Pretty sure that the student had attended public school his entire educational career before making the switch to private school, but I could be wrong.

 

I am pretty sure you are correct. Seems like if he wasn't a promising football player he never would have came to LexCath. That how it seems anyways.

So after the family tells LexCath what happened with their kid and they remove their kid from LexCath they are told to pay their money owed or their kid won't get his transcript. Would you pay the money if it was your kid? You wouldn't take it personal? Just part of the procedure?

 

"Sorry son, I know you were harassed to the point charges have been filed but we're not going on vacation this year and you can't go to your football camps because I have to still pay them for services rendered while you were there being harassed. I know it sucks and that things are tough right now but we signed a contract and even though they didn't fulfill their part of the contract we will still fulfill ours."

 

You're a better man than me. I know what I'd tell them.

 

Again, listen to what I am saying: The incident and non-payment of tuition are not mutually exclusive items. It appears, based on the numbers provided, that this student was behind in tuition, so I'm sure that the school has / had already been attempting to work with the family on payment.

 

While it may not "feel" good to attempt to collect a debt owed, based on the current situation in front of them, they are not interdependent items.

 

Given the potential magnitude of the charges, and an external DC attorney who is obviously going down a Federal road, it would likely be in Lex Cath's best interest to forgo the debt...that is, unless there are circumstances that would direct you otherwise.

 

Lex Cath didn't just decide to go after the outstanding balance after this story broke, they have been trying to collect on a contract from the beginning of school inception....otherwise we don't have an outstanding tuition bill.

Again, listen to what I am saying: The incident and non-payment of tuition are not mutually exclusive items. It appears, based on the numbers provided, that this student was behind in tuition, so I'm sure that the school has / had already been attempting to work with the family on payment.

 

While it may not "feel" good to attempt to collect a debt owed, based on the current situation in front of them, they are not interdependent items.

 

Given the potential magnitude of the charges, and an external DC attorney who is obviously going down a Federal road, it would likely be in Lex Cath's best interest to forgo the debt...that is, unless there are circumstances that would direct you otherwise.

 

Lex Cath didn't just decide to go after the outstanding balance after this story broke, they have been trying to collect on a contract from the beginning of school inception....otherwise we don't have an outstanding tuition bill.

 

Listen to what I am saying. The fact that they wouldn't release the transcripts to the family after they removed their kid from LexCath is what bothers me and makes me say it is personal. They knew about this issue before the story broke and still wouldn't release the transcript. To me, that's a problem that goes beyond procedural.

It is a very sad situation on all fronts. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out, both on the academic and athletic setting for sure. There are many opinions to be had out there by a lot of us, but we will have to wait and see how it plays out. I know that some of us will be watching closely to see what materializes from the actions that occurred.

...or, for those that are willing to work hard and make sacrifices so their kids can get that kind of an education. Don't let the length of your vision cloud your view of the mission....

 

Our concept of church mission differs a little.

 

Is this kid is a child of parent actively involved in the parish and a part of the church? In that case then you might be correct. If the child's family is not a follower of Christ and an active part of the church body then you just gave them a bill for what Jesus commanded his followers to do.

Is it me, or did the article read as if the family was under the impression that some or all of the tuition would be waved in for participating in fundraising. Is that an allowable thing by the KHSAA? Is that common practice at parochial schools? Did I misread?

Is it me, or did the article read as if the family was under the impression that some or all of the tuition would be waved in for participating in fundraising. Is that an allowable thing by the KHSAA? Is that common practice at parochial schools? Did I misread?

 

See post #48.

 

Funding raising that impacts individual tuition is something not done. Tuition is tuition. Funding raising is part of all the sports programs as they have to self-fund. But due to emphasis on how that is done and viewed by the IRS this was explicitly made to make all fund raising efforts totally team-based. If the goal that is set before the effort starts is not met the difference is portioned out to all players a fee. Again, there is no individual quota or target. IRS rules make it clear that fund raising has to be an all-for-one-and-one-for-all effort and a few years ago that was a specific point of emphasis at LexCath.

 

Thus, the entire 'fund-raising' aspect of this situation is confusing.

See post #48.

 

Funding raising that impacts individual tuition is something not done. Tuition is tuition. Funding raising is part of all the sports programs as they have to self-fund. But due to emphasis on how that is done and viewed by the IRS this was explicitly made to make all fund raising efforts totally team-based. If the goal that is set before the effort starts is not met the difference is portioned out to all players a fee. Again, there is no individual quota or target. IRS rules make it clear that fund raising has to be an all-for-one-and-one-for-all effort and a few years ago that was a specific point of emphasis at LexCath.

 

Thus, the entire 'fund-raising' aspect of this situation is confusing.

 

In post 49 I confirmed that fundraising was not used to impact individual tuition, but I now realize I was wrong.

 

In the 2012-2013 academic year LexCath instituted a policy that when fundraisers were held – the two primary ones being the sale of abominable sub sandwiches in the fall (our dog wouldn't eat them!) and raffle tickets in the spring – everyone should participate, but recipients of financial aid MUST reach their quotas. If they fell short of quota the shortfall would be added to their tuition, or stating it another way, their financial aid would be reduced by that much.

 

In the post I also said raffle ticket expectation was $100, but looking through my notes, every student was expected to sell 3 tickets, for a total of $300. The sandwich quota was either $50 or 100. So at that time it was $350 or 400 impact on the tuition of a financial aid recipient.

