PUBLIC/NON-PUBLIC TASK FORCE UPDATE

 

LEXINGTON – This is an update on the Kentucky High School Athletic Association Public/Non-Public Task Force Committee. Following a committee meeting held Jan. 9-10, Justice James E.Keller, facilitator, asked the committee to respond to three proposals that were a product of the

meeting. Committee members have until Friday, Jan. 27 to respond to the Judge after which Justice Keller will then compile a report.

 

KHSAA Commissioner Brigid DeVries is scheduled to provide a status report on the Committee’s actions and/or recommendations to the Kentucky Board of Education on Feb. 1 in Frankfort.

 

The Public/Non-Public Committee was formed after a directive from the Kentucky Board of Education that called for representatives from Public and Non-Public schools to revisit two proposals that were passed at the KHSAA Annual Meeting last October.

 

The KHSAA Board and the Delegate Assembly reached differing conclusions on Proposal 20 which, if implemented, would divide KHSAA member schools into two divisions (public and non-public) for postseason play.

 

The KBE also asked the group to revisit Proposal 3, which dealt with redistricting out-of state students from athletic participation at KHSAA member schools, which also passed at the Delegate Assembly Meeting.

Why have the three proposals not been listed on the KHSAA website. All we know is what the panel has said they are. Could we not see these in writing?

Why have the three proposals not been listed on the KHSAA website. All we know is what the panel has said they are. Could we not see these in writing?

I heard the judge will send 2 proposals to the BOC and the BOC will have the delegate’s vote on which one they want

1. Two-year suspension from all sports if a kid comes from a “non-feeder school, which includes the out of state kids.

2. One-year suspension from varsity only for the same infraction. (Which to me is the same as we got now if a kid transfer from school to school)

I heard the judge will send 2 proposals to the BOC and the BOC will have the delegate’s vote on which one they want

1. Two-year suspension from all sports if a kid comes from a “non-feeder school, which includes the out of state kids.

2. One-year suspension from varsity only for the same infraction. (Which to me is the same as we got now if a kid transfer from school to school)

 

I agree, the one year suspension is what we have know and it is accomplishing nothing. I think the two year suspension and defining a feeder program will level the playing field. It will definately make kids and parents think about transfering long and hard instead of just packing up and transfering schools.

I agree, the one year suspension is what we have know and it is accomplishing nothing. I think the two year suspension and defining a feeder program will level the playing field. It will definately make kids and parents think about transfering long and hard instead of just packing up and transfering schools.

Then I will rebuttle this statement, that the state high school system should have no say to where I send my kid to middle school and make me decide on the high school 3 years prior to his start.

I just have difficulty grasping the concept that when moving from middle school to high school (or grade school to high school in the case of Catholic schools), that it's considered a "transfer". To me, when you say transfer, it's from one school to another of the same type.

 

I just can't get my mind wrapped around this.... :creepy:

Then I will rebuttle this statement, that the state high school system should have no say to where I send my kid to middle school and make me decide on the high school 3 years prior to his start.

to me I think the private schools have back themselves in a corner. I think prop 20 would actualy be better for them then the two year deal. At least at prop 20 they would have been able to keep doing what they are doing plus be able to expand to include dorms and full rides and all that stuff. If the two year deal gets passed it will hurt them more towards kids enrolling there because all of the parents that send their kids to private schools and then to public high school will take them out at seventh grade and they will definently lose the kids from other districts and states so their enrollment will drop. I would be accepting prop 20 now with open arms. But I think they painted them in a corner

to me I think the private schools have back themselves in a corner. I think prop 20 would actualy be better for them then the two year deal. At least at prop 20 they would have been able to keep doing what they are doing plus be able to expand to include dorms and full rides and all that stuff. If the two year deal gets passed it will hurt them more towards kids enrolling there because all of the parents that send their kids to private schools and then to public high school will take them out at seventh grade and they will definently lose the kids from other districts and states so their enrollment will drop. I would be accepting prop 20 now with open arms. But I think they painted them in a corner

 

What does Prop 20 have to do with dorms, full rides, etc? Where does this nonsense come from?

to me I think the private schools have back themselves in a corner. I think prop 20 would actualy be better for them then the two year deal. At least at prop 20 they would have been able to keep doing what they are doing plus be able to expand to include dorms and full rides and all that stuff. If the two year deal gets passed it will hurt them more towards kids enrolling there because all of the parents that send their kids to private schools and then to public high school will take them out at seventh grade and they will definently lose the kids from other districts and states so their enrollment will drop. I would be accepting prop 20 now with open arms. But I think they painted them in a corner

That is a powerful statement. And is a great question for the private supporters on here.

 

Which is better for private schools, Prop 20 or a 2-year ban?

 

The ban would only affect those players that are truly outstanding and would play on varsity level as a freshmen/sophomore. If they are not of that level, it really would not effect them UNLESS the ban is for all levels of play.

to me I think the private schools have back themselves in a corner. I think prop 20 would actualy be better for them then the two year deal. At least at prop 20 they would have been able to keep doing what they are doing plus be able to expand to include dorms and full rides and all that stuff. If the two year deal gets passed it will hurt them more towards kids enrolling there because all of the parents that send their kids to private schools and then to public high school will take them out at seventh grade and they will definently lose the kids from other districts and states so their enrollment will drop. I would be accepting prop 20 now with open arms. But I think they painted them in a corner

 

First, very few if any of the 48 KHSAA private schools would be in a position to include dorms and give full rides.

 

Second, even including S. Indiana and WV border students there are not a lot of large numbers of out of state resident students at KY high schools. And there is no reason that a S. Indiana parish could not be defined as a feeder school for the Arch. of Lou. and that the legit WV relationship schools like Belfry have could not be continued without penalty.

 

Third, the choosing a middle school or grade school to be eligible in high school is a difficult concept for many (private and public) families to grasp. I would imagine it would be the focus of several lawsuits if not handled properly.

Another issue, if the private schools accepted Prop 20, they'd still have to be under the direction of the KHSAA if they wanted to play out of state teams.

 

The only way a split would be in any way beneficial would be if it were a full split, and if a recognized governing body were formed and joined the NHSAA. Even then, the benefits would be for only the larger private schools. The smaller (and majority) of private schools would be left behind.

I agree, the one year suspension is what we have know and it is accomplishing nothing. I think the two year suspension and defining a feeder program will level the playing field. It will definately make kids and parents think about transfering long and hard instead of just packing up and transfering schools.

 

The concept of a 'feeder school' is mostly coaches laying claim to kids. Many parents plan to go to public primary schools but go to private schools in high school, and many plan to go the other way.

 

Why should chidren whos parents planned to do this all along be penalized. The 2 year ban on a child is really a sports death sentence. And this 'compromise' is simple a trojan horse for coaches to get what they want - a defined pipeline of recruits. And Prop 20 is the smoke screen to make the tojan horse harder to find. It is certainly not benefiting the student/atheletes. Not in any way at all.

 

As a parent, the concept of banning children from participation does not make sense. It would interesting to know what actual parents of current middle schoolers were involved with this compromise. I bet not many, if any. Reasonable, caring parents would not support this outrage.

That is a powerful statement. And is a great question for the private supporters on here.

 

Which is better for private schools, Prop 20 or a 2-year ban?

 

The ban would only affect those players that are truly outstanding and would play on varsity level as a freshmen/sophomore. If they are not of that level, it really would not effect them UNLESS the ban is for all levels of play.

 

A better question is what is best for STUDENT/ATHELETES of both private and public schools. What is best for schools or coaches or athletetic directors is (or least should be) secondary or lower.

 

My stance is simple - a move to expand 'bans' or increase non-participation time of a students is unacceptable. I believe that only coaches and ADs who are after shiny cold hardware support this. So that leaves Prop-20. Not a good option either - but at least we are not telling 100s of kids they can not play a sport they love because of idiotic and selfish reasons.

A better question is what is best for STUDENT/ATHELETES of both private and public schools. What is best for schools or coaches or athletetic directors is (or least should be) secondary or lower.

 

My stance is simple - a move to expand 'bans' or increase non-participation time of a students is unacceptable. I believe that only coaches and ADs who are after shiny cold hardware support this. So that leaves Prop-20. Not a good option either - but at least we are not telling 100s of kids they can not play a sport they love because of idiotic and selfish reasons.

 

If the KHSAA goes belly-up from Prop 20 we will be telling 1000s of kids they cannot play.

 

So one idea is bad and the other might be a death-sentence.

Another issue, if the private schools accepted Prop 20, they'd still have to be under the direction of the KHSAA if they wanted to play out of state teams.

 

The only way a split would be in any way beneficial would be if it were a full split, and if a recognized governing body were formed and joined the NHSAA. Even then, the benefits would be for only the larger private schools. The smaller (and majority) of private schools would be left behind.

 

Sounds good in theory, except that the NFHS only admits one group per state, so by doing this particular split you are talking about, the private schools are high and dry, except for probably T and X who could exist as independent entities.