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
ATTACHMENT B <br /> > WHAT'S NEW IN THE 2017 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 study, Effort rank.The table is accompanied by a brief explanation of the <br /> which continues this year. "Under the hood," however rankings,which also serves as an introduction to the more detailed <br /> the study is largely the same as in 2013 and previous tables included in the appendices. <br /> years, with a few notable exceptions. The rankings in these five columns are calculated in the five tables <br /> 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(ADM). Property Value Rank:The first column shows county rankings <br /> Charter schools receive funding based on their ADM,just as district based on the real estate wealth available in each county.Most local <br /> schools do.The change reflects that each county's funding for funding for schools comes from property taxes.Counties ranked <br /> instructional expenses is divided approximately equally among all higher on this measure have more property available for potential <br /> district and charter school students residing in the county. taxation to support education.(See Table 1) <br /> For most counties,the new calculation resulted in little change to Actual Effort Rank: Rankings in the second column reflect the <br /> the study data.For some counties with large percentages of actual dollar effort of counties to fund schools,without taking into <br /> students attending charter schools,however,substantial shifts account property wealth.Counties that spend the most per student <br /> occurred.For instance, Person,Pamlico,and Northampton Counties, rank highest on this measure.(See Table 2) <br /> each with more than 10 percent of their public school students <br /> enrolled in charter schools,saw significant changes in their rankings Actual Effort Rank II:The rankings in the third column serve the <br /> in several of the finance study tables compared to 2013 and earlier same purpose as the second column but take into account <br /> studies.More detail about the change and its impact can be found in supplemental state funding provided for low wealth and small <br /> the report's"Notes on Methodology"section. counties.Counties that spend the most per student based on county <br /> spending combined with low-wealth and small county supplemental <br /> Also new since 2014,the state average per capita income used in state funding rank highest on this measure.This column can be <br /> Table 4 is the statewide average from the U.S.Bureau of Economic analyzed alongside the second column to show the impact of <br /> Analysis.Aside from this and the inclusion of charter school supplemental funding on counties'relative rankings.(See Table 3) <br /> enrollments,the study's methodology is unchanged.The five main <br /> data tables included in past years'studies appear again in this year's Ability to Pay Rank:The fourth column's rankings reflect an <br /> study as appendices.The tables appear in the same order as in past analysis of each county's fiscal capacity to support public schools, <br /> years,to facilitate comparison with previous studies.The capital taking into account property values(from the first column,adjusted <br /> outlay and debt service averages,which appeared in Tables 2 and 5 using the state's average effective property tax rate)and non <br /> prior to the 2014 study,and did not factor into the rankings,now property tax revenues.Large,urban counties that combine high <br /> appear as a separate Table 2A,with counties ranked to mirror the adjusted property valuations with broad based economic activity <br /> order in Table 2 to facilitate comparison with previous studies.Also and high per capita incomes tend to receive high rankings on this <br /> since 2014,several redundant table columns have been omitted and measure.(See Table 4) <br /> others reordered to facilitate readability. Relative Effort Rank:The final column compares Actual Effort <br /> Finally,the 2014 Local School Finance Study pioneered a new (from Table 2)and Ability to Pay(from Table 4).Low-wealth counties <br /> summary table,which we include again this year:Local School with comparatively high spending levels tend to rank highest in this <br /> Finance Study Rankings-at-a-Glance,which collects the rankings measure.(See Table 5) <br /> 110, IP <br /> • <br /> •IP <br /> • <br /> 001044 <br /> I 400k <br /> ■ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.