I didn't know to put this but it needs to be said.

[HammerTime]

A is better than B. This is pretty much a fact and everyone knows it. Now this post won't really be all about basketball, but I think that someone should say it. Before you all tear this post down for possible inaccuracies, both with logic and emotion, there are two areas I need to talk about first.
1) Facilities
2) Opportunities

Facilities are clearly nicer at larger schools. My brother's family recently moved back to North Dakota and settled down close to home in Rugby about a year and a half ago. They had a daughter in high school and were swept up in the basketball team's success. She got involved in other activities, like speech and track and transitioned pretty well to her new town. This year, during a family get together last week, she mentioned how she did at state speech and then went off on this tangent about how nice that middle school was. But she said something that made me think. She said that it made Rugby looked like a "piece of crap." That's really sad when a public schoo can be that much nicer than a school that had a multimillion dollar renovation just a few years ago. Another thing about facilities is the fact that many other A schools not only have access to, but own and have inside their school, publicly funded and far nicer gyms, weight rooms, classrooms, more technology and cleaner hallways and bathrooms. I travel a lot during basketball season. I've seen a number of A buildings and many, many more B schools. While I can't say I've seen the weight rooms, I have seen the entryways, I've seen the classrooms and I've seen the "commons areas." There is a lot more offered to students and athletes alike, and it's no where near the same kind of treatment and opportunity.

Secondly, there are considerably more opportunities and classes and extracurriculars at these places. My niece, for another example, mentioned that unless you wanted to take agriculture or business related, there's no such thing as an elective. Options are few and far between. No foreign languages besides Spanish, not even through ITV. Chemistry and Trigonometry, two basic classes that you need to go to a four year school, according to University of Minnesota's admissions standards, are only offered one time. Core classes are it. Now, go 60 some miles west, you can find all sorts of wonderful stuff at Minot High. There are three Foreign Languages, 12 Language arts classes open to sophomores alone, Honors Science classes (something that doesn't exist in any subject at a large class B school, like Rugby), AP social studies and history classes, and I'm still not even done yet. Advanced placement classes should be an opportunity that everyone should have open to them. Now the tie-in to athletics. The only time kids who work their butts off every offseason get the state's attention is at the State B for Basketball and the championship for football, and even then, the A championship for football is at 9 in the morning! How insulting is that?!? In reference to basketball and someone on this site said this earlier, "It's a shame that the rest of state won't get to see Austin Lee play." I don't want to say that everyone deserves the attention, but is it necessarily fair that almost half of the A teams get the spotlight, but a very small percentage of B teams and even then not always the best teams (See Parshall's loss 80-39.) get attention? No.

Now at the root of this problem is the same as the root of all evil: money. I get that A budgets have to have bigger budgets, but the size isn't proportional in any way. Why should School District A have multiple buildings that are nice enough to host state tournaments, when School District B has one building that still looks like it was built in 1930s? It shouldn't. But it feels as though the state government wants the small schools to die, by cutting down funding while others can get new buildings. Last year, there were a few out of state groups that tried to push for an environmental protection act. The new regulations and preservations would cost a lot of money. In order to rally support for the proposition on the ballot, the groups asked Mandan school teachers to give testimonials to reassure voters that the costs would not be paid with money from education funding. To counter, the local school district's superintendent wrote in the Pierce County Tribune that it would most certainly take money from education. So how could they both be right? Well, the Mandan teacher was right because it wouldn't affect her school district, because it's so large. But Mr. Mike McNeff was right because we are a small school district and we would be the ones on the chopping block because we really don't matter to our state politicians. I get that there are some exceptions to the rule that A is nicer than B (see Belcourt), but these are exceptions to the rule. But the above is in no way fair to people in small towns who deserve the same chances at opportunities as the people in large cities. I remember the struggle of getting trying to earn an academic scholarship and I had a 3.8 GPA, which isn't even that bad. But because I came from a small town, my work wasn't recognized and I went to UND instead of Concordia. So after listening to what my niece had to say, my family had one thing to tell her, "Life really isn't fair, especially in times when it should be."

Public school should be considerably more even than it is right now. My property tax dollars go to help pay for some large school to pay for newer classes and opportunities to help kids get into college, while the kids in my own district will probably be stuck here.

[HammerTime]

I didn't really know where else to put this, but I wanted it to be seen, and I knew it would be seen on the Boys Basketball page.

[go maji]

This is really a socialist way of looking at things that I don't agree with.
There are big schools for a reason.
Big city=big school
Small city=small school

that simple

You used Lee as an Example. Desean Eikens(best player in the state) didn't even make it to regionals.
Bigger schools have more money.

