A Cabell County Schools staff member told the Board of Education during a budget presentation that the district’s uncertified October head count was 10,961 while full‑time‑equivalent enrollment (FTE) was 10,887.59, a net loss of 217 students compared with the prior year.

The drop matters because West Virginia’s school funding formulas allocate positions and money based on FTE. The staff member said the district’s calculations show the 217‑student decline would translate into an average reduction in state‑funded staffing equivalent to roughly 28.83 positions for the next funding cycle, commonly referred to in the presentation by three West Virginia code citations the presenter read aloud (18 9 8 4, 18 9 8 5 and 18 9 a 8 as cited in the slides).

Why it matters: the district’s staffing and budget are set against those statutory ratios. The presenter said the per‑1,000 student ratios discussed on the slides are 72.3 professional educators, 53.79 service personnel and a combined 77.3 state‑funded professional positions per 1,000 students; under the current uncertified count the district would be funded for about 841.61 professional positions while the district’s actual October 1 professional headcount was 946.51.

“That 153.55 does not mean that we need to eliminate 153.55 positions,” the staff member said, referring to the district’s calculation of positions that would be locally funded if the full over‑formula staffing were retained. The presenter explained the district uses local revenue sources — primarily the recently approved excess levy plus interest earnings, Medicaid reimbursements and property tax collections above the levy estimate — to cover some positions that exceed the state formula. The excess levy amount shown in the levy language on the slide was approximately $16,145,473 for employee salaries and benefits.

The staff member showed breakouts for how families used other educational options between July 1 and Oct. 1: 295 homeschool applicants in that period last year versus 91 this year; charter departures in the three‑month comparison fell from 11 to 8; private school moves fell from 116 to 67; and Hope Scholarship applications during that three‑month window dropped from 178 to 91. The presenter said the district currently has 827 students using the Hope Scholarship.

The presenter also criticized how publicly funded scholarship dollars flow outside district oversight. “Hope Scholarship money is public money,” the staff member said. “We receive public money that makes us a public school system. They have none [of our reporting requirements]. That is not a fair and equitable system.”

Board members and other speakers praised district efforts to publicize school programs; the presenter said showing schools’ work on social media has likely helped reduce some departures. The presenter asked the board to consider allowing staff to draft a letter to the county’s legislative delegation explaining concerns about how the funding formula treats small net enrollment changes spread across a large district, and about state scholarship funding going to students outside district oversight. A board member responded, “Sounds like a good plan.” The presenter said the draft would be placed on the next agenda for board consideration.

Discussion versus action: the presentation was informational and included a request for direction; the board did not vote on budget reductions or on a formal letter at the meeting. The only formal motion recorded in the transcript was a routine motion to adjourn, which passed by voice vote.

Next steps: district staff said they will draft a letter for possible board approval asking state legislators to revisit the funding formula and to raise questions about oversight of public scholarship dollars. The presenter said any personnel reduction ideas must follow personnel law and the affected employees must have the opportunity to be heard before the board considers specific eliminations.