Does it matter if they are a 7th or 8th grader who has played varsity?

 

Not under the pre-Prop2 GE04 rules, which I guess we can assume are effect now. 8th graders going to HS get a clean start from a 'transfer aspect'. They are 'free agents' so to speak. (It grates me to use such a term when talking about MS and Freshmen.)

 

Some privates (at least Lex Cath) have voluntarily adopted to apply the transfer rule, as-is, to incoming freshman. Meaning if the 8th grader did play varsity (just as in GE04) at another school they can not play varsity as a freshmen. This is a true extension of the current rule at a lower level and most privates support this as a reasonable extension to the transfer rule.

 

I highlight the above since at times Prop 2 supporters indicated Prop 2 was the 'same rule at a lower level.' WRONG. If there a reasonable step and reasonable compromise to be had it is as simple as just formalizing the true extension of the current transfer rule to a lower level.

Not under the pre-Prop2 GE04 rules, which I guess we can assume are effect now. 8th graders going to HS get a clean start from a 'transfer aspect'. They are 'free agents' so to speak. (It grates me to use such a term when talking about MS and Freshmen.)

 

Some privates (at least Lex Cath) have voluntarily adopted to apply the transfer rule, as-is, to incoming freshman. Meaning if the 8th grader did play varsity (just as in GE04) at another school they can not play varsity as a freshmen. This is a true extension of the current rule at a lower level and most privates support this as a reasonable extension to the transfer rule.

 

I highlight the above since at times Prop 2 supporters indicated Prop 2 was the 'same rule at a lower level.' WRONG. If there a reasonable step and reasonable compromise to be had it is as simple as just formalizing the true extension of the current transfer rule to a lower level.

Was LC's adoption recently or did Nikki Davis, the girl from Dunbar(is her last name Green?), Chelsea Chowning, and several others sit out a year?

Was LC's adoption recently or did Nikki Davis, the girl from Dunbar(is her last name Green?), Chelsea Chowning, and several others sit out a year?

None of those girls sat out as freshmen ...

None of those girls sat out as freshmen ...

So, the voluntary adoption occurred pre-, post- or during the Prop 20 debacle? From what you say here, I am taking post-Prop 20 debacle.

So, the voluntary adoption occurred pre-, post- or during the Prop 20 debacle? From what you say here, I am taking post-Prop 20 debacle.

 

Correct. In effect this year for incoming freshman (2007-2008 class).

Not under the pre-Prop2 GE04 rules, which I guess we can assume are effect now. 8th graders going to HS get a clean start from a 'transfer aspect'. They are 'free agents' so to speak. (It grates me to use such a term when talking about MS and Freshmen.)

 

Some privates (at least Lex Cath) have voluntarily adopted to apply the transfer rule, as-is, to incoming freshman. Meaning if the 8th grader did play varsity (just as in GE04) at another school they can not play varsity as a freshmen. This is a true extension of the current rule at a lower level and most privates support this as a reasonable extension to the transfer rule.

 

I highlight the above since at times Prop 2 supporters indicated Prop 2 was the 'same rule at a lower level.' WRONG. If there a reasonable step and reasonable compromise to be had it is as simple as just formalizing the true extension of the current transfer rule to a lower level.

 

 

Very wise post. I agree 100%. If the ineligibility period was simply extended to 7tha nd 8th graders who played varsity sports and if a parent signed a form acknowledging his/her child would be ineligible for one year if the child attended a different high school, I seriously doubt any legislator would be opposed to that concept. I know one very powerful Senator thinks that's a fine concept. Whether Sears can open his eyes up to it, I don't know.

 

Does the aforementioned idea solve Sears "problem" that the private schools have no boundaries? No, admittedly it does not. But there can be no acceptable compromise on that "problem" without the parental right to choose the best high school for his/her daughter being totally trampled on and destroyed in the name of high school sports. I don't think that will EVER fly in the Legislature fortunately.

Very wise post. I agree 100%. If the ineligibility period was simply extended to 7tha nd 8th graders who played varsity sports and if a parent signed a form acknowledging his/her child would be ineligible for one year if the child attended a different high school, I seriously doubt any legislator would be opposed to that concept. I know one very powerful Senator thinks that's a fine concept. Whether Sears can open his eyes up to it, I don't know.

 

Does the aforementioned idea solve Sears "problem" that the private schools have no boundaries? No, admittedly it does not. But there can be no acceptable compromise on that "problem" without the parental right to choose the best high school for his/her daughter being totally trampled on and destroyed in the name of high school sports. I don't think that will EVER fly in the Legislature fortunately.

I am not disagreeing with you, so let's get that out of the way, but it would be interesting to see where the courts would fall on this issue.

 

I know it is not the exact same thing, but in the SC case involving drug tests, the SC ruled that extracurricular activities is a privilege and not a right and it is fully within the power of the schools to mandate drug testing if you wish to play HS athletics.

 

Now whether that it is a privilege and not a right would extend to what MS you attended, would be the interesting question and I, personally, could see the SC falling on EITHER side of this debate and having a strong case to support their findings.

