oldschoolwrestler

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.

I think we may be arguing two different things here. Proposal 1 is not asking that private schools leave KHSAA. They are only asking that ALL schools have boundries for participants.

I agree with you 100%. Back in the beginning, education was a privilege....part of the problem we have in public schools is that some kids are FORCED to go to school, which causes them to be disruptive and bring down the levels of concentration within the school setting.

 

Therein lies the difference.QUOTE]

 

Hey did we just agree? jk

 

You have used the same examples I use in denouncing compulsary education.

 

This is the point I have been trying to make all along. This is the major and only difference between private and public.

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.

That will surely make sure any rules are not changes because the state cannot and will not spend the money on lawyers.

If they cannot discriminate against any child why can't 19 year olds participate? Why not fight that cause also?

This is not discrimination, if they set rules that will allow privates to participate if they follow certain rules.

I have never nor will I ever wish that private school be removed from the KHSAA. This basically affects football, (Which I am not a fan of), and would only hurt the other minor sports if Private schools are removed.

Hey guys I've know the answer to our problems.

I've stated it before and I'll say it again.

Get rid of compulsory education. If we don't force students to go to school or give it to them free, we would not have this problem. All the schools would be private schools.

This may sound tongue in cheek but I'm actually serious about this. It would solve many other problems that public schools have. Or at least reduce it greatly.

My point exactly. KHSAA has set forth rules in which participating schools must obey. If a school does not want to follow those rules they have the option of not joining KHSAA.

Is it right that an athlete who turns 19 on August 2nd cannot participate but that athlete who turns 19 on July 31st can? (I'm not exactly sure on the cut off date).

Is it fair that an athlete cannot participate because he had an injury that caused him to miss school and be retained?

There are several rules that can be argued, but they are set up to try and keep equality.

I don't want to see the private schools leave, some of the restrictions are outlandish, but some make sense. You can't have the cake and eat it too forever.

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.

Ohh come on now. KHSAA could say "how about you let us decide who is a good candidtate for participating in KHSAA" :laugh:

How does this rule apply to those sports that allow kids to play varsity below the high school level. (ie wreslting alows 7th and 8th grade students to wrestle varsity)

Also, does this apply to Jv/freshman/middle school teams. If not then it will not affect many athletes.

My best quess is that 20% graduate. Our alternative school does not allow graduation yet. There are other alternative schools that have graduation. They can however go to the Adult high school and graduate.

Our school deals mostly with 7-10, once they reach 16 most are returned to the regular high school.

Our school costs the district about $1 million a year. The adult high school costs the district about the same. We service 60-70 students at a time. (10 kids in a classroom at most). There is another program for elementary students.

The one stipulation we have placed on ourselves is that kids attending alternative schools may not participate in school events, functions, or sports. They are not even suppose to step foot on the high school campus even for a basketball/football game.

What you say has a lot of truth.

 

But is it (selectivity) unavoidable?

 

Could public schools define a student as "at risk" and "not spend a huge amount on resources on kids that drop out as soon as they legally can"?

 

So what I'm asking is could the public schools become more selective and better use resources to ID and assist kids that will drop out?

 

To me it sounds like you yourself could identify such kids and you know that funds are not being used as best as they could. Are there certain laws that would prohibit such things?

Since I teach at one of those alternative school the answer is yes. Every student must be given the same education as the rest. Even if they threaten, push, shove, punch, students and staff. Even if their parents say

"he/she will turn 16 on Oct 8th and I am letting him drop out". We still must keep this student in class, and allow him to disrupt other students, or at least take up the majority of the staff's time.

I have no idea how other schools do it. A low fundraising year isn't an option. Bats are a big chunk of what I buy, if I buy them. Kids buy their own uni's and keep them. I've had instances where I will buy a uni for a kid who can't afford it.

I feel your pain, our team also does not have enough singlets let alone warm ups. We couldn't even suit up a full varsity team. 10 varsity singlets, 5 full warm up sets, 8 headgear, no knee pads (I don't like these anyway). I only have about half the parents who try to support and give every nickel they can afford, but it's still barely enough. Much of our cost comes from my and their pockets not the schools.

