►
From YouTube: School Funding Task Force (11/8/21)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
B
Senator
givens
senator
thomas
chairman
tipton.
C
I'm
here,
I'm
out
of
state.
A
I
am
president
in
the
room
like
to
recognize
and
thank
my
co-chair,
senator
wise
on
this
endeavor
over
the
last
few
months
months.
You
have
any
comments
to
begin
with
this
morning.
F
A
You're
very
welcome
we'd
like
to
welcome
associate
commissioner
robin
kenney
to
the
task
force
as
the
invited
representative
from
kentucky
department
of
education,
and
we
also
want
to
thank
chuck
truesdale
for
his
participation
in
in
prior
meetings.
We
certainly
appreciate
his
input
and
look
forward
to
working
with
him
in
his
new
role
in
the
future.
A
A
A
A
There
was
some
discussion
of
whether
or
not
house
bill
563
had
been
struck
down
by
judge
shepard
entirely
or
just
the
section
on
the
education
opportunity
accounts.
Since
that
time,
I
have
seen
comments
from
judge
shepard
that
he
has
clarified
that
the
portion
on
district
district
transfer
was
not
struck
down
in
his
ruling.
He
will
be
issuing
a
written
clarification
on
that
at
some
time
in
the
future,
so
it's
very
relevant
that
we
have
this
continued
conversation
today.
D
G
D
It
was
required
to
be
filed
by
november
1st
and
we're
just
going
to
kind
of
go
through
the
report
at
a
high
level
and
then
allow
any
questions
that
you
might
have
about.
The
report
as
cheer
tipton
started
us
off
house
bill
563
as
well
as
house
bill,
405
required
the
department
to
provide
information
on
the
equitable
transfer
of
education
funds
so
that
funds
follow
a
non-resident
student
from
the
resident
district
to
a
non-resident
district
where
they
would
be
enrolled.
D
D
They
non-resident
students
can
be
included
in
their
average
daily
attendance
if
they
meet
certain
necessary
criteria
under
our
existing
statute,
krs
157
350,
which
is
the
seek
eligibility
statutes
by
which
districts
qualify
to
be
eligible
for
distributions
from
seek.
They
can
use
non-resident
students
under
certain
criteria
under
the
statute,
and
this
is
in
place
until
july,
1st
of
2022
pupils
listed
under
a
written
agreement
between
a
non-resident
district.
Any
resident
district
may
enter
into
a
voluntary
agreement
and
allow
those
students
to
be
transferred.
D
It
may
be
helpful
for
you
to
know
that,
based
upon
that
information
recorded
right
now
by
districts,
we
pulled
two
sets
of
data
for
just
for
your
information
from
1819
and
from
2122,
and
there
are
about
26
000
students
right
now
that
are
encoded
as
non-resident
students.
Each
year,
that's
across
several
years,
we've
had
a
little
bit
of
changes
of
with
covid
right
now
is
reporting,
so
we
pulled
from
1819,
which
was
pre-covered
in
the
most
recent
year
of
2122..
D
The
superintendent's
annual
attendance
report
they're
coded
a
little
bit
differently
again,
not
included
in
ada
for
seek
purposes,
but
once
right
now,
once
those
students
are
coded
that
way
for
really
for
practical
purposes,
they
are
treated
the
same
as
resident
students
for
seek
funding,
so
once
we
know
they're
in
there
they
meet
those
statutory
requirements.
They
are
treated
as
a
resident
student
there's,
not
this
distinction
between
a
resident
or
non-resident
students.
D
This
is
also
true
for
a
lot
of
our
state
funding
state
grant
opportunities,
so
you
may
be
familiar
with
our
large
line
items
that
may
use
ada
as
part
of
the
calculation
again
once
they
are
coded
and
are
eligible.
Then
we
don't
really
distinguish
between
a
resident
or
non-resident
student
for
all
practica
practical
purposes.
Those
are
a
student
of
that
district
that
they
are
enrolled
generally.
D
Currently,
those
students
are
enrolled
in
a
non-resident
district
under
a
voluntary
agreement,
and
how
does
that
happen?
Districts
have
different
agreements
between
each
other
and
that
is
left
at
the
local
level.
Currently
so
you
may
have
districts
that
do
a
one-to-one
chain
exchange,
meaning
every
student
that
comes
to
my
district,
an
equal
student
will
go,
be
permitted
to
go
to
your
district,
other
districts
have
any
and
all
meaning
whatever
students
want
to
come
to.
D
There
are
some
districts
that
choose
not
to
enter
into
non-resident
agreements,
and
when
that
happens,
if
one
of
those
districts
would
like
for
those
students
to
be
enrolled,
there
is
an
appeal
process
to
the
commissioner
of
the
department
of
education
and
to
the
kentucky
board
of
education.
If
there's
no
agreement
reached,
so
that's
kind
of
how
it
works
right
now,
if
an
appeal
is
filed
and
those
districts
can't
work
it
out,
krs
157
350
requires
the
department
to
consider
factors
affecting
the
districts,
including
academic
performance
and
the
impact
on
programs
and
operations.
