RECRUITING!!!!

HippyDippy

Member
I am sorry but you're mostly wrong.

About the only thing you have right is a school couldn't double their students on the same budget. Your 100 to 200 example.

But most schools could handle a 1% increase on the same budget. Your 100 to 101 example.

There is a lot of info and articles out there about open enrollment. Google some.
There is no wrong or right except that if a student transfers in to a school, and the school does not incur more costs associated with the transfer, that it's wrong that the State should increase revenue to the school.

You have not successfully refuted my argument. if a school actually benefitted financially by the transfer of a single student, it would also be true that a school would benefit financially from 100 students transferring in. I have demonstrated that this is not true: a school districts students suffer dilution of resources for each and every student that transfers in. The school district does not exist for the benefit of the school district, it exists for the benefit of the students, for which tax money is levied at pain of severe penalty for a property owner refusing to remit. For each student that transfers in, the percentage of revenue available for the education of each existing student is actually diluted.

Also address the fact that teachers are buying classroom supplies in public schools.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
There is no wrong or right except that if a student transfers in to a school, and the school does not incur more costs associated with the transfer, that it's wrong that the State should increase revenue to the school.

You have not successfully refuted my argument. if a school actually benefitted financially by the transfer of a single student, it would also be true that a school would benefit financially from 100 students transferring in. I have demonstrated that this is not true: a school districts students suffer dilution of resources for each and every student that transfers in. The school district does not exist for the benefit of the school district, it exists for the benefit of the students, for which tax money is levied at pain of severe penalty for a property owner refusing to remit. For each student that transfers in, the percentage of revenue available for the education of each existing student is actually diluted.

Also address the fact that teachers are buying classroom supplies in public schools.
Oh. You're just arguing the philosophy of the whole open enrollment process. Got it. That's a different discussion. I was explaining how it actually works.

1 student versus 100 students. Depends on the school district. 100 students at a small public school district could be a challenge to do it with current staffing. 100 students at a larger school district is probably easier. Notice I said district and not a single school within a district. The schools I am aware of that have open enrollment in my area limit it to a few students per grade not hundreds. But if 100 students transferred in at the high school level for example, my best guess is the high school would have to add some resources to support that amount of new students. So the financial benefit wouldn't be as great if they needed to add resources.

Are resources "diluted"? Possibly but in any given year in a school district their enrollment naturally fluctuates. People move into a district. People move out. New developments in the district. More kids being born. And on and on. Teachers could have 22 students one year and 25 next in their classroom. And 18 the following year. Same teacher. Same pay (except their annual increase). Was the education process diluted? Probably not. Jump from 20 to 35. For sure.
 

HippyDippy

Member
Oh. You're just arguing the philosophy of the whole open enrollment process. Got it. That's a different discussion. I was explaining how it actually works.

1 student versus 100 students. Depends on the school district. 100 students at a small public school district could be a challenge to do it with current staffing. 100 students at a larger school district is probably easier. Notice I said district and not a single school within a district. The schools I am aware of that have open enrollment in my area limit it to a few students per grade not hundreds. But if 100 students transferred in at the high school level for example, my best guess is the high school would have to add some resources to support that amount of new students. So the financial benefit wouldn't be as great if they needed to add resources.

Are resources "diluted"? Possibly but in any given year in a school district their enrollment naturally fluctuates. People move into a district. People move out. New developments in the district. More kids being born. And on and on. Teachers could have 22 students one year and 25 next in their classroom. And 18 the following year. Same teacher. Same pay (except their annual increase). Was the education process diluted? Probably not. Jump from 20 to 35. For sure.
To a degree, you are correct.

I'm arguing that there is no real financial benefit for the transfer in school in reality which is what you initially argued.

I think your last response actually contradicts your original "it's common knowledge that" "the conventional knowledge is that" .... position.
 
Last edited:

winbypin

Well-known member
To a degree, you are correct.

I'm arguing that there is no real financial benefit for the transfer in school in reality which is what you initially argued.

