soccerdad72
Well-known member
So it's a mistake when it's a public school, but always recruiting when it's a private school. Gotcha.
RECRUITING!!!!
- Thread starter Whistleblower2020
- Start date
HippyDippy
Moderated User
Private schools essentially recruit ALL students.
Public schools don't recruit scholars, they only recruit athletes.
Which is idiotic,
What does any school win, by winning a "State Championship" ?
Nothing. Well, it wins the same thing an 0-10 team wins, but has to play 5 more games to win it.
HippyDippy
Moderated User
Actually it IS very easy to say about ANY school. Have you ever read the "transfer bylaws" of the OHSAA?
there's a word for them: "byzantine"
an exception to every exception.
BASESWIMPARENT
Well-known member
You guys really confuse me. The situation at Hamilton was a mistake. The AD screwed up and he quit. I am telling you that private schools recruit/sell/ market their school all the time and definitely work in the grey area. One school in the area, hangs its hat on athletic success. It is necessary for their financial health that they produce high level athletes and WIN. I guarantee you that parents send their boys to that school with that expectation. Now, I am not judging. I get it and personally I think it would be cool if we had a Mater Dei or Saint Thomas Aquinas type school in SWO.
belied dat
Active member
The point the rest of us are trying to make is: everyone recruits. Period.
It could be directly OR indirectly. Every coach wants the best players at their program. Every coach wants good students too, because it makes their job easier.
Let's not limit this to privates, or any one private in the area.
It could be directly OR indirectly. Every coach wants the best players at their program. Every coach wants good students too, because it makes their job easier.
Let's not limit this to privates, or any one private in the area.
HippyDippy
Moderated User
What money is at stake?
There is nothing but red ink at stake. negative cash flow is all there is.
there is expense, financed by taxpayers. the only positive revenue is accrued by parasitic entities which have no skin in the game as far as funding the enterprise, which is not a business for profit. the only contribution they make is a tiny percent of their own profits, but the majority of the enterprise is funded with property taxes paid by people who have no interest in the activity whatsoever.
Don't even try to suggest that gate receipts fully fund any high school athletic activity..
In order for any gate to fully fund any high school athletic activity it would have to cover every dime spent on every kid participating, from the first day they all entered the school system as a Kindergarteners because if the kids never entered K, they would never reach the field, or court, to participate in the games.
the fact of the matter is that in Ohio, the accounting system used, (fund accounting) does not track even immediate expenses to the athletic activities the school "sponsors" such as utilities, salaries, transportation, or any of the expenses incurred. *All* schools run huge lump sum deficits in one line item in their audits, "Extracurricular activities" . go look at some.
Example attached. Thats as much detail as any public school system provides. 1 line item . it does NOT assign even the cost of pupil transportation in the line item for extracurriculars: pupil transportation is accounted for in one lump sum line item separately. In fact the word "athletics" does not occur in any State Audit. LOL
In fact for any high school "athletic department" to fully fund itself with gate receipts, the gate would have to fund the entire school system because if the entire school system did not exist, neither would the athletic department.
THAT my friends is how screwed up the thinking is, of any person who thinks there is a lot of money to be made by a having a winning team in any public school athletic dept.
Last edited:
^^^^
roughly 6 grand per student. that's what's at stake
In case you didn't know money follows students when they open enroll
Let's say I got a kid that's a really good soccer player and I live in youngstown.
Let's say that kid also has 3 younger siblings
Because Youngstown city has no soccer team I decide to open enroll my kid to Austintown.
To make my life easier I just go ahead and open enroll all 4 of them to austintown
How much money follows each student when they open enroll? 6 grand?
So austintown just made 24 grand
recruiting is happening all the time and sports is a tiny, tiny part of that. it's recruiting huge amounts of regular students to bring in big money
you ever see the complex that austintown high school has? multiple gyms. 2 turf fields. probably one of the best high school baseball stadiums in the state.
your example of the columbus city schools balance sheet is an example of what happens to a city school system surrounded by schools recruiting their kids left and right. Edchoice and open enrollment has stripped some of the larger city school districts to the bone
so in a way what you did was help my argument
cheers
roughly 6 grand per student. that's what's at stake
In case you didn't know money follows students when they open enroll
Let's say I got a kid that's a really good soccer player and I live in youngstown.
Let's say that kid also has 3 younger siblings
Because Youngstown city has no soccer team I decide to open enroll my kid to Austintown.