D
So
we
would
be
required
to
look
at
facilities,
transportation
and
staffing
as
we're
trying
to
work
that
out
with
those
districts.
So,
let's
take
a
look
forward
now,
with
the
passage
of
560
house
bill.
563
districts
will
no
longer
enter
into
non
resident
agreements
with
each
other.
Instead,
they
will
enter
into
non-resident
policies
again
by
july,
1,
2022,
and
once
they
entered
into
those
policies,
those
students
admitted
under
those
policies
may
be
included
in
the
district's
ada
for
funding
purposes.
D
D
Current
processes
for
coding.
We
anticipate
at
the
department
of
education
coding
your
students
as
non-resident
students,
will
pretty
much
remain
the
same.
We
think
operationally
for
purposes
of
seek,
there's
really
not
a
lot
of
difference
that
needs
to
happen
to
our
systems
in
order
to
operationalize
house
bill
563.
D
So
let's
talk
a
little
bit
about
local
revenue
because
that's
the
last
piece
as
far
as
we
have
state
revenue
comprised
of
seek,
we
have
state
and
federal
funds.
Again,
we
see
very
much
the
same
opportunities
and
process
operationally
to
effectuate
that
transfer
or
that
assignment
or
allocation
of
funds,
but
with
the
local
revenue,
which
is
the
other
component
that
local
school
districts
receive.
It
gets
a
little
trickier
in
our
opinion,
so
local
school
boards
are
independent,
taxing
authorities
percent
to
krs
160.455.
D
Additionally,
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
the
amount
of
taxes
levy
by
a
district
at
the
local
level
is
not
what
they
necessarily
collect.
So
there's
always
some
percentage
just
like
with
other
taxes
that
are
assessed
that
don't
get
collected
either
at
all
or
they
don't
collected,
get
collected
in
a
timely
manner.
So
that's
worth
pointing
out
and
of
course,
we're
talking
about
real
and
personal
property
taxes,
motor
vehicle
taxes,
permissive
taxes
and
then
those
local
utility,
occupational
or
excise
taxes.
D
So
the
transfer
of
local
funds-
and
we
have
contained
in
our
report
an
analysis
of
the
transfer
of
local
funds
to
non-resident
districts,
either
directly
or
indirectly
may
raise
constitutional
challenges.
And
I
think
it's
also
worth
saying
you
know
reasonable
legal
advisors
and
scholars
may
differ
in
the
interpretation
of
that.
But
we
are
putting
forth
in
our
report
sort
of
things
and
for
the
general
assembly
to
consider
as
you
move
forward,
we
looked
at
four
possible
options
related
again
to
local
revenues,
the
first
being
no
transfer
of
local
funds.
D
Of
course,
that
is
probably
the
safest
and
easiest
to
accomplish,
because
it
doesn't
give
rise
to
the
other
possible
constitutional
or
legal
challenges
that
we've
set
forth
in
report.
The
other
three
options
that
we
looked
at
were
requiring
a
resident
district
to
transfer
the
local
funds
portion
directly
to
a
non-resident
district,
so
a
district
to
district
transfer.
D
The
second
was
requiring
adjustment
of
seek
at
the
state
level
to
provide
additional
funds
for
non-residence
districts
while
decreasing
to
the
corresponding
resident
district
from
which
the
student
had
come
from
and
then
finally,
we
looked
at
the
general
assembly
providing
a
separate
appropriation
outside
of
seek
to
provide
additional
funds
to
districts.
Admitting
those
non-resident
students
again,
we
think
through
options.
Two
through
four.
There
may
be
some
legal
challenges
both
based
upon
the
kentucky
constitution
and
the
legal
case
of
rose
versus
council
for
better
education.
D
Again,
we
provide
these
as
thoughts
for
the
general
assembly
to
consider
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
the
legal
analysis
of
each
of
those
that
are
contained
in
the
report
in
the
interest
of
time,
and
we
do
have
our
general
counsel
here.
Todd
allen.
In
case
we
have
questions
as
as
we
kind
of
move
forward.
D
Again,
I
would
emphasize
that
for
state
funds,
federal
funds
and
for
seek
seek
where
we're
not
adjusting
the
seek
computation
for
local
funding
revenue,
we
don't
think
that
we'll
have
a
lot
of
difficulty
in
making
those
transfers
occur.
It
is
only
when
we
get
to
the
local
revenue
level
that
we
may
have
some
challenges.
D
We
we
would
also
one
question
we
would
have
for
the
general
assembly
is
about
in
the
current
calculation
of
seek.
We
do
look
backwards
for
a
year,
so
would
we
be
looking
at
that?
Or
would
we
be
looking
at
justin
a
more
in
the
calendar
year?
Timing?
So
that's
something
we
need
some
assistance
in
thinking
through,
but
we
could.
We
could
probably
figure
out
a
way
to
do
this.
