I respectfully disagree. Leatherneck and I have discussed this. The statute I rely upon is KRS 159.010. The law says a child between 6 and 16 must attend the public school district in which he resides, unless he meets one of the exemption criterion. The exemption criterion deal with nonpublic or parochial education. So you cannot just pick up and go to another public school if you don't live there. The annotations of case law and Attorney General opinions support this, specifically.

Technically, what you are saying is that a school district can define its own boundaries. Bardstown could take the whole state, if they wanted to. But then they would be violating the law regarding taxation without representation. Everyone seems to forget that school boards are voted upon. So when they say, "this school district has a potentially limitless boundary," they are arguing an impractical distinction without a difference.

 

I've looked at the Interlocal Cooperative Act in KRS 65 and it doesn't change anything related to elections.

 

KRS 160.010 states that each county constitutes a separate school district. So I don't know how a county school district can "extend its boundaries" into another county.

 

I think people are confusing "extend boundaries" with "accepting out of district pupils whom apply." They are not one and the same.

 

If this is the law then how do kids attend public school outside of their district?

 

What exactly is the exemption criteria in reference to public schools?

No more of a coward than the posters on here who do not use their real name for their username.

 

I guess we will be seeing your name at the bottom of all your post from now on?

 

 

Did anybody notice that the date that this article was published was January 24, 2008 at 01:14 pm and this thread started on 1/23/08. Seems to me at least, that maybe the picture was sent first then the article was published?

 

There I go again, guessing without knowing the facts..... Gee where did I get an idea that you could do that sort of thing?

 

From the article:

"I don’t know this for a fact, but I would gander a guess that Lexington Catholic had a little to do with blowing the whistle on their fellow private school"

 

Just seems to blow in the face of "just the facts" when one guesses at what might have taken place, instead of finding out what actually took place..

 

BTW more than a few, and just not from NKy area know who Theoldguy is. I have introduced myself at Football/Basketball games in Mayfiled, Johnson Central, Murray/Calloway, Mason County LexCath Christmas Tourney just to name of few outside of NKy....

Yes, we have. But still makes for good discussions with you.:thumb:

 

I will say it is more likely that the students get funneled to one or a small number of good schools in those areas.

 

I go back to my analogy of an elementary school that you will see all over the state. The clique will tell everyone that a certain teacher is the best because the best students are in that class. When in actuality the best teacher may be in the lower kids class who is getting those kids up to reading on grade level when they are several grade levels below.

 

But because the "smartest," "A grouping" kids are all cliqued into one teacher's classroom, that teacher is going to get the reputation of the best teachers because her kids are the smartest.

 

I contend that some of the VERY BEST teaching NKY does not happen at the schools that have reputations of putting out the very best students, it happens at HOLMES high school where they don't have the community and parental advantages of the schools that have the academic reputation.

 

I'll agree with you that Holmes' Baccalaureate is one of the finest academic programs in the State. Don't think however that out side that program, you statement holds us.

 

I also agree that success attracts success, but that's nothing new. I agree its easier at programs like Highlands, Beechwood, X and T to be successful because of the past tradition of being successful. But the gravamen of the debate is whether you should penalize those schools in any way because they are successful. I think not. Even if Highlands attracted a lot of superior athletes each year from outside their district (and its way overblown by the way if you look at the entire work of their accomplishments and don't just take a snapshot photo) why should they be penalized? They've made a long and outstanding commitment to athletics and academics. They've built themselves up to a point where parents want to send their kids there. Even if they got lots of students from outside their boundaries, why is that really unfair? Rather then penalizing them, shouldn't they be rewarded and held out as something to emulate, not castigate? Doesn't KDE recognize favorably schools with superior academic programs? They don't penalize them, they applaud them. Why should it be any different with athletics? Why should you ever penalize people or entities for being successful? Because they make it harder for other people or entities to become successful? That doesn't make sense, because if you do so it then becomes a disincentive for anyone to ever strive to become successful. If the only ramification to becoming successful is to become subject to penalizing restrictions, why do it? I don't want to get to far off on a tangent, but hasn't the fallacy of socialism been proven over and over again throughout history?

I'll agree with you that Holmes' Baccalaureate is one of the finest academic programs in the State. Don't think however that out side that program, you statement holds us.

 

 

Having students that go on to college that come from homes that support and promote education and hold their children responsible for their education does not translate into a school that NECESSARILY has the best teachers or where the best learning is going on.

 

The high quality of the students that come out of Highlands can give the impression that it might be the best school in NKY and it might be.

 

But I submit that OUTSIDE of Holmes Bacc program, a kid that shows up as a freshmen reading 3 or 4 levels below grade level and from a home that might not support education at all and leaves Holmes ready to go to college, those teachers have done a better job and more learning went on with that student than at any other school.

 

The quality of the student leaving may be more to do with the home life than the school itself.

 

I have had straight A students that learned a lot and left with a 4.0. And I have had students that came in with an attitude that school was stupid, they didn't need it and I couldn't make them do any work, left with a C that they EARNED as I don't give grades. I did more teaching and a better job in the latter scenario than I did the former.

 

The quality of the student does not translate into how good of a job the teacher is doing.

 

It can be a great thing for parents and community to buy into and promote but it ain't necessarily the truth.

