PDA

View Full Version : Cornerstone sues UIL



nikkit12
02-12-2007, 11:40 AM
here we go again..........

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA021207.01B.cornerstone.1b126fd.html

Redclad
02-12-2007, 11:47 AM
This is exactly what many of us predicted would happen and it will only get worse. Why can't they clean up their own mess instead bringing it to us?

trainin' the game
02-12-2007, 11:50 AM
as long as they have they same restrictions on recruiting as the other schools let them come in and get their brains beat in.:eek: this is a different level that they just do not understand. they will never win state in the big sports (football, basketball, track, ect.); they might be competive at best.

CyFallsMom
02-12-2007, 12:16 PM
It really is a different level - these schools for the most part (with the possible exception of Strake and Dallas Jesuit) can't compete with the big public schools. I was watching highlights of Kincaid and Dallas Episcopal basketball and all I could focus on was how small they were and how most public high schools would have them beaten in the 1st quarter. I say bring them on - let them see what the public schools can bring:D

trainin' the game
02-12-2007, 12:40 PM
they might want to talk to jesuit after the cedar hill beating they took. 49-0 at the half.:eek: Our j.v. and a couple freshmen played the entire 2nd half and scored twice i think. And they were able to score just one time with those kids in. it was ridiculous.

CyFallsMom
02-12-2007, 01:29 PM
Aren't they interested more in basketball than football though? That's what I understood. Sounds like they are heavily into recruiting and that would have to be reined in severely.

As for the beating to Jesuit - we can't talk much! We did have a few shining moments in the game but it just wasn't our day to win. CH was unbelievable. Our injuries didn't help but I'll tell you what - I wouldn't take anything away from the Longhorns even with those injuries...It might have been closer but that's about it.

pied
02-12-2007, 01:41 PM
My problem never was with DL and SJ. From everything I have read and know from graduates of DJ, they are great schools that have no intent on becoming athletic powerhouses.

I do think more parents will see them as attractive alternatives because they are now in the UIL and I expect them to become better.

Where i see the issue is in smaller, "start-up" schools. Schools that have a vested interest in being good at athletics to build their enrollment and reputation. Like I said before, I have nothing against the two schools that have been admitted, but they did set a precedence.

trainin' the game
02-12-2007, 02:15 PM
i think it is set up for failure. why would you fight so hard to play in the uil if you did not expect to be competitive? they expected to be competitive they did not think that they were going to have the restrictions on them.

This is a bunch of kids who want to play and have to go to a private school to do so; they could not play at a public school and their parents have enough money to sue the uil. The education might be better but that is not what we are talking about; if it was they would be happy with competing in tapps.

Rolltide
02-12-2007, 03:29 PM
i think it is set up for failure. why would you fight so hard to play in the uil if you did not expect to be competitive? they expected to be competitive they did not think that they were going to have the restrictions on them.

This is a bunch of kids who want to play and have to go to a private school to do so; they could not play at a public school and their parents have enough money to sue the uil. The education might be better but that is not what we are talking about; if it was they would be happy with competing in tapps.

Not really true. I can not speak for Dallas Jesuit but the primary purpose for Strake joining UIL wasn't to try to win State Championships, but rather logistics. The school had gotten to big for TAPPS (TAPPS but a cap on the enrollement of schools participating in its league). At that point it became difficult to schedule schools. As you know in UIL after the first 3-4 weeks of the season it becomes next to impossible to play anyone because of district play. So, scheduling became a nightmare.

Secondly many of the kids who play at Strake could play at other public schools. Some would start, some......maybe not. But there are few parents who will fork over that kind of money, just so their kid can play......that wouldn't make much sense.

As for them getting their brains beat out not many folks would've beating CH, And DJ was compeititive with Euless when they played earlier in the year. They will get beat by juggarnauts like Katy, SLC and from Stakes perspective some of the teams in 17-5A, but I think, they will give out their share as well.

IMO you can not look at the Jesuits and Cornerstone under the same lense. They're attempting to come in for an entirely different reason. With UIL's requirement that all privates compete at the highest level's, with their enrollment football will be painful. From the Jesuits perspective 4A would've felt about right, but we are where we are and no one is complaining.

Drake
02-12-2007, 03:34 PM
The best thing the UIL could do is allow them in and get them to agree to the amended rules that the Jesuit schools agreed to. The problem is the UIL doesn't have a leg to stand on in federal court and if it fights and loses then the floodgates are open for the private schools in Texas.

Furthermore, I believe if a public school kid ever challenged the authority of the UIL to make them ineligible for a year upon transferring the UIL would probably lose that one also.

I'm glad we have UIL and I like the rules in place, but if the attitude of the UIL mirrors that of many on this board, it'll be gone before I have grandkids... Hopefully they don't. :)

HUM398
02-12-2007, 03:36 PM
The best thing the UIL could do is allow them in and get them to agree to the amended rules that the Jesuit schools agreed to. The problem is the UIL doesn't have a leg to stand on in federal court and if it fights and loses then the floodgates are open for the private schools in Texas.

Furthermore, I believe if a public school kid ever challenged the authority of the UIL to make them ineligible for a year upon transferring the UIL would probably lose that one also.

I'm glad we have UIL and I like the rules in place, but if the attitude of the UIL mirrors that of many on this board, it'll be gone before I have grandkids... Hopefully they don't. :)


Let them in..And get their Butts beat in.

Bwhahahaha (GOowls,2007)

CyFallsMom
02-12-2007, 04:13 PM
Not really true. I can not speak for Dallas Jesuit but the primary purpose for Strake joining UIL wasn't to try to win State Championships, but rather logistics. The school had gotten to big for TAPPS (TAPPS but a cap on the enrollement of schools participating in its league). At that point it became difficult to schedule schools. As you know in UIL after the first 3-4 weeks of the season it becomes next to impossible to play anyone because of district play. So, scheduling became a nightmare.
Secondly many of the kids who play at Strake could play at other public schools. Some would start, some......maybe not. But there are few parents who will fork over that kind of money, just so their kid can play......that wouldn't make much sense.

As for them getting their brains beat out not many folks would've beating CH, And DJ was compeititive with Euless when they played earlier in the year. They will get beat by juggarnauts like Katy, SLC and from Stakes perspective some of the teams in 17-5A, but I think, they will give out their share as well.

IMO you can not look at the Jesuits and Cornerstone under the same lense. They're attempting to come in for an entirely different reason. With UIL's requirement that all privates compete at the highest level's, with their enrollment football will be painful. From the Jesuits perspective 4A would've felt about right, but we are where we are and no one is complaining.
Actually, I think Strake is holding their own with 17-5a in the other sports - football may have been the exception this year but they did well in basketball this season. And I agree - Jesuits and Cornerstone are two different animals and Cornerstone's reasons just may not float when they can still compete in TAPPS...unless they were allowed to go to a 3A or 4A level.

Trinity Trojan Fan For Li
02-12-2007, 04:28 PM
"UIL athletic director Charles Breithaupt said Cornerstone may not join the UIL because TAPPS views the school as eligible. Any rules violations committed by Cornerstone still don't change its eligibility for that league."

If Cornerstone gets kicked out of TAPPS for recruiting what makes them think they can get away with recruiting in the UIL? Dumb!

Drake
02-12-2007, 04:36 PM
"UIL athletic director Charles Breithaupt said Cornerstone may not join the UIL because TAPPS views the school as eligible. Any rules violations committed by Cornerstone still don't change its eligibility for that league."That's a good point... If they were eligible but screwed it up, then their own rules violation is what's preventing their students equal opportunity... The UIL may have a a case to prevent Cornerstone... Since Cornerstone released their lawsuit filings to the media first, I have a strong suspicion they may not be up for a long drawn out legal battle anyway...

JCP1984
02-12-2007, 04:43 PM
The Jesuit schools had no private school league to play in. Their league, the TCIL, folded when everyone joined TAPPS. TAPPS and the SPC set enrollment caps that excluded the Jesuit schools.

The Jesuit schools agreed to follow all UIL rules and agreed to play in 5A.

Cornerstone got in trouble with TAPPS for breaking the rules. They can't get into the UIL just because they broke the rules in the league they were in. They can play in TAPPS, but they must follow the rules.

Dallas Jesuit has made the playoffs in football two of the three years they've been in the UIL. Strake Jesuit has made the playoffs one of the three years. Both have won a UIL 5A playoff game, and both have been very competitive within their districts.

Cedar Hill beat up Jesuit. They also beat up most of the schools they played in the playoffs. And, like Cedar Hill, Jesuit pulled its starters after two series in the third quarter and played all 80+ boys that suited up. Once Cedar Hill put in their backups, Jesuit returned the favor. It was a blowout, but Jesuit's starters were not trying to score on Cedar Hill's second and third stringers.

I don't know anything about Cornerstone, but they have nothing in common with either Jesuit school.

Redclad
02-12-2007, 05:57 PM
When the original lawsuit was filed to allow the Jesuit schools in, many argued that it was only two schools and not that big of a deal. I was one of those that strongly opposed it and one of my main arquments was that it wasn't a level playing field as far as recruiting goes. For anyone that wants to deny recruiting is a factor consider this. Any kid with the means to go to Strake, whether that be financial or "assisted" and has a way of getting to and from the school each day is allowed to attend if accepted by the school.

If the kid lives in the Woodlands or Katy or Beaumont even and is willing to make the drive it is allowable. Let me ask those familiar with Strake a question, let's say there was a can't miss superstar in the Woodlands (quite a distance from Bellaire Blvd) and through whatever means it became understood that he would like to attend Strake. His grades are a little below average as far as The Woodlands football team and school as a whole goes. His parents say that the only problem is getting to and from school each day. Another kid that lives nearby attends Strake, not an athelete, there for other reasons. His parents agree to provide the football player with transportation each day even if that causes some inconveniences.

1) Would this be allowable?
2) Is that fair?

My other arguement was that it was only two schools to begin with and others would follow. Well guess what, you can expect many more.
As far as being forced to play at the highest classification, forget it. If the original UIL charter was kicked in does anyone think that these new schools won't for a second challenge that on the basis that just because they are a private school they are being punished. What lawyer wouldn't jump all over that. I would say I hate to be a "told you so" but I don't, so I won't.

Rolltide
02-12-2007, 06:21 PM
When the original lawsuit was filed to allow the Jesuit schools in, many argued that it was only two schools and not that big of a deal. I was one of those that strongly opposed it and one of my main arquments was that it wasn't a level playing field as far as recruiting goes. For anyone that wants to deny recruiting is a factor consider this. Any kid with the means to go to Strake, whether that be financial or "assisted" and has a way of getting to and from the school each day is allowed to attend if accepted by the school.

If the kid lives in the Woodlands or Katy or Beaumont even and is willing to make the drive it is allowable. Let me ask those familiar with Strake a question, let's say there was a can't miss superstar in the Woodlands (quite a distance from Bellaire Blvd) and through whatever means it became understood that he would like to attend Strake. His grades are a little below average as far as The Woodlands football team and school as a whole goes. His parents say that the only problem is getting to and from school each day. Another kid that lives nearby attends Strake, not an athelete, there for other reasons. His parents agree to provide the football player with transportation each day even if that causes some inconveniences.

1) Would this be allowable?
2) Is that fair?

My other arguement was that it was only two schools to begin with and others would follow. Well guess what, you can expect many more.
As far as being forced to play at the highest classification, forget it. If the original UIL charter was kicked in does anyone think that these new schools won't for a second challenge that on the basis that just because they are a private school they are being punished. What lawyer wouldn't jump all over that. I would say I hate to be a "told you so" but I don't, so I won't.

Yes, ALL kids at Strake are allowed to car pool to school irregardless of their status as a student. A kid wouldn't be allowed into Strake just because he is a ball player. He has to pass a very tough entrance exam. If his grades are below average at the Woodland Schools I suspect they would be below average at Strake as well. IMO it is fair. UIL doesn't prevent say Lamar from having players who live on the Northside commute to their campus so, why is a problem for a Strake student to car pool as well. I live in 3rd ward, and I know plenty of kids (who play sports) who carpool out to Westside with students who do not play sports.

I always ask this question when people use the "They Recruit" and no one has to date answered. Please point out to me the "Can't miss ballers" that are at Strake Jesuit. There are some good ball players but name me one that's in the league of a McGuffy, Whittaker or a Cole.........

I don't recall Strake or Dallas Jesuit fighting the classification. Maybe because their numbers were close. But with a school like Conerstone, I can think of some liablieties that could occur if they are forced to compete at a 5A level in Football. That would be a train wreck and not a pretty one

Redclad
02-12-2007, 06:53 PM
I can't name a kid that was a standout recruit at Strake because I know of none. But your answer to my question implies that it is certainly possible. I totally agree with your reference to Lamar, I think the whole "magnet" loophole is grossly exploited. From your post I think you agree that the smaller schools will successfully fight being classified 5A and I agree that they should be at the same level as the public schools. Therein lies the whole problem. If you want a good example of what private schools can do when they want to, just look East of Beaumont. The original lawsuit should have been against TAAPS, not the UIL. The truth of the matter is there are certain private schools that want to compete at the highest level against the best competition and while that is in some part admirable it still provides them with a competitive advantage.

Drake
02-12-2007, 07:10 PM
When the original lawsuit was filed to allow the Jesuit schools in, many argued that it was only two schools and not that big of a deal. I was one of those that strongly opposed it and one of my main arquments was that it wasn't a level playing field as far as recruiting goes. For anyone that wants to deny recruiting is a factor consider this. Any kid with the means to go to Strake, whether that be financial or "assisted" and has a way of getting to and from the school each day is allowed to attend if accepted by the school.

