At the freshman level there are freshman teams. As you have said numerous times not every program is the same. Some schools rarely have freshmen play at any other level then the freshman teams. To expect kids the practice with other freshman to then sit and watch during games is unrealistic and mean IMHO. I feel fairly certain that either coaches will cut those kids because they can't play in games or on no-cut sports the kids will quickly get tired of watching games and quit.

I am not sure they will quit because they don't quit in the MS when those same kids at the freshmen level go 5-6-7 games with zero playing time pick up 2 minutes in a game and then go another 3-4 games with zero playing time.

 

I would say the number of schools that no freshmen play at any other level is minute. I would guess the number of schools that have at least some freshmen that play both frosh and JV is pretty substantial.

 

At my school on the girls' side, they don't even have separate practice time because of lack of gym space. The freshmen girls practice with the varsity girls. About 20-24 girls in the gym at the same time.

 

As far as the cutting them, I would say that plays a huge role if you have a stricly freshmen team with separate practice time. Not going to cut and go below 10 cause then you can't scrimmage almost regardless of a player's ability.

I do have an honest question that I recently thought of.

 

I took it from the posters on here that many private school parents plan out that their kids will go to the private school in elementary and MS level and then go to public HS. I took that at face value and just accepted it because that is what you guys that are much more knowledgeable about private schools indicated happens. No problem.

 

And then this Prop 2 came up and there was an outrage about parents having to decide at an early age what school their child was going to go to athletically.

 

Didn't understand the two stories. Many parents, as have been indicated, plan out that their child will go back to public HS after private MS. It has been indicated that this happens much more than the other way around.

 

So if parents are already planning this, why can't they go ahead and start thinking BEFORE the 8th grade that they need to consider where their kid is going?

 

It seems that once the proposal takes place there won't be many kids ineligible. What will happen is one of two things: 1)they stay at private school as HSers; 2)they transfer to the public MS in the feeder program of where they had planned to send their kid to as a freshmen.

 

Still parent choice only it will happen BETWEEN their 7th/8th grade year and NOT 8th/9th grade year.

 

Nothing is really changing here but moving the decision up a year.

I do have an honest question that I recently thought of.

 

I took it from the posters on here that many private school parents plan out that their kids will go to the private school in elementary and MS level and then go to public HS. I took that at face value and just accepted it because that is what you guys that are much more knowledgeable about private schools indicated happens. No problem.

 

And then this Prop 2 came up and there was an outrage about parents having to decide at an early age what school their child was going to go to athletically.

 

Didn't understand the two stories. Many parents, as have been indicated, plan out that their child will go back to public HS after private MS. It has been indicated that this happens much more than the other way around.

 

So if parents are already planning this, why can't they go ahead and start thinking BEFORE the 8th grade that they need to consider where their kid is going?

 

It seems that once the proposal takes place there won't be many kids ineligible. What will happen is one of two things: 1)they stay at private school as HSers; 2)they transfer to the public MS in the feeder program of where they had planned to send their kid to as a freshmen.

 

Still parent choice only it will happen BETWEEN their 7th/8th grade year and NOT 8th/9th grade year.

 

Nothing is really changing here but moving the decision up a year.

 

Simple, really, LBBC. Most Catholic grade schools are grades K-8. You put your kid in a school in kindergarten, and most times, those kids do not change schools until it's time to go to high school. Now, we'll have to choose to remove our kids from Catholic schools in the 6th grade (7th at latest) and send them to a new school. It actually changes a lot for private school families.

Simple, really, LBBC. Most Catholic grade schools are grades K-8. You put your kid in a school in kindergarten, and most times, those kids do not change schools until it's time to go to high school. Now, we'll have to choose to remove our kids from Catholic schools in the 6th grade (7th at latest) and send them to a new school. It actually changes a lot for private school families.

Or leave them there.

 

So the problem is WHEN that decision has to be made and not that the decision has to be made. Cause the SAME decision being made under Prop 2 is being made today just a year or two earlier.

