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.

I asked a question to clarify your post. Sorry for wanting to make sure what you said.

 

And how has Ft. Thomas "underwrite" a bunch of other districts?

 

And I am not incorrect. If a district raises their local taxes and they are already at their maximum allowed by the state, than they will see a decrease in their SEEK money for the state. That way the state tries to regulate how much they are bringing in.

 

This is the complaint of Beechwood, etc. They raise their local taxes to increase funding and they see their state funding cut because of the increase in local taxes.

 

Or at least that is what Fred Basset, one of my former assistant principals and former Superintendent at Beechwood was arguing.

I asked a question to clarify your post. Sorry for wanting to make sure what you said.

 

And how has Ft. Thomas "underwrite" a bunch of other districts?

 

And I am not incorrect. If a district raises their local taxes and they are already at their maximum allowed by the state, than they will see a decrease in their SEEK money for the state. That way the state tries to regulate how much they are bringing in.

 

This is the complaint of Beechwood, etc. They raise their local taxes to increase funding and they see their state funding cut because of the increase in local taxes.

 

Or at least that is what Fred Basset, one of my former assistant principals and former Superintendent at Beechwood was arguing.

 

 

And Fred had it right.

 

I still think that the state should determine the amount per student that is required to fund a solid basic education and the state should fund that amount entirely. If a school district can convince the taxpayers that the taxpayers should pay local taxes to provide a better than solid basic education, the amount of local taxes should not decrease the state dollars.

 

All the SEEK formula does is divert some of the cost of providing public education from the state to the local taxpayers in the name of "fairness". Explain the fairness of the state sending big dollars per student to some districts and little dollars per student to other districts. If that's fair, then I look like the second picture that Guru posted of me in the General Discussion forum.:jump:

And Fred had it right.

 

I still think that the state should determine the amount per student that is required to fund a solid basic education and the state should fund that amount entirely. If a school district can convince the taxpayers that the taxpayers should pay local taxes to provide a better than solid basic education, the amount of local taxes should not decrease the state dollars.

 

All the SEEK formula does is divert some of the cost of providing public education from the state to the local taxpayers in the name of "fairness". Explain the fairness of the state sending big dollars per student to some districts and little dollars per student to other districts. If that's fair, then I look like the second picture that Guru posted of me in the General Discussion forum.:jump:

Because the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. That is the bottom line. It doesn't matter if we think it is wrong or not, fair or unfair. The state Supreme Court ruled the funding (I believe the Ohio State Supreme Court also ruled it the same way.) that let's a huge discrepancy financially between districts to happen is not legal. Do you want the KY BOE to ignore what the Supreme Court has told them they must do? Make sure a balance funding for EVERY district in the state is happening.

 

To an extent, there hands are tied in what they can do and not do.

 

Again, bottom line is that this state's court system said it is unconstitutional for a Fort Thomas to raise their local taxes so high in funding their school that it puts a huge discrepancy between them and a Jackson County in the per pupil spending that occurs within the district.

 

The ONLY way a state has to regulate that amount AND be in accordance with what has been dictated to them by this ruling is to limit and control the amount of state money.

Because the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. That is the bottom line. It doesn't matter if we think it is wrong or not, fair or unfair. The state Supreme Court ruled the funding (I believe the Ohio State Supreme Court also ruled it the same way.) that let's a huge discrepancy financially between districts to happen is not legal. Do you want the KY BOE to ignore what the Supreme Court has told them they must do? Make sure a balance funding for EVERY district in the state is happening.

 

To an extent, there hands are tied in what they can do and not do.

 

Again, bottom line is that this state's court system said it is unconstitutional for a Fort Thomas to raise their local taxes so high in funding their school that it puts a huge discrepancy between them and a Jackson County in the per pupil spending that occurs within the district.

 

The ONLY way a state has to regulate that amount AND be in accordance with what has been dictated to them by this ruling is to limit and control the amount of state money.

