So a parish pays taxes - real estate? Income taxes? Are you kidding? You make everything sound like a total, one way street. As for helping, why are you so bound and determined to NOT simply provide to a program that is open to all who apply to a private school?

 

It is clear you wish to have the complete flexibility to cherry pick your chosen students who you exclusively wish to attend a private school. Regardless for reasons, you want that. Fine, except in the case for this and in most, if not all states, it cannot be done for athletic purpose. I would be willing to bet the parish you support would not support your point.

By the way, do you really find the public schools accountable? If so, fine. As I said, the privates would be held to the same standards of accountability. Now, isn't that fair?

.

 

Great, when will the private schools start publishing their test scores?

Ah, now we attack my parish. Is my parish any more tax exempt than are your houses of worship? What do churches have to do with the discussion anyway? I am talking about the rights of individuals- not institutions. Although I enjoy the discourse, I must retire for the evening. I have a busy day in Fort Thomas tomorrow. Since I will not be receiving any tax relief, I must continue to earn so that I can pay all of those taxes to our public schools. We can all, of course, resume the discussion later. By the way, are we including those schools that are known to teach the test? Actually, one great advantage of private schools is that we are not infected by KERA.

So a parish pays taxes - real estate? Income taxes? Are you kidding? You make everything sound like a total, one way street. As for helping, why are you so bound and determined to NOT simply provide to a program that is open to all who apply to a private school?

 

It is clear you wish to have the complete flexibility to cherry pick your chosen students who you exclusively wish to attend a private school. Regardless for reasons, you want that. Fine, except in the case for this and in most, if not all states, it cannot be done for athletic purpose. I would be willing to bet the parish you support would not support your point.

 

Wow SS, you guys have been having a spirited debate with good points on both sides. But I've got to comment here that you make it sound like the private schools (and obviously you're talking about your beloved Catholic schools in NKY); are like Harvard or something, sitting back accepting only the absolute cream of the crop--academicly and athleticly?? Given the tightness of funding, how many students do you think these schools actually turn away?? I'll give you the fact the public schools take the special needs kids, but are actually well compensated for it.

 

But let's be realistic, for the uninitiated; at least in NKY the only real advantage the Catholic schools have is it's easier to expell a problem kid. Let's not pretend that the only kids who can make muster at the privates are the "silver spoon", "privately trained", "well funded", "perfectly behaved", specialty tuitored", etc. That's downright ridiculous!!

LOL SS man I'm laughing at your above statement. If you think private schools let nothing but smart kids in your dreaming my man. That is why classes are broken up into learning ability. We have more than our fair share of students who struggle in school. We have more than our fair share of kids who have flunked or struggled at public also.

 

If you honestly think every kid who attend a Catholic High School is a rich suburban kid your dreaming.

My one question to all people defending Lex. Cath. is this. If it has nothing to do with kids playing sports then why is the KHSAA putting restrictions on football and baseball next year. Why not put restrictions on the academic team if its not got anything to do with sports. It must be with sports or they would not say football and baseball.

 

The kid in issue was an athlete. Word is his family qualified for financial aid initially and attended Lex Cath. A hardship hit the family, sickness or whatever im not sure what, and the school offered a little extra in aid. This is the story I've heard. Its hard to go into great detail because a lot of rumors exist and also since this kid is a current high school athlete I want to respect his own privacy.

Ah, Stickymitts, I should have surmised from your overly reactionary posts that you are "in that category". I commend you. However, if you interpret my statement that I receive nothing of value from all the greenbacks I contribute to public education as derrogatory toward those associated with public schools, so be it.

However, I must remind you that, in post number 30 (well before you became so involved in the fray), I stated that private schools are not "without sin" in these matters. Thus, possibly you should do a little review of your own. I can't reply to much of your posting because, to be honest, it lacks organization and substance. What in the world do you mean in your fourth paragraph above? What has "5,000 for a high school education" got to do with anything? Are you saying that we spend $5,000 on each student in the public schools? If so, I would submit that the rate of return on our investment may be suspect. And you still have not addressed my proposal to help the needy attend private schools, have you?

 

I'd really like to live in your world. Not sure that I was "overly reactionary" and if you couldn't figure out I was "in that category" prior to that post, well I can't read for you.

