And I don't foresee the "home" school/magnet set up changing. At least, from what I see in this proposal, not much would change. A child would have a school designation based upon their residence. They can apply to attend another school, and based upon space, be accepted. There is nothing now that prevents the "cherry picking" that people are afraid of. What happens, happens naturally. In the end, I think it's a better way to do things, and I think the fears are a more because it's a largely unknown quantity outside of the metro areas.

 

I agree 100%

And I don't foresee the "home" school/magnet set up changing. At least, from what I see in this proposal, not much would change. A child would have a school designation based upon their residence. They can apply to attend another school, and based upon space, be accepted. There is nothing now that prevents the "cherry picking" that people are afraid of. What happens, happens naturally. In the end, I think it's a better way to do things, and I think the fears are a more because it's a largely unknown quantity outside of the metro areas.

 

To some extent yes, but this opens up those that could not afford tuition and their districts did not have reciprocity agreements to move more freely. It also will allow private for profits to make a killing. That is not in place now.

 

This isn't public to public only.

I like this. There is no reason to disallow a kid to go to school where he/she wants.

To some extent yes, but this opens up those that could not afford tuition and their districts did not have reciprocity agreements to move more freely. It also will allow private for profits to make a killing. That is not in place now.

 

This isn't public to public only.

 

Unless they can provide more seats, schools will fill and that limits the movement. Also, I don't see this benefitting private schools as much as the (possible) uncertainty surrounding Mrs. DeVos' appointment. :lol2:

To some extent yes, but this opens up those that could not afford tuition and their districts did not have reciprocity agreements to move more freely. It also will allow private for profits to make a killing. That is not in place now.

 

This isn't public to public only.

 

Where did you see this?

Where did you see this?

 

It isn't public to private yet, but will be, should have clarified, my bad.

So who will decide the enrollment caps for each school? If you dont do this, you will have some small schools with 6A enrollments.

 

Could schools assess fees above funding for out of district students?

So who will decide the enrollment caps for each school? If you dont do this, you will have some small schools with 6A enrollments.

 

Could schools assess fees above funding for out of district students?

 

State and Federal funding would follow them from one district to another...schools would be getting the same amount for out of district as they do for in district.

I know for one Pulaski County School system will be against this. For years there was an agreement that X number of students that lived in their district could attend Somerset Schools and their state and federal funding was released to follow them. Over the last couple of years Pulaski County has been trying to restrict this and force students to attend one of their schools in going forward, current students were grandfathered in.

 

There are currently 200 or so students K-12 that live in the county district that attend Somerset School per the past agreements. There are also several students that live in the City District that go to Pulaski County Schools. Pulaski forwarded a new contract this past year stating that their students could no longer attend Somerset schools but they would still welcome any Somerset students that wanted to come to their system...:lol2:

 

There are several unknowns and if this passes or doesn't pass it won't really bother me...but some of the ramifications could impact my family. So while I think this would be good for Somerset Schools, I'm not sure that personally I support it due to other issues.

State and Federal funding would follow them from one district to another...schools would be getting the same amount for out of district as they do for in district.

 

Right so if the funding is the same, why wouldnt a district charge additional fees to out of district students?

Right so if the funding is the same, why wouldnt a district charge additional fees to out of district students?

 

Why would they, they would be getting additional funding for each out of district student that would have went to their old district.

 

Example: Pulaski County School District receives $3,500 in state and federal funds for each student. Kid transfers to Somerset and that $3,500 follows them to the new school system. New school isn't out any money but old school system loses $3,500.

Why would they, they would be getting additional funding for each out of district student that would have went to their old district.

 

Example: Pulaski County School District receives $3,500 in state and federal funds for each student. Kid transfers to Somerset and that $3,500 follows them to the new school system. New school isn't out any money but old school system loses $3,500.

 

Why wouldnt they?

Why wouldnt they?

 

Why would or should they? Unless they don't want more students, I don't know why they would charge extra.

I apologize if this has already been addressed, but even if students are allowed to go to the school they want, does the KHSAA have the authority to not allow that student to play athletics at that school?

 

for one year

I'm for any law that gives the parents and students more control over their education than the government having said control.