[HammerTime]

I think you missed my point. I GET THAT BIG SCHOOLS NEED MORE MONEY. They have more people to take care of and educate. My problem is that the spending isn't proportionate. My example that I used was that there's no reason that a school with a lot of kids should build a new building every 10 years while a small school, like Cando, still has sections that haven't been touched since they were built in the 30s. That is in no way reasonable. This whole notion that we spend $9,092 per student, per Bismarck Tribune, (May 5th, 2013.) is complete hogwash. Clearly, more is being spent, per student, in bigger schools than smaller. That's the tragedy. There is nothing that makes kids in bigger cities more deserving than kids living in tiny villages. Nothing that truly warrants the fact that they deserve more money, besides that they live in a smaller, more concentrated area. That is what bothers me.

[ndlionsfan]

The money for schools doesn't only come from the legislature. Most of it is from mill levies and that is determined from the property taxes in a given district. Some districts are very large with a lot of land, others are very small. Schools in the big cities have a huge tax base compared to rural districts, so in turn have a lot more money to work with.

[Sticks11]

I'm going to have to agree a little more with what Go Magi is saying. It's the way the world works. I don't understand what the problem is. At face value, one could take away from what you are saying with only this.....everyone should have the same opportunities and resources. That's not how it works. You're talking about spending should be more equal, but that's just not realistic. Take it a step further - Does the University of North Dakota have the same opportunities and facilities in it's pre-med field as say Johns Hopkins? No.

[Baller]

Some communities are not willing to pay for it. In order to build better facilities, the taxpayers have to be willing to pay more. There are a lot of referendums out there that the people just don't pass when it comes to the voting. It is all up to how well the community wants to support its schools and programs.

[The Schwab]

Ok, my two cents on the topic:

Of course schools in bigger districts will get more funding, thus they will have better facilities. The problem I have is the oil money getting spread out into districts that don't feel the impact that comes with the oil industry. I know that schools on the eastern side of the state think that they deserve the money, but I don't necessarily agree with that. Our L. Gov is on record as saying, when talking about a western school in oil country. "Now there’s other things we’re doing wrong. We didn’t build them a house … and their kid had to sit in a school that was kind of cramped,” he said. “Those are problems of prosperity, but they are rich man problems.” As for the comparison of UND med to Johns Hopkins, that's comparing apples and wrenches.

[Sticks11]

Ok, my two cents on the topic:

Of course schools in bigger districts will get more funding, thus they will have better facilities. The problem I have is the oil money getting spread out into districts that don't feel the impact that comes with the oil industry. I know that schools on the eastern side of the state think that they deserve the money, but I don't necessarily agree with that. Our L. Gov is on record as saying, when talking about a western school in oil country. "Now there’s other things we’re doing wrong. We didn’t build them a house … and their kid had to sit in a school that was kind of cramped,” he said. “Those are problems of prosperity, but they are rich man problems.” As for the comparison of UND med to Johns Hopkins, that's comparing apples and wrenches.

Yes it is, and that's why I said that. Because to me, the original statement is comparing apples to wrenches.

[The Schwab]

Ok makes sense now!

[Flying Wallenda]

The money for schools doesn't only come from the legislature. Most of it is from mill levies and that is determined from the property taxes in a given district. Some districts are very large with a lot of land, others are very small. Schools in the big cities have a huge tax base compared to rural districts, so in turn have a lot more money to work with.

With the new funding formula, the bulk of school funds comes from a schools enrollment. A cap has been put on mills to reduce or stabilize property taxes. This has effectively neutralized the advantage districts that with large tax bases had.

[Hinsa]

Some communities are not willing to pay for it. In order to build better facilities, the taxpayers have to be willing to pay more. There are a lot of referendums out there that the people just don't pass when it comes to the voting. It is all up to how well the community wants to support its schools and programs.

You are absolutely right - the support must be there. Now I would wager that every town in America will say they want bigger and better facilities, but when it comes time to vote on mill levies it is very easy to go to the little cubical and fill in the box marked no. The thinking is, "I want it, but let someone else pay for it."

About the only way to pass a mill levy these days is by making sure there is something in the project for everyone. Passing a levy for a school only facility just doesn't fly these days, but if you put something in there for people other than those that are closely tied to the school the chances of passing increase dramatically: a library with cushy chairs, notebook PCs, and wifi access for all; a track that is minimally lit in the evening hours that the public is encouraged to use instead of city streets for running and walking; an addition to a gym with locker space designated for adult use with private showers for the public to use after their workout in the community exercise room (can be used as visitor locker space during events); and tons more.

This is the way that school administrations must think these days. They must think out of the box to garner votes from the general public. Our community is one of the lucky ones to have creative thinkers both in the school administration and in civic leaders. Our community has passed two projects in the last 15 years with a partnership between the school, business leaders, and the public. This partnership created enough support, JUST enough support in our last project - it passed by a whopping 4 votes, give or take a couple of absentee ballots - and now we continue to move forward as a progressive community.

Bottom line is this: if you are big or small, you need the support as Baller said. If you are small, you have to go digging for that support and be creative in the project and the financing thereof. And if all the dominos fall the right way, smalls can make facility growth happen.

[heimer]

Hey, so, I haven't had time to read this all that closely, but I've skimmed enough to try to add two decent cents.

I call games, I officiate. I am at the point now where I see well-coached teams, decently-coached teams, and teams that are still apt to call "5 second rushing, set hut" to start a play.

You can talk about money all you want, population all you want, blah blah blah, but here's the mother-loving problem.

There's two of them..........

Wait for it......

Wait for it......

Mom,

and

Dad.

if your school could hire a coach to instill real discipline, and if that coach was free to coach, safe from the interference of mom and dad, money would not play nearly the part it does.

I just heard a story from a coach in a different state about a happening during their football season. Coach was caught having an affair on his wife. The kids basically stopped playing for him till he was gone.

The kids held their coach to a higher standard. That's the kind of kid we need.

Problem is, every time a kid is held to a higher standard, he/she goes home and whines, and AD gets a call, and coach gets an uncomfortable visit about his job, which is supporting his/her family, and the level of performance expected from a team goes down.

And guess what happens to the win-loss percentage in the process.

Money and population will play a part, no question. Pride comes from a lot of sources, and facilities are a part of that.

But a great deal of teams that don't perform could if Mom and Dad would get out of the way.

[scoobyx2]

Many small schools are old and run down because that is the choice of the those who live in that school district. Kulm made a big decision to invest in a new school, and Maple Valley chose not to. Bismarck is getting a brand new state-of-the-art high school, but the voters in that school district came out and voted over 80% in favor of it. Bismarck wasn't just handed a new school by a state government. The residents agreed to pay more in taxes to fund it. Watford City is getting a brand new school after a success bond issue election. Williston voters turned it down several times before finally approving it despite serious crowding issues for years.

[Sportsrube]

Hey, so, I haven't had time to read this all that closely, but I've skimmed enough to try to add two decent cents.

I call games, I officiate. I am at the point now where I see well-coached teams, decently-coached teams, and teams that are still apt to call "5 second rushing, set hut" to start a play.

You can talk about money all you want, population all you want, blah blah blah, but here's the mother-loving problem.

There's two of them..........

Wait for it......

Wait for it......

Mom,

and

Dad.

if your school could hire a coach to instill real discipline, and if that coach was free to coach, safe from the interference of mom and dad, money would not play nearly the part it does.

I just heard a story from a coach in a different state about a happening during their football season. Coach was caught having an affair on his wife. The kids basically stopped playing for him till he was gone.

The kids held their coach to a higher standard. That's the kind of kid we need.

Problem is, every time a kid is held to a higher standard, he/she goes home and whines, and AD gets a call, and coach gets an uncomfortable visit about his job, which is supporting his/her family, and the level of performance expected from a team goes down.

And guess what happens to the win-loss percentage in the process.

Money and population will play a part, no question. Pride comes from a lot of sources, and facilities are a part of that.

But a great deal of teams that don't perform could if Mom and Dad would get out of the way.

Well said, unfortunately we have a number of parents who are trying to relive their youth thru their kids, or its a case of "the older I get, the better I used to be". Too many parents who think that if their little prodigy is a star that makes them better parents.

[RedDirtFan]

Instead of making a vague and debatable opening statement (at least as far as sports is concerned), I think you should have led off with "A has larger facilities and more availability within each school's curriculum."

As far as sports is concerned, there is no replicating a packed small gymnasium for a great class B basketball game. The fans are on the very edges of everything and it's the best setting in North Dakota sports, period. You can't fill a class A sized gymnasium that easily. Heck, the class B schools with larger and higher quality sporting facilities even fill up better than a lot of class A facilities for regular basketball games.

As far as the schools themselves are concerned when it comes to A versus B (and there really is no distinctive term that differentiates them a small school from a large school). For one thing, there are a large amount of small towns on the verge of dying out entirely, and keeping schools up and running in those communities might not even be something worth investing in. I don't like it, but it's inevitable so long as the overwhelming majority of the millenial generation shows no interest in a rural lifestyle. Only certain smaller communities are still seeing a regular influx of the 20something generation that will raise children in said communities.

It's an unfortunate and awful thing that's happening, but we also have to consider that smaller schools simply can't update so regularly and can't hire the necessary amount of teachers in order to have a large amount of elective courses available to the student body. It's just not feasible. At the same time, there's no guarantee that a kid at a larger school will get a better education than a kid at a smaller school. For the necessary courses, there's no reason a small school can't be just as good as a larger school. It all comes down to teacher quality, and there are a lot of great teachers at small schools. There simply isn't as much available to students outside of those necessary courses.

[north1]

What is increasingly getting on my nerves is the large increases in sales tax in larger communities to fund sports facilities. I travel 50+ miles to pay 6-8% in sales tax and my small local school can't even afford to have a track field, long jump pit, pole vault facilities, etc. So I am paying for facilities my children will never get to use and they are competing against athletes that have access to them. In high school I had to build my own long jump pit for a shop class project just to practice! Didn't kill me, and made me appreciate it's use more, but didn't get it completed until halfway through track season so it didn't offer me a great deal of training benefit.

[bequickdonthurry]

Public school should be considerably more even than it is right now. My property tax dollars go to help pay for some large school to pay for newer classes and opportunities to help kids get into college, while the kids in my own district will probably be stuck here.

Your sales and income tax dollars might be going to help pay for large school stuff, but your property taxes stay in your city/township, your county, and your school district.

[Indy5]

What is increasingly getting on my nerves is the large increases in sales tax in larger communities to fund sports facilities. I travel 50+ miles to pay 6-8% in sales tax and my small local school can't even afford to have a track field, long jump pit, pole vault facilities, etc. So I am paying for facilities my children will never get to use and they are competing against athletes that have access to them. In high school I had to build my own long jump pit for a shop class project just to practice! Didn't kill me, and made me appreciate it's use more, but didn't get it completed until halfway through track season so it didn't offer me a great deal of training benefit.

Why is that the fault of the larger cities with the sales taxes? They're trying to better themselves. They aren't responsible for a town 50 miles away.

[go maji]

Max just shot down a bond to improve infrastructure on their highschool. Would that deal with this issue?

[north1]

Exactly, I don't expect them to pay for facilities in my community, so why should I pay increased sales tax to fund their athletic facilities, just because they have a pair of work boots or whatever in a store in that city? You can say, well you don't have to shop there. Yes, true, but when it is the only major city to buy supplies in a 100 mile radius, it leaves you little choice.

[scoobyx2]

Exactly, I don't expect them to pay for facilities in my community, so why should I pay increased sales tax to fund their athletic facilities, just because they have a pair of work boots or whatever in a store in that city? You can say, well you don't have to shop there. Yes, true, but when it is the only major city to buy supplies in a 100 mile radius, it leaves you little choice.

I haven't ever heard of a local sales tax being allotted to fund a school. Do you have an example of that? Generally, local sales taxes are used to fund city-owned facilities like the FargoDome or the Bismarck Events Center. Schools are generally paid for with property taxes and bond issues associated with property.

[ndlionsfan]

Exactly, I don't expect them to pay for facilities in my community, so why should I pay increased sales tax to fund their athletic facilities, just because they have a pair of work boots or whatever in a store in that city? You can say, well you don't have to shop there. Yes, true, but when it is the only major city to buy supplies in a 100 mile radius, it leaves you little choice.

I haven't ever heard of a local sales tax being allotted to fund a school. Do you have an example of that? Generally, local sales taxes are used to fund city-owned facilities like the FargoDome or the Bismarck Events Center. Schools are generally paid for with property taxes and bond issues associated with property.

That is what I was thinking, too. I have read in the paper that Hillsboro funded their event center partly with a city sales tax, but the building cost was split between the school and the city as its a shared use facility.

[north1]

Sorry, I should have explained myself better. I know schools don't use sales tax for their facilities. I am talking about sports training facilities shared by schools in larger metro areas. This would include baseball/softball fields, sports training and enhancement facilities with indoor basketball courts, etc. The YMCA is for that sort of thing, I don't need to pay for these facilities with my hard earned money with no benefit to my local community or to children in local schools in my area. Their excuse is adults use them too, but who is going to drive 50+ miles on a regular basis for training or use, whether they be students or adults? They need to be funded locally via increased property taxes, privately, and/or with shared funding with schools in that city.

[scoobyx2]

Sorry, I should have explained myself better. I know schools don't use sales tax for their facilities. I am talking about sports training facilities shared by schools in larger metro areas. This would include baseball/softball fields, sports training and enhancement facilities with indoor basketball courts, etc. The YMCA is for that sort of thing, I don't need to pay for these facilities with my hard earned money with no benefit to my local community or to children in local schools in my area. Their excuse is adults use them too, but who is going to drive 50+ miles on a regular basis for training or use, whether they be students or adults? They need to be funded locally via increased property taxes, privately, and/or with shared funding with schools in that city.

I can assure you that the Y is not funded thru the city sales tax. There is a $55+ monthly fee for families, and there is an extensive fundraising campaign to pay for maintenance, expansions, etc. The schools do not get to use those facilities for free, and the school sets up agreements and actually pays to use city facilities like ball diamonds and football fields. As for acceleration training centers, there is a minimum of $150/month fee and are privately run businesses. City kids do have opportunities, but they pay for them. They aren't funded by shoppers from rural communities. Cost to compete is definitely a disadvantage of kids in larger communities.