Just now, zoneblitz24 said:

Most schools are open enrollment so there is no tuition anymore.

Seriously?!?! 

Just now, FrankNicodemus said:

Seriously?!?! 

Yes if it is a county with multiple schools it is open enrollment so you get to attend where you want as long as you have your own way of transportation with no tuition.

2 minutes ago, zoneblitz24 said:

Most schools are open enrollment so there is no tuition anymore.

That's not accurate. 

It is within some districts and at some individual schools but most schools still take tuition for out of district students. 

I agree that a lot of people on this forum is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Kids transfer all the time currently. In reality, maybe 2 or 3 kids a year might transfer from one district to another. Why not allow kids to transfer to a place where they could have the best shot possible at whatever they doing. Not only athletically but academically as well. We say we want whats best for kids but then say they are not allowed to go better themselves somewhere else. We act like kids are going to make these decision but in reality it is the parents who will make the decision. I am all for this rule change as I believe it has more positives than it has negatives. 

 

The thing that is astounding the most is that we act like kids don't already transfer to other places for reasons that have been mentioned on this thread. It happens all the time all over the state. Regardless of how you feel about it, if you want to be a successful program and the change the rule to allow a 1 time transfer then you need to adapt with the times. 

4 minutes ago, ChickenWyngz said:

That's not accurate. 

It is within some districts and at some individual schools but most schools still take tuition for out of district students. 

Maybe they aren't where you are from but they are where I live at.  Heck there are county schools that border each other that have open enrollment agreements with each other.  These agreements were made thinking in the best interest of kids so they could attended a school that offered the programs they wanted to be a part of without a financial burden as long as they can provide their own transportation and the school has enough room to take the student.  

3 hours ago, zoneblitz24 said:

Most schools are open enrollment so there is no tuition anymore.

If you do not reside in a district you usually have to pay tuition. In a big district.... Jefferson County, Fayette County, etc. I understand that....but take a district like Fort Thomas...one HS, good academics, athletics, etc. As a taxpayer I think out of district kids need to pay tuition for those benefits.

4 hours ago, FrankNicodemus said:

Seriously?!?! 

Not.

4 hours ago, WestDanville said:

This. Nobody cares if John or Jane who has a 4.0 GPA transfers to the school across town with a better college prep program. If John or Jane plays a sport and transfers across town to play for a school with better athletic opportunities it’s an outrage. Either care about every student transfer or stop regulating it whatsoever. 

 

I care very deeply.  Let me assure you, it was not fun watching a large population of students who were high-achieving depart the Warren Central district when they completed the awful redistricting when South Warren opened, and it is not fun seeing many high-achievers continue to transfer prior to making it to Central (or Moss Middle before it) because of misguided fears about the school.  It helps drive down academic benchmarks, which is then used to continue to feed fears about the school and guess what - MORE people transfer prior to coming to help continue perpetuating a vicious cycle.

There is not a good and fair answer to these issues.  I agree with what some here have said, that you have to do what is best for your child, their situation, etc.  That is your responsibility as a parent.  But from a big picture, administrative view, you also have to consider those who are left behind, who lack the means to pursue that process.  Because that is a very real thing.  Can't drive your kid to school every day? You better figure out a way, or else you're going to have to stay in the home district with bus service.  Can't pay an out of district tuition (if they require it)? Guess that opportunity is closed to you but is open to others.  Meanwhile you hemorrhage students from the levels that have the means to exit, which often will hurt your academic metrics, and also often has the secondary effect of less participation in extracurricular programs, which can often mean you don't get to offer some programs at all. 

Spend some time at a school that can't put together a golf team, has lost half a softball season before due to lack of athletes, spent years without the participation levels to offer artistic programs, nearly lost its entire football program due to a mass transfer event, and you will see why some hold the perspective that just removing any barriers is probably not in the best interest of a lot of institutions.  I think too many continue to believe schools, teachers, etc. are willfully bad at what they do.  Just fix what's wrong with your school, right?

