Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-13-2006-1ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 13, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Continuation of Discussion Regarding School Equity Considerations DEPARTMENT: Commissioners/Manager PUBLIC NEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 03/06/06 CHCCS Chair Memo 03/10/06 OCS Chair Letter INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Jacobs, Chair, 919-245-2125 .John Link or Rod Visser, 919-245-2300 PURPOSE: To continue discussion from the January 20 BOGC annual planning retreat and several subsequent meetings regarding how the Board may wish to pursue the concept of school equity. BACKGROUND: The Board has discussed the topic of school equity at the annual planning retreat on January 20, 2006, at the January 31 work session, and at the February 16 work session. Additionally, at the February 9 regular meeting, the Board determined that the possibility of merging the County's two school systems is not an aspect of school equity that is to receive further discussion at this time. The Chair has written to both school board chairs to solicit any feedback the Boards of Education may have regarding the following questions: 1. What is your definition of equity? 2, What school programming aspects would you be most interested in having funded outside of the per pupil allocation for school current expense? 3. (For the Orange County Board of Education) Do you want more funding? If so, how do you see that coming about? The BOCC has subsequently asked both school boards if they would have any interest in having the authority to levy property taxes for school funding (assuming North Carolina law were amended to permit such authority). Communication from both school systems providing feedback to these questions is included for the BOCC's review and may serve as a useful starting point for discussion at this March 13 work session. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated directly with discussion of this item. However, decisions that the Board may make subsequently will have significant impacts on school funding, which comprises roughly half of Orange County's annual operating budget. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the school equity topic and provide appropriate direction to staff. a auwry. ~~ ~ ®r~nge ~Cour~tp ~c~joo~~ ' a 200 (~a~t ~iug street ., .~ ~ ~ ~iCCgborougCj, ~~ 27278 ar g,t=~ r~. Dr. Shirley Carraway (919) 732-8126 Telephone Superintendent (919)732-8120 Fax www,orange.k 12.nc.us March 10, 2006 Mr. John Link, County Manager Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC .27278 Dear Mr Link and Board of Commissioners: For the past several years, our community has presented, researched, and discussed the issue of funding equity between Chapel Hill-Cazrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools, Once the discussion of merger ended, the Board of County Commissioners asked each of our school districts to address several questions still remaining about funding equity. AC our regular meeting on Monday, March 6, we discussed these questions and came to consensus on our answers. 1. What is your definition of equity? Our discussion of this question focused on the issue of fairness, Perhaps the following question best illustrates our Board's sentiments about equity and fairness: If the Board of County Commissioners were to suip away the district tax from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system, world the per-pupil expenditures alone equip the school districts to meet the needs of a!l students in both districts? If the answer is "yes," then there is funding equity between the districts; each school system gets what it needs from per-pupil funding. If without the district tax, Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools could not meet the needs of its students, then there is not funding equity. It would be evident that the district tax is providing essentials that should be provided through per- pupil funding. 2. What school programming aspects would you be most interested in having funded outside the per-pupil allocation for school current expenses? For several reasons, we are relucCant to venture outside the per-pupil funding mechanism. First, it is Che statutory responsibility of the Board of Education to make spending decisions I'or our schools; the BOCC has always been careful not to infringe on this responsibility. We also believe ChaC stepping away from per-pupil funding may set a precedenC from which it may be difficult Co retreat.. In addition, funding programs outside the per-pupil allocation would not address the gap the Chapel Hill-Carrboro disllict tax creates. And finally, we aze concerned that, over time, this type of funding might result in reduction of per-pupil funding, Having expressed these concerns, we would be open to further discussions about funding health and safety programs, such as SROs and school nurses, outside the per-pupil mechanism - as long as educational programs are addressed in the usual manner. Link. John and Board of County Commissioners March 9 2006 Page 2 3. Do you want more funding? ff so, how do you see that coming about? Without hesitation, we answer together: yes, we want and need more funding. We also believe that it is beyond the scope of our charge as the Board of Education to decide how to increase funding. Our responsibility is to articulate the needs of our district; the BOCC has the authority, the power, and the responsibility Co determine how to fund those needs. 4. Does the Orange County Board of Education wish to pursue discussions of taxing authority for the school system's budget after the current budget cycle? Before we can answer this question satisfactorily, we need more information.. For example, how does the BOCC see school system taxing authority working in a county with two school districts -and two vastly different tax bases? If we had taxing authorityy, would we also have the authority to determine development of property in our portion of the county? We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions, and we hope that our responses add clarity to your discussions. Sincerety, Randy Copeland, Chair Chair, Orange County Board of Education /pmc cc :Board of Education IO: Barry Tacobs, Chair Board of County Conunissioners FROM: Lisa Shrckey, Chair CHC.CS Board of Education RE: Response to Request to Respond to Questions Regarding Equity DATE: March 6, 2006 At your request, the Chapel Hill-Canboro City Schools Board of Education discussed responses to the questions that you recently for-warded to me pertaining to equity, Below, I have written a response to each question that is intended to capture the consensus of our Board.. We appreciate the oppor-Cunity to provide input into the process while at the same time recognize that the Conunissioners and the Boards of Education have different roles and responsibilities with respect to equity. 