Heresay, the enrollment numbers on KHSAA website have DeSales at 304 and Holy Cross at 162, the only 2 schools with a history of making their presence felt at BCYFL. If DeSales is declared to be above 300 (assuming it would be in their best interest to petition to be declared a "small" private) it would be a big relief. Holy Cross is one of the smallest schools in the state. These are the only 2 schools that ALL three Bullitt County schools have trouble with. We have also had some very decent football players decide to attend Christian Academy. We never have heard about any improper contact by anyone associated with CA so we have no problem with them.

 

AllTell, Allegations alone are not enough for sanctions. But the allegations made against Holy Cross occurred when the kids were 8th graders, the sanctions came when these kids were juniors. Thus, the offending party had 3+ years to continue improper activities that were proven. That is the problem I have with the current system. Improper contact is hard to prove and when proven the KHSAA is extremely slow to act. Had the KHSAA acted aggressively and swiftly, this matter could have been resolved easily within a year. Perhaps the publics felt the privates proposal for new investigative arm would just be more of the same.

 

Ladiesballcoach is correct, current and former players and parents do become, in effect, a representative of the school. The type of contact described is illegal but almost impossible to prove for obvious reasons. This type of contact, I belive, is not what most public school officials are concerned with. However, if this same type of contact occurs with persons hanging out at middle school or little league sporting events "whispering in the ears" of above-average athletes in 7th/8th grade it becomes illegal recruiting. That is the problem I think the publics are most concerned about. Again, I realize this goes on both sides, but considering the vote of the delegates, it seems that the public school delegates feel it is much more of a problem among the private schools as is the case in Bullitt County.

 

Therefore, I say that when the Oct '05 vote for separation nearly passed SOMEONE on the private side should have spoken with Leisa Speer, superintendent of the Archdiocese of Louisville schools and other parochial leaders in the state, and said "look, this thing isn't going to go away, "we" need to have a meeting and tell everyone to cool it and stop the visits to public youth sporting events. Mr. Shaughnessy would have been an excellent choice to make this bold move.

 

Can't the parochial schools compete strongly with the kids that come up in their system without attempting to lure above-average 7th & 8th grade kids in public middle schools? I believe they can. The only barrier I see in Prop 2 is that parents that "know" they want their kids to attend private schools have to make an earlier committment. If it is the right choice for their kid, isn't it the right choice in grades 1-6 as well?

Can't the parochial schools compete strongly with the kids that come up in their system without attempting to lure above-average 7th & 8th grade kids in public middle schools? I believe they can. The only barrier I see in Prop 2 is that parents that "know" they want their kids to attend private schools have to make an earlier committment. If it is the right choice for their kid, isn't it the right choice in grades 1-6 as well?

What about the kids that want to move from parochial schools to public schools? In Jefferson County, that is more common. Those kids are also punished by these rules. Why not let families attend the school they want to? I don't see the problem. As far as the parent to parent recruiting, I am not so sure that it is illegal and if it is, it shouldn't be. As a former Catholic school parent and a current advocate, why shouldn't I tell anyone that will listen about our schools? If you feel strongly about your school, by all means tell the world.

LBBC,

The KHSAA doesn't need subpoena power. The KHSAA is made up of members. If one of the members won't comply with an investigation they can be kicked out. I think most would choose to comply.

Let's say that I am a parent of a recruit in the middle of allegation of recruiting. I don't want to testify. I am not a member of the KHSAA. How do they get any information from me without me agreeing to it?

 

Also, if I agree and it is not a subpoena which I assume means the testimony becomes under oath, how do they know I am telling the truth without simply believing that I am telling the truth rather than saying what I want so my child is eligible?

 

Another scenario. An owner of a large company offers me a job at Company X in Louisville and encourages me to enroll my child, first team All-State as a freshmen at school Y in Louisville. Allegations are made. How do they ever get me or the owner of the company to testify on that matter? We aren't members of the KHSAA. Yes, the school members will have to testify, but how about the two of us?

What about the kids that want to move from parochial schools to public schools? In Jefferson County, that is more common. Those kids are also punished by these rules. Why not let families attend the school they want to? I don't see the problem. As far as the parent to parent recruiting, I am not so sure that it is illegal and if it is, it shouldn't be. As a former Catholic school parent and a current advocate, why shouldn't I tell anyone that will listen about our schools? If you feel strongly about your school, by all means tell the world.

TA, I believe it is illegal, too. Any contact by representatives of the school in recruiting other members is a no-no. That would include players to players conversation, but how in the world can they prove those and negative situation that would become.

 

I agree with you, tell the world about your school, but in TODAY's world that could have consequences. Adults have ruined a good thing for today's kids.

