Trinity alum

I think you will notice that I also listed the feelings of some in public education toward private education in general. In truth, these proposals wouldn't stand a chance if only those schools that stand to gain championships voted for them.

When you read the rule the limits don't apply to public schools. Public schools are limited to the boundaries of their district, UNLESS they have a reciprocal agreement with another district, then the limits don't apply there either. There is no radius limit.

I can buy that.

Proposal 1 applies a different set of rules to private schools than is applied to public schools. Public schools have no boundaries within their district and can extend their district's boundaries by a simple agreement with other districts. Private schools have a fixed geographic boundary that experience shows is exceeded by their current student population athlete and non athlete. Are all public schools to be limited to 20 miles?

We do follow the rules. The same rules that apply to every other member of the KHSAA. Every one of these proposals is an attempt to establish different rules for private schools than those that apply to the public schools. It is blatant discrimination. Your example of 19 year olds doesn't wash. It applies to ALL 19 year olds. It is perfectly reasonable for the KHSAA to have rules, but the same rules have to apply to all.

Well then I'm nuts. That is exactly what this is. The allure of a Catholic education includes many factors including religious training, moral training, social justice, academics, discipline and sports. Those factors and more are all part of the package. This is an attempt to peal off one. What's next? I believe that the animosity expressed the bigotry of some against Catholics and the bigotry of some in public education against private schools in general. I am old enough to remember when this states anti Catholic feelings were much more in the open. It isn't gone.

Well, I'm glad you asked. The KHSAA is set up under the Kentucky Department of Education. It is not an independent body. As such, any action taken by the KHSAA is a STATE action. Any action by the state to blatantly discriminate against our children will be fought vigorously. Further, the KHSAA has taken action that will prevent KHSAA members from playing teams that are not members of their state association. In other words, in order to participate in high school athletics in Kentucky you must be a member. Therefore, membership is in effect no longer voluntary. It is not permissable for a state agency to openly discriminate against certain of the states citizens as if it were a private club. Keep laughing.

And I don't know how I can be any clearer. The "rightness" of the reason is unknowable by any except those making the decision and further, is no ones business.

It's because you have not established the competitive advantage. All that has been established is disparate results. They are not the same.

In importance, no. In thinking, absolutely. I'll take it one step farther. This is an opening salvo in a blatant attempt by anti Catholic elements in Kentucky to undermine and weaken Catholic education. I for one will not stand idle while there is blatant discrimination against our kids. "The time is past when good men may be silent". Daniel Berrigan

My point is that it is grossly discriminatory to a kid to ask them to sit out. How far the kid travels to school is nobodys business.

How about you let us decide who is a good candidate for a Catholic school. If I want to use a Lear jet to fly my kid in every morning from Paducah, that is my business.

I want to be clear. Trinity accepts kids from all academic levels. There are no selective admissions. That is more than some public schools in this area can say. I don't say that as a knock on the JCPS for having schools with selective admissions. (I don't think it is a good idea, but that is a different topic.) My point is that selective admissions are not an advantage of all private schools, nor are they an advantage that is exclusive to private schools. Therefore selective admissions form no basis for discriminatory treatment of private school students. There are some kids that make it clear that they don't want to be at our school, but not many. They are not forced to stay. I would agree with you that there are some kids that demonstrate that they don't wish to be in a regular school. The wishes of those kids should be granted. I know that it is hard to establish an alternative school in a small, rural county, but if the choices are to let a small number poison the environment for all or to spend the money for an alternative school, that seems like an easy choice.

What are they doing wrong? Spell it out. Don't hold back. Cite examples. Educate us.

These proposals are intended to keep kids from attending because they don't want to give up a year.

No, but the world would do well to evolve toward St Mathews. But evolution is a subject for a different thread.

I don't believe that I have claimed perfect outcome, but I will compare the outcome at Trinity favorably to anyone, anywhere. I think if you went back thirty years ago you would find many actions by football coaches that would not be accepted today, but the point is still irrelevant. We are talking about the school and even thirty years ago kids that quit the football team were still very much valued as students. Keep trying. You will not find a school in this area that does a better job of educating kids from across the academic spectrum. Period. The topic of this thread was unavoidable advantages. Some have tried to make the point that private schools don't have to educate the hard to teach (and expensive) kids. That may be true for some private schools. It is also true of some public schools. It isn't true of Trinity.

Huh? I'm not sure what you just said, but I'll try to interpret. Students at Trinity can be expelled if they dmonstrate that they are not willing to follow the rules. When did I say never? I'm not sure what your last sentence is trying to say, but if by referring to the wall of shame you are implying something about expulsions you are mistaken. As I recall, the wall of shame was an action by a football coach, more than thirty years ago, that listed people that quit the football team. I'm not sure of the relevance. Let me be clear. All are welcome at Trinity. The school will do more than its part to aid their success. There are some that don't want to be there. They don't have to be.

You missed the point completely. There are no "undesireables because we would never describe anyone as undesireable. Trinity has programs to bring these kids along and get them ready for more education. It is expensive, but it is part of the schools mission to do it.

I think you might be surprised at what would happen. First, NO student at Trinity would ever be labeled an "undesirable". Everyone would be treated as family. Most of these students would choose to work hard and succeed. They would receive a highly individual education based on their specific needs. Are you aware of Trinity's very extensive and successful program for students with learning difficulties? Are you aware of the very small class size and high ratio of councilors for these students at Trinity? Are you aware of the award that Trinity won for making its campus handicap accessible? We see educating as many students as possible, with as diverse backgrounds as possible as part of our mission. There is no rule that says we have to do it, but it is the right thing to do. Can every public school in Jefferson County make the same claims about their programs for students with academic problems? Can many public schools anywhere claim the success with these students that Trinity can?

You are missing the point. The schools exist to educate students. I have no doubt that some of the weaker academic schools and their students would benefit from the leadership that could be provided by spreading the Manual students around. That would seem to be a bigger reason to spread the academic talent around more so than the athletic talent. JCPS have made a decision to offer educational choices and individual families have decided which choice is best for their family. The private schools offer an additional choice. It is no one's business how they come to that decision. I believe that there are three factors that motivate these proposals. The first is jealousy over the success of the private schools as a whole, not just in athletics. The second is the absolute refusal of public schools to believe that they might have anything to learn from private schools, coupled with their belief that they "own" any kid that ever attended a public school. The third is the latent anti-Catholic bias that exists in this state. I grew up in a time when that bias was much more open, but it is still there. The funny thing is, the big Catholic schools will survive and thrive regardless of what is done. The athletic programs of the small Christian schools will take the biggest hit.

Trinity has added over 400 students in the past few years. Over $18,000,000 was spent on new classrooms, science labs, computer labs and athletic facilities. If your school needs facilities that taxes won't cover, start a fund drive. Hit your alumni for big bucks. Ask each school family to come up with money.

No I won't. I will agree that they are faced with a situation where they see the privates win a disproportionate amount and they don't know how to fix it. Their solution is to eliminate the competition. Some of the problems that affect these schools may be beyond the ability of coaches or ADs (school boards and polititians), but they aren't the private schools' problems and it is not fair or reasonable to punish private school kids.

I don't think that 20 miles is very good. It is far too close.

Cubster, you have made a charge, now back it up. You have no clue what you are talking about.