Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 03-11-1985
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 11, 1985 ' i The Orange County Board of Commissioners will meet vith the Orange County School Boardd and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board on March ll, 1985 at 7:30 at the Grady A. Brown Elementary School located on State Road 1133 off of Orange Grove Road for discussion of issues relating to merger of school districts in North Carolina. Dr. Darryl Spencer will discuss merger studies in North Carolina. t Don Willhoit, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 'i i i .y• I i I i I . i v i ' I ORANGE COUNW COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST AL RGARE T LANE i HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. j 27278 I BEN MOSES � March 7, 1985 i $FiTRr.ry E.MMSHALL I NORMAN WALK.GR I DON VZLLHOPT I I i . I I Dr. Darryl Spencer -Department of Public Instruction i Education Building Raleigh, NC 27611 , Dear Dr. Spencer: Chair Don Willhoit requested I send to you the outline for the school merger study areas Which I have attached. If there is any addi-tonal information you need, please let me know. :r Thank you. VV �`7;_ - Sul,,_ �-V,-.^'.•:.�_...-�..... ..5.^._ r.'.,...„,.,•:.•-:'�:: {Mrs:°)"Be'verly'.A:"Blythe I . 'Clerk ' =::r...:yy'• ?,,:� >;`•i:`i:1 attachment '. I i I i I I i • i _ D R A F T STUDY ,AREAS' I . I I. COMMUNITY GROWTH A. Neighborhoods, student housing patterns and school locations B. Distances children have to travel to attend school C. County' growth patterns (residential, industrial, commercial and as projected after 1--40 completion) and the projection of student population change by geographical area. D. Findings 1. Alternative attendance zones given projected development:_ patterns 2. Travel times, distances and busing impacts E. Recommendations j • I IX. CURRICULUM/PROGRAM AS RELATES TO THE GOAL OF IMPROVED EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES COUNTYWIDE i A. Differences in grade patterns B. -Differences in course offerings and how they might be made consistent C. Differences in the offering of cocurricular activities (cultural arts, clubs, athletics, etc.) i D. Exceptional Children's Program in the two systems j. I E. Findings 1. Opportunities for program sharing where demand is too small for either system alone (e.g. science lab., vocational ed., physics, • .I Latin, etc.) 2. Potential savings due to sharing' of programs 3. Implication for equalizing instructional programs and special population programs 4. Costs F. Recommendations III. ORGANIZATION/STA'F'FING A. Organization j 1. Analysis of organizational structures in terms of their relative merit for dealing with growth, educational equalization goals, , and making the operation of the system more economical 2. Alternative organizational structures to be the focus of study: a) the existing two-district system j b) the existing systems with some modification (geograplxj,c boundaries and cooperative agreements?) c) a Countywide, single district system 3. Central office organizational structure . I • B. Salaries/Fringes 1. Number- and type df personnel (teaching, administrative, support and resource) 2. Salaries 3. • Supplements 4. Longevity and any other compensation 5. Personnel policies C.' Staff Development D. Findings i 1. Assessment of the advantages/disadvantages of reorganization 2. Staffing alternatives 3. Areas for potential reduction in administrative staff 4. Areas for functional consolidation and resource sharing (media services, audio visual equipment. data processing,- purchasing, recruitment and screening services, accounting, etc.) 5. Pay and other impacts E. Recommendations IV. FINA14CE i A. Facilities 1. Degree to which existing facilities are utilized in terms of i capacity 2. Optimum school size (by grade configuration) 3. Degree to which facilities may be matched with optimum size for grade configurations. B. Operations 1. Type expenditure accounts in all other areas i 2. Expenditure levels ' C. Findings 1. Need and timing of construction of new school facilities 2. Mid and lorig:range capital costs 3. ' Building operating costs 4. other operating costs 5. Potential savings due to sharing of existing facilities 6. Potential savings from Countywide utilization. of one new ! elementary school instead of the two that have been proposed by the School Systems D. Recommendations -2- V. FUNDING ' A. Who funds what and at what level currently I.' Federal 2. State 3. County Appropriation- 4. District Tax 5. Other • I B. Alternative funding responsibility referenced by the Education Policy Council as may be considered in the 1985 Session of the General Assembly C. Funding impact under the three alternative organizational structures D. Findings E. Recommendations VI... GOVERNANCE ' I A. School board organization, method of constituting and continuing ' the organization,: the length of the members' terms of- office, the dates' of induction into office, the procedure for filling vacancies, I and the compensation paid members of the board for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties B. Advisory boards and other means for effective community representation ' C.. Findings ' D. Recommendations ' I l • I • I -3- I QRANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE I HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. � 27278 MOSES OAREY MEN IMOY° February• 11, 1985 vsrm MY a MARSHALL I NORMAN WALERR DON ViUAAIOrr I I i i Mr. Theodore Parrish, Chairman Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Lincoln Center. Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 2751+ Dear Mr. Parrish: This letter is in follow-up to the February 4, 1985 meeting ! ' of the Board of Commissioners in which discussion was held on the subject of establishing a study commission to consider the impacts -of merging the Orange County.School Systems. It was agreed that the next step should be to convene a meeting of..;-the three boards ' to go over the matter. Also.:•it was agreed tha;t"•it.' would be I appropriate:at this time to.ask a member of•the•::Department of Public Instruction} m .us .a ..a_.start ng in : Y t. Attaele' s°ari outline~of`°.pgssible;.areas o-- e :analyzed by a study comet `s. ors 7 •can "serve as• a ,basis for•' discussion at the combined meet ngr o se"e"::�f,:all of_the gue_siion6`tYiat`•need to be raised have;:b en.-:Iiicluded,-.",•".The"ward o Commi'ssionexs solicits School`-Bdard'-.inpiat`!:bii::the- :scope:.'of what is•..-tg.be':'cov�red. Z �aaYe' eques.-t" >t ie: Cler`:k�td,the::.Board.:::of 'C©uirnlssioners, J4i s. Beverly Blit t&: Siitac°•t' oi date and time. Sincerely, Don Willhoit Chair I DW/bab File i t Attachment i a I ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � 106 EAST MARGAI.=LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. j 27278 MOSES OAREY February 11, 1985 - HEN LLOYD SfMUMV E.MARSHAM I. NORMAN WALKER WN WrE.LKO1T ` i • i Mr. Norman Haithcock, Chairman Orange County Schools i P.O. Box 602 Milsborough, NC .27278 ; Dear Mr. Haithcock: i This letter is in follow-up to the February 4, 1985 meeting of the Board of Commissioners in which discussion was held on the subject of establishing a study commission to consider the impacts of merging the Orange County School. Systems. It was agreed that the next step-should be to convene a meeting of the three boards to go over the matter. Also-1t was agreed that it would be appropriate at this time to ask a member of the.Department of Public Instruction to meet•with us as a starting.point. :.,;per :•,.�. .. . .. ... .. . .., Attached is` anoutline of.`possible„areas.•,'to' be' analyzed by a study a6itm tsion=: 3t can•-detve:,_as a basis: for discussion at the combined•'meeting:.:to see 'if all.of. the:questions: •that';need to be raised have::beei�:'.included. The':board•-;o Cominissi ou rs solicits School Board. input on.-'the scope :of what is,:•to.;be-'.'covered. I` haye'`recjuested tYie:Clerl :tci..-thy Board"of .Commissioners, Mrs. i. Bever ljr=:BlytYie;%to ,cone,act.•yourG.o':woik;out'a:'iautual. meeting date and time• 14tG..d!t•_ .y _ •::rl•.:.'r• '•,. Sincerely, I i Don Willhoit Chair DW/bab i File Attachment I • i i DRAFT i STUDY AREAS' I. COMMUNITY GROWTH A. Neighborhoods, student housing patterns and school locations B. Distances children have to travel to attend school C. County growth patterns (residential, industrial, commercial and as projected aftcr I-40 completion) and the projection of student population change by geographical area_ D. Findings 1. Alternative attendance zones given projected development. patterns 2.. Travel times, distances and busing impacts E. Recommendations j II. CURRICULUM/PROGRAM AS RELATES TO THE GOAL OF IMPROVED EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES COUNTYWIDE. i A. Differences in grade patterns i B. Differences in course offerings and how they might be made consistent C. Differences in the offering of cocurricular activities (cultural arts, clubs, athletics, etc.) D. Exceptional Children's Program in the two systems E. Findings 1. Opportunities for program sharing where demand is too small fox either system alone (e.g. science lab., vocational ed., physics, Latin, etc.) 2. Potential savings due to sharing of programs 3. Implication for equalizing instructional programs and special population programs 4. Costs F. Recommendations III. ORGANIZATION/STAFFING i A. Organization j i 1. Analysis of organizational structures in term's of their relative ; merit for dealing with growth, educational equalization goals, and making the operation of the system more economical 2. Alternative organizational structures to be the focus of study: a) the existing two-district system b) the existing systems with some modification (geographic boundaries and cooperative agreements?) c) a. Countywide, single district system 3. Central office organizational structure B. Salaries/Fringes 1. mu tuber• and type of personnel (teaching. administrative, support i and resource) 2. Salaries 3. Supplements 4. Longevity and any other 5. personnel policies C. Staff Development D. Findings 1. Assessment' the advantages/disadva_ t Of ntages_,of reorganization 2. staffing-alternatives 3. Areas for potential reduction in administrative staff media data processing, purchasing, 3. .Areas for functional consolidation and resource sharing serdices, audio visual eq services, accounting, etc.) recruitment and screening 5, pay and other impacts E. Recommendations 1V. FINANCE A. facilities 1. Degree to Vhich existing facilities are utilized in terms of capacity ride configuration) 2. Optimum school .size ( g 3. Degree to which �onslit aes may be matched with optimum size or grade configurata B. Operations j 1. Type expenditure accounts in all Other areas 2. expenditure levels jC. Findings 1, Need and taming of construction of new school facilities 2. Mid- and long•range capital costs 3. Building op erating costs costs 4. Other operating facilities s due to sharing of existing 5. potential savings *from CountXwide utilization of one new 6. potential saving proposed elementary school instead of the two that have been p P by the School systems D. Recommendations -2-- i V. FUNDING A. Who funds what and at what level currently 1. Federal 2. State 3. County Appropriation, 4. District Tax 5. Other B. Alternative funding responsibility referenced by the Education Policy Council as may be considered in the 1985 Session of the General Assembly I• C. Funding impact under the three alternative organizational structures •D. Findings E. Recommendations VI— GOVERNANCE A. School board organization, method of constituting and continuing the organiaation, 'the length of the members' terms of office, the dates'of induction into office, the procedure for filling vacancies, and the compensation paid members of the board for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties ..B. Advisory'boards and other means for effective community representation C. Findings D. Recommendations • • f I� I I ' • I _3_ Memorandmm TO: r s' hers FROM:- rzu DATE: � � SUBJECT: ' Meetin for School Mer er .Discussion A meeti has been scheduled for March 11 at :30 at the Grad Br E1em Schooj. of Public -Instruction. DISTRIBUTED Hobert R. Reeber Route 7 Box 254A Chapel Hill , N.C.27514 April 4, 1985 Mr. Don Willhaitp &mmissioners Chairman Orange County Board of Commisioners Hillsborough, N-C, Dear Mr. Willhoit: Recently I have been following your comments about studying issues related to possible merger of the County's two school systems. As you can imagine other school systems have considered this for their specific situation. I have enclosed a copy Of one such study and would appreciate it if you distributed it to the other Board members. Last month I gave the same information in testimony to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. I have also enclosed f school size and brief study that I did of the effects. o parent involvement an the quality of education. In my opinion when the school system gets to large and distances increase between administrators and parents the quality Of education declines rapidly. Parent contributions and parent - volunteer inputs are free and with encouragement can make a significant contribution to the educational environment. In the next 5 to 15 years the County will grow significantly and we should plan now to keep the concept of a neighborhood school and a local school administration responsible and responsive to parent and voter concerns. Sincerely ' ---- - -he subiect o+ my discussion was the recent article in the Chapel Hill Newspaper concerning possible merger 0+ the Chapel Hill--Carrboro School System with the Orange County School System- Although a loose con+ederation where parent trict of sending their children to a closer school in the other dis it would be a without cost penalty might be useful , I believe that mistake to combine the two administratively. Before moving to this was activein School affairs in the area +our years ago hool system Montgomery County System in Maryland. This was a sc with over 95(.')Q0 students and a annual budget of more than :�,30million dollars in 1981. One ".^y.`` ^..^... that ._ _` _-m | per student the education available would be excellent. | � / Unfortunately that was not the case. Stud6nt/teacher ratios were | large administr�tpr/student ratios were low, school roofs leaked, � ' � and and materials were limited. Also because 0f the large schools distances to Board Meetings parent involvement in th e sc h oo ls |� d as in fact given lip service. The | although nominally encourage w Teachers whole system only had one volunteer program coordinator. salaries although higher` than here were significantly lower than ' d inistrative �alaries. The Superintendent,s salary was over, � am ' ! 