dr1, I invite you to come to Knox County and follow the parents around for a week. You pick the level, K-2, 3-4, 5-6, middleschool or high school. This is the type of arrogant bull that has caused the rift between public/private.

 

I don't have any qualms with your statement, Hasbeen. I'm not aware of what goes on out in the state. I'm speaking of Jefferson County. And the statement I made about parental involvement (in Jefferson County) is fact, not arrogant bull.

My point is that there are some advantages for privates, whether

they are admitted to or not.

 

I agree that the bigger catholic schools have advantages but nothing more than the same advantages that larger urban public has over a rural 4A team.

This is the type of arrogant bull that has caused the rift between public/private.

 

I wish the publics would make up their mind. Is it recruiting, numbers, money, "arrogant bull", or not following a district that is causing the "rift"? :laugh:

I wish the publics would make up their mind. Is it recruiting, numbers, money, "arrogant bull", or not following a district that is causing the "rift"? :laugh:

In some cases, and with some people, it's all of the above.

I wish the publics would make up their mind. Is it recruiting, numbers, money, "arrogant bull", or not following a district that is causing the "rift"? :laugh:

 

 

In my case it's the "arrogant bull". I don't mean to throw a blanket over the whole crowd, but many private supporters are your own worst enemy as far as public relations go. I spoken to many in my area who until recently couldn't care less what happened to Louisville area schools. However, after reading post after post about how public schools should "work harder" or "care more about their kids" and my all-time favorite "get out and collect cans", well, that is just arrogant bull. A great many public schools care about their kids and their programs. Believe it or not, we work concession stands, we sponsor little leagues, we fund-raise like crazy (a lot of which comes from our own pockets as we do not have near the corporate community that you have in a metropolitan area) and we hire the best coaches available to us. If you want to say your teams are better because you have more athletes available then so be it, but to say that you've reached that status by outworking, outspending, outcaring and outclassing everyone else is just arrogant.

However, after reading post after post about how public schools should "work harder" or "care more about their kids" and my all-time favorite "get out and collect cans", well, that is just arrogant bull. A great many public schools care about their kids and their programs..

I don't think they're being arrogant at all. They may be over-generalizing; but so are those who want to paint them as arrogant. The fact is, some public schools (like yours) do have excellent parent and community involvement. But many do not. And some of those who complain the loudest are among those whose schools are most lacking in this kind of support.

 

Not all public schools suffer from apathetic parents and a self-centered community; but many do. And it's a far more prevalent problem with public schools than with private. Private school parents, as a rule, have a much more vested interest in their schools. This leads to parental involvement, which leads to better performing students that take pride in their school (Not that public kids don't). These students graduate, become successful in life, and become supportive alumni. The cycle perpetuates itself.

 

Oh, and I went to public school.

You left out my "don't mean to throw a blanket over the whole crowd" statement. Plus, you're preaching to the choir about private school parental involvement. I sent my own firstborn to a private school (the only one available in my area) until we realized it was not going to be able to attract enough students to survive. I fully understand the difference although I believe one can receive a quality education at a public school if one's parents show the same commitment as most private school parents.

 

I don't know a single private school parent other than what I'm exposed to on BGP, and the ones that stand out are making the "we outwork you" statements. If I am guilty of over-generalization (pretty big word for a public school grad), then I most certainly am not alone and being labeled arrogant would not offend me as much as being called lazy and uncaring.

...I believe one can receive a quality education at a public school if one's parents show the same commitment as most private school parents.

 

I don't know a single private school parent other than what I'm exposed to on BGP, and the ones that stand out are making the "we outwork you" statements. If I am guilty of over-generalization (pretty big word for a public school grad), then I most certainly am not alone and being labeled arrogant would not offend me as much as being called lazy and uncaring.

That is the key! :thumb:

 

 

 

And I know lots of big words...I just can't spell 'em all.

That is the key! :thumb:

 

 

 

And I know lots of big words...I just can't spell 'em all.

 

 

I have to confess I didn't have it hyphenated until SpellCheck suggested it.

"My myopic views are shared by over 98% of the public school systems in the state of Kentucky."

 

This is a true statement for sure. I know in Southern Kentucky this is a very true statement.Just look at the vote last year. Sooner or later the KHSAA will have to stop ignoring the masses.

Wrong. Many parts of the stat, far west for example, have to continually be told there even is an issue. It's an issue for many coaches who can't find any other way to win so they want to dilute the competition.

 

Sooner or later the coaches will realize they are not the masses, nor are they the final say. They are too close to the forest to see the trees. Thank heavens the legislature and other entities are there to protect the coaches from themselves. And sooner or later, the Principals and Superintendents will realize that they better be focusing on test scores and academic improvements before NCLB and other initiatives completely drive students into Home schooling and private education.

For the longest time teachers, administrators and business types have preached that parents need to get more involved in their children's education. Such involvement of course meant joining PTA groups, volunteering at school, making sure kids did their homework and put forth the requisite effort in school, and of course supporting tax levies to increase teachers pay. It also meant, if not directly then as a by product, that parents critically examine the quality of education, both academically and athletically, that the children's school was providing.

