xt72804xkt9c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt72804xkt9c/data/mets.xml Kentucky. Department of Education. Kentucky Kentucky. Department of Education. 1958-04 bulletins English Frankford, Ky. : Dept. of Education This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.) Education -- Kentucky Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "A Proposed Transportation Formula", vol. XXVI, no. 4, April 1958 text
volumes: illustrations 23-28 cm. call numbers 17-ED83 2 and L152 .B35. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "A Proposed Transportation Formula", vol. XXVI, no. 4, April 1958 1958 1958-04 2022 true xt72804xkt9c section xt72804xkt9c

.. A, ,___

Commonwealth of Kentucky

EDUGATIONAL BULLETIN

A PROPOSED”
TRANSPORTATION FORMULA

Published by
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

ROBERT E. MARTIN
Superintendent of Public Instruction

Frankfort, Kentucky

ISSUED MONTHLY

m“ as second-class matter March 21, 1933, at the post office at
0“. Kentucky, under the Act of August 24. 1912.

VOL. XXVI APRIL, 1958 NO. 4

D
E
S
O
P
O
R
P
A

FORMULA

TRANSPORTATION

KENTUCKY

FOREWORD

This educational bulletin is the result of the combined thinking
of approximately thirty school administrators who were appointed
to study the financial needs of pupil transportation in Kentucky
and develop an improved method of distributing financial aid to
local school districts operating transportation programs. Repre-
sented on this transportation formula committee were twenty-one
local school superintendents, J. Marvin Dodson, Executive Secre-
tary of the Kentucky Education Association; four staff members
from the Department of Education, and the Superintendent of
Public Instruction as Chairman. In addition to these members, Dr.
R. L. Johns, University of Florida, served as consultant to the
committee. Most of the research and compilation of materials in
this study were carried out under the direction of John L. Vickers
Director of the Division of Pupil ’l‘ransportation, and Mr. Dodson,
who preceded Mr. Viekers as Director of Pupil 'l‘ransportation.
Everyone who has given so freely of his time, and contributed in
any way to the development of this proposed transportation for-
mula is to be commended.

It should be pointed out that the, original plan was to distributc
the report in its several component parts; however, it was subse-
quently decided by the eon'nnittee to combine the entire report in
a single, document.

Inasmuch as this study was begun in July 1956, it has 1391"
mitted the committee to gather statistical data for a two years’
period; therefore, calculations are included for the two school yeﬂl‘S
of 1956-57 and 1957-58. This will enable each local district super-
intendent to compare the allotments of these two years of the pro-
posed formula with the same two years under the present method
of distributing financial aid.

You will be interested to know the committee unanimously
approved the report with the expression that it appears to be far
superior to the formula presently in use. At the last committee
meeting recently held in the Department of Education, it was Sill?"
{l‘ested that the report be distributed to all local school superm‘
tendents for their study and reaction. Before the proposed formula.
which costs approximately $1,000,000 more than the present 0119-
ean be put in effect, it will necessarily have to be approved b." the
General Assembly of Kentucky.

Robert R. Martin .
Superintandem of Public Instruction

212

Fore

Tran

An 1
Pre(
l’ret
Tab'
Tab
Tab
Tab
Tab
Tab

inking
ointed
[tucky
aid to
Repre-
ty-one
Secre-
mbers
:nt of
'5, Dr.
;0 the
als in
ekers,
)dson,
ation.
:ed in
:1 for-

ribute
subse—
th in

; per-
years’
years
1111391"
3 pro-
ethod

ously
ue far
aittee
; sug-
)erin—
1111113,

0119,
y the

ratio?!

C O N T E N T S
page
Foreword ................................................ 212
Transportation Formula Committee ......................... 214
A Proposed Transportation Formula to Provide Financial
Aid to Local Districts that Operate a Pupil Transpor-
tation Program ....................................... 215
An Act Relating to Pupil Transportation .................... 223
Predicted Cost Table for County Districts ................... 226
Predicted Cost Table for Independent Districts .............. 227
Table LA County Districts 1956-57 July 1957 .............. 228
Table I-B Independent Districts 1956—57—July 1957 .......... 232
Table Il-A County and Independent Districts—195657 ....... 234
Table LA County Districts 1957-58—Oct0ber 1057 ........... 237
Table 1-13 Independent Districts 1957-58—Oct0ber 1957 ....... 241
Table II—A County and Independent Districts—195758 ...... 243

