Others expressed this before. I think you will find the following school districts in Northern KY to be supportive of your idea: Beechwood, Ft. Thomas, Kenton, Campbell and Boone. Since you are discussing the failing of KERA and these are the lowest in the state in funding due to KERA, I think these districts look forward to having their funding more than doubled and still only be slightly above the state average. For the other districts, it would mean a cut of around 30% or more. Thanks to KERA, the above schools have underwritten the reast of the area for some time. Any chance of a refund check?

How would you suggest the funding occur when one districts tax bases because of property values is so much higher?

Leather, I disagree with private becoming college prep, especially in light of most recent data even the Bush Administration had to stand behind. The fact is, in core content instruction of science and math, scores among public school students and private schools actually had a measurable better result in the public school. Now, I know that flies in the face of what many would hold dear but I do ask to consider the advocate source, that being the Bush Administration, Secretary Spellings who had been advocating private school choice. Their own internal study really gutted the perception of private being better than public.

 

Also, you may be surprised to know the past year, China has significantly studied and reviewed NCLB and is actually making strides against its prior sort/select society. The basis which they make this on is the significant productivity value of an educated population instead of a limited number. India has also made steps to the same thought. England, for the first time and with tax increase is providing bus service for its students.

 

So, don't be ready to abandon ship on the public education front just yet. Remember, the worst educated child in America would still be more educated than 90% of the rest of the world.

 

Your thoughts are very similar and you may find interest in the common school system of Norway. Very similar to your suggestions. The program has many advocates and the country has established significant results in its education status.

 

To proactively change a system I would suggest a few that would ring the lighting bolts of Zeus. One, tenure would need to be changed. I would suggest tenure of status for every 4 years to be renewed. Far too many teachers and frankly, the profession hides its worst behind this shield. A good teacher may be good in the classroom. Allow me to ask, how do you make that case for good teacher instead of a great teacher?

 

Further, allow the retirement system altered so school districts can truly keep the best after retirement and allow significant compensation for them instead of silly 100 day contracts.

 

One other measure, establish a test model that follows a students learning year after year. Now a group year after year. What a 5th grade learns is important to know when the student is in 6th grade, not what the next 5th grade class learns. Off that, be prepared to deal with the problems of instruction where it will be statistically shown where a teacher is not doing the job. Back to tenure.

 

Thanks

 

 

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of the public vs private test scores. I hope it is legit. As I mentioned, I hope public schools "survive" and don't just become the schools for those students not interested in going to college and beyond. But I do think that "threat" is out there and the public supers need to make sure that they understand the situation, for if a parent is willing to drive his/her son or daughter across three counties for an athletic program, a truly concerned parent will do the same for academics.

How would you suggest the funding occur when one districts tax bases because of property values is so much higher?

 

I don't but I simply wish to remind those who are so critical of KERA need to be mindful of the outcomes of KERA. The largest and most significant is funding. A handful of school district areas has supported the vast majority of the state for nearly 2 decades. Get rid of it, fine. But I think it is unfair to say "oh, but we want the money allocation to stay the same".

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of the public vs private test scores. I hope it is legit. As I mentioned, I hope public schools "survive" and don't just become the schools for those students not interested in going to college and beyond. But I do think that "threat" is out there and the public supers need to make sure that they understand the situation, for if a parent is willing to drive his/her son or daughter across three counties for an athletic program, a truly concerned parent will do the same for academics.

 

A study three years ago by the Christian Science Monitor and maybe Indianna University (not sure of exact research school) and then most recent Department of Education, which took lead of this study and found the same conclusions over the most recent years. I suspect there may be motive to isolate the original study conclusion but the results were consistent over the subsequent years.

 

As to search of academics in NorKY, it would be nice if the entire NorKY public school community would form a cooperative International Bac. program that can be shared and available to participating public schools. That would lock up the brain talent.

How would you suggest the funding occur when one districts tax bases because of property values is so much higher?

 

 

Have the state pay 100% of the funds needed to fund public education and don't worry about tax base.

 

Furthermore, to the extent tax bases continue to play a role, I really wish the state would make sure that the PVA's are truly assessing property at its fair market value. I know that such is not occuring due to property I own in a couple of counties. Right now, there is actually an incentive to under-assess real property, because it brings in more education dollars from the state under the KERA formula. County govt doesn't care about the property being under-assessed, since they get so little revenue from real property taxes.

I don't but I simply wish to remind those who are so critical of KERA need to be mindful of the outcomes of KERA. The largest and most significant is funding. A handful of school district areas has supported the vast majority of the state for nearly 2 decades. Get rid of it, fine. But I think it is unfair to say "oh, but we want the money allocation to stay the same".

I assume you are talking about taxes other than the property taxes, utility taxes that are raised for school districts in the "a handful of school district areas has supported the vast majority of the state for nearly 2 decades" comment.

Utility taxes are local sources. Property taxes are local which are offset by the state and redistributed to "poor" tax base districts. As leatherneck correctly posted, especially those poor overtaxed farmers who are taxed at $200 per acre of value assessment! I think every district in NorKY that has utility tax would give it up today if they could receive the state average of funding in return. If the district your in does not have a utility tax that is a local choice. You should not hold issue against those who chose to support their local schools instead of wanting the state to do more than its fair share.

Utility taxes are local sources. Property taxes are local which are offset by the state and redistributed to "poor" tax base districts. As leatherneck correctly posted, especially those poor overtaxed farmers who are taxed at $200 per acre of value assessment! I think every district in NorKY that has utility tax would give it up today if they could receive the state average of funding in return. If the district your in does not have a utility tax that is a local choice. You should not hold issue against those who chose to support their local schools instead of wanting the state to do more than its fair share.