70,000 dollars/year at that time. i i | � In my opinion a optimum size school system is between 4000ang . 7000 students. At this size the number of administrators can be | If problems occur in the schools kept to an efficient minimum. | parents can organize quickly and address them. The Board of | Education is not innundated with budgets in the hundreds of. | millions. olunteers can make maximum inputs. When 1 was in i � Maryland^ I did a small study of the effects of parent involvement . | on pupil performance. Admittedly, other factors play important � roles in this. In spite of that I feel that it is important to � stimulate as much as possible parent involvement. I feel that i making the system significantly larger both area wise and student � number wise is a mistal...:e' What is now 7 to 10 thousand students in . h 2O t� 4O / a combined district will later perhaps approac | thousand. Declining enrollment projections might tempt you to move toward consolidation., The experience in Maryland althougt | perhaps �t directly transferrab1e indicated that as the .community � �� d with wo�� families of childbearing aged a turnover occurre ring age accelerate in moving c loser to the urban center. Such trends may � ! � with the longterm uncertainties �n our energy | future especially »��� � � supplies. ~T ��v� ��* �Aam�d � ^ ~� ~��M� , ' _ ^ p^� � Robert R. Reeber S ^n- | Frank Porter Graham .Parent | / | / | ) . . | ! | ' � ` I g�sit�4ixe „actors One of the variables in the debate about what makes a good school and produces quality education is the size of the abhool and school district* Certainlyg as our three communities xitnessss declining school enrollments, we wonder how important this issue of size and organizational structure is to our unique situation. As was stressed in the Great Plains School District Organisation Project* "Suer in and of itself# will not provide quality educa- tion.eeSize becomes significant when related to the tasks for which numbers are important to meet educational objectives ad*- quately# efficiently and economically." over the past fifty yearsg much research has been done on the question of optimum size. There is a wide range of suggestions, with various definitions -of large and emalle and encompassing many different kinds of communitiese � In terns of much of the research done on this subject# our three school districts taken separately can be classified as small or : medium sired. Although a consolidation of any kind would obvious- ly bring larger schools and a larger school district# the combined student population would still not fit the description of large used in many studiese (See graphs on page 9. ) literature generally favors the elementary The professional g school with 200 to 800 students=our three elementary schools all fall within this range. 'Very little research on optimum size for i n middle schools has been done. Tn'the fiv e studies went on ed i - Sutem r 1�ese rch on Size of Schools and Sch DI--- .cts 600 to 800 was the range of students recommended for the middle •schoole� Discussion here will concentrate on the hi.gh, sehool level ss this area affects us most immediately and is the subject of most stud- ies. The factors often related to high school size that are role vant to our villages are curriculum efferingse• staff utilization# . . extra-curricular activities# student a�ievementtand relationships such as student-teacher relationships* In looking at the issue of 'size and quality education on the high school ievei, we wi11 first consider curriMJ= ipffe . It is generally agreed that the larger high schools suffer a richer curriculum. There is more variety and depth in course offerings in the basic academic fields as well as in the elective Be In a larger school there ig also the possibility of more variety in teaching .. aethods and learning envirorsmontse Along with a greater flexibility i in schedulingg this variety provides more choice to the studeent.? In 1959 James H. Conant published SShool i Tod&v and drew public attention to the relationship of size and curriculum. In spite of the questions raised about his research and stateme.ntsabout the nature of American high schools, Conant'$ conclusion that "small high schools must be drastically reduced i through district reorganitaton" became popular opinion in the 1960se Conant maintained that "a high school must have a grad- uating class of at least one hundred to function adequately as a comprehensive school" and thus to provide a comprehensive edu- cational program. While thinking about Conant's position on size of school and curriculum* it is important to remember that the quality, not the quantityt of the courses is the significant factor, Staff utj,, i _et{en is another matter considered in relation ' to school size. In a,bigger school there is the possibility of better use of staff. It is often stated that a larger school al- lows for the better utilization of each teacher's talents. The teacher will have more opportunity to teach the subjects or age Ip levels to which he or she is best suited® The question remains, however, whether or not increased staff specialization produceffi quality education* The issue of pupil achievement is often related to size of l school. Does a larger school and school district with greater re- sources produce higher student achievement scores or more students entering college? All kinds of research can be found to support e ith er side of the question of student achievement and school size. � For example; Summers and Wolfe found that "higher achievement re- sults correlated with smaller schools at both the elementary and senior high .school level".!a On the other hand, Jantze - using a sample of 46 secondary schools in Nebraska which administered the Iowa Tests of Educational Development - determined that "achievement increased as enrollment increased to a point somewhere betwoen an : enrollment of 400 and 799".13 Still other studies have found "little or no significant difference in pupil achievement relative to school size". In general' though• recent research has concluded that "factors other than school size seen to be nor* important in . determining the degree of pupil achievement in school* factors such as student ability• educational attainment of a student's par- ent, and soeioeoehomic Atatuse In 1,96647 xinneseta public high JAIL h school juniors from larger schools scored higher on the Uinnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test than juniors from smaller schools. the Minnesota Public School Survey Committee suggested that the signi- ficant factor was educational attainment and occupation of the student's father, not school size. �� In a discussion of extracurricular activi.ti.es, Parker and Gump's Big Seh o , Small School is often quoted, The researchers studied high achools in eastern Kansas ranging in size from 35 to 2#287 studen4s, Although the book agrees that a large school pro- ; vides a somewhat larger number and wider variety of. extraclass ac- tivities, it stressed that the extent and level of student partici- pation in am=Lller schools was higher. "Furthermore# a much larger proportion o the small school students held positions of import- ance and res onsibility in the ....settings they entered# and they occupied the a positions in more varieties of settings than students of the large school*" While two other studies conclude that there are no significant differences related to size;$ scome research mug- gests a maxi um school size •in order to have a good variety of ex- tracurriculai activities and student participation. Barker favors schools of 1 ss than 300 students. while Brown set a limit of 1#$00 pupils and Kleinert 19500, The research on size of school and relationghe such as the ' student-teac or relationship# is also varied. Although it is gen- II orally agree ) that developing close student-teacher and staff-staff relationships is easier in a small school, studies have reported j that this is also possible in larger schools given the right climate and school organization. James Tyson reports on good teacher-pupil relations in Virginia high schools with enrollments of 293-490 while William Mona an mentions the close relationships in California schools up t°� 2#00O..'8tudentse James Coleman in his Report of-'the panel on Youths contends that small high schools offer certain in- tangible benefits in personal re'lationS such as greater motivation and involveme t# interpersonal truest and loyalty, as well as allowing for more freq ant relations among students of different ages and abilities e S pire's study investigating staff' relations#any! An drowse examin ng the relationship between •hhool and community, re- eommend high chools with 1200 to 1600 'studentas. • M 12.• PB'OOTNOTES 1. Educational Research Service, Inc., S Res2a � Size f Schoa _ Johool Di,Mtrip� (Arlington a.• , p. 2. Hereafter cited as Su ,uaa_ry. 2, Great Plains School District Organization Project, QN14211nts` �f School D strict Or anizat o� d PP anni t ch ani en Lincoln,Neb.; 29 8};p. 3-� .. .. +� 3e Educational Research Service, St_}emaz . 4, I,bidee pp. 4-14• i 5. b d0• pp0 11 and 15, 6® Ibido• pp• ll -26e 70 Ib do v PPP• 8. James Bo Conant, M merican Hirsh Johogl Tgfty (New York• 1959), pe 40. 90 Conant, pe 14, 109 Academy for Educational Development, Lhe F W u�,t an j„ Dobbs err And Hast3r>ES-on-Hudson Xew orkv 1�, Pp. 183-4a Ile Educational Research Service, iMr-yo pp. 159 18-26. 12e Aa Summers and Be Wolfe, "Which School Resources Help Learning?", Bu Hess Re„ view (February 1975) as quoted by Jonathan Pe Sher, ode, Educ t on J& RuW &mericill .�, Rgasse_asaent 9f ggDyenti�nal. Visdo Boulder, Cola$ 1977 • p*64, 13e Ralph Do Jantzee An. AnZ vsi„g gt ±he, e h g�.l rred as 4tH# n ce, >9 he 'ze Qf Neb ask H_„� i, eh § �,� A hievement Lincoln, Nebraska# 19 61) as reported by Grate , Wright, Ln a11nt S se gnd, Education Effective»eo of Hi;eh $& (W ashington DaCo, 1964)v pe as 14o Wright, p,3o 15a Educational Research Service, bm,�aarvv P, 150 16a Ibida, PP, 2,5 and 260 170 Robert Go Barker and Paul Ye Gump, US fthQole LU11 I (Stanford• Cala, 1964)# po 960 IS, Wright$ p. 30 199 William E, Brown and Erwin J. Kleinert• an reported in Iduca- tional Research Service# Summary, pp, 20 and 239 20. Educational Research Sery ae, mma !vr . pp o 17-260 210 b dos pp* 20 and 24, 22e James So Coleman• Y2Mths LMsitian U Af1MJtht994 (Chicage, 111.9 1974)• P 154®50 23- Dam F. Shapiro# Re tioshig of 41Zh ficha8.l AUML f 8tWg ons (Stanford# Calo• 1958) and Lloyd No Andrews, ra .1-? c�,gl � 12 h o -ca t aelatans (Stan • e a oil 1958 as reported n Wright# pp* 18 and 70 i Cost/Sine Factors Besides the consideration of duality education and its relationship to size of schools and school districts, we clearly must think about per ! pupil costs as they relate to size. Two lengthy 'studies that we read had completely opposing views. The Great Plaips,District Jgo„rganizatjQn Project of 1968 favored larger school districts,. while Uggatipg in„Rural ' America, edited by Jonathan Sher and published in 1977, found many large districts to be' operating uneconomically. The Great, Plains Project found a highly significant relationship be- tween size and per pupil cost. Here, researchers recommended a school district minimum size of 1,500 for sparsely populated areas, although 3,500 was considered better as a minimum if more services were to be pro- vided. Relating school size, quality, and cost, The, Grg t p1ginj writers concluded thats "Larger schoolswith a greater number of pupils can and do offer more program breadth than their smaller counterparts. Exceptions to this .statement would be few and would be largely limited to those rare cases where an unusual amount of local wealth supports a small pupil enrollment." Education in Rural America makes a strong case against some consoli- dations, referring especially to transportation cost diseconomies, ineffi- cient and costly distribution of purchases, higher costs in attracting professional staff, and a failure to equalize taxable wealth over large geographical areas. But the 'authors 'of this study do point out that local circumstances are a key factor in determining education policy. Our three small Hudson River villages differ from the rural costuni- .ties described in Sher®s book in the following ways* (1) The Hudson River communities are s - i uburban urban �' .n character. (2) The populations are similar in their socio-eccmannic status . Earnings, social, and educational aspirations are comparable. (3) Geographically, Hastings, Dobbs Ferry, and Irvington are almost one contiguous community and transportation in a con- bined district could hardly be related to rural distances:. (4) Staff contracts are similar, as are tax rates in Dobbs and Heating (5) The possibility of further land development and/or increased tax money from new industry is limited, especially in Dobbs r Ferry and Hastings. (6) Consolidation could nat end up as a typical rural school dis- trict centralization n r an unmanageably large district. ' * xn Westchester County, Pocantice Hills would be an example of a small ::`;:, district supported by large wealth. _ 14 An overview of much of the research .done between 1924 and 1974 on the size of schools and school districts is provided by a 6upwary of Re- sear ch.* Here as elsewhere, wide variations were shown whenever per pu- pil costs were factored in. Some educators consider that cost per pupil is more indicative of "community willingness to support, or *community demand' for, public educational services"** than it is a function of school size or quality. While much more research dealing with cost-size relationships was reported for high schools and school districts, it is useful to examine a 1973 finding by the Montgomery County, Maryland, Report of the Snail Schools Task Force *** in studying elementary school size in relation to expenses. The Task Force showed graphically that "as school size de- creases, per pupil costs gradually increase until the school size reaches 300-500. At that point cost per pupil increase sharply. . ." jhgg a in- creases in cost were mainly attributed to employee costs, professional as well as others. Looked at another way, the graph reproduced here, shows . . decreasina costs as enrollment increases. One conclusion of the Montgom- ery County study was that "a school with about 200 students will cost, fin• the average, 20% more per student than a school with 300 students, and 25% more than a school with 500-600e"**** - Of the seventy-five studies on high school size reported on in the Summary of Research, only twelve specifically dealt with cost factors. In the last twenty years., recommendations based on cost-size relation- ships varied from 'a low of 100 12th-graders (a figure developed by James Conant and adopted by a number of other educators) to a high of 2,000 for an entire senior high school. Rowitz and Sayres, in 1959, considered that 'a good cost-size relationship would exist in a four-year high school enrolling 688-756 students. (Their study was done for the New York State Education Department and entitled Cost and Educational g2pgrtoi ieg in Secondary Schools. Unfortunately, the vua�,lity of education does not seem to have been a factor -in this particular study.) In 1974, Jack Irvin Mal- cussen recommended a minimum of 750-850 students for an academic high .: •school. ' * The full name for this will be found in the Bibliography appended to this report. From hereon studies and authors may be found in the Biblio, raphy of the jwmgparyi ee n Alk Marvin rvxn C a s of qu ed in A a f R ea c p 15 TwT.� ��Y �� •F h 1 ....***The graph will be found after our GLOSSARY. t was originally inall in A Summary of Research, p. 10. eee er. teq pp. 9-10. It would be possible for similar graphs to be drawn : • .for our three school distracts, but with a time line, for the last half- dozen{. en years, though naturally, the specific findings and percentages as given here would undoubtedly vary. ,Xarcussen*s figures were based mostly on a cost analysis of each course offered. (The number 850' is of special interest because current projec- tions show that six yeaYs from now Dobbs Ferry may have only about 850 in its entire school district.) Studying course offerings, staff qualifications, and per pupil ex- penditure, John Riew recommended a minimum high school enrollment of 1,600, while Neal Rosenberg, considering onl per pupil costs, favored 2,000 as the optimum high school enrollment.* So, as you can see, there is a fairly aide range of recommendations for high school size in relation -to cost. An even larger range is found in size recommendations for school districts. Naturally, the area involved plays a role in the figures con- sidered as either minimal or optimal. For rural areas the lowest figure recommended as a minimum school district enrollment was 1,2000 while for urban and suburban areas the highest minimum was 10,000. The numbers men- tioned for districts considered to be of .ot size were considerably : larger. . . o ranging from 5,000 to 50,0001 (Obviously, the larger figure here As for an urban district.) ** Looking only at the lowest figure recom- mended for the smallest district size, Dobbs Ferry -- with its 1,256 stu- dents -- comes very close; but, it must be ..remembered, this was a figure for a minimal rural area. Looking at the lowest figure for a district considered to be the "best"-sized district, the number 5,000 is of special interest. This year*s combined enrollments in Irvington, Hastings, and Dobbs Ferry add up to less than 5,000 students. Since all of these recommended figures are the result of studies of diverse high schools and school districts, and many of them say have no bearing whatever in relation to Hastings,. Dobbs Ferry, and Irvington, we cannot lean too heavily on them. Current cost factors for our three dis- tricts as well as analysis of areas where savings could be effected and quality retained or even improved have to be of far non importance than anything said in any study not specifically dealing with our three villages. We need to look closely at the facts and figures bM and DIM_to see where ve are and where we seem to be heading. *For the bibliographical information on these authors, see X SqMIX 2f Res_ e arch, p• 62. **All of these figures are given in TAME II of A §UmarX ot ReyjjZch,. pp. 39-40. It is probable that some of the earliest studies referred to in these tables are of very little use now, so we have paid far more ; attention to those studies conducted in the years from 1958 on. BIBLIOGRAPHY (page 1) oks rX�r, Robert G, and Gump, Paul V. Big School,-Small-School,, . Stanford, California: Stanford University Press,. 1964. ownp B. Frank, Chairman. ' The Reform of Secondary Education. New York, N.Y. sMCGraw-Hi11 Book Co., 1973. avelti, Gordon. Vitalizing the High ,r-choolr� A Currirulum •Critiaue. o£. Major Reform Proposals. Washington., D.C. : Association for Supervision # and Curriculum Development, 1974. �Oleman, James S. Youth: Transition to Adulthood. Chicago, Ills Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1974. Conant, &7amee Be The American Hi School Toda New York, N.Y. s McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1959 The Comprehensive High Schoola •A SCcond Reoort 'to i Interested Citi�- �y. yryy.ws � VY zens. New York, N.Y. : McGraw-Hill Book, Co., 1967. educational Research Service, Inc:, Sumpar of.Res-nicrch on Size oP Schools and School Districts. ' 'Arl.incgton, Ufa.., 1974, odman, Paul. Growing Pp.pAbsurd s Prn'ila~t^,•,s ott Ycuth in Organized society. . New York, N.Y. e Random. House; 1955. eat Plains School. District Organization Project. ' Guidelines for School i Schoolistr . ra Vistrict Oroanizat on. r Lincoln, Nebraska: Nebraska State Dept. of Education, July, 1968. .v 'aeroff, Gene I., and'Buder,• Leonard. The New.York Times Guide to Sub- urban ftbl.ic Schools. New York, N.X. s QuadraTigl.e/The New York .T Hook.Co,., 1976. rter,.'John W., Chairman: . Thle AE.Iolew!ents Other, citizens and Their High Sc=hoofs a-The Report oth,Tan,. Force ®74. Neer York, N.Y. t McGraw- H111 Book Co., 1975. er, Jonathan P., ed. Education in Rural Axner,i.ca.s A Reassessment of Con ventional Wisdom. Boulder, Coles Westview Press, 1977. lberman, Charles E., Cry. C:la;s;reorn. New ork, N.Y. s Random House; 1970. ith, Vernon H. Alternati�c� �Choois,�-.he ve?c?om�t of Options in Pub- lic Education. Lincoln,, Robot ProfeEsional Education Publication' , Inc., 1974. fight, Grace S. Enroll.'mefit Size* .mnd Fd*ucational Effectiveness of the Hiah School, U.S. Dept* oi: 1104111;hp~ lo:z, and Welfare; Offi of Educa- tion Circular No. 7$2. waFaz3.igtoa, D.C. s U.S. Ccriernment Printa.ng Office# 1964. azine News a er and ROM Arti!710 ird, Leonard L. "Big School,' So-all School s a Critical Examination of the Hypothesis," Journal. of-Educational Psychology, 60 (Aug. 1969) , pp253-60. seroad, .Homer 09 "The Pros and Cons of School District Reorganization," :. C2 a�ct, 11s23M5 (Spring, X977) . a hinger, Fred.,. "No One Knows What Ha1kes a Good School, The New York • Times•,, Ncm mmhP_r VA. 1 Q77_ *%v%-. 7 ft"A " A i BIMIOGRAPHY (page 2) Magazine, N r .a L r and I Articles (cont.}RC ___�... Pittenger, John. °/ t Big Schools, Big Problems Harvard Graduate School of Education Bulletin, XXI, No. 2e 13-•16 (Spr• ng Summer, 19777, Urban, William H. "Education CoOperatives:. They 'Work if You'r"e Willing to Share," Educators School Puniness &Mo t. •Waterford, .Conn. (Date un-, known) . . r ERIC Articles , Clements, William H. Ideal Hi h' School Sizee A Mirage in the Desert. Stevens Point, Wis. r Wisconsin State Univ., 1970 ED 055 689) . . i Cronin, Joseph M.. School District Organization for the .1 9*70's. Cambridge, Mass. r Harvard Graduate School of Education, n.d. (ED 017 039) . Hickey, Michael E. Ovtimum Schaal District Size. Research Analysis 'Series, ;! No• 1+', Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Administra- tion. University of• Oregon, 'pecember, 1969 (ED 035 100 : • Templeton, Ian. "School Size," Educational ManagementReview S�,eries. No. 13 (December, 1972) (ED 072 505) Also read were miscellaneous articles from the New York Times and The Yonkers Herald. Statesman. New York State.Reu�orts Fle schmann Commission Report_jjSummaa of Vols ...X1 an 1 o Albany, N.Y. r ,. Univ. of the State of New York, State Education Dept.,- Oct., 1972. Hageny, William J. School Law, Handbook for School BBoard�Members# Albany, ' j N.Y. r New York State School Boards Association, 1974, Rriatensen, Christian 0.,' et al. School. 'T'axes and 'Resa.denti.al �Zo�amen'�. Westchester County. PlaniAng Board, 1971. , • . Levy, Jahn M. 1970 Census: Social and Economic Findings. Westchester County Planning Board, 1973. - Direct . or. We tch s ester . .._....,.,:. s P lataon f �1975�85 e A Chana�.na Profile. � 4 Westchester es Chester C oun t Planning Board, 1975. jLindsey, Merritt H,, Ed.' Gont.ract Analysis for Westchester and- Putnam Counties. office of the Labor Research Associate, Putnam-Westchester BOLES, 1977. . ..Zxew York State Education Dept. A__Gu$de to School District Reoiganization for New Xark State, Albany, N.Y., 1958. ---- » Better Education- Throuah.'School District Reorganization. Albany, N.Y., 1962. Schaal District Rearganizition, Law Pamphlet No. 14, Albany; N.Y. r University of the State of New 'York, Division of Law, 1962. Oliva, Patricia L'., et al. Thep Classraomr What's Next Westchester �`::': • . County.Dept. of P nil ning. White Plains, N.Y, , 1977• i TESTIMONY TO ME R)NTGOI,rLRY l:0MIT.Y.SCHOOL BOARD i _._ February 199 1351 My me is Robert R. Reeber; I reside at 5606 Lora .Oats Drives. in Nort s� Bethesda. . . „and a he present time am the President of. the Suu1;Ys Grosve*tor Citizens AFSQCiatiOn, In addition to my com,iunity experience Z have a deF^.:P in engineer3rsi; and a PhD in irr•d•ustrial mineralogy, am a Fellow of the American Association for•ttee Adi na Cement of Sciences acid a Certified Professional Chemist. •Y have pthlished,app Y 25 professional papers and have one invention. . During the Past sir, months 'I hale been 'interested in the't�iontg�?mery County Sc}�c�ol System t:ew•approach' to comprehensive planning as it relates •to srhoal closures•. to support of this interest 1.have-performed a statistical analysis of how the quality of elementary school edsxcation in Montgomery County `E 4ff�ct4d.by the following. 1. Parent involvement in their childrens' schools 2. school size 3. percentage minority .psrtioipation In ;the. schools . 4. percentage of students bussed to school It seems to me that the objectives of my study are di*_^er�iy .relewanr to social issues, academic performance, and the school budget all of which are themselves. rela. teed t? wily SGh0Cyl9 are closed and which•schools should be'consid=red .for. clog, -e. . J ttE$ti02 OLOGY OF 'STUDY ( Methods of Correlation and Ree9siotY John tdi ley authors Ni. Ezekiel and •K:A.. Fox- 19.5 ) 1. Uaridnce A»alysis- Statisticians:.of:teri°•fit•regression functions to gi•out. means-and appraise-the goodness of fit of the functions using si.rnificanc e tests customary in variance analysis. These tests lead to. the same estimates of probability levels as•do the standard-error formulas applicable to regression constants: Boti'methods•'maay be regarded as based •.xpon the 32•re general theory of least-squares estimation. The methods of•,variance analysis . may be used to test the significance of she improve;::ent in fit shows= curved regression over a linear one. 2. Correlation Coefficient r i a:-measure of the relative i-,ipertance of the relation between 'two variables. When an observed relation es,PIa.ins all of the variation in the .dependent variable rq•= +1 or -1. This• is termed perfect correlation, fj RESULTS CF STtJpY PARENT INVOLVE`IENT I found.that there was a direct and• statistically significant link 1seT+te°n parent involvement- iti,elementary schools, as measured by PTA. participation, and test scores.. The higher the participation of parents in their school's PTA, the higher the test scores were for those 'schools. Statistically •speakz.ng, there is virtually Lo chance 'that this relationship exists -by chance. See Figure 1. SCHOOLS SIZE ' found that the apparent ''optimum" school size is from 200 to 350 students, The larger the schools became #'rom"that point the lower' generally. th-_ test scores we=e. Teat snores declined approximately ten percentage points 'when average sthbvl •size ancr..ease9 fro 200 students' ' o 600 students. See Figure-2 and Table 1, Page 2 Testimony of Robert R. Reeber to Montgomery County School Board Hearing. February 191- 198-1 RESULTS OF STUDY CONTINUED MINORITY RATIOS I found that the higher the ratio.between minority and non-minority students in the schools, the lower the degree of parent involvement. B ecause of the strong correlation between parent involvement and test scores.tbis indicates by reference schools with high minority ratios are generally Figure 1 that test scores for signifcantly lower than average. See figure 3. EFFECTS- OF INCREASED BUSSING Increased bussing was. not found to- significantly affect the composite' te st scores. It does however increase* costs both at the state and county level and indirectly must affect* (because of increased time not utilized for other acti.vities) such peripherals ad art, music and dance. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY -The factors I have identified..Must be considered- for, a••comprehensive school -planning study. We obviously should do everything we can to encourage parent involvement, in elementary school education. Schools' with good parent involvement have•a much higher test scores regardless of. S6hO�l "size- likelihood by far of ending up with better involved is significantly It is also clear that the social process of getting Parents in easier for smaller schools. It is clear that for small and large sollools.money spent schools will apparently in getting parents more actively involved in their children's ways of-.-spending it. havb a. on. the quality of education than many other at doing this it'a Federally funded one' The only. progr4rq in DJCP$S'I�resently.aimed at parents of und ra.. Li vir_ for $165,000 over three years. This is specifically aimed ar s e cl e students. It involves one full-ime positioti at 22.1K and parttimers for a zotal Of 14.2Y_ Additionally you should know whether the •dollars apparently saved by having largcr,• schools are. really saving money. If the quality of education in large schools is lower, society will pay a price in greater illiteracy, juvenile problems and the like not to mention lessened economic Opportunities in an increasingly technological society.• In -essence we need to know whether the lessened quality in large schools is OffsOt by .the dollars saved running them as opposed to smaller schools. Fi"nally, there is something operating in the' school system relating to minor i itses that is not good. It is•a problem that goes beyond the scope of. this present study. The data does indicate, however, that the higher the parent PTA involvement in high minority schools, the higher the test scores are. Again it may be that our dollars ts involved rather than on other mtters- may be most wisely'spent on getting parents . Appendix A lists some, ways, the school Boar d could-consider to.accomplish this. In conclusion, part of the reason for *declining test scores may be the nudging out of parents and families from their educational systems by expanding bureaucracies over the years. Parents,confronted by a large, impersonally cold school system, • may have been discouraged from providing a necessary ingredient in elementary school education. It may also be -that moving toward larger schools w ill c ost us dearly in intangible losses concerned. with the quality-of education and other real costs to society. it is certain that with the money spent on school administration in this -county, the system should already have analyzed the impact of PTA j.nvolvement and school size on the quality of education in some quantitative way.. -Yo%i.should obtain the answers to- the questions I have posed and related ones immediately:t ly' Appendix B qualitatively indicates how this might be carried out.* 100 MONTGONENY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (1980) Y• 12.a464 a(.02187603) 0 r• .993 00 Ecorse are median averages t (80-100%) 38 school average 60 d (70-79%) 28 school average �^ 40 (60-72%) T 19 school average (aS-59%) S 21 school average c 20 3 school average 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL PERCENTILE RANK- FIFTH (BADS COWoSITE SCORES PMUTAQ9— PICt/ig i I I. I f�l �y Cry 80 w N w 75 F-i F� W U - 70200 300 400 500 600 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SIZE - (NO. STUDENTS) FIr,(;RF. 2" 4 TABLE 2 TABLE 1 COI-TAP.ISON OF TWO GROUPS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS W2TH Y"G' CCF&ARISOrl OF TWO GROUPS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WITH CHf.NGEV TEST S70F.5S PAREh'9 INVOLVEMENTS GOING FROM THIRD TO FIFTH GRADE. GROUP 1 140ST 11-1PROVED, GROUP 2 worst decline �o 1 5th Iowa minority ratio stud./prof PTA �. SCHOOL FY19?4 ratio GROUP 1 MOST IMPROVED size score Ol G2 r'3 17.6 18.3 5th Iowa minority No. Chase 272 80 90 97 PTA SCHOOL FY 1979 3rd Iowa 75 N.Chevy 17.9 SIZE scores scores ratio Aides 243 76 92 95 9.1 _ 7d Lux Manor 12.9 st dent 6'1 G2 Qz Ol 42 8(, Bradley 03 295 78 90 95 "' 11.8 �'1 287 68 93 9% 4 24.6 : 130 Brookmount 97 Ro1linRwood 234 G2 E� 93 72 8 93 19.E 70 84 93 22 4 10? Burnin€_ Tree 457 62 92 97 20'4 332 30 73 86 20.4 34 Four Corners 335 8fi 93 97 3.3 46 73 .93 72 82 93 30.1 5 116 Farmland 50 Highland View 232 14.0 232 71 76 91 62 Sd 9: Sf..a 3 97 315 81.7 91.7 96.3 12.5 1.1 123 Grosvenor 76 d.6 1.4 1.0 6.1 7.. 9 sigma =23.9 5,4 Brown Station E1. fi57 52 73 83 70 BC• 9' 78 Nonocacy 227 26 % 88 49 70 84 18.5 8 Gs,oup 2 av v.73 344 - 48 'n 89 66 82 92 19.F, 5.3 51 82 94 28.3 16.5 .18 �9 +3 90 Chevy Chase 385 Ia.- % score increase 56 82 90 22.0 16F 9 5.1 f 3.g 7.8 2..: 85 Cresthaven 304 sigma = 33.? 112 Galway 394 55 80 89 14.2 �'e' 92 North Lake 299 51 70 66 GR 12.4 1G.1 OUC 2 Worst decline 0 7.0 20.8 22.2 l0 306 StedwicY. 656 59 82 9 30 Pleasant View 261 68 76 88 _ 22 4F. 70 9.5 11.7 12.9 7 94 Abyside 462 .56 80 g2 46 81 90 al 54 66 31 Burtonsville 232 18.4 596 65 83 94 32 56 86 4.5 7 15.5 9 Damascus 97 417 54.8 ?9.3 90.2 8.1 1.8 4� .sigma = 10.3 y32 3;2 4.7 2.? 52 Fields Road 42 6R 88 22 41 64 17.0 1 66 Fox Chapel �4 62 83 90 32 46 76 21.9 2 18 Kensington 221 68 83 93 32 54 86 31.7 8 avg.35 387 59 79 91 30 SO 75 18.4 9.7 sigma= 15.2 174 11.5 6 2.5 7.2 t- 9 913 2'6 U= x_ to n score decrease -29 -29 -lF• ( 7E 315+ 2.4d7 391_ - ,f G 391 is less than 417 95%confidence limit that difference in school size is significant I. r1cujw + 100 K 80 a 60 M g p \ g 8 20 & o 0 — 0 l 0 10 20 30 40 50 • IFJI(:I:N'IM1GY:OF LYULYNT::711%T ANI HINnI'ITI hS IN WI1011.1 I,Y +'U1111TY UmLNTAIIY:II:IIUOLS 1 100 SLLp1;TW"ONTOONEAY COUNTY ELEMENTANY 5CHOOL5 (1980) Q g PANENT INVOLVEMENT w II.3WAO2 exr*023AW(M) 80 A. 57h G,.LV IOWA C01a'061 TE SCPNE corr.I tj.n door. 0.27 .t PAPf"T TESL ' �., 1NVl1LVEMENT WOKE AVERAGE (00-100%) 33.5 60 ., s7.1 / 70 77.A Nn 03.1 ri vo 00.1 6 T,E .1x ',...� 160-72%) .� 20 eb77 O LE95 TUA 30%N1enrl tY i a I (AS-EW No VALUES BELO% 1SIGMA Or••'� Test mere or PTA a LL ❑ GREATER THAN 2M Mlnerlty , 0 V 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHWL PERCENTILE RAMI-F71TM GHAK rOHP03IT8 SCORES (PhTICBNT e) FIOIMS IF , - 100 TEST SPORE. 94.0177-.01246X( SCHOOL SIZE) m CORRELATION COEF. - —.9139 ^ loa u SCHOOL SIZE TEST 70 H than 30;;minority and other (No.STUDF.NTS) SCORE 7 statistically lower acorinR schools) r� 20U 91.3 400 7 ; 600 766.6 /Ir 80 00 300 400 500 600 700 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SIi6 (NUMBER OF STUDENTS) elsvRE 5 APPENDIX A Possible Methods for i,ncre' ink Fa-refit Involvemeht in Elementary Education 1. Establish more active volunteer progxam - 2. Evaluate x'rom available data what programs-tire most. effective ;. ( This can be accomplished in conjunction with individual school PTAs). 3. Increase the recogn,ition•for volunteers and have more people in the system whose job is to coordinate parent involvement at the. individual school .level. 4. ,Consider degree of parent involvement an important criteria for promotion and tanure of principals. 5. Payment for elected :ETA leaders, especially in larger schools plus. � perhaps furnishing office space and telephone.use should be.•considered.. 6. Payment to each parent for -up to AO hours/year of service work in i the classroom or alternate work in the school. 7. Use the public relations department of the school system to strongly publicise the need for parent involvement 8.. Set up teacher -volunteers for grading papers, correcting. homework etc. so that parents 'get a sense of accomplishment. APPENDIX fi Possible Factors involve4:ir- the hi?h-correlation of parent involvement and test scores 1. Parent volunteers actually in classroom 2. Parents monitoring of students' homework I 3. Receptiveness of school principal,and teachers to parent involvement 4. Parent complaints requiring changes in the way school is operated 5. Parents closely monitoring students'progress and requesting remedial help as soon as it is required. 6. .Smaller schools -provide better social environments for parent interacticri and cooperativRactivities.- 7'i.Smaller schools provide manageable jobs for volunteer PTA leaders. They can therefore better achieve •their objectives with viable programs. 8. Smaller schools generally have srmnaller geographical• areas.-so that . more. parents can schedule volunteer activities-into busy schedules 9. Specific schools may •have increased concentrations of single parentis or working parent pairs with less time for parent involvement ( The large change in scores as a :function of parent involvement would -indicate that this is important in individual cases but would not explain the countywide results. as a whole). I N T R 0 D U C T 1 0 N In recent seon#ks, the nation has undergone intensive scrutiny through studies regarding the quality of education. Fundamental to the issue of quality "education is the question of how school districts are to be organized to deliver services to children. Since 1360, North Carolina's special chartered school districts and their parent counties have been studying the feasibility and implications of merger. During this period, thirty-two special chartered districts have merged with the county system in their respective counties. There is presently much interest in this issue, both at the state and local levels. This document was prepared to provide base data to State Board of Education members, legislators, school board members, school administrators, and other interested citizens. I commend this publication to you and urge you to study the implications of merger and the way educational services are delivered to children in North Carolina. rw A. Craig Phillips, t e Superintendent Department of Pub is I struction SPECIAL CHARTERED SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN NORTH CAROLINA The existing special chartered school districts in North Carolina date back to 1881 when the Goldsboro district was chartered. The next special districts to be chartered were Reidsville and Durham, which were chartered in 1887. Madison-Mayodan (now western Rockingham), chartered in 1957, was the last special school district to be established in North Carolina. Special chartered school districts came into being because citizens, particularly those in urban areas, wished to provide more opportunities for their children than were available from the county administrative units. The county commissioners were authorized, by referendum or special legislation, to levy a current expense supplementary tax for these districts. This special tax was. used to supplement salaries, employ additional staff members, purchase instructional supplies, and generally improve educational opportunities. Through the years, many boards of county commissioners have denied requests or the local boards of education have failed to make requests for the supplemental levies. For the school year 1983-84, only 29 of the 42 special chartered school districts had supplemental levies for current expense. While the chartering of special school districts continued until 1957, the merging of school districts began with Charlotte/Mecklenburg in 1960. At that time North Carolina had 174 admin- istrative units, or 74 special chartered school districts. The most recent merger occurred on July 1, 1983, when Concord merged with the Cabarrus County school -system. On July 1, 1985, Fayetteville will merge with Cumberland County, and North Carolina will have 41 special chartered districts. I The very nature of the merger issue makes it controversial . For this reason, interest in merger fluctuates over a long period of time. Several merger studies are often conducted by the state agency and private organizations over a period of many years before merger occurs. This process frequently polarizes the citizenry; there is often an assumption that merger cannot- be y mutually beneficial . Merger is an educational issue but-also a political and social one. The business community will evaluate merger in light of business interests; some school board members will lose their positions; merger will reduce the number of superintendents and frequently results in a total reorganization of the central office staffs; teachers are fearful that they will be transferred to distant schools; merger sometimes expedites the closing of schools and a consequent loss or change of jobs. Despite the controversy which surrounds merger, ultimately there appears to be satisfaction where merger has occurred. There has been little interest in reestablishing any of the 32 city administrative units which have merged since 1960. Likewise, the last serious, but unsuccessful, effort to create a new special chartered school district was in 1970. Through the years, the State Department of Public Instruction and the State Board of Educa- tion have maintained that the question of merger is a local question and outside their purview. Upon request, the department has conducted merger feasibility studies, and counseled with 'admin- istrators and boards of education regarding merger.. The department has maintained a policy, however, that merger studies will. be conducted only when requested by all boards of education which are involved. Z i i 1 - - There are several significant areas where chance is causing boards of education to question the need to maintain special chartered school districts: w, o Today, citizens in county administrative units expect the same quality of education as those in special chartered school districts. Two counties- which have special chartered school districts have a supplemental current expense levy for the county administrative unit. Other county units have supplemental levies for individual attendance areas: Polk (Saluda), Buncombe (Enka), Harnett (Dunn), Martin (Jamesville), and Randolph (Archdale-Trinity). Only 29 of the 42 special chartered districts have supplemental levies. There is a growing attitude that the total resources of the county should be placed behind every student in the county. o The wealth is shifting from the special chartered school districts to the county administrative units as residential , industrial , and commercial growth favors the suburban and rural areas. During the last decade, the per pupil tax base growth in only eight special chartered school districts kept pace with the county-wide tax base growth. Today, ten special chartered school districts have a lower per pupil tax - base than their counties. o North Carolina's student population has declined during the last decade. Generally, special chartered school districts have declined at a faster rate than their respective county administrative units. Population pro- jections indicate that during the next five years, 30 of the 42 special chartered school districts are projected to decline faster than their county units. ~ The decline has been significant for those eight special chartered school districts with less than 2,000 students which would typically have less than 618 high school students. Below this size it is difficult to economically offer a comprehensive .program. o During the last decade, 38 of the special chartered school districts had a greater increase in the percentage of non-white students than their county administrative units. In 1983-84, twenty-nine special chartered school districts had a greater percentage of non-white students than their county units. o In 19e3-84, twenty-five special chartered school districts hatr a-greater percentage of Chapter I students than their county administrative unit. 3 In recent months there have been several developments which relate to special chartered school districts: one special chartered school district has tried, through the courts, to relinquish its charter; one special chartered school district has *asked the State Board to use its authority to J extend the unit's boundaries without the consent of the county board of education; one special chartered school district and one county board of education have endorsed the concept of two- county school system merger; several "boards of county commissioners have exerted pressure on boards of education to merge; several boards of county-commissioners 'have failed to levy voted supplemental school district taxes; one "bvard of county commissioners, after reaching an impass with its three boards of educaton, has asked the Department of Public Instruction to conduct a facility study of all schools in the county; groups such as Chamber of Commerce, PTA and Leaeue of Women Voters are expressing more interest in mercer; and the General Assembly"has, on several occasions, considered legislation which would eliminate special chartered school districts. 4 CHARTER DATES FOR SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS CHARTER CHARTER SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE SPECIAL -SC1400L DISTRICT DATE Goldsboro 1881 Franklinton 1905 Durham 1887 Kings Mountain 1905 Reidsville 1887 Mooresville 1905 Shelby 1891 Lumberton 19 7 Statesville 1891 Chapel Hill 909 Mount Airy 1895 Hickory 1909 High Point 1897 Red Springs 1913 Monroe 1897 Roanoke Rapids 1919 Albemarle 1899 Tarboro 1919 Kinston 1899 Burlington 1921 Washington 1899 Salisbury 1921 Asheville 1901 Eden 1929 Hendersonville 1901 Kannapolis 1935 Rocky Mount 1901 Lexington 1935 Thomasville 1901 Newton-Conover 1935 Clinton 1903 Fairmont 19�9 Fayetteville 1903 Greensboro 1943 Greenville 1903 Whiteville 1945 " Tryon 1903 Elkin 1947 Weldon 1903 Saint Pauls 1953 Asheboro 1905 Western Rockingham 1957 5 ............. SPECIAL CHARTERED SCHOOL DISTRICT MERGERS ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS DATE METHOD Mecklenburg/Charlotte 07-01-60 Vote Forsyth/Winston-Salem 07-01-63 Vote Granville/Oxford 07-01-63 Vote - Scotland/Laurinburg 07-01=64 Vote Haywood/Canton 07-01-65 Vote, Chowan/Edenton 07-01-67 Vote Richmond/Hamlet/Rockingham 07-01-67 Legislative Enactment Pasquotank/Elizabeth City 07-01-67 Vote Anson/Morven/Wadesboro 07-01-67 Board Plan Moore/Pinehurst/Southern Pines 07-01-67 Legislative Enactment Wayne/Fremont 08-03-67 Board Plan Vance/Henderson 07-01-68 Vote Gaston/Cherryville/Gastonia 07-01-68 Vote Burke/-Glen Alpine/Morganton 07-01-69 Board Plan Cherokee/Andrews/Murphy 07-01-69 Board Plan McDowell/Marion 07-01-69 Vote ! Lee/Sanford 07-01-73 Board Plan Lincoln/Lincolnton 07-01-74 Legislative Enactment Caldwell/Lenoir 07-01-74 Board Plan Wilkes/North Wilkesboro 07-01-75 Board Plan Wilson/Elm City/Wilson 07-01-76 Legislative Enactment Wake/Raleigh 07-01-76 Legislative Enactment Robeson/Maxton 07-01-79 Board Plan Craven/New Bern 07-01-81 Board Plan Cabarrus/Concord 07-01-83 Board Plan Cumberland/Fa etteville 07-01-85 Board Plan 6 1983-84 FINAL AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIPS 198 -84 1983 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ADM ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ADM Alamance 10,718 Lenoir 6,421 � Burlington 7,125 Kinston 4,931 I Beaufort 4',448 dash 10,636 Washington 3,792 Rocky Mount 5,995 Buncombe ' 22,205 Orange 4,959 Asheville 4,895 _ Chapel Hill 5,02.5 A Ca shevi 12,524 Pitt 11.308 Kannapolis 4, 759 Greenville 4,914 Catawba 12,845 Polk 1,574 4,484 Tryon 574 Hickory 2,953. Randolph 13,?59 Newton-Conover 3,695 Cleveland 8,782 Asheboro Kings Mountain 4,160 Robeson 14,546 3,756 Fairmont 2.,306 Shelby 4 372 Columbus 8,098 Lumberton Whiteville 2,764 Red Springs. 1,838 Cumberland 34,722 Saint Pauls 1,584 Fayetteville 8,193 Rockingham 4,740 Davidson 16,102 Eden 4,400 Lexington 3,391 Western Rockingham 2,692 Thomasville 2,638 Reidsville 3,978 Durham 16,403 Rowan 12,433 Durham 8,628 Salisbury Edgecombe 5,561 Sampson 6,861 Tarboro 3,138 Clinton 2,793 Franklin 4,377 Stanly 6,817 Franklinton 1,296 Albemarle 1,991 Guilford 23,889 Surry 8,273 Greensboro 22,135 Elkin 1,045 High Point 8,659 Mount Airy 2,041 Halifax 7,001 Union 12,179 Roanoke Rapids 2,591 Monroe 3,099 Weldon 1,348 Wayne 13,116 Henderson 8,536 Goldsboro 4,928 Hendersonville 1,564 IrHendl 9,987 .Total-Special school districts 172.,768 Mooresville 2,308 Total-Host counties 334,295 Statesville 3,557 Total-North Carolina 1,084,728 NOTE: County administrative units are to the left; special chartered units are indented. 7 Grade Distribution / 1000 Students K - 5 442 6 =-8 249 9 .= 12 309 K = 6. * .. 519 7 - 9 264 10 =12. : 217 ti SPECIAL CHARTERED SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SIZE , ADMINISTRATIVE U -84 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ADM 1983-84 Tryon 574 Kings Mountain 4,160 Lumberton 4,372 Elkin 1,045 Eden 4,400 Franklinton 1,296 Hickory 4,484 Weldon 1,348 KannapoTis 4,759 Hendersonville 1,564 Asheville 4,895 Saint Pauls 1,584 Greenville 4,914 Red Springs 1,838 Goldsboro 4,928 Albemarle 1,991 Kinston 4,931 Mount Airy 2,041 Chapel Hill 5,025 Fairmont 2,306 Rocky Mount 5,995 Mooresville 2,308 Salisbury 2,433 Burlington .7,12.5 Roanoke Rapids 2,591 Thomasville ?.,638 Fayetteville 8,193 Western Rockingham 2,692 Durham 8,628 Whiteville 2,764 High Point 8,659 Clinton 2,793 Newton-Conover 2,953 Greensboro 22,135 Monroe 3,099 Tarboro 3,138 Lexington 3,391 Statesville 3,557 Asheboro 3,695 Shelby 3,756 Washington 3,792 Reidsville 3,978 9 HIGH SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 450 STUDENTS BASED ON FIRST MONTH ADM, 1984-85 9-12 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT SCHOOL -GRADE SPAN ADM Graham Stecoah K-12 34 Hyde Ocracoke K 71? 38 Macon Nantahala K-12* 57 Jackson Blue -Ridge - K-12 123 i Macon Highlands K=12 129 Dare- Cape Hatteras K-12* 154 Martin . Bear Grass 7-12 181 Washington Creswell High. K-4, 9-12 198 Tyrrell Columbia : 7-12 203 . Robeson Parkton K-12 205 Columbus Williams Township K-12 211 Martin Jamesville K-12 212 Cherokee Hiwassee Dam K-12 228 Tryon Tryon -High 9-12 231 Harnett Coats- . K-12 234 Columbus Nakiria 9-12 237 Beaufort Aurora 9-12 239 Jackson Camp Laboratory K-12 243 Bladen Clarkton 6-12 245 Duplin North Duplin 9-12 2.55 Hyde . Mattamuskeet: 7-12 262 Johnston Princeton K-12 289 Beaufort Bath K-12 290 Beaufort Chocowinitv - 5-12 314 Henderson' Edneyville High 7-12- .. 315 . Pender Topsail Jr.--Sr. High 7-12 317 Columbus Acme-Delco High 7-12-. X28 10 - 2 y ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT SCHOOL GRADE SPAN ADM Transylvania Rosman High 7-12 3?9 Davidson Denton Jr. & Sr. High 6-12 337 Elkin Elkin High 8-12 339 Western Rockingham Stoneville K-12 349 Cherokee - Andrews High - 7-12 355 Wake Zebulon High 6-12 355 Wayne Rosewood High 7-12 360 Ashe Beaver Creek 7-12 362 Clay Hayesville Hiah 7-12 357 Robeson Orrum 7-12 375 Bladen Tar Neel 7-12 376 Bladen Bladenboro K-5, 9-12 385 Franklinton Franklinton High 6-12 388 Camden Camden County High 9-12 391 Weldon Weldon High 9-12 392 Polk Polk Central 7-12 393 Harnett Erwin 4-12 396 Graham Robbinsville High 9-12 398 Gates Gates County Sr. 10-12 402* Onslow Dixon High 7-12 409 Columbus Tabor City Primary & High K-3, 9-12 410 Mount Airy Mount Airy High 10-12 413* Ashe Northwest 7-12 428 Ashe Ashe Central . 7-12 433 r Beaufort J. A. Wilkinson 9-12 435 Chatham Chatham Central 9-12 443 Stokes North Stokes High . 7-12 446 *Grades 10-12 only. Note: City administrative units are indented. li ...._ ... _........ ACTUAL AND PROJECTED MEMBERSHIPS % CHANGE 1973-74 1978-79 1983-84 PROJECTED ADM FROM 1983-84 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ADM ADM ADM 1988-89 TO 1988-89 Alamance 12,975 12,728 10,718 9,304 -13.2 s Burlington 89671 7,917 7,125 6,325 -11.2 Beaufort 4,515 4.,634 4,448 4,285 - 3.7 Washington 3,884 4,024 3,792 3;559 - 6.1 Buncombe 22,596 23,792 22,205 20,769 - 6.5 j Asheville 6,798- 5,628 4,895 4,542 - 7.2 Cabarrus 12,212 12,728 12,524 12,120 - 3.2 Kannapolis 5,646 5,389 4,759 4,480 - 5.9 Catawba 11,731 13,146 12,845 12,300 - 4.2 Hickory 5,705 5,003 4,484 4,028 -10.2 Newton-Conover 3,028 2,922 2,953 2,879 - 2.5 Cleveland 9,036 9,573 8,782 - 7,852 -10.6 Kings"Mountain 4,145 4,309 4,160 3,986 - 4.2 Shelby 4,717 4,248 3,756 3,254 -13.4 Columbus 9,42.9 8,958 .8,098 7,725 - 4.6 wh'iteville 3,141 2,823 2,764 2,718 - 1.7 Cumberland 33,714 35,435 34,722 35,389 + 1.9 Fayetteville 10,844 9,607 8,193 . 7,535 - 8.0 Davidson 14,957 - 16,626 16,102 15,239 - 5.4 Lexington 4,361 3,932 3,391 3,083 - 9.1 Thomasville 3,332 2,999 2,638 2,481: - 6.0 Durham 15,428 16,691 16,403 15,945 - 2.8 . Durham 10,430 8,919 8,628 8,655 + .3 Edgecombe 6,744 6,123 5,561 5,256 - 5.5 Tarboro 3,378 3,309 3,138 3,071 - 2.1 Franklin 4,849 4,732 4.,377 4,365 - .3 Franklinton 1,427 1,429 1•,296 1,220 - 5.9 Guilford 24,592 25,650 23,889 22,158 - 7.3 Greensboro 27,247 25,658 22,135 20,231 - 8.6 High Point 10,694 9,889 8,659 7,967 - 8.0 Halifax 8,713 7,917 7,001 6,570 - 6.2 Roanoke Rapids . 3,058 2,913 2,591 2,444 - 5.7 Weldon 1,855 1,633 1,348 1,196 -11.3 Henderson 7,307 8,500 8,536 8,816 + 3.3 Hendersonville 1,906 1,685 1,564 1,543 - 1.3 Iredell 10,502 10,659 9,987 9,586 - 4.0 Mooresville 2,490 2,425 2,308 2,218 - 3.9 Statesville 3,780 4,089 1 3,557 1 3,2.78 12 CHANGE 1EADM-74 1978-79 1983-84 PROJECTED ADM FROM 1983-84 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ADM ALCM 1988-89 TO 1988-89 Lenoir 6,7.49 6,888 6,421 6,0?_3 - 6.2 Kinston 5,555 5,136 4,931 4,793 _ 7.8 10,925 10,984 10,636 10,565 •7 Nash 6,094 Rocky Mount 6,661. 6,452 5,995 - Orange 5,054 5,097 4,959 4,909 Chapel Hill 5,180 5,525 5,025 4,641 - 7.6 11,683 11,319 11,308 11,578 + .4 Pitt 4,914 4,896 - .4 Greenville 5,602 5,153 Polk 1,807 1,815 1,574 1,442 - 8.4 Tryon 689 606 574 534 - 7.0 13,037 13,867 13,259 12,380 - 6.6 Randolph 4,655 4,867 3,695 3,254 =11.9 Asheboro Robeson 14,428 14,565 14,546 14,099 - 3.7.7 7 Fairmont 2,722 2,533 2,306 2,129 - Lumberton 4,802 4,848 4,372 3,901 -I 4. Red Springs 1,805 1,832 1,838 1,759 - 4.3 3 Saint Pauls 1,592 1,704 1,584 1,498 _ 7.6 Rockingham 4,952 5,068 4,740 4,381 _ 9.8 Eden 4,759 4,785 4,400 3,968 Western Rockingham 2,925 2,940 2,69 2 2,403 -I0.7 Reidsville 4,866 4,469 3,978 3,638 _ 8.6 Rowan 13,997 14,307 13,408 13,306 Salisbury 3,384 2,830 ?,433 2,264 - 7.0 Sampson, 8,034 7,314 6,861 6,572 - 4.2 Clinton 3,222 3,110 2,793 2.,612 - 6.5 • Stanly 6,623 7,240 6,817 6,595 - 3.3 Albemarle 2,569 2,341 1,991 1,746 -12.3 A Su lb 8,168 8,734 8,273 7,587 - 8.3 Surry Elkin 1,151 1,081 . 1,045 1,009 - 9.4 Mount Airy 2,383 2,264 2,041 1,840 Union 10,735 12,036 12,179 12,039 - 2.2 Monroe 3,193 3,267 3,099 3,0 26 - 2.4 Wayne 14,407 14,224 13,116 12,873 - 1.9 Goldsboro 6,237 5,570 4,928 4,819 - 2.2 N.C. Totals 1,153,335 1,155,501 1,084,728 1,041,198 - 4.0 13 .....___......_...._ RACIAL. COMPOSITION 1973-74 1978-79 1983-84 - N - NN- NN- ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT WHITE % WHITE % WHITE % WHITE % WHITE % WHITE % Aiamance 10,215 77 3,035 23 9,842 77 2,963 23 8,277 77 2,459 123 Burlington 6,665 75 2,183 , 25 5,726 71 2,366 29 4,798 67 2,330 33 Beaufort 2,423 54 2,080 46 2,596 55 2,082 45 2,529 56 1,949 44 Washington 2,390 61 1,557 39 2,272 56 1,783 44 2,261 59 1,572 41 Buncombe 21,812 96 1,043 4 .?2,99? 95 1,246 5 21,140 94 1,298 6 Asheville 4,556 65 2,434 35 3,500 61 2,250 39 2,929 59 2,050 41 Cabarrus 10,195 82 2,165 18 10,594 82 ?- ;252 18 10,490 83 2,109 17 Kannapolis 4,664 80 1,169 20 4,265 78 1,?36 22 3,631 75 1,187 25 Catawba 10,856 91 1,025 9 11,294 92 1,016 8 11,701 91 1,164 9 Hickory 4,688 81 1,082 19 3,861 76 1 ,226 24 3,288 73 1,239 27 Newton-Conover 2,685 86 429 14 2,579 86 429 14 2,418 82 528. 18 Cleveland 6,214 68 2,940 32 6,756 69 2,992 31 6,343 72 2,498 28 Kings Mountain 3,246 77 983 23 3,383 78 .972 22 3,183 76 1,012 24 Shelbv 3,399 71 1,411 29 2,873 66 1,455 34 2,217 59 1,557 42 Columbus 5,531 58 3,990 42 5_,305 59 3,752 41 4,676 57 3,532 43 Whiteville 2,037 65 1,098 35 1,777 62 1,079 38 1,679 -60 1,136 40 Cumberland 23,981 70 10,099 30 23,247 65 12,793 35 20,844 60 14,037 40 Fayetteville 4,975 45 6,199 55 4.,283 43 5,658 57 3,409 41 4,928 59 Davidson 14,421 96 669 4 16,140 96 595 4 15,546 96 646 4 Lexington 3,143 71 . 1,270 29 2,734 68 1,315 32 2,183 64 1,252 36 Thomasville 2,233 66 1,154 34 1,820 61 1,185 39 1,524 58 1,103 42 Durham 11,763 75 3,917 25 12,139 71 4,896 29 11,382 69 5,112 3I Durham 3,100 29 7,555 71 1,447 16 7,657 84 1,029 12 7,731 88 Edgecombe 2,231 32 4,641 68 2,055 33 4,182 67 2,004 36 3,610 64 Tarboro 1,763 52 1,656 48 1,710 51 1,618 49 1,564 50 1,573 50 . Franklin 2,129 43 2,795 57 2,212 46 2,600 54 2,227 50 2,198 50 Franklinton 570 39 879 61 558 - 38 897 62 474 36 . 828 64 ' , Guilford 21,159 85 3,625 15 21,560 83 4,280 17 18,765 81 4,413 19 Greensboro 16,883 61 10,990 . 39 14,015 -54 12,153 46 11,005 49 11,403 51 High Point 6,970 64 3,983 36 5,828 57 4,398 43 4,684 53 4,119 47 Halifax 1,133 13 7,728 87 - 1,041 13 7,075 87 825 12 6;257 88 Roanoke Rapids 2,875 93 212 7 2,713 -.93 218 7 2,398 91 .22.8 9 Weldon 433 23 1,424 77 370 22 - 1,276 78 236 17 1,139 83 Henderson 7,071 97 '198 3 8,521 98 218 2 8,484 97 238 3 Hendersonville 1,467 80 371 20 1,301 77 398 23 1,149 74 412 26 Iredell- 8,659 81 1,968 19 9,147 85 1,664 15 8,436 84 1,629 16 Mooresville 1,966 78 567 22 1,821 73 658 27 1,676 72 650 28 Statesville 2,532U65 1,349j, 35 1 2.,323 57 1,755 43 1 1,8171 51 1 1,765 49 14 N N- NON- NON- ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT WHITE % WHITE % WHITE % WHITE % WHITE % WHITE % ti Lenoir 4,077 60 2,752 40 4,614 66 ?,376 34 4,331 67 2;118 33 Kinston 2,478 43 3,222 57 1,952 37 3,286 63 1,286 26 3,702 74 Nash 5,203 47 5,884 53 5,466 49 5,680 51 5,721 53� 5,053 47 Rocky Mount 3,250 48 3,538 52 3,008 46 3,577 54 4747, 35 3,959 65 70 30 Orange 3,203 63 1,907 37 3,536 68 1,655. 32 74 I 26 Chapel Hill 3,633 69 1,647 31 4,118 74 1,457 26 3, , Pitt 5,594 47 6,362 53 5,726 50 5,719 50 5,708 50 5,695 50 Greenville 3,235 57 2,403 43 2,724 52 2,506 48 2,146 43 2,813 57 Polk 1,642 90 188 10 1,609 88 217 12 11418 89 170 11 Tryon 505 73 188 27 439 73 161 27 438 76 141 24 Randolph 12,214 91 1,192 9 12,973 92 1,067 8 12,444 -93 992 7 Asheboro 4,225 89 501 11 3,774 87 586 33 3,125 R4 603 16 Robeson 2,844 19 11,789 81 2,671 48 11,903 82 2,484 17 12,187 83 Fairmont 817 30 1,885 70 702 27 1,878 73 579 25 - 1,748 75 Lumberton ?,880 60 1,957 40 2,667 55 2,206 45 2,119 48 2,302 52 Red Springs 499 27 1,355 73 414 22 1,429 78 407 22 1,459 78 Saint Pau1s 771 47 857 53 795 46 924 54 714 45 879 55 Rockingham 3,765 75 1,268 25 3,775 74 1,343 26 3,591, 75 1,196 2.5 Eden 4,042 83 815 17. 3,888 80 943 .20 3,540 79 932 21 Western Rockingham 2,351 79 639 21 , 2,315 78 651 22 2,087 77 627 23 Reidsville 2,958 60 1,969 40 2,528 55 2,031 45 2,211 55 1,818 45 Rowan 11,766 83 2,351 17 11,952 83 2,474 17 11,151 82 2,396 18 Salisbury 2,037 57 1,550 43 1,5 26 51 1,444 49 1,112 46 1,327 54 Sampson 4,509 55 3,690 45 4,171 56 3,340 44 4,009 57 3,018 43 Clinton 1,761 54 1,528 46 1,661 53 1 ,448 47 1,371 48 1,461 52 Stanly 5,742 86 953 14 6,436 88 897 12 5,978 87 879 13 Albemarle 2,171 83 435 17 1,771 74 614 26 1,412 70 600 30 Surry 7,836 94 488 6 8,398 95 436 5 7,967 95 403 5 Elkin 1,078 93 85 7 991 91 93 9 956 91 93 9 Mount Airy 2,112 89 261 11 2,042 89 263 11 1,825 89 ?31 11 Union 8,502 79 2,277 21 .9,721 80 2,365 20 10,121 82 2,155 18 . Monroe 2,165 66 1,093 34 1,892 58 1,393 42 1,568 50 1,574 50 Wayne 9,952 69 4,515 31 9,714 68 4,590 32 9,043 .68 4,170 32 Goldsboro 2,459 39 3,819 61 1,706 30 3,958 70 1,084 22 3,876 78 N.C. Totals 1 804,369 1 69 1 364,952 31 798,808 68' 370,740 32 735,432 67 358,478 33 Note: Figures are the membership at the end of the first school month. 