Subject: Connection article on Clifton Lawsuit

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=343440&paper=88&cat=104

Clifton Gets Creative To Keep School Open

Community will pursue legal, political and historic preservation options.

 

By Julia O’Donoghue Thursday, August 12, 2010

 

The Fairfax County School Board may have voted to close Clifton Elementary on July 8 but the local community said the school fight is far from over.

 

A group of families directly affected by the decision filed a lawsuit against the school system Aug. 9. Approximately 100 people also gathered at the Town of Clifton’s Town Hall Aug. 2 to discuss alternative for keeping the school open, including starting a Clifton Elementary charter school.

 

Ideally, the community would like to see the School Board take another vote to reverse the Clifton closure. The school system plans to operate Clifton for at least the 2010-11 school year. If new construction is needed to accommodate the Clifton students at another campus, the school could remain open beyond next summer. 

“That school is still open right now and, as long as that school is still open, it is not over. … This is going to play out over the next school year. Strap yourselves in for a year of working together to make it happen,” said Clifton Mayor William Hollaway to the crowd at the town hall meeting.

 

THE SCHOOL BOARD’S final vote on the Clifton closure tallied 9-2, with only School Board members Tina Hone (At-large) and Sandy Evans (Mason) voting against closing the school.

 

But Hollaway said the number of Clifton supporters on the School Board is actually higher than the final vote indicated.

 

Even though they ultimately voted to close the school, at-large School Board members Ilryong Moon and Jim Raney had joined Hone and Evans in voting for a motion to delay shuttering Clifton for a few years. School Board Member Patty Reed (Providence) was not present for the vote but has also said she would have also supported a delay in the decision. 

 

“The five School Board members that supported us are continuing to work with us on this issue,” said Halloway.

 

With five School Board members supporting Clifton, the community only needs two more people on the School Board to change their minds about closing the school.

 

“Two or three votes would change this situation completely,” said Halloway.

 

CLIFTON SCHOOL advocates plan to talk to current School Board members who might be open to changing their minds about the closure. They said two pieces of information that have come out since the July 8 decision could be enough to change some School Board members’ minds about keeping the school open.

 

In mid-July, the school system released a report that showed water from a third well on the school’s grounds was safe to drink. The specter of unsafe drinking water was raised repeatedly during the discussion of Clifton’s closure and may have swayed some School Board members to vote against the school, said several Clifton supporters.

 

Several School Board members who supported the closure said concerns over the water system were not a primary reason for closing the school. Dean Tistadt, the school system’s chief operating officer, had also told the School Board on the night of the vote that water safety should not be a factor in their decision.

 

“No, I don’t think that report would have changed my decision,” said School Board Member Liz Bradsher (Springfield), when asked about the water test results. 

 

Bradsher, Clifton’s representative on the board, was among those who voted to close the school.

 

ACCORDING TO CLIFTON residents, the elementary school’s enrollment for next year, more than 370 children, also casts doubt on the school system’s assertion that the student population would decline dramatically.

 

“Next year, we will have more students enrolled at Clifton than we did last year,” said Patti Hopkins, Clifton’s PTA president.

The school system staff had predicted that less than 300 students would attend Clifton four years from now. The small student population was one of the reasons the building renovation costs per student would be much higher at Clifton than most other elementary schools, said Tistadt.

 

Still, several School Board members said they saw no reason not to trust staff’s enrollment projections, particularly since the Clifton boundary, which includes parts of Fairfax Station and Fairfax, has one of the most stable and static housing stocks of any community in the county.

 

IF CLIFTON SUPPORTERS are unable to convince current School Board members to reconsider closing the school, they would try to change the make up of the elected body in the November 2011 election cycle.

“We could be bringing this back to an entirely new school board. There would be a few new and some old members, like maybe Stu Gibson, would be gone,” said Hollaway.

 

Several people attending the Aug. 2 meeting made references to “draining the swamp” of the School Board. A few people said they would be interested in raising enough money to do “major media buys” for challengers to some current School Board members.

 

Clifton residents appeared particularly intent on voting out their own representative, Bradsher, who ultimately sponsored the motion to close Clifton.

“These are people that were elected by our money, our phone calls, our votes … by fund-raisers held at my house for them,” said Clifton resident Elizabeth Schultz.

 

SCHULTZ is heading up the efforts to get Clifton Elementary included in the town’s historic district. A historic designation would not force the school system to keep the building open as a school but it could delay Clifton’s closing until after the November 2011 elections.