I think your last response actually contradicts your original "it's common knowledge that" "the conventional knowledge is that" .... position.
If you're not adding resources or overhead to support additional students (not adding expenses) but you do receive an increase in state funding (incoming funds) then of course there is a financial benefit to the school. It's just math at that point. How or what a schools does with those additional funds is up for debate I suppose.
 

Salad76

Active member
Wrong ALL public school systems are just the same, ALL public school system "balance sheets" ( they are not balance sheets because public schools are not private businesses trying to generate profits: education is an expense, and all aspects of education, including extracurriculars, are expenses.) show similar negative net expenses (EXPENSE) for extra curricular activities. The "balance sheet" simply shows the net expenses for all extracurriculars: no one extracurricular is any more valuable than any other. Any revenues generated incident to or by any extracurricular (gate receipts for attendance) does nothing but defray expenses for extra curriculars in general, and ALL public schools show big net costs or expenses for extracurriculars.

The reason I showed you that balance sheet / page was to illustrate that there is no "line item" accounting in public schools, in fact the word athletic as in athletic department does not even OCCUR in that audit or ANY public school system audit, thus, there is no accounting or tracking of all costs incurred to practice ANY particular extracurricular activity. Not the music department, not the science department, not the athletic department, not ANY department.

So when any person comes along and says, that football or basketball are "revenue sports" they are talking out their hind end. Those sports are "extra curricular loss defrayment" sports. but none of them even covers their own expenses.

You will note that the costs of student transportation (which includes all the transportation for all extra curriculars) is accounted for separately from extra curriculars, so to truly understand the cost of extra curriculars, one would have to separate the ordinary day to day student transportation to and from school, from the transportation to games, etc, but that is not how fund accounting works, and so the cost of extra curriculars is actually under reported.

None of the expenses paid by any school system for any particular extra curricular is separated out and accounted for separately. Not one.
lol.....

hope you're not an accountant
 

scbuckeye99

Well-known member
I think you're exactly right and on the right track, the only objection I have is to the last line.

Physical education DOES matter and school sports DO matter. What does NOT matter is which school is "state champion" of any interscholastic competition.

And BTW the potential educational value in intramurals is almost unlimited: the entire operation could be turned over to the students: everything except manufacturing the ball.
Let me rephrase then. School based sports will still matter but the investment on the part of local BOE's and some communities will not mirror any of that. We've already seen P2P become more than a niche stop gap measure by local school boards and is now / has been the new norm in many respects. Grant it I'm not 100% familiar with the cost of club teams for sports like soccer but it seems like financially one could save some $$$$ by not paying to play on the school team and instead spending that money on a club team / more training outside of the school.

PE will always be necessary inside our nation's schools (not a PE teacher btw haha). I think intramurals would be a far more cost effective approach for schools to entertain for the vast majority of student-athletes. Your elite athletes / those who want to become elite athletes can exercise the club option as they see fit.

As I look across the interscholastic landscape I see more and more kids concerned with their club team / organization and less concerned with the success / performance of their school team. Sports like soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, track, tennis, golf, swimming have all crossed over the threshold as it were. Football will be the last hold out but will come crashing down as well mark my word.
 

HippyDippy

Member
Let me rephrase then. School based sports will still matter but the investment on the part of local BOE's and some communities will not mirror any of that. We've already seen P2P become more than a niche stop gap measure by local school boards and is now / has been the new norm in many respects. Grant it I'm not 100% familiar with the cost of club teams for sports like soccer but it seems like financially one could save some $$$$ by not paying to play on the school team and instead spending that money on a club team / more training outside of the school.

PE will always be necessary inside our nation's schools (not a PE teacher btw haha). I think intramurals would be a far more cost effective approach for schools to entertain for the vast majority of student-athletes. Your elite athletes / those who want to become elite athletes can exercise the club option as they see fit.

