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?

I think you are exactly right and I think that is why Sears and his ilk are so adamant about the 2 year ban on students entering a public high school froma private middle school. I don't think that it will stand up to legal scrutiny and I think they are banking on that. The ban on kids entering private high schools my be upheld however because of the voluntary nature of private schools.

... 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?

 

I think you are mistaking the KHSAA saying that member schools are subject to its rules, with the KHSAA saying which school a parent can have their child attend.

 

Confusing the issues at hand doesn't help the situation. The KHSAA does not, can not, and will not dictate what school a child can attend. What it can do is set rules and guidelines for students of schools that wish to participate in KHSAA sanctioned sporting events. In one sense, it is not unlike putting together an AAU team, paying the entry fee to an AAU sanctioned event, and then complaining about the AAU rules for that sport.

 

If a school doesn't want to abide by those rules and guidelines, the school does not have to be a member of the KHSAA (this actually happens from time to time - usually in football). If a school chooses to join the KHSAA, then it is expected to abide by those rules and guidelines. Again - the rules and guidelines have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about where a student goes to school. They address eligibility in interscholastic sports for the member schools.

 

Mind you, I'm not espousing any particular point of view - merely trying to keep the debate on the issues at hand, and avoid confusion.

 

Frances

I think you are mistaking the KHSAA saying that member schools are subject to its rules, with the KHSAA saying which school a parent can have their child attend.

 

Confusing the issues at hand doesn't help the situation. The KHSAA does not, can not, and will not dictate what school a child can attend. What it can do is set rules and guidelines for students of schools that wish to participate in KHSAA sanctioned sporting events. In one sense, it is not unlike putting together an AAU team, paying the entry fee to an AAU sanctioned event, and then complaining about the AAU rules for that sport.

 

If a school doesn't want to abide by those rules and guidelines, the school does not have to be a member of the KHSAA (this actually happens from time to time - usually in football). If a school chooses to join the KHSAA, then it is expected to abide by those rules and guidelines. Again - the rules and guidelines have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about where a student goes to school. They address eligibility in interscholastic sports for the member schools.

 

Mind you, I'm not espousing any particular point of view - merely trying to keep the debate on the issues at hand, and avoid confusion.

 

Frances

 

Dear Aunt B:

 

Hope things in Mayberry are going well. Clearly however you have lived in Mayberry a tad bit too long:banana: . Your analogy is about as far off the mark as Barney's target practice results (who gave him those bullets anyway).

 

The KHSAA, unlike the AAU membership, isn't really voluntary. Its the only game in town so to speak (sort of like Floyd's barber shop. If Pa wants to get a haircut, its Floyd's or nothing). If your school wants to participate in the state sanctioned competition (competition that is funded in part by your state and local tax dollars through the membership fees the members schools pay) you have to join the KHSAA whether you like the rules or not. And telling us youngins that our high school isn't going to join the KHSAA and we don't get to compete for the state football title just because adults can't act like adults and agree on the rules, isn't going to cut it in Mayberry (or Stinking Creek either for that matter). Unlike the AAU, the KHSAA is a state affiliated entity (acting as the agent for the Ky Dept of Education to run high school sports). Also keep in mind that if you want to participate against schools in other states that are members of their states' high school athletic association, they will not be able to play against you unless you are a member of the KHSAA. So membership is really about as voluntary as breathing is voluntary or cleaning the dishes when I get finished with dinnner is voluntary Aunt B. You just gotta join, Aunt B. Because the only other choice isn't really a choice.

 

For the most part those schools who have chosen not to participate in the KHSAA (particularly football) have chosen not to join not because of "issues" with rules, but rather for cost and competitiveness issues.

 

I hope that I'll still get apple pie for dessert Aunt B and that you're not mad at me for pointing out where you are wrong. In fact Aunt B, I'll agree that you are sort of right in that the KHSAA is not telling parents where they have to send their kids to school (there, do I also get ice cream with that apple pie). I should probably stop while I'm ahead, but while the KHSAA does not totally dictate where parents have to send their kids to school, these silly "compromise" rules sure are going to heavily influence where folks send us youngins to school. Since I really love sports Aunt B and since you adults have been telling us forever how important sports are to a well rounded education, please tell Pa that as much as I liked going to St. Cletus grade school, please don't make me to to the 7th and 8th grades there as I don't want to lose 50% of my high school football eligibily (my freshman year totally and also my sophomore year since Mt. Pilot Public high school isn't big enough of a school to have a jv team). Sure wouldn't make sense to not be able to play sports when sports are so important to my well rounded education. Heck I could end up like Gomer and his buddy LN and have to join the Marines or work at the garage with Goober.