 

Can a student be enrolled in a private school as a 7th grader, public school as an 8th grader be eligible as a freshmen?

Or leave them there.

 

So the problem is WHEN that decision has to be made and not that the decision has to be made. Cause the SAME decision being made under Prop 2 is being made today just a year or two earlier.

 

Can a student be enrolled in a private school as a 7th grader, public school as an 8th grader be eligible as a freshmen?

 

And what was simple in the past now becomes parents nightmare with 'interim schools' and students changing schools for reasons that have nothing to do with academics.

 

Lets call a spade a spade - Prop 2 not just impacts this natural, well defined, well established historically traditional 'pattern' of schooling, but Prop 2 was designed to expressly disrupt this pattern and penalize parents and students who following this pattern of private/public or public/private schooling pattern.

 

Why? Two reasons Prop 2 is loved by public schools. For urban school coaches I can only imagine that they hate to have uncertainty in their upcoming classes. The current well established, traditional pattern creates uncertainty until the summer of a students freshman year. Prop 2 fixes that problem for urban coaches. The rural schools love Prop 2 because it will create issues for all urban schools and lead to reduced participation.

 

But for parents who just want follow a well established, traditional, well known pattern of school Prop 2 is simple nightmare.

Or leave them there.

 

So the problem is WHEN that decision has to be made and not that the decision has to be made. Cause the SAME decision being made under Prop 2 is being made today just a year or two earlier.

 

Can a student be enrolled in a private school as a 7th grader, public school as an 8th grader be eligible as a freshmen?

Who knows? My guess would be that in that scenario no matter where the parents choose to send their child for high school he/she would be ineligble.

And what was simple in the past now becomes parents nightmare with 'interim schools' and students changing schools for reasons that have nothing to do with academics.

So parents don't choose schools for reasons other than academics between their freshmen and 8th grade year? Surely, you are not that naive.

Lets call a spade a spade - Prop 2 not just impacts this natural, well defined, well established historically traditional 'pattern' of schooling, but Prop 2 was designed to expressly disrupt this pattern and penalize parents and students who following this pattern of private/public or public/private schooling pattern.

Not sure it is any or all of those many adjectives you gave it.

 

 

Why? Two reasons Prop 2 is loved by public schools. For urban school coaches I can only imagine that they hate to have uncertainty in their upcoming classes. The current well established, traditional pattern creates uncertainty until the summer of a students freshman year. Prop 2 fixes that problem for urban coaches. The rural schools love Prop 2 because it will create issues for all urban schools and lead to reduced participation.

 

But for parents who just want follow a well established, traditional, well known pattern of school Prop 2 is simple nightmare.

In my 20 some years involved with my rural school distict I cannot tell you ONE student who left my school and transferred to a private school. So I don't believe that this proposal honestly affects rural schools directly at all.

 

Indirectly, I don't think what you fear will happen in the least. I think you will see players staying at private schools in HS or the move occur after the 7th grade year.

 

As far as the uncertainty, they happens each and every year of HS and whether the player chooses to go to a private school or not based on "perceived" advantages. Urban coaches face that uncertainty EVERY YEAR.

 

Is it a nightmare when a parent wants to move their child from one to the other between their freshmen/sophomore year? sophomore/junior year? junior/senior year?

 

Not any different than 8th grade/freshmen year.

Who knows? My guess would be that in that scenario no matter where the parents choose to send their child for high school he/she would be ineligble.

I thought it just setup the 8th grade year as the base of their eligibility as presently is done in their 9th grade year.

Question:

 

If my daughter is a good tuba player, and she transfers to Lafayette HS because they won more marching band trophies.....does she have to sit out a year??

 

Point: Participation can mean a lot of things. Are sports singled out as the only activity which is governed by a separate organization? And what causes this? Money? Fame?

Surely, you are not that naive.

 

Not hardly, but Prop 2's "Ban 'em all and let KHSAA sort it out" approach makes the assumption that every change is an athletic base changed when the fact is the vast vast majority are not.