6~Iznt is your definition of equity? For decades, the courts have struggled with defining equity,. It is a complex issue mice one accepts the premise that `"equal" funding is not necessu~ily "equitable." Districts' student populations vary in terms of needs, cost of living indices fluctuate, capital needs in districts that are growing or that have older buildings in need of r°epair at°e greater, and supplemental funding from federal grants and private cmrhibutions can impact the level of overall resources. These issues are cmnpounded by the question of how much latitude should a community have to supplement a basin level of state funding. fii North Carolina, equity with respect to state funding was defined raider the Basic Education Plan as providing basically the same level of resources based on ADM. More recently in the Leandro case, equity is associated with achieving comparable shtdent outcomes. At the local level, the Board of County Commissioners has considered several ways to look aC equity. At a work session on April 20, 2005, the following possibilities were proposed: 1. Absolute funding equity (e.g. local or total annual per pupil fimding identical between school systems). 2. Progranunatic equity (e.g. all OCS & CHCCS students with access to all of each system's programs).. 3. Or -somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum, and/or some combination of funding and progranunatic equity. Lincoln CeN~r 750 & Merrltl Ivill ROOd Oh~pel Hill. MC 275'1 G-2878 ~ (91~?) y67-821'1 ° vawva chccs 1:12 nc us In years past, the Commissioners bad a goal of the two school districts' total per- pupil fiuiding being within 5 percent of each other. That goal was achieved, but when the Chapel Hill- Can-bor~o City Schools began building schools (six since 1994), it became necessary to rely on the district tax for the added, ongoing costs associated with the operation of new schools. Since then, the disparity between the two school districts has steadily gtrown With CHCCS likely to open three new schools within the next six years, this scenario is likely to play out again. Consequently, it is unlikely that this definition of equity will be met. If also is um-ealistic to thiiilc that every opportunity in each school district could be made available to students in the other district who desire to participate in the program, Initial efforts last year to permit students Co attend programs in the other district did not prove to be attractive to students. It also would not be desirable oi° i°easonable to try to mandate that both school districts offer the same prog~°ams. This compromises the authority and responsibility of each of the Boards of Education. Defining, let alone achieving, equity has proved to be an elusive goal for more than a decade. As long as there are two school districts serving different populations with different expectations and priorities, it is unlikely that equal funding or equal access to programs will be achieved, It is the responsibility of the CHCCS School Board to set policy and broadly direct its superintendent to achieve our mission: "to enable all students to acquire, through programs of excellence and fairness, the la7owledge, skills and insights necessary to live r°ewarding, productive lives in an ever-changing society." At its March 2 meeting, the Board of Education discussed funding equity generally. Members expressed concern about a lack of full knowledge of conditions outside ou~° district. They noted the defeat of the OCS special district tax referendum, the need fm• 6iglrer taxes if funding is to increase, and that both districts are among the highest fmtded in the state. The Board concluded that one of its primary rotes is to advocate for the ~°esources necessary to provide the educational services to achieve its mission and drat its constituents expect for the children of this community. We greatly appreciate the Commissioners' steadfast support for education in the County. We also ~°ecognize that with a growing population and increased academic expectations from the national, state, and local levels, we will need additional funding to meet all of om- challenges. Therefore, we can neithe~• p~°opose nor support any approach toward equity that would ,jeopardize the increasing resom-ces that we will need to maintain and enhance the quality, of education. What school progranuning aspects tivozzld you be most izzterested izz having funded outside of the per pupil allocatiozz for school current expense? One means that the Commissioners have proposed for creating greater equity between the two school districts is by providing funding from outside the per-pupil appropriation. The Board of Education supports this approach as long as finding that is directed to these endeavors does not supplant or,jeopardize the per-pupil appropriations made to the school districts. At our meeting, the Board of Education considered ten prrogrammatic areas that might be funded outside the per pupil allocation. Our Board decided that the areas that would be best suited for direct funding by the County are those that relate directly to health and safety and in which there is some connection with services that the County cm•rently provides. Therefore, the following areas for joint funding are proposed: 1. After-school programs (including transportation) 2. School Resource Officers and Crossing Guards 3. School Nurses (assume funding for all school nurses, with a minimum of one per school) 4. School Social Workers (assume funding for all school social workers, with a minimum of one per school Do the Orazzge County/Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Boards of Education fvislz to pzusue discrzssions of taxing ant/zority for the school systems' budget after the current budget cycle? The CHCCS Board of Education has previously taken a position in support of providing local school boards with taxing authority. This is the position that the North Carolina School Boards Association has taken in recent years. The Board confirmed this position at its March 2, 2006 meeting. Many North Carolinians may not realize that fiscally independent school boards are the none across the country. According to the North Carolina School Boards Association, "Over 80 percent of the school boards in the United States have tax levying authority. School boards are the only elected governing bodies in North Carolina that do not have the ability to raise some or all of their ftmds. It would require legislative action, but not a constitutional amendment, to grant school boards taxing authority." The major arguments for Caxing authority relate to accountability and local control. Boards of Education are increasingly held accountable for' meeting student achievement goals; however, they don't have the power to raise the revenues that they need to do the job. School boards also find themselves in the position of wanting to implement new programs or eiilrance resources, but they don't laiow whet7rer or not they will have sufficient funding until the County Commissioners approve an appropr°iation in .June. A good example of that this year is our commitment to implement a 7-period day next year, but we won't laiow until .Tune if we will have sufficient local funds By that Cime, the district will have already committed to a schedule for next year, Not having control over one's funds makes it extremely difficult to plan. For these reasons, the Board of Education is interested in explot•ing with the Comrty Commissioners the possibility of providing taxing authm•ity to om• Board of Education.