 

I didn't know I had to make a post before 30 to be involved in the conversation. I usually stay out of this forum because so many are out of touch with reality.

 

Not everyone's "without sin" as you put it, whether they're public or private. The fact of the matter is AGAIN, $5000 for a high school education is not what I consider "needy." That has to do with the around $5000 that's spent on a private school education. You consider a kid that's needy, one that needs help to receive $5000 for your superior education, I do not. Do you understand now?

 

I believe the going rate right now is around $4200 per kid for public high school in the state of KY. Now, before you go on a meaningless tirade about how it's almost as expensive to go to a public school which is inept and inferior. (I saw it coming) Remember this, the government offers a means for education and yes sometimes it's not up to par as it should be however, it's obviously an institution with some hard working people and kids that are in difficult situations. What you've so eloquently stated is that you're not happy about paying taxes for public schools multiple times, yet still forking out the money for a private school education.(Basically) What I'm stating is that if you're paying taxes for an education and can afford to pay some money for a private school education, you're not needy.

 

Go ahead and state that I'm over reacting and out of touch with reality or whatever. The reason I haven't answered your question about the "needy" students is that our definition of "needy" is not even in the same ballpark. I feel I'm a little closer to reality.

The kid in issue was an athlete. Word is his family qualified for financial aid initially and attended Lex Cath. A hardship hit the family, sickness or whatever im not sure what, and the school offered a little extra in aid. This is the story I've heard. Its hard to go into great detail because a lot of rumors exist and also since this kid is a current high school athlete I want to respect his own privacy.

 

If so, that's unfortunate.

Actually, Stickymitts, I hope your "desire" to live in "my world" has nothing to do with financial position. Financial position is meaningless. If you have a loving family (as I hope you do), that, my friend, is far more important than any "financial position".

Our "back and forth" has been revealing but it is far afield from the subject of the thread. However, it has revealed that there is a great breach between the public schools and the private schools. Neither has any trust for the other. That is unfortunate but, nonetheless, true.

My purpose was to state that, although I am required to fund needy students, including athletes, in the public schools, I am not really allowed to do so in the private schools. I assume that most public school advocates would assume that I would only assist athletes and, thus, circumvent the spirit of the rules. On the other hand, I, and many others, see the public schools, (through tax dollars and through boosters) doing what really amounts to the same thing. My point is that, with proper accountibility, I should be able to assist financially in the private schools even if an athlete is assisted since this is obviously being done in the public schools.

It is difficult for many in the public schools to understand but we private school people really do have standards and, I'm sure, those standards at least equal those of the publics.

SilverShadow, I am an advocate for the private schools just as you are for the public schools. I am biased. You are biased. I have a private school background. You have a public school background. Both of us seem to be rather well educated. Naturally we each feel that the route we travelled is the better path to success. Now does that really make my assumption "silly" than it does your opposite assumption? I would expect a less defensive approach from you.

For the fifth time, I believe, let me again state that all I am asking is that we who financially support private schools be allowed to do so without constant accusations from the public people. I have also mentioned that I am, by law, forced to contribute to the public school coffers with absolutely no "rate of return". I am merely suggesting that I should be able to assist my constituency without being handcuffed

by the fear that I just may assist a student athlete in the process. Now, isn't that a rather reasonable request?

Prop 20 becomes into play and you will get your wish. I guess you are extremely happy with Prop 20 then.

Ah, now we attack my parish. Is my parish any more tax exempt than are your houses of worship? What do churches have to do with the discussion anyway? I am talking about the rights of individuals- not institutions. Although I enjoy the discourse, I must retire for the evening. I have a busy day in Fort Thomas tomorrow. Since I will not be receiving any tax relief, I must continue to earn so that I can pay all of those taxes to our public schools. We can all, of course, resume the discussion later. By the way, are we including those schools that are known to teach the test? Actually, one great advantage of private schools is that we are not infected by KERA.

This intended slam cracks me up. Does the teachers not teach the material in their classes that they are going to teach on? So why is teaching the test wrong. This is the material that you are going to be tested on. This is the material that the state of KY deems you should know. This is the way the state of KY expects you to be able to THINK, meaning the types of questions. So are we not supposed to teach the way the state of KY is expecting the students to learn and the material they learn.

 

If you are a lawyer and you know the way a jury thinks, will you not craft your closing to best fit what the jury wants to hear?

Actually, Stickymitts, I hope your "desire" to live in "my world" has nothing to do with financial position. Financial position is meaningless. If you have a loving family (as I hope you do), that, my friend, is far more important than any "financial position".

Our "back and forth" has been revealing but it is far afield from the subject of the thread. However, it has revealed that there is a great breach between the public schools and the private schools. Neither has any trust for the other. That is unfortunate but, nonetheless, true.

My purpose was to state that, although I am required to fund needy students, including athletes, in the public schools, I am not really allowed to do so in the private schools. I assume that most public school advocates would assume that I would only assist athletes and, thus, circumvent the spirit of the rules. On the other hand, I, and many others, see the public schools, (through tax dollars and through boosters) doing what really amounts to the same thing. My point is that, with proper accountibility, I should be able to assist financially in the private schools even if an athlete is assisted since this is obviously being done in the public schools.

It is difficult for many in the public schools to understand but we private school people really do have standards and, I'm sure, those standards at least equal those of the publics.

 

Good post. The only thing is, the tax dollars paid by public school parents is for their child's education. The money donated by private school advocates goes to someone else's child. At least that's my logic why the public's have a "problem" with the whole "assistance" situation. I understand that you, as a parent of a private school child, are still funding public school's. However, there's not much of a choice and everyone know's that going in.

 

 

Your first paragraph is dead on, I was glad to see you fired back with a statement like that. Again, I'm not sure if LexCath was guilty of anything or not. One thing I do know is that there are publics and privates out there that have "issues."

Ladiesbballcoach, this thread has gone too far afield. However, I must reply to your most recent post. You, I believe, are a public educator so you know what I am asserting. When an English teacher teaches "the test" by teaching sentence structure, proper noun-verb usage, etc. that is not "teaching the test". While that is preparing the student for a test on the material it is far more. It is preparing the student with skills that will be needed to succeed in school and, later, in the workplace. By "teaching the test" I mean (and I believe you know what I mean) that certain school districts encourage teaching what will be tested on an achievement test so that the district can appear to be doing a better job than, in fact, is actually the case. We who are familiar with education in Kentucky know this is being done and, in fact, several schools have been cited for the practice.

Preparing students for a coming test in English and priming students to perform well on an achievement test for less than noble reasons (ie: cash rewards to the district, individual schools, and/or individual teachers) are far different matters. One practice is learning while the other practice is manipulation of the system.

I hope this explains my position although I would have to assume that you knew what I was implying before this post.

Ladiesbballcoach, this thread has gone too far afield. However, I must reply to your most recent post. You, I believe, are a public educator so you know what I am asserting. When an English teacher teaches "the test" by teaching sentence structure, proper noun-verb usage, etc. that is not "teaching the test". While that is preparing the student for a test on the material it is far more. It is preparing the student with skills that will be needed to succeed in school and, later, in the workplace. By "teaching the test" I mean (and I believe you know what I mean) that certain school districts encourage teaching what will be tested on an achievement test so that the district can appear to be doing a better job than, in fact, is actually the case. We who are familiar with education in Kentucky know this is being done and, in fact, several schools have been cited for the practice.

Preparing students for a coming test in English and priming students to perform well on an achievement test for less than noble reasons (ie: cash rewards to the district, individual schools, and/or individual teachers) are far different matters. One practice is learning while the other practice is manipulation of the system.

I hope this explains my position although I would have to assume that you knew what I was implying before this post.

 

I concede that some schools have gone too far and are cheating. No doubt that occurs. But the statement of "teaching the test" does not include JUST those schools. That statement has taken a life and when one makes that statement, it is assumed all public schools are doing that and it is wrong.

 

I assert that is exactly what public schools are TO DO. Teach the test. Teach the material that they are expected to know for the test and teach the way to THINK in which the test will be asking them to THINK.

 

Your post did enlighten me on what you are meaning and I better understand what you are saying. THank you.

It is always dangerous to paint all of a particular classification with one sweep of the brush. Most of our public schools do not "cheat" in preparing students for the achievement tests. Most do a commendable job. Unfortunately, some do and some of it has been documented. Actually, we are probably "singing" from the same hymnal.