Don't you get it, the problem w/ feeder schools isn't just for private schools. I know plenty of people who attended Mary Queen in Lexington, a private middle school, and yet went to Dunbar or Lafayette in High School and some were good athletes. One guy was all state soccer this year and has competed on Dunbar's team since he was a frosh. Should he be punished because his parents wanted him to go to a Public High School? Yet, if someone like him isn't punished for going from Private to Public, how is it fair to punish someone for going Public to Private?

I absolutely get it. Same rules should apply to the students who go from private to public as those that apply to students who go from public to private. Make the decision by middle school if that is the rule that is adopted and live with it. If you switch schools then you know you have to sit out 2 years if that is the approved proposal. What's not to get?

I just find all the different scenarios being posted by my many good friends who are Private School supporters in their attempt to circumvent a proposal that hasn't even been approved extremely humorous and a little pathetic. :laugh: :walk:

I absolutely get it. Same rules should apply to the students who go from private to public as those that apply to students who go from public to private. Make the decision by middle school if that is the rule that is adopted and live with it. If you switch schools then you know you have to sit out 2 years if that is the approved proposal. What's not to get?

I just find all the different scenarios being posted by my many good friends who are Private School supporters in their attempt to circumvent a proposal that hasn't even been approved extremely humorous and a little pathetic. :laugh: :walk:

You don't think a lawsuit would happen and be succesful if someone tried to deny a kid a right to play a sport in his districts public school for going to a private prior to high school?

Make the decision by middle school if that is the rule that is adopted and live with it. If you switch schools then you know you have to sit out 2 years if that is the approved proposal.

 

We know ADs want this, we know coaches want this. (Notice there is no seperation of public/private in the statment - this is good for all coaches).

 

But lets hear from all the parents of current middle school (or younger) students on the positives of this approach. Please post your support and reasons for that support of this compromise. We need to hear from parents on why this is a good compromise and how this will benefit their children. If this is so easy to get there should be plenty of backing from actual parents for it.

You don't think a lawsuit would happen and be succesful if someone tried to deny a kid a right to play a sport in his districts public school for going to a private prior to high school?

 

It's a privilege, not a right blah blah blah.... :thumb:

We know ADs want this, we know coaches want this. (Notice there is no seperation of public/private in the statment - this is good for all coaches).

 

But lets hear from all the parents of current middle school (or younger) students on the positives of this approach. Please post your support and reasons for that support of this compromise. We need to hear from parents on why this is a good compromise and how this will benefit their children. If this is so easy to get there should be plenty of backing from actual parents for it.

 

Parents don't count. They do not own their children, the public school coach does.

^ Funny....

 

I love, SIMPLY love, that districts and schools feel that they "own" the children that live near or in them. I LOVE IT>

Also who knows what is better for a kid then a local public school district?

^ exactly.

I'm going to make a statement that I will probably be pilloried for by the public school supporters but so be it. Administrators like Wilson Sears are seeing more and more parents being willing to make the financial commitment to send their children to private schools. While I am sure that there are SOME supporters of Prop 20 and these compromises that do indeed have the best interest of student athletes at heart I unfortunately feel that some, Mr. Sears among them, are just using this as a way to make private schools less attractive to a specific population. In this case athletes. The cynic in me says that the public side will be willing to accept a two year ban only because they feel that it will not be upheld in the courts but the same courts may uphold the ban if applied only to private schools. I see all of this as a ploy to try to hurt private schools not just athletically but in their overall ability to attract students.

I absolutely get it. Same rules should apply to the students who go from private to public as those that apply to students who go from public to private. Make the decision by middle school if that is the rule that is adopted and live with it. If you switch schools then you know you have to sit out 2 years if that is the approved proposal. What's not to get?

I just find all the different scenarios being posted by my many good friends who are Private School supporters in their attempt to circumvent a proposal that hasn't even been approved extremely humorous and a little pathetic. :laugh: :walk:

 

While I take it you find me and other private supporters ignorant, I don't see it as simple as you explain and I don't seem alone.