As I look across the interscholastic landscape I see more and more kids concerned with their club team / organization and less concerned with the success / performance of their school team. Sports like soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, track, tennis, golf, swimming have all crossed over the threshold as it were. Football will be the last hold out but will come crashing down as well mark my word.
ummm if Ohio Employment law was applied to full contact tackle football as it should be, it would be prohibited to suit up a team.

hazardous occupation euclid.png
 

HippyDippy

Member
Depends on your definition of "employed" in that sentence.
1: Is playing in the NFL considered to be employment?

2: Is playing full contact tackle football considered to be "labor" or "work" ?

3: is same an "occupation"?

4: if one can trick, entice or or otherwise convince a minor to perform work, for no pay, is that illegal?

5: Can one order a minor child to perform work for no pay on pain of losing some privilege?
 
Last edited:

winbypin

Well-known member
1: Is playing in the NFL considered to be employment?

2: Is playing full contact tackle football considered to be "labor" or "work" ?

3: is same an "occupation"?

4: if one can trick, entice or or otherwise convince a minor to perform work, for no pay, is that illegal?

5: Can one order a minor child to perform work for no pay on pain of losing some privilege?
There are zero minors playing in the NFL.
 

BASESWIMPARENT

Well-known member
Austintown already had fixed costs in place to educate the students and likely excess capacity. Unless adding a student caused Austintown to add teaching resources or other fixed expenses adding a student brings little variable expenses to the equation. That's why schools with declining enrollment and/or open seats in their schools love open enrollment. Going from 20 to 22 kids per classroom doesn't change the cost structure at the school (teachers paid the same, same cost to heat the school, same cost to light the school, etc) and it brings additional tax money. Their cost per student goes down and their "revenue" increases.

That's also why schools that are losing students to open enrollment. They lose tax revenue but their fixed costs stay the same and it now costs more per student.
This is correct.
 

HippyDippy

Member
It is correct. You giving the financial statement of the district doesn't make it not correct.
you can say "it is correct" until doomsday and it doesn't matter.

your characterization is nothing but the oversimplification of the "conventional wisdom" that is not usually wise.

the idea that a school district "benefits financially" by in transfers of students from other districts is simple minded blather based on the assumption that there is no cost associated with adding a theoretical student that would not need any additional educational services.
 

HippyDippy

Member
That's because it's not employment. They aren't the NFL minor leagues.
sure they are, they are the taxpayer funded minor leagues for the NCAA which is the taxpayer funded minor leagues for the NFL.

most certainly, without doubt that's what high school football actually is That's how gullible minors are enticed to perform the work for no pay, on the expectation or hope of escaping any number of dead end towns across the USA.

Whole teams are recruited on the hope of a college scholarship that 99% of all participants have no chance of obtaining.

.

1613834137292.png

99 percent of all high school football players never put the pads on again after their last game as a senior in high school

but if you only have the 1 in 100 that will get a full ride or ANY kind of financial aid, on the field, there is no one to play against, so you have to hang that carrot out there for the scrubs to hope for as 9th graders and sophomores.

And please try to deny it, so I can have a huge belly laugh.

The hope of a college scholarship is sold as a way a kid can get out of East St Louis Missouri or any other podunk town.

In fact that is the ONLY justification and rationale for interscholastic sporting events. The educational value of participation in athletics can be realized in many different ways that don't involve any interscholastic competitions what so ever.
 
Last edited:

BASESWIMPARENT

Well-known member
you can say "it is correct" until doomsday and it doesn't matter.

your characterization is nothing but the oversimplification of the "conventional wisdom" that is not usually wise.

the idea that a school district "benefits financially" by in transfers of students from other districts is simple minded blather based on the assumption that there is no cost associated with adding a theoretical student that would not need any additional educational services.
Sure there is an added cost just not the 6K or what ever the additional revenue that the transferred student brings to the district. I know that lakota takes transfers but only to West generally because West is not at capacity but East is. At Fairfield, they have a great Music and Theatre programs and that attracts transfers.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
you can say "it is correct" until doomsday and it doesn't matter.

your characterization is nothing but the oversimplification of the "conventional wisdom" that is not usually wise.

the idea that a school district "benefits financially" by in transfers of students from other districts is simple minded blather based on the assumption that there is no cost associated with adding a theoretical student that would not need any additional educational services.
So what additional educational resources are needed for an additional student?

