Perspective

No intent to demean any football program, but Bolles was an example of this with that horse leaving the barn 3 decades ago.  Thus, my steadfast opinion of a public league and a private league as anyone can pull the stats to see how the dominance of the privates has only grown during subsequent years in our state to the detriment of publics.  Especially with those privates in high density population zones. 

The law of unintended consequences seems to be playing out in other states in the arena that should matter to everyone who is on this forum - athletics:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/football-forfeits-coming-against-gray-114000262.html
 
 

Rodgers' stay at TBT may be short-lived.   He was on campus first of the year and was with the team for Spring practice, but a rising TBT junior apparently got the QB1 nod over the former Dragon.  Speculation is that Rodgers will move again before fall ball starts up.   

I don't know, man but you sound like a real dick. 
I know this forum is slow this time of year, but your schtick is tiring.

As someone who has worked/coached in both the public and private arena let me tell you the real deal.
There is  VERY little difference between public/private school educators overall. The kids that are "rocket scientist" and/or great students at public schools would still be "rocket scientist" and/or great students in private schools, and visa versa. Now granted the environment would be different as many publics are overcrowded, lack discipline and are losing funding every day, but the quality teaching isn't much different. Some private/charter systems maybe more "selective" in who they hire, but those educators are not somehow smarter than their colleagues in the public domain.
If anyone tells you they are, trust me you are being taken to the wood shed. I've seen it with my own 2 very good eyes. 
Private/charter schools were started and continue today with an "agenda", and it's wasn't because they magically provide a superior education. MANY other factors go into it and society is being lied to at the expense of the public school environment getting worse.
That's the real problem as more and more charter/privates being born and letting those LEFT BEHIND to basically choke to death. Just be careful not to say that too loud, they might label you as "woke".
 
 
 
 

Thank you, Ray.  I appreciate your point of view. 
So, to a certain extent, I guess my question still remains:  The government (using the broad term "government" instead of state or county, as I'm really not sure who pays for what) presumably has a budget in place for next school year (for buildings, books, equipment, administrative and teacher salaries, etc.).  Now, school choice and vouchers come along.  Using the midpoint of your range for vouchers ($8,000) and the number of parents that are projected to apply (350K), someone's going to have to shell out $2.8 billion (yes, billion with a "B"), and still have the funds left over to cover the public school costs.   Where is all that money going to come from?   I fear this is just a long-term play to completely privatize the K-12 education system, in which case we won't be solving the bad school problem, we'll just be dressing it up in a private school uniform. 

So, I need someone to help me out:  as I understand it (from a bird's eye view), the government (state or county??) is going to provide vouchers for families who choose for their kids to attend a private school instead of a public school, right?  But there is a limited amount of money that can/will be spent on education.   County school boards try as hard as they can to stay ahead of the development and growth.  Developers are required to set aside land (or at least give the school board the opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of land) before single-family houses can be permitted.  OK.  That makes sense.  
But don't the schools have to be built with the assumption that every kid in the new neighborhood will be going to the public school (because that could happen)?  And the cost of the land and the cost of building a school (and all the facilities that go along with it, such as gyms, football fields, baseball and softball fields, etc.) are, for the most part, fixed costs.  If a school board buys the land and then builds a new high school with the expectation that 2,000 kids will attend (using the taxpayer money that is needed to build that facility), but then only 1,200 show up, will that same taxpayer-supported school board then have to provide vouchers so the other 800 can attend private school?   The government (i.e., the taxpayers) will then be paying for both the public school system and the private school system.   How is that economically feasible? 
I'm not looking for an argument; just an explanation. 

