Who really needs to be seperated?

[Rickyp]

I started a thread a week ago asking for someone, anyone, to tell me what advantages a private school has over a public school with open enrollement and reciprocal agreements with other schools. The only advantage that anyone could come up with is that parents of private school children are more involved thus their children are more inclined to excel.

 

I honestly cannot come up with any advantages for private schools in this instance. On the other hand I do see a great advantage for those public schools with open enrollment, not necessarily over private schools, although one could make that arguement. I think their real advantage is over other public schools that don't have open enrollment. Does anyone else see this? Or am I way off base?

 

I can understand how a school like Somerset can feel it is unfair to compete against private schools that can draw from different counties when Somerset doesn't except kids outside of their district boundries, but isn't also just as unfair for them to have to compete against public schools with open enrollment?

 

Look at the 2A football results, as an example, an open enrollment public school won the title. The game MVP lives out of district. Is this fair to other public schools with closed enrollment?

 

I say either everyone has open enrollment or separate open enrollment public schools from the pack.

[Play 2 Win]

 

 

Look at the 2A football results, as an example, an open enrollment public school won the title. The game MVP lives out of district. Is this fair to other public schools with closed enrollment?

.

 

 

This obviously needs clarified as Russell and Raceland have an agreement between schools because the schools are so close. Russell is not what I would call open enrollment as in open for all.

 

Also, Kasey Clark has always attended Russell. His parents moved between his Freshman and Sophmore year inside the Raceland district. He almost transferred, but decided to stay since he had already started his HS career, both academically and athletically.

[Cubster]

Kasey has always been a Russell kid. Grabbing at straws RickyP....

[FBALL]

Clark has always attended Russell. His mother has been a teacher in the school district for a long time. His parents move has been pointed out. Just for reference, the summer between my sophmore and junior year my parents moved into the Ashland school district. I stayed at Russell where I had grown up. Maybe I had been brainwashed and recruited to stay. I can't recall.

 

Whats a matter Ricky. Trying to head off all of the criticism before Rose Hill is loaded in basketball again. Which won't be long.

[devil58]

You know Ricky I often read your posts & think you make a lot of good points...In this case, your statements are totally without merit & inflammatory to say the least...You are talking about a kid who has grown up as a Russell kid from his very first day...Play2win has already mentioned the family move...He lives 2-3 miles from his previous residence, his mother is a teacher in the Russell schools and has been for over 20 years...No one around here, to my knowledge, has ever complained about a student who grew up within a geographic school district staying at that school after a family move outside of that district...In fact, staying at a school you have attended your entire life after a family move to a neighboring district shows the type of loyalty that is inherently absent from kids who change schools simply to play a sport in most cases...We know some of our recent "defections" certainly were not done for academic reasons...You are not comparing apples to apples...

 

Give me a break!!! You are better than that...

[midee1]

Clark has always attended Russell. His mother has been a teacher in the school district for a long time. His parents move has been pointed out. Just for reference, the summer between my sophmore and junior year my parents moved into the Ashland school district. I stayed at Russell where I had grown up. Maybe I had been brainwashed and recruited to stay. I can't recall.

 

Whats a matter Ricky. Trying to head off all of the criticism before Rose Hill is loaded in basketball again. Which won't be long.

 

 

C'mon get a life. Why taint our schools state title. A bit bitter maybe. As everyone else has stated Kasey has went to Russell all his life. I guess technicaly I'm only about 1/2 mile from being in the raceland school district. So does that make me have to get special permission for my kids to attend Russell since i'm so close. If you know anything about our area you would know that the entire Russell and Raceland school districts are not that large. As stated above Kasey only moved 2-3 miles and that put him in another district.

 

Let it go......

[Rickyp]

Devil58, I appreciate you kind words, I think. I will admit that it my be a reach and I certainly have no personal problems with the family in question. If they live in Raceland and choose to send their child to Russell I could honestly care less. I can tell you that given the circumstances you described I would make the same decision they did. I wasn't trying to take shots at this family only trying to make a point. At this point I wish I hadn't mentioned it.

 

However, my point still stands. Open enrollment schools such as Russell are the schools with the advantage. Get kids from at least 4 other school districts that I'm aware of, don't charge tuition, and if they qualify, give them a free lunch, all the while get state money for them attending your school.

 

Play 2 Win, Russell must also have the same agreement with Ashland and Boyd Co as they do with Raceland. If Russell isn't open to all then are they only open enrollment for athletes? Where do they draw the line? I'm sure you would agree that they are not restricting enrollment to kids who live or have lived in the Russell school district.

 

FBall, the criticism is invitable, you know it and I know it. I personally look forward to hearing the next line of excuses from our neighboring schools. For the record Russell was one of the schools who complained the least the last time Rose Hill was good. I can't imagine why they would complain now their best two players are former Rose Hill kids.

[Frances Bavier]

... Russell must also have the same agreement with Ashland and Boyd Co as they do with Raceland..

 

I'm curious as to why you think Russell and Ashland have a reciprocal agreement?

 

Frances

[gametime]

Would Clark have been allowed to stay at Danville if he moved a short distance into Boyle's District???

[FBALL]

Devil58, I appreciate you kind words, I think. I will admit that it my be a reach and I certainly have no personal problems with the family in question. If they live in Raceland and choose to send their child to Russell I could honestly care less. I can tell you that given the circumstances you described I would make the same decision they did. I wasn't trying to take shots at this family only trying to make a point. At this point I wish I hadn't mentioned it.

 

However, my point still stands. Open enrollment schools such as Russell are the schools with the advantage. Get kids from at least 4 other school districts that I'm aware of, don't charge tuition, and if they qualify, give them a free lunch, all the while get state money for them attending your school.

 

Play 2 Win, Russell must also have the same agreement with Ashland and Boyd Co as they do with Raceland. If Russell isn't open to all then are they only open enrollment for athletes? Where do they draw the line? I'm sure you would agree that they are not restricting enrollment to kids who live or have lived in the Russell school district.

 

FBall, the criticism is invitable, you know it and I know it. I personally look forward to hearing the next line of excuses from our neighboring schools. For the record Russell was one of the schools who complained the least the last time Rose Hill was good. I can't imagine why they would complain now their best two players are former Rose Hill kids.

I never had much of a problem with Rose Hill in the OJ days. It is true that two of the players on Russell's current team did attend Rose Hill. It is also true that they reside in the Russell school district. I understand the point you are trying to make but the example you chose to use was not a good one to say the least. As I said earlier, when my parents moved I chose to stay in the Russell school district. At that time I had to pay tuition. I believe that was dropped after the Ashland/Marathon merger and the heavy loss of students due to parents being transferred.

 

The use of students who qualify for free lunches is very inappropriate. I do not think you would want to trade places with any child who would qualify for it. That is actually a case where state money is well spent. IMO you need to be more careful in how you choose to make your case.

[Rickyp]

I'm curious as to why you think Russell and Ashland have a reciprocal agreement?

 

Frances

 

I don't believe I said that they did. Play 2 Win said that Russell had an agreement with Raceland. I said they mush have a similar agreement with Ashland and Boyd. Anyway, it is a fact that kids live in Russell and attend Ashland, kids live in Ashland and attend Russell. No tuition is charged.

 

I don't know if there is a formal reciprocal agreement or not but there is a clear understanding. There's nothing in the world wrong with that, in fact I am in favor of open enrollment. Competition will help improve the quality of education for everyone. School vochures would do the same and I am in favor of those also. But I think it invalidates the arguement that private school have an inherent advantage because they are not restricted by district boundries.

[Frances Bavier]

I don't believe I said that they did. Play 2 Win said that Russell had an agreement with Raceland. I said they mush have a similar agreement with Ashland and Boyd. Anyway, it is a fact that kids live in Russell and attend Ashland, kids live in Ashland and attend Russell. No tuition is charged.

 

I don't know if there is a formal reciprocal agreement or not but there is a clear understanding. There's nothing in the world wrong with that, in fact I am in favor of open enrollment. Competition will help improve the quality of education for everyone. School vochures would do the same and I am in favor of those also. But I think it invalidates the arguement that private school have an inherent advantage because they are not restricted by district boundries.

 

To the core question you asked in the original post of this thread (and have repeated in this last sentence):

Private schools have one inherent, huge advantage of public schools - open enrollment or not. Private schools have the right to reject students that live within their district (if they have one). Public schools (open enrollment or not) do not have that privilege. That single advantage is (in my mind) the "drawing card" that allows privates to exist.

 

Frances

[Rickyp]

I never had much of a problem with Rose Hill in the OJ days. It is true that two of the players on Russell's current team did attend Rose Hill. It is also true that they reside in the Russell school district. I understand the point you are trying to make but the example you chose to use was not a good one to say the least. As I said earlier, when my parents moved I chose to stay in the Russell school district. At that time I had to pay tuition. I believe that was dropped after the Ashland/Marathon merger and the heavy loss of students due to parents being transferred.

 

The use of students who qualify for free lunches is very inappropriate. I do not think you would want to trade places with any child who would qualify for it. That is actually a case where state money is well spent. IMO you need to be more careful in how you choose to make your case.

 

FBALL, unless they have moved recently neither of those boys don't live in the Russell district. Now they may have moved but if they did it was well after their transfer to Russell. FWIW, I really like both of these families and have no problem with their decisions to attend Russell. I wish at this point that I had never mentioned Russell but it's their fault for winning.J/K

 

Once again I have no problem with open enrollment. I think that parents should have the option to send their children where they feel it is best. I just think that if people are going to attack private schools then open enrollment public schools should be in the same boat.

[Rickyp]

To the core question you asked in the original post of this thread (and have repeated in this last sentence):

Private schools have one inherent, huge advantage of public schools - open enrollment or not. Private schools have the right to reject students that live within their district (if they have one). Public schools (open enrollment or not) do not have that privilege. That single advantage is (in my mind) the "drawing card" that allows privates to exist.

 

Frances

 

Frances, I understand why that is an advantage overall, especially when it comes to academics and an overall environment but I don't see how that gives a private school a competitive advantage in atheletics, which is what Proposition 20 is all about.

 

Is my thinking on this incorrect? I don't ask this in an arguementitive way, I really don't see the advantage. Obviously my involvement is with a small private school and I'm sure it is different in the bigger cities but I really don't feel that Rose Hill operates from a advantageous position when it competes with Ashland, Boyd, Russell, Fairview, Raceland, or Greenup in athletics.

[FBALL]

FBALL, unless they have moved recently neither of those boys don't live in the Russell district. Now they may have moved but if they did it was well after their transfer to Russell. FWIW, I really like both of these families and have no problem with their decisions to attend Russell. I wish at this point that I had never mentioned Russell but it's their fault for winning.J/K

 

Once again I have no problem with open enrollment. I think that parents should have the option to send their children where they feel it is best. I just think that if people are going to attack private schools then open enrollment public schools should be in the same boat.

Like I said. I don't have a problem with the point you are trying to make. I only think you chose a poor example to use as your tool. We have already gone into the details on that.

 

Personally I don't care if they seperate the public schools from the private schools or not. As long as all student athletes have an opportunity to compete and participate in whichever sport they want to play.

 

As for open enrollment I don't think that it is that much of an advantage. Most of the time a parent is going to choose the school that is closest to them and offers the best education. Not all but most.