 

The "hard" answer to your statement that I bolded is....no one is stopping that. They can attend whatever school they want. The Supreme Court has upheld in drug testing cases that playing sports is a privilege and not a right. Thus, it seems that eligibility rules similar to eligibility through the simple act of "taking" a drug test is reasonable. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide on this issue if it goes through and makes it that far.

My question w/all this is the KHSAA above the city, county and state laws? If not, then how can they say if you go to a certain school then you have to attend a certain high school especially in NKY. Kenton Co has open enrollment and Boone/Campbell do not. This whole thing will be a mess. There are some kids that attend Okerman but they all don't go to Boone, some go to Ryle, it depends on where they live. If I am not mistaken, these boundaries are determined by local government/school boards? So can the KHSAA tell these counties any different? This proposal w/certain schools feeding certain schools will never work.

 

TA, I agree! I live in the USA and have the right to send my child where ever I should feel fit as long as I live in that school district's boundaries. So, if I don't like the school district I am living in, I move and no if ands and buts about it. It is my business that I moved, it is my decision that I moved and none of the KHSAA business why I moved and none of the other high schools business why I moved.

TA, I believe it is illegal, too. Any contact by representatives of the school in recruiting other members is a no-no. That would include players to players conversation, but how in the world can they prove those and negative situation that would become.

 

I agree with you, tell the world about your school, but in TODAY's world that could have consequences. Adults have ruined a good thing for today's kids.

 

The "hard" answer to your statement that I bolded is....no one is stopping that. They can attend whatever school they want. The Supreme Court has upheld in drug testing cases that playing sports is a privilege and not a right. Thus, it seems that eligibility rules similar to eligibility through the simple act of "taking" a drug test is reasonable. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide on this issue if it goes through and makes it that far.

 

This is another can of worms. Just because my child plays sports does not mean she should be drug tested. That is discrimination. If an athlete is getting drug tested because they play a sport than the band kids, choir, academic team, etc should all be tested along w/all the straight A students. Participating in the above mentioned is also a privlege and not a right as it is also a privilege to attend school.

As a nine year resident of Bullitt county the problems/quality of the public schools is not new news to me. If parents feel like it is in the best interest of their child to spend their own money to send them to a different school for what ever reason I think they are well within their rights to do so.

 

Contrary to the thinking of many of our fellow posters the experience and life long benefit of a catholic school education is the reason for making this major financial committment by almost all of these parents .

 

I for one wish our public school administrators would be as half as concerned about the academics and the preparation for life of the students intrusted to their care as they are about wins and losses of games.

 

I realize this is a separate discussion, but I believe the biggest difference between the educational atmosphere between public and privates overall is how they get their students. At a private school, parents pay a lot of hard-earned money to send their kids there and are therefore invested in seeing that they do well. Parent involvement is crucial in the development of successful students. Also, privates can, I assume, get rid of any kid that is not performing to their standards either academically or behaviorally. Public schools (non-traditional at least) must take everyone regardless of how they perform and, to a large extent, regardless of how they act. Courts even force consistent bad performers, both academic and behavior, back into the schools. As a 34 year resident of Bullitt County and having had 3 kids go thru public school there, I know students can be successful, as I said earlier, if they are hard-working and have parental support. I have no doubt that private schools offer a well-disciplined, highly competitive atmosphere along with motivated parents vested in seeing that their kids succeed. Now, as Trinity Alum stated, lets all promote the heck out of our schools, just agree that we shouldn't promote it more to the parents of what we feel are above-average athletes in public middle schools that might not make that decision otherwise. Surely we can agree on that.

Let's say that I am a parent of a recruit in the middle of allegation of recruiting. I don't want to testify. I am not a member of the KHSAA. How do they get any information from me without me agreeing to it?

 

Also, if I agree and it is not a subpoena which I assume means the testimony becomes under oath, how do they know I am telling the truth without simply believing that I am telling the truth rather than saying what I want so my child is eligible?

 

Another scenario. An owner of a large company offers me a job at Company X in Louisville and encourages me to enroll my child, first team All-State as a freshmen at school Y in Louisville. Allegations are made. How do they ever get me or the owner of the company to testify on that matter? We aren't members of the KHSAA. Yes, the school members will have to testify, but how about the two of us?

We aren't talking about laws here, we are talking about rules. If someones parents are willing to lie like you say, there is little we can do about it. That kind of behavior will be handled at a later date and I'm at peace with that. Your last paragraph is a little bit cloak and dagger by my experience. It may be happening out in the country but I haven't seen or heard of such things around here.

We aren't talking about laws here, we are talking about rules. If someones parents are willing to lie like you say, there is little we can do about it. That kind of behavior will be handled at a later date and I'm at peace with that. Your last paragraph is a little bit cloak and dagger by my experience. It may be happening out in the country but I haven't seen or heard of such things around here.

