|
02
<br /> INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)
<br /> In 2017-18,counties spent approximately$3.3 billion to fund
<br /> instructional expenses,accounting for 24 percent of the There is a a of $2,523 between
<br /> combined federal,state,and local spending'Counties provided gap
<br /> funding for 887 principals and assistant principals(16.6 the top ten and bottom ten
<br /> percent of the total),6,055 teachers(6.4 percent of the total),
<br /> 2,463 teacher assistants(11.4 percent of the total),and 3,479 counties in local spending,
<br /> professional instructional support personnel (22.3 percent of
<br /> the total).z the largest gap since we began
<br /> Given the increasing burden on all local districts to fund tracking this figure in 198Z
<br /> instructional expenses and the rising inequality in funding
<br /> capacity across counties,spending disparities between low-
<br /> wealth and higher wealth counties have grown steadily and This discrepancy exists primarily because of the variation in
<br /> substantially over recent years.This year's study found that property wealth across the state. In 2017-18,every county in
<br /> in 2017-18,the state's ten counties that spent the most dollars the top ten spending districts had a per student real estate
<br /> per student averaged $3,305 in local spending per student as wealth capacity above$1.6 million,and together had an average
<br /> compared with the ten that spent the least,which averaged$782 nearly five times greater than the bottom ten counties.The
<br /> per student.That represents a gap of$2,523 between the top ten ten wealthiest counties had an average real estate capacity
<br /> and bottom ten counties in local spending,the largest gap since of$1,955,100.31 per student,compared with the ten poorest
<br /> we began tracking this figure in 1987.Of the state's 100 counties, counties,which had on average a real estate capacity of
<br /> 58 fell below the state average of$1,714 local dollars per student. $403,100.75 per student.
<br /> TAXABLE REAL ESTATE WEALTH PER CHILD COUNTY-LEVEL SPENDING PER STUDENT
<br /> (2017-18) (2017-18)
<br /> 3,000 •
<br /> 2,000,000
<br /> • • 2,500
<br /> 1,500,000
<br /> 2,000
<br /> 1,000,000 1,500
<br /> 500,000 1,000
<br /> 500
<br /> TEN TEN
<br /> WEALTHIEST POOREST
<br /> COUNTIES COUNTIES TEN TEN
<br /> HIGHEST-SPENDING LOWEST-SPENDING
<br /> The ten wealthiest counties in North Carolina have nearly five times COUNTIES COUNTIES
<br /> the taxable property wealth per child available than the ten poorest
<br /> counties.As a result,even though the ten poorest counties tax Annual per-student county spending on programs and personnel
<br /> themselves at nearly twice the rate of the wealthiest counties,the was$2,523 higher in the ten highest-spending counties than in the
<br /> revenue they generate through taxation remains substantially lower. ten lowest-spending counties.This gap is wider than last year,when
<br /> (See Table 4). it was$2,445.(See Table 2).
<br /> 'DPI Statistical Profile,Table 22:Current Expense Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
<br /> DPI Statistical Profile,Table 16:State Summary of Public School Full-Time Personnel,2017-18
<br />
|