Dividing schools based on socioeconomics?

[Perspective]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poor-schools-cant-compete-richer-120227608.html

Interesting article.   Could this ever happen in Florida?

[DarterBlue2]

2 hours ago, Perspective said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poor-schools-cant-compete-richer-120227608.html

Interesting article.   Could this ever happen in Florida?

I hope it does not. It is one solution, but it does not appeal to me. There are a lot of negatives to structuring athletics that way. For one, in most states it would lead to automatic racialization of sports. For another, it would automatically put a stigma on lower socio-economic schools. I do support, at least to a degree, the proposals I have seen on this board to have promotion/demotion based on performance. However, to have totally separate leagues, does not appeal to me. 

[HornetFan]

3 hours ago, Perspective said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poor-schools-cant-compete-richer-120227608.html

Interesting article.   Could this ever happen in Florida?

I don't think this could ever happen in Florida, but at least in Iowa they're seeking a solution for the apparent disparity in teams. I would rather see teams move to districts where the competition would be balanced. Here in Florida, you get one team that abuses transfer rules and that district becomes noncompetitive. If you want super teams, let them form a single league and play each other or go national like IMG. Stop beating up on teams that field only homegrown talent.

[THIS_IS_DILLARD]

Sad thing is these teams down here even with all the transfers will still go out of state & get blasted by mater dei & st frances & etc. Except for img. Like it or not florida is not the overall best state in florida anymore. The talent here vs other states are at best even and some cases favor the other state. Add that with the far superior coaching in other states & its not even close. Sad to say we are not playing a high level of football down here its avg at best compared to other states. Florida football is trending downward and has been for the last few years.

[Legion37]

How does a team abuse the transfer rules?

If there are rules in place then everyone plays by that deck.

 

 

 

[skyway]

Bad idea. The better approach is to better integrate or diversify schools based around wealth. Of course, the wealthier folks would never let the politicians they own to go for anything like that.

[gatorman-uf]

How about we just fully fund schools and extracurriculars so that we don't have to do this. If a district decides that they are going to a club/sport than they should fully fund the cost of having the club (not the extras for the sport/club, but the basics).

• Coach Stipends
• Officials
• Equipment
• Uniforms
• Travel (within reason)
• Security
• Playing Surfaces 

I will never understand why we expect kids to fundraise to have the sport/club. I get fundraise for the extras (trophies, jackets, t-shirts, out of state travel, turfgrass). I get that there is a lack of pay for coaches in Florida, but ALL sports coaches would be better served by working together to make a stand for consistent budgeting for extracurriculars from their district as these are things they can point to as things that benefit students instead of themselves.  

[skyway]

36 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

How about we just fully fund schools and extracurriculars so that we don't have to do this. If a district decides that they are going to a club/sport than they should fully fund the cost of having the club (not the extras for the sport/club, but the basics).

• Coach Stipends
• Officials
• Equipment
• Uniforms
• Travel (within reason)
• Security
• Playing Surfaces 

I will never understand why we expect kids to fundraise to have the sport/club. I get fundraise for the extras (trophies, jackets, t-shirts, out of state travel, turfgrass). I get that there is a lack of pay for coaches in Florida, but ALL sports coaches would be better served by working together to make a stand for consistent budgeting for extracurriculars from their district as these are things they can point to as things that benefit students instead of themselves.  

One obvious reason is that the current dominating mindset among those in power is to push as much funding as possible towards Christian private schools so as to "advance God's kingdom". Diverting funds to Christian private schools requires also offering superficial support for charter schools under the guise of favoring "school choice" due to this weird thing called the 1st amendment and boatloads of case law.

A school's students score lower on standardized test scores than other schools? They get a "D" or "F" rating. Then, kids are allowed to transfer to other schools that have experienced more success and/or are private or charter schools. The result is many of the best performing students that were going to be new enrollees into the given public school now end up going to the private, charter, or more highly regarded public school. So, now, one school is that much more enriched with high achieving incoming students, while the public school which didn't do as well is that much more depleted in the achievement level of its new students. If it happens in ANY school program other than sports, it's A-OK! Support those schools whose students achieve while those schools who's students don't achieve might as well close! Treat it like private business, they say!

