Rickyp

I agree with you about it being a gold mine. The current "core" kids at Rose Hill have been there for a while but it won't matter. When they start winning there will be alot of upset people. I just hope it happens because Tim Fraley has earned it.

Hey, Jay you said it was your last post and posted 4 more times. You are correct about Russell. They are and were gracious during the OJ days. I am really sorry I used them as an example. Coach Dodd was at David Garnes funeral on Tuesday and was most gracious. I know alot of Rose Hill supports realized he was there and really apprciated his support. I have no problem with Russell I was just illustrating a point. I am close friends with the Vanhooses and they know I wish them and Joe the best. Anyway, I hope you realize that I didn't mean to single out Russell. I respectfully disagree with you on a couple of the private school points. I'm sure your not suprised. :lol:

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, 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.

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.

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 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.

Private school supporters need to understand something. The proposed seperation isn't about leveling the playing field, it isn't about football, it isn't about fairness. It is about eliminating competition, period. As stated earlier most private schools don't even field a football team. This is just as much about the small private schools as it is X or Trinity. Here in Boyd Co is about eliminating Rose Hill from the basketball picture. Anyone on this end of the state who claims to be concerned about X and Trinity is full of manure.

So after 5 days is it safe for me to assume that if a public school has open enrollment and doesn't charge tuition for out of district students that their is not a competitive advantage for either the public or private school?

I think that is logical and tend to agree but is it unfair? I still think the schools who have it all, are the public schools with open enrollment. They should be the ones with separte playoffs or every public school should have open enrollment. Separating private from public won't even the playing field it will just tip the scales further toward the open enrollment public schools. I'm willing to bet that a lot of those schools who helped write Prop 20 are open enrollment schools. I don't know this for a fact but I just have a feeling.

3 days have gone by and still no answer. :confused: Fact is that the schools that have the true advantage is the public schools that have open enrollment and don't charge tuition to out of district students. Am I wrong?

ttt By the way this question can be answered by anyone. The longer it goes without a response from a public school supporter the more I have to believe that there is no advantage.

I have asked these questions on other threads concerning Public vs. Private schools. I really don't know the answer and would really appreciate any imput. My questions are, if a public school has open enrollment, in other words, they can accept students from outside their district boundries and not charge them tuition. Then how are they at a disadvantage compaired to private schools? What rule(s), if any, are different for private schools or public schools?

Private schools follow the same rules also. There is absolutly no difference between Rose Hill and the public schools in the 64th district. With the exception that Rose Hill students pay tuition and Rose Hill get zero state funding. Public schools in our area can take kids from anywhere and even hand pick the athletes from the Ramey Home. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what advantage a private school has over a public school that has open enrollment. The more I think about it the more I am convienced that the independent schools must have an advantage. Russell and Ashland dominate the football landscape in NE KY. Belfry in the SE part of the state. How is that? Not to mention Danville, Beechwood, and Mayfield. I say the KHSAA should seperate public, indenpendent, and private. Think about it then everyone would get a trophy.

What are those advantages? I ask this question sincerely. I honestly don't know what advantages there are when the public schools can accept anyone and not charge tuition for out of district students. Anyone who wants to answer please feel free to do so.

They are hand picking athletes from the Ramey home. That's the bottom line. When I read a post that complains about needs based tuition assistance then I just shake my head. It isn't private schools that are bending the rules, it's also public schools like Boyd Co. You can seperate private from public but it still won't level the playing field. In the 16th region the only school that is at a disadvantage is Rose Hill. There is nothing that Rose Hill can do that the public schools can't. The difference is that the public schools provide transportation and are fund by tax dollars.

No question. The public schools where I live are no more bound by a district than a private school. So if a public school can take kids from anywhere and not charge tuition then how is a private school different?

No tuition. Open enrollment agreement with other schools just like every other public or independent school in the 16th region. I find it hard to believe that someone could post this when it is common knowledge where these kids live. I don't have a problem with it either but given this fact how does a private school like Rose Hill have and advantage? I follow and know far more about the basketball rosters than football. I can tell you that every public school in the 64th district has kids from out of their district. Boyd Co., Ashland, and Fairview all have kids that live out of their district boundries that are prominent basketball players. Let me describe what is unfair in our neck of the woods. Boyd Co. has made a habit of taking kids from the Ramey Home, which is a home for "troubled" kids and placing the athletically gifted ones in a foster home. The same foster home has housed a 6'8" center and now he is housing a kid from Scott County who in several people's opinion is the best player in the 16th region all in the past 3 years. The none athletically gifted kids at the Ramey Home attend school at the Ramey Home the athletes attend school at Boyd Co. So when I hear all the crying about private schools having an unfair advantage it falls on a deaf ear.

Well I read this about 20 miniutes ago and just picked myself back up off the floor. I believe you work in the Russell school system, I base this assumption on your previous post. If so, how can you post this garbage? Russell's best two basketball players live in the Ashland and Boyd Co. schools district. What boundray are you defined by? The Commonwealth of Kentucky? The United States of America? because it sure isn't the Russell Independent School district.

What about the boy who backed up Holbrook this year? He seemed to have a pretty nice arm.

Good player, great hands. Not a game breaker. Sorry, but I can't agree.

Ashland's kid have nothing to hang their head about. Rockcastle was the better team and there is no shame in that. Most football games are won and lost on the line of scrimmage and this one was no different. As far as team speed, Ashland had good overall speed but no real game breaker. Hindsite is 20/20 but why did Ashland punt on the 38 yard line when it was 4th and 4. The punt went in the end zone and they netted 18 yards. Plus, Rockcastle had marched up and down the field during their first to possessions. I respect coach Hart a great deal but I thought that was a odd decision.

Maybe their coach had to stop in Lexington to pay his fine for stealing Ashland's hand signals. :eek: J/K Here we go again, someone got cheated. Why can't everyone grow up and quit pointing fingers. Stolen signs, not enough warm up time, unfair advantages for private schools, give me a break on all accounts. Lace em up and play. Let the athletes and coaches on the field decide the outcome. Geez. By the way Rockcastle had a 20 point lead in last years game. I don't think a lack of warm up time cost them. Maybe Ashland should have allowed them to skip the second half.

You had better go now if you want to be first. I saw someone placing their seats last Friday at 12:15. :creepy:

:laugh: That's still better than old. :lol: