re: What’s next for St George?

quote:

---

Ask any parent and I bet most voted NO because they were worrying about paying more property tax.

---

Funny considering these folks probably never go vote on property tax renewals. Let’s see how next months election with the library & COA tax go.

quote:

---

I voted against it because the school district boundaries matched the city boundaries exactly. And the city boundaries are problematic when you look at how apartment complexes were excluded. If they would grab some swaths of unincorporated EBR and do their part to support those kids with their new wealthy district, I’d say it’s worth a shot. But they won’t, because in the end it’s not only about aligning resources, it’s about excluding certain populations.

---

This has been the downfall of Zachary! To get the school district they had to take in parts of EBR outside the Zachary city limits. Well, Chauna Banks approved any neighborhood she could and now the district is overrun with kids from outside of Zachary.

I think what is left is generally Gardere and other areas which didn’t want in St George.

Those areas are already populated for the most part so they couldn’t exactly dump a whole lot of new section 8 in there.

Livingston gets a say in all of this if St.George wanted to join Lvingston Parish. What if the voters of Livingston said no?

quote:

---

The guy is celebrating the fact that the status quo prevailed. The school system stays the same. It will continue to be second rate and run by the same people. Administration will remain bloated, access to a quality education will be available to some lucky individuals, and nothing changes. Let’s throw a party.

---

But I don’t think you understand.


The guy said that he was from Baton Rouge while he was growing up. That means that this is the correct course of action.

quote:

---

Livingston gets a say in all of this if St.George wanted to join Lvingston Parish. What if the voters of Livingston said no?

---

You clearly don’t understand St. George if you think they will ever join The LP.

quote:

---

They both are populated from the same tribe

---

Err no

The MFP is a statewide balancing formula. The formula is designed so that public education funding statewide is funded 65% by the state and 35% by local school districts

But that does NOT mean every district gets a 65/35 split individually.
Some districts are wealthier and can raise more money locally through property taxes, so they receive less state support. Other districts have weaker tax bases and cannot raise as much locally, so the state pays a much larger share.

For example:
Washington Parish receives nearly 90% of its Level 1 funding from the state because it has a weaker local tax base.

Cameron Parish receives roughly 25% from the state because it has a stronger tax base.

East Baton Rouge is closer to an even split.

Everything is connected. If one district loses property tax revenue, that district may suddenly look “poorer” in the formula and qualify for more state funding. But because the formula is still trying to maintain that overall 65% state / 35% local balance, changes in one district can affect calculations for every other district too.

So even small changes to one district’s tax base can become a statewide issue under the MFP.

Federal funding is not part of the MFP formula.

The formula is specifically used to determine the allocation of state and local responsibility for funding of public school systems.

For FY 27, the EBR Parish School System is projected to receive approximately $123.1 M in state Level 1 MFP funding, while the local share is projected at just under $122 M. But to be clear these amounts reflect Level 1 funding only, not total school system funding. The remaining MFP levels build upon the Level 1 base and provide additional adjustments and funding components. Level 1 is the starting point and where the 65%/35% statewide split must be maintained.

Level 2 of the MFP is the “incentive” portion of the formula. While Level 1 establishes the base funding amount and equalizes state/local responsibility, Level 2 is intended to encourage local school systems to generate and spend additional local revenue above the minimum required amount.

Level 3 is additional funding for specific student populations and educational priorities through targeted allocations added on top of the Level 1 base funding.

It's a pretty complex formula. Even the above is oversimplifying it and not comprehensive. And given the FY 27 formula includes BESE proposals that the legislature is likely not going to act on (the state has been using the same MFP formula since FY 23) the above amounts are probably a bit inflated, but the general explanation of how it works still applies.

Also to clarify, my response was directly related to the "why am I voting for this in [insert parish here]" question. That reason is MFP funding and how it works. But I definitely did not mean to imply it is the only funding districts spend on public education!