Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-16-2004-5oORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 16, 2004 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Resolution Petitioning the North Carolina General Assembly to Establish Adequate and Reliable Fundinq of Public Schools DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Resolution 11/02104 Durham Public Schools Superintendent's Letter INFORMATION CONTACT: Rod Visser, ext 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider adopting a joint resolution that petitions the General Assembly to establish adequate and reliable funding of public schools in the Triangle and throughout the State of North Carolina. BACKGROUND: Recently, the Triangle County Board Chairs have met on several occasions to discuss mutual concerns regarding the declining share of State spending on public schools as a percentage of the State's annual budget and regarding the trend of State budget cutting for schools without corresponding reductions in mandates. With leadership from the Triangle J Council of Governments, leaders of Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties and the four public school systems therein have developed a proposed resolution that petitions the General Assembly to reverse these unfavorable trends in State funding for public schools. The attached resolution is expected to be considered by all seven governing boards during the month of November, with a possible joint signing ceremony to be scheduled in the next month or so.. The attached background materials from the Durham Public Schools were discussed by the County and school leaders as representative of concerns about State school funding, both operational and capital, for counties and school systems across the Triangle. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of the attached resolution will affirm the Board's request that the State increase its future operational and capital funding support for both the Orange County Schools and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution and authorize the Chair to sign it on the Board's behalf. a A RESOLUTION SEEI{ING SUPPORT FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR ESTABLISHING ADEQUATE AND RELIABLE FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE TRIANGLE AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE WHEREAS, Durham, Orange and Wake Counties, along with their respective school districts, Dtnham Public Schools, Orange County Schools, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, and Walce County Public School System, firmly believe that every child within the Triangle should have equal access to a sound quality public education in a safe learning environment; and, WHEREAS, the responsibility ofproviding fliese educational opportunities is shared between the State of North Carolina, our counties, and our local school districts under the guidance of North Carolina's constitution; and, WHEREAS, while overall state educational funding has increased largely to meet student population growth, class-size reduction in elementary grades and persomlel salary and benefit increases, state budgeting of public schools as a percentage of the state general fund has however trended downward, resulting in reduced resources for schools without similar reductions in mandated program responsibilities; and, WHEREAS, elementary class-size reductions result in an unfunded mandate that does not allow for adequate capital planning and imposes a burden on counties to fund additional school facilities; and, WHEREAS, parallel budget cuts affecting public schools have resulted in required state discretionary reductions, declining teacher assistant allohnents, decreased school transportation operating fiords, inadequate instructional teclurology supporC, withheld capital needs resources; and, WHEREAS, stagnant finding for public schools has resulted in too few teacher allotments, inadequate staffing allotments, lagging non-instructional support positions, insufficient textbook allocations, def dent instructional supplies, limited fiords for children with special needs, etc.; and, WHEREAS, these funding deficiencies create a greater reliance on local funding, thereby exacerbating inequities in educational opportunities across the state; and, WHEREAS, in light of this trend the Triangle's county governments and school districts seek support from the North Carolina General Assembly to reverse this course and establish adequate and reliable funding of public schools; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Durham, Orange and Wake Counties, along with the Durham Public Schools, Orange County Schools, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, and Wake County Public School System, call upon the North Carolina General Assembly to reverse the ongoing trend of insufficient operational and capital funding for public schools. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Assembly establish adequate and reliable finding of public schools in North Carolina that matches needs, resources and mandates. 3 SE IT FINALLY RESQLVED that this resolution be executed by the respective counties and public school systems in the Triangle and that this document be presented to our legislative delegations, along with appropriate state officials who have responsibilities for public schools - inchiding Governor Easley, the Chair of the State Board of Education, and the State Superintendent ofPublic hrstruction. Adopted and approved this the day of Chair; Dudiam County Board of Conunissioners Chair, Orange County Board of Conunissioners 2004.. Chair, Durham Public Schools Chair; Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Chair, Orange County Schools Chair, Wake County Board of Commissioners Chair, Wake County Public School System ., ,, DURHAM PU3~IC sc~-~oo~s Dr Ain ~ D~niinger, S~~i,r~~riniend~nt November 2, 2004 Ms. Gail M. Heath, Chair Durham Public Schools Board ofEducation 5 Old Hope Creels Path Durham, NC 27707 Ms. Ellen W. Recldrow, Chair Durham County Board of Comrnissioners 200 E. Main Street 2n`~ Ploor, Old Courthouse Durham, NC 27701 Dear Gail and Ellen: _~ ~ rv r~-.o it ;-• ~i r~ci ~.,,;,,~~ ii ~!i NOV 2 2004 ~.,'" This letter follows our many recent conversations about the State budgeting trend of cutting resources without a corresponding reduction in state mandated programs. Since the most recent downturn in the U. S. economy in 2001, this trend has escalated at an alarming rate. Attached to this letter is a document that provides recent examples of increased costs that Durham Public Schools had to absorb in order to operate and meet current state regulations. It is important to note that over the last several years, as a percent of the total state budget, the educational resources available for K-12 education have continued to decrease (see Attaclvnent A). A few of the more critical areas of underfunding concern state teacher allocations and the elementary class-size r°eduction mandated by the Governor acid N.C. General Assembly. This initiative has resulted in cutting our overall resources while requiring the district to continue to meet state class-size requirements. This information is swmmarized in the "Nwnber of Allotted State Teachers" and "State Discretionary Cut" sections. Also summarized in the "Other State Staffing" section is the impact of the state increasing such categories as teacher assistants and non-instructional support for the minimal salary increases. This has resulted in fewer dollars per ADM to the district each year, and thus, fewer positions in these critical needs areas that support our students. Other significant areas that lack adequate resources are textbooks and instructional supplies. There have been no real inflationary increases by the General Assembly in these line items for several years.. The funding per ADM does not come close to the true cost of the required instructional materials and supplies needed in order to adequately teach the curriculum prescribed by the state's Standard Course of Study. "Salary and Benefit Increases" outline the impact on local funds, and "Transportation Costs" and "Capital Outlay" also summarize areas that affect our budget. We have also included a list of GOALS for 20Q7 * ,~_ ~ i Chu I r ~o ~ lu ei~ ~,rr i~r rtly + 9 r~in~G~~ i tl~ -~~!~i ~ i-'d ~;~-~~ ~~ *n py - ~ ~ ~. ~ I i ~ C osin9'~ ~ / i 5 Ms. Gail M Beath Ms. Ellen W Reckhow November 2, 2004 Page 2 many other areas which are lacking adequate resources compared to what has peen mandated by either state or federal legislation or' State Board of Education policy. We hope this summuy is useful. If you wish to discuss this information in more detail or require any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, //i l/ ~~./ Alm T. Denlinger, Ed.D, Superintendent Attachments: (1) State Unfunded Mandates -Key Points (2) Attaclunent A - Percent of the General Pund Public Schools Appropriations c: Board of Education Members Durham County Boatd of Comnvssioners Members Wendell Davis, Interim County Manage[' Senior Staff Members State Unfunded Mandates Izey I'o~nts Number of State Allotted Teachers: In this category, too few teachers are allocated by the state to achieve the mandated class sizes across all grade levels, Local funds must be used to make up the difference, In Durhatn Public Schools (DPS), county fmids are utilized to place an additional 300-plus classroom teachers and other instructional professionals in our classrooms to cover critical teaching areas. State Discretionar`y Cut: In FY 2002-0.3, as a result of the budget crisis, the NC Generai Assembly instituted an item called the "state discretionuy cut." This is a line item which requires the school districts to return a fixed unount of money to the state after the final budget is passed. In order to meet our share of the discretionary cuts, DPS had to cut teaching and support/administrative positions for t(uee consecutive years. hr effect, the state gave us teaching positions to lower elementary class sizes; however, to meet the required discretionary cut, DPS had to cut positions-resulting in an overall net loss of positions. It should also be noted that the state is not providing capital and operational funds to cover the cost of additional classroom space required for lower class-sizes, Many schools are already at capacity so it becomes a local fwrding obligation tluough mobile units and other capital and operating funds to create these newly required classrooms. Locally we must also furnish those classrooms and outfit the new teachers with furniture, supplies, etc. We support state-mandated lower-class sizes when they are accompanied by resources to fund the initiative. Other State Staffine• Teacher Assistant position allocations have not kept pace with teacher allocations for grades K-3, Also, the State does not provide additional teacher assistants to account for growth in student population. Since we do not have local resources for additional teacher assistants, our teacher assistant to student ratio has had to hrcrease. DPS allocates 1 teacher assistant for every 28 students in IC-2 and 1 teacher assistant for every 50 students in grade :3 or .32.3 teacher assistants.. The state allots $886,.3.3 per K-.3 ADM which provides funding far 306 teacher assistants. As ADM increases in an LEA, the teacher allotment is increased by the state but the teacher assistant allocation will not keep pane at the present state funding level, For exanzple, for every 18 students in ADM the state allots a teacher. The teacher assistant dollar allotment is $15,953,94. The total cost for a teacher assistant with benefits is $2.3,258. Therefore, DPS is underfunded by $7,.300 per position in this category, The state funding also lags in the Non-Instructional Support areas (school support staff) as well, making those staffing issues primarily a local fimding obligation. These support 1 positions include the school treasurers, secretaries, SIMS operators (student information), janitorial staff, maintenance staff, and other critical support staff at the school sites. This must cover substitute costs for teachers as welh Currently the State provides less than half the total funding required for these support positions in our district. The new state mandated student information management system, named NC Wise, will require even more local resources to implement, Textbooks: The State budget has not provided sufficient student growth funding for many years, As an example, the state currently provides $58.30 per student per year for textbooks. This funding is primarily meant to help the district obtain new textbooks from the five-year adoption cycle (each subject area rotates on a five-year basis for new textbooks). The state does not provide funding to cover a complete "set" of textbooks for a district's growth. If LAPS grows each year by 400 students, we need to provide those students with a "set" of textbooks to cover all of their subjects, On average, this set of textbooks will cost the district $500 per student or a total of $200,000. We are presently receiving $1.8 million from state funds while supplementing this allocation with $445,50.3 in local dollars annually. Instructional Supplies: The state provides $47.44 per student in instructional supply funding for the entire year. These funds are supplemented by local funds of approximately $83.11 per child. The state needs to provide more resources for instructional supplies, Instructional Technoloey: The state currently provides only $.3.64 per student for technology which is a decrease in funding from FY 200.3-04 (the amount was $5.59 per student), This year's total state allocation for Durham Public Schools is $112,148. This is inadequate to even paztially fund the techmology program of PPS. This is an area that is heavily supplemented from local funding. Salary and Benefit Increases: Sy Statute, all public school employees are "state" employees, Irr order to utilize funding appropriately from the various sources (local, state, federal, grants), the school system camlot separate salary increases for those employees who may be paid from other funding sources. As such, the county picks up the tab for any state-legislated salary increases and benefit adjustments for the public school employees who aze paid from local funds, 2 Transaortation Costs: The state funds transportation of students to and from school. It does not provide funding for all the other educational activities that require transportation services such as participating in sporting events, concerts, and other extra curriculaz activities that are important to a student's overall educational experience and achievement. In DPS, we have many initiatives and coimnunity partnerships which require transportation of students to various locations in Durham. The state also does not provide funding for activity buses, or the initial purchase of new "yellow" buses. The state does provide amrual funding for replacement buses, The NC General Assembly has limited the full access to those funds over the past few years to help balance their budget. This action has placed schools further behind in obtaining replacement buses and increased our operating costs to maintain an older fleet. Limited Enelish Proficiency: bi Durham Public Schools we have experienced a 14.5% average growth over