If this phenomenon happens with sports teams, it's "OMG, it's not a level playing field! Make things equal and fair!"

[HornetFan]

23 hours ago, Legion37 said:

How does a team abuse the transfer rules?

If there are rules in place then everyone plays by that deck.

 

 

 

They abuse the transfer rules by recruiting kids for athletics. The transfer rules were supposedly put in place for kids that wanted the opportunity for a better education at a school that was rated higher academically than their previous school, or to allow kids to take special programs such as those offered at magnet schools. Coaches use their players to recruit so the coach cannot be charged with intentionally violating the rules.

[OldSchoolLion]

Looking at things from strictly a football perspective, I would like to see things be "reasonably competitive."...not necessarily equal, or even close to being equal.  We have a team like Leto that has won one game in the past six seasons and lost all but one of its games last year by less than 30 points.  They are competing in 7A.  Spanish River competes in 8A and has lost 15 straight games by an average of 31 points.  There are teams routinely being annihilated.  Unlike academics, we have physical safety concerns in football, so the consequences can be higher when there are gross inequities.

[skyway]

14 minutes ago, HornetFan said:

They abuse the transfer rules by recruiting kids for athletics. The transfer rules were supposedly put in place for kids that wanted the opportunity for a better education at a school that was rated higher academically than their previous school, or to allow kids to take special programs such as those offered at magnet schools. Coaches use their players to recruit so the coach cannot be charged with intentionally violating the rules.

You mean special programs like a nationally rated football program who's coach is respected by college coaches nationwide? Or just some other special programs? How do you determine which special programs are OK for kids to seek out and which ones are bayud?

What if I told you that, by far, the strongest push towards transfers and super teams was being led by players and their families? What if I told you that Kathleen's kids felt their coaching staff wasn't looking out for their best interests and saw much better results across town and that THAT is why they transferred. Not because some slick coach offered them a cookie.

I find it infuriating that people like you will demand that schools who's students' academic test scores are low simply "man up" and do better as they watch many of the best, most motivated kids leave/never come to go to a charter or other school. Those schools end up with, on balance, less motivated and less capable students to work with, while the charter or other schools end up with a stacked deck. And then they get all the praise for the impeding success, while the schools who's student bodies are depleted struggle even more. You're happy to see them continue to have their funding cut and shifted to the other schools, even though they've been put at a significant disadvantage. But, take the EXACT same set of circumstances and apply them to football or basketball and you'll lose your fucking mind telling us all how it's unfair. This, even though a school having a good or bad football team has no bearing on the $ it will receive from the state.

Which one is it? Do schools need a more level playing field in regards to having more equal access to motivated and talented students? Or should it all be a free market system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer or get put out of business?

[skyway]

19 minutes ago, OldSchoolLion said:

Looking at things from strictly a football perspective, I would like to see things be "reasonably competitive."...not necessarily equal, or even close to being equal.  We have a team like Leto that has won one game in the past six seasons and lost all but one of its games last year by less than 30 points.  They are competing in 7A.  Spanish River competes in 8A and has lost 15 straight games by an average of 31 points.  There are teams routinely being annihilated.  Unlike academics, we have physical safety concerns in football, so the odds can be higher when there are gross inequities.

But, unlike athletics, schools face the very real possibility of continued mass exodus of students through voucher programs etc, which DIRECTLY impacts the $ they receive from the state and, ultimately, their ability to function and remain open.

In case it's not clear, I HATE the philosophy employed by Florida's education department and the philosophy for which Besty DeVos is the (very ugly) face. I'm also in favor of things being "reasonably competitive" in both academics and athletics. But, I can't stand this rank hypocrisy I see with folks who are happy to see public schools bankrupted through a voucher system or free transfers from "D" or "F" rated schools, resulting in the best students never showing up or leaving, resulting in a stacked deck of students with academic strengths.

The EXACT same set of circumstances that allow a Lakeland to continuously end up with a stacked football roster exist to allow the "elite" academic schools to play with a stacked deck of the best and most motivated students that are certain to produce high test scores. Either you oppose both, support both, or are utterly blind and/or hypocritical.

[gatorman-uf]

1 hour ago, HornetFan said:

They abuse the transfer rules by recruiting kids for athletics. The transfer rules were supposedly put in place for kids that wanted the opportunity for a better education at a school that was rated higher academically than their previous school, or to allow kids to take special programs such as those offered at magnet schools. Coaches use their players to recruit so the coach cannot be charged with intentionally violating the rules.

Sorry HornetFan, but the Republican-led (anti Public Schools) state legislature explicitly said they didn't care why kids transferred. They made the arguments that we don't stop a kid from going to the best band program in the county why should stop a kid going to the best football, basketball, baseball program in the country. Now, the legislature still allowed the FHSAA to exist but they essentially neutered them. Should coaches be ethical, yes? But if your elected leaders are saying do what is best for you then they are going to do it.

[Jambun82]

2 hours ago, skyway said:

But, unlike athletics, schools face the very real possibility of continued mass exodus of students through voucher programs etc, which DIRECTLY impacts the $ they receive from the state and, ultimately, their ability to function and remain open.

In case it's not clear, I HATE the philosophy employed by Florida's education department and the philosophy for which Besty DeVos is the (very ugly) face. I'm also in favor of things being "reasonably competitive" in both academics and athletics. But, I can't stand this rank hypocrisy I see with folks who are happy to see public schools bankrupted through a voucher system or free transfers from "D" or "F" rated schools, resulting in the best students never showing up or leaving, resulting in a stacked deck of students with academic strengths.

The EXACT same set of circumstances that allow a Lakeland to continuously end up with a stacked football roster exist to allow the "elite" academic schools to play with a stacked deck of the best and most motivated students that are certain to produce high test scores. Either you oppose both, support both, or are utterly blind and/or hypocritical.

Skyway, by your own reasoning, that makes you utterly blind and/or hypocritical, since you apparently support athletic transfers, but oppose school choice.

[skyway]

48 minutes ago, Jambun82 said:

Skyway, by your own reasoning, that makes you utterly blind and/or hypocritical, since you apparently support athletic transfers, but oppose school choice.

First, I do, in fact, dislike all of the transferring. I just happen to think that we need to make an effort to change the mentality of athletes wanting to jump ship if things don't go their way right away. Trying to subpoena cell phone records of teenagers who you think may have encouraged a kid to transfer seems like a dumb idea. 

Second, as I mentioned, a handful of athletes transferring doesn't figure to have any meaningful effect on a school's enrollment and associated funding from the state. On the other hand, rating schools exclusively based on test scores-scores we KNOW are heavily tied to socioeconomic status- and then offering vouchers or limitless transfer to schools with winning records, err ratings above "D" or "F", does have a significant impact on a school's funding. And it stacks the decks of some schools while depleting others, making it increasingly difficult for the lower rated school to ever crawl back from behind. What is happening here is, literally, the same thing as the state telling Kathleen High's football program-who's lost several key players to Lakeland this year- to either shape up and beat Lakeland or they can simply crumble out of existence. We know you all think that would be a b.s. thing to do to Kathleen's football program, as do I. But, when it happens to schools in the high stakes academic testing world, it's all fine and dandy.  

Third, "school choice" is a dishonest description. It's a phrase used to disguise the fact that the plan is to shift taxpayer dollars to Christian schools. Not Muslim schools. Not charter schools. Christian schools only. They just can't come out and say that, because this annoying thing called the First Amendment keeps public, government agencies from overtly endorsing one particular religion. Most of you hate this, I know. So, the code for "advancing God's kingdom" is to support "school choice". And some additional people who aren't as moved by the religious aspect of it can be persuaded because they can be convinced that a "free market" approach to public, K-12 education is somehow a good idea.

So, to be clear, if it was suggested we move towards diversified student bodies, where students of all kinds of different backgrounds (race, socioeconomic status, athletic ability) were educated together, and this meant that kids couldn't hop around from school to school for football, I'd be 100% behind it. The current world where kids are free to go wherever they want, and gross imbalances and segregated student bodies are the norm, is not ideal. But, it is what it is. To back all of that, and yet then come back and decry the inequities in football, is really effing ridiculous.

[Legion37]

13 hours ago, HornetFan said:

They abuse the transfer rules by recruiting kids for athletics. The transfer rules were supposedly put in place for kids that wanted the opportunity for a better education at a school that was rated higher academically than their previous school, or to allow kids to take special programs such as those offered at magnet schools. Coaches use their players to recruit so the coach cannot be charged with intentionally violating the rules.

Evidence? Or simply baseless accusations? Or are you guessing? 

[HornetFan]

14 hours ago, skyway said:

You mean special programs like a nationally rated football program who's coach is respected by college coaches nationwide? Or just some other special programs? How do you determine which special programs are OK for kids to seek out and which ones are bayud?

What if I told you that, by far, the strongest push towards transfers and super teams was being led by players and their families? What if I told you that Kathleen's kids felt their coaching staff wasn't looking out for their best interests and saw much better results across town and that THAT is why they transferred. Not because some slick coach offered them a cookie.

I find it infuriating that people like you will demand that schools who's students' academic test scores are low simply "man up" and do better as they watch many of the best, most motivated kids leave/never come to go to a charter or other school. Those schools end up with, on balance, less motivated and less capable students to work with, while the charter or other schools end up with a stacked deck. And then they get all the praise for the impeding success, while the schools who's student bodies are depleted struggle even more. You're happy to see them continue to have their funding cut and shifted to the other schools, even though they've been put at a significant disadvantage. But, take the EXACT same set of circumstances and apply them to football or basketball and you'll lose your fucking mind telling us all how it's unfair. This, even though a school having a good or bad football team has no bearing on the $ it will receive from the state.

Which one is it? Do schools need a more level playing field in regards to having more equal access to motivated and talented students? Or should it all be a free market system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer or get put out of business?

Let's clear up the obvious first; the state of Florida does not recognize athletic teams as a "magnet program" as you inferred in your post. Next, as for telling under-performing students to simply "man up", I don't support that direction. That is specifically what the transfer program was supposed to address. It allows students at schools that are deficient to transfer to a better academic school in their area. The transfer program was passed by the legislature to address academic issues, not athletic program building. I don't support the creation of all these charter schools that are not required to meet the same standards as our public schools. Dumbing down the curriculum so kids can get higher grades does nothing to improve their education. 

As for which one is it?  "schools need a more level playing field in regards to having more equal access to motivated and talented students", including under-performing students seeking better instruction, but that level playing field is the classroom, not the football field or basketball court.

[HornetFan]

13 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Sorry HornetFan, but the Republican-led (anti Public Schools) state legislature explicitly said they didn't care why kids transferred. They made the arguments that we don't stop a kid from going to the best band program in the county why should stop a kid going to the best football, basketball, baseball program in the country. Now, the legislature still allowed the FHSAA to exist but they essentially neutered them. Should coaches be ethical, yes? But if your elected leaders are saying do what is best for you then they are going to do it.

Should we add that the transfer policy was sponsored by a state legislator from Lakeland? I guess when your state legislator and coach have trouble being ethical, you can't expect much more from their fans.

[HornetFan]

2 hours ago, Legion37 said:

Evidence? Or simply baseless accusations? Or are you guessing? 

I stand by what I posted. The transfer policy was sold in the state legislature as a way to enable academically under-performing students to move to a school that would improve their chances for a better education. If it were put in place for athletic transfers, they would have allowed for recruiting.

[Legion37]

1 hour ago, HornetFan said:

I stand by what I posted. The transfer policy was sold in the state legislature as a way to enable academically under-performing students to move to a school that would improve their chances for a better education. If it were put in place for athletic transfers, they would have allowed for recruiting.

So you have no real evidence that anyone is recruiting. Thus you're making baseless accusations.

Good to know.

[skyway]

8 hours ago, HornetFan said:

Let's clear up the obvious first; the state of Florida does not recognize athletic teams as a "magnet program" as you inferred in your post. Next, as for telling under-performing students to simply "man up", I don't support that direction. That is specifically what the transfer program was supposed to address. It allows students at schools that are deficient to transfer to a better academic school in their area. The transfer program was passed by the legislature to address academic issues, not athletic program building. I don't support the creation of all these charter schools that are not required to meet the same standards as our public schools. Dumbing down the curriculum so kids can get higher grades does nothing to improve their education. 

As for which one is it?  "schools need a more level playing field in regards to having more equal access to motivated and talented students", including under-performing students seeking better instruction, but that level playing field is the classroom, not the football field or basketball court.

I think this is an opportunity to enlighten some folks on the school evaluation process. There is actually only ONE metric being used to rate schools: The major state test held once in the spring and the scores of the students on that test. That.Is.It. There is no in-depth evaluation of the quality of the instruction or the quality of the administration. If the kids score highly, the school gets a good rating; if the kids score much lower, the school gets a poor rating. This is akin to evaluating the quality of a coaching staff EXCLUSIVELY on the W-L record of the team. Yes, good coaches can win more games than their talent may project, and lesser coaches can lose more than their talent would project. And good teachers can guide kids to do better on the state test than they otherwise might score, and lesser teachers can get lesser results. But, suggesting, automatically, that a school with high test scores has better teachers and administrators based SOLELY off of the scores of one test is asinine. It is no different than someone evaluating, say, Kathleen's coaching staff and saying all of the coaches suck while all of Lakeland's coaches are great...solely because Lakeland finishes 10-0 and Kathleen goes 3-7. Lakeland ended up with a gross disproportionate edge in the talent and motivation level of football players compared to Kathleen. And "A" and "B" rated schools end up with a gross disproportionate edge in the talent and motivation level of students.

[HornetFan]

7 hours ago, Legion37 said:

So you have no real evidence that anyone is recruiting. Thus you're making baseless accusations.

Good to know.

They are not baseless accusations. I know that the #1 ranked school in Central Florida recruits. I have spoken with several kids and a coach from a neighboring school that were approached by players from that #1 school. They were told that the coaches couldn't talk to them direct unless they inquired about a transfer. If a friend sets you up with a neighbor's wife or you approach her yourself, it's still cheating. 

[HornetFan]

58 minutes ago, skyway said:

I think this is an opportunity to enlighten some folks on the school evaluation process. There is actually only ONE metric being used to rate schools: The major state test held once in the spring and the scores of the students on that test. That.Is.It. There is no in-depth evaluation of the quality of the instruction or the quality of the administration. If the kids score highly, the school gets a good rating; if the kids score much lower, the school gets a poor rating. This is akin to evaluating the quality of a coaching staff EXCLUSIVELY on the W-L record of the team. Yes, good coaches can win more games than their talent may project, and lesser coaches can lose more than their talent would project. And good teachers can guide kids to do better on the state test than they otherwise might score, and lesser teachers can get lesser results. But, suggesting, automatically, that a school with high test scores has better teachers and administrators based SOLELY off of the scores of one test is asinine. It is no different than someone evaluating, say, Kathleen's coaching staff and saying all of the coaches suck while all of Lakeland's coaches are great...solely because Lakeland finishes 10-0 and Kathleen goes 3-7. Lakeland ended up with a gross disproportionate edge in the talent and motivation level of football players compared to Kathleen. And "A" and "B" rated schools end up with a gross disproportionate edge in the talent and motivation level of students.

I guess the state of Florida should stop rating schools academically and grade them only by how successful their football program performs. 

[gatorman-uf]

Grading schools is idiotic. Just look at where the free and reduced lunch is below 25% and you will find an A school. 

[skyway]

2 hours ago, HornetFan said:

I guess the state of Florida should stop rating schools academically and grade them only by how successful their football program performs. 

They should stop pretending their ratings of schools are actually ratings of the quality of the teachers and administration. Lots of folks, like yourself it seems, actually think the ratings are actually indicative of the quality of instruction available. The only effect of the rating system is the richer schools whose parents are more educated and involved get richer, while the poorer schools get poorer.

On balance, your comment is ridiculous and appears to be a concession you don't have much more to offer to the discussion.