My brother sends his daughter to Sacred Heart. Every morning, there is a woman in Loretto, KY who gets up at 3 in the morning with her daughter and drives to my brothers house. There, the woman drops her daughter off and heads off to work in Louisville. The daughter sleeps on my brothers couch for 2 hours until he gets her and his daughter ready, and drive them to school. Since the woman goes into work so early, she's able to pick her daughter up after school.

 

I know this is a pretty extreme example, but why in the world would a private school want to turn away families (this girl is a student, nothing more) who are willing to put so much into their child's education? They wouldn't, and that's why private schools will never say "We'll only take from Jefferson Co."

I agree.

But open enrollment has been held up as a thing that schools place on themselves and for a good number of rural schools they could have open enrollment and it would not change one thing. They could vote for it or vote against it and it is irrelevant. Open enrollment is not the cureall.

 

That is why I have been saying for a long time in this forum that it is more a rural/urban issue than a public/private issue.

Very true. Open enrollment seems that it has worked well(Jeff Co. Norther KY counties) where it is in effect, and I belive that it may work well in Fayette Co. I am not sure it would work in small population counties in Kentukcy; one of the things having 120 counties gets us.

 

I also think that the viewpoints about open enrollment is thought of by many in terms of athletics. I don't know the exact numbers of T or X have that are major sports contributers from out of county. I don't know about the Kenton County schools either, as far as those who use the rule to go to school where they choose. But both systems are playing by thier established rules in the area.

The boundaries rule is a horrible Idea in my mind. I lived in Bullitt Co. growing up and attended the public school system my whole life. I decided after my freshman year of high school that it wasnt for me anymore. I talked it over with my parents and they agreed. I now had a 23 mile commute one way to school and that was fine with my parents and myself. I never did play sports at X (and still managed to get the maximum amount of financial aid) but that was mainly because I was playing Ice Hockey and didnt have room for anything else. It would not have made any sense to pick up and leave Bullitt Co. My fathers buisness was based out of Bullitt and leaving was not an option. I know Im going to really step on some toes for saying this and its going to make people mad but I dont really care its the truth. The public school system there has let the community down. It is completely unamerican to force families to stay at a school that is in as bad of shape as the one I was in. My grandfather was a teacher in that school system most of his life and he retired from the Bullitt Co. board of education and he has many of the same thoughts that I do. If it hadn't been for the fact that X accepted students from out of jefferson co. Im really not sure where I would be right now. Im pretty certain I wouldnt have a college degree and there is a good chance I would be at a dead end job wondering what went wrong.

TEll me what do you think would happen if anyone could go to any school they wanted to. YOU Honestly dont think or know for that matter it would be total chaos. Come On you want to throw the whole state and federal school system out on its ear just to say "WE arnt going to change mikie you change 1st" that is Mature. So to you it is better to put 90,000 kids in chaos(jefferson county public school kids even though all kids would be effected) Instead of changing the 5% of the private school kids, WHICH by the way according to private supporters there is only a handfull of families that live outside jefferson county. But it is all about the kids isnt it. YhEA RIGHT.

 

I think that the public and privates schools would have to up there level of quality......because who would want to send little Johnny to a school that wasn't doing very well...(because they are not forced to anymore). Sounds a lot like capitalism to me.......The school with the best product (our childrens' education) gets more students and should get more funding.....

 

Doesn't sound like chaos to me....sounds like improvement!

So you are of the opinion then that the basketball playoffs need to be changed then. Because EVERY SINGLE team in the state makes it in and results in 1st round blowouts and 1st round major upsets.

 

 

Are we talking about Basketball, I don't think so?:confused: Lets stick to the subject at hand!

