School sporting scholarships/recruitment

[angrydog]

It just outright poaching and destroying other schools efforts to play competitive rugby. Do I blame the parents, well no, The point is the offer maybe shouldnt be there in the first place. I have no problem with a scholarship given to a genuine financial hardship case. In this case though, this simply is not the case. The parents of both boys were set to be fee paying folk so they are not short of a crust. As far as 'city' schools doing well out of boarders from the bush, again I have no problem with that so long as they are fee payers as they usually were for a very long time. Seriously, there is no excuses and as I outlined earlier, these 'city' schools are only furthering their own interests without much consideration for the greater rugby picture as we are all seeing so well at the wallabies and definately at the waratahs. And really, comparing Gregs with Kings as Holdens and Audi's - get your head out of your Hugh Jarse. I havent seen any Gregs kids in the papers for criminal charges whilst on an international holidays lately so lets not go any further on that.

 

[Quick Hands]

The whole situation is unhealthy for rugby, but should not be viewed in isolation. The reason that private schools have been able to do this is the vacuum left by NSWRU and ARU. They have left most of the player development to the private schools and now the private schools are using it for their own ends, rather than purely for the advancement of rugby. Had the governing bodies taken the lead in the past 30 years (or more), then the private schools would not have such influence over young players, and player development would be in the hands of rugby administrators rather than school administrators.

The GPS arms race is not sustainable, but will no doubt continue in the short term.

Remember, that the private schools are businesses and have no particular duty to ensure that rugby talent is spread evenly. That is the duty and responsibility of the governing body, which through complacency or laziness, they have not undertaken with enough zeal.

 

[Dark Shark]

At least in Sydney the scholarships seem to be offered to locals. In Brisbane they send the scouts to New Zealand and some Pacific Island nations.

So prevalent, that a sports coach (who has coached national teams in the past) at one school has just resigned. In his departing speech to the boys he spoke about how he believed the practice was patently unfair to the boys who had slogged it out for years and who would normally be good enough to represent the school at the highest level. He just got so sick of it that it was one of the key factors in his decision to walk away. (he has no other employment lined up).

 

[angrydog]

The whole situation is unhealthy for rugby, but should not be viewed in isolation. The reason that private schools have been able to do this is the vacuum left by NSWRU and ARU. They have left most of the player development to the private schools and now the private schools are using it for their own ends, rather than purely for the advancement of rugby. Had the governing bodies taken the lead in the past 30 years (or more), then the private schools would not have such influence over young players, and player development would be in the hands of rugby administrators rather than school administrators.

The GPS arms race is not sustainable, but will no doubt continue in the short term.

Remember, that the private schools are businesses and have no particular duty to ensure that rugby talent is spread evenly. That is the duty and responsibility of the governing body, which through complacency or laziness, they have not undertaken with enough zeal.

I agree with everything you have said here except for parts of the last paragraph. Private schoos are not businesses, they are schools and there is a significant difference. I am sure I dont need to go into what separates the two. As such, whilst I agree they do not have a duty to ensure an even spread of rugby talent they do have some obligation to ensure that as a school they enrol students in a manner which is ethical and not at the expense of other schools who are also trying to maintain levels of fee paying students which will ensure they are able to survive. Gregs for example whilst not on struggle street would rely on fee payers to stay above water. They do not have the luxury of offering scholarships and now they are two fee payers down on the books which would of otherwise provided needed income for improvements to facilities etc. No matter how you look at this it is poor practice to target other schools and their pupils.

 

[angrydog]

If the NSWRU and ARU truly beleive that development of players is best left to private schools and that the current means by which this is happening is adequate, rugby is doomed. Maybe not now, not next week or maybe not for another 20 years or so, but without some innovation and improvement the writing seems to be on the wall.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Competition is healthy.

The ACCC would be across Kings like a dose of Epsom Salts in the punch at the School Formal if this was the "genuine" corporate world the big four banks f'r instance.

There are triggers that ARU, Aust Schools RU could use to "discourage" this sort of predatory conduct from Kings.

Is it about winning or growing?

 

[angrydog]

Competition is healthy.

The ACCC would be across Kings like a dose of Epsom Salts in the punch at the School Formal if this was the "genuine" corporate world the big four banks f'r instance.

There are triggers that ARU, Aust Schools RU could use to "discourage" this sort of predatory conduct from Kings.

Is it about winning or growing?

It seems that somewhere in the past 10 - 15 years that question has become ignored. It's about short term success and worrying about the long term furutre...well never. Maybe they really are businesses, or maybe they are run by politicians.

 

[Quick Hands]

I agree with everything you have said here except for parts of the last paragraph. Private schoos are not businesses, they are schools and there is a significant difference. I am sure I dont need to go into what separates the two. As such, whilst I agree they do not have a duty to ensure an even spread of rugby talent they do have some obligation to ensure that as a school they enrol students in a manner which is ethical and not at the expense of other schools who are also trying to maintain levels of fee paying students which will ensure they are able to survive. Gregs for example whilst not on struggle street would rely on fee payers to stay above water. They do not have the luxury of offering scholarships and now they are two fee payers down on the books which would of otherwise provided needed income for improvements to facilities etc. No matter how you look at this it is poor practice to target other schools and their pupils.

Unfortunately in the modern world, they are run as businesses. They're in the business of education, but nevertherless they are now mulit-million dollar enterprises. Quite how they justify this practice of sports player recruitment (not confined to rugby), I don't know. Obviously they think that it is in their interests to do so.

If it's any comfort it's not just Gregs who have experienced this, the local ISA school here is St Augustines and they have lost numerous rugby players to GPS schools in the past 5 years (think about 5 ex Augustines boys turned out in various GPS 1st XVs this year), plus 4 state level water polo players to a CAS school.

Augustines seem to still be strong at most sports, so losing a few players hasn't affected them too much. I hope that Gregs can also overcome this unfortunate occurrence.

 

[whatever]

"Evil will rule when good men look away".

I will leave it to you to decide who the evil ones are; GPS schools (headmasters), NSWRU, ARU etc.

Kings - utterly disgraceful, if true.

 

[Lindommer]

The head ISA honchos did a lot of work during the mid-2000s to get Greg's into the rugby tent, the prospect of organised sport for their (mostly country) boarders was very attractive to the sport and boarding staff. The day boys who played rugby turned out for Campbelltown on Saturdays. TBH early on the Greg's boys struggled a bit to get the hang of rugby, but it was a game to be be played and enjoyed and they took to it well. Those boys at Greg's on mungo scholarships from NRL clubs didn't play rugby, it would've jeopardised their arrangements if they did. But all the other boarders took to rugby like ducks to water.

A former Greg's headmaster (there during the late 1990s) moved to Joeys in 2001, and engineered a complicated arrangement where Greg's combined with High to make up a fixture in the GPS competition in the mid-2000s; it was the first intance when High didn't meet the other GPS schools in a full fixture. IIRC High's First XV played as Firsts and Greg's First XV played as Seconds, High's 16As played as As and Greg's 16As played as Bs, etc. This is when Greg's learnt to compete in rugby at a decent level. It was after this experiment Greg's decided to take part in the ISA comp on their own terms. Did they play Second Division ISA at first? Dunno, but they're now in the first rank of ISA rugby schools. The only downside of Greg's rugby advancement might be the reduced numbers turning out for Campbelltown in junior district rugby. I'd left district rugby by this time as my young bloke was playing for his school but contacts in Metropolitan Western Zone kept me informed.

For King's to poach two talented young rugby players from Greg's is quite unprincipled, but not without precedent: Daniel Halangahu (from Daramalan Canberra), Dallas Carney (Chevalier Bowral), Daniel Conn (St John's Dubbo), Paul Dineen (Oakhill) and James Hilgendorf (Epping BHS) have all been down this path previously. Of Sydney's independent schools King's has one of the largest catchment areas of junior rugby to draw its boys from: there are about seven village clubs in north-west Sydney, most of the better rugby players aim to go to King's. Only Sydney's upper north shore would compare to King's nursery, and that's shared between Barker and Knox.

Shame on you, King's.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Unfortunately in the modern world, they are run as businesses.

They're not businesses: Kings, since you mention it, has a council Appointed by the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney. According to the website (albeit dated 2011) there are 5 members of the Council appointed by the Old Boy's Union - there may be other members of the council who are old boys. This is an extraordinary number (IMO) out of 16 Councillors. The old boys will always have about 30% of he council.

My hunch is that if there is a lot of poaching the power of the OBU is likely to explain it: schools with strong old boy's unions seem to want to do well (very well) in sport, rugby in particular.
In Kings' case you need to look beyond rugby to athletics, from what I hear, if you want to appreciate the extent of recruitment.

The proof of my theory may rest with consideration of the Newington Council: 13 old boys out of 19 councillors - although there is no suggestion they are appointed by the Old Boys. Given the sesquicentenary shortly and the prevalence of old boys on the council the make up of their 1st XV is not altogether surprising.

Grammar, at the other end, has 1 old boy trustee (or maybe 2) of 14 - unless one of the following happens to have gone to the school:
The Honourable the Attorney General
The Honourable the President of the Legislative Council
The Honourable the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
The Chancellor of the University of Sydney
The Principal Professor of Classics in the University of Sydney
The Senior Professor of Mathematics in the University of Sydney

 

[Quick Hands]

They're not businesses: Kings, since you mention it, has a council Appointed by the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney. According to the website (albeit dated 2011) there are 5 members of the Council appointed by the Old Boy's Union - there may be other members of the council who are old boys. This is an extraordinary number (IMO) out of 16 Councillors. The old boys will always have about 30% of he council.

My hunch is that if there is a lot of poaching the power of the OBU is likely to explain it: schools with strong old boy's unions seem to want to do well (very well) in sport, rugby in particular.
In Kings' case you need to look beyond rugby to athletics, from what I hear, if you want to appreciate the extent of recruitment.

The proof of my theory may rest with consideration of the Newington Council: 13 old boys out of 19 councillors - although there is no suggestion they are appointed by the Old Boys. Given the sesquicentenary shortly and the prevalence of old boys on the council the make up of their 1st XV is not altogether surprising.

Grammar, at the other end, has 1 old boy trustee (or maybe 2) of 14 - unless one of the following happens to have gone to the school:
The Honourable the Attorney General
The Honourable the President of the Legislative Council
The Honourable the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
The Chancellor of the University of Sydney
The Principal Professor of Classics in the University of Sydney
The Senior Professor of Mathematics in the University of Sydney

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes, but School Councils/Boards of Governors etc have no input into the day to day running of the schools. Their role is to set very broad goals and principles, ensure that legal requirements are being met, appoint senior staff and to ensure that the school is financially viable.

The day to day running of an independent school is left to the Principal/Headmaster. Like the captain of a ship he has sole legal responsibility for what happens at a school and School Councils/Boards of Governers will only intervene if there is illegal behaviour, gross mismanagement etc. For example, I can't imagine any of those listed on the Grammar board taking much interest in who plays for the 1st XV. Likewise I can't imagine the clergymen on the boards of Kings, Shore, Scots and Newington having much knowledge about those things either. It would take a huge groundswell of past and present parents going to these boards before they would even look at it. The first response would then be to ask the CEO (Principal/Headmaster) for a report I would imagine.

In the case of Kings, it really puzzles me why they need to do this anyway. They have a large enrolment, with a high percentage of boarders, unlimited facilities, a rugby demographic and they still need to import/recruit players? If so something is seriously wrong with their coaching programmes in the lower age groups.

In the cases of Scots and Newington, their rise in rugby seems to have coincided with changes to the Principal/Headmaster rather than changes or the make-up of school councils/boards of governors. I suspect that in both cases they wanted to do something before they suffered the same fate as High and Grammar. Doesn't make it right, but I think that can explain the thinking.

We'll have to disagree on the run as a buniness part. I have witnessed the Principal of a private school speak (not a GPS school), and during the speech he said at least 10 times that he had to run the school like a business. I can also recall reading comments by various independent school leaders to the same effect.

 

[Braveheart81]

Of course schools have to be run like businesses. If you don't, they go bankrupt. That is just common sense. A private school in Melbourne went bust earlier this year. It can happen.

The big difference is that schools aren't run to be profit making enterprises.

I personally don't have any problem with sporting scholarships being offered. I don't really see them as being different to academic scholarships. Generally private schools offer some means tested scholarships and some unconditional scholarships.

