Agenda - Item 1B - Public School Forum Local School Finance Study

Browse Search

Apart from the constitutional provisions, a major change in the school funding structure occurred during the Great Depression. Under the School Machinery Act (enacted in 1931 and amended in 1933), the state assumed responsibility for all current expens- es necessary to maintain a minimum eight-month school term and an educational program of basic content and quality (in- structional and program expenses). In exchange for the state’s expanded role, local governments assumed responsibility for school construction and maintenance (capital expenses). The School Machinery Act established counties as the basic unit for operating public schools, which is maintained today with large county-wide school systems, except in the 11 counties that also have city school systems. In 1975, the General Assembly enacted the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act, which delineated responsibility for school funding: To ensure a quality education for every child in North Carolina, and to assure that the necessary resources are provided, it is the policy of the State of North Carolina to provide from State revenue sources the instructional expenses for current operations of the public school system as defined in the standard course of study. It is the policy of the State of North Carolina that the facilities requirements for a public education system will be met by county governments. Over time the delineations proscribed by the School Machinery Acts and the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act have given way to increased local investment in instructional expenses. Even so, the North Carolina Supreme Court has made clear that it is the state that bears responsibility for fulfilling the constitutional obligation to guard and maintain the right of every North Carolina child to receive a “sound basic education.” Leandro v. North Caroli- na, 346 N.C. 336 (1997). The North Carolina Supreme Court has made clear that it is the state that bears responsibility for fulfilling the constitutional obligation to guard and maintain the right of every North Carolina child to receive a “sound basic education.” North Carolina has been engaged in litigation defending its sys- tem of school finance for almost twenty years. The legal action was instigated in part by spending inequities between low-wealth and higher-wealth counties—inequities that persist today. 7 < SOURCES OF LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE LAW: THE LEANDRO CASE ”Because the North Carolina Constitution expressly states that units of local governments with financial responsibility for public education may provide additional funding to supplement the educational programs provided by the state, there can be nothing unconstitutional about their doing so or in any inequality of opportunity occurring as a result… Clearly then, a county with greater financial resources will be able to supplement its programs to a greater degree than less wealthy counties, resulting in enhanced educational opportunity for its students.” Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1997).