D
D
We
could
help
you
with
how
many
students,
again
looking
at
what
our
data
shows,
is
the
number
of
students
right
now
and
then
adjust
off
of
that
for
those
non-contract
students.
So
you
can
get
an
idea
of
what
that
appropriation
might
look
like
or
you
could.
We
could
try
to
look
at
again
that
local
revenue
that
is
being
brought
into
the
resident
district
currently
and
try
to
come
up
with
a
per
pupil
amount.
D
That
way,
and
then
look
at
that
as
you
build
your
appropriation,
what
that
would
look
like
again
based
on
historical
information
there
there
are
the
the
department
really
stands
available
to
assist
in
trying
to
determine
after
the
general
assembly
makes
their
decisions
on
what
option
or
other
options
you
may
consider
for
the
transfer
of
funds
to
the
resident
districts,
but
really
at
this
point
in
time
we
we
probably
need
a
little
more
guidance
on
which
option
you
may
choose
and
then
we'll
be
happy
to
be
available
to
share
with
you
what
data
we
have
available
or
what
mechanisms
could
be
accomplished
quickly.
D
A
Thank
you
rob
and
I'll
I'll
begin.
I
certainly
appreciate
the
work
on
this.
I
know
these
are
not
easy
things
to
comprehend
and
work
through,
and
I
appreciate
the
given
the
four
options
to
consider
in
some
of
the
issues,
and
this
question
will
probably
go
to
to
mr
allen
and,
more
specifically
on
options,
three
and
four,
whether
there's
an
adjustment
to
seek
or
a
separate
allocation.
A
D
G
So,
just
for
clarification,
option
number
three
would
be
adjusting,
seek
and
we'll
drill
down
on
that
a
little
bit
more
adjusting
seek
beyond
just
the
change
in
per
pupil.
So
if
one
pupil
moves
from
district
a
to
district
b,
there's
a
natural
change
in
that
just
based
on
the
ada
system
that
we
currently
operate.
G
But,
as
we
understand
the
question
in
our
report
anticipated
making
a
further
adjustment
to
transfer
more
state,
seek
dollars
to
district
b
for
that
pupil
and
reducing
state
seek
dollars
to
district
a
beyond
just
the
natural
per-pupil
allocation,
the
issues
that
could
exist
with
that
and
as
robin
indicated.
Obviously
you
know
I
don't
wear
a
black
robe.
I
don't
make
the
decisions,
but
we
did
some
research
and
put
this
together
for
information
for
the
general
assembly
and
anyone
who's
interested.
G
Is
that
creates
a
system
that
we
believe
would
open
the
door
to
challenges
under
the
rose
decision.
So
the
first
question
that
that
begs
is:
why
do
we
need
to
transfer
more
than
the
state
per
pupil
allocation
from
district
a
to
district
b?
Is
it
because
the
per-pupil
allocation
isn't
sufficient
for
an
adequate
education?
As
rose
indicated,
if
it
is
sufficient,
then
perhaps
we
don't
need
to
make
a
transfer
if
it
isn't
sufficient.
Maybe
that's
the
reason
we're
looking
to
make
a
transfer
so
that
that
is
one
argument
that
exists
in
that
situation.
G
Number
two
is
naturally
what
would
have
to
happen
if
you're,
if
you're
reducing
the
amount
of
state
seek
funds
to
district
a
where
the
pupil
lives
beyond
the
per-pupil
allocation,
then
what
that
does
is
in
essence
eats
into
their
local
revenues,
and
we
have
constitutional
language
that
says
if
a
local
tax
is
passed
for
one
purpose,
it
can
never
be
directed
to
another
purpose.
Now
we
can
argue
back
and
forth
about
whether
that
purpose
is
education
in
general
or
education
for
that
particular
school
district.
G
But
we
have
a
lot
of
history
and
precedent
that
indicates
the
taxes
that
a
local
school
district
passes
above
that
30
cent.
Minimum
that's
required
by
the
general
assembly
is
to
supplement
their
local
system.
That's
what
the
rose
decision
said
and
the
general
assembly
even
has
a
statute.
That
indicates
that
so
we
could
anticipate
school
districts
saying
you're
taking
revenue
that
was
meant
to
supplement
our
local
system
and
transferring
it
to
another
school
district.
That
was
not
the
purpose
of
the
tax,
another
possible
argument
and
then
finally,
there's
the
equity
issue.
G
The
rose
decision
also
addressed
equity
among
students
throughout
the
state
and
providing
both
an
adequate
and
equitable
education
and
in
the
scenario
of
providing
more
seek
funding
to
district
b,
less
seek
funding
to
district
a
that
creates
a
situation
where
the
per-pupil
state
allotment,
isn't
equitable,
that
is,
students
in
district
b
are
getting
more
from
the
state
per
pupil
than
the
students
in
district.
A.
H
D
No,
just
the
local
revenue
portion
would
not
be
transferred.
