Ya maybe those of us with educations trying to help smaller communities should just not have public schools for our kids, because you wealthier counties are the only place that need them. I have a huge clue about how schools are ran, I have tons of family involved in school districts across Ky on various levels. And it is mostly about money managing. Like I said you are paid based on your enrollment and then the attendance of that enrollment. Boone County is getting close to the same amount of money per student as every other school in the Commonwealth. So you want them to get more while the poorer communities should get less based on what you have been saying. You would just assume the kids of Eastern Kentucky just not go to school. Because if they only budgets they had were based on local tax revenue you would have about 100 kids per teacher, if not more.

 

Get more? Where did I make that statement? I just want to stop the redistribution of local tax dollars. Local BC taxes should stay in BC, never said anything about getting more, just want the people who choose to live here and school their children here get to see their tax dollars stay in the community and school system. What's wrong with that? Believe it or not, people make residence choices based on school systems. Is it really fair to see their dollars reallocated out of their district?

Fair is a relative term.

Interesting question would be to see how Fayette County and Jefferson County is doing financially. If they are okay, it would seem logical to suggest that Boone County could do it. If they are struggling, then I think there is probably true concern there.

Does any one have any totals of how mnay new schools have been built in Jefferson and Fayette counties? As well as how much their population has moved up or down in the last 20 years? Boone Co is one of the fastest growing areas not only only int he state, but I believe in thr country as well.

As far as running the district, each county gets the same amount of dollars PER STUDENT. It would seem that if most can get by on running a district on the an amount of money per student, it would see it should be something that can be done by all. That would be the logic behind the funding forumla.

Ya maybe those of us with educations trying to help smaller communities should just not have public schools for our kids, because you wealthier counties are the only place that need them. I have a huge clue about how schools are ran, I have tons of family involved in school districts across Ky on various levels. And it is mostly about money managing. Like I said you are paid based on your enrollment and then the attendance of that enrollment. Boone County is getting close to the same amount of money per student as every other school in the Commonwealth. So you want them to get more while the poorer communities should get less based on what you have been saying. You would just assume the kids of Eastern Kentucky just not go to school. Because if they only budgets they had were based on local tax revenue you would have about 100 kids per teacher, if not more.

 

You sure about that? I checked my local school district against the first school district listed on the KY Education site and we get over $1500 less per student. Works out to $3.3 million. I used the seek funds and "other state funding" numbers.

You sure about that? I checked my local school district against the first school district listed on the KY Education site and we get over $1500 less per student. Works out to $3.3 million. I used the seek funds and "other state funding" numbers.

 

Some of those schools may be applying for special grants which are separate. But the base numbers are the same accross the board. The thing about grants though is your administration has to be applying from them. Don't forget the role of attendance in funding too. If a school district has 10% better attendance district wide that could account for a huge portion of funds too. And then money for free lunches if you are a poorer district you would get more money for those students. Some districts don't participate in free lunch at all. Then transportation costs can be added in based on the number of students who ride the bus for more than 1 mile. But if all of these factors were the same at each school they would recive the same per student money.

Edited January 17, 201115 yr by HT721

Get more? Where did I make that statement? I just want to stop the redistribution of local tax dollars. Local BC taxes should stay in BC, never said anything about getting more, just want the people who choose to live here and school their children here get to see their tax dollars stay in the community and school system. What's wrong with that? Believe it or not, people make residence choices based on school systems. Is it really fair to see their dollars reallocated out of their district?

 

And that's an argument you can make. But look at what the tax dollars are in some of these poor communities without redistributing some of the money a lot of Eastern Kentucky Counties couldn't even afford to operate a school. So should those kids just not get to go to school?

Some of those schools may be applying for special grants which are separate. But the base numbers are the same accross the board. The thing about grants though is your administration has to be applying from them. Don't forget the role of attendance in funding too. If a school district has 10% better attendance district wide that could account for a huge portion of funds too. And then money for free lunches if you are a poorer district you would get more money for those students. Some districts don't participate in free lunch at all. Then transportation costs can be added in based on the number of students who ride the bus for more than 1 mile. But if all of these factors were the same at each school they would recive the same per student money.

 

Just took another look at the numbers and my school, with one of the highest attendance rates in the state, received $2000, not $1500, less in state money than the first school I looked at. We participate in free lunches. The federal tax money made the difference much higher. Something is wrong here. I could see somewhat of a change but you're talking several million dollars with comparative student populations.

Just took another look at the numbers and my school, with one of the highest attendance rates in the state, received $2000, not $1500, less in state money than the first school I looked at. We participate in free lunches. The federal tax money made the difference much higher. Something is wrong here. I could see somewhat of a change but you're talking several million dollars with comparative student populations.

 

Do you know the percentages at each school on these programs for lunch and transportation though? Some districts in poorer counties have as high as 90% of students recieving free or reduced lunch. That might not make up for all of it but it could make up for a large portion.

Do you know the percentages at each school on these programs for lunch and transportation though? Some districts in poorer counties have as high as 90% of students recieving free or reduced lunch. That might not make up for all of it but it could make up for a large portion.

 

If the other school is at 90%, it would come to about $500,000 or about 10% of the difference and that would be in the federal dollar numbers. Maybe the transportation is $4-5 million for a school district of 2500 students? Like I said, the numbers just don't work.

If the other school is at 90%, it would come to about $500,000 or about 10% of the difference and that would be in the federal dollar numbers. Maybe the transportation is $4-5 million for a school district of 2500 students? Like I said, the numbers just don't work.

 

In theory they should, but as you are showing theory and reality are two different things. Their may be money out there now I just don't know about it's been a few years since I discussed this with anyone really.

You sure about that? I checked my local school district against the first school district listed on the KY Education site and we get over $1500 less per student. Works out to $3.3 million. I used the seek funds and "other state funding" numbers.

Funding is based on average daily attendance not the number of students enrolled in school. So, if there are any attendance issues, that would reduce the per student amount as those students not attending school are taking money out of the district every single day they are absent.

Funding is based on average daily attendance not the number of students enrolled in school. So, if there are any attendance issues, that would reduce the per student amount as those students not attending school are taking money out of the district every single day they are absent.

 

I know, our school has one of the highest attendance rates in the state and with a similar population they get several million dollars less than the other. That's why I said the numbers just don't work.

Pike and Martin Co. will make you a deal.

 

We keep ALL COAL SEVERANCE MONEY, as well as all other money taxed from coal mined in our counties, and you can keep your taxes derived in Boone Co.

 

Matter of fact will back up and pay you what has been taken out of your community tax wise since KERA, and you back us and pay back any money you got from taxes on coal.

 

 

Deal?

 

http://www.kftc.org/our-work/high-road/coal-severance-tax

 

 

http://www.coaleducation.org/ky_coal_facts/economy/severance_tax.htm

Pike and Martin Co. will make you a deal.

 

We keep ALL COAL SEVERANCE MONEY, as well as all other money taxed from coal mined in our counties, and you can keep your taxes derived in Boone Co.

 

Matter of fact will back up and pay you what has been taken out of your community tax wise since KERA, and you back us and pay back any money you got from taxes on coal.

 

 

Deal?

 

http://www.kftc.org/our-work/high-road/coal-severance-tax

 

 

 

 

http://www.coaleducation.org/ky_coal_facts/economy/severance_tax.htm

 

 

Why would you think that all the coal severance money was supposed to stay in only the coal producing counties? The program, if I understand it correctly, was just another way for the state to raise revenue, and not for the sole purpose of doing it only for "coal counties" but the state.