To make my life easier I just go ahead and open enroll all 4 of them to austintown
How much money follows each student when they open enroll? 6 grand?
So austintown just made 24 grand
recruiting is happening all the time and sports is a tiny, tiny part of that. it's recruiting huge amounts of regular students to bring in big money
you ever see the complex that austintown high school has? multiple gyms. 2 turf fields. probably one of the best high school baseball stadiums in the state.
your example of the columbus city schools balance sheet is an example of what happens to a city school system surrounded by schools recruiting their kids left and right. Edchoice and open enrollment has stripped some of the larger city school districts to the bone
so in a way what you did was help my argument
cheers
youngmanmom
Active member
Doesn't money only follow if the transfer is to a public school or the original district is an EdChoice school? That's why there were districts bummed at not having state testing last year. It meant another year of giving away money by default...
Whistleblower2020
Member
Just saw this from The Enquirer
Moeller will need a new athletic director as the school has confirmed Mike Asbeck is no longer employed by the school #cincysports More to come
Things that make you go HMMMMM?!?!?!
Moeller will need a new athletic director as the school has confirmed Mike Asbeck is no longer employed by the school #cincysports More to come
Things that make you go HMMMMM?!?!?!
BASESWIMPARENT
Well-known member
I don't think that is correct. If the school is open enrollment, I think the money follows. But a ton of school districts were Edchoice districts even ones that you would not suspect. The criteria was almost silly.
no lol
that money follows all the way through as well
and it tends to slowly rise
if a kid started kindergarten this year and stayed through senior year that kid is worth about 100 grand
AlwaysCurious
Member
I don’t know if this is all recruiting or parents making choices that best meets their kids’ needs. I noticed in Dayton public schools some kids will pick which high school they attend by which extra curricular they are involved in. One high school is known for having a good football program. Another has a great band director. One school cannot be everything to everyone so I think its awesome people can chose. Its incentive for the schools to do continually strive to do better.
scbuckeye99
Well-known member
I've had this discussion with many of my fellow coaches in a variety of sports and I think what we're going to see in the next 5 years is a situation where the elite athletes in all sports attend one particular school (doesn't matter if it's private, public or otherwise) and those schools become more or less charter schools for sports. Down here in South Carolina we're already seeing this. There is a charter school in Charleston, one in Columbia and one in Rock Hill (south of Charlotte) that cater to high performing athletes by giving them the ability to do their classwork either in the AM or PM and commit the other half of their day to athletics. All 3 of these schools are in the lower classifications of the SCHSL and the one in Charleston has already proven to be a dominant player in sports like tennis, golf, swimming, etc.... with team sports like football, baseball, basketball and soccer following not too far behind.
In the short and long term future what we use to know to be varsity sports will become JV in terms of quality as you elite athletes spend their time at these sports charter school factories prepping themselves for the college game. More or less the IMG model will be the norm in every state in some way shape or form in the next 5-10 years.
In the short and long term future what we use to know to be varsity sports will become JV in terms of quality as you elite athletes spend their time at these sports charter school factories prepping themselves for the college game. More or less the IMG model will be the norm in every state in some way shape or form in the next 5-10 years.
In some sports high school already is JV
The academy model in Europe makes the most sense. That's what these schools you are talking about essentially are.
Thats what these kids/parents want but here in the states we've decided you have to have huge money to do that.
scbuckeye99
Well-known member
Oceanside Collegiate Academy | Mount Pleasant | Public Charter School
Home page for Oceanside Collegiate Academy located in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina known for elite athletics and dual enrollment curriculum.
www.oceansidecollegiateacademy.org
Gray Collegiate Academy | West Columbia | Public Charter High School
Home page for Gray Collegiate Academy, a tuition-free public charter high school located in West Columbia, South Carolina known for elite athletics and rigorous dual enrollment curriculum.
www.graycollegiateacademy.org
Legion Collegiate Academy - Official Athletics Website
The official athletics website for the Legion Collegiate Academy
www.legioncollegiateacademy.org
This is the model that is rapidly spreading across South Carolina. The model as I mentioned previously allows kids to basically go to school in the AM or PM and then dedicate the rest of their day to their sport (or dedicate their morning to their sport and the remainder of their day to their academics). All 3 make very little debate as to why kids are there when it comes to athletics. Oceanside has been the most controversial as they don't have any teacher / coaches but simply you are either employed to teach or to coach. The coaches at OC are paid full-time just to coach with no course load to teach essentially making them a small college.