 

Wish my memory was better, sorry for mistaken comments earlier. I have no way of knowing if this policy has continued, expanded or contracted. Perhaps a family still involved with the school can clarify.

 

Rumor around Lexington is that the "effing money" referred to was for a pair of shoes the cited boy sold to the victim.

 

WLEX is reporting several others have come forward with personal situations, going back as far as the 1990's with an alleged sexual assault for which the response of administration was, "boys will be boys." This situation will get murkier before it clears up. Since a new broom sweeps clean, I'm wishing LexCath a new broom.

Today's story:

 

New Allegations Against Lexington Catholic - LEX18.com | Continuous News and StormTracker Weather

As a parent of children who have attended LC, I can tell you that each financial situation is addressed on a case by base basis.

 

had been diagnosed with cancer and was on long term disability. Making the tuition payment was difficult. The school worked with us so that my son's education was not effected. For that I am eternally grateful.

 

As far as the clause re: no payment / no transcripts. The clause is necessary as a general rule. Otherwise, it would be too easy for the entire senior class to "forget" to pay that final installment.

 

In terms of the current situation, a couple of thoughts:

 

The original story is poorly written in that it is simply reporting the allegations of one person. The perspective of the original reporting source, must be considered. As I find it difficult to believe that a legitimate news agency would have the language "Our News / Our Way" as part of its Heading / Title (For example, "The Hrald News- Our News/ Our Way"

 

I do not believe there was ever a $4,000 bill issued to the family. The billing as it has been made available y the family was for $337.00. I would have to assume that this was for unpaid tuition and fees while the child was a student at LC.

 

The comment has been made that perhaps this was banter between teammates. I would give that some credence. As I can tell you the exchange was not one sided and not even initiated by the older student. If the younger student truly felt threatened, I would expect that he would have confided in other players, coaches teachers - his own family. Remember this exchange was uncovered by the Mom as she looked through his text messages. Perhaps this is why administration felt an in school suspension was appropriate. I can also tell you there were other measures taken by the school from a spiritual perspective the that older student had to fulfill.

 

The pictures of the truck with the confederate flag is not the truck of the student. It was taken on a filed trip to Tennessee and the student actually made a comment beneath the picture "What type of neanderthal would drive around with this hanging on his truck"

 

One more thought, if Coach Perry initiated contact with the Uncle as stated, but the 2 had never met-where / how did he obtain the contact information. How would he know that the family was even interested in attending LC. Could it be that the family reached out to Coach Perry ? There is so much that I find hard to believe about this aspect of the story.

 

To date, only one side of the story has been told- and to some extent perhaps not in the context in which it actually occurred. Regardless, the damage has been done to the reputation of the school, its student body and administration. Very unfortunate.

Edited April 12, 201610 yr by Iggyfan

Rumor around Lexington is that the "effing money" referred to was for a pair of shoes the cited boy sold to the victim.

 

The money being referenced relates to donations generated by each team member as part of a Lift-A-Thon. The monies used from this fundraiser are used to purchase uniforms and equipment by the football team.

 

With all due respect, to make uninformed statements as the one above is simply irresponsible.

 

I would suggest that this discussion be closed and resurrected once the legal system has had an opportunity to review the situation. In my opinion, to do so would only be fair to the individuals involved, their families and the entire LC community

And when people can't pay the phone, water, gas or electric they sometimes move to a more affordable situation. When someone can no longer afford to pay for a private school when that kid goes to a more affordable situation the kid should be allowed to continue his education at the current level. You telling me a private school can't garnish wages from someone who hasn't paid their tuition without withholding a kid's transcript? It's obviously not legal to withhold the transcript.

 

Again, with all due respect, you do not know what measures were taken by Catholic so as to accommodate the family and bring this to resolution. Is it possible over the course of time the family turned a deaf ear with respect to LC's attempt to collect at least partial payment ? Something to think about.

They can afford a lawyer but can't afford the tuition that they committed to pay?

 

 

IMO, the attorney took this case as a matter of publicity. He ambition is to secure justice but rather he has an agenda and took this case for that reason.

Again, with all due respect, you do not know what measures were taken by Catholic so as to accommodate the family and bring this to resolution. Is it possible over the course of time the family turned a deaf ear with respect to LC's attempt to collect at least partial payment ? Something to think about.

 

Not my point. I'm talking about how LexCath acted AFTER the racial harassment was brought to their attention. It was brought to their attention way before the story became news. Whatever they had to do to get the money before the harassment happened is between them and that family. After the harassment and the kid being removed from the school and how LexCath investigated and handled the issue with the kid that is now charged and the kid trying to move on is a problem.

 

 

As for my general issue of withholding transcripts for money there isn't going to be much anyone can say to change my viewpoint on that. You can punish the parents in a whole lot of ways without punishing the kids.

The money being referenced relates to donations generated by each team member as part of a Lift-A-Thon. The monies used from this fundraiser are used to purchase uniforms and equipment by the football team.

 

With all due respect, to make uninformed statements as the one above is simply irresponsible.

 

I would suggest that this discussion be closed and resurrected once the legal system has had an opportunity to review the situation. In my opinion, to do so would only be fair to the individuals involved, their families and the entire LC community

 

I accept your suggestion and shall be more circumspect in the future. I thought identifying it as a rumor was sufficient, I did hear it as a rumor. At least the unintended consequence was you providing correct info, thanks!