State law of some point makes it the responsibility of the school to educate every child within their boundaries. NO MATTER what type of student that kid is. NO MATTER the support they have at home. NO MATTER the physical or mental deficiencies or gifts that they may have. NO MATTER how much trouble with the law the kid is in. (one of my school's administrators recently administer the CATS test to a student that was incarcerated so that we did not have to take a ZERO on the test. Once a kid has hit, I believe it is 100 days in your school, their MUST be a test score for that student or you get a zero.) EVERY SINGLE KID's education within their boundaries is the responsibility of that school unless the parent chooses to homeschool or private school the child.

 

And if the parent is not educating their child or enrolling them in a school, it will become the responsibility of the public school to make sure that it does happen.

 

The public schools do not have the luxury to pick and choose their kids and then promote how great of a school they are.

So when exactly do kids become the property of public schools?

So when exactly do kids become the property of public schools?

 

Silly, man! At birth!

You're right, I forgot.

And you can thank your state lawmakers who while not making them public property have charged the public schools with educating EVERY STUDENT IN THEIR BOUNDARIES.

LBBC, I agree wih you that public schools do have problems with "wayward" students and that the private schools don't have to deal with that problem. They simply throw them out. Advantage privates. But I think you have to agree that the need for private funding at the private schools (i.e. tuition) is a big problem the publics don't have to deal with. Advantage publics.

 

At the end of the day, I still believe that a large majority of the public schools don't do a good enough job selling the virtues of their schools to their communities. Whereas a large majority of the private schools do a great job selling their virtues because they have to do so to survive. As a result, when parents are comparing options and deciding where to go, they have much more good propaganda from the privates Do you agree?

I'm also curious to know if you feel that most public schools are doing everything they can to maximize support from their communities and alumni and to "include" them in the operation of the school district, so as to create that "ownership" mentality so vital to a successful school district? The privates do a great, and I mean great, job of that and from what I observe most publics do not. Sure there is a booster club and maybe even an alumni association, but they aren't done anywhere near the extent that they are done at the privates. Highlands does a decent job, but candidly we are way behind the likes of Elder, Trinity and X in my opinion.

I would support a candidate that proposed a voucher system.

 

I would agree with your assertion that I bolded but as I have said before I believe that goodwill comes from the private schools are loaded with parents who "care" about their child's education. That is the minority at many, many public schools.

 

My principal once told me a story he related from a NKY private school administrator. The Private Principal told him the big difference between him and my principal was that a student is acting up and not doing what he should be doing and the principal can open his top drawer, pull out the school checkbook and refund the parents tuition to him and send him to us. Where we have to take him in and deal with him.

 

To use a VERY popular saying on here, privates and publics are apples and oranges. You can't compare them because they do two different jobs.

Isn't that what agencies that are funded by public dollars are supposed to do?

 

Again when exactly do public schools gain ownership in such a way that if a family decides to put their child in a private school they have been "stolen" from a public school?

 

I have heard the terms "one of our kids" "from our feeder system" etc bandied about quite a bit and I am very curious to know when parents can choose private schools for their children without that child having been "taken" from a public school.

I think the problem most people have is when the program has invested time and money into the kid. They have taken the time and money away from other kids and given it to that kid. And then the parents of that kid buy into the sales job given to them (mainly by other parents) that they would be better off at the other school.

 

I would say that is where your "stolen" kids are based on.

 

A HS program is only going to be as strong as their feeder program UNLESS they get a lot of tranfers in. And when a varsity coach continues to see the kids that they have invested the playing/practice time in at the MS level, leave, it gets frustrating for them.

 

And let me also add with the emphasis on test scores this is not just an athletic frustration but an academic frustration. When a principal is losing their job because test scores are not high enough but when they are seeing their top students leaving, it is a frustration to them.

 

Research shows that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the results of the kids who attend private schools and those same type of kids in a public school setting. But that message is not what is out there. Facts say that privates do not do a better job than publics, but the perception is that they do. And perception will always win out over facts.

 

To quote Andre Agassi, image is everything.

I think both of you are right.