the last five years in students who are classified as "Limited English Proficient (L,EP)", DPS has increased from 1,175 LEP students in October 1998 to a projection of over 2,500 students for the current fiscal year. These LEP students are a diverse group and include 39 different languages, Although 90% of the students aze Spanish-speaking, the school system must meet the instmctional needs of all these students, including those children speaking Urdu, Russian, Mandarin, Tagalog and the other diverse languages, We have worked to maintain an allocation for our schools of one LEP teacher for every 50 students. In FY 2003-04, the state provided LEP directed funding of approximately $443 per pupih Our local expenditure this year for this program (either obtained from current expense funds or offsetting other state resources) totaled $841,900 or $365 additional per pupil funding. This was necessary in order to meet the minimum instructional needs for this population of students. Charter Schools: By state statute, if a student attends a charter school, the LEA in which the child resides shall transfer to the charter school an amount equal to the per pupil local current expense allocation for the fiscal yeaz (G.S.115C-238(b)). Currently Durham Public Schools pays 20 charter schools funding for over 1840 students who are Durham residents and are attending charter schools. Of these 20 chazter schools, eight are located within Durham County. Our current annual local budget for this program is $5,000,000, Budgetary concerns with charter schools center around the constant movement of students in and out of charter schools during the year. Funding for schools is set by the state based on the higher of the first or second month Average Daily Membership (Best 1 of 2 ADM). The trend in charter schools is that many students move back to DPS after the second month of school once state funding is set for the year, This is also problematic in dealing with high cost special needs children. State funding is fixed after the first 60 days of school per 3 9 G,S..115C-2.38(a) for children with special needs; however, we have experienced many special needs students enrolling or re-enrolling into DPS after the first 60 days or after Ianuary (Federal funds are based on the December 1 headcount data). These children require many additional resources and the funding does not follow the child but remains at the charter school.. This also impacts the following year's funding which is based on a December 1 headcount and/or the first and second month data, The present charter school funding formulas ignore the fact that LEAs have fixed costs that do not decrease when student enrollment drops.. For example, the same number of schools must be geographically operated by the district. This includes proper maintenance and cleaning of the buildings, as well as, energy, insurance, copiers, computers and other equipment, etc.. Capital Outlay: By statute, capital needs for the schools is a county requirement (G.S.115C-408(b):",,.the facilities requirements for public education system will be met by county governments."). However, in FY 2002-0.3 the state budget lirnited the resources available to the county governments from items such as the Public School Building Capital Fund, in that year they withheld the deposit of taxes to each county's fund and reallocated those resources to other budgetary line items, In Durham's account this an7ount was between $1.1 million to $1,3 million. Those are lost revenues to the school system and county which could have provided for rnuch-needed school renovations and improvements. Of course, the energy cost is a critical component needed for all of our school facilities and this is a 100% local obligation, As new space is added, the need for the operational component to support this space becomes alocally-funded obligation. Irr the past, the State provided Borne resources for' utility costs but that effort was eliminated in the 1995 school year. Other Unfunded Programs: This document is not intended to cover all areas of funding, There are many additional funding areas which could be exarnined. The following are some other major programs in which present funding is inadequate or has been cut in recent years: • )/xceptional Childress Programs • Teacher Licensure/Staff Development • Testing and other reporting requirements • Inflationary costs for state allotments • Human Resource items such as criminal background checks and drug testing • No Child Left Behind (Federal) 4 in ~(~~''~~ 1"~ti{ !~f"`) ~~f V O ,~ 1~1 ILI ,~ W ,~ W v1 '~ O ~^ "~ ~/ L ^~ W •~ G O a.C d O •Q ~ a N C `p•"= O U C (,' a O t N vi ~ O U ~ O oo_Oa a~~-o y•Q. .'CHd ~ O su~~Q- ~1-p O > a Win=. ~•p•Q L V (~ G 4 ,~ C ~ ~i q 0 a N 0 e-~ O~ r-+ 6~ N e-i O 6~ H h n H Oi N W L W t~~ 1/f N ~ r ~ n1 ~ r'• Z 'p O~ G O B p -'C C- •p .O U tl. y O Q U C~ -C y G .fl ~~ ~ c~ O S O H O ~ O ,~ p U~~ Q- ~ o U F O ~c~ ~= Q.3~ ~~ o ~U ~ 0 0~ ~ m mvr o 0 oV~~ .O .C ~ ~ ,.Ct ~C C _ c ~ O Q y ~~ C ''" ~' y C 0= 0 O d~ U p1~ O C C U N a~ 0 N w'iSG. Oe- D H Z ~ Q.dUw ~~~Yin wJ t~~/~ I'~ n '~ ~T~~ V1 W ~~ ^~ `W 1~1 /~ •~ .H CG W