 

Not to argue, I am sure you are not aware of this such thing, but it has happened in the state. One player I am aware of is a player that his father was unemployed for several years in another near by state, and miraculously got a job, that employees at the company said he did not even apply for, that payed extremely well. That player was an immediate impact and one of the biggest impact players that I have ever witnessed. The first game he played, I was in attendance, he did not even know the plays, they handed him the ball to the left and handed him the ball to the right and he just ran while the linemen pass blocked until they knew where he was running.

 

And this may make you happy, this was a public school.

Hypothetical:

 

Kid entering 7th grade this coming year (07-08)...

1) Is it correct that this new rule will not apply to him?

2) If he transfers from his independent, small city district to the larger surrounding county district (he lives in the county now and attends the city on a reciprocal agreement), would he have to sit out?

Hypothetical:

 

Kid entering 7th grade this coming year (07-08)...

1) Is it correct that this new rule will not apply to him?

2) If he transfers from his independent, small city district to the larger surrounding county district (he lives in the county now and attends the city on a reciprocal agreement), would he have to sit out?

 

1. I don't think this rule will be into effect this year or next year, if ever.

2. If he attends a public independent school and transfers to a public county school, Prop 2 (prop 2 is only in effect when a student transfers from a public to a private, or from a private to a public) will not apply, bylaw 6 (the transfer rule) will apply - put does not apply until he is in 9th grade.

 

So he will be legal to transfer, at the conclusion of his 7th or 8th grade year, from a public independent school to a public county school with out penalty.

1. I don't think this rule will be into effect this year or next year, if ever.

2. If he attends a public independent school and transfers to a public county school, Prop 2 (prop 2 is only in effect when a student transfers from a public to a private, or from a private to a public) will not apply, bylaw 6 (the transfer rule) will apply - put does not apply until he is in 9th grade.

 

So he will be legal to transfer, at the conclusion of his 7th or 8th grade year, from a public independent school to a public county school with out penalty.

If this is true it kind of disproves the claim that public/independent schools are restricted to defined "feeder" schools.

Mods, why is this thread in the football forum? Does prop 2 deal with only football? Isn't this more suited to the public/private forum?

If this is true it kind of disproves the claim that public/independent schools are restricted to defined "feeder" schools.

Mods, why is this thread in the football forum? Does prop 2 deal with only football? Isn't this more suited to the public/private forum?

 

Its not really a public/private issue per say, it is more of a transfer rule. I know it deals with transfer between public/private and private/public, but still an administrative proposal. And you are right it does deal with all sports, not just football.

 

As I previously stated, Prop 2 and Bylaw 6 appear to go hand in hand. If a student/athlete transfers from a private to a private or from a public to a public Bylaw 6 applies. If a student/athlete transfers from a private to a public or from a public to a private then Prop 2 applies.

 

So, the aforementioned scenario has nothing to do with Prop 2 it falls under Bylaw 6 (from a public to a public).

So we agree that this natural and not wrong. Yet, I believe it is the #1 and main recruiting angle that goes on.

 

So how can the KHSAA be slammed for not enforcing recruiting when this is the way (at least from all the discussions I have been involved in) that the recruiting has gone on? Parent-to-parent or player-to-player. NOT coach-player.

 

I think it is EXTREMELY rare for a player to get a mailer and call the school up. I think it is more personal than that.

 

Now are their AAU coaches out there that allegiance is to single schools and they recruit for their AAU teams when the players are in the 4th and 5th grade and some steering is going on along the way, probably happens a lot. But HOW IN THE WORLD is the KHSAA supposed to monitor that?

 

Whether they have an investigative arm or not, I see this as a losing battle for the KHSAA.

 

Let me tell you that just this week, I was talking to a player not in my district about how good they have been playing. But as a coach at the school I teach I really wanted to but never said, "I would love to see you wearing our school colors."

Now remove me as a coach at my school and it is just my daughter playing and I probably make that comment.

Your school has open enrollement. Why not talk about how good the learning environmrnt is at your school, how good the support is at your school, how good the academic facilities are? Never even mention sports. Make the student and his parents WANT to go to your school because it is better for them.

1. I don't think this rule will be into effect this year or next year, if ever.

2. If he attends a public independent school and transfers to a public county school, Prop 2 (prop 2 is only in effect when a student transfers from a public to a private, or from a private to a public) will not apply, bylaw 6 (the transfer rule) will apply - put does not apply until he is in 9th grade.

 

So he will be legal to transfer, at the conclusion of his 7th or 8th grade year, from a public independent school to a public county school with out penalty.

I think you are mis-interpreting Prop 2 in your #2. I thought the proposal read that a student changing school systems (not public or private) would fall under the umbrella of Prop 2. Such that if a student attends a Campbell County middle school and then enrolls in Highlands High School Prop 2 would cause that student to be ineligible for a year. I may be wrong as well but that was the way I thought it was set up.