Are you sure the state gathers up the property taxes and sends it other places?

 

I thought that they looked at the amount they receive locally through property taxes and lowered the state SEEK $$$ that was coming their way.

Are you sure the state gathers up the property taxes and sends it other places?

 

I thought that they looked at the amount they receive locally through property taxes and lowered the state SEEK $$$ that was coming their way.

 

You are right LBBC - money is not taken from local districts and then redistributed. State Government has no claim to local tax money, unless the local taxing "organization" agrees to give it up. Anchorage is one of the wealthiest districts in the state and receives little money from Frankfort, but the community has decided to pay taxes to support education there. The money they raise does not leave to district.

You are right LBBC - money is not taken from local districts and then redistributed. State Government has no claim to local tax money, unless the local taxing "organization" agrees to give it up. Anchorage is one of the wealthiest districts in the state and receives little money from Frankfort, but the community has decided to pay taxes to support education there. The money they raise does not leave to district.

Thanks but I do want to tweak your answer.

 

I do think the state limits how much a local district can raise locally. They do that because of the courts ruling the funding of education system as unconstitutional.

 

Basically, it was ruled unconstitutional for Anchorage to raise taxes to the level that they are spending, let's say, $10,000 per student while because of property values limiting the $$ a Jackson county can raise to a, let's say, $3000 per student.

 

The system that allowed this was ruled unconstitutional.

 

So I think the state while cannot take money from the locals can limit the amount of funds the locals can raise or they will end up moving right back to an unequal and unconstitutional system.

You are right LBBC - money is not taken from local districts and then redistributed. State Government has no claim to local tax money, unless the local taxing "organization" agrees to give it up. Anchorage is one of the wealthiest districts in the state and receives little money from Frankfort, but the community has decided to pay taxes to support education there. The money they raise does not leave to district.

I am going to copy and paste those first 4 words and post them in the other threads. :lol:

Are you sure the state gathers up the property taxes and sends it other places?

 

I thought that they looked at the amount they receive locally through property taxes and lowered the state SEEK $$$ that was coming their way.

 

Try reading again. Offset does not mean collect. The state offsets the amount based on the local revenue. But you should already know that. You should already know the way it is done. What is your point. My point is simple, there are districts that underwrite a whole bunch of other districts. And some of those districts, Pendleton for instance with valuation on the books at $500 per acre, is a joke to say they suffer funding issues and get a higher per student rate from the state when a homeowner in Ft. Thomas has a $300K tax valuation and has to fork out its high tax rate locally.

 

You are incorrect about the amount local districts can tax. Local districts can raise 4% annually. Anything higher is subject to voter recall but can be done if the local district accepts. See Ft. Thomas and Beechwood districts for example.

You are right LBBC - money is not taken from local districts and then redistributed. State Government has no claim to local tax money, unless the local taxing "organization" agrees to give it up. Anchorage is one of the wealthiest districts in the state and receives little money from Frankfort, but the community has decided to pay taxes to support education there. The money they raise does not leave to district.

 

 

Sort of right, but not exactly. The state takes money from every district in that the taxpayers in that district are required to pay real property taxes to the state (look at your next tax bill and a large percentage of it goes to the state). When some PVAs assess property at its true FMV and others don't, those in the counties where it is assessed at FMV end up subsidizing (under SEEK) those that don't. As I've previously mentioned, there is an incentive for PVAs to under-assess and the school districts don't care, as that just means they get more education money from the state. County govt doesn't care either since the county portion of the real property taxes is such a small percentage of the total taxes paid. Trust me, I own property in a couple of counties and it simply amazes me how far off from FMV one county is. Or, if you want to do a study, take your home county and examine the last 50 pieces of real property sold. Compare the purchase price with the value that was last assessed against it and you will see the wide disparity that I speak of. PVAs are legally required to assess property at its FMV but they do not in a lot, probably the majority, of counties in the state.

Sort of right, but not exactly. The state takes money from every district in that the taxpayers in that district are required to pay real property taxes to the state (look at your next tax bill and a large percentage of it goes to the state). When some PVAs assess property at its true FMV and others don't, those in the counties where it is assessed at FMV end up subsidizing (under SEEK) those that don't. As I've previously mentioned, there is an incentive for PVAs to under-assess and the school districts don't care, as that just means they get more education money from the state. County govt doesn't care either since the county portion of the real property taxes is such a small percentage of the total taxes paid. Trust me, I own property in a couple of counties and it simply amazes me how far off from FMV one county is. Or, if you want to do a study, take your home county and examine the last 50 pieces of real property sold. Compare the purchase price with the value that was last assessed against it and you will see the wide disparity that I speak of. PVAs are legally required to assess property at its FMV but they do not in a lot, probably the majority, of counties in the state.

 

If what you say is correct, then all of the counties would be funded equally - that is simply not the case. Real property tax (to the state) is not a dedicated 'education' tax. It is real easy to go to the KDE website and see the disparities in per pupil spending. Any time you don't assess and collect at the highest possible rates, your school district loses money. The state does subsidize, but it is a minimal subsidy. Look up Owsley Counties #s.

If what you say is correct, then all of the counties would be funded equally - that is simply not the case. Real property tax (to the state) is not a dedicated 'education' tax. It is real easy to go to the KDE website and see the disparities in per pupil spending. Any time you don't assess and collect at the highest possible rates, your school district loses money. The state does subsidize, but it is a minimal subsidy. Look up Owsley Counties #s.

 

 

I think you are confused.