 

Also, the SC has already established that schools can put conditions on a child being able to participate in athletics. Whether that right for the SCHOOLS would extend to the KHSAA would be another interesting position.

 

Were the Brentwood Academies 8th graders attending a MS that would be classified as a "feeder" school for Brentwood or were they in a public "feeder" school?

I am not disagreeing with you, so let's get that out of the way, but it would be interesting to see where the courts would fall on this issue.

 

I know it is not the exact same thing, but in the SC case involving drug tests, the SC ruled that extracurricular activities is a privilege and not a right and it is fully within the power of the schools to mandate drug testing if you wish to play HS athletics.

 

Now whether that it is a privilege and not a right would extend to what MS you attended, would be the interesting question and I, personally, could see the SC falling on EITHER side of this debate and having a strong case to support their findings.

 

Also, the SC has already established that schools can put conditions on a child being able to participate in athletics. Whether that right for the SCHOOLS would extend to the KHSAA would be another interesting position.

 

Were the Brentwood Academies 8th graders attending a MS that would be classified as a "feeder" school for Brentwood or were they in a public "feeder" school?

 

First I'm not saying Proposal 2 would be unconstitutional; I'm saying the legislature would never accept it in its "current" form, but would accept it in the way that bluegrasscard proposed. Not sure from your post if you thought I was saying Proposal 2 is unconstitutional, but I'm not saying such. Heck it may be constitutional, just reallly stupid and a trampling of a parent's ability to make the right school choice. When I talked about a "parent's right" in my prior post, I was not using "right" in the context of a constitutional right. Sorry if that was misleading.

 

As for the Brentwood case, the real issue in that case was a free speech issue. Brentwood's football coach sent letters in the spring to 8th graders (my guess from both public and private schools) that had already been accepted to Brentwood and had indicated that they were coming to Brentwood in their 9th grade. The letter invited them to attend (watch) Brentwood's spring practice (and in the eyes of at least one of the Supremes, put the kids under some pressure to attend the spring practices). The ruling of the case basically boiled down to whether the THSAA had the power, in their regulation of high school athletics, to restrict a high school coach's right of free speech (to send the letter). Heck, I think we probably already knew that, otherwise every state association's rule restricting contact by a coach with a player at another school would have been unconstitutional. This ruling did not surprise me at all.

First I'm not saying Proposal 2 would be unconstitutional; I'm saying the legislature would never accept it in its "current" form, but would accept it in the way that bluegrasscard proposed. Not sure from your post if you thought I was saying Proposal 2 is unconstitutional, but I'm not saying such. Heck it may be constitutional, just reallly stupid and a trampling of a parent's ability to make the right school choice. When I talked about a "parent's right" in my prior post, I was not using "right" in the context of a constitutional right. Sorry if that was misleading.

 

As for the Brentwood case, the real issue in that case was a free speech issue. Brentwood's football coach sent letters in the spring to 8th graders (my guess from both public and private schools) that had already been accepted to Brentwood and had indicated that they were coming to Brentwood in their 9th grade. The letter invited them to attend (watch) Brentwood's spring practice (and in the eyes of at least one of the Supremes, put the kids under some pressure to attend the spring practices). The ruling of the case basically boiled down to whether the THSAA had the power, in their regulation of high school athletics, to restrict a high school coach's right of free speech (to send the letter). Heck, I think we probably already knew that, otherwise every state association's rule restricting contact by a coach with a player at another school would have been unconstitutional. This ruling did not surprise me at all.

Not really arguing with you at all but just posting questions that I have wondered about.

 

When I say right, I think there is a legal right and the right that people are assuming parents have. Prop 2 did not stand in the way of a parent's "right" (probably more legal here than the other) to choose their child's education.

 

In the drug testing case, the SC said athletics was a privilege and not a right. So, would they have altered that and said that Prop 2 did stand in the way of a parent's right to choose their child's school if athletics is not a right.

 

In no way, am I discussing my view or opinion but musing about what the SC would look at considering previous cases they have ruled on.

 

I think the "right" of parents that the legislators are talking about and the "right" in the eyes of the legal system through the Supreme Court might be different. The "right" of the parents for the legislators are for them to get reelected and not a legal right.

Not really arguing with you at all but just posting questions that I have wondered about.

 

When I say right, I think there is a legal right and the right that people are assuming parents have. Prop 2 did not stand in the way of a parent's "right" (probably more legal here than the other) to choose their child's education.

 

In the drug testing case, the SC said athletics was a privilege and not a right. So, would they have altered that and said that Prop 2 did stand in the way of a parent's right to choose their child's school if athletics is not a right.

 

In no way, am I discussing my view or opinion but musing about what the SC would look at considering previous cases they have ruled on.

 

I think the "right" of parents that the legislators are talking about and the "right" in the eyes of the legal system through the Supreme Court might be different. The "right" of the parents for the legislators are for them to get reelected and not a legal right.

 

 

With all respect, I totally disagree with that point and I think you discredit and insult those legislators on the Subcommittee. If athletics are an important part of the educational process, as we love to say (and if its not, why should schools continue to put so much money in athletic facilities and fund athletic programs at a time money is in short supply in the educational field?), then forcing parents to make the decision as to what high school will be best for their children (without athletic participation being adversely effected) after the 6th grade is wrong, wrong, wrong. And I think that the legislators can see that also. And that is the reason they voted the way they did.

 

I really get sick and tired with people on here taking constant shots at elected officials and stating or implying that every decision they make is only done with the motivation of their own best interest. If people think they can do so much better, they should stick their necks, their reputation, their time away from their businesses and families, their money out there and run.

With all respect, I totally disagree with that point and I think you discredit and insult those legislators on the Subcommittee. If athletics are an important part of the educational process, as we love to say (and if its not, why should schools continue to put so much money in athletic facilities and fund athletic programs at a time money is in short supply in the educational field?), then forcing parents to make the decision as to what high school will be best for their children (without athletic participation being adversely effected) after the 6th grade is wrong, wrong, wrong. And I think that the legislators can see that also. And that is the reason they voted the way they did.

 

I really get sick and tired with people on here taking constant shots at elected officials and stating or implying that every decision they make is only done with the motivation of their own best interest. If people think they can do so much better, they should stick their necks, their reputation, their time away from their businesses and families, their money out there and run.

Do you think the Supreme Court, with their view on athletics from the drug testing case, see athletics as a right or a privilege?

 

I am not arguing what it should be but what it might be if a court has to decide the issue.

 

And there has been MULTITUDE of times that the legislators have passed something, made a decision on something and it be declared unconstitutional or not allowed by the court system.

 

Just because the legislators say it is one way, does not mean it is LEGALLY that way.

 

And it works both ways. Many, many people would say that abortion is wrong. But our SC in the 70's thought it was LEGALLY right to have one in this country.

Do you think the Supreme Court, with their view on athletics from the drug testing case, see athletics as a right or a privilege?

 

I am not arguing what it should be but what it might be if a court has to decide the issue.

 

And there has been MULTITUDE of times that the legislators have passed something, made a decision on something and it be declared unconstitutional or not allowed by the court system.

 

Just because the legislators say it is one way, does not mean it is LEGALLY that way.

 

And it works both ways. Many, many people would say that abortion is wrong. But our SC in the 70's thought it was LEGALLY right to have one in this country.

 

Clearly the Supreme Ct. thinks its a privilege. I've never stated that they feel to the contrary. I agree that many laws have been passed that ultimately were ruled unconstitutional. I'm just trying to see how those points are germane here.

 

The legislators feel that it is simply wrong that parents have to make a choice as to high school at the end of their children's 6th grade without that decision having an adverse effect on athletic participation. And it wasn't just the legislators on the subcommitte from heavily Catholic areas (like Roeding) whom felt that way. Every legislator on the subcommitte that voted felt that way (another reason why I don't feel the decision was based on re-election motivations). There will be no law passed by the legislators for the Supreme Ct to even rule on. Rather it will simply be a matter of the legislators not approving proposals such as Proposal 2. That decision is not reviewable by the Supreme Ct. Furthermore, even if for argument purposes it was, the KHSAA is a creature of statute and an agent of the State. The Legislature would simply not review the agency agreement with the KHSAA and would start over with a new association (one that would not try to get proposals like Proposal 2 passed). Which some public school administrators keep forgetting, but cerain influential legislators have in the forepart of their head. Trust me, I know that for a fact.

The big difference between drug testing and Prop 2 is that drug testing can cause a punitive action against specific athletes who break specific rules. Prop 2 was a potential punitive action against EVERY student who's family made a certain educational decision regardless of if any rules were violated. Punishment without wrongdoing is wrong.

 

And regardless of what anyone says, taking the option of playing in sporting events for a school year IS punitive.

The big difference between drug testing and Prop 2 is that drug testing can cause a punitive action against specific athletes who break specific rules. Prop 2 was a potential punitive action against EVERY student who's family made a certain educational decision regardless of if any rules were violated. Punishment without wrongdoing is wrong.

 

And regardless of what anyone says, taking the option of playing in sporting events for a school year IS punitive.

Not necessarily. If I remember the case correctly from my Safe Schools training, the child decided NOT TO TRYOUT because he would have to take the one drug test and then random drug tests. So in essence you have a similar thing. Some kids would remove themselves from trying out because of the drug testing.

 

NOW, a BIG, BIG difference is that the actions that led them to eliminate themselves from athletics were ILLEGAL actions and the choice of middle school is not.

How do they accomplish that? They are a public school, right?

They are an independent school. They control who attends their school from outside the district and the folks that reside in Ft. Thomas do an excellent job of controlling who moves into their district per one of their Alumnus.

 

"I never went to school with a minority classmate until I reached college". This gentleman is 46 years old. He added"This is a very close-knit community".