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.

 

The way the local paper, the courier journal, and hearsay reported it was that Prop 2 only applied if a student/athlete was transferring from a private to a public or from a public to a private. If I am wrong please let me know, but that was what I understood.

I went to KHSAA.org and re-read the proposal. It said specifically that any student who doesn't attend a school in a high school's affiliated feeder pattern for grades 7 and 8 would be ineligible for 1 year. It made no distinction between public and private. How could a school from another district be considered an affiliated feeder school? I HOPE that it is put into effect as you say. That seems to be a good reason to challange the validity of this farce.

I went to KHSAA.org and re-read the proposal. It said specifically that any student who doesn't attend a school in a high school's affiliated feeder pattern for grades 7 and 8 would be ineligible for 1 year. It made no distinction between public and private. How could a school from another district be considered an affiliated feeder school? I HOPE that it is put into effect as you say. That seems to be a good reason to challange the validity of this farce.

 

Can you provide a link for Prop 2, I could not find the actual proposal, and have been relying on what the media reported.

Proposal 2

Proposal 2

 

Thanks. I just read it and I think you may be correct. I think Prop 2 may apply to all student/athletes that transfer to a high school outside the high school affiliation designated for their middle school.

Thanks. I just read it and I think you may be correct. I think Prop 2 may apply to all student/athletes that transfer to a high school outside the high school affiliation designated for their middle school.

If this goes through, that is how it should be. Same for everyone.

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?

 

The bolded part of your statement is a logical and rational conclusion, but as I see it in Lexington, is not at the moment an accurate one.

 

My wife and I both teach at Lexington Catholic High school. We both graduated from public high schools, me from Lexington, my wife from NKY, and felt we recived a quality educational experience. We already have a plan in place for our four month old son. With the way we see the quality of both the public and private school systems in Lexington, the plan is to send him to a public school up until 8th grade, then enroll him at Lexington Catholic for High school. There are quite a few students who come to Lexington Catholic (athletes and non-athletes) from the public system in Fayette and surrounding counties. I can tell you, from many of those parents from Fayette county that chose LC after having thier kids in the public system, feel the same way my wife and I do. We feel the public school system is a better educational system before High school in Fayette co. We belive that Lexington Catholic High School is the best high school in Fayette Co. Now, that may change in 13 years, when it is time to enroll my son in high school, but as of now, that is how we, and many others feel.

If this goes through, that is how it should be. Same for everyone.

 

I agree. But, I think myself, as well as several others, misunderstood what was reported. I read several newspaper articles that misstated what prop 2 said. They stated it was only for private to public or public to private. But, it looks like it is for every transfer from 7th grade up.

The reason there is some confusion is because I think it is unknown how the KHSAA is going to interpret inter-county comity agreements. That is why I backed off my original statement in my post #53.

Covercorner, I understand and appreciate your reasoning. Although I am not familiar with Lexington schools, I have no doubt your assessment is accurate. You would represent a group that will be punished by this ruling in that you would have to pay for private school earlier than you would have otherwise. That is unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that, IMO, we have come to this because some groups and/or programs have found it necessary to skirt the rules and promote their schools/programs for the wrong reasons or in the wrong way.

The reason there is some confusion is because I think it is unknown how the KHSAA is going to interpret inter-county comity agreements. That is why I backed off my original statement in my post #53.

 

This is a huge issue. There should not be any exceptions because if the KHSAA is going to make exceptions for public schools they need to do it for private schools too and if the KHSAA did that then Prop 2 would be nothing more than a paper tiger. If ANY exceptions are made the KHSAA should call Prop 2 what it is, a measure to "help" public schools and "punish" private schools

I feel the best idea would be to do what OH does, not allow middle school kids to play up. Would this not solve some of the problem?

 

If the KHSAA would crack down on the rules they have in place we would not be having this discussion.

If ANY exceptions are made the KHSAA should call Prop 2 what it is, a measure to "help" public schools and "punish" private schools

 

Is there any doubt that this is the intention? Pick up any paper and read any article on the subject. It is full of "level the playing field" and "restrict the private schools" etc. It will end up in court, and I predict the measure will be ruled unlawful. JMO, of course.

The statistics are that more students in Jefferson go from the publics to the privates than from private to public.

Manual has more of these "transfers" than X.

I want to represent the Catholic family whose children go to Catholic elementary, can't afford Catholic High school, and have to sit out one year, especially if due to job loss, etc.

And yes, X and T did request more money for investigators to watch recruiting which the publics and Board rejected.

The statistics are that more students in Jefferson go from the publics to the privates than from private to public.

Manual has more of these "transfers" than X.

I want to represent the Catholic family whose children go to Catholic elementary, can't afford Catholic High school, and have to sit out one year, especially if due to job loss, etc.

And yes, X and T did request more money for investigators to watch recruiting which the publics and Board rejected.

Is your first sentence correct? It doesn't seem to agree with your second point.