94 Camel

How exactly can you expect schools that do not exist on a state border to compete with that option? I think its time to evaluate your school's dedication to its students. Once again I will ask, has a special education student ever been sent out of the Ft Thomas school district due to lack of facilities while a tuition student attended the institution. The answer is yes. How can you call that dedication to your students when you are not taking care of all the students that live in your city, but you are more than willing to accept students from other areas that can play ball. Please give me a break.

I do support not allowing out of state students to attend school in Kentucky. It is ridiculous. It is not that they are genetically superior, it is that they are not available to every school. Of course, I believe that schools should only be allowed to take students withing their district or their dioces(sp), not from anywhere they please. My opinion fits the majority of the people in this state, and if it ever came to an open vote, I am quite sure thats the way it would be set up. Have Ft. Thomas schools ever sent special ed students to other districts due to "lack of facilities" while accepting tuition students? Just a general question reguarding the ethics of accepting out of state students.

I expect no other sort of comment from anyone who represents an organization that takes people from everywhere. What your saying is, as long as you represent the correct organization, the competition is fair. I thought the spirit of athletic competition was to teach young people the value of dedicating yourself to maximize your potential, not that as long as the rules allow it, and you are good enough, the proper ORGANIZATION will take you no matter where you are from so you can be sucessful. Instead of the quote at the top of the page, maybe you should have said the spirit of competition is to do anything to win that you can get away with. I would still love to hear a competent reason why a kid from Kentucky should have to compete against a kid from Ohio, Indianna, or West Virginia to win state in Kentucky. Is it because those ORGANIZTIONS should be allowed to take anyone they please to make them better? Come on RM. Your ideas about athletic competition and high school attendance are certainly different than your politics.

The right to compete in state athletics most CERTAINLY should be bound by state lines. That is why it called the Kentucky High School Athletic Association and not the Tri State Athletic Association. When it comes to public education, what about public schools that have tuition exchange for some of their severe special education students to attend other schools, while they accept out of state tuition students. Once again, not illegal, but certainly unethical. Please explain to me how this can be considered an ethical practice. Also please explain how it promotes the spirit of athletic competition when you have to beat athletes from othe states to win you state chanpionship.

No, it is unethical for the state to allow any students to be admitted that live out of state student. Most schools are not allowed to do this, including even the catholic schools in NKY. Our schools should be for our students, especially the athletic competition that occurs. How many county schools in the central part of the state do you think would have the ability to get an out of state student, or would be allowed to do so. If you can't see how this is an unethical practice in the spirit of competition or education, you are wearing blinders. This is also not a public private issue. This is an issue of schools taking every advantage that is available, when they know it creates an uneven field. Hence not illegal, but unethical.

By your comparison, is there nothing that you find to be legal in our society that you still find to be unethical? I realize that IT WILL CONTINUE until the rules are changed, but I find it to be unethical for a student who does not live in our state to play KHSAA sports. There is a reason that this rule was changed by the church itself in the Greater Cincinnati area. You are obviously an intelligent individual. I find it HARD TO BELIEVE THAT YOU CANT SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND ETHICAL.

You are correct cover, some go to public schools. IMO, there should be no out of state students by rule for all schools. This is not a public private thing. This is a matter of moral rectitude or the lack there of.

I am begining to find it ridiculous that you continue to claim there has been no outcry over the public schools. Both many other posters and I, have complained equally about the private and public schools that cheat. Cheating is cheating, and it should be punished in a far different manner than is currently being conducted within the board of control. You live on the post that lump private schools together. However, I will admit that I feel there are far to few rules concerning student attendance in private institutions in this state. As it currently goes however, those schools are not cheating, they are simply doing things that I feel are unethical concerning student attendance and athletic competition. Until those rules are changed, I am sure students that live in other states will continue to play in KHSAA competition.

Love the franchise, hate the direction that it has gone in in the last several years. The principles that Paul Brown built it around have disappeared.

I thought the real name for that stuff was Red, White, and OOO..

In all honest captain, it isn't a matter of getting fired up. I work in the state school system. It is not the exact incident in itself that we need to look at. Schools have rules for a reason. If you open any of them up to personal interpretation by parents or students, you open them all up. That leads us to a system where students and parents act as they please, which in a school creates anarchy.

Wow RM. We are agreeing on an issue. I think I am about to have a coronary.

:thumb:

It is a simple concept. Those who wish to lead must first learn to follow.

We wonder why we have so many people in prison in the state of Kentucky. I guess they are not being sheep.

No, the child should be prosecuted for physically threatening an adult. That prosecution goes both ways. The only way that the bus driver should be fired is if she hit the student.

The kid being wrong goes without saying. She should not have hit the kid at all. I didn't see her throw a punch, I seen her moving her hands to restrain. If she hit her without being hit, then she is wrong. However, the kid should be charged with assault for sure. The kid physically attempted to overpower her way past a person of authority.

Why should she not be able to physically restrain the student to keep her from leaving the bus? The child is her responsibility.

It shouldn't be for the mother to interpret. It should be for her and her child to follow.

If you have been convicted twice, I think it would be in your best interest to stay out of scuffles. I agree, it is a stupid law. Three strikes are entirely too many.

I agree. I believe that we should be worried more about seeing that the cheaters are properly punished instead of worrying about a public vs. private issue. Outrage is justified.

I think that limitations on firearms should be as follows. No convicted criminals are allowed to own one, and every new gun purchase should be registered. This mass registration for already existing firearms will only occur for the already law-abiding citizens who will register their firearms. There are many limitations that are doing nothing but raising the price of purchase for law-abiding citizens. Background checks for criminal behavior occur immediately now by computer when you go to purchase a new firearm. That will not change.

Refer to post 92.

I was wondering when someone was going to ask this question. What about the possibiliy that the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution by our forefathers to insure that the citizens of this nation would be able to defend themselves against a tyranical government? If that was the intention, almost any weapons ban should be unconstitutional. The truth is that our forefathers intended for our citizenry to remained armed for that reason. They were some what following the ideals of this guy named "John Locke.":rolleyes:

Wow, sounds like another slap on the wrist.