TRANSPORTATION FORMULA COMMITTEE OF
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
PUBLIC EDUCATION

Mr. Noble Allen, Superinteiulent of Allen County Schools

Mr. Darrell Carter, Superintendent of Monroe County Schools

Mr. C. T. Clemons, Superintendent of \Varren County Schools

Mr. Oran P. Lawler, Superintendent of Grayson County Schools

Mrs. Lucile Guthrie, Superintendent of Green County Schools

Mr. Richard Vanl’loose, Superintendent. of Jefferson County Schools

Mrs. Emma B. \Vard. Superintendent of Anderson County Schools

Mr. Rodney T. Clark, Superinteinlent of Powell County Schools

Mr. Douglas Miller. Superintendent of Estill County Schools

Mr. Glenmore Ilogg‘e, Sluierintendent of Bath County Schools

Mr. H. N. ()ekerman, Superintendent of Boone County Schools

Mr. James A. Cawood, Superintendent of Harlan County Schools

Rh:rhuhenVBnﬂ.SupemnhmdentofIhwthunU’Schods

Mr. Alton Ross, Superinternlent of Oldhalm County Schools

Mr. Charles \V. Ilart. Superintendent of Franklin County SchOOlS

Mr. Sedley Stewart, Superinteiulent of Lee County Schools

Mr. Holland Rose, Sulwrinteiulent of Marshall County SchOOlS

hh: Bearll3arneH. Superunendent of Fulhni County Schooh

Mr. R. l'. Glover. Superinteudeut of Hancock County Schools

Mr.Rm'hhwﬂmﬂ,SupmhnmuhntofhhgoﬁniCbunb'SdWMS

Bln Ilouqnil(l Sniuln Sruunlnteudent of (hven County Schooh

hlr. J. Blarvin l)odsorL lﬂxeeutive Secretary: lientueky'lﬂducaHOH
r\ssoeiation

l\‘[r. John I). Viekers, ,I)ireetor ol' l’upil Transportation

Mr. J. C. Powell, Director of Records and Reports

Mr. ’l‘ed C. lillu‘rt. llezul. Bureau of Administration and Finance

lln Robertlt lhutur Chauunau

. c . ' 4 1.
'. James [1. Sulilett. Secretary, Adyisory Council on Public Ddl
cation in Kentucky

214

PREE
IN K

(
grant
49 a1
trans
27Q0
Inate
appr
dktr
pupt

whil
Z824
inch
expe
cour
an a
the

bud;
bud;
how
have

WH
DIS

195A
resI
tral
the
of

ava

:hools
ools

31s

.15
I18

ation

1211106

Edu—

A PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FORMULA
TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL AID TO LOCAL
SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT OPERATE A

PUPIL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

PRESENT STATUS OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
IN KENTUCKY

Currently 169 school districts operate pupil transportation pro-
grams. One hundred twenty of these are county districts While
49 are operated by independent units. Almost 280,000 pupils are
transported daily in 3,455 buses. Of this number approximately
270,000 are transported by county systems, While only approxi-
mately 10,000 are served by independent districts. This results in
approximately 96% of the pupils being transported by county school
districts. Also, 3,377 of the 3,455 vehicles employed to transport the
pupils are operated by county systems.

The county operated buses travel a. total of 178,783 miles daily
while the 78 buses operated by the independent districts travel only
2,824 miles each day. This service is provided at a cost of $7,474,718
including cost of capital outlay. Of this amount $7,266,303 was at the
exDense of the county districts. The average per pupil cost for the
county systems was $27.11; whereas, the independent districts spent
an average of $22.29 for each child transported. Percentage Wise,
the county districts spent for transportation 13.5% of their total
budgets; however, the independent systems spent only .97 % of their
budgets which would apppcar negligible. It should be remembered,
howeVel‘; that approximately one-half of the independent districts
have no cost for pupil transportation.

E’HY KENTUCKY NEEDS A NEW METHOD FOR
ISTRIBUTING TRANSPORTATION AID

When the present Foundation Program Law was enacted in
1954: Sufficient time did not permit those who were assigned the
:sponmbility to make a thorough and complete study of pupil
chnBS‘EOI'tgtlon to develop a souiid method of financing this area of
of 3382:]: ation Program.’Thus, it became necessary to adOpt a plan
ava'l b mg the local districts based upon the best information

1a 1e at the time. Accordingly, the formula now in effect was

215

Me .523}; -

enacted into law by the General Assembly of 1954. Essentially, the
formula is based upon the number of pupils transported who live a
mile or more from school and the area served, and at the same time
taking into consideration the road conditions. While this method of
distributing financial aid to school districts operating transportation
programs has considerable merit, it has resulted in an unequal dis
tribution of money to several districts. During the three years the
plan has been in effect, it seems to favor the independent districts;
whereas, many county districts operate their programs at a deficit
brought about in some instances by conditions beyond their control.
Some school administrators have objected to the present method,
charging that it does not adequately take into consideration sparsity
of pupil population, road conditions, topography, and area served.
It is recognized that Kentucky does present a wide variation in these
aspects—perhaps more so than most of the states.

\Vhereas a substantial number of districts are penalized by the
formula now used, there are others that receive three or four times
the amount that is actually spent for the service. This creates an
undesirable attitude among the educational leaders of the schOOl
districts throughout Kentucky. To illustrate the obvious inequities
of this formula, one independent district spends only $1,720 f01'
transportation but receives in state aid $6,880 or four times as
much. On the other hand, 97 of the 120 counties spend in excess the
amount of money alloted for transportation. It is the opinion of mOSt
authorities in school finance that the total amount of aid received
by the combined school districts should approximate the Cost of the
total transportation program. This does not mean, however, that
each district would or should receive an amount equal to the CO-qt

'of the service, but instead the most efficiently operated systems

would receive an amount in excess of the cost while the less efficient
PTOS'I‘ams would be required to bear a portion of its cost depending:
of course, on the degree of efficiency under which the program was
administered. This philosophy is predicated on the idea that the low
00“ efficient Programs would have some funds available to imprOVC
its services while the more expensive systems would be expected t0
make a careful analysis of their programs for the purpose of re-
ducing costs to bring them in line with the more efficiently operated
ones. if such a plan for financing transportation could be developed.-
it should result in Kentucky’s having one of the most economltﬂly
efficient, and safest systems of pupil transportation in the nation-
Several of the states are working toward such a plan with the idea
of ultimately reaching this objective.

216

APR

I
tatior
Gene]
the I
trans
lawm
durin
1956
tions

TRA‘

l
Publ
othei
tatim
and :
be (it
cons
was
ing
untii
Inst:
Adv

com
sect
stat:
ing
was
fact
dist
com
pin
to (
und
the
out?
stm
gra
8T6!
put
mat

ly, the
live a
ie time
bed of
rtation
.al dis-
LI‘S the
:tricts;
deficit
ontroi.
.ethod,
)arsity
ierved.
ithese

by the
times
tes an
school
inities
20 for
1es as
ss the
Emost
zeived
of the
, that
e cost
stems
‘icient
1ding,
n was
.e 10W
prove
:ed to
)f re-
rated
Oped:
nical,
ation.
e idea

A PROPOSED FORMULA

During the legislative session of 1954 when the present transpor-
tation formula was placed on the statute books, the members of the
General Assembly, realizing the weakness of the formula, directed
the Legislative Research Commission to conduct a study of pupil
transportation in Kentucky and report its findings to this body of
lawmakers on or before January 1, 1956. Such a study was conducted
during this interim; however, it was not completed by the time of the
1956 meeting of the General Assembly; therefore, no recommenda-
tions were made.

