oldschool2 Posted 4 hours ago Report Posted 4 hours ago My opinion: Falling just a few short or being just a few over whatever respective cutoff is just a bad/good coincidence. While I wholeheartedly disagree with many of the decisions made by UIL, I doubt that they have time nor is there any concern with making sure this school or that school is put in a "favorable" position. I'd like to think that there really is an attempt made to keep the number of schools in each classification relatively similar.. based partly on schools having reasonably, geographically located district competition. Yes, I know we can all list examples where that doesn't seem to be the case. But keep in mind.. every year there are schools that opt up for whatever reason.. throwing everything off. But.. as far as "let's make sure the 3AD1 cutoff number is X or lower so that (insert school) can still win their district".. that's silly. On the other hand.. there are documented cases of schools manipulating their own enrollment numbers in an attempt to have fewer kids. gogo173489 1 Quote
89Falcon Posted 4 hours ago Report Posted 4 hours ago 55 minutes ago, gogo173489 said: The numbers are the numbers. I didn't make those up. They're facts. Don't ignore them. My accusations are not "imaginary" because they have the basis of previous enrollment numbers. (If it happens) 3 consecutive times just short of moving up to 4A is most certainly worthy of asking the question: What are they doing and how are they doing it? Especially with that particular area of setx growing. Yes, you are making accusations with no evidence. That is “making things up”. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.