ADVERTISEMENT

Regina VS Xavier...could the real winner be public schools?

G

ghost80

Varsity
Feb 24, 2009
1,751
51
48
It has been suggested before that Iowa enact what a growing number of states has done and create separate classes between private and public schools.

One of he major arguments has always been, " you would have schools from Class A all the way up to 4A competing with each other and that would be a disaster for the smaller schools".

By having private 1A Regina beat last year's 4A State runner up (who just happens to also be a private school) does kind of shoot down this argument.

Maybe it is time for the private schools to do their own thing while the public schools go and do their own.

To be perfectly honest I'm not concerned in the least about the possibility of excessive travel for the private schools. It isn't taxpayer money involved so that will be their own problem. As important as athletics are to a larger percentage of people involved in private schools, I'm sure they will find the funds.




This post was edited on 10/18 6:36 AM by ghost80
 
Right. And they probably can use some of the recruiting budget money for the extra travel expenses.

It may have been suggested before, but still a bad suggestion, but just my opinion. One game does not set a trend, or as you suggest, prove an argument.
 
Poor public schools I just don't see how they can ever compete with the billions that they spend, and the millions that they waste.I tell you it's time for a good old fashioned bake sale. Cry me a river. They have more resources at their disposal than privates could ever dream of.When a person sees that field turf at IC West the first thing that comes to mind is abject poverty. Have a wonderful day.
 
Yes! Great idea! I can't wait to see what Cedar Valley Christian can do against Xavier! Or Waterloo Columbus and Dowling ... feel the excitement!

This was one game between two traditional powers. It's silly on its face to extrapolate that to splitting off the private and public schools. It's also dumb to use Regina as an example of a typical smaller-class private school. They are definitely not typical

Everyone needs to take a breath and get a grip. If this season has proved anything, I think it's shown that teams like Xavier and Assumption aren't going to run roughshod over all the poor, undermanned, uncompetitive public schools in 3A. Ask Western Dubuque. Ask Clear Creek Amana. Look, I'm a Xavier fan, and I don't think their offense is good enough this year to even get them to the semifinals. I guess we will see.

This post was edited on 10/18 9:49 AM by KidSilverhair
 
Most recent would have been Georgia in 2012. They first tried a multiplier and studied the effects. After coming to the conclusion that a multiplier had no outcome on the high percentage of titles going to private schools, they joined the list of states having all or partial separation of private and public schools.

Some states are fully separated and some partial. Examples of partial separation:

New York has multiple athletic associations some segregated, some not.

Tennessee segregates out the Privates that offer tuition assistance to their students from the Publics and Privates who do not offer tuition assistance to students (those privates w/o TA do still have a multiplier).

South Carolina has 2 associations. One is for publics only while the other is combined. Public schools can decide which they join. (I really like this option especially for smaller rural public schools who currently must compete with private schools from large metro areas). IMO public schools can't b***h if they have a choice whether they have to compete with privates or not.

Here is a list of the states having all or partial segregation (this does not include states who are just using a multiplier...personally I agree with Georgia on multipliers):

Florida
Georgia
Maryland
South Carolina
North Carolina
New Jersey
New York
Tennessee
Texas (Texas is fully segregated but looking at a public choice model like South Carolina)
Virginia

Here is a list of other states currently considering some type of leveling mechanism which could include some form of segregation:

Colorado
Kansas
Ohio
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

The remaining states do nothing (like Iowa) or have a multiplier.




This post was edited on 10/18 9:51 AM by ghost80
 
Rillo thought I was just "trolling".....tossing out a bunch of crap trying to stir things up.

If I'm trolling I'm in good company since some of the heavyweights in High School football such as Texas have separate classes for Private and Public schools.
 
Texas also has over 1,300 private schools, whereas Iowa less than 400 total high schools. But let's just pretend that's not relevant to the discussion, shall we?
 
Cid,

There are more states that use the multiplier than some form of segregation. Georgia's findings that the multiplier really doesn't work is not a surprise and is being noted both by the states using a multiplier and the ones who are currently doing nothing but looking at doing something.

Texas softening their position from full segregation to choice by the public schools (if they do follow the route they are looking at) will have other states following their lead. Texas is looked at as the leader in high school football. Iowa is not.

It's all about trends....the trend is more domination by private schools not just in Iowa but across the country. Like it or not...that will facilitate change.
 
Originally posted by ghost80:
Rillo thought I was just "trolling".....tossing out a bunch of crap trying to stir things up.

If I'm trolling I'm in good company since some of the heavyweights in High School football such as Texas have separate classes for Private and Public schools.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I wasnt sure what that meant. Personally, I thought you were doing what this board was meant for, discussion. I dont agree with your idea, but nothing wrong with the debate.
 