Maybe you should start there.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
sure they are, they are the taxpayer funded minor leagues for the NCAA which is the taxpayer funded minor leagues for the NFL.

most certainly, without doubt that's what high school football actually is That's how gullible minors are enticed to perform the work for no pay, on the expectation or hope of escaping any number of dead end towns across the USA.

Whole teams are recruited on the hope of a college scholarship that 99% of all participants have no chance of obtaining.

.

View attachment 14799

99 percent of all high school football players never put the pads on again after their last game as a senior in high school

but if you only have the 1 in 100 that will get a full ride or ANY kind of financial aid, on the field, there is no one to play against, so you have to hang that carrot out there for the scrubs to hope for as 9th graders and sophomores.

And please try to deny it, so I can have a huge belly laugh.

The hope of a college scholarship is sold as a way a kid can get out of East St Louis Missouri or any other podunk town.

In fact that is the ONLY justification and rationale for interscholastic sporting events. The educational value of participation in athletics can be realized in many different ways that don't involve any interscholastic competitions what so ever.
Lol. You're funny.

Wait....were you serious?

You must not have played any high school sports.
 

HippyDippy

Member
Sure there is an added cost just not the 6K or what ever the additional revenue that the transferred student brings to the district. I know that lakota takes transfers but only to West generally because West is not at capacity but East is. At Fairfield, they have a great Music and Theatre programs and that attracts transfers.
With all due respect, the cost of providing services to any specific transfer in cannot be known, as fund accounting provides no method to determine costs at a granular level.

you are familiar with "fund accounting" i hope.
 
Last edited:

HippyDippy

Member
Lol. You're funny.

Wait....were you serious?

You must not have played any high school sports.
Lol. You're funny.

Wait....were you serious?

You must not have played any high school sports.
I have played sports all my life and officiated sports.

You aren't denying that kids and their parents are recruited to participate in interscholastic athletics such as full contact tackle football, which carries with it a large investment of time and resources on the part of the kid and parents, plus significant risk, on the hope of a full ride college scholarship...

are you?

Please do, so we can all have a huge laugh.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
I have played sports all my life and officiated sports.

You aren't denying that kids and their parents are recruited to participate in interscholastic athletics such as full contact tackle football, which carries with it a large investment of time and resources on the part of the kid and parents, plus significant risk, on the hope of a full ride college scholarship...

are you?

Please do, so we can all have a huge laugh.
Most kids that participate in high school sports do it because they love the game, love to compete, and want to be part of the team. Very few do so with the expectation of getting a college scholarship.

Are there a few that are looking for sports to be their ticket? Sure. But it's not the norm.

Like I said....you don't know what you're talking about.
 

HippyDippy

Member
I would say I am very good at blowing up your weird posts and theories.

Let me know when you come up with a SINGLE additional resource needed to educate one more student. Just one. Try hard.
Not many people would agree that you blew up anything.

what you did, was simply to reiterate your simplistic thinking making generalized statements reflecting the "conventional wisdom"

which is usually unwisdom.
 

HippyDippy

Member
I would say I am very good at blowing up your weird posts and theories.

Let me know when you come up with a SINGLE additional resource needed to educate one more student. Just one. Try hard.
The reason I provided an audit of Austintown which was the example you presented and imagined that it had a "static" expense structure, was to show the variance between 2019 and 2020, but then realizing that 2020 is a bad year for comparison due to Covid19 chaos, thought it better to compare 2018 to 2019 and found huge difference in expenses.
1613953816366.png


Without completely analyzing the data, it's impossible offer an opinion as to what happened of course, and if one really wanted to deep dive it, it would take weeks to analyze the data over time which analysis has no benefit to me, just to prove you to be a simpleton.

The bottom line is that no simplistic statement about school district finances in Ohio can be accurate.1613953909618.png
1613953942245.png
 
Last edited:
.
Top