 

“Anything that buys us time. … Once that building is placed into the [historic district], we trigger all sorts of protections. Putting that [historic preservation] package through the process takes time,” said Schultz.

To really change the make up of the School Board, Clifton would also have to gain sympathy from county residents who are not directly affected by the school’s closure.

 

Hopkins said the Clifton community must use the upcoming boundary study for elementary schools in western and southern Fairfax County to draw attention to their issue.

 

“We could use the boundary study to our advantage,” said Hopkins.

 

Supervisor Patrick Herrity (R-Springfield) said convincing residents in other parts of the county to vote the current School Board members out of office might be easier than Clifton residents think. The School Board has upset a wide variety of people in recent decisions, he said.

 

“There is an effort underway to go back to an appointed School Board. … The Board of Supervisors is upset with the School Board and the citizens are upset with the School Board,” said Herrity.

 

SEVERAL CLIFTON RESIDENTS attending the Aug. 2 meeting were also in favor of pursuing a lawsuit against the school system.

 

“There are a lot of good lawyers who think we have a good case,” said Richard Pratt, a lawyer at Troutman Sanders law firm and a Clifton parent.

 

Pratt said some Virginia cases support Clifton’s claim as “aggrieved parents,” though there are also similar cases that have been dismissed by judges recently. 

Parents at both Graham Road Elementary School, which was recently closed, and those who were moved into South Lakes High School boundary in 2008 both tried to sue the Fairfax County school system. But the two cases were dismissed rather quickly.

 

“Ultimately, these cases are very hard to win,” said Hollaway.

 

Still, lawyers have told Hollaway that Clifton’s case may be stronger than the Graham Road or South Lakes’ suits because the School Board voted to close the school without giving any indication about where Clifton students would go to school instead.

 

And even if it isn’t ultimately won, the lawsuit might also put pressure on the School Board to reconsider closing Clifton. The legal action could also keep Clifton Elementary open and buy the community enough time to elect new School Board members in 2011, said Pratt.

 

IF ALL OTHER efforts failed, the Clifton community could also pursue starting up a charter school on the current campus, said Dwayne Nitz, a member of the Clifton Town Council.

 

“There is a need for us to take lots of different approaches,” said Nitz.

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), in particular, has been very supportive of the charter school movement and is interested in making Virginia more friendly to charters, privately-run schools that are allocated public funds and don’t charge tuition.

According to Nitz, McDonnell would be interested in seeing a charter open in Fairfax County as well as other parts of the commonwealth.

 

But charter schools ultimately have an uphill battle in Virginia, according to several people who support charters. It is likely that any charter school to open at Clifton would ultimately need the approval of the Fairfax County School Board, which has a financial stake in keeping charters at bay.

 

In general, traditional school boards have been resistant to approving charter school applications, since charters compete for funding and students with the traditional public school system those school boards oversee. Most other states with a robust charter school movement have set up an independent “chartering authority” that often looks like a second school board and decides which charter proposals to approve.

 

But the Virginia constitution makes it difficult to set up an independent chartering authority in the commonwealth, since it explicitly states that local school boards have the ultimate say in all public school decisions, said charter school advocates.

Comments(0)

BEWARE…YOUR child could be next!
Mommies & Daddies - tuck your kiddies away…she’s on the prowl…the boundary study is C-O-M-I-N-G!
Attachments:

Comments(0)

IS SHE A HITMAN ON THE SIDE? THIS IS NO LADY.

More Bradsher – “[I’ll] cripple you … at the knees”

 

Hat tip to Pat Herrity for pointing this out to me – yesterday’s Barbara Hollingsworth Op/Ed in the Washington Examiner had a gem of a quote from Springfield District School Board Member Liz Bradsher, of the Clifton Elementary closing scandal fame.  Catherine Lorenze, Communications Director of the Fairfax Education Coalition told Hollingsworth that Bradsher phoned Lorenze after the vote threatening that she would “cripple you and FEC at the knees.”   Nothing like an elected official attacking a constituent for disagreeing with her on a vote.  Sounds to me like Bradsher is confused about where she lives – she’s from south county Fairfax, not the south side of Chicago.

In her defense, Hollingsworth reported that Bradsher denied the threats but she also reiterated that she stands firmly behind her flawed vote against her own constituents to close Clifton Elementary.  The problem is that the threat is far more credible than the denial.  This is the same woman who threatened a 16 year old boy “you better watch where you step” at a Back to School Night three years ago.  Her temper has been well documented.  Here’s some audio (1) and (2), provided by Not Larry Sabato.  Is this really the kind of person we want sitting on the School Board? Someone with skin so thin she can’t take the criticism of a 16 year old?