The main people who should feel aggrieved by private schools offering too many scholarships are other people at the school. Clearly other parents are helping foot the bill for kids on scholarships. The kids on scholarships however help drive the success that gives those private schools their reputations and results so it is a fine balance.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Quick Hands: I accept they have to balance the accounting books. Beyond that, if your experience is that they are in business then it might be time to have another look at the particular school(s).
That isn't my experience.
I think your main point actually supports mine: if the clerical members of these boards are not much interested in the rugby then that leaves the way clear for the old boy members to have significant input into that aspect.
Frankly, I cannot see what the purpose is in having old boys, particularly not old boys nominated by the OBU, on a school board. They're not, or very rarely are, educators. The question it invites is whether they would be there but for the fact that they are OBs? I have the impression that having OB's tends to ingrain a yearning for the old days.
I don't think you can say that you can absolve school boards from responsibility: they, after all, choose the headmaster and tend to do so (to my observation) by reference to the image of the school - which they and previous headmasters have created. However, it is interesting that Jensen is on the council of both TKS and Shore and each school's approach, at least to rugby, is quite different.
I think you will find in Kings' case that the historical "rugby demographic" is not what it used to be and the boarding houses are not full. Nonetheless I wholeheartedly agree with your observations about the need to recruit etc. Of course they did let an Australian Schoolboy walk earlier this year.
To be fair to Grammar the headmaster was picked very much in the image of the school: he is a modern (by comparison - still no laptops etc) day version of all who have held the position since the late 60's. To his eternal credit something has caused him to address the rugby situation at the school - so he is, in a sense, swimming against a tide. No doubt most of the trustees are not greatly interested in rugby but the recently (last couple of years) appointed chairman was (until RWC 2011) the only NZ er to have held Bill aloft....lending weak support to my view that the councils/board/trustees are more influential than you give them credit for.

 

[Braveheart81]

Old Boys on school boards help promote the traditions and history of a school. I guess their interest is to keep the school 'brand' strong such as to improve their old school tie network. Personally I think the old school tie thing is very real and does open doors. Whilst I cringe in certain company when asked which school I went to, at other times it has been quite beneficial to me in a business environment.

Clearly too much old boy influence can be a bad thing. Whilst it isn't a school, St John's College is a case in point. The old boys on the board had too much influence ensuring that poor behaviour and outdated traditions continued even when bordering on criminal.

 

[Quick Hands]

Quick Hands: I accept they have to balance the accounting books. Beyond that, if your experience is that they are in business then it might be time to have another look at the particular school(s).
That isn't my experience.
I think your main point actually supports mine: if the clerical members of these boards are not much interested in the rugby then that leaves the way clear for the old boy members to have significant input into that aspect.
Frankly, I cannot see what the purpose is in having old boys, particularly not old boys nominated by the OBU, on a school board. They're not, or very rarely are, educators. The question it invites is whether they would be there but for the fact that they are OBs? I have the impression that having OB's tends to ingrain a yearning for the old days.
I don't think you can say that you can absolve school boards from responsibility: they, after all, choose the headmaster and tend to do so (to my observation) by reference to the image of the school - which they and previous headmasters have created. However, it is interesting that Jensen is on the council of both TKS and Shore and each school's approach, at least to rugby, is quite different.
I think you will find in Kings' case that the historical "rugby demographic" is not what it used to be and the boarding houses are not full. Nonetheless I wholeheartedly agree with your observations about the need to recruit etc. Of course they did let an Australian Schoolboy walk earlier this year.
To be fair to Grammar the headmaster was picked very much in the image of the school: he is a modern (by comparison - still no laptops etc) day version of all who have held the position since the late 60's. To his eternal credit something has caused him to address the rugby situation at the school - so he is, in a sense, swimming against a tide. No doubt most of the trustees are not greatly interested in rugby but the recently (last couple of years) appointed chairman was (until RWC 2011) the only NZ er to have held Bill aloft..lending weak support to my view that the councils/board/trustees are more influential than you give them credit for.

The boards of Kings and Shore illustrate the point; each have 12 members appointed by the Anglican Archdiocese and 5 members appointed by the OBU, I'd suggest the crucial factor is that Dr Wright at Shore and Dr Hawkes at Kings seem to have differing views of the purpose of games/sport in schools.

At Scots Dr Lambert seems to have driven the change in balance when he replaced Dr Iles and at Newington things have changed since Dr Mulford replaced David Scott. Perhaps both were told to do something by the School Councils or perhaps they have driven this themselves or maybe a bit of both.

As in all things in life, balance is the key. Schools need to find the appropriate balance between sport, academic and other parts of school life. Likewise, recruiting/importing etc., good sportsmen is probably ok if it's 1 or 2 in a year group, but not when the numbers become overwhelming and clearly out of balance as they are now.