H
H
H
D
Yes,
I
think
the
way
house
bill
563
contemplates
each
district
will
come
up
with
their
non-resident
policy
by
which
they
receive
students,
so
they
could
put
a
cap
on
the
number
of
students
that
they
wish
to
receive
as
they're
thinking
about
funding
that
will
be
received
by
them
if
they
think
that
is
not
going
to
be
sufficient,
they
could
put
a
cap
on
it,
so
they
don't
have
to
take
that
student.
Yes,.
H
A
Make
a
comment-
and
I
think
it
goes
to
option
one.
You
could
have
a
school
district,
a
county
out
in
the
state,
that's
surrounded
by
four
or
five
counties
and
they
may
possibly
be
receiving
non-resident
students
from
those
districts
into
their
districts
and
each
one
of
those
counties
would
have
a
different
state
portion
of
seek
funds.
B
D
A
County
may
have
a
much
higher
portion.
One
county
may
have
a
much
lower
portion
so
that
that's
part
of
the
calculus
that
school
districts
will
have
to
determine.
I
don't
just
do
any
of
our
superintendents,
I
know
and
school
board
members.
I
know
this
is
something
that
would
impact
you
do
you
all
have
any
comments.
You
would
like
to
add
to
this
discussion.
I
For
example,
if
you
look
at
one
of
the
one
of
the
schools
that
I
have
so
this
not
necessarily
relates
to
funding,
but
it
does
relate
to
open
borders.
I
have
students
that
can
get
to
other
schools
much
more
quickly
and
would
possibly
transfer
out
with
that
happening.
That's
a
possibility
of
closing
down
a
school
so
currently,
in
this
one
particular
school
that
I
have
phenomenal
school.
Actually,
a
five-star
school,
their
middle
school
is
a
five-star
school.
I
So
then,
if
I
close
that
down,
it's
a
quite
a
possibility
that
my
elementary
students
would
have
to
go
an
hour
and
a
half
one
way.
So
again,
when
we
talk
about
funding,
there's
more
to
the
picture
than
just
funding,
I
think
everybody
knows
that,
but
for
us-
and
I
think
you
could
probably
find
other
districts
very
similar
to
that
too.
So
that's
my
one
comment.
When
we
talk
about
open
borders,
there's
a
possibility
of
of
closing
schools
and
for
other
districts
it
could
be
reo
opening
more
schools,
so
something
to
keep
in
mind.
J
Representative
tipton,
I
think
one
thing
to
clarify
too:
if
a
student's
going
to
a
the
student
in
district,
a
goes
to
district
b
district
b
would
be
receiving
their
seek
of
value.
Not
the
other
districts
seek
value
correct,
so
that
would
be
one
thing
we
would
be
able
to.
We
could
plan
on
that,
but
the
the
factor
of
waiting
a
year
behind.
That's
where
things
get
very
difficult.
K
J
Representative
tipton,
like
you're,
saying,
if
we
know
we're
going
to
receive
x,
amount
of
seek
funding
for
a
student,
then
we
have
to
make
that
decision
as
a
local
district
of.
Can
we
take
300
kids?
I
think
one
of
the
big
discussions
throughout
the
superintendents
with
the
the
new
bill
would
be
what
are
those
criteria
for
allowing
students
in
because
when
we
give
that
open
that
true
open
border,
if
we're
just
picking
and
choosing,
I
think
that
becomes
very
difficult.
J
So,
as
a
district,
we
would
have
to
decide
if
we
want
to
take
open
enrollment,
which
I
think
most
districts
would.
But
then,
where
does
that
cap
become
feasible
financially
and
if
we
know
that
number,
I
think
it's
feasible.
If
we
start
shifting,
if
I
take
students
and
all
of
a
sudden
start
losing
a
lot
of
local
money,
then
that
becomes
a
very
hard
scale
to
try
to
go.
If
I
know
I'm
receiving
so
much
money
per
student-
and
I
take
that
I
can
kind
of
work
my
budget
that
way.
J
K
I
was
just
going
to
add
to
the
conversation
on
this.
This
is
a
very
complicated
question.
It's
opened
a
lot
of
what-ifs
and
a
lot
of
questions
about
how
to
properly
handle
it
that
need
to
be
given
careful
consideration,
but,
as
I
stated
in
our
last
meeting
local
funds,
I
strongly
believe
need
to
stay
with
the
local
district
they're
raised
by
the
local
district
they're
paid
by
the
local
residents
to
educate
the
students
in
that
district,
and
I
feel
very
strongly
that
that's
where
they
need
to
stay.
Thank
you.
A
I
don't
believe
we're
going
to
come
up
with
the
answers
to
this
issue
today
and
if
you
probably
have
already
looked
at
our
recommendations,
you
will
see
that
that
we're
going
to
recommend
further
discussion
and
input
on
this
as
going
forward,
been
reminded
that,
in
in
my
haste,
to
get
to
the
agenda,
I
forgot
to
get
approval
from
the
menace
for
the
last
meeting.
They
should
be
in
your
package.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
approve?
A
I
in
a
second
all
in
favor,
say
aye
I
oppose
no
motion
carries.
