.

This is not a comment on your specific situation but it reminded me of a thought I've had. I've never understand the parents that take their kids out of a good and academically challenging high school to put them into a small district under the guise that they will be able to play sports longer.

That appears to me to be watering down the competition rather than encouraging our kids to increase their skills?

Imagine a parent with a very smart child that said I am going to withdraw her to a poorer, less academically-gifted school, so my child will be valedictorian. That's the same thing.


Using your last example, you do know that there are several scholarships and such that have class rank as a part of it. You could be saving a lot of college money in your situation. Never thought of that avenue.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: dafarmer
This is not a comment on your specific situation but it reminded me of a thought I've had. I've never understand the parents that take their kids out of a good and academically challenging high school to put them into a small district under the guise that they will be able to play sports longer.

That appears to me to be watering down the competition rather than encouraging our kids to increase their skills?

Imagine a parent with a very smart child that said I am going to withdraw her to a poorer, less academically-gifted school, so my child will be valedictorian. That's the same thing.

No offense taken. You make valid points and there are pros and cons both ways. In our particular case though it would mean moving from one of the largest schools in the state with major growth issues to a much more stable 3A school on the other side of town so it isn't like we are moving to the boonies in our case.

Another factor is that my wife grew up going to Benton Community before moving to Linn-Mar (where we met and currently live) so she wants smaller and would preferably want a small town but I am not doing that so this is our compromise.
 
This is not a comment on your specific situation but it reminded me of a thought I've had. I've never understand the parents that take their kids out of a good and academically challenging high school to put them into a small district under the guise that they will be able to play sports longer.

That appears to me to be watering down the competition rather than encouraging our kids to increase their skills?

Imagine a parent with a very smart child that said I am going to withdraw her to a poorer, less academically-gifted school, so my child will be valedictorian. That's the same thing.
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. To long we have consolidated to the point that in metro areas you have to really only play one sport and still be gifted at it. While you would think it would make people strive to be better it actually hurts and increases the gap from the top people to the average student. We need more of the mid size schools as they encourage competition and improvement while also giving opportunities to enough people.
 
This is not a comment on your specific situation but it reminded me of a thought I've had. I've never understand the parents that take their kids out of a good and academically challenging high school to put them into a small district under the guise that they will be able to play sports longer.

That appears to me to be watering down the competition rather than encouraging our kids to increase their skills?

Imagine a parent with a very smart child that said I am going to withdraw her to a poorer, less academically-gifted school, so my child will be valedictorian. That's the same thing.

Those aren't close to the same thing. Kids have a much better chance of playing varsity sports at smaller schools. You can be good at math/take ap courses at any public school.
 
Those aren't close to the same thing. Kids have a much better chance of playing varsity sports at smaller schools. You can be good at math/take ap courses at any public school.

Although I can see how you interpreted it that way I think he was more saying that the larger schools have more course and activity offerings because of the demand for them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SoapyCy
Those aren't close to the same thing. Kids have a much better chance of playing varsity sports at smaller schools. You can be good at math/take ap courses at any public school.

Not really. The smaller a district is, the fewer teachers you have, and the fewer offerings you can have. Hard to divert a teacher for a class that only a couple kids will take in a smaller school, but might be 20-30 in the classroom at a larger one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: beentherebefore
I'm suggesting that a larger school has far more academic offerings than a small school. Even the poorer big schools have more options than the nearby smaller schools. Why would you remove a kid from those opportunities so they can "make varsity" at a smaller school?

Isn't that saying the sports are more important than the academics, and if so, instead of encouraging a kid to get better at sports you say it's okay to find lesser competition? The end result is worse academic options for the purpose of less challenging athletics. Spin it any other way but that's the end result.

I think iowa's mid-sized districts academic performance against larger city schools is fine. I'll gladly enroll in pella, gilbert, decorah, madrid versus muscatine, marshaltown, ottumwa or the like.

