Okay, I don't see that.

 

Am I right in the following assumptions.

 

The voucher is money from the government to the parents to use at any school of the PARENT'S choosing.

 

The merit aid comes from a school to the parents to use only for attendance at said school.

 

Is this correct?

 

If so, there is no enticement from the school through the vouchers but would be through the merit aid.

 

 

So, it's OK for a parent to use a government funded voucher to get their kid into whatever school they want, for whatever reason they want, even if it's purely athletic.

 

But it's NOT ok for a kid to take an academic award at a school, if they want to play sports?

 

Also, I'll do some research, but the academic awards that I'm familiar with are NOT funded by any school, but by private foundations, scholarship endowments, etc. There may be certain scholarships offered to kids who have chosen a particular school, but the school doesn't give the kid the scholarship to go there. A few academic scholarships are out there to take to whatever school they enter.

Merit based is earned, not given. Placement test scores are the first determining criteria for most, if not all.

 

The "merit" is the kids' work.

 

The kind of aid you outline that got LCA in trouble was based on income, not test scores.

 

With merit "aid", the family doesn't even have to qualify for need-based aid in many cases.

 

This is about the student academically, not athletically. Athletic scholarships are already prohibited. Now, restrictions are being placed on students that will likely prohibit them from playing sports if they earn merit based scholarships. We wouldn't want our athletes to perform well in the classroom, now would we.

 

And before it's stated again that they could choose to play in a public school, that's exactly the unintended consequences. It can force a student athlete who excels academically to have to choose public school if they want to continue to play the sport they love.

 

I guess in the end, the public schools would benefit if most student-athletes chose public school over private school.

 

I won't go into the rest of the bitter taste I have for this rule.

 

If this is true then how did the following happen:

an 8th grader plays varsity basketball at Franklin County High School and has to sit out several games because her class averages are F's. She comes from a very poor family and qualifies for free/reduced lunch. She goes to Lexington Catholic and doesn't have to pay anything. She starts 4 years on the girls basketball team at LC and helps lead them to a state championship. It would be safe to say that she didn't score well on any entrance exam to earn the $.

 

Don't get me wrong. This worked out great for the kid because she earned a Division 1 scholarship and her grades improved drastically during high school. However, should a student get full assistance on tuition, etc. and would she have received this assistance if she wasn't a great basketball player. Also, shouldn't the $ for a Catholic schools tuition go towards a Catholic student?

 

The simple solution is to allow the private schools to pull students from wherever they want. They need the funding and enrollment to exist. However, they should be competing against other teams that are allowed to do the same. It's not right for a public school to have to compete with one feeder school and a private school compete in the same division with unlimited feeder schools.

 

On the other hand, it's not right for a school of 100 to be expected to compete for a district championship against a school of 2000. However, it happens every year. The KHSAA should put class size limits on all sports (except basketball; never going to happen bec/ the sweet 16 supports the entire state financially as it is)...

Explain to me how the "entrance exam" at LCHS works, along with how the "academic scholarships" are determined and awarded.

So, it's OK for a parent to use a government funded voucher to get their kid into whatever school they want, for whatever reason they want, even if it's purely athletic.

 

But it's NOT ok for a kid to take an academic award at a school, if they want to play sports?

 

Also, I'll do some research, but the academic awards that I'm familiar with are NOT funded by any school, but by private foundations, scholarship endowments, etc. There may be certain scholarships offered to kids who have chosen a particular school, but the school doesn't give the kid the scholarship to go there. A few academic scholarships are out there to take to whatever school they enter.

 

The bolded ones should be 100% allowable as it would seem that there is no where for recruitment to play in as they are tied to a specific school.

 

The ones should be allowed but overseen by KHSAA.

 

I knew of a player that went to college that did not provide athletic scholarships. She was a good but not outstanding student. It was amazing how many academic and student life scholarships to was eligible for at just that school and it swayed her in attending that school. And it was amazing how many of the athletes were eligible for those same scholarships even though they offered no athletic scholarships.

You freely admit you don't know how the scholastic awards are granted. Yet, you presume to hold a bias against such awards. It's ok to take the money the government grants a public school for a child and pay the private school in your opinion, yet not OK for PRIVATELY FUNDED academic scholarships? I am COMPLETELY not getting the scenario here. Not at all. How is it any more "ethical"? How is it any more fair for a child to take his/her public school dollars to a private school and play sports than it is to allow a child to accept a SCHOLARSHIP they EARNED? I am flabbergasted, I have to tell you.

 

Sounds to me like LBBC prefers a system where EVERYONE gets a voucher to use. This puts all students - athletes or not - in a position to use the voucher as they choose.

Opposed to the individual school using whatever criteria they would like to provide awards.

The issue is one of trust and obviously from Lex Cath and LCA's past mis-steps, not all private schools can be deemed trustworthy when it comes to handing out money.

 

If that's not a correct interpretation I apologize to LBBC.

Sounds to me like LBBC prefers a system where EVERYONE gets a voucher to use. This puts all students - athletes or not - in a position to use the voucher as they choose.

Opposed to the individual school using whatever criteria they would like to provide awards.

The issue is one of trust and obviously from Lex Cath and LCA's past mis-steps, not all private schools can be deemed trustworthy when it comes to handing out money.

 

If that's not a correct interpretation I apologize to LBBC.

 

Bolded is exactly correct.