I
was
so
excited
about
getting
to
all
this
information.
I
forgot
to
take
care
of
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping
the
next.
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
actually
the
essence
of
why
we've
been
meeting
these
several
last
six
months
over
the
interim,
and
that
is
recommendations
to
the
general
assembly
co-chair
wise
and
I
have
met
since
their
last
meeting.
We
have
reviewed
all
the
testimony
that
has
been
given
by
our
presenters.
A
A
I
just
need
to
find
my
copy
here.
Oh
thank
you.
Josh
you've
got
that
handy
there.
Let
me-
and
this
is-
you
probably
saw
this-
this
was
in
the
form
of
a
memorandum
to
senate
president
stivers
and
in
house
speaker
osborne
for
the
legislative
research
commission.
A
Testimony
was
provided
by
the
kentucky
department
of
education,
the
southern
regional
education
board,
the
legislative
research
commission's
office
of
education,
accountability,
school
superintendents
and
school
board.
Members
after
cons
upon
considering
the
testimony
and
information
provided
the
co-chairs
after
consultation
with
the
task
force
members
and
invited
experts,
recommend
the
following
number
one.
A
The
general
assembly
permanently
authorized.
The
full
funding
of
kindergarten
in
statute
ensure
districts
receive
the
appropriate
equalization
funding.
As
a
result
of
this
change,
recommendation
number
two:
the
general
assembly
give
consideration
to
transitioning
from
using
average
daily
attendance
in
the
funding
calculation
to
using
average
daily
membership
in
a
manner
that
minimizes
extreme
funding
changes
for
school
districts,
while
also
maintaining
incentives
for
student
attendance
and
accountability
for
school
districts.
A
A
Recommendation
number
six:
the
general
assembly,
in
consultation
with
the
legislative
research
commission,
explore
the
development
of
a
school
district
impact
statement
to
inform
legislators
about
a
bill's
potential
costs
to
local
school
districts
number
seven.
The
education
assessment
and
accountability
review
subcommittee
include
in
its
2022
office
of
education,
accountability,
research
agenda,
a
review
of
the
most
recent
studies
measuring
the
cost
of
an
etiquette,
adequate
public
education
in
kentucky
in
similar
states,
with
a
focus
on
the
methods
used
in
those
studies,
the
outcomes
and
the
cost
associated
with
educating
special
student
populations.
A
The
legislative
research
commission
continue
to
study
and
review
the
issues
of
school
funding
in
the
updating
of
the
school
funding
system.
Through
referral
of
the
issue
to
an
interim
joint
committee
during
the
2022
interim,
the
co-chair
suggests
the
general
assembly
and
legislative
research
commission
employ
these
recommendations
during
the
2022
regular
session,
and
we
have
a
comment
or
question
from
representative
bojanowski.
E
Yes
comment
actually,
so
I
just
want
to
say
I
do
fully
support
each
of
the
initiatives
that
are
listed
here,
they're
reasonable
and
they
really
tie
into
everything
that
I've
learned
within
this
process.
I
do
want
to
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
number
seven.
E
If,
if
a
district's
seek
is
4
000,
that
district
will
get
9
400
to
educate
a
child
with
autism
and
the
problematic
situation
is
that
special
education
is
a
federal
mandate.
However,
federal
funding
is
only
10
percent
of
the
promised
40
percent
that
they
would
contribute.
So
I
definitely
thank
the
chairs
for
this
process.
I'm
hopeful
that
I
could
sit
on
a
further
committee
in
this
manner
and
I
appreciate
these
findings.
Thank
you.
A
H
It's
a
comment,
mr
chairman.
First
off,
I
just
want
to
add
my
support
for
the
recommendations
that
you
guys
have
put
into
writing
here
today.
I
think
we
are
on
the
right
track.
I
just
wanted
to
also
emphasize
recommendation
number
nine
and
that
I
think
we're
beyond
the
first
step
in
this
process.
I
hate
to
say
I
hate
it
when
we
say
that
we're
on
the
first
step
only
we're
beyond
that,
but
we're
not
at
the
last
step
yet
either.
H
So
I
think
that
interim
committee
for
2022
will
be
vital
and
very
much
worthwhile
with
going
forward
with
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
K
I
Thank
you,
chairman
tipton
one.
A
couple
comments
actually
on
number
six
recommendation
number
six.
I
think
this
is
very
important
as
we
move
forward.
I
don't
want
to
gloss
over
this
at
all,
because
I
think
this
is
very,
very
important
for
districts.
The
general
assembly,
in
consultation
with
the
legislative
research
commission,
explored
the
development
of
a
school
district
impact
statement
to
inform
legislators
about
a
bill's
potential
cost
to
school
districts.
There's
a
lot
of
times
that
we
have
unfunded
mandates,
and
I
think
that
was
something
we
mentioned
as
we
went
through.
I
So
I'd
like
to
thank
the
gentleman
for
including
ladies
for
including
this,
I
think
this
is
very
important
for
school
districts,
but
also
too
I'd
be
remiss.