The Clifton Elementary scandal has continued to gain steam, with Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity being the latest elected official to call out the Board for their short sighted and unjustified vote.   He began his newsletter stating, “In another demonstration of being out of touch with reality and common sense, the School Board voted last Thursday night to close Clifton Elementary School. I believe that their vote was misguided and wasteful.  Judging from the tears on the faces of the children and many of the parents at the hearing and over the last several days, the impact of the decision will be devastating to the children, residents and businesses of Clifton.”

Supervisor Herrity went on to explode all of the arguments the FCPS and the School Board put forward to justify their closing the school and asked a number of key unanswered questions, not the least of which is where the students who currently attend Clifton are going to go – a question that has, remarkably, not yet been answered by the School Board.

Liz Bradsher seems to think that she represents the school system, not the voters of Springfield District who elected her.  The entire point of having an elected school board is to hold the school system accountable to the voters – not to the staff of the FCPS.  Bradsher seems to have forgotten who she represents.  There aren’t many things more unseemly than hearing of an elected official threatening – even politically – one of their constituents.

I think it’s pretty clear that it’s time for a change in Springfield on the School Board.

 

Comments(0)

To all parents and students in Fairfax County,

As I have previously posted, I watched with interest (and heartbreak) the farce the other night on cable. My heart goes out to you. As I had (unfortunately) predicted, BRADSHER was a traitor. While elected to represent you (and WSHS), she only advocates for her South County “Stepford Wives” community. COMMUNITY . . .what an interesting word. Bradsher was willing to move heaven and earth to support a “COMMUNITY SCHOOL” in SOCO . . .witness the SOCO Middle School (a totally new school vice an add-on to SOCO Secondary because her little darlings “DESERVE”–their words, a middle school). Witness Laurel Hill. (another COMMUNITY school . . .what a UNIQUE concept). Spend those taxpayer dollars, Lizzie, for YOUR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, but who cares about the rest of the COMMUNITY that you SUPPOSEDLY represent??!! I bet you don’t even have the courage to read these posts!!!
”
I also laughed (as many of you did) when her “brilliant daughter” sent her a text re: water quality issues at Clifton which she then presents as “fact.” A SOCO student (a qualified expert, of course) relaying facts about Clifton’s water issues.

TIME TO CASHIER BRADSHER! (and again, I don’t have a kid in this fight). I am just an “interested observer” who has been watching Bradsher’s hypocrisy of SOCO support vice Clifton and WSHS . . .(or as Lizzie might say . . .CLIFTON AND WSHS WHO??????) What happened to representing the interests of the people you represent, Lizzie? Kudos to Tina Hone!!!!!

 

Comments(0)

“Daddy Ball” alive and well at SCSS

Posted by: BaseballFan ()

Date: April 19, 2010 10:09AM

I always thought that dads being in charge of running baseball teams and making sure their kid played the most, or in the prime positions, ended in little league. Maybe a little ways into middle school babe ruth or travel teams, but never would I expect to see a FCPS team allow the parent of an active student athlete be directly involved in the coaching of that student’s team, much less be the head coach in charge of that team and in determining playing time. “Daddy Ball” is what we called it at age 12, and apparently it is alive and well in the high school ranks at SCSS.

While attending the WSHS JV Baseball game this weekend against the visiting SCSS team, I overheard all sorts of talk by fans from both teams’ bleachers about the first baseman of SCSS’s JV team, who also happens to be the head coach’s son. According to the fans, the coach has played his son in every game so far this season despite a .000 batting avg, and only reaching base once in 12+ plate appearances. All the while he lets 3 or 4 other kids sit on the bench with little to no action. Who knows, maybe they have somehow proven their stats would be worse than that if given the same number of plate appearances. The talking did not end there though. Apparently this same coach has run a travel baseball team for the last 2 years and all 10 of the SCSS students on that team made the JV team as freshmen this year and get the overwhelming majority of the playing time. An entirely freshman JV team, how does that happen?

But wait, there’s more. Apparently there are three more dads, all involved as assistant coaches in the Varsity program at SCSS, that also have a player already in the program or one coming up in the next year or two. Is this common in high school sports now? Do dads really go and get coaching jobs at their son’s school so they can continue the tradition of “Daddy Ball” from little league? It appears that is the case at SCSS. I have to admit, I do not know these coaches and they are probably all superb coaches, and their son’s great players, though I saw nothing remarkable from either at the WSHS JV game this weekend. But why on earth would they want their credibility or integrity as a coach put into question by being directly involved in the coaching or the active roster decision process for a team in which their son is playing on? Why would SCSS’s Athletic Director want do the same by hiring someone as a coach with a clearly direct conflict of interest like this in the first place? In little league I understand it happens as there are too few willing to step up and volunteer to coach, but at the High School level? I am surprised the Athletic Director, FCPS or VHSL would even allow it to happen.

Unfortunately, if this coach is really giving favoritism to players, including his own son, based on his past experience with them on a travel team or any other reason but for their pure playing ability, effort in practice or achievement on the field then I fear the near term future of the Varsity program at SCSS, the reputation of SCSS’s Athletic Director and even FCPS are all at risk for failure, or continued failure as may already be the case. The same goes for the other 3 dad coaches at SCSS and any decisions they are making on the field. What was most depressing for me though was that I simply wandered over to go watch some good baseball along with everyone else that was there. Unfortunately, I was apparently only watching a good game of “Daddy Ball”. WSHS won, daddy lost, just in case you were wondering.

Comments(0)

 

If you care about HS sports, please read the below: 

 

As you know, the school board is discussing eliminating Freshman sports, winter cheer, 50% of swim and dive and more.  They also want to charge a $100 fee per athlete per season and send that money to the general fund rather than keeping it in athletics.  The Athletic Council has developed an official position on this.  Please e-mail every single school board member by this Wednesday backing the Athletic Council’s position.  This will take you a few minutes and as FFC taxpayers we all need to take the time to serve  our athletic community.

Contact info for School Board members:

http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/members.htm

 

The school board members below have shown thus far that they are not committed to our position on saving freshman sports and keeping any fees in the athletic departments rather than the general fund.  PLEASE LET THESE PEOPLE HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR!

Stuart Gibson- Hunter Mill District

Jim Raney- At Large

Brad Center- Lee District…………………..key!

 Kathy Smith- Sully District

Tessie Wilson- Braddock District

Jane Strauss- Dranesville District

Thanks-

 

Comments(0)

Information you need to know:

Here is additional information from the FEC’s budget chair:

The athletic participation fee of $100 in reality would raise much more than the $0.9 million/year that Dale is proposing, unless FCPS cut winter track, winter cheer, and frosh teams. Basically, the 100/kid fee probably would raise $1.5 million to $2 million/year.

What would be FAIR would be for any of those fees to be used solely to defray the cost of the high school sports, rather than allowing Dale to use it to pay some curriculum coordinators. I agree with the Athletic Booster parents that families who pay $100 per sport will be less generous in donating money to their Athletic Boosters. All that Athletic Booster money is what pays for uniforms, equipment, etc.

Stop Dale now.

 

www.fairnessinschoolsports

 

 

 

Comments(0)

FYI, please read: 

The new FEC (Fairfax Education Coalition) is a merger of all the old parent advocacy groups and has bonded together on this issue and has spent countless hours studying the school budget and preparing an ”alternative budget.”  The alternative budget cuts 10% of the administration before cutting programs or increasing class size. The alternative budget was described on WTOP (Thursday evening) by one of the leaders of FEC and was also presented to the school board last week. You will hear more about it in the coming weeks. Please feel free to share these ideas and concepts with friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues.

Alternative Budget Highlights:

 

FCPS should make a minimum 10% cut to administrative overhead first before cutting popular programs or increasing class size.   

In the past six years, FCPS enrollment has increased nearly 5% while FCPS Administrative spending has increased nearly 29%.   Despite FCPS’ claims, growth has not been proportional to spending increases.

The public wants to move forward in partnership with FCPS on the budget, but FCPS administration must share more of the pain first. Dr. Dale has proposed cutting many of the programs that make Fairfax County Public Schools the best in the nation.  Rather than cutting these programs, the FCPS Administration needs to share more of the pain before asking the public to advocate for more funds from the Board of Supervisors.

FCPS’ claims on proposed Administration cuts are misleading.   FCPS central administration cuts have been 15% over the past two years.  5% in 2009 and 10% in 2010.  Add in the proposed 5% for 2011 and that is how the Superintendent is publicly claiming 20% over three years.  Importantly, Dale’s proposed 5% central administration cuts simply bring central staffing figures down to roughly FY04 levels.

Furthermore, the 5% proposed cut a 5% cut to the number of central staff positions – not a 5% cut in FCPS actual dollars budgeted.   

Close examination of Dr. Dale’s proposal further reveals that proposed cuts are actually less than the 5% Dr. Dale claims because most of the central staff office positions being eliminated are lower-paid employees. Of the 70 central staff positions the Superintendent has identified for elimination, over 1/3 are blue collar workers who keep our schools repaired - not the six-figure paid, middle managers whose impact on the classroom is of dubious value.

This issue is about spending priorities.

-The Superintendent’s Operating Expenses budget, which does not include salaries, has seen inexplicable and enormous growth: 

FY 2008:  $2.4 million

FY 2009:  $5.3 million

FY 2010:  $4.1 million

Many elementary classrooms are already at the tipping point with over 33 students per class.   FCPS needs to RE-SIZE not SUPER-SIZE classes.  Parents and teachers want resources focused on teachers and the classrooms first.  

Dr. Dale has proposed cutting indoor winter track, which serves nearly 3000 students and would be an almost cost-neutral program once the proposed $100/per student participation fees are implemented.  Why is a nearly cost-neutral program that serves so many students on the chopping block?

The Superintendent is taking a chain saw to the programs parents and taxpayers want - sports, languages, music, full-day kindergarten.  This isn’t selective pruning.  Dale is taking down the entire tree and threatening FCPS’ reputation.  

A lean regime is possible at FCPS Headquarters:  

FCPS Central Administration has 2000 employees in 11 departments whose salaries and benefits account for $400 million of the $2.2 BILLION budget.  

-Cutting just 10% of these central staffers would save FCPS $40 million.  

-Cutting 15% of these central staffers would save FCPS $60 million.  

-FCPS has more assistant principals than surrounding school districts.  

-We have a communications department with 11 dedicated communications personnel.  Contrast that number with the fact that each of our own US Senators has just two communications people to our entire state.  

-Our instruction services department has hundreds of staffers that teachers say have limited to no impact on the classroom.

-FCPS has twice as many assistant principals as Virginia accreditation standards require.

FCPS comparisons to neighboring school districts no longer apply:  

FCPS officials say we are in line neighboring school districts for administration/student ratios.  In fact, we have more assistant principals than surrounding jurisdictions.  Furthermore, we really can’t continue to compare apples to apples with Montgomery County.  We’re facing a $176 million budget gap. Montgomery County is not. 

Fight for the LCI: 

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and FCPS School Board are rightfully advocating for the state to recalculate the Local Composite Index (LCI), as was scheduled, so that Fairfax County receives the $61 million is it owed.  Obtaining these funds will significantly reduce the FCPS budget gap.  Furthermore, Fairfax County is affected, to a greater extent than the rest of the state, by factors including high special ed and immigrant/ESOL populations whose needs strain resources.  Historically, Fairfax County has argued that the LCI formula should be revised to consider these factors.  We ask Governor McDonnell and the state to take these factors into account when making their decision.

FCPS must develop a long-term budget strategy.  

A recent survey conducted for FCPS by the District Management Council demonstrated that stakeholders are concerned about FCPS’ spending priorities and the public wasn’t pleased with how officials resolved last year’s budget.  At a time when the Superintendent was claiming budget difficulties, Dale actively pursued spending $130 million for a second building to house FCPS Administrators – a plan later voted down by the Board of Supervisors due to public outcry and a poorly prepared FCPS business case. 

The process and strategy adopted by this Superintendent of pitting programs and parent groups against each other is also ineffective.  The public wants a transparent plan that demonstrates sound fiscal leadership and lays out expectations, spending projections and obligations for the following year.

 

Comments(0)

See what Dale is doing now, 

Budget, budget and more budget cuts.  FCPS is up to their old tricks of dividing to conquer.  They said they were going to have to cut freshman sports, paying for AP and IB exams, all day K, immersion programs etc.  Now all these groups are circulating petitions and holding rallies and I am afraid FCPS is going to use all this confusion to pass a budget that protects their precious administrative positions.

If Dale cuts a program, then he must cut staff. If he charges for tests, then he must cut his staffs pay by ten percent.

He needs to pay the price for his many years of mismanagement.

Comments(0)

 

Pinkman Baseball Academy October 2009 The Pressures of Off Season Training  John Pinkman This is a very sensitive subject; a subject that can and has been misunderstood. We are only addressing this letter to our student families and no other entities. There are many fine men coaching in public school for very little compensation. They are passionate about doing the right thing. However, each fall (for more than 10 years) parents who have brought their children to us for years and whose children have reached or who are approaching high school age, come to us and say the high school coach requires that they send their child to where the coach is working in the winter. They are upset and conflicted. It happens every year. The conversations, even the words, do not vary from year to year. It is remarkable how similar the stories are shared by people who do not even know each other. For just as many years all coaches adamantly deny that this policy exists in their program. Some are right; some are obviously not. I want to express our opinion. I want to do it in a fair way, recognizing that we have both a  responsibility to our student athlete families and a responsibility as a business. You should by now completely understand our business values. If not, please refer to our Mission Statement and Core Values posted on our web site. We are also very secure in our teaching performance and professional credibility. We have been comfortable with business competition as long as the playing field is level. For a long time this has not been the case; players have been coerced in many subtle and overt ways by some high school coaches to attend specific academies with varying personal motivations. A reasonable person would conclude that a player should go to a teacher who can provide the best results, thereby helping the team. Although some might disagree, we believe that personal skill development in the off season is a higher priority than “esprit de corps,” especially when you have to pay for the experience. The subject of winter training has become more complicated and volatile in the past few years. Parents have echoed the term “coaching conflict of interest”. In the past parents would cover themselves politically and send the players to the high school workout and ours as well. These days money is a bit tighter. The combination of travel team expenses and two winter training sessions makes that decision financially more difficult to impossible. There are several issues here. First, players often misunderstand the coach’s meaning when he says that he wants the player to workout with the team. A young man who desperately wants to make the team can easily interpret compliance with coaching options as a mandatory request. Some coaches know this and leverage that pressure. Others go out of their way to remove that pressure from the student. Next, there are those coaches who have a very good reason to bring the players together in the off season; they want to build a better team. The problem is that the Virginia League, the governing body of public school sports rules, says coaches cannot do that. While we disagree with this rule, as businessmen we recognize it. It should come as no surprise that there are those who seek to circumvent the rule. If the rules were different allowing coaches to work with their players all year long, we would operate our school in a much different manner, but they are not. However, there are coaches who, for personal benefit, require players to attend practice sessions at locations where they are employed. I doubt there is a coach who would actually instruct you (the parent) to attend certain training. There are some however, who would say that to your child when you are not present, directly or by innuendo. Either way your child will feel the pressure. Fairfax County Public Schools has fired coaches who have violated the rules. They have recently hired outside consultants to investigate this behavior, but parents tell us that administrative pressure has done little to change some coaching behavior. After all these years this has become is an institutionalized culture and will not likely change; some coaches will always coerce players to attend their personal workout sessions. Fairfax County Public Schools apparently cannot or will not do what is necessary to change the culture they have allowed to perpetuate. It would be futile (for us) to try to effect change. However, in the long run this plan has not served them well. Many schools who previously had dozens of students trying out now find themselves with more uniforms than applicants. But there is a much bigger issue here than who trains your child. It is embodied in the simple phrase “the end does not justify the means”. Every year nervous parents call us pleading for advice. We have tried to remain politically correct. Obliviously that hasn’t worked.  Each year we witness dozens of our loyal students forced to attend training that they themselves describe as “a complete waste of time”. You may now (or someday in the future) have to confront the belief -real, subtle, or imagined - that if you do not submit to the pressure to send your child to a particular location he will not make the team. Quotes like: “We have to stay under the coach’s nose” and “If he doesn’t go to the coach’s workout he will get cut” are legendary at this time of year. If you submit to this kind of thinking you are very definitely teaching your child that the end justifies the means. In some manner you will have to say, “I know this is not right, the values are wrong, but we have to do this anyway”. With the exception of this letter, we have always taken the high road and told parents to do what they think is in the best interest of their son or daughter. I personally believe that the best plan is to send the student to a school that is dedicated to teaching new information, not practicing last year’s skill. Playing politics by staying under the  coach nose and continuing to demonstrate a lack of skill is pointless. The primary goal of high school sports should focus on learning and improving. Great coaches recognize that. Here Are Some Guidelines: Choose to attend the school in which you are confident that your child will receive excellent training and the best athletic education for the money spent. That is all that matters. If you think there is a misunderstanding, you - not your child - should ask the coach for clarification. If you believe that pressure is being placed on your family to attend a specific school for the wrong reason, ignore it. If you feel that you are being coerced to attend off season training you should have the moral courage to walk into the office and inform the principal. We realize that this circumstance is at best uncomfortable and not of your choosing. It is however one of the toughest decisions we as parents must face. We must have the courage to do what we know is right or basically by our actions tell our children that the end does justify the means.

Comments(0)