Minutes - 20031023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

for example. There are such economies of scale that we can save both systems money and therefore have a more efficient use of our tax dollars. There is the efficient use of school space so we can save money by not having to build extra schools until farther into the future. In the rural buffer, the watersheds, the preservations of the farms are a great amenity to Chapel Hill and a great detriment to Orange County in terms of our tax base. Yet it's funny haw some concentrated tax base like Stone Ridge can kind of sneak into the Chapel Hill system. Basically I think it boils down to that merger will give our kids the chance for equivalent quality of education while at the same time giving our citizens the best value for our school dollars. We can afford much mare for our children for the same amount of money together than we can individually, and that best serves, I believe, the children. Thank you. Randy Sellers: Hi. I'm a Chapel Hill schools parent and I believe that there are ways besides the merger to offer the best opportunities for every child in Orange County. I'm very concerned about the upheaval merger would cause. My family was reassigned in both of the last two Chapel Hill-Carrboro redistricting. We dread the redistricting process fora 400 square mile school district. Dr. Pederson's report out a couple of days ago clarifies the magnitude of the potential reshuffling. Models to save capital expense in the merger report assume a large number of Chapel Hill-Carrboro system kids are sent to Orange County system schools and some kids the reverse direction. Any capital cost savings through merger would be borne on the backs of these kids that would be uprooted and bussed, many of them long distances. Other upheaval includes diversion of attention of administrators away from important initiatives such as closing the achievement gap and the potential turnover of school superintendents who are loved. I support improving or equalizing funding throughout the County. However, Dr. Cindy Smith's presentation at the INFORM forum of an extensive review of educational research could not find a link between per pupil equivalent funding and improved student performance except in the single case where a specific program was helping and the funding for it was removed. In that case the performance suffered. I think all of those here still concern ourselves with funding, but her work does suggest that an obsession with exactly equal per pupil equivalent funding throughout the County is probably misguided. There must be other factors at play affecting student performance. One relevant question is how money is used once it's allocated. According to Chapel Hill News, the Orange County system has an equal number of administrators, officials, and management as Chapel Hill-Carrboro, yet there is one half the number of students as Chapel Hill-Carrboro. Perhaps there could be a redirection of Orange County system funds from some of these positions towards funding program shortcomings such as language classes. One of the hoped for gains from merger is improved access to programming options across the County. Dr. Pederson's thoughtful letter to the Chapel Hill school board on 1019 outline significant, specific programs of collaboration of all systems, including establishment of middle college andlar more extensive dual enrollment programs, taking advantage of the strengths of both systems. College fairs could be combined or advertised across both systems without merger. All the tax possibilities I've heard about as alternatives to merger result in a lower tax rate than the 17 cents per hundred-dollar tax outlined in the merger report. The 17-cent estimate is artificially low because it leaves out any costs of equalizing program offerings across a