News-Enterprise: "Elizabethtown Independent System and Hardin County Schools agreed 10 years ago [1993] to allow only 250 students to attend schools in each other's district. The agreement specified that both districts would discourage guardianships for educational purposes that have to be approved by Hardin District Court. Under such guardianships, students are placed in guardianship with someone residing in the district they wish to attend." According to heated discussions and board meetings since then, Hardin County maintained that many more than 250 out-of-district students were attending EIS schools and the agreement was readdressed. As you can deduct, the parents and local communities became very involved and vocal with the issue. As I understand it, the agreement is strictly being enforced. So, I don't believe that students can choose any public school they want to attend in Hardin County-Elizabethtown.

I wonder how random the 250 is? 25 athletes in the mix could make a new power in many sports. Once again, every county has it's own set of rules.

Some with open enrollment, some without, some allowing transfers within the county, some not. Is this the level playing field the "publics" keep mentioning?

That's contradictory to what has apparently happened.

 

I'm so confused....and Gunner I want it to go away, but I'll keep running my mouth until a decision is made, no matter what the decision. Then, I'll do whatever possible to support the Private schools when whatever is decided is put into place.

 

If something has to happen, I just hope it is something that requires less work from the KHSAA. All this talk of feeder schools etc., just gives the KHSAA more to have to police. They do not do a good enough job of policing their current bylaws, much less adding more regulatory hurdles. I just do not think there is that much of a problem to necessitate such drastic measures.

I wonder how random the 250 is? 25 athletes in the mix could make a new power in many sports. Once again, every county has it's own set of rules.

Some with open enrollment, some without, some allowing transfers within the county, some not. Is this the level playing field the "publics" keep mentioning?

I am only one voice but for me it is part of it.

From what I heard about this earlier in the week, Prop 20 in it's origonal form is what is being sent to the Board of Education.

Proposal 20 has already been summarily rejected by the State Board. That's why they directed DeVries to form a Task Force to look at other alternatives.

Proposal 20 has already been summarily rejected by the State Board. That's why they directed DeVries to form a Task Force to look at other alternatives.

Rejected by the Board of Control. The BOE never actually addressed it. But told the KHSAA they did not want the BOE to make this decision and they needed to go back and work on a compromise. They never actually made a decision on it.

 

Now you can read into their decision and what they were implying, but never really made a decision.

Rejected by the Board of Control. The BOE never actually addressed it. But told the KHSAA they did not want the BOE to make this decision and they needed to go back and work on a compromise. They never actually made a decision on it.

 

Now you can read into their decision and what they were implying, but never really made a decision.

If you read the letter from the chair, they did reject it. And at the meeting, they publicly stated it would not be approved. There is a new state board approved for June, so things could change.

As I read the news accounts, the KHSAA office hasn't proposed anything like you are complaining about. The member schools ARE the KHSAA, and that entity answers to the Kentucky Board of Education. The "collective butt" to which you refer is the 282 schools being willing to sign their name to complaints, hold fellow members accountable, and quit participating in the "fellowship of the miserable" approach by not wanting to "turn someone in". The KHSAA was founded as a regulatory agency to manage championships, not an enforcement agency. However, from what I read, that appears to be shifting to a broader based organization with expanded enforcement staff, and an emphasis on compliance. That is what both the public and private schools seem to be demanding.

But it will not work if the member schools themselves refuse to hold each other accountable for adherence.

 

I think the KHSAA has transitioned into an enforcement also agency over the years. And I assume you do to. I agree with you that the KHSAA has not received many direct allegations of recruiting. That's either because schools/parents with direct knowledge of recruiting are unwilling to make the allegations OR inspite of the rumors proliferated by disgruntled programs and parents (in part due to sites like this one...sorry Ru, I know you do your best to stop rumors on here), there just is not the rampant recruiting that Sears and other supporters of the proposals throw up to gain support. There can be no other reasons for the total lack of first hand allegations can there?

 

And I personally think its the latter not the former reason. And here's my logic. We have to believe that no coach or program engaging in recruiting is going to be successful 100% of the time. Sure the parents/kids who do transfer are not going to report the recruiting, but if we can accept the simple logic and laws of probability that recruiting efforts are not successful 100% of the time, what's to stop those parents/kids who are recruited but did not transfer from wanting to report it to the KHSAA? Surely its not threats of retaliation. How could there be retaliation? Surely its not threat of being sued by the person/program that is alleged to recruit. Has that ever happened? And if the major complaint is that the successful programs/coaches and the programs receiving a lot of transfers illegally recruit and that is what makes them successful (ie. Highlands, Beechwood, Bell, X, T etc), I have to think that with the animosity towards those programs found throughtout the state, those parents/kids that are recruited but do not transfer would absolutely jump at the opportunity to make first hand allegations of recruiting. I'm just applying a little common sense and knowledge of human nature to the issue.

 

Which leads me to conclude that while I can not absolutely state that no illegal recruiting occurs, the almost total absence of first hand recruting allegations over the last 10 years means illegal recruiting is just not happening to any where near the extent that Sears and others allege to justify support of the proposals.

 

And if you were in attendance at the delegates meeting last October, you like I did not hear Sears use recruiting as a reason to support Prop 20. I don't recall him even mentioning the word recruiting. Rather, he talked about the proliferation of private schools continuing and the need to have separate championships because of all the advantages the private schools have over public schools (such as not having to take all students). He forecasted an ever growing number of private schools and the need to act then to support Prop 20 or else it would be tougher and tougher to get the 2/3rds vote if more private schools joined the KHSAA.

 

In my opinion the recruiting issue is simply a red herring to justify support of the compromise proposals. Nonetheless, that's what Sears used to argue support of the compromise proposals to the State Board of Education. And the KHSAA should take him at his word. I believe we need to dramatically increase the KHSAA's investigation and enforcement activities. All the schools should increase their membership dues to cover the increased costs. Parents should be encouraged in writing to turn in allegations of recruiting. Coaches found to have recruited should be suspended for two years for the first offense and permanently banned from coaching for a second offense. Schools found to have not done enough to prohibit recruiting should be sanctioned for a lack of institutional control. Players who transfer due to recruiting should be ineligible for a year or maybe even two from date of transfer. Innocent players should not be penalized however, so I do not think banning the team from post season play is appropriate. That's one of my big problems with the NCAA. Contrary to what people think, paying a big fine is big problem for almost every school and will be a great deterrent. Suspending and banning coaches will be an even bigger deterrent.

 

What do you think to my ideas runningref?

And if the major complaint is that the successful programs/coaches and the programs receiving a lot of transfers illegally recruit and that is what makes them successful (ie. Highlands, Beechwood, Bell, X, T etc), I have to think that with the animosity towards those programs found throughtout the state, those parents/kids that are recruited but do not transfer would absolutely jump at the opportunity to make first hand allegations of recruiting. I'm just applying a little common sense and knowledge of human nature to the issue.

 

 

 

In addition to kids that may be unsucessfully recrutied, what about kids that planned to go to the particular school who had a spot "stolen" by a kid that was recruited? You think that those kids and parents may raise a ruckus?

In addition to kids that may be unsucessfully recrutied, what about kids that planned to go to the particular school who had a spot "stolen" by a kid that was recruited? You think that those kids and parents may raise a ruckus?

 

 

That's true, but those kids and parents generally don't have first hand knowledge of the illegal recruiting. They may hear the rumors, heck they may have started the rumors out of sour grapes, but they generally don't have first hand knowledge that is needed to successfully prosecute illegal recruiting.

lneck,

 

No problem at all. I agree with your assessment.

 

I also agree with this statement, "Which leads me to conclude that while I can not absolutely state that no illegal recruiting occurs, the almost total absence of first hand recruiting allegations over the last 10 years means illegal recruiting is just not happening to any where near the extent that Sears and others allege to justify support of the proposals."

 

I agree enforcement is the key. It is just a shame that educators propagate erroneous information about recruiting for their self serving agendas. It really is sad and I am sure it is just another reason why many parents choose private education.

It seems to me that there are really only too options: 1)open recruiting for everyone 2) separation of private and publics

It seems to me that there are really only too options: 1)open recruiting for everyone 2) separation of private and publics

To me, 2)should be separation of open and closed enrollment.

It seems to me that there are really only too options: 1)open recruiting for everyone 2) separation of private and publics

Open enrollment is more of a right, than something that should be allowed.

To me, 2)should be separation of open and closed enrollment.

 

LBBC, that would put you in with the open enrollment and privates, wouldn't it?

LBBC, that would put you in with the open enrollment and privates, wouldn't it?

Presently, yes and no. Our board has that policy for the elementary schools but because of the size of classes at the MS and HS, I have been told we are not accepting students at those two buildings. At the same time, I was told that we have not had a student attend our schools and live outside of our county, to our knowledge (I say this because as been pointed out, some students don't actually live in a school district but use a grandparent's address), for a very long time.

 

Not sure what are board of ed would decide to do if this distinction was made. If they split like this, I am sure each local board of ed would visit this issue and look for a recommendation by the HS principal/AD.