If the kid lives in the Woodlands or Katy or Beaumont even and is willing to make the drive it is allowable. Let me ask those familiar with Strake a question, let's say there was a can't miss superstar in the Woodlands (quite a distance from Bellaire Blvd) and through whatever means it became understood that he would like to attend Strake. His grades are a little below average as far as The Woodlands football team and school as a whole goes. His parents say that the only problem is getting to and from school each day. Another kid that lives nearby attends Strake, not an athelete, there for other reasons. His parents agree to provide the football player with transportation each day even if that causes some inconveniences.

1) Would this be allowable?
2) Is that fair?

My other arguement was that it was only two schools to begin with and others would follow. Well guess what, you can expect many more.
As far as being forced to play at the highest classification, forget it. If the original UIL charter was kicked in does anyone think that these new schools won't for a second challenge that on the basis that just because they are a private school they are being punished. What lawyer wouldn't jump all over that. I would say I hate to be a "told you so" but I don't, so I won't.Redclad, you haven't told us anything at all, except maybe you like to borrow trouble :)

Nothing has come of this current situation yet, and knowing that this school hasn't been invited back into its current league for past rules violations, nothing probably ever will...

As far as SJ and DJ, they are going on their fourth year of UIL football. If you know any instances where either has ignored or violated UIL rules or even taken extraordinary measures to bring athletes in then you should speak up about it. (In fact, you should do so if you know that about any public schools)

But until then, you'll be relieved to know your far-fetched "what-if" scenarios mean nothing and certainly won't get you included as an "I told you so!"

dragonsdaddy
02-12-2007, 07:16 PM
Redclad, you haven't told us anything at all, except maybe you like to borrow trouble :)

Nothing has come of this current situation yet, and knowing that this school hasn't been invited back into its current league for past rules violations, nothing probably ever will...

As far as SJ and DJ, they are going on their fourth year of UIL football. If you know any instances where either has ignored or violated UIL rules or even taken extraordinary measures to bring athletes in then you should speak up about it. (In fact, you should do so if you know that about any public schools)

But until then, you'll be relieved to know your far-fetched "what-if" scenarios mean nothing and certainly won't get you included as an "I told you so!" i agree with your assessment of the jesuits, but are you saying that if a school like cornerstone which has been doggedly recruiting for the purposes of athletics sues for and gets acceptance into the uil, that would be hunky dory? this worst-case scenario doesn't sound so far fetched to me. lousianna sent many of their crimials, why not their wonderfully managed hs athletic system? not all privates are quite as academically driven as the 2 ice-breakers.

Rolltide
02-12-2007, 07:18 PM
I can't name a kid that was a standout recruit at Strake because I know of none. But your answer to my question implies that it is certainly possible. I totally agree with your reference to Lamar, I think the whole "magnet" loophole is grossly exploited. From your post I think you agree that the smaller schools will successfully fight being classified 5A and I agree that they should be at the same level as the public schools. Therein lies the whole problem. If you want a good example of what private schools can do when they want to, just look East of Beaumont. The original lawsuit should have been against TAAPS, not the UIL. The truth of the matter is there are certain private schools that want to compete at the highest level against the best competition and while that is in some part admirable it still provides them with a competitive advantage.

I guess anything is possible, and I'm sure there are some kids at Strake who recieve some financial aid and play sports as well. But they weren't recruited there for sports. You can look at our rosters and forty times and tell that :). Most people think the African-American Students there are the ones that are recieving financial aid to play sports and nothing can be further from the truth. I as well as a lot of other families write that check every year. They assume the only way the kid can afford to be there is because he is on financial aid. And, that is an injustice.

Yeah, As small as their enrollment would be I can only imagine what the liability would be for forcing them to play 5A and a kid gets hurt.

Your right, if Strake had wish to remain in TAPPS that would have been the logical recourse (this was done before we enrolled). But I'm sure that option left a lot to be desired. I think IMO any percieved advantage the schools may have with respect to a student being able to apply and attend from out side of boundaries is negated by the shear numbers that are available in the public schools, and the restrictions that are imposed by UIL

t-long20
02-12-2007, 07:23 PM
If Cornerstone gets kicked out of TAPPS for recruiting what makes them think they can get away with recruiting in the UIL? Dumb!

agreed they can come on in the uil but i doubt they would be any competition past there district and all there recruitng would be stopped immediately

Drake
02-12-2007, 07:45 PM
i agree with your assessment of the jesuits, but are you saying that if a school like cornerstone which has been doggedly recruiting for the purposes of athletics sues for and gets acceptance into the uil, that would be hunky dory? this worst-case scenario doesn't sound so far fetched to me. lousianna sent many of their crimials, why not their wonderfully managed hs athletic system? not all privates are quite as academically driven as the 2 ice-breakers.I don't know much about Cornerstone. But if they ever made a claim in court I think they could force their way into UIL competition regardless of their past.

Supposition leads me to believe that the UIL "settled" with the Jesuit schools because the Circuit Court made it clear that they were going to rule that barring any student, public or private, from being afforded the same athletic opportunities as any other student was a discriminatory act. I think that the UIL understood that had they allowed for such a ruling to come down, then they would not have been able to add any additional restrictions on the Jesuit schools, but even more critical, the precedent would have been set to challenge their authority on all eligibility issues.

I really think the UIL would be further ahead to make provisions for the inevitable. They can't afford to fight and lose.

If they were to consider private school participation, one thing they should change is the rule that private schools must play 5A. I promise you that if Cornerstone was looking at being in a league of 1A schools and having to make bus trips to wherever those kind of schools exist, they wouldn’t be interested in UIL. Or if they were, not too many top recruits would be interested in Cornerstone.

Rolltide
02-12-2007, 08:02 PM
I don't know much about Cornerstone. But if they ever made a claim in court I think they could force their way into UIL competition regardless of their past.

Supposition leads me to believe that the UIL "settled" with the Jesuit schools because the Circuit Court made it clear that they were going to rule that barring any student, public or private, from being afforded the same athletic opportunities as any other student was a discriminatory act. I think that the UIL understood that had they allowed for such a ruling to come down, then they would not have been able to add any additional restrictions on the Jesuit schools, but even more critical, the precedent would have been set to challenge their authority on all eligibility issues.

I really think the UIL would be further ahead to make provisions for the inevitable. They can't afford to fight and lose.

If they were to consider private school participation, one thing they should change is the rule that private schools must play 5A. I promise you that if Cornerstone was looking at being in a league of 1A schools and having to make bus trips to wherever those kind of schools exist, they wouldn’t be interested in UIL. Or if they were, not too many top recruits would be interested in Cornerstone.

Very good point!

DiamondJ2
02-12-2007, 10:31 PM
Cornerstone hired a basketball coach a couple of years ago who may the public statement that they were going to become known for basketball. He wanted Cornerstone to be the Oak Hill of the Southwest. Players were recruited from everywhere; some given "scholarships" and housing. Parents of players already in attendance at CU (Cornerstone University) became upset and some withdrew their student/playeer.

A few years ago Cornerstone had an excellent basketball team. One of the players was Najera who played at OU and in the NBA. He and the other players were from Mexico and there was a question about their birthdates. Put in 'em in 26-5A and let them compete or try to compete in any of the sports in that district. Chances are they would be cellar dwellers in any of the current sports.

JCP1984
02-13-2007, 08:46 AM
I have no idea what goes on at Cornerstone Christian, but my guess is that they recruit athletes to go to their school.

I do know what goes on at Dallas Jesuit. They do not recruit athletes to go to their school. Getting into Jesuit is not easy. The structure of the school makes it very challenging academically for all students. Just like many public schools with AP and honors courses, all students at Jesuit take a demanding course load. The admissions department tries very hard to only allow in students they believe can succeed academically. Over 500 8th graders applied this winter for about 265 spots in next year's 9th grade class. The top students academically will be accepted. No one on the admissions team will even know what kind of athlete any of the 500 applicants are. That is a fact. Once they have been accepted, any of the 265 who can't afford the $11,000 yearly tuition can and will apply for FA. If they qualify, they will only have to pay what the FA Office determines they can and should pay.

I also know that there are many public and private schools that recruit athletes and that find ways to get stud athletes to come to their schools. I hear stories about what goes on at some of the premier schools in the area. I have no idea what is fact and what is fiction, but I do know some of these are factual.

Yes, if a Jesuit school decided to break the rules they would have an unfair advantage over another school. The same statement woudl be true of it were any school out there, public or private.

The UIL let in the two Jesuit schools because they were told that either the lawsuit or the legislation was going to pass. They decided to set the conditions in such a way that very few (if any) other private schools would even want to join the UIL.

Down n' Out
02-13-2007, 09:31 AM
The best thing the UIL could do is allow them in and get them to agree to the amended rules that the Jesuit schools agreed to. The problem is the UIL doesn't have a leg to stand on in federal court and if it fights and loses then the floodgates are open for the private schools in Texas.

Furthermore, I believe if a public school kid ever challenged the authority of the UIL to make them ineligible for a year upon transferring the UIL would probably lose that one also.

I'm glad we have UIL and I like the rules in place, but if the attitude of the UIL mirrors that of many on this board, it'll be gone before I have grandkids... Hopefully they don't. :)

If this is true...it SHOULD be settled in the courts. I alway's thought the one year rule was ridiculous. How does the UIL keep these issues out of court?

Down n' Out
02-13-2007, 09:40 AM
[QUOTE=Redclad;425263]When the original lawsuit was filed to allow the Jesuit schools in, many argued that it was only two schools and not that big of a deal. I was one of those that strongly opposed it and one of my main arquments was that it wasn't a level playing field as far as recruiting goes. For anyone that wants to deny recruiting is a factor consider this. Any kid with the means to go to Strake, whether that be financial or "assisted" and has a way of getting to and from the school each day is allowed to attend if accepted by the school.

If the kid lives in the Woodlands or Katy or Beaumont even and is willing to make the drive it is allowable. Let me ask those familiar with Strake a question, let's say there was a can't miss superstar in the Woodlands (quite a distance from Bellaire Blvd) and through whatever means it became understood that he would like to attend Strake. His grades are a little below average as far as The Woodlands football team and school as a whole goes. His parents say that the only problem is getting to and from school each day. Another kid that lives nearby attends Strake, not an athelete, there for other reasons. His parents agree to provide the football player with transportation each day even if that causes some inconveniences.

1) Would this be allowable?
2) Is that fair?

My other arguement was that it was only two schools to begin with and others would follow. Well guess what, you can expect many more.
As far as being forced to play at the highest classification, forget it. If the original UIL charter was kicked in does anyone think that these new schools won't for a second challenge that on the basis that just because they are a private school they are being punished. What lawyer wouldn't jump all over that. I would say I hate to be a "told you so" but I don't, so I wont.

Yes and Yes...I don't see any problem with it. Do you think recruiting doesn't go on in public schools? The courts might be the one's that decide what's allowable and what isn't.

AHS Mustangs
02-13-2007, 09:40 AM
I have no idea what goes on at Cornerstone Christian, but my guess is that they recruit athletes to go to their school.

I do know what goes on at Dallas Jesuit. They do not recruit athletes to go to their school. Getting into Jesuit is not easy. The structure of the school makes it very challenging academically for all students. Just like many public schools with AP and honors courses, all students at Jesuit take a demanding course load. The admissions department tries very hard to only allow in students they believe can succeed academically. Over 500 8th graders applied this winter for about 265 spots in next year's 9th grade class. The top students academically will be accepted. No one on the admissions team will even know what kind of athlete any of the 500 applicants are. That is a fact. Once they have been accepted, any of the 265 who can't afford the $11,000 yearly tuition can and will apply for FA. If they qualify, they will only have to pay what the FA Office determines they can and should pay.

I also know that there are many public and private schools that recruit athletes and that find ways to get stud athletes to come to their schools. I hear stories about what goes on at some of the premier schools in the area. I have no idea what is fact and what is fiction, but I do know some of these are factual.

Yes, if a Jesuit school decided to break the rules they would have an unfair advantage over another school. The same statement woudl be true of it were any school out there, public or private.

The UIL let in the two Jesuit schools because they were told that either the lawsuit or the legislation was going to pass. They decided to set the conditions in such a way that very few (if any) other private schools would even want to join the UIL.

I don't want to play the Devil's Advocate, but what if a public school wanted to join TAPPS and kick the crap out them every year just to get that state title? Rules are rules, and if TAPPS won't let public schools in, or kicked Cornerstone out for rule-breaking, then why can't the UIL? Oh, yeah, that's right, because TAPPS is private and UIL is public. That is bull, they should both be held to the same level. Same reason the two Jesuit schools couldn't get into TAPPS, because they were too big, well why don't they fight TAPPS to change their rules, instead of fighting the UIL? Same with Cornerstone, TAPPS still shows them as eligable, but they broke the rules, so they were kicked out. So, now they are fighting the UIL rule stating if they are eligable to enter TAPPS, then they can deny them. So, instead of fighting TAPPS to be let back in, they are going after the UIL, who they have never been a part of and has not done anything but follow their rules.

pied
02-13-2007, 10:28 AM
Supposition leads me to believe that the UIL "settled" with the Jesuit schools because the Circuit Court made it clear that they were going to rule that barring any student, public or private, from being afforded the same athletic opportunities as any other student was a discriminatory act. In my mind, the UIL is not saying this. The student has every right to participate. Their parents are paying property taxes to fund the school they are free to attend. In my mind the parents have made the choice to remove them from that situation. I think that the UIL understood that had they allowed for such a ruling to come down, then they would not have been able to add any additional restrictions on the Jesuit schools, but even more critical, the precedent would have been set to challenge their authority on all eligibility issues. _ I do think you are correct that the UIL had to settle or rack up lost of $$ in bills.