 

 

When I get time I'll re-read the decision, but I don't recall it saying what you think it said. I remember it saying that the amount of funding from the state was neither adequate or equitable. Some districts, because they had no or little local tax support and because they were not getting enough money from the state, were way underfunded. Other districts because they had the local dollars (and thus were able to pick up the ball that the General Assembly had dropped) were able to provide adequate funding (which defacto made it inequitable since other districts did not have that luxury....or perhaps more likely were unwilling to do the tough task of convincing their taxpayers to pay more in the form of local taxes*). I believe that if the state had been providing adequate funding to provide a solid education, the fact that some districts were providing additional funds would never have been an issue with the courts.

 

And if my recollection is correct, the case never made it to the Ky Supreme Ct. Didn't Judge Corns with the Franklin Circuit Court make the ruling and devise the SEEK formula? Perhaps his decision was appealed all the way to the Supremes but I don't recall that happening.

 

 

 

*One of my pet peeves is hearing people say that the taxpayers in their district cannot afford to pay local taxes to support their school, yet those same folks who allegedly cannot afford to support their schools find ways to buy UK basketball and football tickets; can afford cell phones and can afford to waste money by buying lottery tickets. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with prioritization. And again, with the current SEEK formula, there is a disincentive to pay more in local school taxes. Methinks Judge Corn and the state govt didn't think the thing through. Then again, maybe they did and settled on a funding formula that shifted some of the cost of public education away from the state unto the locals "that can afford it".

I see what you are saying but here is the problem with what you are proposing, it returns them right back to the situation that funding wise the districts can be unequal once again.

 

Let's say that the per pupil funding in the state is $3500 per student per year. (I have no clue what it actual is and just pulling that number out of the air.) District A does not have the ability with limited property values to go much above that to $4500 per student per year.

 

But District B that is a wealthy community can create a nice chunk of change and is spending at a rate of $5800 per kid.

 

I think legally you have a difference there.

 

The state is required to educate ALL KY kids at the level they are able to learn. They cannot, legally, say there is a difference in the education that a Highlands kid can get and a Deming kid can get. Legally, they cannot allow that to happen.

 

What would happen is that the state would have to bump up what they give to District A to an equal level with District B.

 

And without a ceiling, that could get real expensive and they could not control that cost. So, they put a ceiling on it so that they can control what they are spending on education in this state.

 

My two cents on how it works.

 

I think you are right with Judge Corns

I see what you are saying but here is the problem with what you are proposing, it returns them right back to the situation that funding wise the districts can be unequal once again.

 

Let's say that the per pupil funding in the state is $3500 per student per year. (I have no clue what it actual is and just pulling that number out of the air.) District A does not have the ability with limited property values to go much above that to $4500 per student per year.

 

But District B that is a wealthy community can create a nice chunk of change and is spending at a rate of $5800 per kid.

 

I think legally you have a difference there.

 

The state is required to educate ALL KY kids at the level they are able to learn. They cannot, legally, say there is a difference in the education that a Highlands kid can get and a Deming kid can get. Legally, they cannot allow that to happen.

 

What would happen is that the state would have to bump up what they give to District A to an equal level with District B.

 

And without a ceiling, that could get real expensive and they could not control that cost. So, they put a ceiling on it so that they can control what they are spending on education in this state.

 

My two cents on how it works.

 

I think you are right with Judge Corns

 

Not sure I totally agree with you. I look at it this way: every kid in the state has the right to get a good public education paid for at the state expense. I don't think a school district or the state is legally required to provide more than that nor should those districts that want to provide more than that be penalized for doing so. For example if the state determines that the teacher to student ratio should be no more than 1 to 20 and provides adequate funding for that, yet the taxpayers in a district think the ratio should be 1 to 10 and are willing to cough up the dollars to pay for the additional teachers required, I doubt the courts would have determined that the state was underfunding those schools that were at the 1 to 20 ratio or that what those school districts using local dollars to obtain the 1 to 10 ratio where acting unconstitutionally. What really caused Judge Corn, in my opinion, to act was the fact that the state was not providing adequate funding for a lot of school districts to even provide the basic educational requirements. The inequitable part entered the discussion because some of the school districts were able to raise the necessary funds locally, whereas some were unable or unwilling to do so. Surely the constitution does not require that every school receive the absolute same level, type, whatever, education that a student in every other district receives. If that was the case, we would have rules that requires teachers in every district to have the same pay scale as every other district (if you believe that the best teachers go where the best money is; the experience level of teachers would have to be the same at every district; the available curriculum (beyond the required courses) would have to be exactly the same, etc., etc., which is not the case. All of those things do effect the quality of education that a student receives. Yet the Corns decision does impose those rules.

