Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-25-2017 - 1.B Public School Forum Local School Finance Study
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Agendas
>
Agendas
>
2017
>
Agenda - 05-25-2017 - Budget Work Session
>
Agenda - 05-25-2017 - 1.B Public School Forum Local School Finance Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2017 8:05:15 AM
Creation date
11/1/2017 10:15:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/25/2017
Meeting Type
Budget Sessions
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1.B
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
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).
View images
View plain text
r <br />Pir _ <br /> 0 ATTACH Pd�`_4 , <br /> s o HO . <br /> 1 t•N N. FIN AL UDY Aillik g _ ,IING ]0-.........,...... ��0 yP 99 1986 201fi N <br /> PUBLIC SCHOOL <br /> FORUM= <br /> > INTRODUCTION <br /> Under North Carolina's school finance expenses,accounting for 26 percent of the while simultaneously making less taxing <br /> system, born more than eight decades ago, combined federal,state,and local total. effort. Because wealthier counties have <br /> it is the state's responsibility to pay for in- Counties provided funding for 1,025 princi- more taxable resources,they can keep <br /> structional expenses(including personnel) pals and assistant principals(19.4 percent taxes low while still generating significant <br /> while county governments pay for capital of the total),6,332 teachers(6.7 percent revenues.Conversely,counties with fewer <br /> expenses(buildings and maintenance). of the total),2,694 teacher assistants(12.0 taxable resources need to make greater <br /> percent of the total),and 3,268 profession- taxing effort to support their schools. <br /> During the Great Depression,through the al instructional support personnel (21.4 Second,there is a widening gap between <br /> 1933 School Machinery Act,the General percent of the total). counties with many taxable resources and <br /> Assembly attempted to"relieve"coun- those with few,and as a result,a widening <br /> ties of the responsibility for operating For more than 25 years,the Public School gap in counties'school spending patterns. <br /> and maintaining public schools.In 1975, Forum of North Carolina has isolated local <br /> the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act spending from state and federal spending State policy decisions made during the <br /> reinforced the primacy of state support, to examine the capacity and actual effort last 25 years have blunted the impact of <br /> setting forth the state's policy of using of counties to support public schools. these trends, narrowing the educational <br /> state revenue sources for instructional The annual Local School Finance Study investment gap by providing additional <br /> expenses and current operations while focuses not only on the amount that coun- funds for the state's smallest and low- <br /> expecting county governments to meet ties spend on schools, but also on each est-wealth counties. However,even with <br /> public schools'facilities requirements. county's investment in the context of that these important, positive policy steps, <br /> county's taxable resources. investments in North Carolina schools still <br /> Over time, however,the lines drawn in the vary dramatically by zip code.As a result, <br /> 1933 and 1975 laws have become blurred, From the early years of the Study,two young people born into one of the state's <br /> and the local role in funding school oper- trends have become evident that have economically thriving counties will have <br /> ations has increased. In 2014-15,counties deepened over time.First,wealthier coun- levels of investment in their education not <br /> spent$2.7 billion to fund instructional ties are able to spend more on schools shared elsewhere in the state. <br /> 1 INTRODUCTION 13 APPENDICES <br /> �/ <br /> V) 3 2014-15 SPENDING PER STUDENT 13 TABLE 1:RANKINGS OF ADJUSTED PROPERTY <br /> VALUATIONS PER STUDENT <br /> 4 WHAT'S NEW IN THE 2017 STUDY? 14 TABLE 2:ACTUAL EFFORT <br /> Z 15 TABLE 2A:SIX-YEAR AVERAGE OF CAPITAL <br /> W 5 2017 RANKINGS-AT-A-GLANCE OUTLAY AND DEBT SERVICE <br /> 16 TABLE 3:ACTUAL EFFORT WITH SUPPLEMENTAL <br /> 6 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE FUNDING FOR LOW-WEALTH AND SMALL COUNTIES <br /> Z 17 TABLE 4:ABILITY TO PAY <br /> WHO PAYS FOR WHAT? 18 TABLE 5:RELATIVE EFFORT <br /> 0 <br /> U 10 GAPS AND TRENDS 2017 19 GLOSSARY <br /> 12 NOTES ON METHODOLOGY 20 DATA SOURCES&ACKNOWLEDGMENTS <br /> 1< <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.