I did say there will be additional cost, but I also pointed out the thinking is the money goes with the student not the school.   Thus OHS receives $8K a year per student, but if the family opts to go somewhere else the money follows.  So the public school would lose that allocation and it would be given to the new school.  Mind you, it could be another public if as you rightly pointed out with Plant HS, they are not overcapacity.  Just like the example I gave of two of my grandkids moving to attend Harmony HS years ago.  Don't want to drift out of the education arena when you ask, "Where does the money come from?"  to fund any and all government programs good or bad.  We spend more per child than other countries and the stats are clear on how that has worked out over the last decade or two as we have steadily lost ground.  I guess it boils down to the old adage of INSANITY and as well versed as you are I don't think I need to explain the rest.

I am not an expert at all the requirements, provisions, policies regarding school choice.  I am just a big believer in it for the sake of those kids destined to attend failing public schools in urban areas with no future in front of them; for others as well.  I make this judgement only after 30+ years in my career in the private sector then retiring where I decided to work a couple of days a week at OHS as Sub as I had grandkids attending there.  Mainly to evaluate the situation since I went there. "School Choice" wasn't the impetus back in 2011, also 2016 in my view with legislation enacted it seems for nefarious reasons.  This concept has really taken hold for parents that really want better education for their children since the pandemic (nothing political) forcing online learning.  Many have since discovered the realities of public education and are not happy with what they have found.   This latest legislation allows "ANY" child for any reason to receive a voucher (I assume it's from the state) in the sum of $7-9 K to use for charter, private, etc... the amount is determined by what the state allocates per student to public schools.  I read yesterday in a report from WFTV (local TV station) that parents are applying in record numbers to the point they are overwhelming the system with the demand as they estimate we will have upwards of 350,000 on the program.  Obviously, this will not eliminate public schools as many are doing a good job and as I previously stated it will hopefully lift up those that aren't.  Competition is good, RIGHT?  Our municipal, state and federal government hire many private companies to help deliver some of the services you asked about.  Even one of the most respected federal agencies, our military does the same; whether building weapons, supplying meals and yes even fighting wars.   Again, I credit Dr. D for pointing out this is probably the main reason the state has gotten involved with the FHSAA as it is entangled with state run schools.  Yup, some of the things others have pointed out may be questionable and merit debate but I think it all is a response to parents demanding better for their own kids future.  I used to be a teacher/coach and cared terribly for my students but left the profession to focus more on my own kids.  Any coach on this forum knows the time spent with other people's kids, the sacrifice his family has to make and potential long term effects it could have.   I respect that sacrifice, but make no mistake that is exactly what it is.  I chose a different path because my kids, now grandkids are my most cherished possession and no educator has greater love for them than their immediate family though many kids aren't fortunate enough to have that thus the important role of that teacher.  In summary, the SCHOOL CHOICE battle is a win for many parents (especially single) that fall into the second category and want the best environment for their child regardless of the sports angle which is and should always be secondary. 

Hate is a strong sentiment and definitely not my feelings towards anyone on this forum.  I am just of the mindset that difference of opinion is healthy and mocking, name calling, ridiculing and yes even hate doesn't help move your point of view forward.  When it descends to that level, it becomes a waste of time to continue to engage that person.  Regarding some of your post, I find it difficult to see some of your attempts at humor to be humorous that's all. 

Here is an explanation Pinstripes: California, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota are always looking for new residents, Big Shot. 

So, I need someone to help me out:  as I understand it (from a bird's eye view), the government (state or county??) is going to provide vouchers for families who choose for their kids to attend a private school instead of a public school, right?  But there is a limited amount of money that can/will be spent on education.   County school boards try as hard as they can to stay ahead of the development and growth.  Developers are required to set aside land (or at least give the school board the opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of land) before single-family houses can be permitted.  OK.  That makes sense.  
But don't the schools have to be built with the assumption that every kid in the new neighborhood will be going to the public school (because that could happen)?  And the cost of the land and the cost of building a school (and all the facilities that go along with it, such as gyms, football fields, baseball and softball fields, etc.) are, for the most part, fixed costs.  If a school board buys the land and then builds a new high school with the expectation that 2,000 kids will attend (using the taxpayer money that is needed to build that facility), but then only 1,200 show up, will that same taxpayer-supported school board then have to provide vouchers so the other 800 can attend private school?   The government (i.e., the taxpayers) will then be paying for both the public school system and the private school system.   How is that economically feasible? 
I'm not looking for an argument; just an explanation. 

So, I need someone to help me out:  as I understand it (from a bird's eye view), the government (state or county??) is going to provide vouchers for families who choose for their kids to attend a private school instead of a public school, right?  But there is a limited amount of money that can/will be spent on education.   County school boards try as hard as they can to stay ahead of the development and growth.  Developers are required to set aside land (or at least give the school board the opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of land) before single-family houses can be permitted.  OK.  That makes sense.  
But don't the schools have to be built with the assumption that every kid in the new neighborhood will be going to the public school (because that could happen)?  And the cost of the land and the cost of building a school (and all the facilities that go along with it, such as gyms, football fields, baseball and softball fields, etc.) are, for the most part, fixed costs.  If a school board buys the land and then builds a new high school with the expectation that 2,000 kids will attend (using the taxpayer money that is needed to build that facility), but then only 1,200 show up, will that same taxpayer-supported school board then have to provide vouchers so the other 800 can attend private school?   The government (i.e., the taxpayers) will then be paying for both the public school system and the private school system.   How is that economically feasible? 
I'm not looking for an argument; just an explanation. 

I would also prefer to remain neutral on the views one might have on this legislation, but to respond to your question the FHSAA was slow walking the process of complying with legislation passed regarding the intent of Title IX for women's sports.  Our state decided on the "Fairness" aspect we previously discussed by not allowing biological men identifying as women to compete against biological women.  Appears the FHSAA, like the NCAA and other bodies did not agree with this law in Florida and thus the friction.  Also during COVID (2020),  I understand there were some disagreements on when to restart HS sports for that calendar year and there might be some other issues like that including the prayer one you brought up.  Sounds like the current FHSAA Director is solid so I hope the new board keeps him in his current post. 

Flag on the play!  Personal foul . . . using two different nicknames in the same sentence.   I can either be "Pinstripes" or a "Big shot," but not both in the same sentence.   15 yards from the spot of the foul and loss of down.   

Armwood Defensive Coordinator, Fred Hicks, has been named the new head coach at Pasco High School. 

Armwood Defensive Coordinator, Fred Hicks, has been named the new head coach at Pasco High School. 

Pasco's head football coach was Alphonso Freeney.   He stepped down yesterday after one (successful) season.  In his tweet, he explained that he was offered an opportunity to move back to Alabama to coach football.  He didn't say where or at what level, but indicated that he could not refuse the "financial package" for his family.  

Reportedly, Patrick Murphy, formerly at Sickles (with a short layover at Chamberlain), has been named head football coach at Bloomingdale. 

Armwood Defensive Coordinator, Fred Hicks, has been named the new head coach at Pasco High School. 

Reportedly, Patrick Murphy, formerly at Sickles (with a short layover at Chamberlain), has been named head football coach at Bloomingdale. 

As the song says, "Don't Blink."

As the song says, "Don't Blink."

On the one hand, the fact that this guy is a rapper might lead some folks to believe that he would have a certain sense of relevancy and credibility in the inner-city part of Miami.   However, the fact that LakelandGator and DarterBlue know who this guy is, and know that he's a rapper, makes me wonder whether his relevancy window closed in the 80's or 90's.  
So, this thread started with a post that a high school football coach in Miami called out one or more other high schools and the local university for cheating/aiding the cheating, but I've seen nothing substantive.   Who's doing what?

C'mon, man.   You've gotta keep up!   Obviously, he (or they) said mean, nasty, defamatory, perhaps true, perhaps false, incriminating, scandalous, vicious, unbecoming things about someone, some other coach, or some other school.  What more do you need to know?