None of these three have a tuition as they are all charter schools who say they use a lottery for admissions but lets be honest that lottery may be just a tad skewed to certain applicants if you get my drift.
HippyDippy
Moderated User
Austintown didn't make 24 grand Austintown just took on 24 grand in additional expenses.
unless you are saying that it costs less than 6 grand per student, and so the allocation should be cut per student.
HippyDippy
Moderated User
So what you are saying is that the minor leagues for the professional leagues will contract into specialty schools.
But what will that do to interscholastic competition?
it will kill it. which may be a good thing. save a TON of money and medical expenses for all the injuries, which get transferred to the parents employer paid healthcare insurance, thus imposing them on the rest of us.
HippyDippy
Moderated User
The kid isn't worth 100 grand, the cost paid by the public to educate the kid and keep him in the school system is 100 grand.
That's why no high school sports program can actually generate revenue. when you're looking at 11 kids on the field you are looking at $1.1 Million in expense to get them there.
I'm glad you pointed this out.
Last edited:
HippyDippy
Moderated User
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.
Last edited:
winbypin
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.
scsweeper19
Member
Question for everyone, if your son is/was a great soccer player and you moved into the Cincinnati area where would you send you son for high school if you could live anywhere or afford private school? What ever school pops into your head has effectively recruited you. Either due to reputation of a coach, history of success, you went there, produces college players, wins games, wins state....all these things or a combination of these things all went into your answer. Schools and Coaches at successful programs don't need to go out and recruit, the reputation of one or both do that for them. That is the same across all sports, all extra circulars, all schools. If given the choice would you not put your child in the best environment to be successful in soccer, band, art, drama or academics? If the change in school happens after their Freshman year, either legitimately meet one of the exemptions OHSAA list, move into district, or sit out like required by the OHSAA. There is nothing wrong with transferring to a better environment so long as you play by the rules of sitting out, or meeting an exemption!!!
HippyDippy
Moderated User
If that was the case, how could the State of Ohio reduce allocation for a student from one school, to increase the allocation to another, when a student transfers?
you are talking nonsense.
by your logic the State would provide a fixed amount of money per school, and not adjust the allocation when a student transfers.
The cost per student is up to $11,000+ per student. The State provides only 43% per student. local funding is static, a school levy yields $X per year and provides 42% so each student transferring in, costs $11,000+ but the State only provides less than half, so a transfer in actually COSTS a district revenue. that is, if it actually costs $11,000 for all services per student. the State allocation simply serves to offset some of the additional increased costs per each student transferring in. that is unless your position is that a school district incurrs no additional costs per student and then, the State should not allocate a single thin dime for a transfer in.
Ohio Education by the Numbers : 2023 Statistics, Charts, Tables & Maps : Thomas B. Fordham Institute Advancing Educational Excellence
Check out readily accessible reference for vital statistics about Ohio's schools and the students they serve. The website includes student enrollment data from Ohio's public school system, including charts, graphs, maps and trends on student demographics.
www.ohiobythenumbers.com
under your logic, since all costs are fixed and static, (they are NOT) and all local revenue is fixed and static, (it IS) and it doesn't cost any additional revenue to educate an additional student, (wrong) a school district should ENCOURAGE transfers out, and it could keep the local revenue, not have to educate the student, and let the other district have the student and get only half the money it takes to educate him or her increasing the cost to the other district, but the other district only getting half of the increased cost, from the State. If I could get half the student body to transfer out, I could keep all that local revenue and use it to educate only half the number of students, and if I could get all but 10 to transfer out, I could use all my local revenue to educate 10 students. The BIG problem I would have is that I could not get ALL of them to transfer out. because then I could eliminate all school levies on property and put the load for educating my children on somebody else. Oh, and I wouldn't have a football game to go to on Friday night.
Last edited:
winbypin
Well-known member
Put it this way...
I am a superintendent of a district and say it costs me a million dollars to run my district. I can accommodate 1000 students with current resources but my enrollment is only 900. I could increase my enrollment by 100 students in the district for essentially the same cost basis. If those additional students are open enrolled...I get the extra state tax (what is it...$6k per student?) but my costs have essentially stayed the same. So that extra tax funding benefits the district gaining students. It still only costs me about a million dollars to operate my district but the tax funding I receive has gone up like $600k (based on 100 students at $6000 per student).
