Not necessarily. If a kid is a straight A student and is mature for their age then the only reason then to hold a kid back that I see would be athletics. Its hard to get much better academically if a student already makes All A's. Thats just the way I see it.

 

We're good. If everyone had the same ideas and opinions, it would be a very boring world. I guess I just don't agree with holding back for the sole purpose of athletic advantage. I just think that the tax payers (public schools) should only be fiscally responsible for 12 years years of education (not including KG).

We're good. If everyone had the same ideas and opinions, it would be a very boring world. I guess I just don't agree with holding back for the sole purpose of athletic advantage. I just think that the tax payers (public schools) should only be fiscally responsible for 12 years years of education (not including KG).

 

I had a family member fail 2 years of school before finally being put in a special education classroom. This person never played sports. This person is now having a very successful career because of the education he recieved. I am glad that tax payers pay for as many years as it takes.

I had a family member fail 2 years of school before finally being put in a special education classroom. This person never played sports. This person is now having a very successful career because of the education he recieved. I am glad that tax payers pay for as many years as it takes.

 

Did you even read my post? You had to go and get all personal to make your unpersuasive point. I said in my previous post that I was only against holdbacks for the SOLE purpose of athletic reasons. According to you, you had a family member struggling with the curriculum, and made a success out of himself or herself. That is fantastic, and those stories give me goose bumps.

 

You have made it clear to me that you are glad that tax payers pay for as many years as it takes when students are struggling academically, but do you feel the same way when they are struggling athletically? Like I said earlier, increase the odds and start your kids a year or two later in the beginning. I can almost bet that you are not from NKY. Just doesn't happen here frequently.

Did you even read my post? You had to go and get all personal to make your unpersuasive point. I said in my previous post that I was only against holdbacks for the SOLE purpose of athletic reasons. According to you, you had a family member struggling with the curriculum, and made a success out of himself or herself. That is fantastic, and those stories give me goose bumps.

 

You have made it clear to me that you are glad that tax payers pay for as many years as it takes when students are struggling academically, but do you feel the same way when they are struggling athletically? Like I said earlier, increase the odds and start your kids a year or two later in the beginning. I can almost bet that you are not from NKY. Just doesn't happen here frequently.

 

How do you decide case by case who deserves their school paid for who are in school an extra year?

You people need to listen to dawgs83. This person knows what's going on with middle school in Jefferson County. Middle school athletics is a joke. Facilities are not safe, coaches are the school's PE teachers coaxed into coaching (and that's when they have a team), officials are all 1st year guys and gals, they practice maybe 1 or 2 times per week and play 5 or 6 games. At my daughter's middle school, they do not have a softball team, baseball team, track team or tennis team. This year, she is running track for the high school team in her reside area. Next year, she will be doing nothing in the Spring because of this stupid rule. It has nothing to do with her being recruited or not being recruited. It has nothing to do with an athletic scholarship. It has nothing to do with anything other than the incompetent, stupid and lazy athletic administration of JCPS taking opportunities away from kids.

Not sure about that as the softball lawsuit/political push was based on the loss of potential scholarships.

 

There are numerous top finishers in the state tournament as well as winning state tournaments by middle school students.

 

The argument could be made that they are losing out on exposure/experience by them not being allowed to compete against in the state tournament as other middle schoolers in other districts are allowed.

 

Also, remember that KY education was changed via lawsuit because students in one district was seen as receiving a better education than a student in another KY district.

 

A good lawyer could push a similar argument ESPECIALLY in those sports that opportunities are majorly different for middle school athletes in other districts.

 

Golf would be a good example. How is Jefferson County going to set up a golf league that gives a MSer the same experience that they could have playing varsity and in the state tournament?

 

Golf would be a good example. If the MS does not have a golf team, then I could see there being a case. However, in KY you have a right to an education, but playing sports is a privilege.

Golf would be a good example. If the MS does not have a golf team, then I could see there being a case. However, in KY you have a right to an education, but playing sports is a privilege.

 

I understand that but the parent won their court case over fast pitch softball because their daughter was missing out on college scholarships because KY played slow pitch.

 

Say what you want, but I am pretty sure that is how the court case worked out and lead to fast pitch in KY.

 

It may be a privilege but the courts sided with the parents in that case.

Golf would be a good example. If the MS does not have a golf team, then I could see there being a case. However, in KY you have a right to an education, but playing sports is a privilege.

 

Athletics is a privilige. However if kids meet academic requirements they should be able to participate. Athletics plays a big role in education. Athletics keeps a lot of kids in school and concious about their grades. Athletics teaches a lot of character that is carried over to society long after playing days are over. All im saying is there is no way in the next five years that all Jeff. co Middle schools will be able to provide appropriate opportunities in all sports for these kids. I think there are around 52 middle schools in all. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. If school A,B,and C have baseball and softball and school C, D, And E dont and they cant play up at their home school how is that fair. JCPS doesnt have equality in high school let alone the middle schools. Someone mentioned before they barely have enough coaches to coach the sports they do have and they are usually un Qualified. Dropping the 64 hr rule could help, but that brings in a whole new set of problems with coaches Principals really know nothing about.

I believe each problem feeds off of another problem - if the better kids didn't play up, the middle school teams would be better; and high school kids wouldn't be denied spots. If we aren't careful this trend could lead to elementary kids playing on middle school teams.

 

Our society seems to rush everything, and I think kids playing up sometimes burns them out for high school sports. I have heard kids beginning their freshman year say they are tired of playing. I believe the athlete that wants to play "at the next level" is not as common as parents tend to believe.

 

I have seen the complications from middle schoolers being on high school teams - they are separated from their friends and don't always fit in with the upper classmen.

 

There is just something logical and ethical about middle schools fielding a middle school team and high schools fielding teams made up of high school students. If an athlethe is so good that they don't want to play with their school, there seems to be an abundance of other opportunities for them.

 

Would love to see the school teams competing against the students that go to the school - more about school pride than the pursuit of the individuals goals. I guess you can call that old school.

 

I do understand the lack of quality coaching in middle schools - but that could be a result of the practices we have in place (letting the better kids play up) and by going back to kids playing age appropriate the problem might be fixed. Unfortunately I fear that many people are fearful of going into coaching at any level anymore and I have the greatest admiration and respect for those that do.

I believe each problem feeds off of another problem - if the better kids didn't play up, the middle school teams would be better; and high school kids wouldn't be denied spots. If we aren't careful this trend could lead to elementary kids playing on middle school teams.

 

Our society seems to rush everything, and I think kids playing up sometimes burns them out for high school sports. I have heard kids beginning their freshman year say they are tired of playing. I believe the athlete that wants to play "at the next level" is not as common as parents tend to believe.

 

I have seen the complications from middle schoolers being on high school teams - they are separated from their friends and don't always fit in with the upper classmen.

 

There is just something logical and ethical about middle schools fielding a middle school team and high schools fielding teams made up of high school students. If an athlethe is so good that they don't want to play with their school, there seems to be an abundance of other opportunities for them.

 

Would love to see the school teams competing against the students that go to the school - more about school pride than the pursuit of the individuals goals. I guess you can call that old school.

 

I do understand the lack of quality coaching in middle schools - but that could be a result of the practices we have in place (letting the better kids play up) and by going back to kids playing age appropriate the problem might be fixed. Unfortunately I fear that many people are fearful of going into coaching at any level anymore and I have the greatest admiration and respect for those that do.

 

I disagree. I do not think the decision should be made lightly for a kid to move up, but if its a situation where a kid is ready then I say move them up. I think we should do what is best for the kids. If a kid can develop better by moving up rather than staying with kids in their grade and not getting any better because the kid is so much above everyone else then why not let them move up. As an 8th grader the kid from Shelby Co, Hicks contributed for them. As a freshman he had a great season. He was ready to move up and Shelby Co. did what was best for that young man IMO.

I disagree. I do not think the decision should be made lightly for a kid to move up, but if its a situation where a kid is ready then I say move them up. I think we should do what is best for the kids. If a kid can develop better by moving up rather than staying with kids in their grade and not getting any better because the kid is so much above everyone else then why not let them move up. As an 8th grader the kid from Shelby Co, Hicks contributed for them. As a freshman he had a great season. He was ready to move up and Shelby Co. did what was best for that young man IMO.

 

Nothing wrong with your point when you are discussing individuals, but personally I would rather see high school programs do what is best for the whole and not just for the individual. I think that is why school spirit and pride is low, which could be an entirely different thread.

 

But in order for my idea to work - every school in Kentucky would have to follow the same guidelines, and I know that won't happen.