Good for them. Too bad the all A public schools have yet to step up their game.

I love the assumption here that a team does not win the championship and they are just not working hard enough.

I love the assumption here that a team does not win the championship and they are just not working hard enough.

If you're not winning, work harder until you do.

It's this mindset that drives people to achieve lofty goals.

If you're not winning, work harder until you do.

It's this mindset that drives people to achieve lofty goals.

So Silver Grove needs to just work harder to compete against Highlands, Scott County, St. X, Lex Catholic and the like?

So Silver Grove needs to just work harder to compete against Highlands, Scott County, St. X, Lex Catholic and the like?

 

 

So how does this issue even remotely address that problem? Where is this issue "leveling the playing field" for SG?

Following an extremely hostile statement from Senator Dick Roeding, a former Covington Catholic school board member and former president of the Villa Madonna boosters club, it took about two minutes for the committee to strike down the two years of work that had been done by so many, work that had finally been compromised down to the lowest tolerance point of the public schools.

 

Anti Prop2 does not make you Anti Public School. Regardless, it looks like Sen. Roeding will not be getting a Christmas card from Mr. Sears.

 

I must say---for 45 years, I have been extremely proud of our profession; I never imagined that I would witness such an arrogant display of disrespect for public educators. The state board and the KHSAA staff set helplessly by as this happened. Perhaps another story.

 

The state board is 0-2 on big decisions this summer. They have a lot of problems they need to worry about other than making a case the banning of children from extracuricular activity.

 

 

 

Second we can petition the governor to overturn the LRC decision. This would take a massive effort, with no probable results.

 

I thought the LRC and its corresponding implication were strickly a legislative issue. Civics 101 teaches about the seperation of powers. Is there anything for the Govenor to do at this point?

 

Third, we can ask the state board to withdraw the proposal and submit another. I honestly believe that virtually every possible option has been explored. The privates will never agree to the definitiveness of feeder schools! They thrive on ambiguity. They ask for more enforcement; I have been involved in this from the start---with all the compliance officers in the world, by-law 10 is unenforceable.

 

First, so the privates "will never agree to feeder schools." The implication is that Prop 2 was not a compromise at all. It was one sided and never supported by all parties.

 

Second, if by-law 10 is uneforceable then why has it not been subject of action?

 

 

Fourth, the committee who voted on this issue yesterday can legally reconsider. We could saturate the committee with calls and e-mails. This is precisely what the privates did! As distasteful as that is to me, I guess political expediency is more important than what is right.

 

If Prop 2 was great idea then the supporters should have been singing its praises from every moutain top. But it was not. It was a one-sided, hurtful, anti-child proposal that the supporters mis-characterized and mislead the public, the press and the people of this state at every chance they could ("...its the same rule only at a different level..."). Not many saturated the committee with praise of this proposal because they knew the more this proposal had light shined on it the more it was clear how anti-child it was. The supporters wanted to keep this thing under the radar at every step.

 

I don't mean to be obstinate but if that is not the case, I would really appreciate hearing from you. If you continue to be concerned about this issue, I would love to hear your thoughts regarding the five options or any others we might consider. [/size][/font]

 

Thanks

[/font][/size][/font]

 

Here is an option to consider - do what you told the press, the public and everyone else you were doing. Simply implement the same rule (as was, pre-Prop 2) at a lower level. Apply the current transfer Bylaws to middle schoolers who play up in varsity sports. This is simple and it IS supported by the privates as demonstrated by the voluntary adaption of this rule by some of the privates.

So Silver Grove needs to just work harder to compete against Highlands, Scott County, St. X, Lex Catholic and the like?

No . To do that Silver Grove needs to consolidate with the Campbell Co school system .

So Silver Grove needs to just work harder to compete against Highlands, Scott County, St. X, Lex Catholic and the like?

That's a bad example. You're talking about a tiny school there. They can be expected to compete (and have) in their own classification.

No Silver Grove needs to consolidate with the Campbell Co school system .

 

Excellent point.

I for one would be all for defined feeder schools at NCC as long as they get to keep the same schools that have been sending students to them since the early 50's .

That's a bad example. You're talking about a tiny school there. They can be expected to compete (and have) in their own classification.

And why my suggestion back in January, divided on size and choice of open/closed enrollment and did not divide on public/private merits. Also, 4 classifications instead of 6 for those football fans in the crowd.

No . To do that Silver Grove needs to consolidate with the Campbell Co school system .

Great topic for another thread on why they would need to.

I love the assumption here that a team does not win the championship and they are just not working hard enough.

And I love the assumption that since public schools aren't winning what they consider "their share" of championships that something must be wrong with the system.

And I love the assumption that since public schools aren't winning what they consider "their share" of championships that something must be wrong with the system.

And as I have stated many times in the past 190 some schools voted for Prop 20. Not all of those schools have an assumption of competing for state championships. Must be some other reason for them to support Prop 20 but know they it will not mean they are winning a state title.

I'm sorry I took this thread off subject...

 

Sears now has the light shining on him. This letter will only make things harder for him. I assume he is steaming out his ears. Could you imagine being his executive assistant right now? :fire:

And as I have stated many times in the past 190 some schools voted for Prop 20. Not all of those schools have an assumption of competing for state championships. Must be some other reason for them to support Prop 20 but know they it will not mean they are winning a state title.

Then why compete at all? At what point in time does a coach tell his/her players that they can't compete for a state championship? Seems like a bit of a defeatist attitude to me. If you think your school can't compete for a state championship then what does it matter to you who wins?