The next step for Prop 2 is the Legislative Review Committee (LRC).

 

Here is a website with information:

 

http://capwiz.com/ccky/issues/alert/?alertid=9955911&type=CU&show_alert=1

 

At least one member of the LRC has indicated he will not support 702 KAR 7:065 as it is currently written.

According to what that site says, "The Kentucky State Board of Education has voted to adopt a proposal governing the Kentucky High School Athletic Association that we believe is unconstitutional because it violates the protected right to practice one’s religion without State interference." I don't see how this prevents "the protected" the right to practice their religion, it only prevents them from playing sports for a year, which has nothing to do with religion.

According to what that site says, "The Kentucky State Board of Education has voted to adopt a proposal governing the Kentucky High School Athletic Association that we believe is unconstitutional because it violates the protected right to practice one’s religion without State interference." I don't see how this prevents "the protected" the right to practice their religion, it only prevents them from playing sports for a year, which has nothing to do with religion.

 

Didn't you know? Football is a religious experience for a Catholic. That is why Trinity and St.X are so good. We're just practicing our religion. :lol:

Didn't you know? Football is a religious experience for a Catholic. That is why Trinity and St.X are so good. We're just practicing our religion. :lol:

 

LOL, thats a good one.

According to what that site says, "The Kentucky State Board of Education has voted to adopt a proposal governing the Kentucky High School Athletic Association that we believe is unconstitutional because it violates the protected right to practice one’s religion without State interference." I don't see how this prevents "the protected" the right to practice their religion, it only prevents them from playing sports for a year, which has nothing to do with religion.

 

 

I agree. The statement in bold is quite an over-reaching argument. First of all, no child is being prohibited from attending the school of their choice. If I want to send my eighth grader in public school to private high school, no one is stopping me. Second, Prop 2 is being applied uniformly to religious and non-religious schools. Religious schools are not being singled out. Third, to say prop 2 infringes on the right to practice religion is asinine. All who would agree with that argument must surely support the "right" to have multiple wives, perform human sacrifices, or practice any other prohibited activity that could be construed as religious in nature.

 

But I thank the CCK for compiling a list of representatives with a voice in this issue.

I agree. The statement in bold is quite an over-reaching argument. First of all, no child is being prohibited from attending the school of their choice. If I want to send my eighth grader in public school to private high school, no one is stopping me. Second, Prop 2 is being applied uniformly to religious and non-religious schools. Religious schools are not being singled out. Third, to say prop 2 infringes on the right to practice religion is asinine. All who would agree with that argument must surely support the "right" to have multiple wives, perform human sacrifices, or practice any other prohibited activity that could be construed as religious in nature.

 

But I thank the CCK for compiling a list of representatives with a voice in this issue.

 

I agree, I think that the private schools should take this compromise from the state and move on. If they don't, then you can expect the split vote to come up again in the near future.

I agree, I think that the private schools should take this compromise from the state and move on. If they don't, then you can expect the split vote to come up again in the near future.

 

 

Won't surprise me one bit to see the publics bring up the split proposal again this year at the delegates meeting, even if Proposal 2 is ultimately approved by the State.

Won't surprise me one bit to see the publics bring up the split proposal again this year at the delegates meeting, even if Proposal 2 is ultimately approved by the State.

You know that's their ultimate goal. They won't be happy until they get it. All these other proposals are just babysteps to move us a little closer.

Won't surprise me one bit to see the publics bring up the split proposal again this year at the delegates meeting, even if Proposal 2 is ultimately approved by the State.

Hopefully, it comes in a different form that is acceptable to the state this time. Perhaps it should be worded to say that you are in a separate division if you fail to limit your geographic territory to a 30 mile radius. Some would argue that doesn't help, but hasn't the state board already proven that they do not mind a radius rule by adopting a 30 mile rule for the small non publics? That way you don't catch Riverside, Oneida, et.al. in the same net that the publics are trying to catch some of the more successful programs.

 

That would be more akin to what Tennessee did. They didn't separate public private as you know. They set up a financial aid division and said that you can give all you want, but if you give aid, you will play in that division. In this way, if schools didn't want to set a boundary on themselves, they would in fact be making the choice to play in a separate division.

Hopefully, it comes in a different form that is acceptable to the state this time. Perhaps it should be worded to say that you are in a separate division if you fail to limit your geographic territory to a 30 mile radius. Some would argue that doesn't help, but hasn't the state board already proven that they do not mind a radius rule by adopting a 30 mile rule for the small non publics? That way you don't catch Riverside, Oneida, et.al. in the same net that the publics are trying to catch some of the more successful programs.

 

That would be more akin to what Tennessee did. They didn't separate public private as you know. They set up a financial aid division and said that you can give all you want, but if you give aid, you will play in that division. In this way, if schools didn't want to set a boundary on themselves, they would in fact be making the choice to play in a separate division.

 

 

You may be right my friend, but I've got a feeling that the publics will try for a more severe separation and lobby the SBE members hard to change their positions on the issue. But heck, I could be way wrong on the issue. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, now would it!

They set up a financial aid division and said that you can give all you want, but if you give aid, you will play in that division. In this way, if schools didn't want to set a boundary on themselves, they would in fact be making the choice to play in a separate division.

 

Aid = tax paid education, lunch/breakfast program, transportation, books, etc... :walk:

 

Or if you want, you could average the cost a public school student pays during the school year. Any student (public/private) that pays under that amount during the year would be classified as receiving aid.

Aid = tax paid education, lunch/breakfast program, transportation, books, etc... :walk:

 

Or if you want, you could average the cost a public school student pays during the school year. Any student (public/private) that pays under that amount during the year would be classified as receiving aid.

 

Not disputing that in the least, although if you are in Nashville, you have to know how crappy (in some people down there's opinion), their tournaments have become in some divisions, and now they are fighting rural and urban.

 

My point is that if truly the unlimited drawing area of the privates is the big issue with the public (despite the tax supplemented education system and virtually unlimited reciprocal agreements), then let's just say "limit yourselves" or play by yourselves. That way they make an honest decision. If they do like the parochials in N KY who long ago made up feeder parishes, etc., then they would comply and they get to do what they want. If they insist on unlimited draws like the schools in Louisville seem to want, then they are making their own decision.

 

But not in the same manner that the currently considered proposal will make a fundamental and albeit expensive for the association's schools proposal that is working its way through now.

You may be right my friend, but I've got a feeling that the publics will try for a more severe separation and lobby the SBE members hard to change their positions on the issue. But heck, I could be way wrong on the issue. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, now would it!

 

Right there with you and someday when not feeling muzzled, maybe some of us can make some suggestions that might actually help.

Not disputing that in the least, although if you are in Nashville, you have to know how crappy (in some people down there's opinion), their tournaments have become in some divisions, and now they are fighting rural and urban.

 

My point is that if truly the unlimited drawing area of the privates is the big issue with the public (despite the tax supplemented education system and virtually unlimited reciprocal agreements), then let's just say "limit yourselves" or play by yourselves. That way they make an honest decision. If they do like the parochials in N KY who long ago made up feeder parishes, etc., then they would comply and they get to do what they want. If they insist on unlimited draws like the schools in Louisville seem to want, then they are making their own decision.

 

But not in the same manner that the currently considered proposal will make a fundamental and albeit expensive for the association's schools proposal that is working its way through now.

 

The Catholic schools in Louisville serve the Archdiocese of Louisville. Make that the boundry and I will not argue it one iota.

Lexington Catholic cannot draw from outside the diocese of Lexington. Seems like a boundary to me.