Middle School Holdbacks

Staffing is NOT the only cost in educating a child. You add the additional cost over years & years & it does add up to a very significant amount. 5 kids hold back one year? That cost per year could pay the salary for another employee. And your arguement that they may be younger than other students? If they are not having educational issues, then there is no reason to hold back. They are gaining a year of sports time just for the sake of that. It is sad for those that are doing things the way they are supposed to & not taking advantage of the school boards lack of policy addressing this to benefit their own egos

Be Nice wrote:

<quoted text>
While I'm sure someone is going to say that it costs $6000 or $7000 a year for the additional students, the true cost is negligible as there are too few students held back to cause an increase in staffing.
<quoted text>
Some holdbacks who started school at a young age may possibly be younger than some of the students whose positions they are taking. Do you propose that kids born in August get starting positions over kids born in May or June of the following year just because they are older? The rule stating that student athletes are not eligible if they turn 19 before August 1 ensures a level playing field regarding age.

pphht wrote:

Staffing is NOT the only cost in educating a child. You add the additional cost over years & years & it does add up to a very significant amount. 5 kids hold back one year? That cost per year could pay the salary for another employee.

Please itemize the cost of holding back one student…..as I’m sure it doesn’t require additional personnel or create additional transportation expense. Please enlighten me as to what actual dollars are spent that wouldn’t be spent anyway.

pphht wrote:

And your arguement that they may be younger than other students?>

Just pointing out that within any graduating class (including those without holdbacks) you’ll have students ranging from 19 years old to barely 17 years old. Since the V.H.S.L. does limit the age at which a student athlete can participate in sports, it is possible (while in most cases improbable) that a student could be held back and still be younger than the player whose playing time is decreased because of the holdback.

Your reasoning is flawed....if I am not mistaken, the state pays around $ 5000 per student per year back to the County. Using this reasoning, holding students back might prove lucrative

Money talks wrote:

Your reasoning is flawed....if I am not mistaken, the state pays around $ 5000 per student per year back to the County. Using this reasoning, holding students back might prove lucrative

Which side are you arguing for at this point?

If that is true, I am sure the state would object to students needlessly being held back with budget concern & cuts...

Money talks wrote:

Your reasoning is flawed....if I am not mistaken, the state pays around $ 5000 per student per year back to the County. Using this reasoning, holding students back might prove lucrative

eh average cost to educate a student in Virginia 3 years ago was $13000. SO if by your estimate the State provides $5k per student hoe is that lucrative? 29 cents out of every local and state tax dollar is spent on education. If it is to needlessly provide children with another year of playing sports how is that good business? Why should everyone have to pay for ignorant parents???

how much do they pay mance to walk the track and take his naps on school time

wrong wrote:

<quoted text> eh average cost to educate a student in Virginia 3 years ago was $13000. SO if by your estimate the State provides $5k per student hoe is that lucrative? 29 cents out of every local and state tax dollar is spent on education. If it is to needlessly provide children with another year of playing sports how is that good business? Why should everyone have to pay for ignorant parents???

Wrong....you are shadow boxing and convoluting the point. By your rationale, you would eliminate services for children whose parents who do not contribute their fair share of the $13,000 to educate their children? Shame on you! By the way, regardless of your disdain for sports and the success of the Richlands football program, the point remains that a varsity athlete can only play for a high school team for four years. Yes, they can play an extra year of formative athletics at the adolescent level so that probably costs the taxpayers a couple hundred bucks in extra fuel or something. Cry me a river. The problem must be deeper than that.

I do not believe mance is asking parents to hold players back. If this was true then he would hold his own back.

You are completely distorting what I am saying. Your spin is far from the the truth & I could give a rats behind about the football program. The issue is parents purposefully placing a burden on taxpayers just so their child can gain an additional year in sports, because ultimately that is where the money originates from isn't it? Local, state, federal, it all comes from the taxpayer right? Why should taxpayers be required to fund the additional years of sports play? If it were for educational reasons, sure thing, allow them to repeat and focus solely on academics. But so a child can play office worker and sit through study halls? Completely unacceptable. If they need to be "held back" why should they be eligible for sports? Parents are taking advantage of those funding the school system. If they would like to pay for that additional year for sports play, go for it!

Money talks wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong....you are shadow boxing and convoluting the point. By your rationale, you would eliminate services for children whose parents who do not contribute their fair share of the $13,000 to educate their children? Shame on you! By the way, regardless of your disdain for sports and the success of the Richlands football program, the point remains that a varsity athlete can only play for a high school team for four years. Yes, they can play an extra year of formative athletics at the adolescent level so that probably costs the taxpayers a couple hundred bucks in extra fuel or something. Cry me a river. The problem must be deeper than that.

Money talks wrote:

Your reasoning is flawed....if I am not mistaken, the state pays around $ 5000 per student per year back to the County. Using this reasoning, holding students back might prove lucrative

If the students had new books and computers to work with maybe they would not be hold backs !!! School sucks at this MONEY spent on sports BUT NOT NEW BOOKS ,,SO where is the tax payers money going???

wrong wrote:

You are completely distorting what I am saying. Your spin is far from the the truth & I could give a rats behind about the football program. The issue is parents purposefully placing a burden on taxpayers just so their child can gain an additional year in sports, because ultimately that is where the money originates from isn't it? Local, state, federal, it all comes from the taxpayer right? Why should taxpayers be required to fund the additional years of sports play? If it were for educational reasons, sure thing, allow them to repeat and focus solely on academics. But so a child can play office worker and sit through study halls? Completely unacceptable. If they need to be "held back" why should they be eligible for sports? Parents are taking advantage of those funding the school system. If they would like to pay for that additional year for sports play, go for it! <quoted text>

It's time for you to STFU. I've heard about enough of your asinine postings. If you don't like how things are done then run for political office and get it changed. Stop coming on topix and posting your ignorant rants. You think posting on topix will solve anything?

if your child is doing great in school why hold that child back in the long run look what it does for their self esteem if you hold them back this year then the next time and the time after that what age is your child going to be when he/ she graduates my god do you want your child to be 21 and graduating with 16-18 yr old children hell if that is the deal than what are you going to say when they are in high school 10th grade and already married and have a kid and trying to finish high school all because their parent(s) held them back get a life people let the children be in the grade they rightfully belong in. this is one reason why i dont let my child play sports to many high class people that thinks they are better than everybody else or either they play to rough and no one cares if the other kid gets hurt been there done that and dont want to do that again.. please consider all the possibilites before you tramitize your child into repeating a grade again unneccessarily that is all i am saying

Is mance now going to cut out the hazing thats been going on in the football program. New principal may not turn her head like the old did done in the past.