 

The increase in transfers, and the break down of the "Happy Days" era loyalty to the community school, is the direct result of such critical examination. The days are way behind us that a large majority of graduates did not need a college education; but rather, counted on getting a good paying job at the local factory. These days, more and more of those factory jobs have left and those that do remain require at a minimum a very solid high school education, in most cases require some advanced two year degree and in some cases even require a college education. We have preached and preached that message. Thus it is only logical (and beneficial) that kids and parents look at the high school option critically.

 

If a parent decides that the community high school is not best for his/her children, its only logical that they elect to send his/her child to another school depending on the options available. Thus, the parent is only doing what we have been preaching for him/her to do.

 

While some can respond that such parent has a duty to keep his/her child at the community school and work diligently to improve it, such effort to improve it may be futile if the administrators do not agree with the parent as to how the school should be improved or may take so long to improve that the parent's child is long gone before the improvement occurs. In either case, the parent will have failed in his/her duty to make sure the child gets the best possible high school education possible.

 

For those cases cited by critics that the transfer was only made for athletic purposes (and I believe that academics factors into many more transfers than the critics believe), I will for argument purposes agree. But so what?

 

If we agree with the underlying premise that college is becoming a necessity to get a good job in America's changing work environment, then can we fault parents who believe that one school's athletic program will best improve the parent's child of getting a college athletic scholarship? While one school of thought is that a D-1 stud will get a scholarship no matter where he or she attends. And that's probably true to a limited extent. But there is another school of thought that believes that certain programs give kids a greater chance of getting an athletic scholarship, if for no other reason than such programs regularly compete for state championships which increases exposure, if for no other reason than the belief that surrounding a talented kid with other talented kids improves your kid's accomplishments on the field, and if for no other reason that placing a kid in a program that forces that kid to work harder will improve and hone that kid's athletic abilities. I think all those reasons are bona fide and legitimate reasons to transfer.

 

But even if they are not bona fide, isn't it still the parent's right to make those decisions and determinations?

Given the increasing cost of a college education (which is becoming exorbitant or is already there), since it is the parent that is going to have to pay for that college education, shouldn't we allow the parent to have the right to have the final say on what school his or her child should attend? Even if they are wrong, since they are the one's footing the college bill, shouldn't we give them the right to make the call even if they are wrong?

 

The end result of allowing parents to have the unfettered right to make those decisions to transfer should result in the weak programs improving to the point that they will become the type of program that kids and parents don't want to leave, either academically or athletically. In other words, competition will improve all the schools, much like competition improves all businesses. Except of course those that do not respond to the competition.

 

As a mentioned to another Highlands parent last night, Highlands has no doubt benefitted from the fact that a lot of surrounding schools have not made the necessary committment to improve their athletics and academics and I have mixed reactions to seeing the increased committment at Bellevue, Newport, Dayton and Campbell County. On one hand I am happy, but on the other hand it could result in fewer out of district kids attending Highlands. Kids that were not only good athletically, but academically. Further, I am glad my son had the opportunity to go to school with minority kids like Mike Mitchell and Chris Owens. They were very nice young men who probably broke many stereotypes my son may have had. That was a good thing.

 

Admittedly, some schools have socio economic issues that make such improvement extremely difficult. While I think that harder work can over come some of those issues, again assuming for argument sake that for some schools, the issues are just too great to overcome. Is it fair to force parents to keep their kids in a school system with those issues when another school without those issues is right down the road, or for that matter, an hour's drive away if the parent is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get his/her child to and fro that school an hour away? I don't think so. I'm not forced to stay at a company that lacks poor management. A teacher is not forced to stay at a school that doesn't have good parental support or administration. A football coach is not forced to stay at a school that fails to provide requisite support. But for some odd reason, people have no problem with forcing kids to stay at schools that the kids or their parents do not believe is best for the kids. Really ironic isn't it?

 

Is the desire to turn the clock back to the "Happy Days" era so strong, is the need to go on the Don Quixote quest of finding a level playing field so strong so as to prevent parents from having the choice of selecting the best school for their children?

 

I don't think so.

 

Rather than forceably segregating schools based on their decisions to allow open enrollment or allowing kids from outside their feeder programs to attend, why don't those schools not able or unwilling to improve their programs to the point they cannot retain the gifted students and athletes in their community, simply either withdraw from the KHSAA or try to start separate divisions within the KHSAA for schools not willing to compete against the other schools.

 

Proposal 2 will not accomplish what the supporters want it to. I firmly believe that more and more parents will simply make the same choices they had been making but will only make them two years earlier.

 

The supporters of Proposal 2 will then either resurrect the split proposal or will try to continually tighten up Proposal 2 to the point you will need to make the high school determination in Kindergarten. More and more parents will move out of the communities of the unable or unwilling to improve, that will further harm not only the community high school but also the community as a whole.

 

Parents are finally wakening up to the importance of their children's high school education. No rules will stop them from doing what is best for their children. If it takes moving, a lot of them will do it. If it means making the transfer after the 6th grade, as opposed to after the 8th grade, a lot of them will do it. And rather than condemn them for doing so, we should applaud them for doing so. After all, they are only doing what we have been preaching for them to do for a long time.