If
I
didn't
talk
about
equity
for
just
a
second,
I
sent
out
some
information
to
each
member
talking
about
teacher
salaries
as
it
relates
to
quintiles.
I
According
to
the
oea
report,
that
increases
when
you
get
into
three
four
and
five
all
the
way
up
to
eleven
thousand
eight
hundred
fourteen
dollars
for
property,
rich
districts,
so
you're,
looking
at
discrepancies
when
you
move
from
property,
poor
districts
of
2965
dollars
to
quintile
two
is
three
thousand
discrepancy
from
quintile.
I
If
you
look
at
average,
when
talking
about
quintile
one,
the
average
teacher
salary
in
quintile,
one
which
is
property
poor
districts,
is
forty,
nine
thousand
nine
hundred
ten
dollars.
As
you
move
up
to
quintile
five,
it's
sixty
thousand.
Sixty
nine
dollars
and
if
you
take
out
livingston
line
county
which
are
included
in
that
you're
up
to
sixty
five
thousand
dollars
average
salary
for
a
teacher
which
again
I
think
teachers
should
be
paid
more.
I
But
when
we
look
at
the
funding
as
it
relates
to
property,
rich
versus
property,
poor
districts,
not
only
is
there
a
discrepancy
in
how
much
spent
on
per
student
that
gives
them
more
opportunities,
so
you're,
looking
at
also
with
teacher
salary,
there's
a
discrepancy
there.
Also,
of
course,
the
last
comment
I'll
make
is:
is
that
continued
funding
of
teacher
retirement
and
also
the
medical
insurance
for
retirees?
I
Also
too,
as
as
we
move
forward
so
again,
I
hope
everyone
had
the
opportunity
to
read
over
that
information
I
sent
out,
because
I
think
that
really
shows
what
a
discrepancy
that
a
property,
rich
district
versus
property
poor
district
could
be,
and
something
is
as
huge
as
teacher
salaries.
Thank
you
and
one
other
comment.
I'm
sorry.
I
I
do
agree
with
with
what's
recommended
here.
I
think,
from
from
our
standpoint,
if
a
few
of
these
are
just
are
truly
considered,
we
really
appreciate
that
everything
from
full
day
kindergarten
to
to
also
the
transportation
that
would
be
great
for
every
single
district
in
our
state.
So
thank
you
for
that.
A
I
appreciate
your
comments
and
input
in
regard
to
to
your
comments,
a
lot
of
what
you're
referring
to
are
going
to
be
budget
decisions
that
are
made
every
biennium
going
back
to
the
2020
session
prior
to
covet.
I
was
on
the
budget
conference
committee
and
while
it
was
very
modest,
there
was
a
on
the
table
discussion
of
a
one
percent
increase
for
all
state
employees,
and
I
think
going
into
this
2022
session
myself,
I'm
speaking
for
myself.
A
Now
we
have
to
invest
in
our
most
important
asset
in
state
government,
and
that
is
our
employees,
and
that
is
all
the
way
across
the
board.
Our
state
police,
our
dedicated
state
employees
and
all
our
agencies,
as
well
as
their
teachers,
and
this
is
something
I
think
we
have
to
take
a
very
serious
and
sincere
look
at
in
how
we
appropriate
funding
for
those
issues
as
well
as
all
these
others.
We
have
a
comment
from
co-chairwise.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
working
with
you
on
these
recommendations,
as
well
as
everyone
who's
contributed
and
all
of
our
speakers.
We've
had
friday's
input
and
I
could
not
agree
more
with
your
comments
there.
I
think
when
we
look
at
salaries
for
attracting
the
best
and
brightest
to
state
police,
to
education,
social
workers
on
the
lines
this
legislative
session,
we
have
to
take
a
serious
a
look
at
that.
I
also
want
to
say
with
having
nine
recommendations
on
here.
F
This
is
kind
of
like
nine
things
on
your
child's
christmas
wish
list
as
we're
getting
ready
to
approach
the
christmas
holiday
and
with
that
just
so
the
general
public
knows,
and
we've
got
media
here
when
we
take
recommendations
like
this,
we
will
provide
this
once
again
to
house
and
senate
leadership
and
we'll
see
what
the
best
we
can
do,
but
I
do
think
these
are
excellent
recommendations,
fully
support
and
superintendent
fletcher.
You
make
a
great
point
as
we
talk
about
that
impact
statement
on
number
six.
F
I've
seen
it
with
a
lot
of
health
and
welfare
bills.
We
do
fiscal
notes
and
sometimes
those
are
indeterminable,
and
sometimes
we
ask.
How
did
you
come
to
that
question
with
the
physical
note
and
somebody
in
the
back
room?
Does,
though,
it's
probably
a
chuck
truesdale
mind,
or
somebody
like
that,
so
I
do
think
this
is
very
good
when
we
discuss
mandates,
unfunded
mandates
for
districts
to
be
able
to
look
at
so
I'm
excited
going
forward.