 

I think that participants in the public school process need to change their attitudes that students within their boundaries are somehow tied to that school or owned by that jurisdiction. Vouchers would go a long way towards doing that. The money "invested" in each child does not belong to the school, either, its tax dollars that belong to the people who pay for the schools.

 

I also agree that comparing the jobs of public school personnel and private school personnel is like comparing apples and oranges. Different pressures, different goals, different motivations, different challenges.

 

However, in this thread we want to discuss the KHSAA investigative committee or Proposal 2.

I think the problem most people have is when the program has invested time and money into the kid. They have taken the time and money away from other kids and given it to that kid. And then the parents of that kid buy into the sales job given to them (mainly by other parents) that they would be better off at the other school.

 

I would say that is where your "stolen" kids are based on.

 

When does a public high school invest money in an elementary or middle schooler? I'm confused by that one.

 

A HS program is only going to be as strong as their feeder program UNLESS they get a lot of tranfers in. And when a varsity coach continues to see the kids that they have invested the playing/practice time in at the MS level, leave, it gets frustrating for them.

Interesting, considering that not all public middle schools have students playing/practicing with high school teams in all sports. AND, there are probably a minority of MS students playing HS sports.

 

And let me also add with the emphasis on test scores this is not just an athletic frustration but an academic frustration. When a principal is losing their job because test scores are not high enough but when they are seeing their top students leaving, it is a frustration to them.

 

Research shows that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the results of the kids who attend private schools and those same type of kids in a public school setting. But that message is not what is out there. Facts say that privates do not do a better job than publics, but the perception is that they do. And perception will always win out over facts.

The differences between public and private test scores are not that significant. However there are some "intangibles" that are. Fine, who cares if public schools scores are higher? My question is this: Are the scores at the school that owns my child better than I can find at the school which I would pay for his/her tuition? Is the worst student in the school that owns my child as equipped academically at graduation as the worst student in the school where I'd pay tuition? IMO, it's the weakest link theory. You can't tout the greatness of the test scores if only a minority of the students are taking the test.

 

To quote Andre Agassi, image is everything.

It helps if there are proven results to back up the image.

I think both of you are right.

 

I think that participants in the public school process need to change their attitudes that students within their boundaries are somehow tied to that school or owned by that jurisdiction. Vouchers would go a long way towards doing that. The money "invested" in each child does not belong to the school, either, its tax dollars that belong to the people who pay for the schools.

 

I also agree that comparing the jobs of public school personnel and private school personnel is like comparing apples and oranges. Different pressures, different goals, different motivations, different challenges.

 

However, in this thread we want to discuss the KHSAA investigative committee or Proposal 2.

I would add to your 2nd paragraph that the politicians need to change that same view that they have on public schools and quit trying to squeeze every kid into the same cookie cutter. Somehow it has become a nasty, dirty thing for a student to leave HS and be prepared to go out into society and participate and contribute as a laborer.

When does a public high school invest money in an elementary or middle schooler? I'm confused by that one..

I am more talking about the feeder program although in girls' sports it is not uncommon for the varsity basketball staff to be the MS staff during fall ball. Also, HS coaches I have known organize and take the MS and sometimes elementary kids to summer team camps, AAU spring leagues, etc.

Interesting, considering that not all public middle schools have students playing/practicing with high school teams in all sports. AND, there are probably a minority of MS students playing HS sports.

 

The differences between public and private test scores are not that significant. However there are some "intangibles" that are. Fine, who cares if public schools scores are higher? My question is this: Are the scores at the school that owns my child better than I can find at the school which I would pay for his/her tuition? Is the worst student in the school that owns my child as equipped academically at graduation as the worst student in the school where I'd pay tuition? IMO, it's the weakest link theory. You can't tout the greatness of the test scores if only a minority of the students are taking the test.

 

It helps if there are proven results to back up the image.

And in the same vein you cannot say that your test scores and kids are better prepared than the publics when you do not handle ALL the same type of kids that the publics handle. The statement I bolded is one of the areas that it seems private supporters love to say our kids and results are better but they fall exactly where you have stated in the bolded comment.