Parents are making the choice going in. Did any of the parents at Jesuit/Strake/Cornerstone make the decision based on the fact that they would be in the UIL?

Drake
02-13-2007, 10:31 AM
I don't want to play the Devil's Advocate, but what if a public school wanted to join TAPPS and kick the crap out them every year just to get that state title? Rules are rules, and if TAPPS won't let public schools in, or kicked Cornerstone out for rule-breaking, then why can't the UIL? Oh, yeah, that's right, because TAPPS is private and UIL is public. That is bull, they should both be held to the same level. Same reason the two Jesuit schools couldn't get into TAPPS, because they were too big, well why don't they fight TAPPS to change their rules, instead of fighting the UIL? Same with Cornerstone, TAPPS still shows them as eligable, but they broke the rules, so they were kicked out. So, now they are fighting the UIL rule stating if they are eligable to enter TAPPS, then they can deny them. So, instead of fighting TAPPS to be let back in, they are going after the UIL, who they have never been a part of and has not done anything but follow their rules.Mustang... There's a big difference in being a private organization or a public one... It's sort of like private and public golf courses. Private courses can discriminate, for instance ban women, but a public course cannot. Plus, public courses can't keep private club members from playing on a their public course.

Who's side would you support if Rudy Tomjonavich walked into the pro shop at Memorial Park and the pro told him he can't play because he's a member at Braeburn Country Club and by joining there he's shown that he thinks he's too good to play on a public course?

Rolltide
02-13-2007, 11:00 AM
I don't want to play the Devil's Advocate, but what if a public school wanted to join TAPPS and kick the crap out them every year just to get that state title? Rules are rules, and if TAPPS won't let public schools in, or kicked Cornerstone out for rule-breaking, then why can't the UIL? Oh, yeah, that's right, because TAPPS is private and UIL is public. That is bull, they should both be held to the same level. Same reason the two Jesuit schools couldn't get into TAPPS, because they were too big, well why don't they fight TAPPS to change their rules, instead of fighting the UIL? Same with Cornerstone, TAPPS still shows them as eligable, but they broke the rules, so they were kicked out. So, now they are fighting the UIL rule stating if they are eligable to enter TAPPS, then they can deny them. So, instead of fighting TAPPS to be let back in, they are going after the UIL, who they have never been a part of and has not done anything but follow their rules.

I know you're attempting to make a point. It a little deeper than Public vs Private. UIL is public funded entity, supported by tax payer dollars and the kids who attend private school families support UIL like everyone else. TAPPS on the other hand is not funded by your tax dollars, so they may have more say so over how they can govern and who they can allow in. I can not Imagine a reason why a Public School would want to join TAPPS. I don't know if they actually broke any rules, or rather TAPPS didn't like the fact that they are a little extreme in where they were bringing kids in from, and probably the room & board thing was an issue as well.

Rolltide
02-13-2007, 11:09 AM
Parents are making the choice going in. Did any of the parents at Jesuit/Strake/Cornerstone make the decision based on the fact that they would be in the UIL?

For me it wasn't the sole factor, but it was an attactive feature. Regardless of that my son still had to compete with others for the 235 slots that were available.

AHS Mustangs
02-13-2007, 11:12 AM
Mustang... There's a big difference in being a private organization or a public one... It's sort of like private and public golf courses. Private courses can discriminate, for instance ban women, but a public course cannot. Plus, public courses can't keep private club members from playing on a their public course.

Who's side would you support if Rudy Tomjonavich walked into the pro shop at Memorial Park and the pro told him he can't play because he's a member at Braeburn Country Club and by joining there he's shown that he thinks he's too good to play on a public course?

If the rules of Memorial Golf Course say you cannot play here if you are an eligible member of Braeburn, then yes, he cannot play at Memorial. Rules are rules.

stevefoxsc
02-13-2007, 11:28 AM
let them in and let them get there butts handled

pied
02-13-2007, 11:35 AM
For me it wasn't the sole factor, but it was an attactive feature. Regardless of that my son still had to compete with others for the 235 slots that were available.

Thanks. I think I mistyped my question, however. What I meant was prior to them being admitted into the UIL.

I think your response does show that being part of the UIL will be an attraction to many parents. Some more than others and it will only be a matter of time before more schools are admitted who are not as above board as DJ/SJ.

Rolltide
02-13-2007, 11:36 AM
If the rules of Memorial Golf Course say you cannot play here if you are an eligible member of Braeburn, then yes, he cannot play at Memorial. Rules are rules.

You're joking right? What if the "rules" say you cannot play here, but your "rights" say that you can??

Rolltide
02-13-2007, 11:51 AM
Thanks. I think I mistyped my question, however. What I meant was prior to them being admitted into the UIL.

I think your response does show that being part of the UIL will be an attraction to many parents. Some more than others and it will only be a matter of time before more schools are admitted who are not as above board as DJ/SJ.

If my math is correct that would be this years Senior Class. Judging from our record in football this year I'd say it was a non-factor.:D

Drake
02-13-2007, 12:16 PM
If the rules of Memorial Golf Course say you cannot play here if you are an eligible member of Braeburn, then yes, he cannot play at Memorial. Rules are rules.I agree that rules are rules. But what if the rules are unconstitutional, as banning someone from the use of a public facility based on an affiliation with any demographic or group would probably be? If the pro at Memorial decided to post any of these signs:

No Women on Saturday
No Christians
No Cowboy Fans
No Pickup Truck Owners

would you still be chanting "rules are rules" and support that? Probably not.

So how could you support a sign that read "No Private Golf Club Members on this Public Course"? There's no difference.

This analogy pertains to this debate because too many fail to recognize that the public education system belongs to EVERYONE, not just those that attended or send kids to public school. Just because some citizens choose to send their children to private schools, they are not ALLEVIATED of their responsibilities to pay public school taxes and they're neither required to FORFEIT any benefit that public education system still might afford them. In my mind, that's reasonable. In the eyes of the courts, it's the law.

Whatcha think?

forest99
02-13-2007, 12:21 PM
i dont think private schools should compete in the 5A field, but remain in TAPPS at their highest level of competition. there are of course two private schools taht can even compete in the playoffs in football. basketball is another story, a few good players and your set! i promise there is no 5A team in the state that would dare to play westbury christian hs the past 8 or so years. basketball is the only situation where i would allow them to compete in 5A because they can obviously handle their own.

Drake
02-13-2007, 12:22 PM
Um, the "No Women On Saturday" was a bad example... Obviously, everyone would support that. :D

gburgtiger
02-13-2007, 01:21 PM
first off... the UIL is hardly publically funded.

From the Texas comptroller of public accounts 1999 fiscal notes: (I used 1999 because it was the first to pop up on google)

http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/comptrol/fnotes/fn9905/fn.html

>>>>>>
Most UIL funding comes from playoff game ticket sales, membership dues and broadcast rights. Total revenue was close to $5 million in 1998.

UIL collects 15% of all ticket sales for public school football and basketball playoff games, plus 15% of ticket sales for all state championship events. Boys basketball brings in more revenue each year than football because basketball includes more games. State football playoffs generated $869,000 in ticket sales in 1998, while boys basketball playoffs brought in $1 million, including some sales for next season's tournament. Girls basketball ticket sales topped $420,000.
<<<<<<<

Seems as if the UIL is revenue funded, not tax dependand.

also you said yourself the rules that the jesuits follow are "amended," they get a set of rules they can follow and everyone else has to follow the real rules. Just ask Galveston Ball high school if they think it's fair.

Drake
02-13-2007, 01:41 PM
Glad you're back GBURG... Wait, maybe you're not? With that kind of REACH you could be anywhere! :)

gburgtiger
02-13-2007, 01:51 PM
Glad you're back GBURG... Wait, maybe you're not? With that kind of REACH you could be anywhere! :)

glad to be back...thanks.

of what reach are you speaking?

Rolltide
02-13-2007, 01:52 PM
first off... the UIL is hardly publically funded.

From the Texas comptroller of public accounts 1999 fiscal notes: (I used 1999 because it was the first to pop up on google)

http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/comptrol/fnotes/fn9905/fn.html

>>>>>>
Most UIL funding comes from playoff game ticket sales, membership dues and broadcast rights. Total revenue was close to $5 million in 1998.

UIL collects 15% of all ticket sales for public school football and basketball playoff games, plus 15% of ticket sales for all state championship events. Boys basketball brings in more revenue each year than football because basketball includes more games. State football playoffs generated $869,000 in ticket sales in 1998, while boys basketball playoffs brought in $1 million, including some sales for next season's tournament. Girls basketball ticket sales topped $420,000.
<<<<<<<

Seems as if the UIL is revenue funded, not tax dependand.

also you said yourself the rules that the jesuits follow are "amended," they get a set of rules they can follow and everyone else has to follow the real rules. Just ask Galveston Ball high school if they think it's fair.

When was the last time UIL built a sport venue........The revnue that UIL generates comes from "assests" that are built by tax payers dollars. Would probably be a better way of putting it. Thanks for the clarification.

The amended rules are actually more stringent for the Jesuit Schools than they are for the public schools. Some of the rules (and these are just what I learned through conversation)

1) Incoming Freshman can not compete at the varsity level.(granted only a few would be able to) unless they come from a feeder school. which in SJ case would be other private middle schools. Strake has taken the position that no Freshman will compete regardless of their school or origin.

2) Strake can have no volunteer coaches, all coaches have to employed by the school and teach classes.

3) Strake had to lower it grading scale (I think previously 93 was a B)

4) Regardless of enrollment they have to compete at the highest level

I'm sure there are others but these just come to mine.

I do know that you're right, if it isn't managed properly some school can and will abuse their membership. But as someone else mentioned that can be said of a private or public school.I don't know what has happen with Galveston Ball, what happened there?

katy2007dad
02-13-2007, 02:01 PM
The best thing the UIL could do is allow them in and get them to agree to the amended rules that the Jesuit schools agreed to. The problem is the UIL doesn't have a leg to stand on in federal court and if it fights and loses then the floodgates are open for the private schools in Texas.

Furthermore, I believe if a public school kid ever challenged the authority of the UIL to make them ineligible for a year upon transferring the UIL would probably lose that one also.

I'm glad we have UIL and I like the rules in place, but if the attitude of the UIL mirrors that of many on this board, it'll be gone before I have grandkids... Hopefully they don't. :)

Drake makes a number of good points and I agree with them all. The UIL is on shaky ground and a well-thought out legal challenge would decimate many of the rules in place.

gburgtiger
02-13-2007, 02:04 PM
When was the last time UIL built a sport venue........The revnue that UIL generates comes from "assests" that are built by tax payers dollars. Would probably be a better way of putting it. Thanks for the clarification.

The amended rules are actually more stringent for the Jesuit Schools than they are for the public schools. Some of the rules (and these are just what I learned through conversation)

1) Incoming Freshman can not compete at the varsity level.(granted only a few would be able to) unless they come from a feeder school. which in SJ case would be other private middle schools. Strake has taken the position that no Freshman will compete regardless of their school or origin.

2) Strake can have no volunteer coaches, all coaches have to employed by the school and teach classes.

3) Strake had to lower it grading scale (I think previously 93 was a B)

4) Regardless of enrollment they have to compete at the highest level

I'm sure there are others but these just come to mine.

I do know that you're right, if it isn't managed properly some school can and will abuse their membership. But as someone else mentioned that can be said of a private or public school.I don't know what has happen with Galveston Ball, what happened there?

if you are talking about "assests" as the keystone for tax dependancy, then every company that uses the us postal service, us or state roads, the internet, public water systems, any kind of city infrastructure, they are all tax dependand.

Do the jesuit schools use city water? State roads? the us mail service? the internet? I bet they do...and by your logic, that means that the jesuit schools are public schools and therefore can not be selective in their enrollment. someone should sue! as I hope you can tell I am being sarcastic...but the point is every entity benifits from the fruits of our tax dollars.

Galveston Ball High was excluded from the playoffs after winning the right to play due to an ineligible player. the player lived outside of the attendance zone? or with an non-custodial relative? not real clear on the details. but if they were allowed to use the same rules the jesuit schools are allowed, then that player should have been eligible.

Rolltide
02-13-2007, 02:26 PM
if you are talking about "assests" as the keystone for tax dependancy, then every company that uses the us postal service, us or state roads, the internet, public water systems, any kind of city infrastructure, they are all tax dependand.

Do the jesuit schools use city water? State roads? the us mail service? the internet? I bet they do...and by your logic, that means that the jesuit schools are public schools and therefore can not be selective in their enrollment. someone should sue! as I hope you can tell I am being sarcastic...but the point is every entity benifits from the fruits of our tax dollars.

Galveston Ball High was excluded from the playoffs after winning the right to play due to an ineligible player. the player lived outside of the attendance zone? or with an non-custodial relative? not real clear on the details. but if they were allowed to use the same rules the jesuit schools are allowed, then that player should have been eligible.

LOL. Yes, that is an extreme slant on my logic however, Jesuit school weren't built and aren't maintain by those same tax dollars.