15 FINANCIAL DATA 1383-84 1982-83 1983-84 - 1983r84 CURRENT EXPENSE CURRENT EXPENSE % LOCAL PER PUPIL SUPPLEMENTAL LOCAL PER PUPIL CERTIFICATED ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT TAX BASE LEVY EXPENDITURE * PERSONNEL , Alamance $ 99,243 $ -- $ 469.63 4.33 Burlington 107,401 .1850 691.87 9.85 Beaufort 170,058 - 332.87 .37 Washington 97,343 .0500 437.31 6.46 Buncombe 147,239 -- 504.91 6.51 ' Asheville 185,298 .1500- 926.39 15.79 Cabarrus -- -- 472.42 5.I7 Kannapolis -- -- 504.41 4.37 Catawba -- -- 404.56 11.64 Hickory -- -- 507.68 7.02 Newton-Conover -- 462.02 10.72 Cleveland 103,266 -- 414.19 8.24 Kings Mountain 82,606 .1400. 489.28 10.97 Shelby 89,318 .2000 540.30 7.66 Columbus -- -- 391.16 2.35 Whiteville -- 355.91 2.55 Cumberland .73,793. -- 443.08 8.82 Fayetteville 102,497 .2500 801.68 15.17 Davidson 1091,590 -- 318.04 4.54 Lexington 149,744 .1200 510.47 9.86 Thomasville 128,158 .1210 447.79 7.45 Durham 141,544 .2700 801.44 16.83 Durham 101,784. .3800 940.63 17.25 Edgecombe 58,894 -- 298.87 2.02 Tarboro 100,563 .1300* . 455.34 8.05 Franklin -- -- 440.62 4.2 2 Franklinton 380.93 1.95 Guilford 170,920 - .1203 665.89 10.65 Greensboro . 185;117 .2153 847.27 15.90 Nigh Point 159,541 .1762 757.54 11.39 Halifax 77,464 -- 328.22 .13 Roanoke Rapids - 142,322 .1800 523.49 12:40 Weldon 111,275 .1300 348.03 .68 Henderson 176,311 -- 464.45 8.37 Hendersonville 143,786 .2250 791.47 19.34 Iredell 93,578 -- 341.94 3.02 *Tarboro`s supplemental levy canbe used for current expense or capital outlay. 16 1983-84 198 -83 1983-84 1983-84 CURRENT EXPENSE CURRENT EXPENSE % LOCAL PER PUPIL SUPPLEMENTAL LOCAL PER PUPIL CERTIFICATED ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT TAX BASE LEVY .. EXPENDITURE PERSONNEL Mooresville $ 84,619 $.1250 $ 500.29 6.25 Statesville 124,024 .2350** 612.38 15.17 Lenoir 137,372 -- 424.32 3.95 Kinston 95,598 .O6 491.27 14.10 Nash 93,956 -- 398.48 4.91 Rocky Mount 74,012 .230 573.63 10.42 Orange . 145,902 -- 44.94-:> Chapel Hill 241,384 .1460 1,1 6 4:65 Pitt -- -- 1 8.96 Greenville -- -- 554.69 14.46 Polk 122,657 -- 380.11 14.55 Tryon 166,522 .1300. 574.36 13.00 Randolph 83,041 -- 350.25 4.37 Asheboro 131,658 .1800 .565.50 10.44 Robeson -- -- 237.33 1.47 Fairmont -- -- 259.62 .72 Lumberton 71,854 .1500 357.14 6.72 Red Springs 38,470 .1500 272.73 6.35 Saint Pauls -- -- 286.87 1.05 Rockingham -- -- 451.14 5.11 Eden -- -- 466.89 5.03 Western Rockingham -- -- 456.78 3.36 Reidsville -- -- 519.93 7.91 Rowan 159,763. -- 408.84 9.75 Salisbury 193,658 .1000 702.47 16.05 Sampson 79,243 -- 270.73 1.80 Clinton 94,036 .1600 547.95 11.93 Stanly 96,884 -- 440.47 2.89 Albemarle 101,082 .1900 633.97 10.14 Surry 111,468 -- 412.29 4.86 Elkin 208,410 .1600 649.67 7.80 Mount Airy 160,944 .1200 597.20 10.04 Union 87,116 -- 380.63 4.04 Monroe 131,392 .0950 482.48 11.17 Wayne -- -- 420.96 4.72 . Goldsboro -- -- 477.37 5.55 N.C. Totals 127,602 1 523.54 1 8.22 **Statesville municipality has a levy of $.7100; they allocate $.2350 of this to the 17 Statesville City Special School [district. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA CHAPTER I COMPETENCY TEST CAT TEST STUDENTS FALL, 1983 SPRING, 1984 1983-84 % PASSING GRADE GRADE GRADE ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT M RM01 MUR 1 3 9 Alamance 18.04 92.6 90.2 2.0 4.4 10.3 Burlington 20.92 95.2 93.5 2.5 4.6 11.9 4 Beaufort 57.99 87.6 84.1 1.8 4.2 9.6 Washington 43:99 92.8 87.2 1.8 4.1 10.6 Buncombe 23.89 96.4 93.6 2.3 4.4 Asheville 57.82 91.8 87.8 1.9 4.3 10.9 Cabarrus 19.39 96.9 93.2 1.9 4.3 10.4 KannapalTs ' 34.79 97.6 91.6 1.8 3.9 10.0 Catawba 21.09 ' 96.0 93.6 1.9 4.1 11.0 Hickory 31.79 91.3 88.7 1.9 4.2. 11.0 Niwton-Conover 29.77 95.2 95.7 2.0 3.8 11.0 Cleveland 40.56 88.9 89.2 1.9 4.2 10.0 Kings Mountain 40.91 92.6 92.3 2.0 4.3 10.0 Shelby 36.92 87.6 88.0 2.4 4.5 10.7 Columbus 51.07 86.6 84.6 1.8 4.1 9.0 Whitev'IIe 44.94 91.6 88.5 2.0 3.9 11.0 Cumberland 45.47 96.0 95.4 1.9 4.2 10.7 Fayetteville 36.35 94.3 88.6 2.0 4.2 10.8 Davidson 19.90 95.1 91.7 2.1 4.3 10.3 Lexington 40.66 93.0 89.9 2.2 4.4 10.0 Thomasville 52.66 85.3 84.0 2.1 3.8 10.0 Durham 19.01 95.9 93.2 - 2.1 4.4 11.3 Durham 70.31 90.9 78.6 2.1 4.2 8.7 Edgecombe 75.51 87.0 82.9 1.9 4.3 8.9 , Tarboro 50.69 92.6 82.4 2.0 4.7 10.8 Franklin 44.46 89.9 86.4 2.1 4.1 10.0 Franklinton. 67.53 79.0 75.6 2.1 . 3:8 9.0 . Guilford 23.10 95.7 93.9 2.1 4.3 11.0 Greensboro 29.44 90.6 87.4 2.1 4:4 11.2 High Point 50.48 90.8 87.2 1.8 3.9 10:1 Halifax 82.77 80.0 86.4- 1.9 4.0 8.6 Roanoke Rapids 24.72 96.7 96.2 2.3 4.5 11.0 Weldon 74.15 87.1 80.6 1.8 3.8 8.0 Henderson 23.16 95.0 91.5 2.3 4.4 10.6 Hendersonville 30.47 97.5 95.9 2.1 4,2 - 12.7 Iredell 17.34 94.3 90.5 1.9 3.9 10.3 Mooresville 37.60 92.8 90.6 1.8 1 .4.2 10.0 18 H COMPETENCY TEST CAT TEST STUDENTS FALL, 1983 SPRING 1984 1983-84 % PASSING GRAnE GRAVE GR DE ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT M FADING MATH 1 3 9 Statesville 46.79 95.4 91.2 1.8 3.8 11.0 ` Lenoir 47.70 93.0 87.4 2.0 4.4 10.0 Kinston 62.16 95.9 92.5 1.8 - 4.0 11.0 a Nash 54.21 88.1 85.9 1.9 4.0 10.5 Rocky Mount 20 9 92.3 1.9 4.3 10.0 Orange 1.1 V93*1 1.8 4.i Chapel Hill 7. 2.2 5.1 _Pitt 52.27 85.3 2.1 4.5 . Greenville 43.75' 91.8 89.3 1.8 4.3 11.8 Polk 46.23 95.3 91.6 2.1 4.3 9.6 Tryon 32.41 93.8 93.8 2.3 4.2 11.2 Randolph 20.31 97.0 92.6 1.9 4.1 10.1 Asheboro 21.78 95.2 92.3 2.2 4.6 11.0 Robeson 69.62 84.4 78.2 1.8 3.9 8.9 Fairmont 81.12 87.4 83.8 1.8 3.7 8.6 Lumberton 43.92 96.7 93.7 1.9 4.3 10.0 Red -Springs 81.38 93.1 85.1 1.8 4.0 9.0 Saint Pauls 69.55 90.3 90.3 1.8 3.7 9.0 Rockingham 36.17 90.4 87.7 1.8 3.9 10.0 Eden - 26.42 93.6 88.2 1.8 4.1 10.0 Western Rockingham- 34.10 94.7 91.6 2.2 4.3 10.0 Reidsville 38.89• 96.0 88.3 1.8 3.8 10.0 Rowan 32.89 94.0 90.8 1.9 4.0 10.0 Salisbury 41.75 89.4 86.7 ?.0 4.1 10.9 Sampson 55.29 87.1 84.7 1.8 4.0 9.0 Clinton 51 .74 93.8 88.2 1.7 4.1 9.8 ` Stanly 28.21 92.2 86.9 2.0 4.0 10.1 Albemarle 40.47 91.9 87.0 1.9 3.8 10.1 Surry 29.44 94.7 92.1 1.9 4.2 10.4 Elkin 23.08 97.4 89.6 2.1 4.6 11.2 Mount Airy . 34.90 92.4 86.1 - 1.9 4.5 11.2 Union 14.73 95.6 91.8 2.0 4.2 10.6 Monroe 49.38 93.2 86.9 1.9 4.7 10.0 Wayne 42.64 93.2 89.3 1.9 4.4 10.7 Goldsboro 58.09 87.3 77.7 1.8 3.8 9.8 N.C. Totals 37.34 1 92.8 1 89.9 1 1.9 1 4.2 1 10.4 19 SPECIAL CHARTERED SCHOOL DISTRICTS 42 Chartered School Districts located in 31 Counties AUW"ANY ASHE - C� �4 p WARREN ORTONMP GATES- STOKES S� �7r� SURRT Hui �Ft� `�{r �� 'tn HERTFOR ' QAUG witKES � HALI 7� YADKIN FORSYT GIRD ; G= Kti BERTIE Z ' r AIDWfL ALE R DAVI£ C Z� ' NASH COMSE WASH- TYR- MADISON a IRE _ WAKE ARTIN INGTON RILL DARE BURKE ® RAN CHATHAM WILSON S't M McDOWEII CATAWB R AN JOHNSTON FN TY 'AUFORT HYDE RAH SWAIN OO THERFOR �� LINCOL m CA RU E EE {� O RENDER STO �O ERY AN K lTq , T MONT MOORE HARNETT WAYNE LENOIR CRAVEN Z ClSfR EE GOM MACON SYLYANIA O PAFt CLAY G CUMBER- SAMPSON !ONES UCO Q �� ANSON MXIE� COT DUPtIN ' UNION ONStOW RTE e® AN RQDES� BLADEN TENDER CMBiJ6 NE ANOVER BRUNSWICK Mote: Rocky Mount receives local funding from Nash and Cdgecombe Counties; Kannapolis receives local funding from Cabarrus and Rowan Counties; Kings Mountain receives local funding . from .Cleveland and Gaston Counties. 20 POTENTIAL AREAS OF COOPERATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS o Sharing program staff at the director and supervisor levels (e.g., exceptional v children, vocational education, media services) i o Sharing the responsibility for recruiting and screening prospective -teachers e o Sharing in-service programs for staff development. o Sharing films and expensive audiovisual equipment o Allowing students to transfer between units for special programs or hardships o Working toward consistency in program areas such as cultural arts, athletics, and exceptional children o Sharing auxiliary services staff at the director, supervisor, and specialist level (e.g., heating and air conditioning, roofers, typewriter repair, audio- visual repair, security) o Jointly developing long-range facility plans o - Sharing facilities to utilize more adequately the capacities of the buildings o Sharing the personnel and equipment for a central data processing center o Snaring a centralized facility for the purchase, storage, and distribution of maintenance supplies and equipment, instructional materials, and foodstuffs o Jointly developing personnel policies, school calendar, and salary supplement schedule o Jointly developing annual budget requests to county commissioners 21 ....._........ . SOME OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH MERGER o Elimination of duplicate services and planning at the central office level o Increased specialization of central office staff o Improved long-range planning for facilities, resources, and student population changes o Elimination of the competition between administrative units for financial resources o - Equalization of educational opportunities throughout the county (curriculum, instructional services, school pupil personnel services_, extracurricular programs including athletics) o More efficient utilization of existing school building space o Greater flexibility in assigning teachers to areas of certification o Reduction in the per pupil cost of operating selected programs and activities o Common school- system standards in all phases of operation 22 CHALLENGES RELATED TO MERGER o Agreeing on a plan for the election of the new board of education o Reorganizing and properly utilizing the central office staffs o Equalizing per pupil expenditures, especially where one unit has a supplemental levy o Equalizing salary supplements o Equalizing opportunities upward rather than downward; dealing with negative feelings where loss of opportunities occur in the equalizing process o Justifying and securing .capital outlay funds if more is needed in one unit than the other o Establishing new attendance lines to utilize facilities and achieve a racial balance o Involving citizens and staff who may feel further removed from the policy-making body and administration o Dealing with the city versus county attitudes o Inability of the county commissioners to guarantee funds beyond their terms of office 23 GENERAL STATUTES RELATED TO MERGER the;consolidation of all the public b. The method of constituting and § 115C-12. Powers and duties of continuing the board of educa- schools in the respective units g the Board generally. under the administration of one tion, the length of the mem- board of education: Provided,that bers'terms of office,the dates The general supervision and administra- such merger of units and of induction into office, the tion of the free public school system shall be reorganization of school units organization of for board,the g procedure for filling " vested in the State Board of Education.The shall not have the effect of abol- p powers and duties.of the State Board of ishing any special taxes that may vacancies, and the compensa- Education are defined as follows: have been voted in any such units. Lion to be paid members of the (2) Power to Divide the Administra- board fbr expenses incurred in tive Units into Districts. — The performance of their duties. Board shall have power to create (4) The authority, powers, and duties in any county administrative of the board of education with units a convenient number of g 115C-67. Merger of units in respect to the employment of school districts, upon the recom- same count personnel, the preparation of in of the county board of y' budgets, and any other related education. Such a school district City school administrative units may be matters which may particularly may be entirely in one county or consolidated and merged tidth contiguous applicable to the meerr ged unit not may consist of contiguous parts of city school administrative units and with inconsistent with the General two or more counties. The Board county school administrative units upon Statutes. may modify the district organiza- approval by the State Board of Education of (5) The transfer of all .facilities, flail in and• administrative unit a plan for consolidation and merger sub- properties, structures, fends, when it is deemed necessary for mitted by the boards of education involved contracts, deeds, titles, and other the economical and efficient and bearing the approval of the board of obligations, assets and liabilities administration and operation of county commissioners. to the board of education of the the State school system, when County and city boards of education merged-unit. requested to do so by Lhe appropri- desiring to consolidate and merge their iii Whether or not there shall be con- ate local board of education. school administrative'units may do so by, tinued in force anv supplemental (7) Power to Alter the Boundaries-of entering into a written plan which shall set school tax which may he in effect City School Administrative Units forth the conditions of merger. The provi- in either or all local school admin- and to Approve Agreements for sions of the plan shall be consistent with istrative units involved_ the Consolidation and Merger of the General Statutes and shall contain,but 171 A public hearing,which shall have School Administrative Units not be limited to, the following: been announced at least 10 days Located in the Same County. — (l) The name by which the merged prior to the hearing, on the The Board shall have authority,in school administrative unit shall be proposed plan of merger. its discretion, to alter the bound- identified and known. t8i A statement as to whether the aries of city school administrative (2) The effective date of the merger. question of merger, in accordance . units and to approve agreements (3) The establishment and mainte- with the projected plan, is to be submitted by county and city nance of a board of education contingent upon approval of the boards of education requesting the which shall administer all the voters in the affected area. merger of two or more contiguous public schools of the newly created (9) Any other condition or prerequisite city school administrative units unit, including: to merger,together with any other and the merger of 'city school a. The termination of any terms of appropriate subject or function administrative units with county office proposed in the that may be necessary for the school administrative units and reorganization of the board. orderly consolidation and merger of the local school administrative units involved. 