Chicks, you can't self impose restrictions on your own school district and then complain that others won't do the same. The practice is not only stupid but it is un-American.

 

I am not taking a shot here but it is that kind of thinking that has this whole process in trouble. ANY school can have open enrollment. Some choose not to and that is their CHOICE and since it is their CHOICE not to have open enrollment or boundaries no one in their right mind should attempt to punish the schools that do have open enrollment.

 

On the multiplier, I don't see it working very well with only four classes. All it will do is push CovCath and LexCath up into 4A making it even tougher to win 4A. If we go to six classes then I think their is room for a multiplier.

Open enrollment can be chosen by any public school district. As theguru stated, those who choose not to have open enrollment have no valid complaint against those who choose to do so. When a district makes its choice, it must live with the circumstances it has created for itself. It has no right to ask for "concessions" from the others.

 

We who support private education must accept the handicaps that go with such a choice. We are not asking for concessions and, obviously, the publics will not grant us any concessions.

 

We all make our choices and we should be required to live with those choices whether we be private or public. You cannot achieve absolute equality in athletics any more than you can do so in economic life.

I am against the split and all the proposals presented, but open enrollment at public schools is not equal to enrollment at non-public schools. Refer to post 3.

On the multiplier, I don't see it working very well with only four classes. All it will do is push CovCath and LexCath up into 4A making it even tougher to win 4A. If we go to six classes then I think their is room for a multiplier.

I'm not necessarily for a multiplier, but I don't think the effects of a reasonable one (say, 1.5) would be too drastic.

 

Covington Catholic and Lexington Catholic would be competitive in 4A, but it would do nothing to change the "problem" of the dominance shown by Trinity and St. Xavier.

 

Owensboro Catholic, which now has Class A-size enrollment, would remain in 2A, where it obviously competes very well. Newport Catholic and Lexington Christian would move up to 2A, and I think they would do well there.

 

On the other hand, Christian Academy of Louisville would have a tough time in 3A, but could possibly be competitive within their district.

I understand through the rumor mill everything is back to square one. At this point none of what has been proposed will pass in its current form because the KDE has made it clear they are not going to approve any of the proposals.

Good. I have yet to see a proposal that I support. In all honesty, I'm not sure "fairness" can be legislated, no matter how hard we try.

I also understand the "private bashers" have switched tactics and a level playing field is no longer the issue, now illegal recruiting is the battle cry.

If they can prove it, more power to them. But they better be ready to level the same charges at some public schools, too.

I'm not necessarily for a multiplier, but I don't think the effects of a reasonable one (say, 1.5) would be too drastic.

 

Covington Catholic and Lexington Catholic would be competitive in 4A, but it would do nothing to change the "problem" of the dominance shown by Trinity and St. Xavier.

 

Owensboro Catholic, which now has Class A-size enrollment, would remain in 2A, where it obviously competes very well. Newport Catholic and Lexington Christian would move up to 2A, and I think they would do well there.

 

On the other hand, Christian Academy of Louisville would have a tough time in 3A, but could possibly be competitive within their district.

 

I think what we might see instead of a multiplier is the reclassification along the lines of males enrolled in school.

Rather than take the total enrollment, you take the total enrollment of boys and you then divvy the classes that way.

Gunner11, I understand what you are arguing in post number 3. However, private schools are not blessed with unlimited facilities. In fact, it is much more likely that an open public school, fueled by public funds, will have physical facilities capable of handling "talented outsiders" than will a private school which is fueled entirely by private funds. Also, most private schools do, in fact, have a certain "pecking order" as to acceptance of students. For example, at Rose Hill, a school I am familiar with, students who are members of Rose Hill Baptist Church or related affiliates or have family so situated will get an open spot before a child with no "ties" to the school-church. I see no advantage for the privaters over the open publics. I see many existing in the other direction.

Chicks, you can't self impose restrictions on your own school district and then complain that others won't do the same. The practice is not only stupid but it is un-American.

 

I am not taking a shot here but it is that kind of thinking that has this whole process in trouble. ANY school can have open enrollment. Some choose not to and that is their CHOICE and since it is their CHOICE not to have open enrollment or boundaries no one in their right mind should attempt to punish the schools that do have open enrollment.

 

On the multiplier, I don't see it working very well with only four classes. All it will do is push CovCath and LexCath up into 4A making it even tougher to win 4A. If we go to six classes then I think their is room for a multiplier.