For the longest time teachers, administrators and business types have preached that parents need to get more involved in their children's education. Such involvement of course meant joining PTA groups, volunteering at school and making sure kids did their homework and put forth the requisite effort. It also meant, if not directly then as a by product, that parents critically examine the quality of education, both academically and athletically, that the children's school was providing.

 

The increase in transfers, and the break down of the "Happy Days" era loyalty to the community school, is the direct result of such critical examination. The days are way behind us that a large majority of graduates did not understand the need for a college education; but rather, counted on getting a good paying job at the local factory. These days, more and more of those factory jobs have left and those that do remain require at a minimum a very solid high school education, in most cases require some advanced two year degree and in some cases even require a college education. We have preached and preached that message. Thus it is only logical (and beneficial) that kids and parents look at the high school option critically.

 

If a parent decides that the community high school is not best for his/her children, its only logical that they elect to send his/her child to another school depending on the options available. Thus, the parent is only doing what we have been preaching for him/her to do.

 

While some can respond that such parent has a duty to keep his/her child at the community school and work diligently to improve it, such effort to improve it may be futile if the administrators do not agree with the parent as to how the school should be improved or may take so long to improve that the parent's child is long gone before the improvement occurs. In either case, the parent will have failed in his/her duty to make sure the child gets the best possible high school education possible.

 

For those cases cited by critics that the transfer was only made for athletic purposes (and I believe that academics factors into many more transfers than the critics believe), I will for argument purposes agree. But so what?

 

If we agree with the underlying premise that college is becoming a necessity to get a good job in America's changing work environment, then can we fault parents who believe that one school's athletic program will best improve the parent's child of getting a college athletic scholarship? While one school of thought is that a D-1 stud will get a scholarship no matter where he or she attends. And that's probably true to a limited extent. But there is another school of thought that believes that certain programs give kids greater exposure, if for no other reason than such programs regularly compete for state championships, if for no other reason than the belief that surrounding a talented kid with other talented kids improves your kid's accomplishments on the field and if for no other reason that placing a kid in a program that forces that kid to work harder will improve and hone that kid's athletic abilities. I think all those reasons are bona fide.

 

But even if they are not bona fide, isn't it still the parent's right to make those decisions and determinations?

 

The end result of allowing parents to have the unfettered right to make those decisions to transfer should result in the weak programs improving to the point that they will become the type of program that kids and parents don't want to leave, either academically or athletically. In other words, competition will improve all the schools, much like competition improves all businesses. Except of course those that do not respond to the competition.

 

As a mentioned to another Highlands parent last night, Highlands has no doubt benefitted from the fact that a lot of surrounding schools have not made the necessary committment to improve their athletics and academics. Admittedly, some have socio economic issues that make such improvement extremely difficult. While I think that harder work can over come some of those issues, again assuming for argument sake that the issues are just too great to overcome. Is it fair to force parents to keep their kids in a school system with those issues when another school without those issues is right down the road, or for that matter, an hour's drive away if the parent is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get his/her child to and fro that school an hour away?

 

Is the desire to turn the clock back to the "Happy Days" era so strong, is the need to go on the Don Quixote quest of finding a level playing field so strong so as to prevent parents from having the choice of selecting the best school for their children?

 

I don't think so.

 

Rather than forceably segregating schools based on their decisions to allow open enrollment or allowing kids from outside their feeder programs to attend, why don't those schools not able or unwilling to improve their programs to the point they cannot retain the gifted students and athletes in their community to simply either withdraw from the KHSAA or try to start separate divisions within the KHSAA for schools not willing to compete against the other schools.

 

Proposal 2 will not accomplish what the supporters want it to. I firmly believe that more and more parents will simply make the same choices they had been making but will only make it two years earlier.

 

The supporters of Proposal 2 will then either resurrect the split proposal or will try to continually tighten up Proposal 2 to the point you will need to make the high school determination in Kindergarten. More and more parents will move out of the communities of the unable or unwilling to improve, that will further harm not only the community high school but also the community as a whole.

 

Parents are finally wakening up to the importance of their children's high school education. No rules will stop them from doing what is best for their children. If it takes moving, a lot of them will do it. If it means making the move after the 6th grade, as opposed to after the 8th grade, a lot of them will do it. And rather than condemn them for doing so, we should applaud them for doing so. After all, they are only doing what we have been preaching for them to do for a long time.

 

Henry not allowing you to get a word in at home again?

Henry not allowing you to get a word in at home again?

I got half way through, and pulled a hammy in my right eyeball. :creepy:

Sometimes its length over substance:jump:. But in this case, the substance required the length.

As a mentioned to another Highlands parent last night, Highlands has no doubt benefitted from the fact that a lot of surrounding schools have not made the necessary committment to improve their athletics and academics and I have mixed reactions to seeing the increased committment at Bellevue, Newport, Dayton and Campbell County. On one hand I am happy, but on the other hand it could result in fewer out of district kids attending Highlands. Kids that were not only good athletically, but academically.

 

I have no doubt that if the movement to drive the "privates" out succeeds, the independents will be the next target.