A high school for high level hockey players in Minnesota. Three hours of hockey training in the morning and online academics in the afternoon. I can see it now "Todd Graham High School" and "GrahamHighSchool.com". Certainly could see someone wanting taxpayer dollars going to a charter school like this in Texas.

http://www.mngirlshockeyhub.com/news_art...how/348591

This is a very important development in education but it's already begun in Texas and a lot of other states. I know of a lot of parents in my community who send their kids to Logos Prep Academy - which is a combination of home-schooling and a traditional school environment a couple of days a week.

Ostensibly, they're doing it for a better education. But I really get the sense that many do it because it allows their children to be able to devote more time to their extracurricular activities (usually sports but not always). I know that at least 2 or 3 of our best swimmers on my girls year-round swim team go to this school. And they're the ones who can make the most practices without conflicts, just because their school days are so much shorter than other kids.

But I do hear good things about the education they receive from Logos, to be fair.

http://logosprep.org/

Few of you will be surprised to learn that libertarian me sees absolutely nothing wrong with this--as long as they get the education, which does not seem to be a problem.

I think it is ripe for abuse (i.e. not educating kids), but this has been around for a while. Nick Bolletierri's tennis academy started in 1978.

(02-11-2014 08:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Few of you will be surprised to learn that libertarian me sees absolutely nothing wrong with this--as long as they get the education, which does not seem to be a problem.

What are your feelings about publicly funding these schools?

I have no problem with privately funded, athletically oriented schools (just heard a story on NPR about the US ski team, http://www.npr.org/blogs/theedge/2014/01...-academy). In fact, if we value competing at a high level on the international stage, schools and training centers like that are almost a necessity. But I think you start running into problems if public education funds start being spent on training students in this manner.

I'm not sure I understand the gnashing of teeth. The public already spends trainloads of money on schools that achieve virtually no educational value whatsoever. Specialized sports academies may only deliver an average education (though in Minnesota, "average" is probably pretty good), but surely spending money to provide an average education with very good athletic training is no worse a use of public funds than, say, just about any public school in Washington DC.

(02-11-2014 09:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm not sure I understand the gnashing of teeth. The public already spends trainloads of money on schools that achieve virtually no educational value whatsoever. Specialized sports academies may only deliver an average education (though in Minnesota, "average" is probably pretty good), but surely spending money to provide an average education with very good athletic training is no worse a use of public funds than, say, just about any public school in Washington DC.

Don't really want to touch the argument that since there are low-quality schools getting public education funds, it should be OK to spend public education funds on elite sports training.

(02-11-2014 09:26 AM)FDub Owl Wrote:  I think it is ripe for abuse (i.e. not educating kids), but this has been around for a while. Nick Bolletierri's tennis academy started in 1978.

You beat me to it.

I went to the private school that all the Bolletierri kids went to. They all took basic courses until lunch and then went back to the academy. No electives, no extracurricular school activities. Basically it was enough school to keep the law of their backs.

Although it was pretty cool to have 6 out of the top 10 ranked tennis players in the world in the same biology class.

Fun Fact: Jim Courier was a very highly ranked baseball player before committing to tennis.

(02-11-2014 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 09:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm not sure I understand the gnashing of teeth. The public already spends trainloads of money on schools that achieve virtually no educational value whatsoever. Specialized sports academies may only deliver an average education (though in Minnesota, "average" is probably pretty good), but surely spending money to provide an average education with very good athletic training is no worse a use of public funds than, say, just about any public school in Washington DC.

Don't really want to touch the argument that since there are low-quality schools getting public education funds, it should be OK to spend public education funds on elite sports training.

Or, apparently, the argument that, on any reasonable list of concerns about the effective use of education funds, sports academies -- or for that matter, all vocational schools put together -- are relatively small beer.

(02-11-2014 11:12 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 09:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm not sure I understand the gnashing of teeth. The public already spends trainloads of money on schools that achieve virtually no educational value whatsoever. Specialized sports academies may only deliver an average education (though in Minnesota, "average" is probably pretty good), but surely spending money to provide an average education with very good athletic training is no worse a use of public funds than, say, just about any public school in Washington DC.

Don't really want to touch the argument that since there are low-quality schools getting public education funds, it should be OK to spend public education funds on elite sports training.

Or, apparently, the argument that, on any reasonable list of concerns about the effective use of education funds, sports academies -- or for that matter, all vocational schools put together -- are relatively small beer.

This is a much better argument for the validity of publicly funded sports academies, since you're right, the amount going to them would be relatively small. Also, the comparison of sports academies to vocational schools starts to do a better job of comparing similar topics.

