oldschoolwrestler

Jefferson Co. School district have went out on a limb before. Years ago when discussion of re-districting wrestling they claimed if any of their teams were forced to compete in another district all their schools would drop their programs. IMO This argument has gotten to the point where it is Jefferson Co. school against Private schools.

This was a rebutle on Blitz post

one of my reasons to get rid of compulsory education. Very often many of these schools are inner city schools and they have numerous programs that have parents meeting every week to imporve their school. Meetings every week, with thier children, to imporve the relationship between the school, parents, and students. I'm not sure about rural schools maybe LBBC can help on this one.

Why must we prove we are doing this? If we have freedom of choice.

Very easy to understand strong communities have strong educational systems. If a school depletes another school community of thier leaders in the classroom, who will provide the positive peer pressure in the classroom.

They don't have to take the discipline problems. I'm sure if the students had a discipline sheet 10 pages long the private school would not take them. (not a bad thing, but true) Then why don't we have the choice of not sending children to school.

You are correct the next generation will have major problems. But the generation after that will prosper. I am not saying that education should not be free and offered to everyone. I'm saying that compulsory education (forcing children to attend school, is outdated). I teach at an alternative school, here over 60% of the students are just waiting until their 16th b-day to drop out, and most of their parents, probably 90% of that group, tell us they are just waiting for their child to turn 16, It's our problem not theirs. I'm a strong supporter of public education, but I would love to be able to go into a classroom and have little to no discipline problems, (or at least when there is one the parents respond or actually care) and be able to actually teach children. If it were not for the pay and percieved social class I may enjoy teaching at a private school.

but it was not directed toward any school directly (no names of schools). If they did then this would be in violation, unless KHSAA has already investigated and ruled on the decisions.

I have mentioned this in many of my posts. Compulsory education has outlived its usefulness. I do not think this is true SS. If we rid our schools of those who do not want to be educated, the students that are left will be better off. If those students are forced to stay home and mommy and daddy must keep an eye on them. They (the parents) may take a bigger interest in their child’s education, just to get them out of trouble on the streets. The second thing that may happen is that those who were not able to get an education may value it when they get older and have children. They will realize that it was harder for them to succeed without and education and they will want their children to fair better than themselves (Human Nature). Therefore, they will send their children to school and put a greater emphasis on their child’s education. Yes, we may loose a little across the board but in the long run 20-30 years from now we will have an even greater advantage worldwide in education.

Oopps sorry, didn't read the question correctly then. There is no difference, I believe that both would be ineligable, or should be. Unless they physically moved into a new district, with a "good faith" move. If not they should "I believe" sit out one year. Isn't that why the Highlands boy was ineligable?

The difference is that going to school is mandatory, they must attend school, its the law. Therefor if they cannot or choose not to pay for thier education they must attend the school that they live in. Once again compulsary education is the culprit here.

That was a tongue in cheek comment. (I had the smilly with the tongue sticking out) The amount of money I spend does not affect my attitude toward my own childrens education. There are many parents who don't care (I see more than my share in the schools), and they may be more apt to make sure their child is not a behavior problem and stays in class and school, if they had to pay for their education. As for paying $8,000.00 I can't imagine it, I won't pay that much for a car . My wife and I would need to get two more side jobs on top of the ones we already have. (Thats almost 1/4 of our total income). Especially, IMO, when I can get an equal or better education much cheaper.

Free education? Hmm Why did it cost me almost $700 for my two children to attend a public elementary school (class fees, and a four page list of materials they needed) The way I see it the partial paid tuition is an advantage. Since they are forced to pay at least some of the cost the parent/guardian has some investment in the child’s education and puts effort into the education of their child.

My guess this is a new educator or one who has been in education no long and bitter. I know that my freinds and family tell me I'm a fool to continue to work for my paycheek. They tell me their glad it is me and not them doing my job. I'm not sure which is more insulting; this supposed educator actually saying it or it being repeated in this site. If I ever get this way I will quit teaching, because I will be of no use to my students.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Get rid of compulsory education. This would solve all our problems. Make the schools responsible for recruiting their own kids and raising money to pay teachers. Have everyone pay for their education, or earn government scolarships.

Hmm I want my U.S. tax dollars returned also becuase they are going to spend it in New Orleans, who didn't spend their tax dollars well either. I also want it back becuase the welfare system is in shambles ect. ect. ect.

My only response to legality is that Tenn. has done it and are still doing it. It must pass the legality issue, i'm sure it has been taken to court already.

I think we need a definition of open enrollment. Open enrollment to me means you can decline anyone you want and except anyone you want. This definition does not apply to any public schools. Kenton only has limited open enrollment between thier 3 high schools. Beechwood must except those inside thier district lines, and will accept others (from what I hear) Highlands: See above. Campbell does not have open enrollment. I also think that those that accept out of district students they must have an agreement with the school they should attend.

true dat, in todays era I wouldn't even make a dent. :cry: In the stone age we didn't need much talent.

Since publics are the only ones who have districts its obvious. I'm trying to keep things equal by giving everyone a 20 mile radius. What is good for one is also good for the other. I agree that little will change in Nky with the 20 mile radius. Why not try this though. If it does not work then we can try and find another resolution. It's the least restrictive and is equal to all. As I have mentioned, I don't think any of the props are the answer to the problem. I think the first thing we need to agree on is that there is a problem, and then work collectively to solve the problem. We are dealing with extremes right now, and those are definatly not the answers

Excellent view. (I didn't want to quote the entire reply) The line has been drawn in the sand and people have decided to stand on one side or the other. The basic question is this “Is there a problem?” One side says there is no problem and the other side believes there is a problem. This debate has been bogged down with the poor solutions that we have been presented with. IMO because we are discussion this proves there is a problem. It’s kind of like deciding if a person is an alcoholic or not. The alcoholic and his friends may say he is not, while others say he is an alcoholic. I along with other agree that there is a problem, but we also realize that the answers are not the solutions that we have to choose from. (KHSAA propositions) I think that if we can get over the hump and agree first that there is a problem then we may be able to solve the problem that will be equally expectable to both sides. I’m not talking about a compromise or a lesser of two evils. I’m talking about a real answer to the problem.

Should get the award for most generalized insult on BGP :madman:

Defininately not ashamed to be a public school supporter. Comparing apples and oranges here. Top to bottom. Tops may be equal but the middle and bottom are nowhere near equal. (I'm speaking of those schools with boundries, I think all schools should have the same 20 mile radius.) The publics already have the best coaches IMO. That is the only reason they can get close to competing with the less talented athletes.

Just realized that this in only football. What about the other sports? I know football is what may have made the debate public, but the minor sports have had the problem for a loooong time.

Just a rebuttal but: The top 1-3 may be equal. That however does not make a team. My second guess is that many of the top caliber players in private don't play, they are secure enough personally and financially to stop their playing career in high school and just work on their education. (I personally fell into this category and know of several others.) I always hate this comparison. If that’s the case then UK does not get the top players because other schools have many more NBA players. I’m with you though lets keep it as is. Let’s find out in 10-20 how many schools drop their programs. If we ignore the problem maybe it will go away.