I left off in another article by making two assertions concerning private school participation in the OSSAA: 1) "Selective Enrollment" (for classification purposes) is the greatest advantage private schools employ in competitions with public schools; and 2) The OSSAA's "rule" for eliminating this unfair (classification) advantage is not effective. The "rule" for "leveling the playing field" on which private schools compete with public schools, effectively advances private schools up one classification level, when specific conditions are met - which illustrates private school advantages. We examined one example in the last article concerning private school advantages: Heritage Hall High School dominated class 2A and class 3A public school competition for years in all high school sports, and won dozens, if not hundreds, of state titles according to the OSSAA. The "rule" for classifying private schools up one level if certain criteria were met, applied in the case of the Heritage Hall Chargers, so it advanced one class to class-4A. This year (2017-2018), the Heritage Hall Chargers won the class 4A football State Title on December 1, over the Ada Cougars - even though Heritage Hall has an average daily membership of 334 students (Vinita, the smallest class 4A public school, has 498 students by comparison). This ADM should classify HH in the lower half of 3A according to the OSSAA's "numbers game" of classification. In the case of the Heritage Hall Chargers, playing in class 4A football, has had NO EFFECT for "leveling the playing field". As a matter of fact, when the OSSAA re-classifies football playing schools in 2018, it is very likely Heritage Hall will be classified in 2A - since it continues to reduce enrollment, and the largest class 2A public school has 315 students. Private schools can "control" their enrollment, thereby classifying themselves to any enrollment based classification (B - 6A) they wish. Public schools have no such ability.
We may examine another case of the private school advantage, which I've also mentioned in a previous article. The case of Victory Christian High School volleyball: Victory Christian, a private school, won the class 5A State Championship in volleyball this year. It wasn't a unique achievement, as private schools win a high percentage of state titles, but consider the fact that Victory Christian has 287 students according to the latest ADM, while one of the smallest public schools in class 5A, Tahlequah, has 1166 students. As a matter of fact, Victory C. was classified in class 2A for football. What illustrates the private school advantage even more strongly is that Victory should have been classified in class 3A volleyball by the student ADM, and advanced to class 4A because of rule 14... Instead, the OSSAA mistakenly advanced VC to play for the class 5A State Title. VC won the class 5A State Title, over... another private school, Mt. Saint Mary! In the opinion of many, it did not matter to VC in which class it played volleyball, 3A, 4A, or 5A, it would win regardless because student enrollment numbers are irrelevent to private schools in general. Also, in the opinion of many public school supporters, this OSSAA debacle is one more example of their enrollment based classification scheme failing its members.
I have been a witness to the private school systemic advantages since 1984, when a public school I coached for, Duncan, first encountered private school competition. I never played for a high school that encountered the private school advantage, as privates were first admitted to the OSSAA in the early 1970's. During the 1990's two efforts failed at re-classifying private schools, but in 2009 - another effort for re-classification resulted in Rule 14, implemented in 2012. The implementation of Rule 14 resulted in several lawsuits being filed by private schools which contended that the Rule was unfair for private schools. The end results in the implementation of the Rule, however, proved that it had no effect on "leveling the playing field" from 2012 to the present, as evidenced. The state of Georgia implemented a similar rule in 2008, which also had no effect on leveling private school advantages, so changed it in 2012. Many public school supporters believe its time to "level the playing field" in Oklahoma, similar to what Texas and several other do. (Private schools in Texas play in their own league, and several states provide a classification system in which private schools play in their own division, once the playoffs start). It may be time for "legislation" to provide a level playing field for public schools and private schools, since no other entities have provided it... Think about that..
A couple of years ago, I was having dinner with a top officer in public and government affairs for a major Oklahoma and international corporation. His job is to help the company make decisions about specific legislation the company supports and even specific candidates for state office. He has terrific political instincts, which I suppose is why he has the job. I was campaigning for state office at the time, but not the reason I was having dinner with him, since about 40 other state and community leaders were also present. The discussion eventually turned to our public schools, and something he said made me realize what part of the problem is, concerning our public schools. I had stated that much of our public school funding issues stem from the fact that corporate and private education companies now want Oklahoma public service tax dollars. I believe that public tax dollars should be received by public state agencies such as public schools and public roads, and legislators should not spend public money (tax dollars) for private services or corporate vendors. He asked me a simple question - Do you believe in competition for public schools? In other words, he was asking me if public schools should be competing with corporate and private schools for public funding. The question was centered on the corporate political philosophy for public schools - school choice. In the opinion of most public school supporters, school choice is not about individual students choosing the corporate, private, or public school they attend, but about legislators choosing to spend public tax dollars on private services and corporate vendors. My answer to his question concerning competition for public school (service) tax dollars was - I believe public schools can compete with private schools and corporately managed schools, if the "playing field is level." I, at that moment, realized what the problem is concerning many issues that public schools must deal with, such as school consolidation, acquisition of public tax dollars by corporate and private services, low teacher pay, legislative criminals, corporate lawmakers, and public service destruction. The problem is that politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that the playing field is level for public, private, and corporate schools in competition for public tax dollars.
I know many readers are now wondering what the above has to do with "the price of eggs in China" or what this issue has to do with public schools vs. private schools on the athletic field. The problem is the same, whether it is the private school advantage for acquiring tax dollars or private school systemic advantages when competing with public schools on the athletic field. Corporate politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that private and corporate acquisition of public funds is a good thing, and corporate politicians have convinced many Oklahomans that the playing field is level when private high school teams compete with public high school teams. Neither corporate philosophy is true...
No comments:
Post a Comment