I also agree that success attracts success, but that's nothing new. I agree its easier at programs like Highlands, Beechwood, X and T to be successful because of the past tradition of being successful. But the gravamen of the debate is whether you should penalize those schools in any way because they are successful. I think not. Even if Highlands attracted a lot of superior athletes each year from outside their district (and its way overblown by the way if you look at the entire work of their accomplishments and don't just take a snapshot photo) why should they be penalized? They've made a long and outstanding commitment to athletics and academics. They've built themselves up to a point where parents want to send their kids there. Even if they got lots of students from outside their boundaries, why is that really unfair? Rather then penalizing them, shouldn't they be rewarded and held out as something to emulate, not castigate? Doesn't KDE recognize favorably schools with superior academic programs? They don't penalize them, they applaud them. Why should it be any different with athletics? Why should you ever penalize people or entities for being successful? Because they make it harder for other people or entities to become successful? That doesn't make sense, because if you do so it then becomes a disincentive for anyone to ever strive to become successful. If the only ramification to becoming successful is to become subject to penalizing restrictions, why do it? I don't want to get to far off on a tangent, but hasn't the fallacy of socialism been proven over and over again throughout history?

 

Different eyes see it different ways. You call it penalized and the other side does not see it as a penalty but rather asking like schools to compete against like schools.

I looked it up and Greg Scholl, the guy who posted the Cartoon is the AD at Pulaski Southwestern. They haven't played a private school since 2002. Lexington Cath. had to forfeit that game. I wonder why he would post this, there are not private schools in Pulaski that I can think of????????????/

One thing that wasn't mentioned in reference to the cartoon that started this thread 110 post ago is that Steve Cornelius is an unabashed supporter of Pulaski County High School, he was an all-state runner there and reports on them almost exclusively leaving the newest reporters to cover the other two schools. So any thoughts that he is speaking for Somerset are misguided. While he may have an opinion on the public / private debate I do not recall his ever writing an article about it. I feel the cartoon while it did hurt the feelings of some hits the sentiments of most around the state. I know in the county where I work no one I spoke with was shocked by the LCA KSHAA problems.

 

One issue most Independent systems face is that they are completely surrounded by county systems. As the Somerset area and city limits have extended in every direction the city school district has not grown an inch. As more and more new housing is built and families move to this area it is MUCH easier to find housing that is not in the city school district. The district can only grow if the county system agrees to decrease the size of their district.

 

As far as Wilson Sears stance goes, agree or disagree you should respect him. He has been to lightning rod for all of the privates to shoot at. While much of the state agrees with him as mentioned in an earlier post, Wilson has stood up for what he believes and has taken the shots. He has been vilified on here and other sights just for standing up for what he believes, right or wrong.

Different eyes see it different ways. You call it penalized and the other side does not see it as a penalty but rather asking like schools to compete against like schools.

 

 

Ahhh yes.......exclusionary equality.

One thing that wasn't mentioned in reference to the cartoon that started this thread 110 post ago is that Steve Cornelius is an unabashed supporter of Pulaski County High School, he was an all-state runner there and reports on them almost exclusively leaving the newest reporters to cover the other two schools. So any thoughts that he is speaking for Somerset are misguided. While he may have an opinion on the public / private debate I do not recall his ever writing an article about it. I feel the cartoon while it did hurt the feelings of some hits the sentiments of most around the state. I know in the county where I work no one I spoke with was shocked by the LCA KSHAA problems.

 

One issue most Independent systems face is that they are completely surrounded by county systems. As the Somerset area and city limits have extended in every direction the city school district has not grown an inch. As more and more new housing is built and families move to this area it is MUCH easier to find housing that is not in the city school district. The district can only grow if the county system agrees to decrease the size of their district.

 

As far as Wilson Sears stance goes, agree or disagree you should respect him. He has been to lightning rod for all of the privates to shoot at. While much of the state agrees with him as mentioned in an earlier post, Wilson has stood up for what he believes and has taken the shots. He has been vilified on here and other sights just for standing up for what he believes, right or wrong.

 

 

I would have respect for Mr. Sears if he had his facts straight. Yes, he's taking the shots. However, before he did so, he should have researched the facts, instead of rehashing and perpetuating minconceptions and myths. I watched the panel discussion between the Public and Private sides. The misinformation he was basing his arguments upon was either a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth or ignorance. Either way, it's not the way to win your battle.

I would have respect for Mr. Sears if he had his facts straight. Yes, he's taking the shots. However, before he did so, he should have researched the facts, instead of rehashing and perpetuating minconceptions and myths. I watched the panel discussion between the Public and Private sides. The misinformation he was basing his arguments upon was either a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth or ignorance. Either way, it's not the way to win your battle.

 

 

Having known one of his relatives quite well, I think the problem is genetic.

None of you private school supporters are appalled that they were cheating, but you all are ready to execute some poor cartoon writer??? Go figure.

 

X and Trinity supporters are more appalled by the Lexington cheating, because we always get drawn into somehow, which only gets me more fired up. Even though there are more public schools on that "cheating list" I saw posted here, only a few schools are ever highlighted.

In a country were freedom of speech and Majority rules is our foundation, I can't see condemning someone for this cartoon. I feel it shows the true reaction(s) of the majority of HS sports community. They are just plain sick of the unleveled playing field.

 

 

Please tell President Bush that majority rules every time he vetoes a bill or an order. :laugh:

On a side note, wonder what would happen to some of these schools if they worked as hard on bettering their financial situation, academics and facilities as they do on their perceived "inequities" they'd probably be alright...

As far as Wilson Sears stance goes, agree or disagree you should respect him. He has been to lightning rod for all of the privates to shoot at.

No respect here. He's been the lightning bolt, not the lightning rod.

No respect here. He's been the lightning bolt, not the lightning rod.

 

No kidding. It's not like he's an innocent bystander...