And negatively impacts the districts losing the students and the tax funding.
Does that explain it better?
scbuckeye99
Well-known member
Yes to your first question. The market has already created this want / to some need for elite athletic prep schools. This will continue. I don't see a situation where we revert back.
Interscholastic competition will exist but at a "intramural" level. That is to say you will still have school based teams but their level of competition will severely watered down due to your upper elite athletes moving on to "greener" pastures. In some situations School XYZ will become the de facto "charter school for soccer" where anyone who is anyone in that particular area of schools ends up open enrolling or transferring into. This will leave the surrounding schools to choose from what's left in the now shallow talent pool and in some extreme cases elimination of programs at schools. In the end club based sports will win out and local school boards will see a window to cut athletics from school budgets. Not get rid of them but severely cut.
We are headed towards a European / Japanese model in regards to athletics. Which I have no issue with as a teacher / coach but let's just pull the band aid off right now instead of kicking the can down the road and pretending like school based sports still matter.
HippyDippy
Moderated User
The error in your logic is boldfaced. It assumes that your district is operating under capacity. It assumes that you represented to your taxpayers that you needed $1,000,000 to operate your district when you only needed 90% of that. What did you do, to have a capacity of 1000 when you only needed 900? Are all districts defrauding the local taxpayers and all districts have 110% of needed capacity? So the taxpayers at large over the entire State are being overtaxed and school districts are playing a game of trying to steal students from each other? Really?
And, school districts are trying to steal elite athletes from each other for what purpose? Does any school district generate real revenue from gate receipts or a cash award for winning a tournament? ROFLMAO
The answer is no. The only people to benefit are self interested coaches trying to promote themselves to higher paying jobs somewhere else.
This is capitalism, people are motivated by money and all the "I'm doing it for the kids" is so much BS. Oh, I get it, all these coaches are actually Mother Teresa with a whistle hanging around their necks. None of them secretly wants to be the next Nick Saban.
Note : I DO recognize and value highly that great majority of teacher/coaches who consider themselves to be teachers first and coaches second.
Chuck Kyle comes to mind. has been teaching Shakespearian English for his entire career and considers himself to be a teacher/coach, not a professional coach.
Last edited:
HippyDippy
Moderated User
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.
Last edited:
winbypin
Well-known member
I said as much in the sentence before what you bolded in my post.
No, the schools aren't necessarily defrauding anyone. But if it costs me $1 million to educate 900 students BUT we can actually service 1000 for roughly the same costs but I receive extra state funding....I improve my financial situation with each additional student utilizing my EXISTING staffing and resources. Teachers, janitors, administration, etc. aren't paid per student. You understand this right?
Your tangent about elite athletes is noted but I am talking about the broader use of open enrollment around the state. Just like with private schools the majority of the students switch for academic or other reasons (better/safer environment). We only hear about the elite athletes though because they are obviously more visible.
HippyDippy
Moderated User
Your entire premise is flawed in my opinion.
What's the point of 'improving my financial position' as a public school with no profit motive? Is improving my financial position going to result in a reduction in taxation or is it going to be stolen?
the idea is to spend every dollar every year. If the school district is operating at an annual deficit, that's just a signal that someone's not doing their job or that a tax levy is needed. someone didn't calculate how much revenue was needed, or revenue is being stolen, misused, etc.
The underlying premise: that one school district loses something financially by a student transferring out, and that the other school district gains something by a student transferring in: cannot be right. It cannot be right that a school district is put into a worse position financially, but having to service fewer students given that its local revenue is fixed and capped at a certain number and does not decrease when a student transfers out..
if a district's total local revenue was 6,000,000 for 100 students and 6,000,000 from the state, (12,000,000 for 100 students), then if it gained 100 students, it would only gain 6,000,000 from the State (local revenue would not increase) and therefore have 18,000,000 for 200 students, or only 9,000 for each student. for the next 100 students it would gain another $6,000,000 for a total of $24,000,000 for 300 students or $8,000 total revenue for each student. It would gain students, but reduce the percentage of local, fixed and capped revenue available for each student, for each student that transfers in.
that would apply for each transfer in, from the very first one.
It cannot be, that 200 students can be serviced for exactly the same amount of money as 100 students. If it could be; the State should not increase the revenue to the school district because a student transferred in.
It cannot be, that 101 students can be educated and provided the same level of services, for the same amount of money as 100.
right?
winbypin
Well-known 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.