It really gets sticky as far as I'm concerned when defining a feeder school. Are all parochial schools in the Archdiocese of Louisville feeder schools for the Catholic High Schools? Remember the Archdiocese stretches all the way from the Ohio River to the Tennessee border. If so does a kid that goes to a parochial school in Hardin County HAVE to go to a Catholic High School in Jefferson County or Nelson County in order to be eligible for athletics immediately or will the powers that be grant waivers for those students? I have asked this question before an no one has been able to answer it.

As I understand the ruling, the simple answer is yes, that student would be ineligible.

It really gets sticky as far as I'm concerned when defining a feeder school. Are all parochial schools in the Archdiocese of Louisville feeder schools for the Catholic High Schools? Remember the Archdiocese stretches all the way from the Ohio River to the Tennessee border. If so does a kid that goes to a parochial school in Hardin County HAVE to go to a Catholic High School in Jefferson County or Nelson County in order to be eligible for athletics immediately or will the powers that be grant waivers for those students? I have asked this question before an no one has been able to answer it.

 

The answer to the first part (Are all parochial schools in the Arch. of Louis. feeder schools for the Catholic High schools) is yes if the diocese is under one administration. In the Arch. of Louisville that consists of 24 counties in central Kentucky covering 8,124 square miles, has 122 parishes and missions, and has 49 K-12 schools serving 21,800 students.

It really gets sticky as far as I'm concerned when defining a feeder school. Are all parochial schools in the Archdiocese of Louisville feeder schools for the Catholic High Schools? Remember the Archdiocese stretches all the way from the Ohio River to the Tennessee border. If so does a kid that goes to a parochial school in Hardin County HAVE to go to a Catholic High School in Jefferson County or Nelson County in order to be eligible for athletics immediately or will the powers that be grant waivers for those students? I have asked this question before an no one has been able to answer it.

 

As I understand the ruling, the simple answer is yes, that student would be ineligible.

 

Not true. If you read the proposal in its entirety, it appears to me that for example, a student who attends a catholic middle school in Meade County has two options. Since there is no high school in the diocese within their county, they can attend Meade County HS. OR, they may go to a diocesean high school. The school they are attending in Meade would be a "terminal" private school, meaning it has no high school in the county. So for most of those kids within those 24 counties, they have lots of choices.

Not true. If you read the proposal in its entirety, it appears to me that for example, a student who attends a catholic middle school in Meade County has two options. Since there is no high school in the diocese within their county, they can attend Meade County HS. OR, they may go to a diocesean high school. The school they are attending in Meade would be a "terminal" private school, meaning it has no high school in the county. So for most of those kids within those 24 counties, they have lots of choices.

 

 

I agree with your analysis. In my opinion, proposal 2 will hurt the independent schools that attract kids from outside their school districts and the public middle schools perhaps more than it will hurt the parochial high schools.

That's the real stickiness with this. It could go all the way to our nation's supreme court. And if it does. The courts would rule in favor of the student. They will not ever go with a school OWNING a kid.

Serious questions for discussion rather than trying to make a point and NOT a smart alec remark.......

 

1) So is the present transfer rules unconstitutional? If a player plays varsity at a school, they have to have a bonafide change of residence. Is that owning a kid, too?

 

2) The supreme court ruled in the case in front of them on drug testing to play athletics that athletics is a privilege and not a right. They ruled that it is reasonable for the schools to be able to set guidelines for eligibility of participating in a privilege. Sports being a privilege and not a right, how does that affect this ruling?

 

3) There are plenty of cases of governmental agencies "owning" citizens. You can't participate in certain programs unless you live in the right area. You can't get car insurance from an Ohio company while living in Newport. There are plenty of incidents in our society of having to live in a certain areas to be eligible for certain things. Does this precedents affect this case.

I agree with your analysis. In my opinion, proposal 2 will hurt the independent schools that attract kids from outside their school districts and the public middle schools perhaps more than it will hurt the parochial high schools.

And a lot of people feel the independents have an advantage equal or superior to privates.

And a lot of people feel the independents have an advantage equal or superior to privates.

 

 

Yeah, but those folks don't know anything:D .

I agree with your analysis. In my opinion, proposal 2 will hurt the independent schools that attract kids from outside their school districts and the public middle schools perhaps more than it will hurt the parochial high schools.

Wholeheartedly concur, as did a lot of the independent districts when the issue was debated. It just appears that some of this caused collateral damage to independents that was either 1) unintended or 2) ignored while really not getting at the root of the problem that some had with the parochials. But what the heck do we know anyway?

And a lot of people feel the independents have an advantage equal or superior to privates.

 

:thumb:

Superior.

When the Board of Education meets on this, I think they will fashion a rule that cuts the baby in half and doesn't make either side happy. The committee had their chance, and the BOE will do something else, not this proposal. When both parties walk away unhappy, its usually a pretty good settlement.

And a lot of people feel the independents have an advantage equal or superior to privates.

What is the advantage?

What is the advantage?

 

I, too, would like to know the answer to this question. I will even be more specific. What advantage do Bardstown, Mayfield, and Somerset hold over any private school? The landlocked territorial boundaries? The traditionally dying inner city infrastructure? The statutorily limited tax base? What is it?

I, too, would like to know the answer to this question. I will even be more specific. What advantage do Bardstown, Mayfield, and Somerset hold over any private school? The landlocked territorial boundaries? The traditionally dying inner city infrastructure? The statutorily limited tax base? What is it?

All of those restrictions sound great in melodramatic terms of a reply, but in real life, they aren't there. Most of the independent districts have extremely well functioning reciprocal agreements. In Kentucky, since the money follows the child, they get the funding for those out of district students in the bordering county districts as long as they keep a good agreement. So Bardstown gets to draw from the entirety of Nelson County, provided the two Boards of Education agree. Same for Mayfield and Graves County. And Somerset and the ever growing Pulaski County area. So while their districts start out small and bounded, KRS 157.350 allows for significant expansion, which does usually happen. Meanwhile, those county districts get to share those independent students, but see few real advantages as it is true, they are generally from the smaller more constrained areas. Local community harmony keeps reciprocal agreements going, not advantages for the county systems, as those advantages certainly appear one-sided to the independent districts.

Proposal 2 was passed today in BOE Committee, by a 3-2 vote. Very few changes from the original (30 mile radius, BOC members votes are public). The full board meets to discuss the issue tomorrow.

The account in the local newspaper stated that the proposal covered public to private and private to public. Does it also cover private to private and public to public? If not, it is clearly a thinly veiled attack on private schools and an unfair (and probably unconstitutional) aid to independent public schools. Since the infamous Wilson Sears was the only party quoted in our local newspaper, I must assume it is aimed at the privates and, if the rule is not all inclusive, let the suits begin.