I remember that incident.......But I think I will have to dis-agree with you that the privates benifit from the amended rules. I could walk into 98% of all the public high schools in Texas and walk out with a dozen kids who aren't suppose to be there. And, I will find another dozen there on a "magnet" transfer, or a "M2M" transfer, or a "hardship" transfer.

gburgtiger
02-13-2007, 02:50 PM
LOL. Yes, that is an extreme slant on my logic however, Jesuit school weren't built and aren't maintain by those same tax dollars.

I remember that incident.......But I think I will have to dis-agree with you that the privates benifit from the amended rules. I could walk into 98% of all the public high schools in Texas and walk out with a dozen kids who aren't suppose to be there. And, I will find another dozen there on a "magnet" transfer, or a "M2M" transfer, or a "hardship" transfer.

the magnet school's attendance zone is the district boundries. The jesuit schools can have players who live as far away as they care to drive. If a student really wants to go to SJ and has the means, they can without moving into an attendance zone and without providing proof of residence. If a student from the woodlands wants to go to school in sugarland, the family would have to move and establish residency, and then provide proof of residency.

And just because all schools have kids that aren't suppose to be there doesn't mean that it should be allowed. If a student who doesn't play a sport lives outside of the district boundries, then the UIL has no jurisdiction or reason to penalize the school. If you could walk on to 98% of all football fields in the state and walk out with 1-2 kids who shouldn't be there, I would be surprized.

In my experiences, coaches have gone to extreme lengths to make sure their athletes are eligible and have proof of residency.

Rolltide
02-13-2007, 03:09 PM
the magnet school's attendance zone is the district boundries. The jesuit schools can have players who live as far away as they care to drive. If a student really wants to go to SJ and has the means, they can without moving into an attendance zone and without providing proof of residence. If a student from the woodlands wants to go to school in sugarland, the family would have to move and establish residency, and then provide proof of residency.

And just because all schools have kids that aren't suppose to be there doesn't mean that it should be allowed. If a student who doesn't play a sport lives outside of the district boundries, then the UIL has no jurisdiction or reason to penalize the school. If you could walk on to 98% of all football fields in the state and walk out with 1-2 kids who shouldn't be there, I would be surprized.

In my experiences, coaches have gone to extreme lengths to make sure their athletes are eligible and have proof of residency.

That's not entirely true. If you live outside of HISD you CAN attend school within the district if you wish. You have to apply and be accepted into the school and pay the applicable taxes. And, UIL reach extends beyond that of just sports. It extends to band competions, debate teams, choir competitions, ect. I think the coaches try but parents do other wise.

I'm not trying to change your mind and I agree, if people want to cheat they will. But I can tell you this. I have been at the school for 2 years and followed it for three and I have yet to see these "straight up ballers" who live 100 miles away driving to get into SJ to play ball.......no check that drive 50miles.....we can imagine anything the reality is that 99.9% of the students at Strake are from the Houston area.:)

gburgtiger
02-13-2007, 03:30 PM
That's not entirely true. If you live outside of HISD you CAN attend school within the district if you wish. You have to apply and be accepted into the school and pay the applicable taxes. And, UIL reach extends beyond that of just sports. It extends to band competions, debate teams, choir competitions, ect. I think the coaches try but parents do other wise.

I'm not trying to change your mind and I agree, if people want to cheat they will. But I can tell you this. I have been at the school for 2 years and followed it for three and I have yet to see these "straight up ballers" who live 100 miles away driving to get into SJ to play ball.......no check that drive 50miles.....we can imagine anything the reality is that 99.9% of the students at Strake are from the Houston area.:)

I understand and I am not accusing the jesuit schools of anything except being allowed to follow a different set of rules. Whether it makes a difference in strength of a program or not, having two differing sets of rules does not create a level playing field and should not be allowed.

rangerpride
02-13-2007, 11:25 PM
That's not entirely true. If you live outside of HISD you CAN attend school within the district if you wish. You have to apply and be accepted into the school and pay the applicable taxes. And, UIL reach extends beyond that of just sports. It extends to band competions, debate teams, choir competitions, ect. I think the coaches try but parents do other wise.

I'm not trying to change your mind and I agree, if people want to cheat they will. But I can tell you this. I have been at the school for 2 years and followed it for three and I have yet to see these "straight up ballers" who live 100 miles away driving to get into SJ to play ball.......no check that drive 50miles.....we can imagine anything the reality is that 99.9&#37; of the students at Strake are from the Houston area.:)

The difference between Strake and Cornerstone is that Cornerstone DOES have some "striaght up ballers" on their basketball team. THye could care less if their football team gets beat 77-0 each week as long as their basketball team is considered the Oak Hill Academy of the South. Remember that their school athletic director is also the head basketball coach. What do you think he cares most about? Football or basketball?

The year they had Eduardo Najera play for them around 95 or 96, he was one of 4 members of the Mexican Junior National Olympic Team that all "coincidentally" ended up playing at Cornerstone TOGETHER the year after they played in the junior olympics for Mexico. Trust me, that team could have beaten any 5A team that year, because those kids were that good.

Last season, Cornerstone was banned from the playoffs for "allegedly" recruiting players from out of state and secretly giving the kids tuition scholarships, as well as "allegedly" providing them with free housing. Their head coach is constantly spotted at AAU tournaments. How much you wanna bet he's working the public school kids at these tournaments and talking up his program at Cornerstone?

If he gets his wish, and Cornerstone joins the UIL, that's just another recruiting tool he can use, especially to get top players from other area private schools to come play for him. "Hey, we play against the top 5A public schools in Texas! You can get alot more exposure for the big time colleges playing for us than you can at Antonian or Incarnate Word Catholic Schools in San Antonio."

rangerpride
02-14-2007, 09:04 AM
David Flores: Suit against UIL reflects Hagee's broad agenda

Web Posted: 02/14/2007 03:05 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News

Let's cut to the chase and call Cornerstone Christian Schools' federal lawsuit to force its way into the University Interscholastic League what it is: a crusade by fire-and-brimstone preacher John Hagee to fight the heathen secular state.
Anyone who believes otherwise is naïve or unfamiliar with Hagee's history.

The good reverend, who founded Cornerstone Church in 1975 and serves as its pastor, can demagogue with the best of them. In Hagee's world, the words "heathen" and "secular" are pretty much one and the same.

And in this case, the UIL, which governs extracurricular activities in Texas public schools, makes a big, juicy secular target for Hagee.

A defensive lineman on the Trinity football team in the early 1960s, Hagee always has loved a good fight. But he should have pulled his punches on this one.

Cornerstone has no business in the UIL. If it had just followed rules when it was in the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools, Cornerstone wouldn't be wasting money on attorneys' fees today.

Yes, two private schools, Dallas Jesuit and Houston Strake Jesuit, entered the UIL in 2003. And, yes, it took a lawsuit by Dallas Jesuit for it to get in.

Still, the dynamics were different in that case. Those schools had larger enrollments than other private leagues allowed and didn't have a history of rules violations.

The same can't be said of Cornerstone.

The UIL denied Cornerstone membership last fall after the private school's contract with TAPPS was not renewed for the 2006-07 school year.

Cornerstone filed suit against the UIL on Monday, starting a battle that could have far-reaching implications for the future of interscholastic athletics and other extracurricular activities in Texas.

"We turned them down because they did not meet the criteria," UIL director Bill Farney said Tuesday.

Cornerstone claims in its lawsuit that the UIL based its decision on biased policies that discriminate against private, religious schools.

Give me a break.

If the UIL's rules are so discriminatory, why are the regulations that govern TAPPS schools so similar?

Much of the Cornerstone-UIL clash will focus on Section 12 of the UIL constitution, which includes guidelines for a school's eligibility to participate and whether Cornerstone is still eligible for membership in TAPPS.

The UIL claims it is. And under UIL rules, that would prohibit Cornerstone from entry into the state's largest extracurricular organization.

But even if it isn't, the UIL constitution states that no non-public school will be allowed into the UIL that has had its right to participate suspended or revoked for violating rules or codes by another league similar to the UIL.

TAPPS officials last fall cited Cornerstone's noncompliance with the organization's rules as the primary reason for not renewing the school's membership contract.

Given Cornerstone's history of rules violations, no objective person should have been surprised with TAPPS' decision.

After all, last fall wasn't the first time Cornerstone and TAPPS parted ways. The first split came a decade ago when officials concluded the school recruited five Mexican players, including future NBA forward Eduardo Najera, to play at the school for the 1994-95 season.

Cornerstone sued for reinstatement and rejoined TAPPS in 2000.

You would think the school would have learned its lesson. But Cornerstone was sanctioned by TAPPS in January 2006 after officials ruled 11 basketball players were ineligible because they received improper room-and-board inducements.

In the end, TAPPS officials showed Cornerstone the door because they were concerned with the large number of transfers who were enrolling to play basketball for the Warriors.

What a mess.

Here's hoping a judge dismisses Cornerstone's lawsuit as frivolous.





TAPPS to Cornerstone Christian
Fool me once... shame on you.
Fool me twice...shame on me.:D

fbmarshall
02-14-2007, 09:21 AM
Amen to that!!!!!

nikkit12
02-14-2007, 09:35 AM
According to a parent who goes to cornerstone (not me), the basketball coach/athletic director is in the hospital--had a heart attack? at a basketball game between his nationally recruited team and LaVernia where LaVernia handed the National team there butts. Not the issue just fyi.

The parent says that the coach thinks that playing in the UIL will help its dwindling enrollment (not if they get their butts kick all the time) They do recruit, but except for basketball, they are mainly getting kids that want to play but are not being allowed at their high school (i.e. back ups with bad grades)

Redclad
02-14-2007, 11:44 AM
This is exactly what I and others said would happen. It's kind of like saying "I know I don't have to follow the same rules but trust me, I won't abuse them." Whether the Jesuit schools or the UIL is more to blame is of little matter, the problem is the genie is out of the bottle and more lawsuits will be filed and those that are filed will continue to advantage the private schools.
It amazes me that some continue to argue that it is fine to have two sets of rules. The first football game I attended at Strake was against an opponent that I don't recall nor do I remember who won the game, Strake I think. What I do remember was how nice it was to have a pregame prayer, something that was routine when many of us were in high school. One thing is certain, no public school will be able to argue that their religious expression is being supressed.

jp744
02-14-2007, 12:20 PM
The basketball coach at cornerstone is a crook, cheat and an outright embarrassment to the coaching profession. Let them play in 26-5A. WARRIORS......COME OUT AND PLAY. Welcome to 26-5A. Take your beating like a real man. Could you imagine Cornerstone playing SV, Madison, and Judson they would be the laughing stock of San Antonio. They would be Lee's Homecoming game. What a joke! I am tired of this nonsense.

rangerpride
02-14-2007, 12:28 PM
According to a parent who goes to cornerstone (not me), the basketball coach/athletic director is in the hospital--had a heart attack? at a basketball game between his nationally recruited team and LaVernia where LaVernia handed the National team there butts. Not the issue just fyi.

The parent says that the coach thinks that playing in the UIL will help its dwindling enrollment (not if they get their butts kick all the time) They do recruit, but except for basketball, they are mainly getting kids that want to play but are not being allowed at their high school (i.e. back ups with bad grades)

Did the game you are talkig about happen this season? If so, remember they were suspended from post season play LAST YEAR, which caused several of those 11 "transfers" to either go back to their old schools over the summer or "transfer" somewhere else since the Cornerstone coach wasn't even sure he would be able to schedule a full season of games this season, due to not being allowed back into in the TAPPS league this year.

So their team of super recruits obviously isn't as good this year as it was last year when they had all their horses before all the trouble started.

rangerpride
02-14-2007, 12:37 PM
The basketball coach at cornerstone is a crook, cheat and an outright embarrassment to the coaching profession. Let them play in 26-5A. WARRIORS......COME OUT AND PLAY. Welcome to 26-5A. Take your beating like a real man. Could you imagine Cornerstone playing SV, Madison, and Judson they would be the laughing stock of San Antonio. They would be Lee's Homecoming game. What a joke! I am tired of this nonsense.

That's just it. As far as the athletic director/head basketball of Cornerstone is concerned, the more the Cornerstone football team loses, the better it is for his basketball team.

Heck, I could even see Cornerstone cancelling their football season for not having enough players to field a team (especially after playing Judson or SV). This would please the AD, that way he gets all his basketball players back way before the season starts, rather than a few weeks before district play.:D

All he is concerned with is how well the basketball team does. That's why he has been quoted as saying he wants to make Cornerstone into the next basketball dynasty.

jp744
02-14-2007, 02:12 PM
I forgot he was the AD as well. You are right he could careless about football. I hope this guy looses his job. I don't wish that on anyone and never would except this guys case. Why would you send your kid out to that school? That whole program teaches kids to cheat to win at any cost. This is a church based athletic program. Why not send your kid to a respectable place like Central Catholic. I know those people run a tight ship and would never cheat or try and steal kids from private school programs. Actually the Vizza kid was at Central his freshman year and transfered to AH.

nikkit12
02-14-2007, 02:32 PM
Cornerstone was suspended from TAPPS, but the National basketball team was not allowed to play in TAPPS anyway. They have 2 teams for basketball, one for the school and one for this super team. The super team did not lose any of the kids, just the school team.

rangerpride
02-14-2007, 03:28 PM
Cornerstone was suspended from TAPPS, but the National basketball team was not allowed to play in TAPPS anyway. They have 2 teams for basketball, one for the school and one for this super team. The super team did not lose any of the kids, just the school team.