24 GENERAL STATUTES RELATED TO MERGER (CONT. ) The plan referred to above shall be Upon approval of the plan of consolida- OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL b mutually agreed upon by the city and tion or merger by the State Board of Educa- county boards of education involved and tion, or upon approval of the plan of what plan of Merger May Include; Effect of shal�i be accompanied by a certification that consolidation or merger by the voters in a Merger.—The plan of merger may include a provi- the plan was approved by the board of edu- referendum or election called for such -ion that candidates for the merged board be elected cation on a given day and that the action purpose, and as soon as a provisional or on a nonpartisan basis in a partisan election; if the has been duly recorded in the minutes of interim board of education of the merged merger is brought about the city school board would said board, together with a certification to unit,or a permanent board of education of have no further authority after the merger and would the effect that the public hearing required the merged unit, enters in and upon the be dissolved by operation of law:if theschool unit-are above was announced and held. The plan, duties of the administration of the public merged and the city unit no l d way exists,the supand d mental tax heretofore approved may-t ill be levied and together with the required certifications, schools of the consolidated or merge unit, turned over to the merged board for administrative shall then be iubmitted to the board of then the former boards of education and all purposes within the area formerly recognized as the countv'commissioners for its concurrence public officers of the former boards of edu- city administrative unit.See opinion of the Attorney and approval.After such approval has been cation of the separate units tiles merged General to Mr. S.A. Collier. Sr.. Attorney for received,the plan steal I be submitted to the shall stand abolished, and said separate Statesville City School Board,40 N.C.-A.G.221(19691. State Board of Education for the approval boards of education or administrative units Effect of Merger of County and City Unit on of said State Board and the plan shall not thus merged shall stand dissolved and shall Supplemental Taxes in Effect in Each Unit.—See become effective until such approval is cease to exist for any and all purposes. All opinion of Attorney General to Mr.Thomas A.Banks, granted.,Upon approval by the State Board consolidations and mergers of county and Wake County Attorney,40 N.C.A.G.226(19701. of Education,the plan of consolidation and city boards of education and of county and merger shall become final and shall be city school administrative units heretofore deemed tti have been matte by authority of agreed to and finally approved,and all con-, law and shall not be changed or amended solidation or merger proceedings entered except by an act of the general Assembly. into prior to June 9, 1969, are hereby The written plan of agreement shall be -declared to be effective,legal and according placed in the custody pf the*board of educa- to taw notwithstanding any defect in the tion operating and administering the pub- merger or consolidation proceedings and lie schools in the merged unit and a copy notwithstanding any dis.4olution of the filed with the Secretary of State. separate boards of education and•public The pplan may be, but it is not required officers of the former,separate school units. that it be,submitted for the approval of the (1967,c.643,s.3;1969,c.742;1981,c..423, voters of the geographic area afTected in a s. 1J referendum or election called for such purpose,and such elections or referendums Local Modification. — Monroe Citv School if held shall be held under the provisions Administrative•Unit: 1983, c. 475; Union County governing elections or referendums as set ';chool Adminisu:ltive Unit:1983,c.475. forth in G.S. 115C-507, with authority of the hoard of county commissioners to have such election or referendum conducted by the board of elections of the county. 25 P-OLICY - RE ARDING SURVEYS It* is the policy of the Department of Public .instruction to conduct surveys of local- administrative units only upon their request. Merger feasibility studies are conducted only if all units involved make such a request. 26 MERGER FEASIBILITY STUDIES CONDUCTED BY THE DIVISION OF SCHOOL PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT YE R b Lincoln County/Lincolnton City 1968 Catawba County/Hickory City/Newton-Conover City 1969 Durham County/Durham City 1969 Lenoir County/Kinston City 1969 Lee County/Sanford City 1971 Surry County/Elkin City/Mount Airy City 1973 Franklin County/Franklinton City 1975 Wilson County/Elm City/Wilson City 1975 Beaufort County/Washington City 1978 Pitt.County/Greenville City 1978, 1980 - Robeson County/Maxton City* 1979 Cumberland County/Fayetteville City 1980 Sampson County/Clinton City 1980 Nash County/Edgecombe County/Rocky Mount City 1980, 1983 Craven County/Nevi Bern City 1981 Cleveland County/Shelby City 1983 Randolph County/Asheboro City 1983 Rockingham County/Eden City/Reidsville City/Madison-Mayodan City 1983 Robeson County/Fairmont City/Lumberton City/Red Springs City/Saint Pauls City 1984 Rowan Count /Salisbur Cit 1985 27 SOURCES FOR DATA The Division of School Planning obtained the data contained .in this publication from a variety of sources. Charter dates were found in Robert E. Phay and Robert M. Guard's book, Local Acts Creating and Providing for Borth Carolina City Administrative. Units {2972}. Merger dates were obtained from legislation andJor board plans for administrative-unit mergers. . Average daily memberships and racial composition were derived- from data maintained by the division of Planning and Research in the Controller's Office. In addition, financial data came from the following:. Department of Revenue, Division of Tax Research (tax base and supplemental levies); financial reports submitted by the local administrative units to the Controller's Office (current expense local per pupil expenditure.); and budget-information compiled by-Management Information Systems (local certificated personnel). The percentages of Chapter I students were obtained from the ECIA Chapter I applications for grants filed with the Division of Compensatory Education, and the test scores were reported by the Division of Research. 28 . 3(Vmi jLgpV{1 9 Attorney Fees Study (12 Comparlable Counties) Full Time 1983 -1984(Ope year) Or Retainer Total Legal County P opubitton- Tax Base Basis Attorney Fbes Paid Flees Paid Comments ORANGE COUNTY BUDGETS Burke 74,000 $9.3 million Retainer ReL $2,40o+$55 hr. $20,000 No plans for full-time IN MILLIONS attorney. Fees acceptable 1974-1975 $7.0 Million •Randolph 95,000 $1.7 Billion 3 part-time Co. Attorney$16,000 $22,220 Will consider a full-time ORANGE COUNTY LEGAL FEES Svc. Services$ 7,200 attorney. Expect to pap 1979-1980 $72,9Q8.00 1975-1976 $8.1 Tax $4,620 $25 to$30,000 a year. 1976-1977 $10.2 •Catawba no,000 $3.6 Billion 1 full-time Full-$30,306 $57,000 Puts$5,000 in contingency 1980-1981 $84,688.OD 1977-1978 $12.6 1 retainer Retainer-$7,500 fund for unexpected costs. 1981-1982 .$104,666.00 1978-1979 $13.9 •Iredeil 85,000 $2.?Billion 1 retainer Rat, -$7,200 $36,000 No full-time consideration 1982-1983 X64,930.DO 1979-1980 $14.0 •Oaslo unless costs escalate. 1983-1984 -$81,511.58 1980-1981 $16.0 w 120,OQO $l.?Billion 1 full-time Full-$20,000 $50,ODD County expense$30,000. -1862 $16.7 1 retainer Retainer-$10,000+ Outside assistance expens 1981 $50.00/per hour =--$20,000. 1982-1983 $17.5 Union 77,000 $2 Billion 1 Retainer Retainer$6,OOO plus $30,000 When expense nears 1983-1984 $19.0 hourly $40,000 proposing to go to full-time attorney, 1984-1985 $22.3 Wilson 65,000 $1.6 Billion 2 $45Hr. Co. Attorney $45 Hr. Soc. Sero.Atty.$63,500 High this year due to a TWO STUDIES OF PROJECTED COSTS OF A FULL-Tno federal suit.Will go to a ORANGE COUNTY ATTORNEY full-time attorney this (Column Qne by Commissioners Don Willhoit and Moses pear. Expect to pap$25 to$30,000. Carey;Column Two by Commissioner Ben Lloyd.) Cleveland 85,OOD $1.6 Billion 1 Retainer Ret. $2,700 plus$60/ $54,000 Normal legal fees are Willhoit/Carey Lloyd 1 hourly Hr. for County, $40,000.Several nuisance L'Attorney Salary including $45,045 $35,100 Hourly at$45 hour for lawsuits past year. 17 percent fringes Wayne 100 000 Social Services 2. Secretary(half-time) 8,190 8,190 1 Hourly $29,000 for Soc. Serv. that County Attorney is 3. Telephone, copping, supplies 2,200 1,000 (Both of above includes included in everything, 4, Travel&mileage 1 200 600 all expenses) Consider him as his , assistant.Without him 5. Periodicals and dues 2,000 1,000 would go full-time. 6. Office space.600 feet at$6.00 3 60D Nash 70,000 $1.3 Billion 1 Retainer $11,100 for County+ $46-,600 Social Services and per foot 1,800 I Hourly Hourly attorney for other costs equals ? Soc. Services and $26,400. . capital costs 2,500 2,500 Contract costs for 8. Legal library 6,500 2,000 County Manager. 9. Contingency 15;000 __0-- a Buncombe 165,000 $4 Billion (2) Fula-time (1) Full$48,000 $83,000 Recommends that when (above former U.S. legal expenses go over • $86;235 $52,194 attorne Y) $40,OQO consider fu - I) Full 19,968 time attorney. EDITORIAL NOTE:Commissioner Ben Lloyd commented that Orange 79,000 $2 Billion 1 Retainer Retainer =$25,000 $81,500 he bad checked with three law firms and they said that his figures were more than reasonable, including the fact that •Denotes those active in land use planning and zoning, 300 feet of office space was adequate. Ben said:"We could hire 'ect to reimbursement for Social Service Child Su a full-time attorney and equip him for under $50,000 because AII total fees sub 1 , Support, Community fees and tax foreclosures. I recently found out that Orange County already has a legal Ben Lloyd remarks: 'Please note that Orange County paid more retainer for a part-tifrie attorney than either Burke library and other figures could be pared down as well." or Randolph counties paid in total legal fees." 3 �)page Sen. John East's seat late this State PHOSPHATE DEBATE-- (23)page 6 e from Chapel Hill,both as pgR HIGHWAY PATROLMAN WILY° �_'?ews m(jjZx� o offic�lts differ sharply°n the SU Moore informs of the man who C!� _,�r®�e�a�� environmentalists, ON{,p (Big Boy) a says:"His a proposed law to ban the sale�hos ohates. 0 R A K;7E �ilii had furniture disease. ers. Several pears (l laund y detergents containing P p chest fell into his drawers• lends fertilized (�" Joe Hackney, new Chairman ago a few of Wayne's many ; $y Roland Giduz our State Rep Water Resources Classified ad in good one night after dark. PROUD STROWD--The of the House Air and Hello dere...you an•• ' in introduce a the Long Island Press. ,Middle age womark his lawn extra g late great and unsinkable Committee, says he ll ago in housekeeper's job':. Wayne says:'Z had to mow Mondays, /�'� Bruce Strowd, Chapel bill calling for this. I Resources with car wants sleep- preferred till she-' Wednesdays and Saturdays l all summer ,{ Deputy N. C. Sect'. of Natures with refined gentleman and wore out two laQVnmowers in y Z Hg's first auto dealer, 1 HID says he's can get her father's estate." long...• �. was known as'a prime Dr. Ernest Carl of Chapel cause of one year- GE ON'THE MOVE...The character for many facets against this because the primary Useful-information of No Values inethe i REAL ORANGE rugged individualism. phosphate Pollution is farmlands run-off and WE of one percent of the marriage PILPeT is now being distributed in several of his r►tgg would take the pressure 1 Hill plus Carrboro as A little known superlative the detergents bas united States are between cousins• elation needed ADD TO THE SWEETNESS LIST...Cariol outlets in'Chaps m to get a copy of was his claim to being oft more comprehensive legislation Lib Overman aagnt�j+ well. Also. we are trying Shuttle Crawford, Jean Holmes, ORANGE placed on a Space the town s champ to eliminate tom• The County's single- Wanda Matthews. the REAL laugh- are writing directly lawbreaker. The town ,g_l 1*'AT**4„r. ,t reporting . shot.Don't be�{ary of fathers in 1907 passed telephone number 911 emergency Insult of the Month:He was in a fight to Caspar W.Weinberger, if any ear, combines once...and was knocked conscious. bored for his answer..• an ordinance barring system now is its fourth y agenciea HUNTS-,•(From 'DefenSe. Stay his hand-crafted"Strowd- 14 different emergency sP° QUOTE OF THE January BLAST OFF...REAL ORANGE. Richard him from driving Bobmbey under 15' RECENTLY HEARD public streets. Before he under a single 8 rgenlward• Hospital he Practice ne magaz + wife is cheating mobile"oa the p that he'd broken that 1985):"The benefits of both Medicare uarter (Dimples)) Fields. "Your died Bruce quipped Director to of f of 30 s�ow employed cost more than q blackboard la'„90,000 times."--Or such is the re- which a staff of 30 persons Social Security dollars 28 percent of on us." d soon- for an��budget of$580,000.When trillion dollars a year, UNVlTfNG SIGN chalks on� d claim of aim yleto3ra ia$ID• ber the operators federal spending.11 where Elton Casey . outside of Alexander's Restaurant at re• l t.bebe published history of Chaps dial that three-digit begun notifying the RECENTLY READ „pylr employees smile more. OTHER SCOFFLAWS--The Hon- Trish normally have already_ fire, or president for Hog Gate Mall: l already off and ria6e law enfoseement, will be Executive Vice . IS RUYUS EDWS the 289 medical agencies even before you bang UP Dap this year.A fine choice: Elton is a •r her taxes in the d worker and will(seep things gotnff• running for office in 1988?Anew red/white/ is one of only h ar lina• In among WHACXS"Hig hard :blue hamper sticker recently observed in j s North Caro drivers are of Orange ye8r???A beak in three Sapefnlly he'll be able to watch the BBQ „Don't blame me...I voted I line depends an s Rufus interview she noted-that local years of holding-the- cooking contest closely to maw ei e�� Hi1L4burg read• �about violating the stop light the county and + one first-place for bus'„ An Edmi idate for Governor, especiaAy light haw much federal funds to looks there s only. General- law. She tells'em in court "That Yellow d County years ago there was fislight lace wwinners Lt. Governor or Att Y SAL ORAI3GE t doesn't mean'go,'it means stop, towers are cut. At this time a for� there were•so many e e to stop." likely for l Hill Dr0 and` f9" s the that the stage almost collapsed when they, NEW ADDITION 7N BAR--On other side But Chapel Hill May°r Jos Na TsD�Tay to receive their prizes. BEST DRESSED LIST.