 

Not sure it is any or all of those many adjectives you gave it.

 

It is. Anyone from Jefferson County knows this pattern and knows families in which this is plan from day 1 of their childs education. It is very prevalent among the Catholic families. And there is a reason that simply switching earlier is not a good option. Religious sacrements are taught in the school and the last sacrement as an adolecent is Confirmation. That usually occurs during 6th, 7th or sometimes 8th grade. This is why a parents send their kids to Catholic school all the way through the 8th grade. On the basis that Prop 2 attacks this well established, historical, traditional schooling approach is discrimination against a minority.

 

 

In my 20 some years involved with my rural school distict I cannot tell you ONE student who left my school and transferred to a private school. So I don't believe that this proposal honestly affects rural schools directly at all.

 

Exactly my point. Prop 2 will have a extremely disproportional impact to urban residents. So there is no downside of Prop 2 for a large part, and likely a majority, of the state. While discrimination against urban dwellers is not prohibited, discrimination against individuals who live in these urban settings for selecting a certain educational pattern based on religion would be.

 

 

 

Not any different than 8th grade/freshmen year.

 

See above.

Surely you are not asking consideration of religious practices in a private school setting to be a consideration in determining practices that fall on public schools?

 

Cause I can tell you much to my disappointment, that ain't allowed. That little thing of separation of church and state comes into play.

 

And the Ban 'em all comment seems to be a hystery comment and not based in reality at all.

 

Your new so you haven't been in this debate long enough to know that about 18 months ago I started a thread you can find in this forum in which I said the best division would be urban/rural with an open enrollment/size designation. That was more of an issue than private/public. So you won't get an argument from me that it benefits the rural schools more than urban.

 

But here is the rub, the present setup obviously benefits the urban over the rural. So while you are arguing that this is unfair to the urbans, it is no different than the present system being unfair to the rurals.

 

BTW, I have enjoyed the discussion with you. Great points making me consider prop 2. Hopefully, I have returned the favor. Over the past 2 years, many on here have educated me on many things about the public/private issue.

Surely you are not asking consideration of religious practices in a private school setting to be a consideration in determining practices that fall on public schools?

 

Cause I can tell you much to my disappointment, that ain't allowed. That little thing of separation of church and state comes into play.

 

And the Ban 'em all comment seems to be a hystery comment and not based in reality at all.

 

Your new so you haven't been in this debate long enough to know that about 18 months ago I started a thread you can find in this forum in which I said the best division would be urban/rural with an open enrollment/size designation. That was more of an issue than private/public. So you won't get an argument from me that it benefits the rural schools more than urban.

 

But here is the rub, the present setup obviously benefits the urban over the rural. So while you are arguing that this is unfair to the urbans, it is no different than the present system being unfair to the rurals.

 

BTW, I have enjoyed the discussion with you. Great points making me consider prop 2. Hopefully, I have returned the favor. Over the past 2 years, many on here have educated me on many things about the public/private issue.

First, the argument that your recommendation that students just change schools earlier presents a religious training problem is in no way a constitutional issue. It is a practical problem that is real as a result of the mistaken belief that any system that does not result in equality of outcome must be unfair. Prop 2 is an attempt on the part of people that don't like who is winning to try to do something to punish families that have the nerve to not take what they are offering for free.

 

Second, there are advantages to living in a rural area, there are advantages to living in an urban area. That doesn't make it unfair that some people live in the country and some live in the city, it just makes it different.

 

I think that the movers behind the whole public/private issue are motivated by only one thing. They would like to eliminate private schools. Part of it is they don't like competition and I am convinced that for some it is religious bigotry. They have whipped up others to believe that they are facing unfair advantages. It just isn't so. There are advantages in some private schools and there are advantages in some public schools. So what.