So the school team is the one that lost to LaVernia, I assume?

nikkit12
02-14-2007, 04:41 PM
no, it was the national team

maxtor
02-14-2007, 06:30 PM
they might want to talk to jesuit after the cedar hill beating they took. 49-0 at the half.:eek: Our j.v. and a couple freshmen played the entire 2nd half and scored twice i think. And they were able to score just one time with those kids in. it was ridiculous.

Wasn't SLC beating Haltom 49-0 at the half? I wonder what Jesuit would do to Dallas Molina or Fort Worth Northside? Since when is being good a requirement for being allowed to play football?

DiamondJ2
02-14-2007, 09:14 PM
What determined the classification for the 2 Jesuit school? If it was enrollment, what is their enrollment? Are they all male or coed?

dragonsdaddy
02-15-2007, 07:17 AM
What determined the classification for the 2 Jesuit school? If it was enrollment, what is their enrollment? Are they all male or coed?

it was pre-determined as a rule for all privates entering the uil.

JCP1984
02-15-2007, 10:57 AM
The Jesuit schools agreed to play in 5A, which was one of the rules the UIL gave for admittance. Dallas Jesuit has about 1,000 boys in grades 9-12. By UIL rules, there enrollment is doubled to 2,000. They are considered a very small 5A school. Strake Jesuit, I believe, has just under 900 boys in grades 9-12. When doubled, they are well below the UIL 5A cut-off. Their "official" number should be around 1,800.

Again, the UIL set certain rules for the Jesuit schools to be allowed into the UIL. One of these rules was playing at the highest classification. There are very few, if any, other private schools that could or would do this. The next largest private schools have about 1,000 students, and they are co-ed. These would be schools like FTW Nolan and Dallas Bishop Lynch. They also would have a hard time meeting the other rules: no part-time coaches in UIL sports, etc.

wide-e-wide
02-15-2007, 11:25 AM
it was pre-determined as a rule for all privates entering


That's what she said.

DiamondJ2
02-15-2007, 01:38 PM
Cornerstone U. has 540 students grades K-12. Not sure how many in 9-12.

bullrock
02-22-2007, 12:55 PM
:rolleyes: :confused: For those of you who don't know me, I was the biggest advocate of keeping the privates out of the UIL. I have been called everything bad under the sun by some of the Jesuit folks. They have been here four years now? It doesn't seem that long and they have been good boys. I may have been a little harsh on them I will agree. Now the second round is in front of us. How do we beat this? If you think Hagy is going to roll over then you don't know him. He is the leader of a huge cult in the Stone Oak area and he has stated he will have the best for his institution. There is a lot of money and might behind him. In my opinion, and this is just mine, the bleeding hearts in Austin WILL allow them in, forcing the UIL to change it's policies. Not only that, if they want to paly in the proper classification, they will probably win that battle too. If you think Evangel has a rope around "win at costs", you aint seen nothing yet. I too hate to say "I told you so". They may get kicked around a couple of years, but I'll guarantee they will have a juggernaut like Mater Dei in a few years. Isn't it enough have to have a school like SLC who plays by the rules and dominates. Now we're going to have to compete against much greater forces than them who can and will do as they please. It's called a slow burn folks. Who knows what the next four years will bring.

Drake
02-22-2007, 02:10 PM
:rolleyes: :confused: For those of you who don't know me, I was the biggest advocate of keeping the privates out of the UIL. I have been called everything bad under the sun by some of the Jesuit folks. They have been here four years now? It doesn't seem that long and they have been good boys. I may have been a little harsh on them I will agree. Now the second round is in front of us. How do we beat this? If you think Hagy is going to roll over then you don't know him. He is the leader of a huge cult in the Stone Oak area and he has stated he will have the best for his institution. There is a lot of money and might behind him. In my opinion, and this is just mine, the bleeding hearts in Austin WILL allow them in, forcing the UIL to change it's policies. Not only that, if they want to paly in the proper classification, they will probably win that battle too. If you think Evangel has a rope around "win at costs", you aint seen nothing yet. I too hate to say "I told you so". They may get kicked around a couple of years, but I'll guarantee they will have a juggernaut like Mater Dei in a few years. Isn't it enough have to have a school like SLC who plays by the rules and dominates. Now we're going to have to compete against much greater forces than them who can and will do as they please. It's called a slow burn folks. Who knows what the next four years will bring.I don't remember anyone calling you any names? Okay, maybe Chicken Little (of "the sky is falling!" fame)... :)

The thing about it Bullrock is you can't just have it your way, you have to make an argument. "Let's do what I want or what's best for me" are not very strong ones, unless of course, you're a Clinton. :)

bullrock
02-23-2007, 01:09 PM
I don't have to make an argument. I really don't understand what you're referring to. And to say my view is one sided is pretty small. If the UIl has to admit the private schools, then I say the private schools need to start admitting any student who wants to go to thier school without further taxation!
My arguement is this. We live within the boundaries of the schools we want our children to attend. We pay our taxes to that district because that's where want our kids to go. Sure, you pay your taxes to the public districts as well. Some districts have higher costs than others and the tax rate is different. Just because the public schools are not good enough for your kids you choose to pay more. That's a choice you made, not me.
You people want you cake and eat it too! You say the academics is much better in the privates. Maybe so maybe no. You'll never make me believe they are. Your kid gets out of school what he puts into it. I'm sure Ben Franklin went to public schools and he did alright for himself.
Now, the football prgrams in these private schools are not up to your standard or you cheat your way out of a league and you want to force us to put little Johnnie in our programs!
That, my friend, is a double standard.

Drake
02-23-2007, 04:34 PM
I don't have to make an argument. I really don't understand what you're referring to. And to say my view is one sided is pretty small. If the UIl has to admit the private schools, then I say the private schools need to start admitting any student who wants to go to thier school without further taxation!
My arguement is this. We live within the boundaries of the schools we want our children to attend. We pay our taxes to that district because that's where want our kids to go. Sure, you pay your taxes to the public districts as well. Some districts have higher costs than others and the tax rate is different. Just because the public schools are not good enough for your kids you choose to pay more. That's a choice you made, not me.
You people want you cake and eat it too! You say the academics is much better in the privates. Maybe so maybe no. You'll never make me believe they are. Your kid gets out of school what he puts into it. I'm sure Ben Franklin went to public schools and he did alright for himself.
Now, the football prgrams in these private schools are not up to your standard or you cheat your way out of a league and you want to force us to put little Johnnie in our programs!
That, my friend, is a double standard.Bullrock... Your position IS one sided - your side. That's expected. We see things differently, that's okay too... But throughout your post you refer to the public school system as if it's yours, and I agree, it is... It appears however that you are in denial that it is just as much mine as it is yours...

TheLoneRanger96
02-24-2007, 09:06 PM
Wasn't SLC beating Haltom 49-0 at the half? I wonder what Jesuit would do to Dallas Molina or Fort Worth Northside? Since when is being good a requirement for being allowed to play football?

I don't think he meant that you had to be good to be allowed to play football. Obviously there are schools who are in the UIL who pray every game that they wouldn't get embarassed but most of these schools don't have the choice to be in either UIL or TAPPS. Public schools compete in UIL period. I bet almost anything that these poor public school programs wouldn't be suing to get their butts kicked!

DiamondJ2
02-25-2007, 08:14 AM
Presently, Cornerstone U. is getting stomped in baseball by area schools. 90% of their games have been 10-run ruled.

Mr Evangel
02-25-2007, 01:44 PM
Hello Bullrock,
I noticed that you said Evange "win at all costs" what is the interpretation of this? Evangel has played Texas schools for a while now and lately been getting their butt whupped so what is the problem with us? While it is true that ECA has done well in the state of La, that doesn't mean that Cornerstone will do the same thing in the UIL. Matter of fact, I dare say they won't because I respect Texas football and know the competition firsthand over across the state line.

bullrock
02-26-2007, 11:05 AM
Win at all costs means just that. It is impossible for a school in the UIL with a student population of that at ECS to compete with the 5A schools. ECS has had its share of success in Texas, but the rules are different. I dare say that we couldn't openly recruit a QB from Louisiana without penalty from the UIL as ECS does.
Yes, I do believe the public schools belong to the public. Do you believe the privates belong to the public? If your answer is no, then I would suggest that they are in a different league both academically and athletically. At least this is what leads to these arguements, in my opinion. Why then do the privates want to be out of thier league? They have thier own academic standards that are completely different than the publics. Those of you who send your kids there have to think they are superior to the publics or you wouldn't waste your money. You also have to know the athletics are in a different league when you sign on the dotted line. What I'm trying to say is you want what you percieve as the best of both worlds. Well guess what? We all do. We made choices that fit the goals we set for our children just like you did. If the academics were subpar, we pushed our kids to excel, regardless of what the test scores of the overall studentbody revealed. It only seems fair you do the same.
This particular institution has already proven to be CHEATERS. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Hagy, beware. He uses his pulpit to achieve the goals of his constituents. If they had played by the rules in the league they belong to, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I agree, if they are admitted into the UIL, it will take some time for them to equal the success of ECS, but it will come.

Drake
02-26-2007, 01:08 PM
Yes, I do believe the public schools belong to the public.Good, I think we'd all agree on this.
Do you believe the privates belong to the public?No, just like I don't believe your YMCA membership precludes you from jogging at the city park or swimming in a public pool, but the people that use the city park and city pool can't use the YMCA without joining.

I understand the public/private school debate is much more complex, but it has been predicted that the courts would use the same basic understanding of public access as a basis and rule that if privately and home schooled kids should be given access to public school activities that cannot be provided in their current situation. In other words, they have access to some public school programs so they are provided the same (equal) opportunities by the government that everyone else enjoys.

To me this means (for example):

- if a private school does not have a football team, then kids from that private school should be given the opportunity to join the public school team where any of those kids are zoned...

- if a private school can put together a football team but cannot draw the same benefit or is presented undue hardship from being in a private league, then they too should be given access to public school leagues (which is how I think the Jesuits got in)

I think you agree with it too... Let me ask you... If a student's parents decided homeschooling was the way they wanted their child educated, but they knew nothing about music and their child wanted to be in a marching band, wouldn't you WANT that child to have access to that? I mean, regardless of your personal feelings about the people that put their kids in private or home school environments, do you really want to deny the kids these opportunities when it hurts NO ONE to afford it to them? What would be your reason for denying access to the marching band in such a scenario?

Rolltide
02-26-2007, 01:32 PM
Win at all costs means just that. It is impossible for a school in the UIL with a student population of that at ECS to compete with the 5A schools. ECS has had its share of success in Texas, but the rules are different. I dare say that we couldn't openly recruit a QB from Louisiana without penalty from the UIL as ECS does.
Yes, I do believe the public schools belong to the public. Do you believe the privates belong to the public? If your answer is no, then I would suggest that they are in a different league both academically and athletically. At least this is what leads to these arguements, in my opinion. Why then do the privates want to be out of thier league? They have thier own academic standards that are completely different than the publics. Those of you who send your kids there have to think they are superior to the publics or you wouldn't waste your money. You also have to know the athletics are in a different league when you sign on the dotted line. What I'm trying to say is you want what you percieve as the best of both worlds. Well guess what? We all do. We made choices that fit the goals we set for our children just like you did. If the academics were subpar, we pushed our kids to excel, regardless of what the test scores of the overall studentbody revealed. It only seems fair you do the same.
This particular institution has already proven to be CHEATERS. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Hagy, beware. He uses his pulpit to achieve the goals of his constituents. If they had played by the rules in the league they belong to, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I agree, if they are admitted into the UIL, it will take some time for them to equal the success of ECS, but it will come.

It appears that you were wrong in your prediction of what would happen to UIL when the Jesuit schools. From your preious post you assumed the Jesuits schools to be cheaters without one ounce of proof. You were wrong about that. Now you seem to KNOW why EVERYONEI choses to send their children to a private school. Just so that you're informed you are dead WRONG. You seem to apply the things you have chosen to do to what everyone else should do just because you have. Whether public schools are better than privates or vice versa is anyone's argument (I have children in both environments). My decisions are based on what's good for my children not on having the "best of both worlds" ....Your statements above are YOUR views and you're entitled to them, but I doubt very seriously that you've had a conversations with people who send their children to private school and as a result you walked away with those views.

whyzat
02-26-2007, 01:40 PM
Good, I think we'd all agree on this.No, just like I don't believe your YMCA membership precludes you from jogging at the city park or swimming in a public pool, but the people that use the city park and city pool can't use the YMCA without joining.

I understand the public/private school debate is much more complex, but it has been predicted that the courts would use the same basic understanding of public access as a basis and rule that if privately and home schooled kids should be given access to public school activities that cannot be provided in their current situation. In other words, they have access to some public school programs so they are provided the same (equal) opportunities by the government that everyone else enjoys.

To me this means (for example):

- if a private school does not have a football team, then kids from that private school should be given the opportunity to join the public school team where any of those kids are zoned...

- if a private school can put together a football team but cannot draw the same benefit or is presented undue hardship from being in a private league, then they too should be given access to public school leagues (which is how I think the Jesuits got in)

I think you agree with it too... Let me ask you... If a student's parents decided homeschooling was the way they wanted their child educated, but they knew nothing about music and their child wanted to be in a marching band, wouldn't you WANT that child to have access to that? I mean, regardless of your personal feelings about the people that put their kids in private or home school environments, do you really want to deny the kids these opportunities when it hurts NO ONE to afford it to them? What would be your reason for denying access to the marching band in such a scenario?

Well articulated, Drake. If the residual resentment could somehow be removed from this debate, perhaps more people could realize the potential benefit to many kids simply seeking to supplement private or home school educations with a few of the resources of public education which their parents are already subsidizing. I fail to see how anyone could reasonably deny them under these circumstances.

bullrock
02-26-2007, 02:49 PM
I'd like to know where I ever called the Jesuits "cheaters". All I ever said was they have different boundary rules than the public schools and this does make it different. I don't think anybody with a public education or less could argue that point. I agree and have stated, the Jesuits have apparently not abused the advantage they have over thier district rivals to date or at least it hasn't been discovered. Now Cornerstone, and you can't disagree, has been accused of cheating and have been disallowed to compete in TAPPS. Now they want admission into the UIL. Let's hear from all of the pro-private folks on this board. Should Cornerstone be allowed into the UIL and if so why?
To answer the question about marching band, no, I don't think they have the right to compete in any UIL activity. Remember, thier guardians chose the path they wanted for these kids. Nobody is denied the right to attend the public school in thier respective districts. They are not be descriminated against. All they have is attend the school. If I'm hearing you right, it shouldn't matter where you live, your child should be admitted to any public school they choose to attend? That's basically what is being said.
I fail to understand why this is so hard to comprehend. Sure I see it my way, just like you see it yours.
And to say I need to talk to people who's children attend private schools is no excuse. All three of mine attended private institutions until they reached the 4th grade. This was when I decided it was time for them attend public schools, so they could compete in all UIL activities. It would never have entered my mind to ask the UIL to admit them into thier extra curricular activities just so they had a place to play. I knew the rules and accepted them. It's too bad everybody doesn't.
By the way, I'm going to see if I can get my grandaughter to attend a private school because her english class doesn't challenge her enough and her grammar class is still working on one syllable words. And if I can figure out how to have her get caught cheating, then they would certainly have to allow her into these classes. Makes perfect sense to me!

Rolltide
02-26-2007, 03:17 PM
I'd like to know where I ever called the Jesuits "cheaters". All I ever said was they have different boundary rules than the public schools and this does make it different. I don't think anybody with a public education or less could argue that point. I agree and have stated, the Jesuits have apparently not abused the advantage they have over thier district rivals to date or at least it hasn't been discovered. Now Cornerstone, and you can't disagree, has been accused of cheating and have been disallowed to compete in TAPPS. Now they want admission into the UIL. Let's hear from all of the pro-private folks on this board. Should Cornerstone be allowed into the UIL and if so why?
To answer the question about marching band, no, I don't think they have the right to compete in any UIL activity. Remember, thier guardians chose the path they wanted for these kids. Nobody is denied the right to attend the public school in thier respective districts. They are not be descriminated against. All they have is attend the school. If I'm hearing you right, it shouldn't matter where you live, your child should be admitted to any public school they choose to attend? That's basically what is being said.
I fail to understand why this is so hard to comprehend. Sure I see it my way, just like you see it yours.
And to say I need to talk to people who's children attend private schools is no excuse. All three of mine attended private institutions until they reached the 4th grade. This was when I decided it was time for them attend public schools, so they could compete in all UIL activities. It would never have entered my mind to ask the UIL to admit them into thier extra curricular activities just so they had a place to play. I knew the rules and accepted them. It's too bad everybody doesn't.
By the way, I'm going to see if I can get my grandaughter to attend a private school because her english class doesn't challenge her enough and her grammar class is still working on one syllable words. And if I can figure out how to have her get caught cheating, then they would certainly have to allow her into these classes. Makes perfect sense to me!

I give! :)

From my perspective, I would not want to see any institution that doesn't up hold the rules & regulations of UIL (whether they're public or private) admitted. But, I wouldn't infringe upon their right to apply for admission. I don't know if they cheat or not. I tend to believe none of what I hear and half of what I see. They probably have a broad interpretation of some of TAAPS rules, which is were they have conflict.

Drake
02-26-2007, 03:47 PM
Bullrock... First, much of what we're discussing is "theory" I suppose. Even the Jesuit schools settled with the UIL so I'm not sure the UIL's authority on these matters have ever really been challenged... That's good in my opinion because the system we have in Texas seems superior to what other states have.

But things change. For instance, the prevalence of home and private schooling means that it's not just a few kids, but thousands and thousands across the state will want the opportunities that kids are being given in public schools. The way I see it, instead of digging in and fighting anyone that feels they are being denied opportunities by their current rules, the UIL should realize what’s ahead and become the torchbearer of a solution that will not only be fair for all, but has a much better chance of preserving its authority than a court battle would.

For instance, why doesn’t the UIL create a league for private schools but make sure that each of its private school members have 10 games (meaning some publics would have to cooperate) and then have a private school championship? Probably a million reasons why not but there's some pretty smart people around. You'd think they could think up something besides "no".

DiamondJ2
02-26-2007, 05:23 PM
1) Are students from private schools or home-schooled subjected to TAKS? 2) Do private schools provide transportation to every student?
3) Does private schools provide classroom for severly disabled students?
4) Are special education classes provided in private schools and do they have to follow federal mandates?
5) Do private schools allow separate facilities (alternative schools) for educating behavior/problem students?
6) Do private schools have to follow NCLB?

Drake
02-26-2007, 05:59 PM
Well articulated, Drake. If the residual resentment could somehow be removed from this debate, perhaps more people could realize the potential benefit to many kids simply seeking to supplement private or home school educations with a few of the resources of public education which their parents are already subsidizing. I fail to see how anyone could reasonably deny them under these circumstances.Thanks WhyZat... You don't post here enough...

Anyway... I agree some of it has to do with resentment, but I also believe that some of the strongest opposition to letting private and home-schoolers participate comes from reasonable and fair minded people that are guided by the fear that our high school athletics will be corrupted by recruiting and become something less pure like we see in other states. I fear that as well.

That's why I think we NEED a strong UIL; to enforce its rules, keep the playing field level, and prevent recruiting. And the only way the UIL remains strong is if they make room for those that can justifiably claim a right to participate, because if they do that, no one will have the need to challenge their authority... Just one way to look at it I guess...

nikkit12
02-26-2007, 07:25 PM
Lets take football out of it for a second. My daughter went to a private school until she was in 3rd grade. It was discovered (not by the school) that she could not read. She had dyslexia. I called all of the private schools in SA and was told by most that they do not provide "special education" for "those" types of problems to try a public school. I immediately called around and found out that public schools must provide for learning disabilities, but private schools do not. Needless to say my daughter went to a public school. So while a private school education may be for some it is not for all. I understood this. My daughter was a pretty good softball pitcher when she got to high school and was recruited by many private schools for her softball ability, but they could not accomodate her learning disabilities. Again, she was RECRUITED.....this is a violation of UIL.....again we choose what was best for her and her learning disability, but if she had been able to attend one of the schools that recruited her, then they had the ability to play against the school where she attended (public) that would have been unfair. Not all private schools recruit, not all public schools recruit; not all private schools are right for all students and not all public schools are right for all students; however, all parents know when they enroll their students in their choice of school what they are getting. Those parents who enrolled their children this year at cornerstone knew that they were not going to get to play TAPPS, that is why there was a large exodus of students either going to public or another private school. So now we get to the real reason that Cornerstone is suing. IT IS BASED ON MONEY. They are losing it right now because they can not keep students. The thought is that if they can say come here and your child can play in the UIL, that this will help enrollment. It will pull children from public schools who will not make the varsity squads because there are a lot of children trying out for a small number of positions, and will pull from other TAPPS schools because they will get looked at more for being in the UIL. (not my opinion, but what the parents at cornerstone are being told)It has nothing to do with what is fair, because Cornerstone has all ready been found to be unfair. Cornerstone has a letter that says that they are still eligible for TAPPS, but they do not want to go there????? They want in UIL??????Hagy is just pushing his own agenda at the detriment of the children who go to his school. Real christian attitude.....

Rolltide
02-27-2007, 10:25 AM
1) Are students from private schools or home-schooled subjected to TAKS? 2) Do private schools provide transportation to every student?
3) Does private schools provide classroom for severly disabled students?
4) Are special education classes provided in private schools and do they have to follow federal mandates?
5) Do private schools allow separate facilities (alternative schools) for educating behavior/problem students?
6) Do private schools have to follow NCLB?

I don't know where you going with this, but I will give it a try I can only speak from my experience at Strake, not other schools.

1. No (But the Jesuit schools are accredited by TEA which is responsible for
TAKS, we use a different test to determine knowledge levels)
2. No (You get there the best way you can)
3. Yes everyone has to comply with ADL
4. No (Not a Strake Jesuit, how ever St. Pius X does provide special needs in
some areas and maybe some other private schools as well)
5. No
6. I don't know if they have to comply directly, I assume being accredited by
TEA they have to meet some threshold requirements to maintain that
accrediation.

Mr Evangel
02-27-2007, 12:31 PM
Bullrock,
In the first place we don't recruit quarterbacks at ECA, most of them have been raised right here in Shreveport that belongs to the church that backs the school. La is a little different from Texas. In La the association that was formed by private and public schools many years ago. It wasn't that the publics started it or the privates started, they did it together. Different people choose either private or public for their own reasons. Some may do it for the education that they think is better, some may do it because of christian influence, some may do it because their child may get chances that he wouldn't get at a large public school. There are different reasons but just because parents choose for their kids to go to a private school does not mean that the privates are "cheaters" as you put it. I respect Texas Football, in my opinion it is better than other states that put a priority on facilties, weightlifting programs, etc. That is one reason I enjoy playing Texas schools because they have their act together even if we end up losing or winning.

Mr Evangel
02-27-2007, 12:42 PM
Let me correct myself on something I mentioned in the above post Bullrock. I saw where you called Cornerstone "cheaters", I went back and reread the thread again after I posted. You did not call all privates cheaters but just this particular one so I apologize for saying something that you did not say. I am confident that there is a place for publics and privates to play against each other but that is just my opinion. One of the guys on this board and I forget whom offhand mentioned having separate championships perhaps that is a way to go. Have a muliplier effect like the Jesuit schools have in which they must play in the highest classfication. There are many different ways this could be looked at in my opinion.

bullrock
02-27-2007, 01:11 PM
Now we're getting somewhere. Before we were all "in attack" mode. The fact is, we all want what is best for our kids and we don't any of them to be deprived. If we didn't care we wouldn't be having this debate. I like the idea of allowing the UIL to form a private league where they have thier own playoff format. Then it really wouldn't matter if they were able to recruit. They would all be on the same playing field. I'm not against the kids. I am against unfair advantages for those who don't have choices.
Mr. Evangel,
correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember in the not too distant past where a Texas QB ended up at ECS and for some reason didn't finish his career there. I also believe his dad was coaching at ECS? You may not consider this recruiting, but it is suspect.
To those that I may have offended, I'm sorry. I do have my convictions. I went to high school in Michigan. The privates and publics play in the same league, but the truth of the matter is, they are eons apart when it comes to athleticism. The privates get all the athletes and they do not have to pass any academic standards to be eligible. All they do is kick butt and take names. This is the reason I hate to see it come to this in Texas. I believe the UIL is the strongest and has the best system in the USA. Hagy is just the type of person that can change this. To be honest with you, I'm scared to death of what this might lead to. It has nothing to do with the kids or the parents who are trying to do what's best for thier kids. I say more power to them!

shooter
02-27-2007, 01:50 PM
I don't know where you going with this, but I will give it a try I can only speak from my experience at Strake, not other schools.

1. No (But the Jesuit schools are accredited by TEA which is responsible for
TAKS, we use a different test to determine knowledge levels)
2. No (You get there the best way you can)
3. Yes everyone has to comply with ADL
4. No (Not a Strake Jesuit, how ever St. Pius X does provide special needs in
some areas and maybe some other private schools as well)
5. No
6. I don't know if they have to comply directly, I assume being accredited by
TEA they have to meet some threshold requirements to maintain that
accrediation.


What is ADL????? Anti-Defamation League????

LoneRocket
02-27-2007, 02:00 PM
1) Are students from private schools or home-schooled subjected to TAKS?
2) Do private schools provide transportation to every student?
3) Does private schools provide classroom for severly disabled students?
4) Are special education classes provided in private schools and do they have to follow federal mandates?
5) Do private schools allow separate facilities (alternative schools) for educating behavior/problem students?
6) Do private schools have to follow NCLB?

The only Schools that have to follow NCLB are the schools that accept federal title one money.

Private Schools do not grant admission to everyone.

LoneRocket
02-27-2007, 02:01 PM
What is ADL????? Anti-Defamation League????

I think it is Americans with Disabilities.

Rolltide
02-27-2007, 02:04 PM
I think it is Americans with Disabilities.

My mistake on the typo ADA (American Disablities Act)

shooter
02-27-2007, 02:55 PM
Having Van Accessible parking and Doors wide enough for wheel chairs does not answer the real question.

How Many Students with Down Syndrome Attend either of the Jesuits?