F
A
F
C
C
C
Okay,
yes,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
say
I
think
you
and
max
did
an
excellent
job
in
putting
together
these
recommendations.
C
You
know
I
I
read
this
earlier
this
morning
and-
and
I
fully
agree
with
all
of
them
so
so
my
hat
is
off
to
you
and
max
for
for
the
recommendation,
I'm
going
to
say
that,
first
and
foremost,
both
of
you
have
done
an
excellent
job
trying
this
task
force,
I
think
you,
I
think
you
have
really
moved
this
state
forward
over
the
summer
with
this
task
force.
So
let
me
let
me
I
want
to
put
that
in
the
record.
First,
I
want
the
record
to
reflect
my
comments.
There.
C
Number
two
of
the
other
nine,
which
I
agree,
the
the
one
I
think
is
it's.
The
best
is
number
six.
I
I
can't
remember
what
what
superintendent
said
that,
but,
but
I'm
a
firm
believer
in
having
differential
impact
statements
for
different
subject
matters
we
addressed,
and
I
think,
having
a
school
district
impact
statement
is
a
step
in
this
direction.
C
I
hope
in
this
decade
we
move
from
just
a
fiscal
impact
statement
to
maybe
having
four
or
five
separate
impact
statements
dealing
with
a
variety
of
subject,
matters
that
that
we
address,
because
our
most
important
priority
in
this
state.
If
you
look
at
our
budget,
is
education,
representative
tipton
and
you
know,
as
we
proceed
to
advance
education
and
state,
we
we
don't
want
to
have
any
unfunded
mandates.
We
don't
want
to
pass
legislation,
while
with
good
intentions,
may
cause
fiscal
burdens
of
financial
burdens
to
the
school
district.
C
So
I
think
number,
six
of
all
the
nine
number
six
is
the
best
and
I
hope
we
implement
that
as
a
general
assembly
in
2022..
C
My
third
comment
is
this:
I
strongly
agree
it
with
number
nine
reverend
jonathan
made
a
comment
about
number
nine.
I
fully
endorse
his
comment.
I
think
we
did
good
work
this
year
with
this
school
funding
task
force,
but
there's
a
lot
more
work
to
do
and
what
I've
seen
in
the
past,
sometimes
in
general
assemblies.
C
We
have
these
task
force,
we
we
do
a
good
job,
but
we
don't
finish
the
job
and
then
the
next
year
the
task
force
gets
disbanded
and
we're
just
kind
of
left
hanging
over
the
cliff
with
with
with
with
incomplete
work
which
which
troubles
me.
So
I
really
hope
president
stivers
and
speaker
osborne
take
this
to
heart
and
continue
this
task
force
through
2022.
I
agree
with
representative
johnson
on
that
point.
C
I
only
have
one
question
and
I
don't
like
to
hear
from
you
and
max
on
this.
As,
as
you
know,
I've
been
troubled
by
the
talk
about
eliminating
school
attendance.
C
I
must
say
that
since
my
last
meeting,
I've
talked
to
several
people
about
this
issue
and
some
have
told
me
that
they
think
that
is
a
good
idea
that
that
that
we
do
look
at
membership
along
the
way.
I'd
like
to
hear
from
you
and
max
as
to
why
you
what
your
rationale
is
for
having
consideration
from
moving
from
school,
attended
from
moving
from
emphasis
on
school
attendance
to
school
membership,
matt
says
you
could
go
first.
I'd
appreciate
that.
F
Thank
you
senator
thomas
looking
at
that.
I
think
the
discussions
that
we
had
in
here,
especially
hearing
from
our
folks
at
kde.
I
think
the
explanation
when
we
had
mr
ritter
for
me
was
very
convincing
for
me
to
look
at
as
it
relates
to
equity,
relates
to
accountability
and
some
things
that
are
there.
I
think
we
need
to
look
going
forward
from
a
bigger
picture
as
we
relate
to
attendance.
I
think
we
have
looked
at
this
funding
issue
through
kova
to
continue
to
go
back
to
2018-19.
F
We've
got
to
start
getting
away
from
that
model
and
looking
at
some
things
to
do,
I
think
this
may
be
an
opportune
time
that
covett
has
presented
to
us
to
maybe
look
at
the
way
we
do
daily
attendance
and
with
the
the
membership
model.
I
I
want
to
study
it
more
because
I've
got
the
recommendation
on
there
and
I've
worked
and
and
and
do
have,
you
know
some
some
approval
for
that,
I'm
very
positive
about
it.
I
do
want.
F
A
Senator
thomas,
I
thank
you
for
this
question.
I
think
it's
a
very
serious
conversation
that
we
need
to
have
and
we
need
to
go
through
it
in
a
very
thoughtful
process,
as
I've
listened
to
comments
and
testimony
from
this
task
force.
There
are
two
two
really
main
issues
that
have
caused
me
to
think.