 

And if that is for home schooling, than so be it. But there are expectations and responsibilities to the PARENTS for choosing the proper schooling and the child doing well whether it is private, public or home.

Bolded is exactly correct.

 

And if that is for home schooling, than so be it. But there are expectations and responsibilities to the PARENTS for choosing the proper schooling and the child doing well whether it is private, public or home.

 

How does a voucher help kids in a rural setting where there are no private schools?

How does a voucher help kids in a rural setting where there are no private schools?

 

Your fishing for this answer so I will give it to you, it doesn't but you can do what other have done in the past and ban together with other like minded folks in your area and start such a school. Yes it will take a huge commitment from you and them in money and time but it can and has been done.

How does a voucher help kids in a rural setting where there are no private schools?

 

1st, private schools are not the purpose of a voucher.

 

If a rural kid leaved on the border of a county and was a 15-minute bus drive away from the neighboring county school while a 75-minute bus drive away from the school of the county they live in (our county has many, many kids that are in this situation), they could choose to go to the county school that is closest to their home.

1st, private schools are not the purpose of a voucher.

 

If a rural kid leaved on the border of a county and was a 15-minute bus drive away from the neighboring county school while a 75-minute bus drive away from the school of the county they live in (our county has many, many kids that are in this situation), they could choose to go to the county school that is closest to their home.

They could do the same with open enrollment, which you are against. Enacting open enrollment is much easier then enacting a voucher system. All the school system has to do, is change their policy. The situation you described above is the entire basis for open enrollment.

They could do the same with open enrollment, which you are against. Enacting open enrollment is much easier then enacting a voucher system. All the school system has to do, is change their policy. The situation you described above is the entire basis for open enrollment.

 

Please show me where I said I was against open enrollment. I have NEVER said that, in my best politician voice, to the best of my recollection.

 

What I did say is that schools that have open enrollment in geographical areas that it is a TRUE CHOICE have a great advantage over other schools. That if there were going to be a split it should be between open enrollment and closed enrollment schools.

 

Nowhere in there do I see that I have said I am AGAINST open enrollment.

 

And you are 100% INCORRECT on your assumption that a district simply has to open their doors.

 

Take Owen, Grant, Pendleton, Bracken Counties for an example. They have open enrollment and it would take approximately 30 to 45 to 60 minutes for students from Boone, Kenton, Campbell to make it to their schools.

 

If the NKY counties have open enrollment it would take 5-10-20 minutes for them to make it to that school.

 

NO WAY parents are going to pass ALL OF THE NKY schools with open enrollment to drive out to the country to attend one of those schools JUST BECAUSE, according to you, THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR STATUS!!!!

 

Heck, Highlands parents RENTED A CHARTER BUS to come out to one of the country schools to play a MIDDLE SCHOOL basketball game because they thought it was too far to drive.

 

We play in the NKY MS league and those MS teams are constantly cancelling our games at our place for a variety of reasons because it is too far for them to drive, but they never want to cancel the games up at their place. They love for us to drive up there but come up with reason after reason after reason for having to drive out to our place.

They could do the same with open enrollment, which you are against. Enacting open enrollment is much easier then enacting a voucher system. All the school system has to do, is change their policy. The situation you described above is the entire basis for open enrollment.

 

Now to your point that is wrong on a fact basis and not what I have said.

 

Vouchers the money follows the child to the school.

Open Enrollment, it does not UNLESS the school releases it.

 

Your child lives in School district A. You opt to attend School District B. The ADA money DOES NOT FOLLOW your child UNLESS School District A agrees for the money to follow. Nowadays, most School District A's DO NOT agree to it unless it is for a special reason.

 

So, you would be wrong on open enrollment would do the same as a voucher.

You're changing the argument. You said that one of the reasons you were for the voucher system was: "If a rural kid leaved on the border of a county and was a 15-minute bus drive away from the neighboring county school while a 75-minute bus drive away from the school of the county they live in (our county has many, many kids that are in this situation), they could choose to go to the county school that is closest to their home."

 

And I said, the same thing can be achieved with open enrollment. Is that not true?

Now to your point that is wrong on a fact basis and not what I have said.

 

Vouchers the money follows the child to the school.

Open Enrollment, it does not UNLESS the school releases it.

 

Your child lives in School district A. You opt to attend School District B. The ADA money DOES NOT FOLLOW your child UNLESS School District A agrees for the money to follow. Nowadays, most School District A's DO NOT agree to it unless it is for a special reason.

 

So, you would be wrong on open enrollment would do the same as a voucher.

In the FIVCO area, North-Eastern Kentucky, the money does follow the student. All the schools have open enrollment, and all of the schools release the ADA money. Would you be for such a thing?

You're changing the argument. You said that one of the reasons you were for the voucher system was: "If a rural kid leaved on the border of a county and was a 15-minute bus drive away from the neighboring county school while a 75-minute bus drive away from the school of the county they live in (our county has many, many kids that are in this situation), they could choose to go to the county school that is closest to their home."

 

And I said, the same thing can be achieved with open enrollment. Is that not true?

 

No, it is not.

 

The choice is NOT IN THE PARENT's HANDS. The neighboring school could say no unless they pay tuition because the other school will not release the ADA funds.

 

In a voucher system, the decision of where the funds go is 100% in the parent's ballpark.

 

In an open enrollment system, the schools decide who gets the money.

 

Plus, in your scenario, private schools are not a choice at all with the funds.