Mr Evangel
02-27-2007, 06:10 PM
Hey Bullrock,
I can testify that we did not recruit the Nixon kid from Dallas to play at ECA. Geoff was there in middle school, then left to go to Texas. After John David left to go to USC in his junior year, his dad decided to move back to Shreveport with his business and put Geoff at ECA again only that the LHSAA (La High School Athletic Association) decided that Geoff moved for athletic purposes to play at ECA so he never played a down for us in his senior year from this ruling. We moved our wide receiver by the name of Denny Rodney Duron to QB to play at the QB position in which we went to the state championship that year to lose against Hahnville in N.O. and won the next year against West Monroe with D-rod. Geoff's dad never was a coach at ECA. Now Billy Barefield left Cornerstone in 04 to come to ECA when his dad was hired as the offensive coodinator for ECA as well as head coach of the arena team that is in this area called Shreveport-Bossier Battlewings in the AF2. His younger brother played spot duty as a freshmen and sophomore when Coach Barefield went back to Texas to coach at Victoria as the OC. Billy graduated from ECA to go on to Memphis. By the way, Billy never played QB for us except for that one game against Springdale when we played in Ark. He was moved to RB for the rest of the season. There has been talk in La about a split in the La association but so far it has not happened both privates and publics still play together and a big reason for that is because both privates and publics started the association. It may come a day when they split, the association came to a temporary peace when they knocked us and John Curtis back down to their enrollment classification. So now we are both in Class 2A. I think having the two in separate divisions could be done in the UIL but it might mean the end of TAPPS.

DiamondJ2
02-27-2007, 10:03 PM
Having Van Accessible parking and Doors wide enough for wheel chairs does not answer the real question.

How Many Students with Down Syndrome Attend either of the Jesuits?

That's the point I'm trying to make---it is not a level playing field academically, disability provided-wise, alternative education, 504, cost of transportation, etc. How much better would the learning environment be if PS could be selective in the type of students that are enrolled in their schools?!!

Drake
02-27-2007, 10:28 PM
That's the point I'm trying to make---it is not a level playing field academically, disability provided-wise, alternative education, 504, cost of transportation, etc. How much better would the learning environment be if PS could be selective in the type of students that are enrolled in their schools?!!Well, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but perhaps unknowingly you are making a good argument for allowing private and home school kids in UIL activities... You yourself are admitting that public schools, as government entities, cannot discriminate or deny special needs kids an equal opportunity to participate and learn in the same basic environment they are providing to regular students... So WHY wouldn't that same reasoning apply to private and home schooled children who would otherwise not have access to an opportunity equal to that provided by the UIL?

Does a special needs student have to take TAKS in order to participate in the life skills class thats being offered at a governmently funded public school? I don't think so. Does a home schooled child need to take Geometry AT THE SCHOOL to participate in the UIL programs being offered at the school? I don't see why.

LoneRocket
02-27-2007, 11:16 PM
[QUOTE=Drake;433374]Well, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but perhaps unknowingly you are making a good argument for allowing private and home school kids in UIL activities... You yourself are admitting that public schools, as government entities, cannot discriminate or deny special needs kids an equal opportunity to participate and learn in the same basic environment they are providing to regular students... So WHY wouldn't that same reasoning apply to private and home schooled children who would otherwise not have access to an opportunity equal to that provided by the UIL?

There are many levels of special needs and life skills is one of many levels and some special needs students do take the TAKS. A school can be penalized for having to many special needs students exempt from taking the TAKS.

LoneRocket
02-27-2007, 11:24 PM
Well, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but perhaps unknowingly you are making a good argument for allowing private and home school kids in UIL activities... You yourself are admitting that public schools, as government entities, cannot discriminate or deny special needs kids an equal opportunity to participate and learn in the same basic environment they are providing to regular students... So WHY wouldn't that same reasoning apply to private and home schooled children who would otherwise not have access to an opportunity equal to that provided by the UIL?

Does a special needs student have to take TAKS in order to participate in the life skills class thats being offered at a governmently funded public school? I don't think so. Does a home schooled child need to take Geometry AT THE SCHOOL to participate in the UIL programs being offered at the school? I don't see why.

Immigrant students who are learning to speak the language and the customs of our country have to also take the TAKS test.

shooter
02-28-2007, 02:11 AM
Well, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but perhaps unknowingly you are making a good argument for allowing private and home school kids in UIL activities... You yourself are admitting that public schools, as government entities, cannot discriminate or deny special needs kids an equal opportunity to participate and learn in the same basic environment they are providing to regular students... So WHY wouldn't that same reasoning apply to private and home schooled children who would otherwise not have access to an opportunity equal to that provided by the UIL?

Does a special needs student have to take TAKS in order to participate in the life skills class thats being offered at a governmently funded public school? I don't think so. Does a home schooled child need to take Geometry AT THE SCHOOL to participate in the UIL programs being offered at the school? I don't see why.

I hope you can understand the point I'm trying to make. In your quote you seem to be trying to make a comparison between the rights of a child that is born with a disability and the rights of a private organization in regards to participating in events. I would have to say that’s a stretch and possably insulting as the child with the disability did not choose to have a disability yet the private organization choose (and their members) to be different that the rest and make up their own rules and criteria. The Child with a disability can not change his or her mind and decide they no long want to be disabled yet a child attending a private institution has the choice to attend a public school. I think you need to be very careful when comparing choices one person can make vs a disability a child is born with. Your point in the quote is that if a child with a disability is “entitled” to participate in the public school then how can the public school discriminate against the private school. The difference here is the choice by the individual not to participate under all of the rules of a public school system. You ask the question “WHY wouldn't that same reasoning apply to private and home schooled children who would otherwise not have access to an opportunity equal to that provided by the UIL?” my response would be “Because they Chose to forfeit their rights to attend the public school system and participate in the public school system sanctioned activities” Just because you are entitled to something does not mean you can not choose to forfeit your rights of entitlement.

Drake I think my point is some privates (Jesuits and now Cornerstone) say they play by the rules and think they are entitled to participate in UIL because they don't have anything that is equal; but what they really do is play by the rules they want to play by and just ignore the other non-important rules or the ones the Jesuits and Cornerstone’s don't think apply. I have absolutely no problem letting all the Privates into UIL as long as they are under all of the same guidelines as a public school not just the rules that pertain to football and sports. By participating and interpreting some of the rules but ignoring others you don't give yourself an advantage but you do put your opponent that is abiding by a larger set of rules at a disadvantage. By not accepting a child with Down Syndrome in to a private school you are not only discriminating against that child and his family for a genetic anomaly that is not the fault of the child or the parents, but the school is also setting a standard for the kids that are accepted as well. By being selective the school is telling the student (that is accepted) that he is better than the poor kid with a disability. That he is more important to society that the child with Down Syndrome and he should be proud that he does not have to participate in a class setting with a child that does not learn at the same pace as himself. That is turn raises another generation to discriminate against the less fortunate. This is totally opposite from what the public school system does. Whether they like it or not the public school system has to under "IDEA" and "No Child Left Behind" accept all children, if the Private school does not play by the same rules they are not gaining an advantage but they are putting all that do abide by these rules at a disadvantage in a competitive setting.

Like I said I have no problem with the Jesuits in UIL, I just wish they would play by all the rules that Public UIL schools have to play by not just the ones that benefit the Jesuits or pertain to the football field. Why not accept children with disabilities into the Jesuits? Integrate them into the class room and let the children (typically developing and disabled) learn from their peers and each other. Why is it in a Private School a typically developing child is accepted and welcomed until he succeeds in graduation or fails out or in essence is “Successful until he proves he is Unworthy“, while a child with a disability usually does not even get a chance to prove his is worthy because of a label, and is not given the opportunity to fail, or is “Unworthy until he proves he can be Successful.” A public School is a microcosm of the community that surrounds it. You have good kids and bad kids smart kids and kids that struggle to grasp the importance of an education, you have kids that will go to college and you have kids that wont make it out of the 10th grade. By a private school only allowing in who they want (or who fit’s the profile) they are then selective and discriminating, or recruiting a certain type of student. I'm not saying anyone is recruiting QB’s but by making sure that there are none of the "bad" kids or kids with dishabilles that wont ever play sports in the school itself, you are in essence recruiting the profile. The Coach at one of the Jesuits does not have to worry about the boy with Down Syndrome wanting to play QB does he, because the school makes sure he is not in the school, thus recruiting by decimation.

Fleeman93
02-28-2007, 07:36 AM
Shooter pointed out what I feel is the main reason privates shouldn't have been allowed to sue their way into UIL and that is CHOICE. I have pretty much given up on the fact that the UIL can get rid of the privates so I figure we should come up with ways to help prevent the privates from gaining an edge by recruiting. In my opinion the privates live by different rules so by the same note the UIL should be able to govern the privates with different punishments. How about for every infraction a private school is found guilty of they lose 5 years of eligibility in every sport they are eligible for? If the privates have different rules then I feel they should also have different punishments which would help them CHOSE not to cheat.

Drake
02-28-2007, 07:52 AM
Scooter - I see what you're saying and those are good points.

One thing that is being ignored though is that the government (in this case public schools) MUST play by certain rules and those rules are optional for private enterprise. There are many examples of this in society. Earlier I used the example of public vs private golf courses. A public course cannot, by law, practice gender discrimination, yet a private course can. A city cannot ban hobos from the 4th of July fireworks celebration but you can turn away anyone you want from your backyard barbeque... Does this mean that a private course golfer forfeits his right to play at a public course? No. Does it mean that you forfeit your right to go to the city fireworks display? Of course not.

EVERYONE has the RIGHT to participate in the public school system. The question is; do you forfeit that right if you seek alternatives or supplements to what it has to offer. I don't think you do. I don't think the courts will think so either. That's why I hope the UIL will reconsider it's policies that deal with these situations before some court pulls the rug out from under them.

Mr Evangel
02-28-2007, 07:55 AM
I have been reading this thread with much interest since I am a employee of a private across the state line. Since the Jesuits have been accepted into the UIL, from what I understand and please correct me if I am wrong. They have been abiding by all the rules given to them. I know at ECA we have NILD which is a program for children that learn at a lot slower rate that need more time on tests etc. Matter of fact, I went to a private school over farther east of Shreveport in Minden called Glenbrook, I was born with a mild case of cerebral palsy which affected my legs a little but I was still able to do what was required of me in school. Does Cornerstone not accept all kids? The only thing that I know of that is different about privates here in La is that if a child wanted to come to ECA say from Bossier City, he has to sit out a year in order to be eligible for athletics and that they pay tuition for the most part. If tuition assistance is given, you have to make sure that it is given as much to the regular student as the athlete is given. Also another factor that privates do is advertise on television and radio about their school. I know that 3 to 5 times a year we will run commericals about Evangel. So do many other private schools. I have seen billboards go up advertising the school. That is factors that are different in La, I don't know about Texas.

Rolltide
02-28-2007, 12:35 PM
I hope you can understand the point I'm trying to make. In your quote you seem to be trying to make a comparison between the rights of a child that is born with a disability and the rights of a private organization in regards to participating in events. I would have to say that’s a stretch and possably insulting as the child with the disability did not choose to have a disability yet the private organization choose (and their members) to be different that the rest and make up their own rules and criteria. The Child with a disability can not change his or her mind and decide they no long want to be disabled yet a child attending a private institution has the choice to attend a public school. I think you need to be very careful when comparing choices one person can make vs a disability a child is born with. Your point in the quote is that if a child with a disability is “entitled” to participate in the public school then how can the public school discriminate against the private school. The difference here is the choice by the individual not to participate under all of the rules of a public school system. You ask the question “WHY wouldn't that same reasoning apply to private and home schooled children who would otherwise not have access to an opportunity equal to that provided by the UIL?” my response would be “Because they Chose to forfeit their rights to attend the public school system and participate in the public school system sanctioned activities” Just because you are entitled to something does not mean you can not choose to forfeit your rights of entitlement.

Drake I think my point is some privates (Jesuits and now Cornerstone) say they play by the rules and think they are entitled to participate in UIL because they don't have anything that is equal; but what they really do is play by the rules they want to play by and just ignore the other non-important rules or the ones the Jesuits and Cornerstone’s don't think apply. I have absolutely no problem letting all the Privates into UIL as long as they are under all of the same guidelines as a public school not just the rules that pertain to football and sports. By participating and interpreting some of the rules but ignoring others you don't give yourself an advantage but you do put your opponent that is abiding by a larger set of rules at a disadvantage. By not accepting a child with Down Syndrome in to a private school you are not only discriminating against that child and his family for a genetic anomaly that is not the fault of the child or the parents, but the school is also setting a standard for the kids that are accepted as well. By being selective the school is telling the student (that is accepted) that he is better than the poor kid with a disability. That he is more important to society that the child with Down Syndrome and he should be proud that he does not have to participate in a class setting with a child that does not learn at the same pace as himself. That is turn raises another generation to discriminate against the less fortunate. This is totally opposite from what the public school system does. Whether they like it or not the public school system has to under "IDEA" and "No Child Left Behind" accept all children, if the Private school does not play by the same rules they are not gaining an advantage but they are putting all that do abide by these rules at a disadvantage in a competitive setting.

Like I said I have no problem with the Jesuits in UIL, I just wish they would play by all the rules that Public UIL schools have to play by not just the ones that benefit the Jesuits or pertain to the football field. Why not accept children with disabilities into the Jesuits? Integrate them into the class room and let the children (typically developing and disabled) learn from their peers and each other. Why is it in a Private School a typically developing child is accepted and welcomed until he succeeds in graduation or fails out or in essence is “Successful until he proves he is Unworthy“, while a child with a disability usually does not even get a chance to prove his is worthy because of a label, and is not given the opportunity to fail, or is “Unworthy until he proves he can be Successful.” A public School is a microcosm of the community that surrounds it. You have good kids and bad kids smart kids and kids that struggle to grasp the importance of an education, you have kids that will go to college and you have kids that wont make it out of the 10th grade. By a private school only allowing in who they want (or who fit’s the profile) they are then selective and discriminating, or recruiting a certain type of student. I'm not saying anyone is recruiting QB’s but by making sure that there are none of the "bad" kids or kids with dishabilles that wont ever play sports in the school itself, you are in essence recruiting the profile. The Coach at one of the Jesuits does not have to worry about the boy with Down Syndrome wanting to play QB does he, because the school makes sure he is not in the school, thus recruiting by decimation.

Shooter, I understand what you're saying. What I would like to know is what rules are the Jesuits chosing to follow and which are they ignoring? Have we moved past UIL rules to federal mandated ones? Most people site the boundary issues, but public schools are allowed to move students back and forth accross boundaries through their magnet and minority to majority process, true?

There are kids at Strake Jesuit with physical handicaps and there are some kids there with learning disabilities who have to work very hard to keep up. I don't know the numbers but I do know these kids personally (one of which played football, and baseball. The other played soph. basketball) because I ocassionally give them a ride home. Father Lahart made this statement which I believe to be true "We can select only catholic students here and we could fill this school to the brim, we can select only those who could afford to be here and we would be full, we can select only the brightest and we would again be full.......but thats not who we are or who we will ever be"

And trust me, we have some bad kids as well every :) .

shooter
02-28-2007, 09:56 PM
Shooter, I understand what you're saying. What I would like to know is what rules are the Jesuits chosing to follow and which are they ignoring? Have we moved past UIL rules to federal mandated ones? Most people site the boundary issues, but public schools are allowed to move students back and forth accross boundaries through their magnet and minority to majority process, true?

There are kids at Strake Jesuit with physical handicaps and there are some kids there with learning disabilities who have to work very hard to keep up. I don't know the numbers but I do know these kids personally (one of which played football, and baseball. The other played soph. basketball) because I ocassionally give them a ride home. Father Lahart made this statement which I believe to be true "We can select only catholic students here and we could fill this school to the brim, we can select only those who could afford to be here and we would be full, we can select only the brightest and we would again be full.......but thats not who we are or who we will ever be"

And trust me, we have some bad kids as well every :) .

Here are some Rules not sure if they are following these are not maybe you can answer. Again like I said I have no problem with Privates in UIL just play by all the Rules

Satisfactory performance on the TAKS at Grade 11 is prerequisite to a high school diploma for all students.

LEP students in Grades 3-12 are required to take the RPTE until they achieve a rating of advanced.

Participation in the State Gap Funding Program

Report on the Number of Disadvantaged Students for the purpose of receiving the compensatory education allotment pursuant to Texas Education Code, §42.152(b).

Minimum square foot requirements: Classrooms for prekindergarten-Grade 1 shall have a minimum of 36 square feet per pupil or 800 square feet per room.
Classrooms at the elementary school level shall have a minimum of 30 square feet per pupil or 700 square feet per room. Classrooms at the secondary school level shall have a minimum of 28 square feet per pupil or 700 square feet per room.

Special education classrooms shall have a minimum of 400 square feet per room.

Each school district shall establish an admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee for each eligible student with a disability and for each student for whom a full and individual initial evaluation is conducted

Data reporting. Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year data regarding the use of restraint must be electronically reported to the Texas Education Agency in accordance with reporting standards specified by the Agency.

A student receiving special education services may graduate and receive a regular high school diploma when the student's admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee has determined that the student has successfully completed: the student's individualized education program (IEP)


If you want me to quote some Football related rules then yes the easy one is Boundaries. Where are the Jesuits Boundaries? How can the Joists satisfy the Eligibility for Athletic Contests section of the UIL Policy if the Jesuits don't have set Boundaries. I don't care where they are I just want to know where they are. Are the Jesuits Boundaries the City Limits? The County? The State? you tell me because I don't know.

For your question on Magnates yes it is true the schools districts allow students to transfer for programs not offered at their home school, but lets not loose sight of the argument. It's not who the Privates are letting in it's the students they turn away. The public school does have the Magnate schools but they also HAVE to accept all kids, there is not a provision for them to turn a child away because of who he is, the public school system has to enroll everyone not just the ones that fanatically are eligible or test well or meet the criteria. The Privates always like to try and turn this into "Well you cheat too." but can not satisfy the question of special education and no child left behind. You don't have to Say "We Don't Allow Down Syndrome Children" you can say "You Don't meet our Requirements" to me both of those statements are saying the same thing and it’s still discrimination and provides an avenue to the Jesuits to have an advantage over some of the Rules governing Public Schools. Ones that Public Schools can not get around with their “Admission Standards”

I am happy to hear you have gone out of your way to help the less fortunate. But my question was not how many students attend the Jesuits with “physical handicaps” or are labeled with “learning disabilities;” my question is how many students with “Down Syndrome” attend the Jesuits? There is a big difference between a Child with “physical handicaps” (such as the loss of the use of a limb, or the need for cruches) or a “learning disabilities” (dyslexia and ADA) and a Child born with a extra 21st chromosome. Your Father Lahart is a fine man and I know of some of his works but I Prefer to hear educational professionals say things like "We are an organization that passionately promotes inclusive communities through education and an array of services. We are committed to empowering and supporting individuals to realize their dreams."

shooter
02-28-2007, 10:34 PM
Scooter - I see what you're saying and those are good points.

One thing that is being ignored though is that the government (in this case public schools) MUST play by certain rules and those rules are optional for private enterprise. There are many examples of this in society. Earlier I used the example of public vs private golf courses. A public course cannot, by law, practice gender discrimination, yet a private course can. A city cannot ban hobos from the 4th of July fireworks celebration but you can turn away anyone you want from your backyard barbeque... Does this mean that a private course golfer forfeits his right to play at a public course? No. Does it mean that you forfeit your right to go to the city fireworks display? Of course not.

EVERYONE has the RIGHT to participate in the public school system. The question is; do you forfeit that right if you seek alternatives or supplements to what it has to offer. I don't think you do. I don't think the courts will think so either. That's why I hope the UIL will reconsider it's policies that deal with these situations before some court pulls the rug out from under them.

Drake first I'm Shooter not Scooter...

I like you Golf analogy but it has a fatal flaw. Your analogy is suggesting that the Private Golfer is participating “ON” the public course. That analogy would mean the Private School student would play for his home neighborhood school in football or other UIL activities. Or in other words a student would have the right to seek out "alternatives or supplements" but if he wanted to participate in UIL he would have to participate in the (and with the) school where his house resides. Or a kid living in a house near and in the Houston Lamar Catchments that takes classes at Strake would be more than welcome to play football for Lamar. I have no problem with that, as long as the student abides by the rules lay out by the UIL! meaning the student would have to also attend classes at Lamar meet the minimum requirements in those classes at Lamar and then play football for Lamar and only then once he has met the minimum attendance and core curriculum requirements for the HISD and the HISD athletic department and the UIL he could go and supplement or find alternatives all he wanted to; to advance his education. Sounds like a lot of night classes at Strake to me. But that is what your Golf Analogy is saying to me.

Back to the Golf Course. The Public Course around here are open to everyone (like you said) but they do still have rules. No Metal Spikes, Colored Shirts, 90'-Rule. The Private Course has it's own set of rules and I know of one that allows Metal Spikes here in San Antonio. That does not give the Golfer who is a member of this private course the right to wear his metal spikes onto the public course. If you want to play you are welcome but make sure you can abide by the rules before you get your clubs out of the trunk of your car. You don’t go to the public course and play by the Private courses rules. You go to the Public Course and play by their rules.


Lets add some words that I see are missing from your final statement.
you said:
"EVERYONE has the RIGHT to participate in the public school system. The question is; do you forfeit that right if you seek alternatives or supplements to what it has to offer."

What you left off was
EVERYONE has the RIGHT to participate in the public school system and abide by it's rules. The question is; do you forfeit that right if you seek alternatives or supplements to what it has to offer. No you don't as long as the alternatives or supplements also abide by the same rules of the public School system. If your alternatives or supplements do not abide by all of the rules then yes you have chosen to forfeit your rights to participate.

Just like the private course golfer playing on the public course with his inch long metal spikes on would be asked to leave.

In your statement we could be talking about professional athletes. Does a student Forfeit their right to participate in UIL activates if they choose to accept money for playing a sport as a professional? Yes they do forfeit their right because they are no longer in the boundaries of the Rules of the Public School System and the UIL.

Again while you were making analogies and reminding everyone of their “entitlement rights” you have failed to answer my question. How many students diagnosed with Down Syndrome attend either one of the Jesuits?

Drake
02-28-2007, 10:54 PM
How many students diagnosed with Down Syndrome attend either one of the Jesuits?I have no idea...

And I agree that private schools must follow UIL rules if they participate in UIL... The UIL has laid out the rules for private schools and to my knowledge they're being followed... If Cornerstone somehow made into the UIL, they certainly would have to follow the rules too...

shooter
02-28-2007, 11:29 PM
I have no idea...

And I agree that private schools must follow UIL rules if they participate in UIL... The UIL has laid out the rules for private schools and to my knowledge they're being followed... If Cornerstone somehow made into the UIL, they certainly would have to follow the rules too...

Again Drake the master of leaving out the rest of the story...

It's nice to know you agree with me on the UIL rules but Do you agree with me that Private schools must follow the UIL rules along with the TEA rules the TEA Commissioners Rules and any and all state, federal a local rules pertaining to the public school system?

Also if the Jesuits are following the UIL Rules then where are Strakes Boundaries? If you are going to make kids reside within a schools Boundaries to participate in UIL sanctioned activities then you must first set those Boundaries for the school. Again I don't care where the boundaries are I just would like to know where I can look it up to find out.

Drake
03-03-2007, 04:08 PM
Again Drake the master of leaving out the rest of the story...

It's nice to know you agree with me on the UIL rules but Do you agree with me that Private schools must follow the UIL rules along with the TEA rules the TEA Commissioners Rules and any and all state, federal a local rules pertaining to the public school system?

Also if the Jesuits are following the UIL Rules then where are Strakes Boundaries? If you are going to make kids reside within a schools Boundaries to participate in UIL sanctioned activities then you must first set those Boundaries for the school. Again I don't care where the boundaries are I just would like to know where I can look it up to find out.Strake Jesuit does follow the TEA rules... Every day at 4pm we have some along with fresh scones...

Also, the Jesuit schools have attendance zones for UIL participation purposes just like the public schools do. To be practical, the UIL makes an exception for private schools (as they do with public magnet schools), allowing a student to live outside the designated zoning boundaries and participate, BUT, such a student MUST be enrolled for one year before they are eligible to participate in VARSITY sports. Given all the facts and factors, this seems reasonable to me.

nikkit12
03-04-2007, 09:20 AM
To use your golf analogy:

A person who belongs to a private club does not give up his right to play at a public course,


BUT HE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC COURSE TO PLAY.....

Private school children do not give up their right to what a public school has to offer, but THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TO PARTICIPATE.

nikkit12
03-04-2007, 09:21 AM
To use your golf analogy:

A person who belongs to a private club does not give up his right to play at a public course,


BUT HE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC COURSE TO PLAY.....

Private school children do not give up their right to what a public school has to offer, but THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TO PARTICIPATE.

Drake
03-04-2007, 10:24 AM
nikkit - saying the same thing over and over DOESN'T make it true :)

The debate is interesting, but considering the UIL made provisions for certain private schools to participate about 4 years ago and the unfair advantage so many predicted hasn't materialized, I'd say it's working out fine (and fairly) for everyone involved.

DrEdward
03-04-2007, 10:46 AM
nikkit - saying the same thing over and over DOESN'T make it true :)

The debate is interesting, but considering the UIL made provisions for certain private schools to participate about 4 years ago and the unfair advantage so many predicted hasn't materialized, I'd say it's working out fine (and fairly) for everyone involved.

I agree that there does not seem to have been too much, if any, of the recruiting by the Jesuit schools that many were afraid would occur and render the private schools with an unfair advantage relative to the publics. However, in the case at hand with Cornerstone, they clearly do have a history of recruiting players that even their private conference could not condone.

Drake
03-04-2007, 11:12 AM
I agree that there does not seem to have been too much, if any, of the recruiting by the Jesuit schools that many were afraid would occur and render the private schools with an unfair advantage relative to the publics. However, in the case at hand with Cornerstone, they clearly do have a history of recruiting players that even their private conference could not condone.Agreed. My only concern is that if it made it to federal court the UIL would be taking an big gamble.

The thing is, if the Jesuits broke UIL rules wouldn't they suffer the same consequences as as Katy or Galveston Ball did when they broke the rules? Wouldn't they suffer the same penalties as Nimitz and Highland Park did this past week for breaking the rules? My point is; what threat is Cornerstone if they agree to whatever rules the UIL lays out for them (as the Jesuits did) and then the rules are followed or enforced?

bullrock
03-13-2007, 02:09 PM
Then you would have the same arguement we at Judson have been scorned for for so many years. It is usually after the outcome a game, or in the Carter case, a whole playoff season and nobody would agree who really deserves the win. There are a lot of good arguements for and against allowing privates play with the publics. In the case of the Jesuits, they seem to be playing by some rules, whatever they are. In any case, nobody is hollering about them competing in the UIL. I would dare say that if one of them were to get on a roll like SLC, none of us would ever stop whining. That's why the issue should not have been allowed to materialize. The Jesuit would be condemned for doing what they were put on the field to do and it certainly wouldn't be fair to the students to be called cheaters because they win.