First, the argument that your recommendation that students just change schools earlier presents a religious training problem is in no way a constitutional issue. It is a practical problem that is real as a result of the mistaken belief that any system that does not result in equality of outcome must be unfair. Prop 2 is an attempt on the part of people that don't like who is winning to try to do something to punish families that have the nerve to not take what they are offering for free.

 

Second, there are advantages to living in a rural area, there are advantages to living in an urban area. That doesn't make it unfair that some people live in the country and some live in the city, it just makes it different.

 

I think that the movers behind the whole public/private issue are motivated by only one thing. They would like to eliminate private schools. Part of it is they don't like competition and I am convinced that for some it is religious bigotry. They have whipped up others to believe that they are facing unfair advantages. It just isn't so. There are advantages in some private schools and there are advantages in some public schools. So what.

Prop 2, to me, is trying to solve a compound fracture with a band-aid and hoping it works. It is a poor attempt to address the issue.

 

The rural comments from me came as a result of the comments that this unfairly benefits the rural schools.

 

And I am offended by the last comment. Just because some don't agree with your position does NOT MEAN that it is religious bigotry. I would vote for a voucher system for my tax dollars to be used for private schools in a HEARTBEAT, but at the same time honestly and truly believe that those same schools have an unfair advantage. Am I practicing religious bigotry when I want to give parents tax dollars to CHOOSE to send their kids to a private school?

 

I can honestly tell you that the hundreds of hours that I have had discussions on this matter with public school coaches NEVER has the religious issue been raised. It has ALWAYS been that the private schools have a larger base to draw their players from in compared to the public schools.

 

I have had coaching friends who were private school coaches and fought this matter. Than became public school coaches, saw it from a different perspective and all of a sudden agreed that advantages were present.

 

And to remind, I am NOT for a Prop 20 split at private/public because it only addresses PART of the issue.

 

And the Ban 'em all comment seems to be a hystery comment and not based in reality at all.

 

 

The ban part of Prop 2 is pure hysteria. This is where there is such a divide. The prop assumes all changes in 'feeder schools' is due to athletics when hardly any really are.

 

Your new so you haven't been in this debate long enough to know that about 18 months ago I started a thread you can find in this forum in which I said the best division would be urban/rural with an open enrollment/size designation. That was more of an issue than private/public. So you won't get an argument from me that it benefits the rural schools more than urban.

 

But here is the rub, the present setup obviously benefits the urban over the rural. So while you are arguing that this is unfair to the urbans, it is no different than the present system being unfair to the rurals.

 

BTW, I have enjoyed the discussion with you. Great points making me consider prop 2. Hopefully, I have returned the favor. Over the past 2 years, many on here have educated me on many things about the public/private issue.

 

I am not new the debate - my paid id lapsed and when I joined with the same ID my post# and join date were reset. I have followed this issue for a long time.

 

I remember your post on the rural/urban and it was accurate.

 

The fact is in a urban setting children switch schools for many reasons and going from one type setting to another is common between 8th grade and HS. The vast majority of these switches have nothing to do with athletics.

 

Yet, the portion of Prop 2 that bans freshman playing paints these kids a rule breakers and fit for punishment. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

I say the "portion of Prop 2" because there is a part that makes sense. The enforcement of the tranfer rule for MS atheletes that have played up in HS. I think this step would address the main hysteria that has generated the broader part of Prop 2.

 

I have heard Wilson Sears say that (paraphrase) 'there is attack on public schools by private schools' (KET debate,October 31, 2005). It is only logical if you feel this way you will counter attack. The broader part of Prop 2 is that counter attack.

Prop 2, to me, is trying to solve a compound fracture with a band-aid and hoping it works. It is a poor attempt to address the issue.

 

The rural comments from me came as a result of the comments that this unfairly benefits the rural schools.

 

 

LBBC: You see a compound fracture where many just see a minor cut. This is why this is so confusing.

 

Is the compound fracture the inherent differences in the rural and urban settings? Is it the perception of rampant 'recuiting' by privates only? Is it the perception of rampant 'recuiting' by any schools in urban settings since the logistics make it possible to poach from one another?