Agenda - 05-26-2016 - 2B - Public School Forum Local School Finance Study

Browse Search

, ` It . - 1 -N .t• bp:4111t- -t-s._, , __ , FINANCE STUDY `. ". f:• 111112 01 �� OPT I N G 7p =- 47 99 4 1986 2016 ,,+ PUBLIC SCHOOL FORUM.,=- > INTRODUCTION Under North Carolina's school finance instructional expenses,accounting for while simultaneously making less taxing system, born more than eight decades ago, 25 percent of the combined federal,state, effort. Because wealthier counties have it is the state's responsibility to pay for and local total.Counties provided funding more taxable resources,they can keep instructional expenses(including personnel) for 994 principals and assistant principals taxes low while still generating significant while county governments pay for capital (19.0 percent of the total),6,567 teachers revenues.Conversely,counties with fewer expenses(buildings and maintenance). (6.9 percent of the total),2,196 teacher taxable resources need to make greater assistants (9.5 percent of the total),and taxing effort to support their schools. During the Great Depression,through the 3,104 professional instructional support Second,there is a widening gap between 1933 School Machinery Act,the General personnel (20.7percent of the total). counties with many taxable resources and Assembly attempted to"relieve"counties those with few,and as a result,a widening of the responsibility for operating and For more than 25 years,the Public School gap in counties'school spending patterns. maintaining public schools. In 1975,the Forum of North Carolina has isolated local School Budget and Fiscal Control Act spending from state and federal spending State policy decisions made during the reinforced the primacy of state support, to examine the capacity and actual effort last 25 years have blunted the impact of setting forth the state's policy of using of counties to support public schools.The these trends, narrowing the educational state revenue sources for instructional annual Local School Finance Study focuses investment gap by providing additional expenses for current operations while not only on the amount that counties spend funds for the state's smallest and lowest- expecting county governments to meet on schools,but also on each county's wealth counties. However,even with public schools'facilities requirements. investment in the context of that county's these important, positive policy steps, taxable resources. investments in North Carolina schools still Over time, however, the lines drawn in vary dramatically by zip code.As a result, the 1933 and 1975 laws have become From the early years of the Study,two young people born into one of the state's blurred, and the local role in funding trends have become evident that have economically thriving counties will have school operations has increased. In deepened over time. First,wealthier levels of investment in their education not 2013-14,counties spent$3 billion to fund counties are able to spend more on schools shared elsewhere in the state. INTRODUCTION APPENDICES 2013-14 SPENDING PER STUDENT 13 TABLE 1:RANKINGS OF ADJUSTED PROPERTY VALUATIONS PER STUDENT WHAT'S NEW IN THE 2016 STUDY? 14 TABLE 2:ACTUAL EFFORT 15 TABLE 2A:SIX-YEAR AVERAGE OF CAPITAL W 2016 RANKINGS-AT-A-GLANCE OUTLAY AND DEBT SERVICE 16 TABLE 3:ACTUAL EFFORT WITH SUPPLEMENTAL 0 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE FUNDING FOR LOW-WEALTH AND SMALL COUNTIES Z 17 TABLE 4:ABILITY TO PAY S WHO PAYS FOR WHAT? 18 TABLE 5:RELATIVE EFFORT 0 U 10 GAPS AND TRENDS 2016 19 GLOSSARY 12 NOTES ON METHODOLOGY 20 DATA SOURCES&ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i<