The reason I took issue with your original claim is because the argument that an inefficiency somewhere begets the ability to spend money somewhere else, is not strong, or IMO, correct. Using the same logic I could equally argue that we should be providing select groups of people with free cars since there is money wasted on public transportation. Or that we should give people free stays at luxury hotels since there is some inefficiency in public housing. And on, and on.

I just think there are probably better reasons out there to argue for publicly funded sports academies.

(02-11-2014 11:06 AM)coogahoopa Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 09:26 AM)FDub Owl Wrote:  I think it is ripe for abuse (i.e. not educating kids), but this has been around for a while. Nick Bolletierri's tennis academy started in 1978.

You beat me to it.

I went to the private school that all the Bolletierri kids went to. They all took basic courses until lunch and then went back to the academy. No electives, no extracurricular school activities. Basically it was enough school to keep the law of their backs.

Although it was pretty cool to have 6 out of the top 10 ranked tennis players in the world in the same biology class.

Fun Fact: Jim Courier was a very highly ranked baseball player before committing to tennis.

Question for you ... how were the tennis guys/girls re: social development? I had a brief period where I met a handful of people in that circle as well (a buddy of mine's sister worked for IMG and helped rep a few of them), and it was quite the mixed bag.

(02-11-2014 11:51 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 11:06 AM)coogahoopa Wrote:  I went to the private school that all the Bolletierri kids went to.

Question for you ... how were the tennis guys/girls re: social development?

Arguably not a fair question: elite tennis kids have tennis parents, which poses certain challenges regardless of the school selected

(02-11-2014 11:53 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 11:51 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 11:06 AM)coogahoopa Wrote:  I went to the private school that all the Bolletierri kids went to.

Question for you ... how were the tennis guys/girls re: social development?

Arguably not a fair question: elite tennis kids have tennis parents, which poses certain challenges regardless of the school selected

Known fact: parents of good tennis players are the worst.

Source: mediocre youth tennis player who got beat by good tennis players with awful parents.

(02-11-2014 11:51 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 11:06 AM)coogahoopa Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 09:26 AM)FDub Owl Wrote:  I think it is ripe for abuse (i.e. not educating kids), but this has been around for a while. Nick Bolletierri's tennis academy started in 1978.

You beat me to it.

I went to the private school that all the Bolletierri kids went to. They all took basic courses until lunch and then went back to the academy. No electives, no extracurricular school activities. Basically it was enough school to keep the law of their backs.

Although it was pretty cool to have 6 out of the top 10 ranked tennis players in the world in the same biology class.

Fun Fact: Jim Courier was a very highly ranked baseball player before committing to tennis.

Question for you ... how were the tennis guys/girls re: social development? I had a brief period where I met a handful of people in that circle as well (a buddy of mine's sister worked for IMG and helped rep a few of them), and it was quite the mixed bag.

It's all in Infinite Jest

Ironically there was an editorial the same day also in the Star Tribune about the concern over the failure of a number of charter schools across the State.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/edito...00931.html

(02-11-2014 01:01 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Ironically there was an editorial the same day also in the Star Tribune about the concern over the failure of a number of charter schools across the State.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/edito...00931.html

I don't know about Minnesota, but in Texas the kids going to charter schools are much more likely to come from poor areas and from households where kids are more likely to have poor educational outcomes - either single parent, no parent, two working parents who don't have time to help little Johnny study, immigrants, etc. I live in West University, where I promise you there are no kids going to charter schools. If they're not going to WUES (one of the most highly-rated elementary schools in the state) they are going to a high-dollar private school.

(02-11-2014 08:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Few of you will be surprised to learn that libertarian me sees absolutely nothing wrong with this--as long as they get the education, which does not seem to be a problem.

Ah - as soon as I saw this, I knew what was coming next. And it was setting up nicely there as a perfect illustration of the difference between true conservatism and modern Republicanism (which in many ways, like this, are almost diametric opposites)

(02-11-2014 02:33 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 08:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Few of you will be surprised to learn that libertarian me sees absolutely nothing wrong with this--as long as they get the education, which does not seem to be a problem.

Ah - as soon as I saw this, I knew what was coming next. And it was setting up nicely there as a perfect illustration of the difference between true conservatism and modern Republicanism (which in many ways, like this, are almost diametric opposites)

Truly cannot tell if you are agreeing with Owl or not.

(02-11-2014 03:07 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 02:33 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 08:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Few of you will be surprised to learn that libertarian me sees absolutely nothing wrong with this--as long as they get the education, which does not seem to be a problem.

Ah - as soon as I saw this, I knew what was coming next. And it was setting up nicely there as a perfect illustration of the difference between true conservatism and modern Republicanism (which in many ways, like this, are almost diametric opposites)

Truly cannot tell if you are agreeing with Owl or not.

Would it help if I agree with Barney?

Not exactly. Is he assigning libertarians to Team Conservative or to the Red Team?