6' 9". NG's girls had a 6' 8" monster two years ago.
if you honestly think that there's no advantage, then you're an idiot. I don't think that everyone should get a trophy, but I do believe in a fair shot. Playing on equal terms, I want to see a Saltsburg team that has worked their butts off and have been blessed with a good crop of athletes. I don't want to see the Philly All-Star team.

[CMM52]

Fair and Equal are two completely different things. The system is fair, but it's not equal. Our country operates the same way. No one denies any student or family the opportunity to attend private or public school. That makes things 100 % fair. Is the talent always equal athletically? Absolutely not. No one is denied the opportunity to work in this country, that makes it fair. Are all working conditions and salaries the same? No. Fairness and equality are not one in the same. The whole thing is fair which is all we can ask for.

[CMM52]

My overall message isn't that I don't see a disparity in regards to the smaller schools, but rather I don't see it as a problem that is simply fixed by taking it out on private schools. As I mentioned, we spend nearly $30 billion dollars on public education a year in Pennsylvania. That is money that all of us pay out in taxes. A single private school only relies on the tuition paid by its students. That's the only source of funds that are received. The idea that all of these athletes in all of these private schools are coming tuition free and being given all these perks to come to school there is way over blown. Maybe it happens every now and then, but these schools wouldn't be open if it was wide spread. My question is why can't public schools offer a better product for us and their kids? They have far more resources, better facilities, higher paid coaches, many offer transportation for athletes. When all of this is there free of charge (outside taxes), why do families choose private school? My whole argument from the beginning is that I don't see some disparity, it's why does the disparity even exist. Our public schools aren't giving us a product that looks like $30 billion dollars. I mean that educationally, athletically, musically, all of it. How is 30 billion dollars being outperformed by a BC that has to bring in a ton of Chinese students just to keep the lights on. That's the real problem.

[12HankQB]

You're missing everything, completely.

Having excellent facilities, uniforms, mascots, and all this other mumbo jumbo from taxpayer dollars doesn't make the athletes better. Unless people move into that school district, they don't have the access to this. You don't choose your public school. The public school is stuck with the students they have. 

It's not fair. At all, nor equal....unless you can afford it. If your kid is 6' 9", you send him or her to private school (with others of that size), to win a state championship against lesser opponents. Hold the trophy up high and say we did it. All because of hard work. 

Unless, Catholic children and private school children are naturally more gifted? 

[Sykotyk]

My overall message isn't that I don't see a disparity in regards to the smaller schools, but rather I don't see it as a problem that is simply fixed by taking it out on private schools.  As I mentioned, we spend nearly $30 billion dollars on public education a year in Pennsylvania.  That is money that all of us pay out in taxes.  A single private school only relies on the tuition paid by its students.  That's the only source of funds that are received.  The idea that all of these athletes in all of these private schools are coming tuition free and being given all these perks to come to school there is way over blown.  Maybe it happens every now and then, but these schools wouldn't be open if it was wide spread.  My question is why can't public schools offer a better product for us and their kids?  They have far more resources, better facilities, higher paid coaches, many offer transportation for athletes.  When all of this is there free of charge (outside taxes), why do families choose private school?  My whole argument from the beginning is that I don't see some disparity, it's why does the disparity even exist.  Our public schools aren't giving us a product that looks like $30 billion dollars.  I mean that educationally, athletically, musically, all of it.  How is 30 billion dollars being outperformed by a BC that has to bring in a ton of Chinese students just to keep the lights on.  That's the real problem.

It's not that privates have some intrinsic advantage over publics. It's that the state's means of classifying teams into like groups puts privates into groups they shouldn't be participating in.
The problem is the idea that enrollment alone is a great source of data for determining the potential of each team. If you're just counting public schools who all have mandatory attendance zones or districts... sure, it's fairly equitable. The problem is schools that do not have mandatory attendance zones such as privates, charters, vo-tech or magnet schools.

Their enrollment doesn't really correlate at all to their ability. Which either negates the purpose of classifications, or necessitates the need for some other metric to slot teams into classifications.

[knowitall]

  My question is why can't public schools offer a better product for us and their kids?  They have far more resources, better facilities, higher paid coaches, many offer transportation for athletes.  When all of this is there free of charge (outside taxes), why do families choose private school?  My whole argument from the beginning is that I don't see some disparity, it's why does the disparity even exist.  Our public schools aren't giving us a product that looks like $30 billion dollars.  I mean that educationally, athletically, musically, all of it.  How is 30 billion dollars being outperformed by a BC that has to bring in a ton of Chinese students just to keep the lights on.  That's the real problem.

Come on.  The $30 billion argument has no business being brought up in this discussion.  Again, you are off on a tangent.  Public school enrollment is limited to its boundaries.  They must attempt to educate all the children living within those boundaries.  I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that.

[upnorth]

My overall message isn't that I don't see a disparity in regards to the smaller schools, but rather I don't see it as a problem that is simply fixed by taking it out on private schools.  As I mentioned, we spend nearly $30 billion dollars on public education a year in Pennsylvania.  That is money that all of us pay out in taxes.  A single private school only relies on the tuition paid by its students.  That's the only source of funds that are received.  The idea that all of these athletes in all of these private schools are coming tuition free and being given all these perks to come to school there is way over blown.  Maybe it happens every now and then, but these schools wouldn't be open if it was wide spread.  My question is why can't public schools offer a better product for us and their kids?  They have far more resources, better facilities, higher paid coaches, many offer transportation for athletes.  When all of this is there free of charge (outside taxes), why do families choose private school?  My whole argument from the beginning is that I don't see some disparity, it's why does the disparity even exist.  Our public schools aren't giving us a product that looks like $30 billion dollars.  I mean that educationally, athletically, musically, all of it.  How is 30 billion dollars being outperformed by a BC that has to bring in a ton of Chinese students just to keep the lights on.  That's the real problem.

It's not that privates have some intrinsic advantage over publics. It's that the state's means of classifying teams into like groups puts privates into groups they shouldn't be participating in.
The problem is the idea that enrollment alone is a great source of data for determining the potential of each team. If you're just counting public schools who all have mandatory attendance zones or districts... sure, it's fairly equitable. The problem is schools that do not have mandatory attendance zones such as privates, charters, vo-tech or magnet schools.

Their enrollment doesn't really correlate at all to their ability. Which either negates the purpose of classifications, or necessitates the need for some other metric to slot teams into classifications.

Even strictly within the public system, enrollment is a somewhat poor indicator of potential.  Look at our own local public schools in whatever sport you wish.  There are always certain schools that are at or near the top of their class, some cycle in and out while others seem to consistently struggle.

If you want to take all of the factors into consideration when classifying schools, you will have to include a "past success factor" (or lack thereof) to make things more equitable.  That way, teams such as Southern Columbia, Clairton, Bellwood-Antis, Bishop Guilfoyle, Neumann Goretti, Lincoln Park, Constitution will float up or down classifications similar to how international soccer works with relegation/promotion.  This also takes into account those non-boundary schools that do not enjoy much success such as Grace Prep basketball, Saint Joseph's football, Imani Christian football, etc. to ensure that they are not unjustly punished for simply not having a geographical boundary.

[say_oww]

This thread has a lot of issues lumped together which really are totally different topics for discussion.  In regards to the competitive balance between private and public schools, there is definitely an issue as both sides play along different rules.  However, in this age of alternative facts it is virtually impossible to get everyone to agree on the same thing.  If there isn't an advantage for private schools, then why do they threaten lawsuits when faced with the prospect of exclusion from the PIAA?  That seems to say it all in one breath.


On the other hand, trying to explain public schools' athletic performance, or the lack thereof, on the educational system is preposterous.  The public education system was designed to educate all children for the greater good of society.  It wasn't meant to be a profit center, or an institution to indoctrinate kids with crazy religious ideas.  So to blame the fact that a certain school doesn't have a good team on inefficiencies in public education is just plain nuts.  Furthermore, athletics are a small part of the educational experience, not the primary focus.  As Crimson said, he didn't go to a private school for athletics. Neither do public school kids go to school with the expectation that they will play professional sports.  Kids go to school to get an education, so they can be a productive member of a homogeneous society.  Once we all realize that, these meaningless debates about the distribution of trophies will seem irrelevant.


But since athletic competition is designed to be a lesson in itself, the method by which playoffs and championships are decided should be periodically evaluated  to determine their effectiveness.  In other words, since the landscape of the 20-teens isn't the same as the 1940s and 1950s, then its probably time to devise a system which makes more sense in a world where even private school "powerhouses" are afraid of the next AAU team / charter school which has more advantages over it than they do over public schools.


BTW - before anyone bemoans the number of small school districts once again, let's all look at the subject logically before consolidating the state into 67 AAAAA school districts.  While there are proposed financial considerations for consolidation, the reality of the situation is that consolidation isn't a viable option for leveling athletic playing fields anymore than it is a magical economical fix.  The consolidation of resources to achieve a desired outcome also requires the exclusion of a number of things as well.  Strictly speaking in sports terms, we are talking about participation, interest, and competition.   Everyone agrees that our kids need more involvement in sports, not less.  And if exclude kids from participation, then you also decrease interest as well because you have lese and less people involved.   My point is that you can't consolidate schools and teams without excluding kids, just like you can't consolidate small towns and boroughs and municipalities out of government simply by lumping them altogether.  Imagine if all of the small populated red states out there were consolidated into one big red state that was then given the same weight as the just one of the much larger populated coastal blue states.  It would leave a lot of people in out of the way places completely shut out of the political process.

So, ask yourself, do you really want to see your school combined with four or five other schools just to make a football team that might be able to compete with a much larger team?  Or would you rather see all kids have a chance to participate and enjoy the benefits of athletic competition?