The 1-year ban on varsity play for non-feeder transfers does nothing. Most freshmen are not playing varsity ball their freshmen year. It is a hollow offer.

 

And any ban should go both ways with waivers for actual changes of residence or a hardship waiver of financial distress.

 

 

But, since the frosh don't play anyway, they don't impact the championships. Heck, most sophomores don't play varsity. How is the 1 year versus 2 year ban any different in this scenario?

 

What is a hollow offer, IMO, is that public schools feel (at least those speaking from the committee) that kids who enter public schools after spending their grade school/middle school years in private schools should not be subject to the same restrictions.

 

I agree the ban should go both ways, and I agree with your last part of your statement. But that's not what those on the committee are saying.

Off top of my head....the court system will MAKE THEM take students who don't want to be in school.

 

The inability to get rid of troubled students because they don't want to deal with them anymore like the freedom that private schools have.

 

KIRIS, KERA and state funding

 

State guidelines and requirements they have to follow concerning PD training, school requirements that are a politicians whim that get in the way of the teacher's teaching.

 

Any others feel free to join in.

 

I agree 100% This, IMO, may be the single biggest advantage to sending children to private HS. It isn't the athletic programs. The opportunity to surround your students with students that share the desire to learn.

The 1-year ban on varsity play for non-feeder transfers does nothing. Most freshmen are not playing varsity ball their freshmen year. It is a hollow offer.

 

And any ban should go both ways with waivers for actual changes of residence or a hardship waiver of financial distress.

 

So your acknowledging this rule wouldn't be held up in court due to financial distress, and if it can't be held up equaly for both sides, then it should not be a rule period.

But, since the frosh don't play anyway, they don't impact the championships. Heck, most sophomores don't play varsity. How is the 1 year versus 2 year ban any different in this scenario?

 

What is a hollow offer, IMO, is that public schools feel (at least those speaking from the committee) that kids who enter public schools after spending their grade school/middle school years in private schools should not be subject to the same restrictions.

 

I agree the ban should go both ways, and I agree with your last part of your statement. But that's not what those on the committee are saying.

RM,

 

Your speaking to a brick wall. Its obvious the people who support Prop 20, do not think there is anything wrong with the Public Schools. Its all about the evil privates. So lets punish them for dare thinking they have a right to compete with us.

So your acknowledging this rule wouldn't be held up in court due to financial distress, and if it can't be held up equaly for both sides, then it should not be a rule period.

I would NEVER try to say what the courts would do. :eek:

 

And I believe it should be enforced both ways. Which I believe ends up penalizing the kids too much and is a bad compromise.

 

I have NOT seen a solution offered that has not involved either classification of some sort that has been a good compromise. BTW, I see the "split" as just a form of classification.

I would NEVER try to say what the courts would do. :eek:

 

And I believe it should be enforced both ways. Which I believe ends up penalizing the kids too much and is a bad compromise.

 

I have NOT seen a solution offered that has not involved either classification of some sort that has been a good compromise. BTW, I see the "split" as just a form of classification.

 

I like the idea if it would make the public school attacker go away, the idea of moving private schools and public schools up a class who recieved students from a larger area/ more than just there designated district.

 

So Covington HC, NCC, Highlands, Beechwood,CCH, and so on would all move up a class.

I agree 100% This, IMO, may be the single biggest advantage to sending children to private HS. It isn't the athletic programs. The opportunity to surround your students with students that share the desire to learn.

or faith.

I would NEVER try to say what the courts would do. :eek:

 

And I believe it should be enforced both ways. Which I believe ends up penalizing the kids too much and is a bad compromise.

 

I have NOT seen a solution offered that has not involved either classification of some sort that has been a good compromise. BTW, I see the "split" as just a form of classification.

 

 

I think the hugest road block is that different classifications are apparently needed for different sports. Evidently there's almost no willingness whatsoever to classify basketball, and since there's no disputing that public schools dominate in basketball (overall, that is, not in the case of the All A :lol:), there is no perceived disparity there.

 

It seems to be a select few sports, and primarly centers on football. If that's the case, then THAT's the issue that needs to be addressed, re-classification of football. NOT a separation of schools.

 

How many schools are irate that X dominates swimming? I'd say not too many, and surprisingly so, because NKY is a big swimming area. Yes, they have great teams up there as well, but overall, X rules swimming.

 

How many schools are concerned that X and Trinity are becoming VERY competitive at a non-sanctioned sport...lacrosse? Not many I would think. What happens, though, if lacrosse becomes a sanctioned sport and Trinity & X dominate it as well? It will be the same rigamarole all over....and simply because Trinity and X devoted the time and some resources in a non-revenue producing sport, and developed their teams.

 

I don't think at the heart of all this there is any argument that financial aid is NOT the issue. I don't even think that the few public school students who wind up being "star" players on Trinity or X's teams are the issue.

or faith.

The bottom line which myself and other private school supporters have been trying to say is, the major advantages that privates hold can not be fixed by this commitee.

 

School pride, students will to learn, faith, parent involvment and a very well rounded feeder system (basketball).

or faith.

 

The faith based education is a given. However, the ability of the school to administer discipline at their discretion is a huge advantage in the classroom.

The faith based education is a given. However, the ability of the school to administer discipline at their discretion is a huge advantage in the classroom.

Explain, the only advantage a private might have here is to be able to kick certain students out who have commited felonies. But other than that Privates really can't do anything different.

 

I don't see what advantage CCH has on this over Highlands?

Explain, the only advantage a private might have here is to be able to kick certain students out who have commited felonies. But other than that Privates really can't do anything different.

 

I don't see what advantage CCH has on this over Highlands?

 

 

The way I understand it, Private schools are able to follow a progressive disciplinary policy up to and including expulsion. Public schools theoretically are able to do the same but it's much more difficult to expel a student than it is for a Private school. I'm not really clear on the technicalities of that difficulty, but that's the gist of what I've been told.

Sure there are advantages. The privates can set there own codes of conduct and students can be disciplined accordingly. It doesn't take a felony to get expelled.

 

Public schools have their disciplinary action outlined for them and they are required to dicscipline accordingly. Privates can expell for behavior that would require numerous suspensions prior to expulsion in the public schools.

 

The right to an education is provided through the public school system.

Off top of my head....the court system will MAKE THEM take students who don't want to be in school.

 

The inability to get rid of troubled students because they don't want to deal with them anymore like the freedom that private schools have.

 

KIRIS, KERA and state funding

 

State guidelines and requirements they have to follow concerning PD training, school requirements that are a politicians whim that get in the way of the teacher's teaching.

 

Any others feel free to join in.

 

I agree 100% This, IMO, may be the single biggest advantage to sending children to private HS. It isn't the athletic programs. The opportunity to surround your students with students that share the desire to learn.

 

Your above reason of why we are different, are the best reasons in writing, I have ever seen of why my child goes to a Catholic High School......Thank you.....

 

BTW my child doesn't even play sports, but does compete in the Governors Cup. Do you think that one day the Pulbic Schools will want a split in that too?

Explain, the only advantage a private might have here is to be able to kick certain students out who have commited felonies. But other than that Privates really can't do anything different.

 

I don't see what advantage CCH has on this over Highlands?

 

Was privvy to a conversation once where a private school principal was telling a public school principal, that he loved having the ability to write a check to refund the student's tuition and send him on his way.

 

Public school that can not happen. We have to continue to educate whether we want to or not.

 

If a child is a resource student and we EXPEL him from the school setting, the public school MUST STILL provide education at OUR COST to him.