 

Guru, I think that first paragraph is an argument that does not have any meat to it. Someone on here posted that my school district had open enrollment. I challenged that and contacted our board office about it. Lo and behold, we do have open enrollment, I was wrong.

 

BUT, no one has taken advantage of that by leaving the NKY area to drive 40 minutes south to attend school here. It just DOES NOT happen that people drive away from the suberbs of a metro area to attend school in the rural counties. And we have been very successful in sports the past 3 years.

 

So whether a rural county has open enrollment or not, is not the issue. The person I talked to has said they have had 3 people in the past 7 years contact them and none followed through with it.

If you try and convince me this "level" playing field has anything to do with anything else but the adults and coaches ego in the public school district, well your talking to the wrong guy.

 

No proposal public schools have put forward have put every kid in this states best interest forward. They are proposals that would help each indivdual coach maybe recieve more wins or make it easier on them to get the wins.

 

It doesn't take into account whats best for the kid, public school officals have some sort of self absorbed ego that thinks they have a right to education of children in their area.

 

The constitution calls for a public education as each indivdual students right, but it does not give those public schools a monopoly over these students educational career.

I think this was a similar argument given when the school funding in KY was considered unconstitutional in the early 90's. Did it benefit every kid in the state of KY when the courts declared it unconstitutional. The Beechwood/Highlands superintendents have openly complained for the past several years that it did not.

 

I would agree that the last two compromise proposals were horrendous choices. I think they were chosen because they knew they would fail. And I am thankful they did. Students WOULD have been penalized. I don't see separate championships, similar to the classes in football, as penalizing anyone.

 

 

 

That self absorbed ego is the job that is mandated by the state of KY. The public school is REQUIRED to educate every child in their area. Now a child can choose to leave that area but if they stay they are required to be educated by the PUBLIC school. Publics are NOT like privates that get to pick and choose their students. Worse student in the community, that public school is responsible for their education, NO MATTER the level of education it takes. I have seen students that have to be taught on a 1-on-1 basis. And that is the way it should be. Not a complaint but statement of facts.

 

What really gets my goat is that private school supporters want to go on and on about how superior they are when they don't teach every kid in the state and get to pick and choose their students. AND then have the audacity to tell the publics how poor of a job they are doing and should work harder and be more like the privates.

 

As I have said, over and over on here, BOTH are essential in our society. BOTH are desparately needed. But that does not mean that they are the same.

I think what we might see instead of a multiplier is the reclassification along the lines of males enrolled in school.

Rather than take the total enrollment, you take the total enrollment of boys and you then divvy the classes that way.

Why just males? :confused: :confused: In girls sports, the domination of privates is much more pronounced than on the male side. If you are going to only look at one gender, it seems since the domination is more on the girls side, that the girls numbers would be the ones to consider.

Guru, I think that first paragraph is an argument that does not have any meat to it. Someone on here posted that my school district had open enrollment. I challenged that and contacted our board office about it. Lo and behold, we do have open enrollment, I was wrong.

 

BUT, no one has taken advantage of that by leaving the NKY area to drive 40 minutes south to attend school here. It just DOES NOT happen that people drive away from the suberbs of a metro area to attend school in the rural counties. And we have been very successful in sports the past 3 years.

 

So whether a rural county has open enrollment or not, is not the issue. The person I talked to has said they have had 3 people in the past 7 years contact them and none followed through with it.

 

 

So if it is not successful athletic programs that cause students to transfer (at least that has not been the case with your school), why do kids transfer then? It has to be more than the closeness issue, since kids drive 30-45 minutes to go to LexCath. It has to be more than sports, since kids didn't transfer to your school when, as you point out, your school has done well over the last 3 years. It has to be more than academics, since several kids transferred from CovCath, which has strong academics, to Highlands several years ago. Just what is it?

 

Personally, in my opinion, its nothing other than parents thinking for whatever reason, that their kids will be more successful at the receiving school than they would at the sending school. And that in my mind is all that it should take. And as a parent yourself, I hope you would agree with that.

 

And its up to the administrators, teachers, supporters and parents of the sending school to great an impression and belief that the sending school is a great place for parents to send their kids to/or keep their kids at. If they are not doing that and the administrators, teachers, supporters and parents of the receiving school are doing it, then there will be transfers and arguably should be transfers.

 

With the ever growing importance of the role that high school education will play on a student's future success in life, I personally see the increase in transfers as a positive indicator that parents are finally "getting it" and want the best for their children. If that results in some schools getting weaker because parents in those communities no longer "believing" in the local community high school, so be it. We don't tell adults in what community they have to work; we don't tell coaches at what high school they have to coach; we don't tell teachers at what high school they have to teach; and we shouldn't tell kids what high school they have to attend high school just to benefit their home community.