The school I am employed by is not and I believe my alma mater is not also.

It seems to be a football problem and neither of them are football powers.

That is some funny stuff. What do you call paying tuition on top of paying taxes?

Guru As many have done to you in the past you have taken my comment out of context. This alone may sound funny but when you add the rest into the formula, its actually kind of sad.

Delta, You are correct it is the community that have made these decisions not the school, athletes, or parents, this is an unavoidable disadvantage. I'm just glad that there are some coaches out there that decide to tackle this problem, when many could go elsewhere and coach a more solid, community backed athletic program.

From first hand experience. It's enough to make you leave the sport you are involved in.

I think the biggest problem for me is that this is only being focused on football. What happens to the other sports if we split? I know Wrestling will lose another 5 or so schools. This is not good for wrestling and could kill the sport in the long run, along with some of the other minor sports.

It still comes down to money, for the most part lower/poverty level communities do not support their athletic programs, while upper class communities do. Guru you come from and still support one of those upper class communities, therefore may not understand the problems they face. Many of you on here may be lower class economically but still have middle class views. Changing a communities lower class views to meet middle class views is unrealistic.

My point however, is the majority of the 46 private schools the KHSAA is seeking to ban, especially the smaller Catholic schools, are not sitting around having meetings on how to spend their excess millions; but rather are arguably doing significantly more with far less resource-wise that their public counterparts!!

I'm not sure if I agree BGG. Private schools have many other programs that they need to spend money on. Special Ed. teachers, police officers in their halls, security personnel, teachers aids (they can't get volunteers), alternative schools, court liaisons ect. ect.

A lot is made of the supposed academic advantages at private schools, but I wonder what would happen at Trinity, for example, if a fleet of buses dropped off a couple hundred of the worst students from Shawnee, for example.

They would politely be asked to return to their buses, because they do not meet the requirement for enrollment. And asked to return to the public school where they belong.

I think the only unavoidable (this is a loaded word) advantage is the parental involvement, and their attitude toward their child’s school.

It has been said many times in many posts that this is an advantage. Using Guru's definition of unavoidable, this is the only one.

You cannot change a parents views of a school when they were high school dropouts themselves and would prefer that their child not go to school. When this child decides to go out for a sport they do it on their own. When parents don't involve themselves in their child’s sport that child may still succeed but makes it very difficult (which is a disadvantage).

Guru every time someone comes up with an argument your response is work harder. That in itself is a disadvantage, if a student at a private school does not have to "hustle, raise money, share playing fields, find someone else other than their parents to ride them to and from practice" then they have an advantage.

I will once again reaffirm my belief that the answer is not splitting private and public. I also do not believe there is a true answer to equal the playing field.

All I want is for the private schools to realize they do have an advantage. This in no way takes away from what they accomplish, their kids worked hard and earned it. When some public schools work as hard as private all they accomplish is being able to field a team, because they are trying to overcome so much.

I wish that public school administrators would have the same attitude toward the kids that attend public schools for some portion of their academic career.

I wish the parents of public schools would have the same attitude toward thier kids, not administrators.

(I apologise for those public school parents that already do this, but the number of those that don't may not be a majority, but it is high enough to cause turmoil in the schools.)

If a kid can truly play, a coach will find him, horrible team or not.

Only if he is a top notch player. If he plays a team sport and that team losses almost every game, he will never be seen by coach.

I'm not talking about blue-chip players, I'm talking about those players that mostly sit the bench, but still recieve a scholarship in DI. Or a kid who can be an average player in an NAIA or DII school.

Just a reminder though I am not for seperation of public and private.

PS. Guru, Beechwood does have a boundry they must take those students inside of that boundry, but they choose to take anyone outside of it, just like all ather public schools.

Guru;

The only way for this open enrollement to work is for the great USA to stop cumpulsary education. If we stop making kids go to schoo then everything is equal.

Who realy gets hurt in this equation are the inner city schools. What would happen to Newport, and Covington in Nky? Those who can play a sport and have a perent who backs them will send them elswhere. Those kids who can play and their parents do not support them (which occurs too much in inner city schools) will lose any chance at all of getting a scholorship in his/her sport because they will play for a horrible team. This would kill almost any chance of that student making it out of the inner city.

Open enrollment is a disaster for inner city schools.

"Public and Independant schools are the same. They may both except students from outside their district and charge tuition."

 

originally posted by Oldschoolwrestler

 

If oldschoolwrestler's statement above is correct, what advantage does a private, independent, or county school have since parents can choose to send their kids to any of these 3 options when they enter their freshmen year?

none between the public and independant, but both of these schools have students they must take, where private schools do not have student they must take.

Public and Independant schools are the same. They may both except students from outside their district and charge tuition.

The only advantage is as stated by another poster is that the communities are usually close knit.

creating a positive educational environment and an outstanding sports program and all for far less dollars than the Public Schools.

:thumb:

This is the quote that may be fact but is skewed because of the students marketed/recruited to the private schools. Which Public does not have that luxury as long as there is compulsary eduacaion.

Sorry Shadow, I tried to stay out of this for a while, but you're just not right in your assessments of BC's statements. See above, and I'd welcome being proved wrong on these!!

BG I may agree for the most part with this but, that last statement which you call a fact is not a fact.

It said "If this kind of time and effort was spent on improving the public school systems, think about what we could get done as a nation"

My arguement in my last post is that this is already being done. :thumb:

As I have said in past threads there are points to both sides. Public schools could keep up with private schools if they could get rid of their "undesirables" the same way private schools do. Much if not most public school money is spent on those "undesirables". Special Ed. teachers, self contained rooms, alternative programs, security guards, extra personel for hallway control. ect. ect.

As for the comment about spend the same amount of energy on improving public schools, that is exactly what they are doing with all of these programs. The one thing that private schools have learned is that when classrooms are filled with students who want to learn, more learning can occur. Public schools are doing the same by creating these extra programs.

Once again I will repead my earllier post.

Public schools must admit that they can be as successful as private school.

But

Private schools must admit that they dp have an advantage.

And seperating private and public schools in competition is not the answer.

I was more focused on being able to pick and choose who they want. Meaning they do not have to take children that cause problems, therefore those schools have a better crop to pick from. Thank you for helping me clarify my intent.

I do however want to reiterate that I am NOT for the seperation of public and private schools. I do however believe that the instate rule should apply. If I am not mistaken I think Ohio uses this rule. I don't however know if this is a problem in KY though.

There are alot of public schools that have more of an advantage then some private schools in the state. I am sick of people talking about an disadvantage for public schools because these private schools give tuition assistance. What about the private school parents who pay for the tuition and pay city or county taxes for the other guy who is going to the public school, and for free or reduced lunches.

 

I guess we need to get rid of tuition assistance for everything including college. I bet the public school people won't go for that when they have kids that want to go to college.

 

Bottom Line find a way to win. If you don't agree with this then why play. Why have refs, scoreboards, and stats. If this is the case then start a non competitive league and play. This sensitive stuff is going to get America defeated in war when these kids get older and have descide for themselves. God I pray that day doesn't come when we have to speak chinese because mommy wasn't there to hold my hand.

 

Do you think China, Russia, and Al-queda care about fairness? GROW UP KIDS this is LIFE.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about tuition assistance, that does not fit into my theory, nor do I care about it. The advantage is that private may pull kids from other area with no districts, and may pick and choose who they want.

As for the taxes, I also pay taxes that help support public transportation yet do not use it. This also does not fit into my theory.

Find a way to win? Does this mean at any cost, break, bend rules to fit your cause? Why have refs? then why have police officers? Survival of the fittest.

If you don't even the playing field a little then there is no competition, without competition skills decline.

I believe you are confusing competitivness with equality. Its a fine line we walk here, but there must be some rules otherwise things get out of hand and anarchy rules.

Equality, freedom, fairness is what makes the United States strong. Fighting for what they believe in, not wether they need help or rules.

Sports are suppose to help guide children to become good citizens. Fairness, teamwork, pride, dedication. Not pick the side that you think will win and join it. Thank God our forefathers did not do this otherwise we would still be part of England.