Browse
Search
Agenda - Item 1B - Public School Forum Local School Finance Study
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Agendas
>
Agendas
>
2018
>
Agenda - 05-24-2018
>
Agenda - Item 1B - Public School Forum Local School Finance Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2018 4:05:19 PM
Creation date
5/17/2018 4:04:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/24/2018
Meeting Type
Budget Sessions
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1B
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-24-2018 Budget Work Session
(Message)
Path:
\BOCC Archives\Agendas\Agendas\2018\Agenda - 05-24-2018
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
> 2 <br />Under North Carolina’s school finance system, born more <br />than eight decades ago, it is the state’s responsibility to <br />pay for instructional expenses (including personnel) while <br />county governments pay for capital expenses (buildings and <br />maintenance). <br />During the Great Depression, through the 1933 School <br />Machinery Act, the General Assembly attempted to “relieve” <br />counties of the responsibility for operating and maintaining <br />public schools. In 1975, the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act <br />reinforced the primacy of state support, setting forth the state’s <br />policy of using state revenue sources for instructional expenses <br />and current operations while expecting county governments to <br />meet public schools’ facilities requirements. <br />Over time, however, the lines drawn in the 1933 and 1975 laws <br />have become blurred, and the local role in funding school <br />operations has increased. In 2015-16, counties spent $3.1 billion <br />to fund instructional expenses, accounting for 26 percent of <br />the combined federal, state, and local total. Counties provided <br />funding for 865 principals and assistant principals (16.3 <br />percent of the total), 5,752 teachers (6.1 percent of the total), <br />> INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED) <br /> A GROWING DIVIDE <br />2,299 teacher assistants (10.9 percent of the total), and 3,238 <br />professional instructional support personnel (21.2 percent of <br />the total). <br />As a result, inequities between low-wealth and higher-wealth <br />counties have grown—and they persist today. In 2015-16, the <br />state’s ten counties that spent the most per student averaged <br />$3,103 per student as compared with the ten that spent the <br />least, which averaged $739 per student. That represents a <br />gap of $2,364—and 60 counties are below the state average <br />of $1,596. Orange County, the highest-spending county in <br />North Carolina, spends more than twelve times per student the <br />amount that Swain County spends, which ranks at the bottom of <br />the list. This large gap exists primarily because of the variation <br />in property wealth across the state, and this gap has widened <br />by over $1 million since the North Carolina Supreme Court’s <br />Leandro decision in 1997, which determined that it is incumbent <br />upon the state to fulfill the constitutional obligation to guard <br />and maintain the right of every North Carolina child to receive a <br />“sound basic education.” <br />WIDENING SPENDING GAP <br />2,000 <br />2,500 <br />1,500 <br />199 <br />7 <br />20 <br />0 <br />1 <br />20 <br />0 <br />6 <br />199 <br />9 <br />20 <br />0 <br />3 <br />20 <br />0 <br />8 <br />199 <br />8 <br />20 <br />0 <br />2 <br />20 <br />0 <br />7 <br />20 <br />0 <br />0 <br />20 <br />0 <br />5 <br />20 <br />0 <br />4 <br />20 <br />0 <br />9 <br />20 <br />1 <br />2 <br />20 <br />1 <br />3 <br />20 <br />1 <br />0 <br />20 <br />1 <br />1 <br />The spending gap between the top ten-spending and bottom ten-spending <br />counties has grown from $1,094 in 1997 to $2,364 in 2016. <br />20 <br />1 <br />4 <br />20 <br />1 <br />5 <br />1,000 <br />1,500 <br />2,000 <br />2,500 <br />500 <br />TEN <br />HIGHEST-SPENDING <br />COUNTIES <br />TEN <br />LOWEST-SPENDING <br />COUNTIES <br />Annual per-student county spending on programs and personnel was <br />$2,364 higher in the ten highest-spending counties than in the ten <br />lowest-spending counties. This gap is wider than last year, when it <br />was $2,316 per student. <br />$3,103 <br />$739 <br />COUNTY-LEVEL SPENDING PER STUDENT <br />20 <br />1 <br />6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.