TRANSPORTATION FORMULA COMMITTEE

Following the 1956 legislative session, the Superintendent of
Public Instruction assured the Governor, school administrators, and
others interested in public education that a study of pupil transpor-
tation would be made before the next session of the General Assembly
and a plan for financing this area of the public school program would
be developed and presented to the assembly for approval. Although
considerable amount of research and study of pupil transportation
was made by staff members of the Department of Education follow-
Ing adjournment of the 1956 session of the legislature, it was not
until sometime in July 1956 that the Superintendent of Public
Instruction appointed a Transportation Formula Committee of the
AdVisory Council on Public Education in Kentucky. This committee
composed of twenty-one local school superintendents representing all
sections of the state, the executive secretary of the K.E.A., and four
staff members from the Department of Education held its first meet-
ing Monday, July 30, 1956. Plans were formulated and the machinery
Was set in motion at this meeting for the development of a satis-
factory plan to adequately and fairly distribute aid to local school
dlStI‘ICts operating pupil transportation programs. Subsequently, the
committee and sub-committees have met on several occasions for the
glrcpose of bringing together information bearing on the subject, and
undelicuss pertinent problems concerning the area of the program
the COIEOIistlderation. The suggestions and ideas of each member of
outhde-ll tﬁile have been most valuable in reaching the objectives as
Study halsnb e study. As a result of this united effort, an exhaustive
grams of tgen conducted in the field of. pupil transportation. Pro-
ered throo her states have been studied, information has been gath—
pupil tranug questionnaires, recognized authorities in the field of
made t Sportation have‘bee‘n consulted, and every effort has been

0 explore any possibility that might enable the committee to

217

collect as much information as possible to assist it in arriving on a
plan for which Kentucky can be proud.

FACTORS USED IN CALCULATIONS

It is generally recognized that many factors affect the cost of
pupil transportation. Numerous studies have been made by members
of the teaching profession during the last two decades in an attempt
to determine the factors that affect the cost of pupil transportation
and particularly those that should be considered in arriving at a
method of giving adequate financial aid to local school districts.
Some of these studies have been good and others were soon discarded.
One of the outstanding authorities on pupil transportation in the
United States has said if all factors affecting the cost of pupil trans-
portation were combined in one formula to distribute aid to the
local districts, it would be so complicated as to be impractical to
apply. For this reason most studies made in recent years have been
directed toward the development of a formula of the more simple
design. Although many of the formulas now in use are to some extent
unsatisfactory, they are being used until a better one is developed.
It has been conclusively determined that there are definite relation-
ships between certain factors and cost. An example would be the
density of pupils transported and cost; another one would be road
conditions and cost of operation. The committee has run several
calculations, taking into consideration those factors that are k110W11
to have considerable effect on cost; moreover, the relationships of the
factors to the cost were studied and observed so that more intelligent
decisions could be made. lnformation obtained from the study has
disclosed that the number of pupils transported per square mile of
area served was very closely correlated with the per pupil cost of
transportation; therefore, the committee unanimously agreed to 1159
as primary factors in calculating the needs of local sch001 districts
operating transportation programs the number of transported PuPﬂS
in average daily attendance, area in square miles served, and 095'6
per pupils per day transported. Thus, it may be stated : Pupil densm"
based on area of square miles served and cost per pupil per day
transported as factors to be used in determining allotments to local
school districts. ,

Dr. R. L. Johns, Head of the Department of Educational
Administration, College of Education, University of Florida, SGI‘Ved
as consultant to the committee. Dr. Johns, recognized as one of the
foremost authorities in the United States on school finance, gave Of
his time, knowledge, and experience to the committee in its delibera‘
tions and final decisions. He was very high in his praise of the Com‘

218

mitt
the

plan
The
assis
fina

hlor
an a

in t
the
DE

per
on
(lei
lov
of
nu
pu
p0:
of
tin

1g one

cost of
embers
,ttempt
rtation
g at a
stricts.
:arded.
in the
trans-
to the
ical to
3 been
simple
extent
loped.
ation-
)e the
road
averal
nown
3f the
ligent
v has
ile 0f
ISt 0f
0 use
tricts
upils
cost
nsity
day
local

onal
rved
‘ the
'e of
.era—
50m-

1nittee’s accomplishments and endorsed the proposed formula with
the statement that in his opinion it is potentially one of the best
plans for financing pupil transportation of any now in existance.
The committee is greatly indebted to Dr. Johns for his valuable
assistance in its efforts to develop an adequate plan for distributing
financial aid to school districts for pupil transportation.

Upon examining the study of the committee, Dr. Edgar L.
Morphet, Professor of Education, University of California, and also
an authority on school finance, made the following statement:

“It seems to me this formula should be an improvement over
the previous one which was handicapped by even more limited
information that was available for your current study. The
factors you have considered are undoubtedly the basic factors
and I anticipate that the formula should work out reasonably
well in most situations. After you have checked the situation
further, you may find some, few adjustments that need to be
made. If there are any major difficulties or adjustments, '[
would be interested in learning about further steps you take.