Grammar have been to the other extreme and it's great news that the current Headmaster is driving this, as probably most of his trustees would be oblivious.

In my humble opinion, the only thing that will stop this GPS arms race is concerted parental pressure (past and present) and perhaps some peer group pressure from the other Heads. I haven't met any of the gentlmen concerned and the only one with a public profile is Dr Hawkes from Kings. From my observations, anyone would have a hard job convincing him to do anything that wasn't his idea.

PS my son is not at the school of the Principal that I mentioned, unfortunately I was at the function.

 

[GPSrow]

I dont know if this one has been discussed as yet, but here goes...A VERY reliable and accurate source has informed me that two boys who were enrolled to attend St Gregs Campbelltown in Year 11 for 2013 as fee paying boarders have withdrawn their enrolments and forfieted their enrolment fees following offers from Kings of full scholarships for yr 11 and 12. Both boys are said to be very talented footballers who were keen to be part of Gregs expanding rugby program.

According to my source the reason for their withdrawals has been confirmed by both sets of parents as being due to scholarships being offered that were "to good an opportunity" to knock back.

Neither boy is known to be outstanding scholars or amazing musicians and the only explanation for the offer from Kings appears to be sport, and namely Rugby related.

Considering the effort Gregs as been making in the past few years to build a rugby culture in the face of, and at times opposition, of it's well known and established rugby league culture this is very dissapointing and some what disgusting. My own opinion is that rugby will continue to reduce it's player depth and struggle as it is currently at the senior level if instances like this continue and the supposedly superior GPS schools just pillage the rest at the grass roots. Having one very strong schoolboys competiton in NSW/ACT is not healthy for development and as we are seeing with the destruction of rugby at SBHS and Grammar not healthy for the competition itself.

Anybody who thinks that having a select number of schools picking up kids they want at the expense at other schools and their respective competitions is a good idea or in line with the ideals of the modern professional game is deluded and I hope they are enjoying the view of seeing rugby in Australia become almost laughable. It may be nice to sit back at a test match and count how many wallabies your school has produced in the current wallabies sides but really what is the point if the wallabies are sh!t and cant stand up against the big boys year in year out.

Shame on Kings!!

Dont ask me to name my source, I wont. Dont ask me to name the kids I cant. This is very reliable information. Thanky you for your time.

Unforunately, it has come to this. GPS schools are no longer 'schools' in the traditional meaning. They are very well-run business suited to pleasing the 'consumers' (fee paying parents/old boys) and in many ways give up the fact that going to school is 6 years of high-school education with the saturday to play with mates and try to beat schools by a try or two on the weekend.

Having an even rugby base does give the opportunity for schools in different competitions e.g. CAS or GPS playing one another and achieving a close game rather than a thrashing in games such as Cranbrook vs. Scots which used to be played annually but has now turned sour.

Nowadays, these certain schools whether in the GPS or not are institutionalising the boys into achieving and gaining new heights for the school e.g. through academic or sporting results all for the fact that these 'good results' will attract a steady base of parents wanting to send their kids to a school that can win premierships and achieve high ATAR, without realising the mental, physical and emotional pressure being put on these 'high achievers' that are currently attending the school.

 

[Braveheart81]

Nowadays, these certain schools whether in the GPS or not are institutionalising the boys into achieving and gaining new heights for the school e.g. through academic or sporting results all for the fact that these 'good results' will attract a steady base of parents wanting to send their kids to a school that can win premierships and achieve high ATAR, without realising the mental, physical and emotional pressure being put on these 'high achievers' that are currently attending the school.

My heart bleeds for the poor high achievers winning sporting premierships and achieving high ATARs at the exclusive private schools of Sydney.

 

[Quick Hands]

Unforunately, it has come to this. GPS schools are no longer 'schools' in the traditional meaning. They are very well-run business suited to pleasing the 'consumers' (fee paying parents/old boys) and in many ways give up the fact that going to school is 6 years of high-school education with the saturday to play with mates and try to beat schools by a try or two on the weekend.

You've nailed what school sport should be, unfortunately the principle seems to have been lost in the quest for the transitory glory of winning. It is acceptable in life to prepare as well as you can, go out and try your best, but be beaten by a better team/person.

One suspects that the boys playing in the 9 team GPS 3rd XV competition will experience what school sport should be like and will be the better for it.

Some of the carpetbaggers in 1st XVs probably won't remember or care which school they went to in 20 years time.