What are you talking about. How is it going to hurt the private schools the 5% I am sure the will make up by working harder to consentrate their efforts in jefferson county. How does it effect the rights of the parents. So what you are saying it is ok for the rights of the public school parents to have limits but not the private school parents. That is what we have now, is it not. if I am a public school parent in Jefferson county I cant just take my kid over to Jeff IN and put him in school there, or anyother county for that matter. I am saying the Private school kidds parents have the same right as the public school kids parents, And that would be to send there kid to ANY school they want in jefferson county. How in the world am I all of a sudden bring down the walls of justice on the parents of the private schools, and trying to shut the doors at the private schools. Again as soon as someone mentions change the attacks come out of the walls. And this BS about eastiest is not what we strive for in sports. Again that is what I am saying the easiest way is the best way:rolleyes: how old are you 80. YEA your right lets make more rules and laws that no one can follow or understand, but it was the hardest way and that shows character:rolleyes: :rolleyes: That is what my grand-dad would say. Read what is written. FOR THE BETTER OF THE WHOLE THE 5% WOULD BE LOST. IF the whole is stopping the fight between private and public. WOULD IT NOT BE THE EASIEST \FAIREST SOLUTION. It would stop all the talk about feeder systems and if you played 8th grade here, or went to 8th grade here and want to go there, and have to sit out 1 or 2 years for this and at what levels. ON and On and On. But According to you this is better because it is not the easiest thing to do. COme on I am giving a common solution to end all this and still no compromise just simply finger pointing and saying that wont be fair for these few families or better yet THAT IS TO EASY AND THAT CANT BE GOOD.

 

 

A. I am 48. But would my opinion have any less validity if I was 80? Some of the wisest people I know are the oldest people I know. Your comment reminds me of the old adage, when you are 16 you think you know it all. When you are 60, you realize that you knew nothing at all when you were 16.

 

B. You should be able to enroll your child in an Indiana public school if they accept out of district students and require you to pay tuition. For that matter, you should be able to send you kid to another Kentucky county's school and state law does in fact permit it. Its only the school boards at some school districts that on their own decide not to accept out of district students. Again, I am against any rule, regulation or law that limits a parents right to choose the best school for their student. Period. Ever. I do think, to be fair to the tax payers in a school district, that school districts should charge an amount of tuition for out of district students that is equal to the cost of providing that education since the out of district student's parents are not paying school taxes to the district.

 

C. Not allowing private schools to accept students from anywhere hurts them and is against their mission of providing a private school education to those students who want to get a private school education. To do so, just to come up with some easy, quick fix is not fair in my opinion. Simple, yes. Clean, yes. Fair, no. For the record, my kids go to a public high school and my wife and I graduated from a public high school. And we have plenty of good private schools in the immediate vicinity to choose from, but I am a believer in the public school system. But the libertarian in me is totally opposed to restricting the activities of businesses (and a private high school is a business any way you want to cut it) and restricting the rights of parents, particularly when the purpose of the restriction is to cure a problem caused not by the private schools, but rather in my opinion by the public schools. Face it, if Atherton, Eastern, etc. etc, placed the same emphasis on winning in football that X and T do, more and more of that 5 % of elementary public school kids that eventually choose X and T would stay at Atherton, Eastern, etc. If the public high schools in Lex would have made a strong committment to athletics 15 years ago, LexCath would have gone out of business by now(from what I understand and I've talked to a lot of people in Lex associated with both public and private schools, Lex Cath was close to closing about that time. The priest who was principal at that time made the conscious, and I think wise, decision to improve LexCath's athletic programs as a way to attract students to keep the doors open. Because the Lex public high schools and the school board choose not to make a strong committment to athletics, Lex Cath all of a sudden became very attractive to a lot of parents and students. I don't blame LexCath for making the decision to use athletics to attract students, I blame the Lex public schools for not making the committment to athletics that they should. Much like I blamed Highlands when a very good athlete transferred to CovCath because Highlands baseball program was terrible. Its not CovCath's fault that they had made a much greater committment to baseball than Highlands had, it was Highlands fault for neglecting its baseball program. Highlands, to its credit, didn't complain about CovCath, they hired a new baseball coach and improved the level of committment to the program. Sure would have been easier for Highlands if CovCath would have been prevented by some rule from accepting students who live in Campbell County, but that would not have improved Highlands baseball program in the long run and would have been unfair as all get out to the student who wanted to transfer to CovCath.

AHighlands, to its credit, didn't complain about CovCath, they hired a new baseball coach and improved the level of committment to the program. .

 

Well, at least they did at the VARSITY level, correct?

Well, at least they did at the VARSITY level, correct?

 

 

BTW, for those of you "in the know," the above was a zinger at someone I hoped would catch and, by golly, they did.

 

All in good fun.

Are we talking about Basketball, I don't think so?:confused: Lets stick to the subject at hand!

Thread title is Level Playing Field in Public/Private Debate. Don't see anything limiting it to football.

 

And thank you for bringing up a point in this debate. A lot of people think it is just about football and T and X. It is not and it is not. For my school, T and X are irrelevant in this debate. (Sorry, TX supporters.) :sssh:

 

The debate should be about ALL sports. And across the board a lot of sports are being dominated by the private schools and that is what brought up the issue. The football view of it was just another straw on the camel's back.

Thread title is Level Playing Field in Public/Private Debate. Don't see anything limiting it to football.

 

And thank you for bringing up a point in this debate. A lot of people think it is just about football and T and X. It is not and it is not. For my school, T and X are irrelevant in this debate. (Sorry, TX supporters.) :sssh:

 

The debate should be about ALL sports. And across the board a lot of sports are being dominated by the private schools and that is what brought up the issue. The football view of it was just another straw on the camel's back.

 

You're right it should be but it's not. I would hope that you realize that.

You're right it should be but it's not. I would hope that you realize that.

In the crowds I travel it is not about football at all. This discussion has been on-going for 4-5 years and the ONLY place in which I participate in the debate that football is the main subject is on BGP.

 

Girls basketball coaches have had this concern for 4-5 years. And their concern has ZERO to do with football. Golf coaches have had this concern and it is ZERO to do with football. Fans, coaches, etc that I know have had this concern and it is ZERO to do with football.

 

I can only speak on those things I am familiar with. And it is minimal at best about just football.

 

I can understand that those that football is the central sport for them, that it is about football. Just as I hope you will realize that for those that football is not the central focus, it is not about football for them.

 

And for those other sports, I believe that is what lead to the 190some votes cast in favor of Prop 20 as much as football did. For supporters of T and X (which seems to be the two largest contingents here on BGP) and the media, they want to make it just about football.

 

But I don't believe you would have seen 190some votes for Prop 20 if it was JUST about football. No, the coaches of the other sports helped lead the AD/Principals to vote in support 190some times for Prop 20.

 

I believe some on here have a real hard time to realize that the KHSAA is not about T and X football. 100% total honesty, I knew NOTHING about T and X football till I became a member of BGP. I could have not told you that either was multiple state football champions. Didn't know and honestly didn't care.

 

That is no slam at all about either. I have grown to appreciate they run good programs. But a point that in my world of girls basketball, they didn't exist but the issue of Prop 20 did.

And across the board a lot of sports are being dominated by the private schools and that is what brought up the issue.

 

This is not factually correct and has been discussed several times.

In the crowds I travel it is not about football at all. This discussion has been on-going for 4-5 years and the ONLY place in which I participate in the debate that football is the main subject is on BGP.

 

Girls basketball coaches have had this concern for 4-5 years. And their concern has ZERO to do with football. Golf coaches have had this concern and it is ZERO to do with football. Fans, coaches, etc that I know have had this concern and it is ZERO to do with football.

So about the time that Sacred Heart and LexCath started winning. Had they not had the success that they have had would this have become an issue to you and your cohorts?

 

I can only speak on those things I am familiar with. And it is minimal at best about just football.

 

I can understand that those that football is the central sport for them, that it is about football. Just as I hope you will realize that for those that football is not the central focus, it is not about football for them.

 

And for those other sports, I believe that is what lead to the 190some votes cast in favor of Prop 20 as much as football did. For supporters of T and X (which seems to be the two largest contingents here on BGP) and the media, they want to make it just about football.

 

But I don't believe you would have seen 190some votes for Prop 20 if it was JUST about football. No, the coaches of the other sports helped lead the AD/Principals to vote in support 190some times for Prop 20.

 

I believe some on here have a real hard time to realize that the KHSAA is not about T and X football. 100% total honesty, I knew NOTHING about T and X football till I became a member of BGP. I could have not told you that either was multiple state football champions. Didn't know and honestly didn't care.

