Agenda - 05-25-2017 - 1.B Public School Forum Local School Finance Study

Browse Search

r Pir _ 0 ATTACH Pd�`_4 , s o HO . 1 t•N N. FIN AL UDY Aillik g _ ,IING ]0-.........,...... ��0 yP 99 1986 201fi N PUBLIC SCHOOL FORUM= > INTRODUCTION Under North Carolina's school finance expenses,accounting for 26 percent of the while simultaneously making less taxing system, born more than eight decades ago, combined federal,state,and local total. effort. Because wealthier counties have it is the state's responsibility to pay for in- Counties provided funding for 1,025 princi- more taxable resources,they can keep structional expenses(including personnel) pals and assistant principals(19.4 percent taxes low while still generating significant while county governments pay for capital of the total),6,332 teachers(6.7 percent revenues.Conversely,counties with fewer expenses(buildings and maintenance). of the total),2,694 teacher assistants(12.0 taxable resources need to make greater percent of the total),and 3,268 profession- taxing effort to support their schools. During the Great Depression,through the al instructional support personnel (21.4 Second,there is a widening gap between 1933 School Machinery Act,the General percent of the total). counties with many taxable resources and Assembly attempted to"relieve"coun- those with few,and as a result,a widening ties of the responsibility for operating For more than 25 years,the Public School gap in counties'school spending patterns. and maintaining public schools.In 1975, Forum of North Carolina has isolated local the 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. these trends, narrowing the educational state revenue sources for instructional The annual Local School Finance Study investment gap by providing additional expenses and current operations while focuses not only on the amount that coun- funds for the state's smallest and low- expecting county governments to meet ties spend on schools, but also on each est-wealth counties. However,even with public schools'facilities requirements. county's investment in the context of that these important, positive policy steps, county's taxable resources. investments in North Carolina schools still Over time, however,the lines drawn in the vary dramatically by zip code.As a result, 1933 and 1975 laws have become blurred, From the early years of the Study,two young people born into one of the state's and the local role in funding school oper- trends have become evident that have economically thriving counties will have ations has increased. In 2014-15,counties deepened over time.First,wealthier coun- levels of investment in their education not spent$2.7 billion to fund instructional ties are able to spend more on schools shared elsewhere in the state. 1 INTRODUCTION 13 APPENDICES �/ V) 3 2014-15 SPENDING PER STUDENT 13 TABLE 1:RANKINGS OF ADJUSTED PROPERTY VALUATIONS PER STUDENT 4 WHAT'S NEW IN THE 2017 STUDY? 14 TABLE 2:ACTUAL EFFORT Z 15 TABLE 2A:SIX-YEAR AVERAGE OF CAPITAL W 5 2017 RANKINGS-AT-A-GLANCE OUTLAY AND DEBT SERVICE 16 TABLE 3:ACTUAL EFFORT WITH SUPPLEMENTAL 6 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE FUNDING FOR LOW-WEALTH AND SMALL COUNTIES Z 17 TABLE 4:ABILITY TO PAY WHO PAYS FOR WHAT? 18 TABLE 5:RELATIVE EFFORT 0 U 10 GAPS AND TRENDS 2017 19 GLOSSARY 12 NOTES ON METHODOLOGY 20 DATA SOURCES&ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1<