••Etd`s lovely be ACROSS a appointed all rushed up Virginia Warren. And she's so sweet. Coancil will ask Town Masses to them- [ormerly cur exceile.'t of the judge's bent l R yAsked the same to propose a no-tax-increILS°budget WADE BARBER, TBNGUE TER DELUXE... s y District Attorney. to stick to. District Attorney, resigned to open a law. SO sticky Now three time JI question about Prime crimes he said breaking' ...Which Nassif says th C1 Hill star office for the general practice of law in thumbs- ( was the tap Serious offense DEFENSE PLEASE-Winston sta Pi fast Please) at Chubbp's Grill and entering he said, is to crack defense attorney Barry pitteboro on Hillsboro Street. His Three STORY OVER lade spent locally His ambition, ed with B&E and racks plea to the Public in a recent interview, PO Box is 602 and zip is:24312. Three The down oa those charged Ms client,George Fiche in Hilish rg•..A voluptuous young D.A. cheers for the experienced Wade Barber mans family concerning murder of Hill- his new law offices. the week-end with a your �Dolly Parton this a"hell hole for smote th rOrange City accused.of the kidnap-Tape'- 1 Hill two aims, Young lady was definitely noted, by the way. Jean Fewel- Chaps QUESTION-What has eight legs, type. At breakfast the first morning the Superior court ranks either first or second Chinese orphan overwhelmed by her figure m s edy trial dispositions. last month. Publicity on the three heads and two wings. young ° °� SIS--In his ANSWER:A man riding a horse and i and couldn`t take his eyes off her. His in the HUNT HYPOTHE In light of the extensive general public seem. a chicken• latter of hot biscuits HE ,-fie Helms-Hunt 1984 case,Winston saps, the carrying MONTH...To Barbara mother broaght in a g young lady excellent new book, SALUTE OF THE and set it down in front of the p'pass the Senate Race,"retired Greensboro Daily to feel relieved that the la hasp"sgaid Winato: Page, recently elected 1985 President of the der cites two interesting culprit „What pletrrepared based on press e County Library. !I The flustered young man News Editor Bill Snider The first is ,,is so many people prep Friends of the prang will e." y analyses of why Helms won, to convict a man vrhose trial has liked by ail, bnstketa Pleas NS...vacuum Cleaner:A Race, reports: Extrovert Barbara, DAMM11IZ five`4;'s" Reagan, u have a desire to see discharge her duties in her usual stellar h broom IL stomach. Tarzan:A short ti went+ and Rufus•" Snider also not started......s If You it should, manner.And she's so sweet. Its Lull name Re Align his belief in the open secret that the legal system Work the Way RIGHT ON RED...The right turn on red name for the American flaff Atwo-legged confirms please try to restrain Yourself from jumping to save fuel by redueipg is,+Tarzan Stripes' Man: d: A dotted Gov. Hunt's public i announce candida see GIDUZ page 8 idea was developed } 'over-- ►P1Y�ff congestion at intersections. Permitting spch animal without feathers. e See CHATTER lags 4 $ exception of Newi York City. the notable � j (23)page 2 { (23)page 7 i this situation would tend to divide the county even moire'.-I told him that we had just met i Gates Spring consume in a 30 day period to prevent the night before with the legislative delegation at Cameron Park School and that there The magical waters flowing from Gates anybody from getting too all fired-up. was no mention from either one of the delegates. Spring in Caldwell have historically been It looks like we'll•be forced to issue "In a phone conversation with Rep. Joe Hackney he told me basically what I had some Sort of ration cards after all. It would stated to Mr.Willhoit in the conversation and stated to me that he would be sending me !mown to impart virility and fertility ity to all t look something like a Master Charge card a letter to this effect later on. mamflo i man or beast. Abundant d bulls deer; and would electronically keep track of your overflowing chickadees;herd bulls enable "On Monday night I restated the facts of the conversation with Mr.Wiilhoit to the to step over fallen trees girls "gallonage"chasing each month. In other words, county commissioners at their meeting. Our school board went to that county commission if you went over a certain amount of Gates boys;boys chasing girls. Caldwell Minister- meeting and I spoke for myself and not the full school board. ial Association members becoming enraged. Spring water in any given month the machine '7 stated that the information I had from Mr. Hackney would be forthcoming from him Yet the water continues to flow. would swallow up your card and not eject it in a few days. until the following month. Finally in desperation we sent off a regards to this most 'What 2s the motive that Mr. WtIitloit has and what are the reasons for such as q�jar of Gates Spring water to be analyzed. More later in re unwanted study. He states that it is for efficiency but we citizens in northern'Orange Here is the actual laboratory report just serious matter. know how efficient this county has been in finding during the past few years. UNQUOTE received:"One quart of Gates Spring water Is equal to:one dozen jumbo oysters plus TIIfttttIItIIT �II. 61-01 three dozen fertile eggs plus one large GOOD SELECTION OF NICE CLEAN CARS gensing root plus one-half of a medium-size. South Churton Street larf Groiinn General Asernthiu rhinoceros hose ground extra fine. r kl �i� C Dear Readers...that report sounds - Hillsborough, N.C. NnuDr of Xtrprran,fuliun downright wry. And here's more disturbing news. wr'-.+oc«.««r• �m1r 1Ccsi°lau"` >H°`taiu4 ..�,-.u6. Recently we received a phone call from a atei_gh 27611 r"vc.c.....,. c-... ."°o...K.ca..K. lady who wants to run a two-inch water Line r.aso.,azo February 13, 1985 u.c..°•�,.a.*:�.�.c".....« ry ,,,°,,,�,,,„,,,,,,°„ � from Gates Spring down to the.southeast Insurance Real Estate • corner of the Schley intersection. She wants 103 EAST KING ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Norman County Boa chairman '"°"`"�°°"° PHONE (929)732- 2323 2 7278 Orange County Board of Education �°°°°••� to build a massage parlor and use the Post Office Box 602 ° spring water for the hot tubs. Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 I explained to bar that several years ago' CHATTER from e 6 we had delivered Gates Spring water by tank lag Dear Norman: truck to a massage parlor in Durham and the lion. Traffic Light:A green light that first young man who had gotten into one of changes to red as your car approaches. In recent phone conversations with members of your Board, the tubs had gone off like a sky-rocket... ADD TO THE HANDSOME MT... it was mentioned that there is some 'talk" to the effect that straight up through the roof. He was never Carpenter's Chevy body shop expert Tony the merger issue arose because of some action by our legislative heard from again. When the young man's Oakley, Rudolph Warren, Ken Oakley, delegation. family brought suit for damages against the Daniel Berry, Chuck Moody, Ed Davidson- This is not the case. Mile some members of the General massage parlor the case was thrown out of .. and the man in blue bib overalls at Assembly from other areas hold the view that the State ought to court because there was no evidence. All Underwood's Store in northern Orange fund only 100 LEA's, initiative for the merger study did not come they had was this strange looking hole in the County...Thomn Leon(Pop)Underwood. from us. I have confirmed this with Rep. Barnes, who concurs roof, which the judge said, could also have And remember...Timotby Tarheel with this letter. been made by a chunk of ice falling off a says...No, I was never on TV.But I was I thank you far the opportunity to clarify this matter_ jet liner...or some kind of meteor or on radar several times on the interstate. shooting star. As in the past, we will keep you apprised of statewide We're really at a crossroads with Gates ENO RIVER GROUP& Friends ,A legislation introduced relating in any way to merger. Spring. On one side we have the Caldwell 41 ("To Conserve Freedom") Ministerial Association trying to fence the l V y t l y yours, spring in. And on the other side all these $566.00 REWARD$566.00 people lining up at the spring each day with (by public donations) their jugs. And cars with tags from Arizona, SWORN Notarized List Nature Jo Hackney Utah, New Mexico, California, Florida, Conservancy's secret"Eno River Project JH:cb New York. Recently we even noticed a small Committee' whom its Chairman Duncan black convertible from Switzerland. Heron refused to identify to Durham Frankly we've been toying with the idea Herald Reporter. Editorial Note:According to lovely and efficient Helen Austin at the Orange Board of of putting restrictions on the amount of jS/Stewart G. Barbour, Secy. Education LEA stands for Local Education Agency. There are 2 in O.C. and 142 state-wide. Gates Spring water each adult could safely L Rt 4, Boxx 722, Hillsborough, NC 27278 GIDUZ from TKe 3 f -A N to conclusions based on a lot less evidence f Mother Goose Creatiorfs \ EIN than will ultimately come out in this Casa-" IN THE CHUCKULAR VEIN--The lawyer's advice against jumping to conclusions recalls Hand-Painted Baby�othln8 Orange County's"Rock the Boat"Newspaper the one about the guy who tried in vain to , "�fti teach his pet parrot tu say"good morning. Number 23, Notorious state 1983 Published monthly in Orange Coun N. The bird refused to cooperate and said earyH�4eckfird� march 6, 1985 Number absolutely nothing after months ofPatienii (919)967-IOM �s'"�`n� Reveals Full Facts on His . attempts by the owner. Finally, one morning �lkw efappoln—, �rr6aio• 57 St the owner walked by the cage without any 1 Mom County Attorney Fees Study greeting. The parrot eyed him coldly and !1: ex. ,0_0 `6 �ZaUf' ( attorney would cost Orange County. One sakl;'ryVelir.What's the matter with you thus /TRACTORS - MOWERS- CHAIN SAWS it There has been increased taxpayer study was done by Commissioners Moses morning?. New and Used Equipment concern about the immense legal fees paid and Don Wilihoit;the other study County. These fees were for Carey Sales-Service out by Orange done by Commissioner Ben Lloyd' ' ohn M. Roberts, Owner 143 S. Churton St a part-fie and not a full-time attorney. This host of information is presented as Warning s The REAL ORANGEdecided to dig out a public service on gages 4 and 5 of this If you were born between Feb. 19 a� {919) 732-4312 Hillsborough, N.C. 27248 the facts and present our readers with a is March 20 you are a Pisces. You are highly er5 �jn lair very clear picture of what actually is taking this issue. hoaginative.In fact, you are weird. Your Fat Newspapers place. Other publications have merely urns Willhoit's influence over othetsis a figment of you' It has been re- glossed over the subject as we all know••• AaitheoClt spurns Proposal imagination.An old friend will drop by tY ,� ported that and one ended up with a smoke-screen School Merger today...your parole officer. Beware of.the r advertisers are y editorial(on one hand...and on the other �y people wondered exactly who first 12 months of each year. �.n having trouble hand... blah-blab in the middle)- finding their ads initiated the recent"talk of merger"Hill/ Here then are the full facts. Track the Orange County and the Chaps �weekly daily records don't lie. Carrboro school systems.Quite frankly, ENO RIVER GROUP newspapers. This I visited County Commissioner Ben Lloyd the REAL ORANGE wondered too. because Ben has made a monumental study Therefore we asked the hard-working ("To Conserve Freedom' is downright un- i of Orange County legal fees and those Paid fair to advertisers. i and stratght-ialkitlg Chairman of the Orange Continues Statewide our reasonable CALL by eleven comparable counties. Also, Ben, County Board of Education, Norman Fat Newspaper in fact, Churton as we all know, does not mealy-mouth for BOYCOTT of all Eno River Association around_ He speaks in an intelligent and Haithcock, for a statement stoat the sit- events until Eno River Association Officer Street rumor has it that one advertiser y uation. Haitheock has been a coaststent develo a severe case of eye-strain leafing understandable manner. top vote-getter and enjoys wide respect. t their own Eno River Land into the es of ads...trying to We sat to the sun parlor of Ben and * w put k through pages and pap Here are Haithcock s exact words from Eno River�atate k.!1 find his ad in one of those fat newspapers. 1 Camelia's lovely E hand home.Ben, as /s/Stewart G. Barbour, Seely pit,the poor public! start n finish:{QUOTE) Commissioner was u and down, in and out, on the „�a Wednesday County Rt 4 Box 7)2 Hillsborough, N.C. 272778 P On the other hand REAL ORANGE ads are !' �, at the door,downstairs in the base- Don Willhoit called me telling'me that easy to find...simply because there aren't m nt looking in his file cabinets... the e only have room for a few.)And bang. Finally he got semi-settled and said: the county Commissioners would have ib on The Rea 1 Orange Ind: wally- the agenda a study concerning school the feasibility they don't Cost an arm and a leg either be- *R don't want to tna3�a speech just give you cause the REAL ORANGE doesn't have a hew- the facts. But first let me say this:I've of consolidating the two school systems in po Box 747 managers to Orange County' Hillsborough,N.C_ mongous staff of editors and manage never said that-we have been overcharged "This was the first time we had heard keep up. In fact,.we don't have any staff to for legal services performed but the fact about it. 27278 �p up. That's why REAL ORANGE ads i of the matter is that there are too many there Z told him that to my knowledge are so low-priced. services being performed by an attorney county Editor-William H. Gaede to handle," was no interest in northern Orange And remember...the REAL ORANGE ? that do not require an attorney to consolidate the school systems and is now distributed in Chapel Hill and Ben then gave me sheets of data with his Published monthly and distributed a County Continued on Page 2 Free throughout northern Orange Cgrrboro. Plus all over northern Orange detailed study comparing Orange County of course. legal fees with the n other comparable N.C. Notice County. Annual subscription by The REAL ORANGE, PO Box 747, k First Class mail-$6.06. Counties;also a list of legal fees charged we're not prejudiced. Hillsborough, N. C. 27278. Or stop Bill Oran County from 1979 to 1984;plus Orange duty to print the Gaede on the avenue. No high-pressure budgets from 1974 to 1985 and also We hats everybody equally. -4t is a newspaper's CDan ' what a fvdl-time news and raise hell."The Chicago salesman will phone or call on you- two studies estimating Times(1861) We hassle you not.