 

Face it, I first asked what info was known about potential feeder school programs, and once given the info as well as reading over a few more comments, I just posted the one thing I hope the KHSAA takes into consideration when making a decision of feeder schools. Switching from public schools to private and vice versa will always happen, it ain't gonna change. Money could get tight, parents dislike high school in their district/county, kid actually doesn't want to go to one high school over another, parent dislikes certain middle school over another, etc. etc. Heck one reason a lot of kids attend public middle schools over private is busing. Most private middle schools don't provide busing and a parent has to drive the kids to school. Not all parents can consistently do this. However, in highschool you may know someone near you who goes to the high school and can drive there, and by sophmore or junior year the child will be driving anyways. Going to a private school isn't as big a problem than. All these scenarios are true ones parents and kids consider in where they go to school.

 

All I and anyone seems to be asking in regards to the subject at hand is why, if some kid is an athlete, should he be penalized because they made the dreaded switch across lines in either direction for reasons above. Heck even if the switch is athletics related (hopefully w/o any type of recruiting) what is the problem? The only thing considered than is if the kid played for a high school team while in middle school and than going into high school makes the switch. Than I agree a year sitting out is warranted. Its than a transfer situation.

 

Yes its speculation but its just something you hope gets considered.

While I take it you find me and other private supporters ignorant,

I don't see it as simple as you explain and I don't seem alone.

 

Face it, I first asked what info was known about potential feeder school programs, and once given the info as well as reading over a few more comments, I just posted the one thing I hope the KHSAA takes into consideration when making a decision of feeder schools. Switching from public schools to private and vice versa will always happen, it ain't gonna change. Money could get tight, parents dislike high school in their district/county, kid actually doesn't want to go to one high school over another, parent dislikes certain middle school over another, etc. etc. Heck one reason a lot of kids attend public middle schools over private is busing. Most private middle schools don't provide busing and a parent has to drive the kids to school. Not all parents can consistently do this. However, in highschool you may know someone near you who goes to the high school and can drive there, and by sophmore or junior year the child will be driving anyways. Going to a private school isn't as big a problem than. All these scenarios are true ones parents and kids consider in where they go to school.

 

All I and anyone seems to be asking in regards to the subject at hand is why, if some kid is an athlete, should he be penalized because they made the dreaded switch across lines in either direction for reasons above. Heck even if the switch is athletics related (hopefully w/o any type of recruiting) what is the problem? The only thing considered than is if the kid played for a high school team while in middle school and than going into high school makes the switch. Than I agree a year sitting out is warranted. Its than a transfer situation.

 

Yes its speculation but its just something you hope gets considered.

 

Never suggested for 1 minute that you or any other private school supporter was ignorant. You came up with that all by yourself. Maybe a little bullheaded and stubborn but by no means ignorant.

If well over 70% of your membership tells you something needs to be changed and eventually it is changed and is uniformily enforced with both public/private schools then why can't you simply follow those rules instead constantly looking for loopholes so that you can bend those rules to your liking. I mean I know that's what you have gotten away with for years but it needs to be fixed. I know it is difficult to accept when things have been slanted in your favor for so long but it is time to clean things up..But guess what it will probably never come about so relax. Far more important things to worry about. :lol:

If well over 70% of your membership tells you something needs to be changed and eventually it is changed and is uniformily enforced with both public/private schools then why can't you simply follow those rules instead constantly looking for loopholes

If this were true just because a majority want it, it must be right. Then Jim Crow laws would still be in tack, segregation still in place, and women wouldn't vote.

 

Sometimes just because a majority is stubborn and looking out for their personal best interest instead of the entire population, the sensible leaders must step in.

If this were true just because a majority want it, it must be right. Then Jim Crow laws would still be in tack, segregation still in place, and women wouldn't vote.

 

Sometimes just because a majority is stubborn and looking out for their personal best interest instead of the entire population, the sensible leaders must step in.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Please bigstud..You are killing with this stuff. :lol: :banana:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Please bigstud..You are killing with this stuff. :lol: :banana:

I have a dream................

I have a dream................

:laugh: Not sure but I think you might be living in a dream..I'm out..Take it easy.. :ylsuper: