StThomasMore

Your research is fine- so far as it goes. However, if all of the finalists were public schools, the percentages would only be A: 4 %; AA: 4 %; AAA: 3.8 %; and AAAA: 4 %. Of course, I suppose we could say that, of those who reached the playoffs, the overwhelmingly high percentage in each class were public schools, couldn't we? Therefore, couldn't we conclude that the public schools had the overwhelming advantage in the playoffs? Of course, this is ridiculous. However, any use of statistics can be manipulated. All that really matters is that the private schools apparently have the best football teams. Maybe, the public schools should spend more time working to produce better teams and less time trying to get rid of the competition. Let's avoid the temptation to "dumb down" athletics as has been done in public school academics with KERA.

Brian Bennett is not only biased for the public schools, he is also a poor student of basic mathematics. His statement that 3 of 209 public schools being "0.01 percent" is shameful for anyone claiming to be somewhat educated- even a "journalist". The percent is actually 1.43541. I thank my good private Catholic school education for my ability to recognize this shamefully elementary error.

Are those of you who are advocating a separation of the publics from the privates also seeking a separation for all other athletic pursuits in which certain groups seem to excel over other groups? Wouldn't that be a reasonable extension of your "if you can't win, don't let them play" philosophy?

I am rooting for the private schools publicly. I don't think it would effect Proposition 20 since the matter has moved past the "reactionary level" of the coaches/ADs/principals/superintendents.

It is always dangerous to paint all of a particular classification with one sweep of the brush. Most of our public schools do not "cheat" in preparing students for the achievement tests. Most do a commendable job. Unfortunately, some do and some of it has been documented. Actually, we are probably "singing" from the same hymnal.

Ladiesbballcoach, this thread has gone too far afield. However, I must reply to your most recent post. You, I believe, are a public educator so you know what I am asserting. When an English teacher teaches "the test" by teaching sentence structure, proper noun-verb usage, etc. that is not "teaching the test". While that is preparing the student for a test on the material it is far more. It is preparing the student with skills that will be needed to succeed in school and, later, in the workplace. By "teaching the test" I mean (and I believe you know what I mean) that certain school districts encourage teaching what will be tested on an achievement test so that the district can appear to be doing a better job than, in fact, is actually the case. We who are familiar with education in Kentucky know this is being done and, in fact, several schools have been cited for the practice. Preparing students for a coming test in English and priming students to perform well on an achievement test for less than noble reasons (ie: cash rewards to the district, individual schools, and/or individual teachers) are far different matters. One practice is learning while the other practice is manipulation of the system. I hope this explains my position although I would have to assume that you knew what I was implying before this post.

Actually, Stickymitts, I hope your "desire" to live in "my world" has nothing to do with financial position. Financial position is meaningless. If you have a loving family (as I hope you do), that, my friend, is far more important than any "financial position". Our "back and forth" has been revealing but it is far afield from the subject of the thread. However, it has revealed that there is a great breach between the public schools and the private schools. Neither has any trust for the other. That is unfortunate but, nonetheless, true. My purpose was to state that, although I am required to fund needy students, including athletes, in the public schools, I am not really allowed to do so in the private schools. I assume that most public school advocates would assume that I would only assist athletes and, thus, circumvent the spirit of the rules. On the other hand, I, and many others, see the public schools, (through tax dollars and through boosters) doing what really amounts to the same thing. My point is that, with proper accountibility, I should be able to assist financially in the private schools even if an athlete is assisted since this is obviously being done in the public schools. It is difficult for many in the public schools to understand but we private school people really do have standards and, I'm sure, those standards at least equal those of the publics.

Ah, now we attack my parish. Is my parish any more tax exempt than are your houses of worship? What do churches have to do with the discussion anyway? I am talking about the rights of individuals- not institutions. Although I enjoy the discourse, I must retire for the evening. I have a busy day in Fort Thomas tomorrow. Since I will not be receiving any tax relief, I must continue to earn so that I can pay all of those taxes to our public schools. We can all, of course, resume the discussion later. By the way, are we including those schools that are known to teach the test? Actually, one great advantage of private schools is that we are not infected by KERA.

Good grief, SilverShadow, we don't get anything for free. We pay the same taxes as do you public people and, since you all seem to believe that we are all well to do, it would seem that we must pay a goodly amount more than the average public family. Possible my mistake was in mentioning taxes at all. However, the truth is the truth. All I seek is the right to help students to go to private schools without the typical distrust and accusations from the public people if some of the assistance goes to athletes. By the way, do you really find the public schools accountable? If so, fine. As I said, the privates would be held to the same standards of accountability. Now, isn't that fair? Heresay? Hardly. Actually, it is from some rather, shall we say, eye witness testimony.

SilverShadow, I would assume that we would be "held accountable" in the same manner as are the public schools- no less but no more. Indeed, that would be progress. At the risk of shocking the public school people, let me say that I feel sure that we are at least as honorable as are they. As for answering your query about the northern Kentucky public schools, let me say that they, as well as many of those in Lexington and Louisville are fine schools. Of course, the private schools in those areas are equally as fine. However, my elementary and secondary years were not spent in those urban areas and, thus, my situation was somewhat different. Private schools were and, from what I hear from that area, remain better.