While class offering is important, so are class sizes and demographics.
 
I'm suggesting that a larger school has far more academic offerings than a small school. Even the poorer big schools have more options than the nearby smaller schools. Why would you remove a kid from those opportunities so they can "make varsity" at a smaller school?

Isn't that saying the sports are more important than the academics, and if so, instead of encouraging a kid to get better at sports you say it's okay to find lesser competition? The end result is worse academic options for the purpose of less challenging athletics. Spin it any other way but that's the end result.
There are schools that don't have as many academic offerings, but there are plenty of smaller schools that still have academic opportunities. I graduated from Urbandale in 2013. That was a smaller class, but I wouldn't want to get much bigger. At that point you get to big and there are a variety of issues. I knew almost everyone in my class. My younger siblings while less likely in general don't know as many kids because there are to many. I also see more division between the kids now. There were cliques in my grade, but everyone interacted with each other some. You want a school that has enough kids they can offer a variety of opportunities, but also small enough that the community can grow and prosper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NWICY
I'm suggesting that a larger school has far more academic offerings than a small school. Even the poorer big schools have more options than the nearby smaller schools. Why would you remove a kid from those opportunities so they can "make varsity" at a smaller school?

Isn't that saying the sports are more important than the academics, and if so, instead of encouraging a kid to get better at sports you say it's okay to find lesser competition? The end result is worse academic options for the purpose of less challenging athletics. Spin it any other way but that's the end result.

I don't see the point being "making varsity". The point is the opportunity to diversify the learning experience, which for kids needs to be more than just academics. In my case, at a small school, I got to play varsity FB, BB, golf, and be in the band and choir. If I went to the big big high school, I could have done one, maybe two of those, or maybe even none (at least the way the big high schools are run here in TX). My "lesser" academic training from the small school hasn't hurt me as an engineer. I still use the band and choir skills today as social activities, and the sports skills have provided me numerous recreational opportunities through the years.
 
I'm suggesting that a larger school has far more academic offerings than a small school. Even the poorer big schools have more options than the nearby smaller schools. Why would you remove a kid from those opportunities so they can "make varsity" at a smaller school?

Isn't that saying the sports are more important than the academics, and if so, instead of encouraging a kid to get better at sports you say it's okay to find lesser competition? The end result is worse academic options for the purpose of less challenging athletics. Spin it any other way but that's the end result.

No one has mentioned the obvious here but there could be band, flag squad, drama, show choir considerations at play...not just sports.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: khardbored
Kids at smaller schools don't have to specialize their extra curriculars and can expose themselves to more things. A big school presents more options, but it also presents much more pressure to specialize.

This applies to literally any kind of extra curricular and not just sports.
 
So to boil this down...once upon a time there were 3 beds, one was to small, one was to large, one was just right. I am a product of 3A school (and community college available), my progeny are products of larger metro schools (Waukee, Dowling, Des Moines Central and Valley). I have been involved in each district as a volunteer and leader. There is no one answer for each set of parents and children, however, there is a point where a district becomes to small to be viable from an academic perspective. (Also, we have home schooled as part of the mix, while being a public school committee chair for bonding referendum and capital planning.)
 
Kids at smaller schools don't have to specialize their extra curriculars and can expose themselves to more things. A big school presents more options, but it also presents much more pressure to specialize.

This applies to literally any kind of extra curricular and not just sports.

I found that really only applied for basketball because of the super small team size. The other aspect is that big schools will have 9th grade, sophomore, and then Jv/varsity where smaller schools will probably only have Jv/varsity teams.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: beentherebefore
My kids go to a very large high school (by Iowa standards), and they are involved in tons of things. Sports, band, choir, AP classes, plays, musicals, clubs.

I went to a small high school and grew up on the farm. I could not wait to get to a large university (ISU) because there would be diversity of people and diversity of beliefs and diversity of educational options there. My small town and my small high school was great, but it was lacking in all areas of diversity. Frankly, I was happy to get away from a place where every person and every teacher thought they knew my business! That was a major reason I chose ISU over so many other college options.

People are free to choose where they want to live, and people certainly can enjoy all the great things that small towns and small schools can provide, but there are many things that small towns and small schools just can't provide. Of course, there are issues that highly-populated areas face that often are not part of small town or rural life.

From my experience, and if I had the choice, I would never want to live in a town smaller than Ames.
 
I'm suggesting that a larger school has far more academic offerings than a small school. Even the poorer big schools have more options than the nearby smaller schools. Why would you remove a kid from those opportunities so they can "make varsity" at a smaller school?

Isn't that saying the sports are more important than the academics, and if so, instead of encouraging a kid to get better at sports you say it's okay to find lesser competition? The end result is worse academic options for the purpose of less challenging athletics. Spin it any other way but that's the end result.


Our small school 600 total, offers anything you want to take by paying community college tuition for you. You get college credit plus challenging courses. I assume large schools do this, so what is the major difference?
 
my school consolidated 3 years after I got done. It was rumored to happen for about 10 years prior to it happening. In this case, they are just delaying the inevitable.

In high school, we went to a 3A school for half the day and 1A school for the first half. Both had it's advantages. I liked the 3A school for academics as the 1A school didn't give a crap about teaching half the time.

However, the 1A school had more opportunities for extra curriculars such as band, choir, sports, etc. At a 3A school, I had to pick one thing over the other, which limited the high school experience I had.

TLDR, both have the unique advantages, depends on the type of person you are as to what setting is better. I would say the 3A school helped get me ready for Iowa State more than the 1A school culture wise and academic wise.
 
Last edited:
When I graduated high school, we had maybe 50 kids 9-12. Not many options for classes and extracurricular's dwindled as I got further into high school, but I wouldnt change anything about my experience. We had more foreign exchange students than all the neighboring schools combined and our educational standards were better than all but 1, maybe. I was also able to take college classes both in the building and at the Kirkwood facility in Monti.
Going to ISU after that, I felt lost and just another number. No perfect way, but I think for most high school kids, that one on one you get at smaller schools cant be beat.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mb7299
Yesterday voters in the Gladbrook-Reinbeck district voted NOT to dissolve. Now that it's settled how do they operate since dissolution in the first place was because there wasn't enough money to operate? Voting to remain a school district doesn't make money appear.

Has anyone been through this before? I'm not asking about the emotions of losing a school (which kills a town), I'm asking what happens when a district vote to stay open when they know there isn't any money. Is it prolonging the inevitable? Are they wasting money repairing buildings with fewer students each year, etc?

It is prolonging the inevitable.
 
Kids at smaller schools don't have to specialize their extra curriculars and can expose themselves to more things. A big school presents more options, but it also presents much more pressure to specialize.

This applies to literally any kind of extra curricular and not just sports.

I'd have to completely disagree with you. My kids go to a school much larger (although not huge) than where I went and what they have access to and are currently involved in is much greater than anything I had. It is also far more than what some of my relatives kids have and are doing in small rural schools. The amount of classes available is also much greater once they get into high school.

My nieces are in a huge district in a Chicago suburb and they are involved in a good number of activities and programs that i'm very jealous they have and we don't.

Outside of sports extra curriculars are very limited in small schools. And even with sports larger schools will have A,B,C teams etc up until JV and Varsity.

Just like all of us I have great memories of my small school. But after seeing what my kids currently and will have access to as they get older I would much rather have their path then mine. And I'm very glad they are on the path they're on instead of some of my relatives kids who will be fighting just to keep the lights on every year.

Iowa is going to have to accept and embrace things that have happened in states that lost it's rural populations already. 1-3 districts per county will end up being the right number for counties not named Polk, Story, Johnson, Linn, Dallas, Woodbury, Scott, Blackhawk, Dubuque, Pottowatomie, etc.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron