I think that it will force some families to pull their kids from the parochial middle schools after the sixth grade. I have long believed that one of the purposes behind all of these proposals is a desire to hurt the private school enrollment. It will be interesting to see what happens to enrollment if this disaster is implemented. My guess is that if the state attempts to put this in, the first legal move will be an injunction to prevent implementation based on the very real financial harm the private schools would experience.

Not trying to argue but is that a real reason for a lawsuit. Government puts laws in all the time that hurt businesses and they are legal?

I believe that all Diocesan grade schools will be considered feeder schools for all of the Diocesan High Schools.

 

That is the way I understand it also. For example, because all the NKY Diocesan schools are under one Superintendent of Schools (Dr. Lawrence M. Bowman) then all grade and high school are considered in the same context, in that any grade school/parish can feed any high school.

Not touchy just very, very tired of hearing that since we are in the minority we should just sit back and take what we see as an incredible injustice.

I am sure that people on both sides are tired of the continuing characterization on both sides. I am just as tired of hearing that the only reason public doesn't win is that the public schools don't work hard enough and it is as simple as that.

 

:thumb:

I'm sure the individual vote on Proposal 8 is available. Hopefully, someone will get ahold of it and post it. I was too inclusive in my earlier post. I did not mean to say that all of the publics are hypocrites. However, I would be willing to bet that the most vocal whiners such as Somerset, Louisville Eastern, Ashland, etc. did vote against the proposal. It should raise questions when those who cry for strong enforcement vote against a proposal that would produce strong enforcement. That is called hypocricy.

I'm sure the individual vote on Proposal 8 is available. Hopefully, someone will get ahold of it and post it. I was to inclusive in my earlier post. I did not mean to say that all of the publics are hypocrites. However, I will be willing to bet that the most vocal whiners such as Somerset, Louisville Eastern, Ashland, etc. did vote against the proposal. It should raise questions when those who cry for strong enforcement vote against a proposal that would produce strongenforcement. That is called hypocricy.

Before I paint them with that stroke, I would want to hear their reasoning. If their reasoning doesn't stand up, then so be it. But I would want to hear their reasoning before I start labeling as this and that.

I have never posted on this particular aspect of the forum, but after the past few days feel it is due. I am from as true of a public school as you can find, Belfry, and what I see the KHSAA doing is unexcusable.

 

The KHSAA is on a witch hunt against about 3 individual schools (Trinity, X, and LexCath) and in the process is hurting numerous other schools and the students that will attend them.

 

Do I feel that the three schools have a legitimate leg up? Yes, absolutely. In fact it has been documented that LexCath has used their assets to recruit players specifically for academics. But, consequently it is in 9 out 10 cases the parent's unsolicited decision to send their kid there, whether it be for the obvious academic benefits, the obvious increase of exposure for college scholarships, or the better facilities both in the classroom or on the playing field.

 

With the latest proposal, one should consider NKY. Dayton, Ludlow, and Bellevue demographically speaking is not the wealthiest part of the state. Directly related to that, IMO, their school districts are not as enterprising and the educational opportunities pell in comparison to a CovCath, Holy Cross, etc. Not all families have the luxury of sending their children to an all private school feeder system. It is too expensive. Thus, you find the trend of parents who wait until their children reach high school before sending them there. Now, this will result in the child sitting out a year of sports, which is in my opinion one of the most valuable experiences a child can undergo.

 

Now with this being said, what really set me over was the unwillingness to pass laws that would strengthen the KHSAA ability to investigate recruiting and increase compliance. It seems as if the KHSAA simply said, "Whatever, lets just get over with."

Not trying to argue but is that a real reason for a lawsuit. Government puts laws in all the time that hurt businesses and they are legal?

It isn't the reason for the lawsuit, but it is a reason to grant an injunction. I'm not an attorney, but I like to play one on message boards:D , but my guess is that at least one basis for the lawsuit is equal protection. My children attended a parochial school in the 7th and 8th grade. If I had chosen to send them to the local public school under Prop 2 they would have been barred from sports? No way that will stand up in court. Compare it to the penalty for a student that enrolls in High School "A", plays freshman ball and then transfers to High School "B". There is NO penalty for that transfer. Prop 2 has only one purpose. It is intended to actively act to discourage families from exercising choice in selecting schools. I think that the leaders of the anti private school faction (Sears and Sexton) do not want to compete for students. They want to own a steady supply of kids.

I meant decrease in private MS enrollment.

 

There are some areas where this is already happening. St. Catherine, a small parochial grade school in Ft. Thomas already loses a good number of their middle school students to Highlands Middle School. Some of those students who intend to go to Highlands HS want to matriculate at the Middle School level and don't finish at the catholic grade school. I am sure that this also happens with St. Thomas (Highlands also), Blessed Sacrament and St. Agnes (Beechwood) as well.

 

Add to that the fact that they would be unable to participate in athletics as freshman and that exodus could increase.

It isn't the reason for the lawsuit, but it is a reason to grant an injunction. I'm not an attorney, but I like to play one on message boards:D , but my guess is that at least one basis for the lawsuit is equal protection. My children attended a parochial school in the 7th and 8th grade. If I had chosen to send them to the local public school under Prop 2 they would have been barred from sports? No way that will stand up in court. Compare it to the penalty for a student that enrolls in High School "A", plays freshman ball and then transfers to High School "B". There is NO penalty for that transfer. Prop 2 has only one purpose. It is intended to actively act to discourage families from exercising choice in selecting schools. I think that the leaders of the anti private school faction (Sears and Sexton) do not want to compete for students. They want to own a steady supply of kids.

 

How will it effect it that athletics is a privilege and not a right. In the required drug testing cases that have gone to the Supremes, they ruled on schools being able to require drug testing because athletics is a privilege and not a right of students. I too like to player a lawyer on BGP but I act like Jerry Springer dances so I don't really know, just wondering.

 

I can't speak for Sexton but do believe the jumping all over the place during their 4 years of HS has gotten out of hand. People can claim academics and family moves but when we get in the privacy of our own homes, we all know that it was because of athletics.

I would be very interested in the "reasoning" of any school that voted against Proposal 8 but particularly that of those who are known to be in the forefront of the public-private debate. Of course, "reasoning" and "spin" are often confused. If a well reasoned argument can be given, that would have to be accepted and respected. However, at this time, I would say that the burden of proof is clearly on those who opposed the proposal generally and on a select few specifically. Otherwise, the label applies.

Check out provision G in the voting procedures

 

The publics get to vote against stricter enforcement of rules and do so anonymously. How convenient.

I would be very interested in the "reasoning" of any school that voted against Proposal 8 but particularly that of those who are known to be in the forefront of the public-private debate. Of course, "reasoning" and "spin" are often confused. If a well reasoned argument can be given, that would have to be accepted and respected. However, at this time, I would say that the burden of proof is clearly on those who opposed the proposal generally and on a select few specifically. Otherwise, the label applies.

 

I wonder if we will ever know the reasoning of the voters. I understand that the vote was taken on unmarked ballots, meaning that a roll call of who voted which way will be impossible to get. Seems a strange way to take a vote given the importance and scope of the proposals being considered.

In this situation, I don't think the "athletic participation is a privilege" argument will hold water if it is used as a defense in a court of law. Equal protection (ie: equal treatment of all) would likely win the day- and certainly should do so. It should be remembered that, when one associates with a private school, he/she does not relinquish any rights as a citizen.

In this situation, I don't think the "athletic participation is a privilege" argument will hold water if it is used as a defense in a court of law. Equal protection (ie: equal treatment of all) would likely win the day- and certainly should do so. It should be remembered that, when one associates with a private school, he/she does not relinquish any rights as a citizen.

I am not sure what equal protection you are meaning and how that is violated. The rule goes both ways, so how is equal protection not in play.

If the votes were on unmarked ballots, it was done so to insure that no school would have to account for its vote. Not only hypocrites but hypocrites with neither principle nor backbone.