SilverShadow, I am an advocate for the private schools just as you are for the public schools. I am biased. You are biased. I have a private school background. You have a public school background. Both of us seem to be rather well educated. Naturally we each feel that the route we travelled is the better path to success. Now does that really make my assumption "silly" than it does your opposite assumption? I would expect a less defensive approach from you. For the fifth time, I believe, let me again state that all I am asking is that we who financially support private schools be allowed to do so without constant accusations from the public people. I have also mentioned that I am, by law, forced to contribute to the public school coffers with absolutely no "rate of return". I am merely suggesting that I should be able to assist my constituency without being handcuffed by the fear that I just may assist a student athlete in the process. Now, isn't that a rather reasonable request?

Ah, Stickymitts, I should have surmised from your overly reactionary posts that you are "in that category". I commend you. However, if you interpret my statement that I receive nothing of value from all the greenbacks I contribute to public education as derrogatory toward those associated with public schools, so be it. However, I must remind you that, in post number 30 (well before you became so involved in the fray), I stated that private schools are not "without sin" in these matters. Thus, possibly you should do a little review of your own. I can't reply to much of your posting because, to be honest, it lacks organization and substance. What in the world do you mean in your fourth paragraph above? What has "5,000 for a high school education" got to do with anything? Are you saying that we spend $5,000 on each student in the public schools? If so, I would submit that the rate of return on our investment may be suspect. And you still have not addressed my proposal to help the needy attend private schools, have you?

Stickymitts, just what question of yours do you want answered Is it the accusation that I offended "every public teacher that ever gave an assignment" or is it in regard to all of those students who "battle adversity" just to "get to school each day"? The reason that I answered neither is because I never offended either group. Your emotional, and factless, reply made these erroneous assumptions. But, then, I learned many years ago that if you have no argument you should use emotion. Apparently you learned the same rule. I am still waiting for an answer to my proposal that private school supporters be allowed to financially assist needy students as do the public schools. I feel sure that you public schoolers will assert that we will only help athletes. That is a rather self-serving reply. First, we would spread our aid at least as well as the public schools do. We would certainly be no more guilty of bringing in athletes than are you people. After all, as I have stated, our schools have helping the needy as a major part of our overall mission. Unfortunately, we are handcuffed in this effort partially because, heaven forbid, we may assist a needy student who is also an athlete. Obviously, the "concern" of the public people has nothing to do with helping the needy. It is merely an effort to keep the private schools out of this "jackpot" that the public schools have enjoyed for many years. Of course, that is probably part of that effort for that "level playing field".

Well, now that all of you have posted your predictable boilerplate defenses of the public school system, how about addressing my proposal which would allow some needy students, some athletes and some not, an opportunity to attend a private school?

Well, this is great- and as expected. You guys (or girls) overreact and offer your usual passionate defenses of the public schools as if they are either "sacred cows" or your own flesh and blood. Nonetheless, your arguments are suspect at best because they are strictly from the heart and not from the head- much too emotional and factless. However, none of you have addressed the proposal presented in regard to providing for the "needy". I'll take a different approach. Why don't you allow private schools to assist needy students to come to these schools if the private schools agree to have the same ratio of student athletes receiving financial aid to athletes receiving financial aid as the public schools? That should "level" that playing field some and also be of benefit to needy families who, for whatever reason, want to send their children to a private school. Better yet, since we all know the public school "definition" of "level", we could set the student athlete to student ratio (for financial assistance) at half what it is for the public schools. Again, the result would be that some of the "load" would be taken off of the public schools and the private schools would be better able to fulfill their missions. Of the most importance would be the fact that more educational opportunities would be available to needy students and surely we all want to see that. It is sad that many needy Catholic families cannot send their children to Catholic schools simply because those children are athletes and, thus, "persona non grata" with KHSAA. Of course, they can attend public schools and receive that financial support and immediately play for the Bluebirds, the Cardinals, the Generals, the Tomcats, or whomever.

Well, this is great- and as expected. You guys (or girls) overreact and offer your usual passionate defenses of the public schools as if they are either "sacred cows" or your own flesh and blood. Nonetheless, your arguments are suspect at best because they are strictly from the heart and not from the head- much too emotional and factless. However, none of you have addressed the proposal presented in regard to providing for the "needy". I'll take a different approach. Why don't you allow private schools to assist needy students to come to these schools if the private schools agree to have the same ratio of student athletes receiving financial aid to athletes receiving financial aid as the public schools? That should "level" that playing field some and also be of benefit to needy families who, for whatever reason, want to send their children to a private school. Better yet, since we all know the public school "definition" of "level", we could set the student athlete to student ratio (for financial assistance) at twice what it is for the public schools. Again, the result would be that some of the "load" would be taken off of the public schools and the private schools would be better able to fulfill their missions. Of the most importance would be the fact that more educational opportunities would be available to needy students and surely we all want to see that. It is sad that many needy Catholic families cannot send their children to Catholic schools simply because those children are athletes and, thus, "persona non grata" with KHSAA. Of course, they can attend public schools and receive that financial support and immediately play for the Bluebirds, the Cardinals, the Generals, the Tomcats, or whomever.