“I .am glad Dr. Johns was able to work with you folks, He has
written me that he thought you had done an excellent job.”

These very favorable comments by such outstanding authorities
in the field of school finance are most gratifying to the members of
the committee.

DESCRIPTION OF FORMULA AND RESULTS

Certain statistical information about each county and inde-
pendent district was neeessary in completing the calculations based
on the factors previously mentioned. First the transported pupil
density was determined for each district and arranged from the
lOWest density to the highest. To arrive at this figure, the number
0f transported pupils in average daily attendance is divided by the
number of square miles of area served. In determining the cost per
13111311 Per day it was necessary to determine the total cost of trans-
portation service including depreciation of buses for the last year
of operation. Although the length of life of a school bus in Ken-
tlmky Varies somewhat, the most recent surveys indicated that the
aVerag-e bus is operated approximately eight years. Size of the
vehicle also varies considerable—ranging from 24 to 66 passengers.
211180,? the cost. of buses has fluctuated a great deal during the past
the i:ﬁrs.y.\V1th the information available, the committee adopted
(le1)reci-Ot"\ 111g procedure in determlning the rate and amount for
vehicle (1. Ion: The average bus used In Kentucky is a 48. passenger
Obv' Costing $3,809 and is operated for a period of eight years.

“OUSIY the deprec1ation figure for each vehicle is $475, which is

219

multiplied by the number of vehicles and the amount added to the
cost of operation. The next step is to divide this total cost by the
average number of transported pupils with the resulting figure being
the cost per transported pupil per year. To arrive at the cost per
transported pupil per day, the annual cost of the transported pupil
is divided by the number of days the district was in session. Now
that the figures for pupil density and cost per transported pupil per
day have been determined for each district, the next step is to
calculate the adjusted cost per pupil per day transported for each
district. This is done by constructing a smoothed graph of costs for
at least nine density groups. ln the 120 county districts the density
range is from 1.33 to 64.65. By grouping these 120 counties into nine
or more comparable groups, obtaining the average density of each
group, they can be plotted on a graph by using the “Y” axis as the
cost per day per pupil and the “X” axis as the density of pupils per
square miles of area served. After these nine or more points have
been established on a graph, a smoothed curve can be constructed
that best fits the average of the density groups selected. This graph
is used to construct a scale showing the average costs of transporta-
tion for districts having a similar density of transported pupils. For
instance, all districts with a pupil density of 2.5 would receive the
same amount per transported pupil.

Inasmuch as the Foundation Program Law requires ever)7 dis-
trict to have at least a nine months school, it is necessary that all
costs and allotments be adjusted on a 172 day school term. (The
final allotment to the district will, however, be based 011 the actual
number of days taught.) This is determined by multiplying the
average daily attendance of transported pupils by 172 days. Thus,
by multiplying the cost per pupil per day by the aggregate days
of attendance based on 172 days the result is the total annual cost
of transportation. By the same token the transportation allotment
may be determined by multiplying the adjusted cost per pupil per day
as shown on the graph times the aggregate days of attendance based
on a 172 day school term.

’wlow is an example showing in detail how the formula is

applied. The figures were taken from an average county schOO1
district.

information provided by the local superintem’lent.
Aggregate days of. transported pupils 1955-56 267,112
Number days taught in 1955-56 173 .
Area of district served by transportation 385.78 sq. 1111-
Cost of bus operation 1955-56 $45,767.99

No. publicly owned buses operated, 12 capacity or larger 28

220

45'...
A/o._
35*
50‘
1‘5"

.J/7m'm‘

.zo‘
M's

[0‘

to the
)y the
being
at per
pupil
Now
til per
is to
each
ts for
ansity
) nine
each
LS the
is per
have
acted
graph
)orta—
. For
e the

' dis-
Lt all
(The
ctual
: the
Phus,
days
cost
nent
-day
tased

[a is
.hool

PROBLEM: To determine allotment for school district

To Find Pupil Density:
267,112 (Aggregate days of transported pupils) + 173 (Days
taught) :2 1,544 A. D. A. transported
1,544 —2— 385.78 (Square miles served) : 4.0 Pupil density

To Find Cost Per Pupil Per Day:
Average cost of buses When purchased $3,800
Average life of a bus in Kentucky 8 years
$3,800 + 8 :: $475 Annual depreciation per bus
$475 X 28 (Number of vehicles operated) : $13,300 Total
depreciation
$45,767.99 (Cost of operation) + $13,300 : $59,067.99 Total
cost of transportation
$59,067.99 ~:— 1,544 (ADA transported) : $38.26 Cost per pupil
per year.
$38.26 —2- 173 (Days taught) : 22¢ Cost per pupil per day

To Find the Adjusted Cost Per Pupil Per Day:
Locate the pupil density of 4.0 on the “X” axis of the chart
where the curve has been constructed. By reading the scale on
the “X” and “Y” axes where a vertical line intersects the line
of the curve on the chart, it shows an adjusted cost of .219
per pupil per day. See chart below.

>’

t/o
$5
50

1:
3/7....”

lul

42/7

To Determine Allotment Based on 172 Days (No. of
days used for all districts) :
1,544 (ADA transported) X 172 days:265)568 Aggregate
days transported on 172 days
265,566 X .219 (Adjusted cost per pupil per day):$58,159.39
Total allotment to district

Tables LA and [-13 herein attached are calculations of county
and independent districts showing the allotments that each district
would have received during the two school years of 1956—57 and
1957—58 under the proposed formula.

No. of
‘regate
159.39
tounty

istrict
7 and

AN ACT RELATING
TO PUPIL TRANSPORTATION

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky:

Section 1. That KRS Section 157.320, Paragraph 15, is re—
pealed.

Section 2. That KRS Section 157.370 be amended to read as
follows:

(1) In determining the cost of the Foundation Program for
each district, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall deter-
mine the average cost per pupil per day of transporting pupils in
districts having a similar density of transported pupils per square
mile of area served by not less than nine different density groups.

(2) The annual cost of transportation shall include all current
costs for each district plus annual depreciation of pupil transporta—
tion vehicles calculated in accordance With the regulations of the
State Board of Education for such districts that operate district—
owned vehicles.

.(3) The aggregate and average daily attendance of transported
Pupils shall include all public school pupils transported at public
expfmse Who live one mile or more from school, provided that handi-
capped children may be included who live less than this distance
from school.

(4) The square miles of area served by transportation shall
be determined by subtracting from the total area in square miles
9f the district the area not served by transportation, determined
111 accordance with the regulations of the State Board of Education
DrOVided that if one district authorizes another district to provide
tTHIISportation for a part of its area, such area served shall be de-
genres? 1il‘om thearea served by that district and added to the area

if y the district prov1ding the transportation.

Serveg)fo.The density of transported pupils per square mile of area

daily atteInsach district shall be determined by diViding the average

of area serv:(111:,e 0f transported pupils by the number of square miles
y transportation.

e afdra 1:311: Stuperintendent of Public Instruction shalhdeterm'ine

havino- g PS per pllpil per day of transporting pupils in districts

ta a Similar denSity by constructing a smoothed graph of cost

223

for all density groups as provided in paragraph one. This graph
shall be used to construct a scale showing the average costs of trans-
portation for districts having a similar density of transported pupils.
Such costs shall be determined separately for county school districts
and independent school districts, provided that no independent
school district will receive an average cost per pupil per day in
excess of the minimum received by any county district or districts.
These costs shall be the cost per pupil per day of transported pupils
included in the Foundation Program and such costs shall be re-cal-
culated each biennium.

(7) The scale of transportation costs included in the Foun-
dation Program for county districts determined in accordance with
the provisions of this act for the biennium beginning July 1, 1958,
is as follows: Counties with a density of 1.33 and less of transported
pupils per sqaure mile of area served, thirty-five cents; a density of
1.63, thirty—two and six—tenths cents; a density of 2.0, thirty and
three-tenths cents; a density of 2.56, twenty-seven and two-tenths
cents; a density of 2.8, twenty—six cents; a density of 3.16, twenty-
four and five-tenths cents; a density of 3.51, twenty—three and one
tenth cents; a density of 3.86, twenty-two and one-tenth cents; a
density of 4.43, twenty-one and one-tenth cents; a density of 4.82;
twenty and one-tenth cents; a density of 5.34, nineteen and one-tenth
cents; a density of 5.95, eighteen cents; a density of 6.64, seventeen
cents; a density of 7.36, sixteen cents; a density of 8.39, fifteen
cents; a density of 9.50 and above, fourteen cents provided that the
Superintendent of Public Instruction shall determine proportionately
by graphing the Foundation Program costs of transportation f0?
counties having densities between the points on this scale.

(8) The scale of transportation costs included in the Founda-
tion Program for independent districts determined in accordance
with the provisions of this act for the biennium beginning July L
1958, is as follows: Independent districts with a density of 19.5 and
less of transported pupils per square mile of area served, fourteen
cents; a density of 19.6, thirteen and nine-tenths cents; a density 0f
22.52, twelve and six—tenth cents; a density of 25.88, eleven and
four—tenths cents; a density of 30.26, ten and five-tenths cents; 3
density of 38.40, nine and five-tenths cents; a density of 40.97, nine
and three-tenths cents; a density of 43.4, nine and one-tenth centS;
a density of 43.5 and above, nine cents provided that the Superm-
tendent of Public Instruction shall determine proportionatel.V by
graphing the Foundation Program costs of transportation for inde-
pendent districts having densitics between the points on this scale.

224

and

of e
ing
abls
anc

ls graph Section 3. That KRS Section 157.390, Paragraph 5, be repealed

if “a?“ and re-enacted to read as follows:
(1:21:01; , (5) 'The amount to be included in the Foundation Program
pendent of each dlstrict for transportatlon shall be determined by multiply-
day in , mg the aggregate attendance of transported children by the allow-
able cost per pupil per day for that district determined in accord-

ii t ' t. . . . .
S rics ance With the pI‘OVISIOnS of this act.
d pupils

e re-cal-

c Foun-
Lcc with
1, 1958,
[sported
nsity of
rty and
o-tenths
twenty-
md one
tents; a
of 4.82,
ice-tenth
venteen
fifteen
that the
onately
ion f0r

‘ounda‘
)rdance
July 1,
9.5 and
)urteen
isity of
en and
ants; a
7, nine
cents;
uperin—
ely by
r inde—
scale.

225

Kentucky July 1957

.; PREDICTED COST TABLE FOR COUNTY DISTRICTS K‘

‘ Density Cost Density Cost , -
g 1.33 .350 5.4 .191
*; 1.4 .345 5.5 .189
‘ 3 1.5 .337 5.6 .186
I} f 1.6 .328 5.7 .185
l‘ 1 1.7 .322 5.8 .183
I ‘ 1.8 .316 5.9 .181
' 1.9 .310 6.0 .179
! 2.0 .303 6.1 .177
2.1 .297 6.2 .176
2.2 .292 6.3 .175
;‘ 1 2.3 .286 6.4 .173
‘; ‘ 2.4 .280 6.5 .172
. ‘ 2.5 .275 6.6 .171
i 2.6 .270 6.7 .169
1 2.7 .265 6.8 .168
g 2.8 .260 6.9 .167
2.9 .256 7.0 .166
‘ 3.0 .252 7.1 .164
3.1 .248 7.2 .162
3.2 .244 7.3 .161
3.3 .240 7.4 .160
3.4 .236 7.5 .153
3.5 .232 7.6 -157
I 3.6 .228 7.7 156
i 3.7 .225 7.8 .155
s1 3.8 .223 7.9 .153
3.9 .221 8.0 152
4.0 .219 8.1 -152
4.1 .217 8.2 .151
4.2 .214 8.3 -150
4.3 .212 8.4 149
4.4 .210 8.5 148
4.5 .208 8.6 -147
4.6 .206 8.7 146
4.7 .204 8.8 -145
4.3 .202 8.9 4144
4.9 .200 9.0 ~143
5.0 .193 9.1 .142
5.1 .196 9.2 142
1 5.2 .195 9.3 -141
g 1 5.3 .192 9.4 141
l 9.5 and above .140

My 1957
S Kentucky July 1957
Cost PREDICTED COST TABLE FOR INDEPENDENT DISTRICTS
.191 Density Cost Density Cost
.139 19.5 and less .140 27.6 .110
.136 19.6 .139 27.8 .109
.185 19.8 .138 28.0 .109
.183 20.0 .137 28.2 .108
.181 , 20.2 .136 28.4 .108
.179 ‘ 20.4 .135 28.6 .108
.177 20.6 .134 28.8 .107
.176 20.8 .133 29.0 .107
.175 21.0 .132 29.2 .107
.173 21.2 .131 29.4 .1