Trinity alum

As a matter of rule, the Catholc high schools in the Louisville area do not send information to a general list of public middle school kids. The rules concerning recruitment are the same for both public and private schools.

But again I ask, What are the justifications? Right now I see a set of rules that apply equally to both private and public schools. That looks fair to me. What about the current rules is unfair?

Why does domination of results justify separation? That just penalizes success. It doesn't make sense to me. I'm still looking for the problems that these proposals are intended to fix.

I think you could also find public schools that have had good runs. I still think that it is not enough to say that you don't like the results. To justify any changes you have to list the problem you are trying to fix.

I agree that most will support it. I just don't think they would be able to justify it on any basis except they don't like the current results.

I would expand it to include Sacred Heart and Assumption on the girls side. Beyond that, what schools have dominated? What "problems" are these proposals intended to fix and in what way do they fix them?

I would like to see them try to justify their votes in public. I think you would find most of them voting on results, not because any unfair advantage exists.

The simple answer is yes, but it won't happen. It would likely be ugly. I would like to see these sponsors present the reasons behind the proposals. Guru tried to get people to list the advantages these proposals are intended to eliminate. So far I have not seen them. It would be great to see them present the reasons. Keep in mind that disparate results are not evidence of an unfair advantage. From memory, the reasons I have seen listed are: Private schools have no limits on attendance zones. Most public schools do. The answer is that the public schools have the option of eliminating their attendance zones and charging appropriate tuition for those outside their area. I don't see the private school advantage. Private schools don't have to adhere to Title IX. Answer, Most private schools are coed, so even if the comment was correct, it would not apply to most private schools. Second, the boys and girls schools both have great sports programs. The same families are providing the resources and are funding the boys and girls very well, so I don't see it. Private schools have family backing for their students that most public schools don't have. That may be true of some public schools, but it is not true of all public schools. Besides that, why would you want to punish parental support.

You set yourself up as the pin cushion when you started to defend the Manual administration for supporting this garbage. Eastern doesn't have anyone on this board to argue with as near as I can tell. If it will make you feel better, for the record, Sexton is beneath contempt and an awfull representative for public education. Don't expect me to think much better of those that choose to follow his lead.

I wasn't sure if it sounded more like Churchill or Knute Rockne, but Patton? Nah!

Welcome back from your extended absence from this thread.

We'll fight them in the delegate vote. Then we'll fight them at the Board of Control. Then we'll fight them at the Board of Education. Then we'll fight them in the legislature. And we'll fight them in the courts. And if all that fails, we'll fight them at the ballot box.. And while all that fighting is going on, we'll kick their tails on the field.

Didn't claim to be objective. When someone comes after our kids, don't expect me to be objective. I have said in earlier posts that I'm willing to discuss anything, as long as it treats our kids the same as other kids. For me, that is the only nonnegoitiable.

If Male and Manual cooperate in evil and stand to benefit from evil, they are evil. And make no mistake, these proposals are blatant discrimination and as such are evil. I am a supporter of public schools. A good system of public schools is important. One knock on public schools is the charge that the education establishment is willing to sacrifice kids to protect their jobs. In the past I have argued against that idea. Maybe I was wrong, because they are certainly willing to sacrifice our kids.

He's being told that if it is absolutely necessary for you to hang out with those stinking Catholics, okay, just don't expect to continue in sports. There are already too many of THEM out there. This kid has lost his home, his school, most likely his parents means of support. All he was asking was to continue his education in an environment that was as close to home as possible. Shame on the KHSAA and shame on those that would add one more burden to this family.

You are missing the point. I am against ANY proposals that say it is okay to treat our kids differently from anyone elses. It isn't about who would be "hurt" the most. If they want to pass a rule that says no kid can play high school sports if they live more than 20 miles from the school, I'd think it was a bad idea, but at least it could be discussed.

I am open to compromise and solutions as long as they treat private school kids the same way that public school kids are treated. As an example, Prop 1 says private schools have a 20 mile radius. Why only privates? Shouldn't it apply to all schools? If we agree that it affects very few kids, why have the rule at all? Is it only to make the publics feel better? I think that the thing that has to be fought at every turn is the notion that it is okay to treat private school kids differently.

NO! If sports are not part of the educational process they should be eliminated from schools. In fact, I believe that sports can be a very valuable part of the education.

What law prevents public schools from accepting donations? What law prevents booster clubs from raising funds? Someone needs to tell Greg Stumbo that the JCPS are blatant lawbreakers because it happens all the time over here. And to all the Rams on this site, those bricks you guys bought will have to go. LABS says they are against the law.

I don't know and I don't care. If even one student is singled out and told that the educational programs available to other students are not available to that student, it is wrong. I don't care if the number is 20 miles or 200 miles. What is missing from all of these proposals is any attempt to treat public schools and private schools exactly the same. If someone has a proposal that will do THAT, then that should be considered as a compromise. Short of that, NO!

One difference in Kentucky as opposed to some others (Tenn I think) is that the KHSAA is under the state Dept of Education. That makes any action of the KHSAA a state action.

No, every private school and every public district sets its own attendance zone policies. I've said before that I don't think that the 20 mile limit will have a profound effect, but if it affects even one student, that is too much.

Since the boundaries are set differently for one group (private schools) than they are for another (public schools) and the differences act to the extreme detriment of one group (privates), it is discrimination. Prop 1 would establish different methods for establishing attendance zones for public and private.

In this case they are treating some members of the group differently from other members of the group. And I'm not sure how voluntary membership is since they passed the rule that says member schools can not play non member schools.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not in the know as far as legal stratgy, but I really see the outline of a MAJOR discrimination suit. Similarly situated public schools (no defined attendance zone) are to be treated one way, while private schools (overwhelmingly religious schools) are treated a different way. Students from religious based schools are prevented from taking part in the KHSAA championships. I really think that the cooler heads on the Board of Control will cut this off. If they don't, we'll have to make sure that our legislators know just how strongly we feel about this and the ballot box consequences of discriminating against our kids. I really think that the new rule that prevents teams from playing against teams that are not members of their state association and the fact that the KHSAA is a state sponsored organisation really strengthen our side. Restricting play to only members of state associations and then following it up with a move to kick us out of championship play looks like a calculated series of actions meant to cause irreparable harm to our schools. We don't have the option of walking out and continuing to play high school sports in Kentucky. Maybe we can pay for a new classroom wing with the settlement.