I believe you hit the nail on the head, All Tell. You can rest assured that the exceptions and waivers will be public oriented.

I would think that the Catholic grade schools would be most upset about this proposal. They will be losing some of their students after the 6th grade. There does not appear to be any provision for a child who goes to Catholic school through the eighth grade and then to a public school. The student-athlete would be required to sit out two years.

 

For example, the kids from the Catholic school in Bellevue would be required to attend 7th and 8th grade at Bellevue in order to be eligible their freshman year. Is that fair to those Catholic parents that want their son or daughter to go through all of the Catholic rites, etc.? Do we then have an issue with the school infringing on the kid's religious rights?

I have a very strong feeling that many, many exceptions will be included and "conveniently" none of them will apply to students going from public to private schools.

:thumb: :thumb:

I would think that the Catholic grade schools would be most upset about this proposal. They will be losing some of their students after the 6th grade. There does not appear to be any provision for a child who goes to Catholic school through the eighth grade and then to a public school. The student-athlete would be required to sit out two years.

 

For example, the kids from the Catholic school in Bellevue would be required to attend 7th and 8th grade at Bellevue in order to be eligible their freshman year. Is that fair to those Catholic parents that want their son or daughter to go through all of the Catholic rites, etc.? Do we then have an issue with the school infringing on the kid's religious rights?

The first time a kid from a Catholic grade school is told that they are ineligible for all of the rights and privledges of their neighborhood public school I expect to see this in court and with good reason. The proposal put forth by the private schools was balanced but reasonably fair. Does anyone know how the individual delegates voted on this?

LHL article:

 

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/sports/high_school/14035663.htm

 

Also, has KHSAA formally announced (and posted on the public web) this decision and the associated details?

I would think that the Catholic grade schools would be most upset about this proposal. They will be losing some of their students after the 6th grade. There does not appear to be any provision for a child who goes to Catholic school through the eighth grade and then to a public school. The student-athlete would be required to sit out two years.

 

For example, the kids from the Catholic school in Bellevue would be required to attend 7th and 8th grade at Bellevue in order to be eligible their freshman year. Is that fair to those Catholic parents that want their son or daughter to go through all of the Catholic rites, etc.? Do we then have an issue with the school infringing on the kid's religious rights?

 

You sound like an attorney preparing his case!!

 

I am totally shocked that you feel such away. Your convining auguments convince me that the courts should stay out of involvements in high school sports and now you say this. Makeup your mind and stand by your principles.

Like I said, lockcy ... for once.

 

I don't want to get into why I feel the two issues aren't related ... it would take several paragraphs and quite a bit of time to compose the argument. Summarize it this way ... the transfer rules that affect students once they've enrolled in high school are, in my opinion, just and fair. This new rule will penalize some kids before they've even had a chance to compete in high school athletics.

 

My principles are intact. Thank you for your concern.

LHL article:

 

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/sports/high_school/14035663.htm

 

Also, has KHSAA formally announced (and posted on the public web) this decision and the associated details?

 

 

"The Board of Control also said that whatever measures are adopted will be reviewed in three years."

 

In other words, if the private schools are still winning, we will revisit kicking them out...

You sound like an attorney preparing his case!!

 

I am not an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

"The Board of Control also said that whatever measures are adopted will be reviewed in three years."

 

In other words, if the private schools are still winning, we will revisit kicking them out...

 

Exactly what I thought. Also, will this take immediate effect. What about the students currently in the 7th and 8th grade at a private school that plan to attend a public high school? Is there going to be a grandfather clause?

No one commented on my earlier post pointing out the wording "feeder patterns" as reported in the CJ article. I believe the significance of this wording is that certain Catholic middle schools in the Lexington Arch diocese do not naturally feed to Lexington Catholic. In other words currently very small percentages of those kids end up going to LC because the commute does not make it practical. The overwelming majority of the kids coming out some of these schools end up attending public schools, therefore a feeder pattern is established and must be considered in the best interest of families.

 

My guess is that this is the case with other arch diocese middle schools as well as private christain academy schools that do not have high schools.

http://www.archlou.org/therecord/aroundarchdiocese/-1999913601/-1998962121.htm

 

More on the subject.

 

“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.”

 

“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.

 

 

From these additional comments I stand by my stance that Prop 20 was a smoke screen to cover the trojan horse that is now at the gates. The 'lock-in' of the atheletic pipelines is what what the ADs and coaches wanted all along.

Sure sounds like a very one sided mediation process to me.

 

I am still very concerned at the complete about face of Sears on the issue of kids moving from private to public schools. In October he was adamant that students moving in that direction would not face any reduction in eligibility and now he says they will be sanctioned for 2 years and refuses to budge on the issue. What caused that change?

Sure sounds like a very one sided mediation process to me.

 

I am still very concerned at the complete about face of Sears on the issue of kids moving from private to public schools. In October he was adamant that students moving in that direction would not face any reduction in eligibility and now he says they will be sanctioned for 2 years and refuses to budge on the issue. What caused that change?

 

They knew it would look too one sided, so they went with the scorched earth plan.

Can someone say lawsuite? I think that there are going to be a lot of court sesions about this becuase parents are going to do whatever they can do get there child into the best educational are they can. It may happen it may not. But i think that A lot of lawsuites are going to be filled once its time for a parents child to go to a highschool that they want him to attend when the KHSAA says no. Whay do you all think?