14 minutes ago, DragonFire said:

I care very deeply.  Let me assure you, it was not fun watching a large population of students who were high-achieving depart the Warren Central district when they completed the awful redistricting when South Warren opened, and it is not fun seeing many high-achievers continue to transfer prior to making it to Central (or Moss Middle before it) because of misguided fears about the school.  It helps drive down academic benchmarks, which is then used to continue to feed fears about the school and guess what - MORE people transfer prior to coming to help continue perpetuating a vicious cycle.

 

And here is where that blame lies. Sounds like the district set Central up to fail and shame on them for that. 

16 minutes ago, WestDanville said:

And here is where that blame lies. Sounds like the district set Central up to fail and shame on them for that. 

I do blame them, and I agree, they did.  Point being though, transfers beat Central to death, and there's not a lot they can do about it.  Removing barriers might entice even more. The system doesn't work now, but I don't believe a free for all is an improvement either.

6 minutes ago, DragonFire said:

I do blame them, and I agree, they did.  Point being though, transfers beat Central to death, and there's not a lot they can do about it.  Removing barriers might entice even more. The system doesn't work now, but I don't believe a free for all is an improvement either.

The example you used isn't a good one, IMO. You're talking about a redistricting situation, not a normal year. 

9 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

The example you used isn't a good one, IMO. You're talking about a redistricting situation, not a normal year. 

It’s been the normal for years now. What’s the difference with how a situation was created? If the rule change being discussed is implemented is it going to make it easier or harder for the have nots to gain ground? 
 

The example was also cited as a response to “no one cares about people who transfer for academics.”  I can’t speak for other schools but we sure as heck do. If our academic benchmarks were higher we might hold onto more kids, encouraging others to be willing to move into the area to send to the school, and then a lot of other things work out in time. People don’t even give the school a chance - they just send their kids somewhere else. 

1 minute ago, DragonFire said:

It’s been the normal for years now. What’s the difference with how a situation was created? If the rule change being discussed is implemented is it going to make it easier or harder for the have nots to gain ground? 
 

The example was also cited as a response to “no one cares about people who transfer for academics.”  I can’t speak for other schools but we sure as heck do. If our academic benchmarks were higher we might hold onto more kids, encouraging others to be willing to move into the area to send to the school, and then a lot of other things work out in time. People don’t even give the school a chance - they just send their kids somewhere else. 

The have nots will be have nots until something about their situation changes. Students shouldn't be penalized because they don't want to go to a particular school for whatever reason. 

7 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

The have nots will be have nots until something about their situation changes. Students shouldn't be penalized because they don't want to go to a particular school for whatever reason. 

From a student or family perspective, I can't tell you I disagree with you.  I said earlier that a student or a parent has a responsibility to do what they feel is in their best interest.  But from an administrative view, you have a responsibility to everyone, not just the individual.  You have to consider the students and families that are left behind.  The two sides are at odds in this issue, IMO. In the current day and culture, what in the world do you think is going to come along to change a situation to stop them from being have nots if not administrative decisions to place barriers or limitations?

And I have to say too, the concept of an open transfer system is a fantasy land to begin with.  Classrooms, schools, they can only fit so many people.  If everyone just up and decided tomorrow that they didn't want to go to a certain school and wanted to go to another, they're not going to be able to take them all.  Are the students who get left behind not going to be penalized because they didn't get chosen? And frankly, what criteria is going to be used by a school to determine who they keep? You really think it's not going to be the cream that they decide made the cutoff?

Whenever this topic comes up, some folks sort of cynically think of two situations in which a kid might want to transfer:

1.  The kid (or more likely his parents) think he's better than he really is, and he's not getting enough playing time - or, closely related, the kid just doesn't like hard coaching.

2. Evil coach from power school is sneaking around recruiting kids.

If you frame it that way,  you end up saying what many have said:  kids need to learn to deal with adversity, and it should be against the rules for a coach to pilfer players.

But, there are a bunch of different reasons why a kid might want to go to a different school, and some of them are actually good reasons.  The problem is how do you craft a rule that governs all the situations/reasons, good and bad.