As a landlord, all I have to say is "hardly."

 

Why? Doesn't the landlord have a goal of covering his/her expenses (including property taxes paid) ?

Why? Doesn't the landlord have a goal of covering his/her expenses (including property taxes paid) ?

 

As a landlord, all I have to say is "hardly."

 

I would say that both are correct from each point of view....in renting an entire house, a landlord would usually include all, at least most of the taxes...so that family is paying tax....

From the standpoint of apartments, however, one could argue that each family pays a small fraction of tax relative to homeowners / renters...

In Graves County, its $500 to attend Mayfield and I think its that or cheaper to attend Graves, my buddy said that they give you a discount to send your children to Graves if you live in Mayfield, but I believe its $500 per child to send em to Mayfield, no discount. I know I pay $500 a year to send my child to Mayfield city schools and I live in Graves county.

As a landlord, all I have to say is "hardly."

 

We are way off subject and on a road I could care less to discuss, but if you weren't making money then you wouldn't do it.

Why can't a school district raise money for tuition aid for out of district students? This is an honest question. Is there a rule against it?

 

I would assume that the voters would be very unhappy with Board members who would be raising and/or spending money for students not living in the community while public schools are short computers, classroom space, etc, etc.

 

It would be a horrible decision for school districts to commit money for students NOT living in the district while the students living in the district do not have the necessary things they need.

Please clarify.

 

You said absolutely not (that you wouldn't be opposed to a private school giving free tuition to a poor student), however, the tagged on comment makes it sound like you would resent such an arrangment.

 

Don't resent anything. Just honestly recognize that private and public schools are apples and oranges. Both apples and oranges are good tasty fruits. I like both. But that does not mean they are the same.

 

When making a pie, the apples have an advantage over the oranges.

And when looking a Vitamin C fix, oranges have an advantage.

I would assume that the voters would be very unhappy with Board members who would be raising and/or spending money for students not living in the community while public schools are short computers, classroom space, etc, etc.

 

It would be a horrible decision for school districts to commit money for students NOT living in the district while the students living in the district do not have the necessary things they need.

 

The same argument could be made in a private school. Why aren't they using the fundraising to buy needed improvements instead of giving financial aid? Sorry, it doesn't wash with me. I'll grant that a lot of people would be very unhappy if a public school started raising money for financial aid to out of district students, but I see that as an extension of the "they're our kids" ownership mentality. Once a kid decides to attend Trinity, they become family and are treated as such, regardless of where they are from or what unique gifts they bring to the family.

The same argument could be made in a private school. Why aren't they using the fundraising to buy needed improvements instead of giving financial aid? Sorry, it doesn't wash with me. I'll grant that a lot of people would be very unhappy if a public school started raising money for financial aid to out of district students, but I see that as an extension of the "they're our kids" ownership mentality. Once a kid decides to attend Trinity, they become family and are treated as such, regardless of where they are from or what unique gifts they bring to the family.

 

But the state government has not put you in charge of giving a child a good education. They have put a public school in charge of it. And if they don't do it, they can be taken over by KDE.

 

They are NOT in charge of that kids' education that is NOT in their district.

 

We can debate whether the way KDE/politicians wants public schools run is smart or not. I will probably side with you on that.

 

BUT THAT is not the reality for public schools. We have to operate in the system that is setup for us.

 

And while you rail on that ownership mentality, it is a mentality we have to have. Cause if Little Johnny's and Susans in my district is NOT getting the education they are entitled to (IRREGARDLESS of whose fault it is), Frankfort comes in and takes over our school.

 

Let's say their parents care nothing for education and does not make their child do any work. Doesn't matter, still the school's fault and we get taken over.

 

Excuse us for being a little concerned because our jobs and our butts are on the line. Not to mention the obvious one of a kid going out into the world unprepared.

 

Yeah, we do have the ownership mentality because the state of KY has mandated that those kids are our responsibility unless the parent removes them from our responsibility.

Once a kid decides to attend Trinity, they become family and are treated as such, regardless of where they are from or what unique gifts they bring to the family.

 

This is a very charitable statement. I also think it over simplifies the issue. Most of the private schools in the state are religious based. I do believe that there are some families that have very strong religious convictions and make great sacrifces to have their kids attend the schools they choose. It's the parents that don't (never have and never will) attend an affliated church that amaze me. The whole question is not how they are treated after they get there as much as what "opportunity" presented itself to convince a non-affliated family to attend a religious based school.

 

I have heard (although never met anyone that would substatiate) that some privates have Alum that will sponsor kids tuition (specifically athletes). What a gift, at $32,000 over 4 years this begs the question - what does the alum get. If any of this is even possibly true I would think the easist thing to do would be lay out the funding source of every kid on any of the teams (public or private). There may not be a rule about sponsoring a kid in private school, but I suspect that at least some of these are done for a perceived athletic advantage. If tuition is waived for a public school (I think this happens also) the same requirement of proof should be required.

 

Just because it's not illegal doesn't make it right.

This is a very charitable statement. I also think it over simplifies the issue. Most of the private schools in the state are religious based. I do believe that there are some families that have very strong religious convictions and make great sacrifces to have their kids attend the schools they choose. It's the parents that don't (never have and never will) attend an affliated church that amaze me. The whole question is not how they are treated after they get there as much as what "opportunity" presented itself to convince a non-affliated family to attend a religious based school.

 

I have heard (although never met anyone that would substatiate) that some privates have Alum that will sponsor kids tuition (specifically athletes). What a gift, at $32,000 over 4 years this begs the question - what does the alum get. If any of this is even possibly true I would think the easist thing to do would be lay out the funding source of every kid on any of the teams (public or private). There may not be a rule about sponsoring a kid in private school, but I suspect that at least some of these are done for a perceived athletic advantage. If tuition is waived for a public school (I think this happens also) the same requirement of proof should be required.

 

Just because it's not illegal doesn't make it right.

 

I believe that type of sponsorship is against the rules. If not, it should be. I also doubt that it happens very often, if ever. It's a funny thing. You hear stories, but you never hear of anyone who was offered aid, turned it down and reported the offeror. Do you ever wonder why that is? Maybe because it just doesn't happen.

But the state government has not put you in charge of giving a child a good education. They have put a public school in charge of it. And if they don't do it, they can be taken over by KDE.

 

They are NOT in charge of that kids' education that is NOT in their district.

 

We can debate whether the way KDE/politicians wants public schools run is smart or not. I will probably side with you on that.

 

BUT THAT is not the reality for public schools. We have to operate in the system that is setup for us.

 

And while you rail on that ownership mentality, it is a mentality we have to have. Cause if Little Johnny's and Susans in my district is NOT getting the education they are entitled to (IRREGARDLESS of whose fault it is), Frankfort comes in and takes over our school.

 

Let's say their parents care nothing for education and does not make their child do any work. Doesn't matter, still the school's fault and we get taken over.

 

Excuse us for being a little concerned because our jobs and our butts are on the line. Not to mention the obvious one of a kid going out into the world unprepared.

 

Yeah, we do have the ownership mentality because the state of KY has mandated that those kids are our responsibility unless the parent removes them from our responsibility.

 

If a private school does a bad job the state doesn't have to shut them down. They will be out of business. That is really having your butt on the line. Education is a tough job under the best of circumstances and worse than that lot of the time, but it isn't our fault. We try to do the best that we can we anyone that comes through the door. And we open that door as wide as possible.

I believe that type of sponsorship is against the rules. If not, it should be. I also doubt that it happens very often, if ever. It's a funny thing. You hear stories, but you never hear of anyone who was offered aid, turned it down and reported the offeror. Do you ever wonder why that is? Maybe because it just doesn't happen.

 

 

I agree. Colleges get caught cheating, pros get caught cheating, but apparently X and T have figured out a way to do it and not get caught. Everyone has stories with no proof. This aint Beverly Hills folks, these are mostly middle class families at these schools. I can't wait till my daughters school (Mercy) starts winning stuff so we can be cheaters too!

Highlands, what is your tuition for out of district kids? Bowling Green's is $175.00. Beechwood, what say you? Ft. Campbell? These are all independent schools and can take whomever they want to enroll. Just as in Jefferson Coounty, you may pay tuition and attend Manual, Ballard, etc as long as they have room for you and you qualify academically, etc. I don't see much information flowing from the independents nor do they receive much criticism.

ADA is determined by the SEEK money and then what each local board sets it at.

 

So it's SEEK and not the state. The local board has the choice of raising that amount or not...

So it's SEEK and not the state. The local board has the choice of raising that amount or not...

 

ADA comes from the state through SEEK, I believe.

The local tuition for out of state students is set by the local boards.