 

And on your last statement, there are hundreds of thousands of proven results to back up that public schools put forth students that are of high quality. I think I have done well with my public school education. I believe KY has two Nobel Prize winners among their citizenry and one was a public school student.

 

And for Hearsay's point, I think a study of the KHSAA is needed as the environment that it operates in now is much, much different than the environment it was established.

I am more talking about the feeder program although in girls' sports it is not uncommon for the varsity basketball staff to be the MS staff during fall ball. Also, HS coaches I have known organize and take the MS and sometimes elementary kids to summer team camps, AAU spring leagues, etc.

 

And in the same vein you cannot say that your test scores and kids are better prepared than the publics when you do not handle ALL the same type of kids that the publics handle. The statement I bolded is one of the areas that it seems private supporters love to say our kids and results are better but they fall exactly where you have stated in the bolded comment.

 

And on your last statement, there are hundreds of thousands of proven results to back up that public schools put forth students that are of high quality. I think I have done well with my public school education. I believe KY has two Nobel Prize winners among their citizenry and one was a public school student.

 

And for Hearsay's point, I think a study of the KHSAA is needed as the environment that it operates in now is much, much different than the environment it was established.

 

LBBC, the fact of the matter is that every single public school in Kentucky does not perform as well as the best public schools in Kentucky. That is not to say there aren't great public schools, or that there is an issue with the teachers themselves, or that a public school education is less than a private school education.

 

In short, I don't find that the politics of the public school system allow for the rights of those who want to get a good education, and those that want to provide it, to outweigh the rights of the minority who are pretty much being forced to stay there. That is why the lack of consistency from school to school in many cases. When so many resources are being devoted to making sure the bottom is improving, who's challenging the top to excel further?

Question: I work at Lexington Catholic. If I enroll my son in a public elementary/middle school, did the public school system "steal" my son from the private system?

Question: I work at Lexington Catholic. If I enroll my son in a public elementary/middle school, did the public school system "steal" my son from the private system?

 

That's a question I've been asking, in another way.

 

Why is it when a great kid from a Catholic grade school goes to a public school, there's no wailing and gnashing of teeth by the private schools to which that student could have atteneded?

LBBC, the fact of the matter is that every single public school in Kentucky does not perform as well as the best public schools in Kentucky. That is not to say there aren't great public schools, or that there is an issue with the teachers themselves, or that a public school education is less than a private school education.

 

In short, I don't find that the politics of the public school system allow for the rights of those who want to get a good education, and those that want to provide it, to outweigh the rights of the minority who are pretty much being forced to stay there. That is why the lack of consistency from school to school in many cases. When so many resources are being devoted to making sure the bottom is improving, who's challenging the top to excel further?

First paragraph confused me a little. And if it is saying what I think it is saying, the same holds true for privates. So I will edit your post a little....

 

 

RM, the fact of the matter is that every single private school in Kentucky does not perform as well as the best private schools in Kentucky. That is not to say there aren't great private schools, or that there is an issue with the teachers themselves, or that a private school education is less than a public school education.

 

 

And the top at many public school settings are being challenged. I personally cannot speak for all but rather the situations I am familiar with. Surely, none of the private school supporters can speak for all the private schools and say the top are getting better education at ALL private schools than they would at public schools.

 

State law tells schools that we must teach to the level of all children and challenge all children. Under state law, we must challenge the AP/Gifted and Talented kids as well as the other end of the spectrum. G & T programs in a lot of districts have grown in the last 10-15 years and will continue to grow. I know this because my wife has been involved in the G & T program.

 

I do believe LN has a very valid point. Private schools have to recruit all their students so they have to have a strong marketing program. THey have to continually, and should, pat themselves on the back and telling the public how great they are doing.

 

Publics do not have to recruit students so they are not consistently patting themselves on the back in front of the public's eyes.

 

One group is out there showing how great they are. THe other is not. Of course, the public is going to believe that privates are so much better, it is what they hear (and SHOULD HEAR FROM A PRIVATES PERSPECTIVE) all the time.