ndlionsfan wrote:what does this have to do with anything? One example of a consolidated school that has had success. There are thousands more examples of this and thousands more also of small schools that are alone that have had success.
ndlionsfan wrote:We know your opinion on this subject and that you would like there to only be 20 schools spread out across rural ND. I don't like co-ops either and think most of them are unnecessary, but consolidation is not the answer for everything. Have some worked out great? Of course. But there are also some that have been disasters and destroyed communities. Those decisions need to be left up to the locals and not pushed by the state as you would like. With the technology available this day and age, learning is not hampered by going to a small school. There are other advantages/disadvantages of both large and small schools and a person just has to decide what is the right match for their kids.
If you take a hoopster from 30 years ago and look at the enrollments, there were dozens of schools that had 30-40 kids in HS that still fielded competitive teams on their own. Back then every kid played. Now schools that have twice that much in HS need to co-op with other schools or similar size just to field teams because kids just don't participate like they used to. Yes enrollments have declined in many schools, but the bigger issue is getting kids to get off their butts and doing something, not that schools are too small.
The Schwab wrote:I will reply to point 3, drive through a town that has "lost" its school and tell me how many of them are still thriving.
winner-within wrote:ndlionsfan wrote:We know your opinion on this subject and that you would like there to only be 20 schools spread out across rural ND. I don't like co-ops either and think most of them are unnecessary, but consolidation is not the answer for everything. Have some worked out great? Of course. But there are also some that have been disasters and destroyed communities. Those decisions need to be left up to the locals and not pushed by the state as you would like. With the technology available this day and age, learning is not hampered by going to a small school. There are other advantages/disadvantages of both large and small schools and a person just has to decide what is the right match for their kids.
If you take a hoopster from 30 years ago and look at the enrollments, there were dozens of schools that had 30-40 kids in HS that still fielded competitive teams on their own. Back then every kid played. Now schools that have twice that much in HS need to co-op with other schools or similar size just to field teams because kids just don't participate like they used to. Yes enrollments have declined in many schools, but the bigger issue is getting kids to get off their butts and doing something, not that schools are too small.
1. first off when did I say I wanted 20 schools???.....
obviously an exaggeration, but you get my point
2. most co-ops are unnecessary? I thought they were the alternative (quick fix) to a true consolidation??
I don't understand this "alternative quick fix", but I think there are quite a few co-ops that could be dissolved and both teams could survive on their own if they knew they had to.
3. when did a consolidation destroy a community?
Go to Sheyenne....they consolidated a few years back with NR with the idea that an elementary school would still be in Sheyenne. That lasted one year and the consolidated board shut it down. There are other examples like this, but like I said there are other examples where it has worked great (Midway, Central Valley, etc.)
4. no one needs to push... believe me if the State legislature took some revenue (like the did this year for tax relief and giving the schools more for each student) and said now here is some assistance for a NEW SCHOOL to be built you wouldn't need a push....you would just have to find help to move the computers and desks in.
I agree with this and think the state should do it. There would be communities whose schools need a lot of work to be accessible, up to date with technology, run efficiently, etc and that would spur them to look at going with other local communities to make this happen. But there are a lot of towns in which that just won't work.
5. its hard to decide if you want your child in a newer bigger more advanced setting when you farm or ranch in the middle of ND....you cant just pull stakes and go ..
My kids go to a school with an average of 10/grade and full co-ops in sports. I think its an advantage and am definitely not for sending my kids 30 miles to school each day with an more than 2 hours a day spent on a bus as the alternative.
6. and I will tell you for certain "NOT EVERY KID PLAYED BACK THEN" let alone went out we had twelve on the roster, six played all from one of the two consolidated towns...our town.....fans were true from both towns regardless..![]()
Of course not every kid, but you look at the small schools with their own teams and percentage of participation was much higher. There are only 3-4 schools that size in the state still competing on their own.
7. there are more kids off their butts doing camps lifting weights and joining an extracurricular than there has ever been...30 years ago you went home and picked rocks and hauled bails and did chores....might be less of that but there is WAY MORE focus on activities than ever...
There's way more opportunities to improve yourself but there are way less kids actually taking part. I don't know how you can argue against that.
your post is exactly why we build advanced institutions on the prairies.....every thing in rural ND is advancing immensely as we speak...except our Schools....in Fargo Bis Minot West Fargo GF's Mandan Williston, Grafton this is simply not the case....they are getting it all
small town schools are advancing just as much. I graduated from the same school I send my kids to. 15 years ago it was almost twice the size enrollment, but today my kids have twice the opportunities there than were offered to me. how is that not advancing?
There's way more opportunities to improve yourself but there are way less kids actually taking part. I don't know how you can argue against that.
winner-within wrote:Favors Deeper teams??... (sillier IMO) ....its time to get deeper, and in better condition... its time to move on, move forward, and play Basketball and not worry about the Nostalgia of Class B....remember this Forum wasnt started to preserve anything, and Class B Basketball of ND wasn't started with a Bill of Rights and Amendments that things would never differ from the start up. Its already completely different than it ever was and Like Milnor showed this March (and it was epic to the contrary) That you show up as a team and play hard and smart and unselfish and no glamour or hype and you WIN...thats what is important and reminiscent of any dream of a young player who sets out to play class B.
Flip wrote:winner-within wrote:Favors Deeper teams??... (sillier IMO) ....its time to get deeper, and in better condition... its time to move on, move forward, and play Basketball and not worry about the Nostalgia of Class B....remember this Forum wasnt started to preserve anything, and Class B Basketball of ND wasn't started with a Bill of Rights and Amendments that things would never differ from the start up. Its already completely different than it ever was and Like Milnor showed this March (and it was epic to the contrary) That you show up as a team and play hard and smart and unselfish and no glamour or hype and you WIN...thats what is important and reminiscent of any dream of a young player who sets out to play class B.
winner-within wrote:I've never used the word sillier in my life
ndlions fan...I dont know where you live, but its not in ND....and remember your the one who jumped ME about MY topic....and flip....find a job
The Schwab wrote:I will reply to point 3, drive through a town that has "lost" its school and tell me how many of them are still thriving.
winner-within wrote:The Schwab wrote:I will reply to point 3, drive through a town that has "lost" its school and tell me how many of them are still thriving.
when ever you want to drive let me know
ndlionsfan wrote:yes, the less participation is the reason for co-ops. Why do I think a lot are unnecessary? If you have 60 kids in high and assume half are boys, out of the 30 you should be able to field a team. But due to low participation many schools this size are forced to co-op because kids just don't want to put in the effort or have the pride to represent their school/community. If they knew a co-op was not an option, maybe it would get more out for the sport. Maybe more kids would feel the need to represent their school, maybe it would push the coaches just a bit harder to recruit the kids from within the school, maybe get the parents to encourage and work with their kids more, etc.
Also, you have said it before as well, once a co-op happens the number of kids participating from each school drops fast. You might have 15 kids from each playing to start to get a team of 30, but within a year or two that number is down to 20.
ndlionsfan wrote:Winner, you've said it yourself. You talked about the Tri-County coop and how it was a bad idea. You said it started out with 30+ kids and dissolved a few years later because lack of numbers. This was because kids had to work to earn their playing time and wasn't handed to them when the numbers were smaller at the individuals schools. How are the numbers at Midway-Minto compared to when they were separate or when that co-op started? How about the Valley-Edinburg-Drayton, etc.? I know Valley and Edinburg is consolidated now, but Drayton has been bouncing around and I'm sure that has hurt the participation from that school. If Walhalla and Pembina-Neche were separate, would more kids be playing from each school?
ndlionsfan wrote:I'm not going back to find it, but it was a while ago. I don't even know what the original topic would be.
Return to Open Topics - Sports and other things
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests