SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Private vs. Public question

Waited until after the finals to ask this question to avoid the "sour grape response." Obviously the are some very talented teams in SCISA. Why do BE and CC play in the public school leage? How much money do they have to pay to play? Why are they allowed to play? I would assume said schools are well connected politically. Any input would be appreciated. I know this subject has been debated in the past but I have never seen answers to these questions. Thanks.

Well, here's one answer. The league is a public service, supported by the taxpayers. The parents of kids in private schools pay taxes, too. By the same reasoning that home-schooled kids can play on public school teams- because of the word public and its meaning- private schools should be able to participate in the Public league.

Now, the terms of that participation should be open to debate. Some have proposed a 1.5 multipler for attendance at private schools, for example. They clearly have competitive advantages in some sports; probably not in others.

You question "why are they allowed to play" is simple. How can they not be allowed to play, and where do you get the term "public school league" Last time I checked it was the South Carolina High School League, and all the other scisa schools used to play in it, and on their own, decided to join SCISA for educational purposes.. Christ Church, Southside Christian and Bishop England just decided not to leave.

I think the issue should not be IF they are allowed to play, but how to be sure we make the playing field level—as we do with AAAA, AAA, AA, and A classifications. The classification system acknowledges that the larger the population from which you choose the team, the better the team should be. Private schools have a much larger pool form which to choose since they have open enrollment.

Purpleandyellow makes a good point. How do you level the playing field if they should be allowed to play? Did'nt the multiplier thing recently get voted down by 3A athletic directors because they did'nt want them either? Benp is SCHSL not part of the public school system? I always thought SCHSL=public and SCISA=private. A public school coud'nt join SCISA could they? I'm not anti-private just does'nt seem fair for 1A and 2A to be at an un-fair advantage.

"purpleandyellow" makes a good point. What he/she fails to realize is that SCHSL does not spend a lot of time worrying about soccer specific issues. Neither does NHFS. If either were interested in soccer specific issues, they would consider the proposed 1st/2nd/3rd division classification that was introduced here at scsoccer.com (is it still a link on the home page?). You wouldn't have any trouble getting buy-in from SC coaches from SCHSL/SCISA/public/private/WHATEVER!

Hey purpleandyellow - Why don't you go that route instead of trying to isolate individual schools that aren't in a position to change classifications? I bet you could get more soccer coaches to jump on that bandwagon. Give it a try. Your arguments have been talked about by people without clout for at least two decades, and nothing has changed.

SCHSL=South Carolina High School League.
SCISA=South Carolina Independent School League.

Certainly public schools cannot compete in Scisa unless they become independent of the public system, then they may! Last time I checked Bishop England is still a high school, so why can't they play in the high school league? I may be wrong on the who SCHSL thing, maybe it stands for South Carolina Highpublic School League, but I couldn't find much on their website saying that the schools that compete have to be public.

You have conflicting logic there though Ben. You can't just go based off of what the acronym stands for.

SCISA has to be independent of "something"..that being the SCHSL..if I'm not mistaken. Also, if I'm not mistaken. Schools like Bishop England and Christ Church only have affiliation with the SCHSL in athletics..for example. They don't compete with public schools in Science Olympiad, or SAT competitions, etc... (i could be wrong about that)

Since these schools are first and foremost academic institutions..it's reasonable to presume that Bishop England and Christ Church are first and foremost..private schools..independent of other South Carolina High Schools..which is where the controversy is.

The argument most people have against private schools playing in the SCHSL..is that if they are first and foremost private/independent of South Carolina's public schools..how is it "fair" or what is the rationale for them being allowed to compete in a league designated for South Carolina public high schools (who to my knowledge cannot participate in SCISA).

Beaufort Academy
Ben Lippen School
Cardinal Newman School
Pinewood Prep
Hilton Head Preparatory School
Porter-Gaud School
Thomas Sumter Academy
Heathwood Hall Episcopal School
Hilton Head Christian Academy
James Island Christian School
Thomas Sumter Academy
Wilson Hall
Hammond School
Bishop England High School
Christ Church Episcopal School
Southside Christian School


No SCISA school..or the schools listed that participate in SCHSL (except BE) have "High School" in their names.. so therefore should not be allowed to participate in SCHSL play.

