But that's not the proposal that was endorsed by the KHSAA board. They kept it at penalties both ways despite the private schools attempt to not hurt the kids leaving private schools for public schools for any reason.

Gotcha. Thanks..:thumb:

 

I did not catch that change.

 

Long live Ross!!!!!!:banana:

I thought the private schools compromised where they could go from private to public but not the other way. In the examples given, I thought they were allowed but could not attend.....Glasgow Public HS and then attend St. X or Trinity?:confused:

Mr. Sears rejected that proposal from the privates. I have to believe that his purpose is to try to get kids to leave the private schools after 6th grade.

Mr. Sears rejected that proposal from the privates. I have to believe that his purpose is to try to get kids to leave the private schools after 6th grade.

RM had erased my confusion and then you brought it back. She said the BOC was the one who put it back into the compromise, not Mr. Sears. BTW, I don't think he has that much power, just the one willing to be most vocal.

RM had erased my confusion and then you brought it back. She said the BOC was the one who put it back into the compromise, not Mr. Sears. BTW, I don't think he has that much power, just the one willing to be most vocal.

 

 

It's my understanding from an article I read in The Record, that Ms. Speers and the Private contingency had worked late into the night to come to that compromise, then when they went to present it, they were told that the negotiations were closed, and that the compromise was to be presented to the BOC with the penalties for students as originally worded...public to private, private to public. So, Mr. Sears, as the Supreme Leader of the Public contigency would be to blame! . The proposal the BOC endorsed was the one Mr. Sears and company decided upon, while the Private contigency was hard at work in their hotel rooms.

Leisa Speer, chair of the Kentucky Non-Public Schools Commission, said that group has “many serious concerns” about the recommendations proposed by the board of control. Speer, who is also superintendent of schools for the Archdiocese of Louisville, said that “first and foremost, the feeder-affiliated school solution isn’t workable for nonpublic schools.”

And she said the nonpublic school representatives are dismayed about the proposed penalties for students who switch school systems or feeder systems.

“We in no way want to penalize our students if they move from Catholic middle schools to public high schools,” she said. “We feel the penalties for students who change at the ninth-grade level is extremely harsh. It’s punitive and its not called for or warranted.”

Speer said there are several hundred students each year who decide to switch to public high schools after graduating from Catholic middle schools. For instance, there were about 300 Catholic middle school students who decided to enroll in public high schools last year, and about 200 public middle school students who took the placement test to enroll in Catholic high schools next year, she said.

“We don’t see a reason or rationale for our athletic association to institute such a harsh consequence for students who haven’t participated in athletics at the high school level,” Speer said. “If they’ve played in high school when they were in the middle school — which doesn’t happen in our system very often but does happen out in the state — then you can make a case for some sort of consequence if you switch schools.

“But we think it would be fair to have that penalty consistent with the current high school transfer rule,” she said. That rule says that if you play high school athletics and switch to another high school, you are ineligible to play at the new school for one year.

“Why hold students below grade nine to a more stringent requirement than those who’ve actually played in high school?” she asked.

Speer said she was optimistic that the Board of Education will not look favorably upon that proposal.

“They had many of the same concerns at their last meeting (in February),” Speer said. “We want to let them know at their next meeting that there were other proposals on the table (at the board of control meeting) that would have addressed the issue.”

 

 

Not the article I'm referring to, but the latest article I could find

A cynic would say that might be a slanted view. Not me, but a cynic.

 

I would also say that you are experiencing the problem of being a "religious" institution with one mindset working with a "government" institution that has a different mindset.

 

I have not been a supporter of the compromises. Don't think they do much except put a bandaid on the issue and penalize kids.

A cynic would say that might be a slanted view. Not me, but a cynic.

 

 

I assume you're speaking of my brilliantly satircal post #139!

OK...it appears I've gotten my situations slightly skewed:

 

Here's an article from before the article I quoted above. I believe it is the article in one or two issues prior to the one quoted above.

 

"In our on-going discussions about the feeder systems, there was a change in their (public schools) position,” Speer said. “We provided an example that said if a student came from a public middle school and then went to a Catholic high school, would they want that person to be eligible, and they said ‘no.’ “Then we said what if the student came from a Catholic elementary school and went to a public high school, would he or she be prohibited from playing, and originally they said ‘no, that student would be eligible.’ ”

Now the public school representatives have amended that position to say that having control over where students attend middle school for athletic participation will resolve that conflict. They’ve suggested that athletes attending schools from outside of the “feeder pattern” be ineligible for either one or two years — depending which of two proposals the task force was considering.

Speer said that penalizing a student for deciding to attend a different high school — public or nonpublic — “is not right under any circumstances.”

“Whichever way you’re going, from public to nonpublic or the other way around, that’s inappropriate,” she said. “It’s also pretty far afield from the original proposal we were to consider, which involved post-season championships.”

In fact, Speer said, the nonpublic side of the task force was surprised when former Kentucky Supreme Court Justice James Keller, who was asked to mediate the task force discussions, asked its members to vote on the “feeder pattern” proposal and another that deals with financial aid.

“It was late in the day on Tuesday (Jan. 10, the second day of the task force meetings), and then all of a sudden we heard we’re going to vote on these proposals,” she said. “The idea of a vote had never been articulated. Justice Keller was to take us through the process, going issue by issue, tab by tab, offering things back and forth as any mediation would. That’s the way we understood it.”

Nonpublic members felt they could not vote on the two proposals placed before them — and didn’t.

Instead, Speer and the Non-Public Schools Commission sent a letter to Keller which said in part that they “cannot ... condone the process to date, or the imposition of a vote, or participate by casting ballots.”

“The nonpublic school representatives worked late into the night (on Jan. 9) reviewing each of the proposals,” the letter said, “and met the next morning to initiate a response to the public school representatives. In reply we were presented with a ‘global feeder school solution’ authored by public school representative Wilson Sears, which none of the nonpublic school members of the task force had seen until Monday evening, and which was not one of the proposals under consideration.

“This was a clear violation of the agreed upon process. More importantly, that proposal was the only one thereafter consider,” the letter said.

 

OK...it appears I've gotten my situations slightly skewed:

 

Here's an article from before the article I quoted above. I believe it is the article in one or two issues prior to the one quoted above.

I find it hard to imagine a bleeding heart liberal and Ross Perot supporter skewing the facts. :sssh: :lol:

 

Again, if this compromise is the one that goes through, it should be the same for everyone. And should include attending one public MS and attending another public HS without a change of address. Make it the same for everyone.

 

But I don't like the compromise and think it is a bandaid and that is all with penalizing the kids too much for adult bad decisions.

I find it hard to imagine a bleeding heart liberal and Ross Perot supporter skewing the facts. :sssh: :lol:

 

I thought of a ton of responses, but they all would sound like a personal attack! :lol:

I thought of a ton of responses, but they all would sound like a personal attack! :lol:

You know I wouldn't take it as such.

You know I wouldn't take it as such.

Well then - you're ugly...

 

Frances

Well then - you're ugly...

 

Frances

I smell funny, too.

I smell funny, too.

Hey, hey, hey - are we still talking about you, or did this conversation just switch to me????

 

Deeply offended,

Frances

Hey, hey, hey - are we still talking about you, or did this conversation just switch to me????

 

Deeply offended,

Frances

No the only odd things about you are your opinions on Republicans and Evolution.