I can't see Iowa ever going to a public / private split. Not enough private schools to even make this a feasible option. Dowling and Xavier would have to fill schedules with Pella Christian, Newman Catholic, Ankeny Christian, etc... I know that is kinda far fetched, but that is my point. I'm not against a multiplier type system, but I don't think you will see anything done or change, and I'm not saying anything has to be done.

The private schools tend to do well in sports. That is a fact. I live in a town with a private school and I do not ever see them recruiting, but that is my experience. Parents and kids decide to go there, but it is because of many different reasons. I also know of many families that have decided to send their children to private schools outside of their communities and it isn't because of sports. Just to be clear, my children attend the public school in this community. Private schools will do well in sports and other activities. Everybody knows it and should just accept it. I think it is mostly because of the strong families that are behind those schools and kids. I have many friends that send their kids to the private school here in town and most of them are not dripping with money. They budget, plan, and have to really work to be able to have their kids go there. I'm not sure how some of them do it, to be honest.

Nothing will change folks. The state is not going to put the private schools on any different type of playing field then the public schools. Nothing wrong with debating the point as that is good and healthy, but I would be shocked if anything changes.
 
would these changes be in terms of regular season scheduling or just apply to postseason?
 
There hasn't really been a system devised that makes people happy. Multipliers have been removed and shown not to work. Texas is indeed a leader in high school football but their demographics are a little different than Iowa and I don't really see Iowa following their lead on most things. I am open to listening to solutions but for the most part what we get is 'that isn't fair, it's wrong"
 
Let's widen the spectrum of this debate here a little bit. I'm not
going to dispute that private schools have an advantage in high school
sports. They certainly do. But, I will qualify that by saying that
this is not an UNFAIR advantage. Why punish a school that happens to
have a dense population of motivated and talented student athletes? It
seems like this should be something that is appreciated and respected,
not criticized.
 
Not going to write my annual treatise on the issue, but the overriding "issue" (beyond the fact that private schools exist in population areas up to 100x larger than the schools they compete against) in this "debate" is simple (and it's not explicit "recruiting," so please don't use that trope): private schools and public schools are inherently, systemically, organizationally different, and they should be treated as such. Private schools serve a different purpose, mission, a different population of kids and have inherently, by definition of their existence, different demographics. Thus, an enrollment figure of 200 or 300 or 400, etc. in a private school will be, logically, by default and statistically, a different enrollment composition from a like-sized public school. Anyone with even ounce of knowledge on education, statistics, history, and educational outcomes understands this.

In essence, the kids most likely to attend a private school are kids most likely to come from backgrounds that, based on all research available in the history of educational research, are conducive to being successful in school and extra-curricular endeavors (two-parent, college-educated/professional parent, middle class or above, homogeneous, stable residence, non-learning disabled, English speaking, non-behavioral disorder or diagnosed disabilities, non level 1, 2, or 3 Special Ed., et al.) . These student populations are also inherently unlikely to have significant students from backgrounds and "sub-categories" (thanks NCLB for giving us this vocab.) that are, statistically and based on all research in the history of educational research, least likely to have success in academics or extra-curriculars (poverty/free and reduced, special education, transient, divorce, behavioral disorders, English Language Learners, non-college educated parents, illiterate parents, unemployed parents, 504 plans, IEP, et al.).

Thus, a 300-student private school may have less than 5% of it's student body (15 kids let's say) fall into a sub-group, whereas as a 300 student public school will have, on average, about 33% (100 students) who fall into a sub-group. Consequently, by virtue of how their essence as an entity, their existence, private schools will have enrollments more naturally suited to success relative to like-sized public schools, with no concern for talent,coaching, and no other action on their own. From the onset, private schools are set up to be more successful. Thus, in conclusion, they are different, have a built-in, systemic, hence UNFAIR advantage, and we should treat them as such. Using raw enrollment data to classify public and private schools equally is inherently unequal, foolish, shows a total lack of understanding of education and life, and it's really not a debate at this point in our country.

And to head you off, I am aware that no absolutes exist: IEP kids can/are successful, low-income/poverty kids are successful, no guarantees that stable families succeed, etc. I understand how statistics work and understand probabilities and research very, very well. The point/truth is: private schools and public schools serve a different purpose in our country ( for the record, I'm a big believer in our right to establish and the importance of private schools), educate different kids, and we should be honest in how we classify/compare the two. Very simple stuff here.

This post was edited on 10/18 5:21 PM by Red87
 
The action that needs to be taken, in my opinion, is (and this based on the premise that private schools will never have a separate class in Iowa unless THEY initiate it--the IHSAA will not take that step I don't believe--even though that's the most fair "solution," as many states have and are figuring out) : non-public schools compete up one class from where their raw enrollment would dictate they compete. OR, they compete at the level their geographic population base would put them (Regina and St. Ed's would always be 4A, Assumption always 4A, etc.). Just my thoughts.

P.S.-The advantage isn't realized in state championships, it presents in advancing to District finals/sub-states
 
'Many' states, depends on your interpretation of many. So now we need to measure district championships as well? People are digging pretty deep on this.
 
Essentially the entire east coast has separate private and public championships in at least one ore more sports. Over 50% (nearing 60%) of the country either has separate classes, multipliers, or legislation in process. No one is "digging deep" unless you mean "by digging deep" having a basic understanding of educational outcomes based on demographics.If you can't admit the inherent differences between public and non-public schools as I outlined above (and these differences are non-debatable; they are truth), then you aren't capable of having this discussion. The differences and inherent advantages are real and measurable.
 
I have always acknowledged the differences in the schools. That may be the reason I chose where my children attend school. I can tell you that state championships or district championships weren't a factor at all. The vast majority of the parents make similar decisions for their children. I will need to do a little more research on the separate classes, multipliers etc. because the information I have read doesn't match up with the numbers presented by you.
 
The solution is school choice and not related to football. Let the dollars follow the student to the school of choice. Many families are much more interested in successful habits than victim status.
 
Exactly. Athletic championships aren't WHY people (at least the majority) send their kids to private schools. I 100% agree with you. However, the make up of the kids that DO attend private school (because of parents with motivation and means, academic ability, etc.), their raw enrollment demographic if you will, is naturally skewed by the nature of what a private school is, to create the environment by which state and district titles (i.e.-extra-curricular success) are a natural outcome. Give me nothing but a spreadsheet with demographic data of every school in Iowa, and I could, with 95% accuracy, tell you which schools are private schools and which schools have had academic and extra-curricular success.

I'll have to go find the link, but the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a story last spring (Ohio is in the middle of a "competitive balance" battle basically), and it outlined how each state has handled the issue. 30 states either currently had some accommodation for non-public schools, have had legislation brought to a vote, had an accommodation that has since been removed,or have legislation pending. 30 states, at some point in their recent history, have acknowledge the need to address this issue.
 
Here it is as of May, 2014...I haven't verified the work of the NorthEast Ohio Media. It looks like 15 schools have some variation, 36 do not (District of Columbia is the extra). I guess you could count some states (Hawaii, New York, some others) as having multiples.
Alabama:[/B] The first state to adopt a multiplier (1999). A 1.35 multiplier is applied to all private school enrollments. The state association settled on 1.35 due to date that indicated athletic participation in private schools is 35 percent higher than at public schools.
Alaska[/B]: NM
Arizona[/B]: NM
Arkansas[/B]: Non-public schools with 80 or more students in grades 10-12 are moved up one classification. A multiplier was used in the past, leading to a court battle. The state association was sued by a school that was moved up two classifications and won three football games with a roster of 25 players. The court ruled that the multiplier was not unconstitutional.
California[/B]: NM
Colorado[/B]: Competitive balance is an ongoing debate. A private school success advancement system was voted down in 2013.
Connecticut[/B]: A 2.0 multiplier is applied to basketball only. Also, a point system based on tournament success is used to further adjust enrollment.
Delaware[/B]: NM
District of Columbia[/B]: NM
Florida[/B]: Has separation of private and public schools in select sports among small schools.
Georgia[/B]: Ended a 1.5 multiplier formula for private schools in 2008 after eight years. Data showed that the multiplier did not impact the percentage of private schools winning state titles. Separation of private and public schools in the state's small-school division was approved in 2012.
Hawaii[/B]: Each island sets rules for reaching state tournaments. Most have publics and privates compete with each other.
Idaho[/B]: NM
Illinois[/B]: A 1.65 multiplier is applied to private and non-boundaried schools in all sports. The state association was sued by 37 schools in 2005, leading to a settlement requiring that the multiplier go to a vote of member schools. It passed. A success advancement system was later added to alter division placement based on a team's recent postseason success. Schools may petition to move up a classification.
Indiana[/B]: A success advancement system is used, requiring that teams in all sports to move up a classification based on postseason performance.
Iowa[/B]: NM
Kansas[/B]: Proposals have been made to separate public and private schools, or move private schools into higher classifications.
Kentucky[/B]: NM
Louisiana[/B]: There has been talk in recent years of private schools forming their own association.
Maine[/B]: The state association is on record as opposing separation of public and private schools.
Maryland[/B]: Separate tournaments and state associations for public and private schools.
Massachusetts[/B]: NM
Michigan[/B]: Schools have the option to move up a division.
Minnesota[/B]: A reverse multiplier is used to reduce enrollment in some schools. The formula is based on the number of students in a school activity program and the number registered for free or reduced lunch.
Mississippi[/B]: The state association has 13 private schools. A group of school administrators failed to ban private schools from joining the state association in 2013. Other privates compete in an independent state association that also features schools from Arkansas and Louisiana.
Missouri[/B]: A 1.35 multiplier is applied to private schools in all sports. An additional 2.0 multiplier is applied to single-sex schools. A court ruled that the multipliers were not unconstitutional.
Montana[/B]: NM
Nebraska[/B]: Multiplier and other enrollment adjustment proposals have been defeated.
Nevada[/B]: A point system, based on recent success, is used to move teams up or down a division every two years.
New Hampshire[/B]: NM
New Jersey[/B]: There are multiple classifications and tournaments for public and non-public schools. Some sports bring multiple state champions together to create a Tournament of Champions.
New Mexico[/B]: NM
New York[/B]: There are multiple athletic associations, one of which is affiliated with the National Federation of High Schools. It slots non-public schools into divisions based on past success, enrollment and level of competition.
North Carolina[/B]: The state association does not allow non-boarding parochial schools to provide financial aid to athletes. There are also separate associations for independent and Christian schools.
[/B]Ohio[/B][/B]: A competitive balance referendum is up for vote by state principals for the fourth consecutive year. The current plan includes sports-specific multipliers for football, volleyball, basketball, baseball, softball and soccer.
North Dakota[/B]: NM
Oklahoma[/B]: A state association committee is exploring reclassification in all sports.
Oregon[/B]: The state association rejected a multiplier proposal in 2012.
Pennsylvania[/B]: Competitive balance remains an ongoing issue. Prior to 1972, parochial schools competed in a separate association. The state government stopped a proposed return to split associations in 2000.
Rhode Island[/B]: NM
South Carolina[/B]: There is an independent school state association, but privates and publics also compete together in a separate association.
South Dakota[/B]: NM
Tennessee[/B]: Schools are split into two divisions: Division I for publics and privates that don't provide financial aid, and Division II for privates that offer financial aid. A 1.8 multiplier is applied to privates in Division I.
Texas[/B]: There are separate associations for public and private schools, but the public association is exploring the idea of including private schools.
Utah[/B]: NM
Vermont[/B]: NM
Virginia[/B]: There are separate tournaments and state associations for public and private schools.
Washington[/B]: NM
West Virginia[/B]: NM
Wisconsin[/B]: Separation of public and private schools ended in the 1990s. The state association created a committee in 2014 to examine competitive balance after a multiplier formula was proposed.
Wyoming[/B]: NM
 
Originally posted by Red87:
Exactly. Athletic championships aren't WHY people (at least the majority) send their kids to private schools. I 100% agree with you. However, the make up of the kids that DO attend private school (because of parents with motivation and means, academic ability, etc.), their raw enrollment demographic if you will, is naturally skewed by the nature of what a private school is, to create the environment by which state and district titles (i.e.-extra-curricular success) are a natural outcome. Give me nothing but a spreadsheet with demographic data of every school in Iowa, and I could, with 95% accuracy, tell you which schools are private schools and which schools have had academic and extra-curricular success.

I'll have to go find the link, but the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a story last spring (Ohio is in the middle of a "competitive balance" battle basically), and it outlined how each state has handled the issue. 30 states either currently had some accommodation for non-public schools, have had legislation brought to a vote, had an accommodation that has since been removed,or have legislation pending. 30 states, at some point in their recent history, have acknowledge the need to address this issue.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you can find a pretty similar "environment" at many public schools. Should we start punishing schools like Solon, Valley, Waukee, Pella, etc. because because they're all schools with pretty affluent families, which often leads to athletic success?

And using states that have since repealed legislation addressing the "issue" does nothing to support your argument. Yes, they thought it was an issue worth addressing, and then discovered that their solutions didn't have any real effect. Maybe because it wasn't actually a problem in the first place?

This state is definitely not going to create a separate class altogether, whether you think that's the fair thing to do or not (it's not, by the way). And a multiplier isn't necessary at this point, either. Look at the private schools that are consistently at or near the top. You've got Dowling, Xavier, Heelan, Regina and St. Albert. St. Albert is way down right now, and say that doesn't change anytime soon. Are we going to expect them to compete against 2A schools? Regina probably fades away whenever Cook decides to hang it up. Dowling, Xavier and Heelan probably aren't going anywhere, but they're already in the two biggest classes, anyway (and Xavier certainly hasn't rolled all over 3A the way everyone expected them to).

But some people won't be happy until private schools aren't winning at anything. If we had a multiplier and Regina was still winning titles, you (and others like you) would probably push for a higher multiplier or another "solution". Anything to make competing for championships all but impossible for private schools.
 
How does open enrollment figure in to all of this debate? Kids transferring to play sports at 'power' schools? Should they be affected by the same multiplier? If all your students aren't from within your district boundaries, you must play up a class?

I went to Pella Christian in the 90's (pre-football) and I can tell you that not all of our students were 'affluent' or sports minded. Yes, we had basketball success, but so did Pella High, and all of the kids on our basketball teams had been in private schools since they were in Kindergarten. Why would parents pay $4,000-6,000 a year for their kids to be successful at sports, when they could have the same success for free 'across town'. Success breeds success. kids see their older brothers/sisters have success, so they work hard to they can do that to.
 
Red, I need some help on the East Coast aspect, another poster listed states with multipliers and Delaware, DC, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont don't have one, Connecticut has one but just for one sport. Florida, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia have separate classes and New York, New Jersey and South Carolina have a hybrid type of set up. Is this accurate or is there more I need to know?
 
The open enrollment question is legitimate, because I don't know how many other states have open enrollment. It's kind of hard for Iowa to look to how other states do their sports classifications if we're as unique in this regard as I think we are.
 
I know Illinois uses a multiplier system and so the private schools play a class up. Rock Island Allemen is playing up almost 2 classes and is still competitive.

If you make all the schools play up in Iowa, you will still have the same problem. Xavier, Dowling, Regina, Assumption, Whalert, Heelan, and others are all good schools. Yes that would put majority of the schools in the same class (Xavier, Dowling, Assumption, Whalter, Heelan would all be 4A). Regina would still be 2-3A size and still would dominate that level. I agree that there should be some multiplier used in Iowa, but how would you do it?

I just don't get it though. You look at some of these private schools and they only have 40 some players out for Varsity football and you expect them to go against teams that trot out 80-100 kids? I mean schools with enrollments of 1,000+ playing against teams whose enrollment barely reaches 400? How is that fair for those kids? Just because these schools are having success, we should now punish them and make them play bigger and tougher schools? Look at Xavier & AHS everyone thought they were going to dominate 3A, their both sitting something like 5-3. That's not dominating. Yes they are winning their games, but their not killing the other teams.


I don't think the state can do anything with this. IF they make a private class, that will just kill football for some of those schools and travel expenses for some those schools would be outrageous. Not to mention some of the match-ups would be very tough and not fair.
 
I like the rule where if you are repeatedly in the semis or higer for two years you move up a class.

Is it fun watching 55-0 half time games?
 
Hayden, Illinois has a multiplier for all non boundary schools this includes some public schools as well. If the Illinois method were applied to Iowa than all schools public and private would have the multiplier since Iowa is open enrollment.
 
No it isn't. But it does give some fresh/sophs some good varsity experience. I have watched some schools starters score late in games against a freshman defense and celebrate like they won the game so they get that out of it as well.
 
Originally posted by Vroom_C14:
I like the rule where if you are repeatedly in the semis or higer for two years you move up a class.

Is it fun watching 55-0 half time games?
Click to expand...
No, it is no fun for anybody to play an over-matched opponent. It is a complicated issue. The open-enrollment issue is part of the problem, to be sure. My opinion is the governing board does very little governing. Quality leadership is on the forefront of significant issues. I do not see that the athletic association is on the forefront of any significant issue aside from generating revenue.

What do you propose to do with schools like Valley? If a policy is going to be put into place to penalize success in lower classes, there needs to be something more than "double secret probation" for the upper classes. I dont' think this is the answer.
 
regina should be on the 4a level, from the way they pound everyone that they play... i have watched this team with interest while they were beating the pulp out of everyone in 2a. if they were a 3a team in the past, probably would have a few more championship trophies

This post was edited on 10/20 3:36 PM by ronsss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LukeFeddersen

The End Zone

Replies
0
Views
105
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen

Q&A with PCM quarterback Gavin VanGorp

Replies
0
Views
351
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen

Q&A with West Lyon wide receiver Carson Hoogeveen

Replies
0
Views
237
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen

Q&A with Ballard outside linebacker Jackson Wacha

Replies
0
Views
155
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen

The End Zone

Replies
0
Views
217
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back