 

Thanks for reading my letter Aunt B. I'm sure you adults are much smarter than I am and that this whole mess is caused by more than some coaches and superintendents upset that they can't win state championships. Must be something else, cause all them coaches have always told us youngins that sports are more than just winning: its about hard work, discipline and committment. Heck, I remember Goober telling me that there's no shame at all in losing the rock skipping competition as long as I tried with all my might. I guess Goober was lieing cause it sure seems that these new KHSAA rules are caused by some adults upset that their resumes don't say state championship coach on it.

 

I'm probably back in the dog house with you Aunt B. But can I still have the apple pie and ice cream?

 

 

Love,

 

 

Opie

LOL - it's okay Leatherneck - Aunt B doesn't get mad because someone disagrees with her. You're still in good graces at the dinner table, and you are entitled to your share of the apple pie. :thumb:

 

The whole purpose of my post was simply to point out that the KHSAA does not dictate where a student may go to school. That was a statement made by Knights 52 in error. I posted, solely for the point of clarification, in the hopes of avoiding further confusion.

 

You're disagreement with my analogy aside, my point still stands. The KHSAA does not dictate where a student may go to school.

 

The apple pie is on the window sill, and the ice cream is in the icebox. Now, you be a good boy and get them while I get down the dishes, and we'll enjoy this sunny afternoon out on the veranda...

 

Frances

The more I’ve thought about all this, the more it stinks… badly.

 

Here's a very simple what if...

 

What if a private middle schooler's parents hit a tight spot financially and determine that tuition is an expense they must cut to make ends meet?

 

Is it fair for that kid to have to sit out two years of high school competition for reasons completely beyond his/her control?

 

What if that kid is blessed with significant athletic skills, and his best option for getting into a good college is via an athletic scholarship? Would not his chances be considerably limited by this extremely punitive rule?

 

There are dozens of other scenarios that could all be legally defended on many grounds.

 

If the KHSAA is foolish enough to go down this path, they will spend many more dollars defending their decision than they currently spend enforcing their existing rules. (And I for one would hope they lose their shirts.)

 

If adults are the problem, (boosters, administrators, coaches, ADs, etc.) find an appropriate way to punish the adult offenders. Do not punish minors who just want to (and deserve to be able to) play ball.

LOL - it's okay Leatherneck - Aunt B doesn't get mad because someone disagrees with her. You're still in good graces at the dinner table, and you are entitled to your share of the apple pie. :thumb:

 

The whole purpose of my post was simply to point out that the KHSAA does not dictate where a student may go to school. That was a statement made by Knights 52 in error. I posted, solely for the point of clarification, in the hopes of avoiding further confusion.

 

You're disagreement with my analogy aside, my point still stands. The KHSAA does not dictate where a student may go to school.

 

The apple pie is on the window sill, and the ice cream is in the icebox. Now, you be a good boy and get them while I get down the dishes, and we'll enjoy this sunny afternoon out on the veranda...

 

Frances

 

Thanks Aunt B. But if its okay with you, can I get onto my computer instead of going out on the veranda? I found this new site call Bluegrasspreps and I need to sign up. I think I'll use the name FreakNasty.

 

Love,

 

Opie

The more I’ve thought about all this, the more it stinks… badly.

 

There are dozens of other scenarios that could all be legally defended on many grounds.

 

 

 

Great points Zoolander. Let me throw out another scenerio.

 

A local kid 'switches' 'feeder' school systems between MS and HS (a common, common occurance). He is denied ALL SPORTS ACTIVITIES his freshman year. Perplexed parents appeal to KHSAA. KHSAA says he did not go a 'approved' feeder school and rejects appeal. Then out of town kid moves in, is a freshman. Assuming he is denied ALL SPORTS ACTIVITIES his perplexed parents appeal. KHSAA says, oh this not what we intended this wonderful rule for, you are allowed to play.

 

Now the problem. Is the rule that your HAVE TO attend the feeder schools or not. If not, and kids who have moved residents and are allowed to play while other are not is going to create a serious, serious problem because what they are doing is saying 'we are blantently penalizing you for attending this very specific school or very specific set of schools prior to you enrolling in HS. Your attendence at that specific school prior to you enrolling in HS and coming under the jusidiction of the KHSAA has DQed you from participation.'

 

Assuming the penalized kid is going from religous to public this would be a blatant case of discrimination.

Assuming the penalized kid is going from religous to public this would be a blatant case of discrimination.

Whether it's from religious to public, or public to religious, can anyone honestly state that this type of discrimination is not the specific goal of this legislation?

 

The problem for the public school supporters is finding a way to achieve this discrimination while legally concealing it as something else.

 

They can try giving each group their own water fountain or designated seats on the bus... fair is fair right? The fact is discrimination and segregation will always be discrimination and segregation.

 

I can't believe that any sentient being would ever support anything so skewed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It won't work.

Thanks Aunt B. But if its okay with you, can I get onto my computer instead of going out on the veranda? I found this new site call Bluegrasspreps and I need to sign up. I think I'll use the name FreakNasty.

 

Love,

 

Opie

 

Opie -

 

Be sure to wash your face and hands after clearing the table. You most certainly may get on your computer rather than sitting on the veranda, but be careful about some of those sites - the internet is teeming with some highly questionable venues. Lastly, I'm not to sure what "FreakNasty" connotes, but it doesn't sound healthy for a young man to be known as such a thing. Remember - people will judge you by the company you keep, and your actions.

 

Frances

From The Record

 

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.

 

After reading RM's info, it appears as though we may be being set up by the KHSAA.

 

They propose two years of penalties, and then everyone will feel lucky to get only one.

 

It is absurd to do this to kids below grade 9 regardless of the rationale. For that matter, it is absurd to punish any kids through grade 12 for the misconduct of adults.

I think that we should make it anything goes. WHo cares if schools recruit? Who cares if School A has 100 football players and School B down the street has 20? Who cares that most of the kids on School A's team lives in School B's resides area? Who cares if School B gets destroyed every single game? After all its about the experience and whats best for the kids. Some kids will just have to deal with losing. Sorry. Should have went to School A. Yeah maybe you would have rode the bench for 4 years but atleast your team was a winner right? School C in the opposite direction has a strong program as well. Now we got a kid who is having a hard time picking between school A and C. Let the coaches come to his house, write him letters, talk to him on the phone, take him out to eat, all that good stuff. Why not? It's good for the kid. It's benefiting him right? School B. Shut your mouth's and quit complaining. Work harder. You have got 4 years to win, maybe by the time your a senior you will go 5-5 with your 20 players. Then the following year, back to good old 0-10. Oh well. Thats life.

I think that we should make it anything goes. WHo cares if schools recruit? Who cares if School A has 100 football players and School B down the street has 20? Who cares that most of the kids on School A's team lives in School B's resides area? Who cares if School B gets destroyed every single game? After all its about the experience and whats best for the kids. Some kids will just have to deal with losing. Sorry. Should have went to School A. Yeah maybe you would have rode the bench for 4 years but atleast your team was a winner right? School C in the opposite direction has a strong program as well. Now we got a kid who is having a hard time picking between school A and C. Let the coaches come to his house, write him letters, talk to him on the phone, take him out to eat, all that good stuff. Why not? It's good for the kid. It's benefiting him right? School B. Shut your mouth's and quit complaining. Work harder. You have got 4 years to win, maybe by the time your a senior you will go 5-5 with your 20 players. Then the following year, back to good old 0-10. Oh well. Thats life.

 

thomam,

 

I understand you're frustrated, but I think your issue is more about open-enrollment, versus athletic eligibility being determined at the 6th grade level, or being denied if a kid graduates from St. Gabriel and chooses to attend Moore Traditional High School.

Exactly,

 

it will not have an effect on the elligibility of your players, nor will it do make any difference at all in your teams winning of championships and I thought the inequity in championships and lack of parity was the whole reason for this fiasco.

 

There are lawyers state wide salivating.

It would be interesting to see if this proposal would have passed the voting delegates in October.

 

I lean towards thinking it would have failed as the others did and Prop 20 would still be the option by the majority to 2/3's of the delegates.

I've got one for you Thomam...

 

How would any of you feel if the state passed legislation requiring you to buy all your groceries at the one grocery store nearest your home… and nowhere else?

 

“No fair” you say… “the big SuperDuperKrogerama is across the boundary in another enforced “Loyalty Zone” they’ve got better stuff at better prices.”

 

Then the state passes legislation requiring that as of next August, you must buy all your clothing at certain stores specified by the state within a limited driving radius from your home?

 

“No fair” you say… “the big shopping mall is across the boundary in another enforced “Loyalty Zone” they’ve got more to choose from.”

 

“Tough” say the enforcers, “we have to make sure every retailer is getting a fair slice of the pie.”

 

“Fine,” you say, “I’ll just go and shop there any way.”

 

“We can’t guard you 24/7” say the enforcers, “but if we catch you, you will not be allowed to eat the food or wear the clothes you buy outside of your Loyalty Zone for a whole year.”

 

I could go on, but you get my point. Does this even remotely sound like something we would or should tolerate in America?