Under this same acronym logic..we must take a look at York Comprehensive High School, Fort Dorchester Comprehensive High School..and so on.

MY PERSONAL COMMENTARY:

This is an interesting topic.

Let me go on record as saying that I truly respect the secondary institutions at Bishop England, Christ Church, and Southside Christian. However, these are the poignant examples I have to illustrate this conversation.

I, for one, have always embraced the idea (and fact) that the programs of Bishop England, Christ Church, and Southside Christian have competed in the S.C. High School League -- in all sports, especially soccer. I have always felt that it is better to "challenge yourself or program" to the best of its ability. I've held this judgement for years and considered it a moot point as long as those institutions participated in all SCHSL athletics. After all, I don't hear much complaining from BE, CCES, or SC when it comes to the fact that those schools don't perform too well in football, basketball, or track/field.

However, with the "multiplier rule" tabled this year and it being voted down narrowly by high school administrators, I have had cause to reconsider my stance on this issue.

After a pretty thorough "spring analysis", then I am pretty comfortable by saying on May 14, 2006, that if a private school selects to compete as a member of the SCHSL, then that institution should be placed in the largest classification of competition of all institutions in academics and athletics.

I sympathize with the rural 2A and 1A schools that have faced the likes of BE and CCES in the soccer championships, but it's not those schools (or their players) fault. I have an inkling that when these proposals were made that BE, CCES, and SC all had notions that in terms of football/basketball that those sports "at best" would be competitive with high schools in their classification, but probably not win championships -- at least not at the state level.

However, the truth is that athletics such as baseball, golf, soccer, softball, tennis, etc., have become "year-round" activities and they are given an advantage with those that can afford to play-and-pay for this privilege. I'm not saying that is wrong -- in fact, I encourage that type of training. But, after a period of time when statistics are compiled, then I think it's safe to draw a conclusion and for the Boys Class 2A ranks that means that Bishop England has particpated in all six of that classification's championship and won three titles and finished as Runners-Up the other three times. Chapin, which has won two titles, and Emerald, which captured one championship, are both "priviliged" soccer communities and when BE didn't win the 2A title, then those programs were there to cash in.

If you analyze the Class 1A title match, then you'll find that Christ Church has been victorious each time with the likes of Academic Magnet, Blackville-Hilda, Buford (2), Lincoln, and Williston-Elko finishing as Runners-Up -- folks, those are hardly bastions of prep soccer, but they should be congratulated for overcoming those obstacles. Take out Academic Magnet and you find largely rural schools competing for a championship against teams from urban-area institution that can attract student-athletes from a wide geographic area.

Putting it succinctly, if private schools (in the day-and-age of 2006) are going to be eligible to play in the public school system, then those institutions should be placed with the largest schools to "challenge themselves" to the utmost!

well stated...i now have a headache from reading this post.

Academic Magnet,Blackville-Hilda,Buford, Lincoln, and Williston-Elco all denied a state championship when they were the best public school in their state classification. This is what bothers me most. I'm not from McClellenville but I would bet every player on that team is from the McClellenville area. I think teams in 1A and 2A just want a level playing field and with BE and CC I don't feel that is the case. Do you all think the "multiplier rule" will be tabled again?

This is a confusing issue? If my son and his club teammates chose to take their whole club team and play at a high school, they would be forced to play at one of these private schools, for of course they do not all live in the same high school district and crossing over public school district lines is just not allowed. Thus, how is it an even playing field when this is a possibility within a private school? The participation of these private schools in the public school areana opens the door for some back room wheeling and dealing that we know doesn't go on in public schools. Just ask Kevin Garnett of the NBA!

USMNT2014. If my public high school team had been playing club ball together (BC...nearly all of them grew up playing at Congaree...the necsa Ambush is 2 schools with about 5 random players, and those 2 schools both competed in the state championships this fall...) how is this much different from what you are talking about...I think the key is to play year round like everyone else is doing, and you will be gradually more successful than you are.

Jack, they all have high schools (9th-12th grade). And these are the kids playing in the High school league. My only argument is that people shouldn't call it the "public" school league, because it is not. Christ Church didn't win any type of "public" school championship, they won the high school league championship. Article 3 of the SCHSL Constitution "Who May Join." Says that 1 Public schools who conform to the SCHSL rules and 2 Private Schools who conform to the rules. It's not a public school league...its a high school league.

Kyle, I like the idea of having them play in the top classification. And all of ya'll know that I support a Scisa school, and if you want to know my opinion on them playing scisa? bring them on. I'd love to have 3 more competitive schools in all sports. Bishop England may kill everyone, but their doing so already, its fine with me. I'm not saying that things need to stay the same, I'd like to see things as level as possible, but the only way that everyone is going to be on a level playing field is if schools play against schools who are level in each particular sport, like the soccer specific divisions proposed a while back.

And purple, I don't think SCHSL, from reading the little that I did on their website, is a public school system at all, or ever was.

That's a pretty intense post for 3:30 in the morning.

Benp...you are correct regarding playing year round. The player that focuses on one sport winds up improving in that sport to his highest capabilities.

You may have missed my point though. Those club players just happen to live in the same district. Whereas, at these so called private schools they do not have such limitations. I too beleive that if the schools are going to compete against each other than the playing field must be level regarding "all" rules regardless of who or what government system is setting those rules.

Let me look at it in another way. I believe most of these public high school rules and regulations have been setup to deter recruiting by the high schools. If (hypothetically speaking) I wanted to get a club team to attend one high school there is no way (by law) that I could do such in a public school setting. However, for these private schools it would only take inventive car pooling. That does not seem right. Let's even the playing field.

Hey thats a great idea... Why don't you get a really good club team to all move to BE or CC..All it would take is to arrange for transportation and come up with about $9000 per player..Unless he/she is a Catholic parisioner and then its only about $5500. Shouldn't be a problem. I mean everybody in Charleston can afford that....Right? When you look at it from a real stadpoint of who can afford to go to these schools, then the pool of players shrinks considerably.....If you want to talk about recruiting then give some specific examples...Otherwise don't make unsupported allegations.....As several people have said, this is a rural vs urban problem. Not one of district lines....The same problems exist within SCISA....The powers in the spring sports,except baseball are all from City schools where kids play that sport year round. It is not a public vs private problem, rather a problem of where the schools are located... It might well be that BE has an unfair competitive advantage in many sports. However attendance lines are not the culprit....

BDad11, you are acurate about location but naive to think that open enrollment for private schools is not a HUGE avantage. And I believe someone has misunderstood me to label SCHSL as public schools; I didn't (or if I implied that in some post, it was a mistake, not intended). That isn't an issue for me.

I believe my offer of putting all schools with open enrollment in AAAA (as also suggested by Kyle) is the fair thing to do. I would not recommend kicking BE, CC, and SSC out.

My question would then be,why is it not the same advantage for football and basketball at these schools?

My point is,it is more about location and the access to quality club play and or individual coaching as in tennis or golf.Again, we face the same problems in SCISA where the attendance line variable is removed...My school is very affluent in comparison to most schools, but we struggle against schools from Columbia and Charleston in soccer,tennis, and golf...Most of our kids are not commited enough to make the 1 hr drive 3-4 times a week to play for a quality club..If these same kids lived on the edge of either Columbia or Charleston, then I think the scenario would be different..There seems to be 3 variables involved...Attendance lines, affluence, and location i.e. access to quality year round instruction and play.I see the situation in SCISA with the first 2 variables removed and the same problems exist... Again, this is just my opinion and admittedly my frame of reference is different from many of yours..Makes for interesting discussions at any rate...

BDad11—Yes! You have made an excellent contribution about there being several factors. I didn't mean to sound argumentative, but wanted to emphasize the advantage of open enrollment—that is a key factor when we compare private schools to small, rural public schools. When a small, rural public school has players with club experience, with a quality club nearby, and with quality coaching at the high school, some of that advantage disappears. BUT BE and CC still dominate; therefore, the open enrollment seems to carry a significant weight. Some sports fall outside this dynamic, and that certainly should be considered.

Believe me I understand the frustration in facing a team such as BE or CC....Again, my school Wilson Hall faces the same uphill climb in SCISA against the Pinewoods, Porter Gauds,Ben Lippens and Cardinal Newmans of the world as you do against BE and CC.....The light at the end of the tunnel is that because of some success the last 2 years more of our better young athletes are entering the soccer program and more are planning on playing club this fall instead of football....If this occurs , then our program will improve...If more of the better athletes go out for soccer at some of these rural schools and choose soccer instead of football or basketball, and commit to year round play, then your teams can compete with the BE's of the world.Lincoln is a great example of this.......

BDad11, please review my previous post and notice the word hypothetical. I made no allegations whether supported or unsupported. In fact, in my previous post I made mention of public school recruiting not private. I made the analogy because the possibility exists for one school but does not for another. If the question is only about money then that is probably easier to overcome than many other issues. If I had the money I could "potentialy" buy my son a state championship. That would not I agree with you in regards to the possiblity of urban vs. rural but doesn't the current A-AAAA classifications address that issue within public schools. If there is already a problem within SCISA regarding the non-district line issue why bring those issues into the public school arena if they are addressed via the current classifications. Why can't we change the way public school attendance is handled. This could even the playing field for all schools. I just don't understand why there are different rules for different schools playing in the same league.

Ben - I was just being a smart ass. I never said SCHSL was the "Public" league...because "technically" it isn't.

You do have to wander into the realm of "interpretation" though..and ask yourself. Can Bishop England or CC join SCISA if they so choose? Yes. I believe they could. They have all the characteristics of an Independent/Private school. While..I don't know many Public schools that are allowed open enrollement(Magnet being an acception..kind of) OR ESPECIALLY religious affiliation. Pretty sure that one wouldn't go over too well. So..yes.. technically BE, SCS, and CC meet all those requirements to participate in SCHSL play..but what we're all talking about here..is are those requirements "just".. is their participation..or their advantage over their classification "fair" ..and "fair" and "just" are not defined in bylaws or rules.


On the point BDad11 is making.. I would reference you to the thread about this from earlier in the year. In particular, the argument of Hanahan HS (which is located on Daniel Island with Bishop England) ..it isn't quite as simple as urban vs rural. There are many factors..

It's pretty simple to me though.. if you have the capability to have students from all over the COUNTRY..then you have an advantage over ANY public school. And if you truly want to up your level of competition.. you won't be in a region with Garett Tech or whoever it is BE plays in region.

I don't believe I mentioned you specifically ,however any long time reader of this board has heard the "R" word mentioned numerous times involving the discussions of BE and whether they belong in the SCHSL...

I'm sorry but I don't follow your line of reasoning regarding classifications...Within classications you see huge disparities in success in certain sports... Look at Spring Valley in relation to Hartsville.... Both 4A schools but very different....Location,location,location...
As for SCISA we on the same playing field regarding the rules...The only variable regarding soccer is access and commitment to year round play... That has to be addressed through commitment not legislation..

I'm sorry if my entry into this discussion offended you as it seemed to, however I thought I might add to the discussion from a different perspective...

Jack, one clarification:

quote:

---

the argument of Hanahan HS (which is located on Daniel Island with Bishop England)

---

Hanahan is in Berkeley County and Bishop England is in Charleston County -- about nine miles apart.

I wonder, what would happen to all of this if a voucher system was installed??? where all students had the choice of where they went? Talk about a twist to the system.

LE Dude, your reference to the Hanahan and BE discussion is a valid one...Seemingly as both schools draw from a mostly suburban setting, it would disprove any notion of location being a major factor.However, just as attendance lines are not the only factor in BE's success, then neither is location....The fact is, BE is the perfect storm of several factors which lead to a disparate amount of success in certain sports...Affluence, tradition, commitment,superb coaching, and location all contribute to BE's soccer success... Most people I know from BE send their children there because of academics and the total school enviroment. Perhaps prior success in soccer would lead some to send their kids to BE for that reason, but the same thing happens when schools are restricted by attendance lines...You don't think people choose which school districts they live in by factors regarding the school system.If you would restrict BE to a certain geographic location then a parent willing to spend $9500 on a child's education would also be willing to move to that district in my opinion...

If given the choice , I'm sure BE would move up in classification in certain sports..However as a member of SCHSL who follows the rules as laid out by that organiztion, BE is placed in AA by the High School League and that is where they find themselves in all sports.

BDad11, Your entry into the discussion certainly did not offend me. I am just trying to understand the issues and how schools in the same league are governed by different rules. This is a discussion that encompasses many issues which are facing not only soccer in SC but the entire socioeconomic makeup of our country. Your perspective is appreciated to further the dialoge. You are correct many people do make the choice of where to live based on the schools. However, that decision is much more difficult than stroking a check for tuition. I hold nothing against BE or any others schools which find themselves in this predicament. Moving up in classification still does not resolve the descrepency it just passes the buck.I just don't understand Why the different rules?

USMNT, I may be wrong ,but perhaps attendance lines are not an item of governance by the SCHSL.Case in point....In Sumter County a child may cross over district lines and attend a school in another district by paying a fee to the school board from the district they are leaving..That child must then sit out 1 year before being elgible to play sports.. I believe this is a local rule not a SCHSL rule as the SCHSL apparently has allowed attendance in school districts other than where you reside.Another case in point is Richland County. Many children cross attendance lines to go to other schools under the "guise " of their zoned school not offering some obscure course that Dreher or Flra might offer.. It appears as long as the school district is satisfied then the SCHSL stays out of the attendance zone problem. Am I reading this wrong or is this a correct assumption?

Again, I just don't understand why there are different rules for these schools and not the BE (or plug in name) of the world. The "guise" is still breaking the rules. Using that method could potentially lead to the child being punished at a later date when his eligibility is questioned. And yes paying a fee and sitting out a year is an option but why should that be different from school to school? Do these other schools have to sit out a year?

From a competitive stand point...It looks like B.E. is the big fish in a little pond at soccer and some other activites.I would guess that they would want to move up in classification for the competition

I just went off what I remembered from the previous thread. Whatever the actual distance..the point is still the same. I'll try to find the exact thread now..

Not sure if this is the right one..but a quality thread on the matter none the less. Here.

For some of the schools in Richland County such as Spring Valley and Richland Northeast, there are zones designated as "choice" areas, where a child is zoned to a certain school, but is not prohibited from attending the other. In this case, bussing to and from school is not provided to those who choose the school they are not zoned for. Probably 3 or 4 of the players on Spring Valley had the choice of Richland Northeast, but chose Spring Valley either for academic or athletic reasons.

At the end of the day.. there is a big difference between choosing between Spring Valley and RNE..and Rock Hill/Aiken/Columbia and Charleston.

“This is not just a South Carolina problem”

Florida Boys Soccer Championships

9––Clearwater Central Catholic, 1981 (3A), 1983(3A), 1986 (3A), 1989 (2A), 1990 (2A), 1991 (2A), 1996 (4A), 1997 (3A), 2002 (A).
6––Jesuit (Tampa), 1987 (3A), 1995 (5A), 1997 (4A), 1998 (4A), 1999 (4A), 2001 (2A).
6––Miami Killian, 1977, 1983 (4A), 1984 (4A), 1988 (4A), 1990 (4A), 1992 (4A).
4––Berkeley Prep (Tampa), 1993 (2A), 1994 (3A), 1995 (4A), 2004 (2A).
4––Bishop Moore (Orlando), 1979 (3A), 1980 (3A), 1982 (3A), 2000 (2A).
4––St. Thomas Aquinas (Fort Lauderdale), 1996 (5A), 1997 (5A), 1998 (5A), 2005 (5A).
3––Bloomingdale (Valrico), 1993 (4A), 1995 (6A), 1998 (6A).
3––Gulliver Prep (Miami), 1992 (2A), 1999 (3A), 2000 (A).
3––Miami Sunset, 1989 (4A), 2004 (6A), 2005 (6A).

By the way, the Myrtle Beach area will have a Catholic High School within 3 years. 9th grade will begin this fall at St. Michael’s Catholic School and they will add a grade every year after that. The new high school will be in the Carolina Forest area.

Hmm...My post was just before I went to deliver the state newspaper this morning.
Now, If I had access to the needed information, I would do this myself, but because I don't, I would like to see someone post a scatterplot map of all the kids that play on the varsity soccer team at Bishop England so we can see just where they are drawing from and where these kids WOULD go to school. I know at Ben Lippen we have 3 players that should be at Irmo, 2 SV, 1 Eau Claire, 1 Ridge View, 1 AC Flora, 1 Lexington, and 2 foreign exchange students starting this year.

So much discussion! You folks need to remember the state in which you live and who the AD's at most high schools are. I agree with all of the comments regarding the inequities brought on the less affluent more urban schools like BE, CC, et al., and you all offer some good insight into the situation.
But, I really don't think anything will be done by the folks in Columbia until one of these schools makes a run at or wins a state championship in football. Then and only then will serious consideration be given to leveling the playing field.
And by the way, they have no chance to ever compete in basketball. We can all agree on that, can't we.

Your point is dead on rafter. Football is the bread and butter of this state and the simple fact of the matter is no 3 or 4A AD's want schools who can recruit players being apart of their football regions. Also CC and BE are highly academic institutions as well so they have enough common sense to know to keep the football teams slightly under the competition of the rest.

I just hate the fact that so many other sports have to suffer so the well known football programs in the state can prosper.

I don't think I like the multiplier rule but...

If Bishop England joined SCISA – they would most likely win more championships than they do in AA SCHSL. They would most likely win in the sports they currently get championships and also be winning or at least competing for football, basketball, and baseball on a regular basis. Soccer may be a little more competitive but overall athletics I think AA SCHSL is more competitive.

They would by far be the largest student body in SCISA (there are a few schools with the same attendance around 860 – but that is including K – 12 not just 9-12) – so that would present an unfair advantage.

Maybe we can make up a league for just BE to be in since they are the only large private high school in the state– call it AAAA SCISA or something and they could be state champs in every sport every year………….

Can the private school recruit(sp) players, because i heard that they can

benP about 80% or more of the kids pretty much every year on the BE soccer team would play for wando which would just make them completeely unstoppable so the other 4A programs should be thankful BE is around. then there would be around 5 or 6 players split between JI and west ashley and maybe one or two for hannahan if Daniel Island counts as hannahan.

benp - How old are the exchange students? Will they return next year?

I guess exchange student isn't the right word. They are resident students, living on campus, and staying for as long as it takes to graduate, taking English as a Second language. There are a total of around 60 resident students at Ben Lippen.

Of the 3 that played this year, Kevin Chang, a sophmore and all region, will be the only one returning, and he will be elligible for 2 more years.

What counties are James Island and West Ashley in? Berkeley or Charleston?

Ohhh...I see...call them something different than "exchange students" and SCISA doesn't have a problem with that...

JI and WA are both Charleston County.

From the SCHSL Constitution:

Before being considered as a member of the League, the non-public school must clearly define its attendance area
as one of the following: (1) the attendance area of the public school in whose attendance area the school is
located, (2) the school district in which the school is located, and (3) the county in which the school is located.

According to:
http://www.sciway.net/city/danielisland.html

Daniel Island is a large island located three miles north of Charleston Harbor, between the Cooper and Wando Rivers. It lies within Berkeley County but was recently annexed by the City of Charleston.

Which county can BE draw from, Berkeley or Charleston?

I might be wrong...but I believe the 'one of the following' that BE uses is not which county but an overall area...basically the Charleston Tri-County Area is the area which BE draws from.
Don't be confused, though, because as it was said earlier the vast majority of BE athletes(especially soccer) comes from Mt. Pleasant, which basically envelopes Daniel Island. The rest come from surrounding areas, no further than a 20 minute drive away.
SO...while it's possible for BE to draw from a very large area, it's hardly the case and therefore needs not be addressed.

As for BE's classification, I don't doubt that soccer could compete in both 3A and 4A, and win championships every now and then, but it's not our choice; if soccer were to be moved up, all sports would be moved up.
Instead of challenging the school's choice to be play in SCHSL, how about looking at the system itself: Why shouldn't individual sports be granted exception to move up in classification? Personally I would've loved to play in 3A or 4A when I was there. We already play the best there is throughout the season, why not allow us to compete with the best for a championship?

I thought I had seen schools compete in different classifications in different sports. Maybe it is allowed when a certain sport is not played within your division. I don't think anyone in 2A would mind BE being allowed play in 4A.

i totally agree with u mk#11 we already play 4A and 3A teams anyway i would have loved to play against them for state championships when i was there also but its not our choice as u said