This
is
something
that
we
might
need
to
consider
going
from
the
funding
model
based
on
average
daily
attendance
to
average
daily
membership
number
one
is
the
covet
issue
that
we
have
dealt
with
over
the
last
18
to
20
months.
A
School
district
superintendents
have
had
to
make
some
very
serious
decisions
about
having
school
in
person
closing
school.
There
are
when
they
have
students
who
test
positive.
There
are
other
students
who
have
to
quarantine
just
because
a
student
has
to
quarantine
at
home
does
not
mean
that
that
school
district
is
not
trying
to
provide
them.
An
education
does
not
mean
they're,
incurring
the
same
cost.
A
So
you
know,
we've
got
the
cost
of
educating
a
student
regardless
of
whether
that
student's
there
95
percent
of
the
time
90
of
the
time
or
100
percent
of
the
time-
and
I
will
emphasize
this
in
no
way
do
we
want
to
de-emphasize
school
attendance
and
whatever
we
do,
we
are
going
to
have
to
put
up
guard
rails
and
and
some
safety
valves
there
that
we
are
emphasizing
school
attendance
and
that
school
attendance
is
vitally
important.
A
A
They
have
students
who
are
more
economically
disadvantaged
and
just
because
of
a
result
of
society
many
times
those
students
do
not,
may
not
have
the
encouragement
at
home
to
attend
school
on
a
regular
basis,
and
I
think
that
those
districts
are
are
financially
disadvantaged
because
of
that
and
those
are
the
districts
that
need
those
funds
more
more
more
so
so
I
think
it's
important
that
we
give
consideration
to
this
and,
however,
we
do.
This.
Has
been
mentioned,
there
has
to
be
a
process
where
we're
not
causing
harm
to
individual
districts
through
the
transition.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
senator
thomas
also
one
thing
I
failed
to
mention.
I
think
it
was
brought
up
at
that
last
meeting
representative
bant
if
she's
online
made
a
really
good
point.
I
think
mike
you
may
have
said
this
too.
We
focus
so
much
on
attendance
and
having
to
do
all
this
administrative
work
for
attendance
attendance
we've
gotten
away
from
instruction
models.
F
I
think
we're
thinking
about
the
best
interest
of
kids
and
I'm
not
saying
senator
thomas,
that
following
attendance
is
not
key
to
making
sure
the
kids
are
in
the
classroom
at
the
same
time,
focus
on
the
instruction
models.
So
I
think
that
was
another
thing.
I
did
fail
to
mention
that
in
opening
comments,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
had
that
on
record.
I
Thank
you,
sir.
I
want
to
echo
a
couple
of
thoughts
from
senator
wise
and
also
from
representative
tipton.
I
This
is
a
christmas
wish
list,
as
we
talk
about
it
when
we
talk
about
adm
versus
ada
and
also
representative
tipton
also
alluded
to
this.
If
you
look
at
the
districts
that
have
lower
attendance,
they
would
benefit
from
this
model,
because
that
increases
the
amount
of
funding
that
they
would
receive.
I
Now,
unless
we
add
to
the
budget
you're
going
to
have
winners
and
losers.
So
one
of
the
things
that
representative
tipton
mentioned
was
a
not
cause
harm.
We
don't
want
to
cause
harm
to
any
district.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
want
us
to
keep
in
mind
when
we
talk
about
average.
Daily
membership
sounds
great
if
we're,
because
that
sounds
like
we're
going
to
automatically
increase
funding
for
all.
I
That's
only
if
there's
extra
funds
put
into
the
education
budget
so
and
again
I
just
want
to
emphasize
that
again
when
we
talk
about
adm
those
districts,
that
if
we
do
not
increase
the
education
budget,
then
you're
going
to
have
the
lower
attendance
districts
increase,
whereas
maybe
the
higher
attendance
districts
will
decrease
without
extra
funding.
But
again,
the
other
item,
I
would
say,
is:
let's
let
the
law
and
truancy
handle
handle
the
the
parts
about.
You
know
attendance,
I
think
when
we
can,
we
take
out
attendance
as
far
as
funding.
I
J
Just
one
last
comment:
I'd
like
to
thank
both
chairs
for
the
work
on
this,
because
it's
my
27th
year
in
education-
and
this
is
the
first
time
I
can
remember
us-
really
looking
at
things
in
a
different
light
versus
always
saying-
we've
always
done
it.
This
way,
we've
always
done
ada.
So
why
look
at
adm
or
we've,
always,
you
know
done
some
of
these
things.
J
J
D
D
A
Thank
you
robin.
I
don't
see
anyone
else.
Who's
asked
to
be
recognized
at
this
time,
so
speak
up.
If
you
do
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
close
this
out
and
again,
I
want
to
thank
all
the
task
force,
members
or
legislative
members
or
superintendents
or
school
board
members
or
participation
from
kde,
all
our
participants
who
testified
and
shared
information.
This
has
been
a
very
informative,
a
very
worthwhile
process,
but
I
want
to
echo
the
comments
that
are
made.
This
is
a
process
that
we're
just
beginning.