 

That is no slam at all about either. I have grown to appreciate they run good programs. But a point that in my world of girls basketball, they didn't exist but the issue of Prop 20 did.

I've been involved with High School sports for over 30 years (wow that really seems like a longtime when you type it out) and there has been talk like this about football for all those years. You yourself admit that the talk from Girl's Basketball coaches only started about 4-5 years ago. I remember very clearly when Girl's Basketball started back up in Kentucky (1974 or 75 I believe). The private schools struggled and in the early years the public schools (including some small rural schools) dominated competition. The private schools for the most part began working on upgrading their programs while the public schools administrators were drug kicking and screaming into paying for that sport. I would bet the same is true about most other girl's sports. The private schools built their programs while the public schools paid lip service to theirs. It has only been in recent years when the public schools finally seem to realize that they have to fund the girl's sports that they now start complaining about unfairness. As far as I'm concerned the public schools are now trying to play catch up because they refused to fund the girl's sports. The public schools have no one but themselves to blame for the differences between themselves and the private schools as far as girl sports are concerned. Now that the public schools for the most part have accepted that girl's sports are here to stay and that they must be funded they want to just step-up and see the 20 year head start the private schools had vanish. I realize that the newest Prop 20 nonsense is not exclusively about football But I also believe that football was the genesis of it, that it started more then 30 years ago. I believe that Rose Hill in Boy's basketball played a part because it looked like the sacred cow (Boy's Basketball) could possibly start seeing private schools winning championships and that could not be allowed. I firmly believe that if football were totally dominated by public schools, if Rose Hill wouldn't have acted like they were going to build a boy's basketball power and if girl's sports (and other boy's sports) were just as they are now this would not be happening. I also very firmly believe that there are more public school administrators then you would probably care to admit existed that really don't care about girl's sports. They are just a convenient tool for them right now.

Yep, that good ole Title IX really inflates athletic budgets. If sports were forced to make it financially on their own merits, most programs would be cancelled. See, that would level the playing field quite nicely. The coaches' salaries would be paid only from those funds generated by a particular sport and the appropriate booster organization. The uniforms, buses, equipment, etc. would have to come from within that sport's own supporters. How many of you fine posters would make donations to the non-revenue or money losing sports in your communities? Wouldn't that be grand?

AT, I will probably surprise you with my answers.

 

Yeah most administrators don't care about girls sports. But neither do the fans, the media or most generally society. But that DOES NOT mean that they are one ounce less important to the girls sports coaches. We live and breathe and die with their successes and failures maybe even more than the boys coaches because we know the additional walls the girls have to climb to find success.

 

I can't speak for what happened with girls sports 20-30 years ago except as a fan because I was a student. In fact, I would feel safe in saying that 99% of the athletic administrators 20-30 years ago are NOT involved in the decision making today. So, if you feel "that the daughters of today need to pay for the sins of their fathers," then so be it and we will disagree.

 

Yes, LC did bring the attention to a head but not because of their success. But for their success that came as a result of players drawn from MULTIPLE communities. A think that MOST public schools CANNOT do whether they have open enrollment or not. (Again, that is more of a urban/rural thing than private/public but unfortunately LC is getting caught up in it.)

 

I was told once that the diocese that LC can draw from is from Frankfort to Pikeville, Berea to Georgetown. That is an awful big area.

 

And while I don't believe anything illegal occurred, it sure does have a stench to it when Coach Todd gets the head coach job at LC and his star player at Berea follows him to LC. No more or no less when a HS coach gets an assistant position at a college and the star player follows them to that college.

 

I would absolutely agree with you that Rose Hill's situation really started the ball rolling. I have contended for awhile if the success of private schools on the girls' side was going on in the boys' side, this would have been an issue several years before October of 2005.

 

In fact, I don't see much in your post that I would disagree with except to say that LC's success more than Sacred Heart's (probably because from my understanding SH's players came FROM Jefferson County where LC's did not and LC has had more success than SH in the past 7-8 years) has affected the debate.