Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-26-2016 - 2B - Public School Forum Local School Finance Study
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2016
>
Agenda - 05-26-2016 - Budget Work Session
>
Agenda - 05-26-2016 - 2B - Public School Forum Local School Finance Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2016 1:59:05 PM
Creation date
5/20/2016 1:57:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/26/2016
Meeting Type
Budget Sessions
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
2B
Document Relationships
Minutes 05-26-2016
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
View images
View plain text
> WHAT'S NEW IN THE 2016 LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY? <br /> Long-time readers of the annual Local School Finance from Tables 1-5 in a single table,ordered by the Table 5 Relative <br /> Study noticed a new look beginning with the 2014 Effort rank.The table is accompanied by a brief explanation of <br /> Study, which continues this year. "Under the hood," the rankings,which also serves as an introduction to the more <br /> however, the study is largely the same as in earlier detailed tables included in the appendices. <br /> years, with a few notable exceptions. The rankings in these five columns are calculated in the five <br /> tables included in the appendices to this report. <br /> Most significantly,since 2014,the study has included charter school <br /> enrollment in each county's total Average Daily Membership Property Value Rank:The first column shows county rankings <br /> (ADM).Charter schools receive funding based on their ADM, based on the real estate wealth available in each county. Most <br /> just as district schools do.The change reflects that each county's local funding for schools comes from property taxes.Counties <br /> funding for instructional expenses is divided approximately ranked higher on this measure have more property available <br /> equally among all district and charter school students residing for potential taxation to support education.(See Table 1) <br /> in the county. <br /> Actual Effort Rank: Rankings in the second column reflect the <br /> For most counties,the new calculation resulted in little change actual dollar effort of counties to fund schools,without taking <br /> to the study data. For some counties with large percentages of into account property wealth.Counties that spend the most per <br /> students attending charter schools, however,substantial shifts student rank highest on this measure.(See Table 2) <br /> occurred.For instance, Person, Pamlico,and Northampton Counties, <br /> each with more than 10 percent of their public school students Actual Effort Rank II:The rankings in the third column serve <br /> enrolled in charter schools,saw significant changes in their the same purpose as the second column but take into account <br /> rankings in several of the finance study tables compared to 2013 supplemental state funding provided for low wealth and small <br /> and earlier studies. More detail about the change and its impact counties.Counties that spend the most per student based on <br /> can be found in the report's "Notes on Methodology" section. county spending combined with low wealth and small county <br /> supplemental state funding rank highest on this measure.This <br /> Also new since 2014,the state average per capita income used column can be analyzed alongside the second column to show the <br /> in Table 4 is the statewide average from the U.S. Bureau of impact of supplemental funding on counties' relative rankings. <br /> Economic Analysis.Aside from this and the inclusion of charter (See Table 3) <br /> school enrollments,the study's methodology is unchanged. <br /> The five main data tables included in past years'studies appear Ability to Pay Rank:The fourth column's rankings reflect an <br /> again in this year's study as appendices.The tables appear in analysis of each county's fiscal capacity to support public <br /> the same order as in past years, to facilitate comparison with schools,taking into account property values(from the first <br /> previous studies.The capital outlay and debt service averages, column,adjusted using the state's average effective property <br /> which appeared in Tables 2 and 5 prior to the 2014 study,and tax rate)and non-property tax revenues. Large, urban counties <br /> did not factor into the rankings, now appear as a separate that combine high adjusted property valuations with broad- <br /> Table 2A,with counties ranked to mirror the order in Table 2 based economic activity and high per capita incomes tend to <br /> to facilitate comparison with previous studies.Also since 2014, receive high rankings on this measure.(See Table 4) <br /> several redundant table columns have been omitted and others Relative Effort Rank:The final column compares Actual Effort <br /> reordered to facilitate readability. <br /> (from Table 2)and Ability to Pay(from Table 4). Low-wealth <br /> Finally,the 2014 Local School Finance Study pioneered a new counties with comparatively high spending levels tend to rank <br /> summary table,which we include again this year: Local School highest in this measure.(See Table 5) <br /> Finance Study Rankings-at-a-Glance,which collects the rankings <br /> 404wpow <br /> 'r ! <br /> 1 <br /> �+ .. }f -• <br /> - - r <br /> Alb <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).