Reports that enrollment is on the rise at the county's public schools is welcome news, as it indicates that the county's population may not be declining quite as fast as the projections are saying.
Knox County is among the counties that are anticipated to lose up to 10 percent of their residents by mid-century; there are 20 other counties in Knox County's group, including neighbors Greene and Pike counties.
Another 28 counties are expected lose more than 10 percent of their residents during the same time, which means that well over half the state (predominantly the rural areas) is projected to lose population.
In many of these counties, a population loss of more than 10 percent will be noticeable — indeed, obvious, given how few residents there are now. It may prove hard for some folks to find anyone to have a conversation with, not to mention the difficulty for a local business to find enough customers — or a hometown school to avoid consolidation.
If the current trend holds true, by mid century Knox County's population should be under 35,000. The good news is that by then, half those 35,000 residents are expected to be under 39 years old.
Much can change in the next 30-35 years.
School officials know that much can change, from week to week, when it comes to their student populations, which makes it frustratingly difficult to plan for the future.
The state's current school-funding formula is based on the flawed concept that “money follows the child,” meaning that state funding for a district is set according to enrollment — well, not so much on enrollment as it is on attendance on a given day.
A district that from one year to the next sees a 25-student decline in enrollment can anticipate a corresponding reduction in its state support — enough of a funding cut to result in one or two teachers being laid off.
Which would make sense if all 25 of those students were in the same grade level, third graders, say; the teacher to be RIF'ed would naturally be a third-grade teacher.
Rarely if ever is the process that linear; almost always, the loss of students is spread out over many grade levels, a couple second graders here, a sixth grader there, up and down the hallways.
It's always seemed to us that while there should be some relationship between enrollment and funding — if there are 1,000 students then 1,000 iPads will be needed — funding must also allow a school district to provide an optimum level of instruction for all students.
Funding, for us, should also focus on providing for an instructional staff (teachers and aides) of sufficient number to deliver the necessary investment in each particular student to see that student succeed and move on to the next level.
That investment will not be the same for each student.
Students differ in their needs, but the state's a priori funding formula assumes that the instructional investment per student is equal, that a teacher's time can be equally divided between his or her 25 students, and that each student, having received that equal investment of time, will therefore advance to the next level.
We need a realistic funding formula that actually supports education, not a unit-cost model that treats students like widgets running down a production line.