Highlands Guy: You must still be feeling the sting of the whipping your boys took from LexCath. However, don't you think your remark about gifted athletes is like the pot calling the kettle black? Ladiesbballcoach: I congratulate Pendleton County on its Nobel winner. All schools should have some achievement of significance. I'm glad you have one. Thunderstruck: You are quite correct. I did choose not to take "advantage" of the public school option. You are also correct in that LexCath is the sacrificial lamb. The Lexington area public schools have been crying over their inability to compete against LexCath for a long time. I suppose they were finally pacified. However, I hope you are not implying that it is the sacrificial lamb for only the private schools. While we are not without "sin" (so to speak), surely no one thinks that the public schools have hands that are any cleaner. SilverShadow: I knew I would hear from you because you are the "chief counsel" for the public schools. I probably shouldn't have stated that I "chose better" because, rather than considering my real thesis, you and others took the "knee jerk" reaction of coming to the defense of your favorites. But, then, that is what "chief counsels" do, isn't it? For All: Many of you public school people complain that we private school people pick and choose our students so as to avoid the natural problems faced by the public schools. Of course we do. We don't want your problems. Nonetheless, if we had the same "funding rights" as do you, we would bring in a goodly number of your needy students. After all, our misson statements, our private accrediting agencies, and our individual philosophies require that we reach out in this manner. However, we are handcuffed because, sin of sins, we just may assist a student who also happens to be an athlete. If we could operate as do the public schools in this "funding of the needy", it would be of benefit to both camps. However, of more importance, it would benefit needy students. Of course, the cynical public school people will counter that we will only take athletes. History shows that that is not correct. Nonetheless, the level of distrust (in both directions) is so great that peace will never exist unless, of course, we agree to "adjust" so that the public schools can have their fantasy of a self-defined "level playing field". And, of course, we will all be required to continue to endlessly pour our money into the public schools.

Tdyballgame, your post is the typical public school response. Of course, public schools were available to me. I chose better. Fords and Chevrolets are available to me but I choose better. Of course, I am also not forced to financially support FMC or GMC. Using your argument, couldn't we say that those who attend public schools in poor areas- such as Owsley County and other rural counties, could attend schools in much more affluent areas? They are, indeed, available to them. However, they choose to remain in poverty when all they have to do is move. Certainly this is a flawed argument. However, it is as applicable as is your post. Many in these forums argue that private schools are isolated in that they have few, if any, needy students. They point out that the public schools have no choice and are filled with these students. Since this is somewhat the case, I would submit that, by punishing needy students who wish to attend a private school, you are perpetuating the situation. You do not dispute that many needy public schools students (many athletes), are subsidized by tax dollars from both public school supporters and by private school supporters. Why not lessen the load on the public schools by allowing those of us who are financially able and so inclined to assist needy students (some of them athletes) in receiving a private school education? Wouldn't both benefit?

I am a supporter of private schools. I own several parcels of real estate and pay an extremely material amount of taxes to the public schools. I also pay, in my opinion, a disproportionate amount of income taxes to both the federal and state governments- much of which goes to public education. Clearly, I pay several times as much in taxes to the public schools each year as I formerly paid in tuition to a private school. There are a lot of "needy" students in the public schools- many athletes. They obviously benefit greatly, directly and indirectly, from my tax dollars. Therefore, I am, in reality, providing tuition, books, transportation, food, clothing, health care (including, I'm sure, "care" that I find morally corrupt), etc. to many students, many athletes, in the public schools. I get absolutely nothing from the public schools. On the other hand, according to KHSAA, I cannot do the same for students in the schools that I do support- the private schools. I find the term "level playing field" insulting.

Doubletrouble, the only scenerio better than three privates winning would be for four privates to win. This is certainly possible particularly when you count Fort Campbell as a private- which, in light of its situation, is a reasonable classification. Having 7 of the final 16 finalists being nonpublic schools speaks highly for private schools and their level of athletic excellence.

Clearly, the better team won--again.

Impressive wins by both Rockcastle County and Bell County. However, next week's winner will be a decided underdog when it moves on to the final four.

I would second the post of leatherneck. The publics often use the privilege argument when it is to their benefit. However, they abandon it when it is does not add to their argument. A rule is, indeed, a rule. It must be evenly applied in both cases.

Saint Xavier and Trinity would definitely have causes of action. If the publics do such a dastardly deed, stick them.

As I have stated before, those who worry about out of staters taking opportunities away from Kentucky students should be more concerned about foreign exchange stuidents. I would bet there are far more participants from foreign countries that from neighboring states. At least the out of staters are U.S. citizens and taxpayers.