 

Competition for students, after years of being place in colleges, has entered the high school ranks and I think it is a good thing as it will force all high schools to become better or lose enrollment.

So if it is not successful athletic programs that cause students to transfer (at least that has not been the case with your school), why do kids transfer then? It has to be more than the closeness issue, since kids drive 30-45 minutes to go to LexCath. It has to be more than sports, since kids didn't transfer to your school when, as you point out, your school has done well over the last 3 years. It has to be more than academics, since several kids transferred from CovCath, which has strong academics, to Highlands several years ago. Just what is it?

 

Personally, in my opinion, its nothing other than parents thinking for whatever reason, that their kids will be more successful at the receiving school than they would at the sending school. And that in my mind is all that it should take. And as a parent yourself, I hope you would agree with that.

 

And its up to the administrators, teachers, supporters and parents of the sending school to great an impression and belief that the sending school is a great place for parents to send their kids to/or keep their kids at. If they are not doing that and the administrators, teachers, supporters and parents of the receiving school are doing it, then there will be transfers and arguably should be transfers.

 

With the ever growing importance of the role that high school education will play on a student's future success in life, I personally see the increase in transfers as a positive indicator that parents are finally "getting it" and want the best for their children. If that results in some schools getting weaker because parents in those communities no longer "believing" in the local community high school, so be it. We don't tell adults in what community they have to work; we don't tell coaches at what high school they have to coach; we don't tell teachers at what high school they have to teach; and we shouldn't tell kids what high school they have to attend high school just to benefit their home community.

 

Competition for students, after years of being place in colleges, has entered the high school ranks and I think it is a good thing as it will force all high schools to become better or lose enrollment.

Great questions and I agree that parents should have the right to choose where they send their kids. I think we should have a school voucher system to encourage and support that choice. And if they don't presently receive it, I think all costs associated with their child's education should be tax deductible, whether it is at a private/public school. You buy a computer for your kid to use for school, you should be able to deduct it. Tuition, deductible. (Is it presently? I would hope so)

 

But that does not mean they are on the same level in competition.

 

The girls basketball team of LexCath this year was not a fair situation compared to the rest of the state, IMO. I think you will have even private school supporters tell you that they were stacked. I think they have 5 players that were named on one of the 3 all-state teams or HM all-state. Not sure how many of those actually live in Fayette County, but I know not all do.

 

I am all for everything you said. But while I would not expect Beechwood to compete with St. X in football, I would expect the same consideration given to other sports.

 

Lastly, check my thread out in this forum that gives my opinion on the classifications of the KHSAA. It is not a straight private/public split. It is about same schools competing against each other and privates/publics would compete.

Gunner11, I understand what you are arguing in post number 3. However, private schools are not blessed with unlimited facilities. In fact, it is much more likely that an open public school, fueled by public funds, will have physical facilities capable of handling "talented outsiders" than will a private school which is fueled entirely by private funds. Also, most private schools do, in fact, have a certain "pecking order" as to acceptance of students. For example, at Rose Hill, a school I am familiar with, students who are members of Rose Hill Baptist Church or related affiliates or have family so situated will get an open spot before a child with no "ties" to the school-church. I see no advantage for the privaters over the open publics. I see many existing in the other direction.

 

You outlined the prime difference. The private schools have a "choice" of who they admit. The open enrollment schools do not get to choose. They are required to enroll all students in the school district. Only then, are they able to consider those outside of those boundaries, if there is room. The public schools are hardly blessed with "unlimited facilities." Especially in terms of athletics. Most athletics at public schools would not survive without the massive booster support similar to that of non-public schools.

You outlined the prime difference. The private schools have a "choice" of who they admit. The open enrollment schools do not get to choose. They are required to enroll all students in the school district. Only then, are they able to consider those outside of those boundaries, if there is room. The public schools are hardly blessed with "unlimited facilities." Especially in terms of athletics. Most athletics at public schools would not survive without the massive booster support similar to that of non-public schools.

I do think though that scooter is correct in that, in general, public schools will have better facilities than privates.

I do think though that scooter is correct in that, in general, public schools will have better facilities than privates.

 

Better athletic or school facilities? I think athletic facilities would correlate directly with booster support. Most school budget dollars are spent in the classroom, very little on athletics.