 

Thus, I think the major focus of his decision was the lack of adequate funding by the state. If the General Assembly truly did its job and funded the school districts properly using state funds, there would not be a problem.

I know this, when I have to pay increased local taxes and make financial contributions to prevent our school facilities from crumbling because the state does not provide enough money to do so, the system is broken. And that's what's happening.

http://www.wku.edu/library/kera/rose.htm

 

The trial judge identified four issues before him: (1) The necessity for defining the phrase "an efficient system of common schools" as contained in Section 183 of the Kentucky Constitution; (2) Whether education is a "fundamental right" under our Constitution; (3) Whether Kentucky's current method of financing its common schools violates Section 183, and (4) Whether students in the so-called "poor" school districts are denied equal protection of the laws.

 

"Efficient," in the Kentucky constitutional sense was defined as a system which required "substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students." Efficient was also interpreted to require that the educational system must be adequate, uniform and unitary.

 

In ruling on the issue of whether Kentucky's method of school financing violates Section 183 and underpinning the point with extensive findings of fact, the trial court declared that students in property poor school districts are offered a minimal level of educational opportunities, which is inferior to those offered to students in more affluent districts. Such "invidious" discrimination, based on the place of a student's residence, was determined to be unconstitutional. The trial court ruled that the school finance system violates the equal protection guarantees of Section 1 and 3 of the Kentucky Constitution.

 

In its judgment, the trial court ruled: (1) The Kentucky finance "system" of its common schools is unconstitutional and discriminatory; and (2) The system of common schools is not efficient within the purview of Section 183 of the Kentucky Constitution.

http://www.wku.edu/library/kera/rose.htm

 

The trial judge identified four issues before him: (1) The necessity for defining the phrase "an efficient system of common schools" as contained in Section 183 of the Kentucky Constitution; (2) Whether education is a "fundamental right" under our Constitution; (3) Whether Kentucky's current method of financing its common schools violates Section 183, and (4) Whether students in the so-called "poor" school districts are denied equal protection of the laws.

 

"Efficient," in the Kentucky constitutional sense was defined as a system which required "substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students." Efficient was also interpreted to require that the educational system must be adequate, uniform and unitary.

 

In ruling on the issue of whether Kentucky's method of school financing violates Section 183 and underpinning the point with extensive findings of fact, the trial court declared that students in property poor school districts are offered a minimal level of educational opportunities, which is inferior to those offered to students in more affluent districts. Such "invidious" discrimination, based on the place of a student's residence, was determined to be unconstitutional. The trial court ruled that the school finance system violates the equal protection guarantees of Section 1 and 3 of the Kentucky Constitution.

 

In its judgment, the trial court ruled: (1) The Kentucky finance "system" of its common schools is unconstitutional and discriminatory; and (2) The system of common schools is not efficient within the purview of Section 183 of the Kentucky Constitution.

 

Obviously the key word is "substantial". And I don't think anything I've proposed would violate the bolded language. If the state funded 100% of the cost of all districts to provide a fundamental education and some districts wanted to pay local taxes to reduce the required student teacher ratio or provide more AP classes, I sincerely doubt the courts would find that to violate substantial uniformity.

 

There is no doubt that before SEEK, there were substantial differences caused primarily in my opinion by the State's failure to adequately fund schools. Now they just fail to adequate fund the "more affluent" districts, which is nothing other than a shift of the state's responsibility to the locals.

CATS testing is what all schools are judged on. If you fail at that you get taken over. Simple as that. Teachers know what is best for students but the people in Frankfort and Washington will not listen.

Obviously the key word is "substantial". And I don't think anything I've proposed would violate the bolded language. If the state funded 100% of the cost of all districts to provide a fundamental education and some districts wanted to pay local taxes to reduce the required student teacher ratio or provide more AP classes, I sincerely doubt the courts would find that to violate substantial uniformity.

 

There is no doubt that before SEEK, there were substantial differences caused primarily in my opinion by the State's failure to adequately fund schools. Now they just fail to adequate fund the "more affluent" districts, which is nothing other than a shift of the state's responsibility to the locals.

I agree. The courts left it vague on what would be allowed and what would not be allowed. The state has to set up a guideline of what they think the courts will allow.

 

Knowing Frankfort, there is probably something that can be tweaked.

You know, this is very similar to the "level playing field" debate in that we bash the people who really are only the administers of the rules that have been adopted.

 

In the case of the KHSAA we complain about all of their rules and the effect they have on kids. What we fail to realize, or choose to ignore, is that the KHSAA is made up of member schools and member schools make the rules. The commissioner and associate commissioner only administer them. The SCHOOLS MAKE THE RULES.

 

in the case of the KDE, TEACHERS from the state of KENTUCKY create/created the Program of Studies, Academic Expectations, and CORE CONTENT. It was not simply an administrator sitting in an office in the 'the Tower.

 

The TEST is taken from the core content. How is that bad?

 

Here are the two negaitves I see.

 

1) Students are not held accountable for their scores

2) Some of the material tested may be 3 years old for some students.

 

Outside of that, it is a pretty valid measure of the learning that took place.

 

And to simply say that teachers from a particular area know what is best for their students is often times bunk. The highest math offered at Middlesboro High School in 1985 was pre-calc - I don't recall any AP classes offered. When I went to Centre College after that and saw that some kids from the Golden Triangle and other areas in the state had experienced Linear Algrebra in High School, I realized how poor my back-ground was.

 

To say that someone doesn't need Algebra 2 is ultimately to deny them Algebra 2. How could you possible know what someone might need 15 years from the time they graduate. And forget about 'ordered pairs' and 'quadratic equations', what about knowing and being able to apply rules. Often times it is the process that is beneficial and not necessarily the facts themselves.

 

I know longer use specific Algebra 2 functions in my daily life, but I am often faced with situations with many variables and rules to apply. I have to make judgments on the best rules and with which variables, and I do this about 80 times a day - at least, as an assistant principal.

 

The background has served me well.

You know, this is very similar to the "level playing field" debate in that we bash the people who really are only the administers of the rules that have been adopted.

 

In the case of the KHSAA we complain about all of their rules and the effect they have on kids. What we fail to realize, or choose to ignore, is that the KHSAA is made up of member schools and member schools make the rules. The commissioner and associate commissioner only administer them. The SCHOOLS MAKE THE RULES.

 

in the case of the KDE, TEACHERS from the state of KENTUCKY create/created the Program of Studies, Academic Expectations, and CORE CONTENT. It was not simply an administrator sitting in an office in the 'the Tower.

 

The TEST is taken from the core content. How is that bad?

 

Here are the two negaitves I see.

 

1) Students are not held accountable for their scores

2) Some of the material tested may be 3 years old for some students.

 

Outside of that, it is a pretty valid measure of the learning that took place.

 

And to simply say that teachers from a particular area know what is best for their students is often times bunk. The highest math offered at Middlesboro High School in 1985 was pre-calc - I don't recall any AP classes offered. When I went to Centre College after that and saw that some kids from the Golden Triangle and other areas in the state had experienced Linear Algrebra in High School, I realized how poor my back-ground was.

 

To say that someone doesn't need Algebra 2 is ultimately to deny them Algebra 2. How could you possible know what someone might need 15 years from the time they graduate. And forget about 'ordered pairs' and 'quadratic equations', what about knowing and being able to apply rules. Often times it is the process that is beneficial and not necessarily the facts themselves.

 

I know longer use specific Algebra 2 functions in my daily life, but I am often faced with situations with many variables and rules to apply. I have to make judgments on the best rules and with which variables, and I do this about 80 times a day - at least, as an assistant principal.

 

The background has served me well.

 

 

I do need to correct a misunderstanding that you and many, many others have about the KHSAA. The schools do not make the rules. Not in any way do they do so. They only make proposals, in effect recommendations, to the State Board of Education. The State Board makes all the rules. The KHSAA does not belong to the member schools; rather it is an agent of the State Board of Education set up by the State Board to administer high school athletics in Ky. This misunderstanding is the reason so many supers and other school officials got so upset when the KHSAA Board of Control failed to support the public vs. private vote of the school delegates. The schools felt that they had "spoken" and that the Board of Control should have supported the vote. What the schools failed to understand (and many still do fail to understand) is that the Board of Control is not there to rubber stamp the will of the schools. Rather, and its in the KHSAA Constitution if you doubt me, the Board is only permitted to support those proposed rules by the schools that the Board of Control, in its fiduciary duty, believes are in the best interest of high school athletics, and thats true even if one hundred percent of the schools favor a proposal. And even then, the State Board has the final say. Just thought you might want to know that.

 

But I do agree with the rest of your post.

 

And I'm glad to know that I'm sometimes debating with a fellow Centre alum.

I do need to correct a misunderstanding that you and many, many others have about the KHSAA. The schools do not make the rules. Not in any way do they do so. They only make proposals, in effect recommendations, to the State Board of Education. The State Board makes all the rules. The KHSAA does not belong to the member schools; rather it is an agent of the State Board of Education set up by the State Board to administer high school athletics in Ky. This misunderstanding is the reason so many supers and other school officials got so upset when the KHSAA Board of Control failed to support the public vs. private vote of the school delegates. The schools felt that they had "spoken" and that the Board of Control should have supported the vote. What the schools failed to understand (and many still do fail to understand) is that the Board of Control is not there to rubber stamp the will of the schools. Rather, and its in the KHSAA Constitution if you doubt me, the Board is only permitted to support those proposed rules by the schools that the Board of Control, in its fiduciary duty, believes are in the best interest of high school athletics, and thats true even if one hundred percent of the schools favor a proposal. And even then, the State Board has the final say. Just thought you might want to know that.

 

But I do agree with the rest of your post.

 

And I'm glad to know that I'm sometimes debating with a fellow Centre alum.

 

While the process you lay out is correct, the board of Control, nor the State Board of Education propose rules. They are proposed by and voted on by the members. You are right in that the KHSAA is a state agency. However, the most of the board of control is elected by the members and can be replaced during the next election.

 

But I do agree with the rest of your post.

 

C6H0

While the process you lay out is correct, the board of Control, nor the State Board of Education propose rules. They are proposed by and voted on by the members. You are right in that the KHSAA is a state agency. However, the most of the board of control is elected by the members and can be replaced during the next election.

 

But I do agree with the rest of your post.

 

C6H0

 

Actually the Board of Control regularly proposes some of the rules changes. And the State Board of Education has the power to make new rules and rule changes without evening sending them to the schools for a vote at the annual delegation. As to the members of the Board being elected by the members, keep in mind that the State Board each year has the choice of simply not renewing the agency agreement with the KHSAA. Thus, the State Board really has total control over all of the Board Members if they choose to exert it.

 

Got to love C6H0.

Actually the Board of Control regularly proposes some of the rules changes. And the State Board of Education has the power to make new rules and rule changes without evening sending them to the schools for a vote at the annual delegation. As to the members of the Board being elected by the members, keep in mind that the State Board each year has the choice of simply not renewing the agency agreement with the KHSAA. Thus, the State Board really has total control over all of the Board Members if they choose to exert it.

 

Got to love C6H0.

 

 

ok:p