INO.
#r
"'
179PA96
TENTH DISTRlCT
SUP~ME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
** ** * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * *
§
KATHLEEN M. LEANDRO, individually
and as guardian ad litem f Ro eft A.
Leandro; STEVEN R. S
L,
individually and as guardian a litem for
Andrew J. Sunkel; CLARENC L.
PENDER, individually and as guardian ad
litem ofSchnikaN. Pender; TYRONE T.
WILLIAMS, individually and as guardian
ad litem of Trevelyn L. Williams; D.E.
LOCKLEAR. JR., individuall)1 and as
guardian ad litem of JasonE. ~ocklear;
ANGUS B. THOMPSON, II, individually
and as guardian ad/item ofVandaliah J.
Thompson; JENNIE G. PEAR ON,
individually and as guardian a litem of
ShareseD. Pearson; WAYNE EW,
individually and as guardian a4 litem of
Natosha L. Tew; DANA HOLtON
JENKINS, individually and as ~uardian ad
litem of Rachel M. Jenkins; FLpYD VICK,
individually and as guardian a4litem of
Ervin D. Vick; HOKE COUN~Y BOARD
OF EDUCATION; HALIFAX ~OUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION; RpBESON
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCf\TION;
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BPARD OF
EDUCATION; VANCE COU"r¥TY
BOARD OF EDUCATION;
t
Plaintiff-Appellants,
and
CASSANDRA INGRAM, individually and
as guardian ad litem of Darris Irgram;
CAROL PENLAND, individu~ly and as
guardian ad litem of Jeremy Pepland;
DARLENE HARRIS, individu~lly and as
guardian ad litem of Shamek H~s;
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
From Wake County
~":i
!"'li'
NETTIE THOMPSON, individually and as
guardian ad litem of Annette Renee
Thompson; DA VID MARTlNEZ,
individually and as guardian ad litem of
Daniela Martinez; OPHELlA AIKEN,
individually and as guardian ad litem of
Brandon Bell; ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD
OF EDUCATION; BUNCOMBE
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION;
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
BOARD
OF EDUCATION; DURHAM PUBLIC)
SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCAnON;
WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION; WINSTON-SALEMI
FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION;
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA;
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION;
Defendant-Appellees.
)
)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AMICI
BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
LOW WEALTH SCHOOLS FUNDING AND
EQUALIZATION
CONSORTIUM AND
EDUCATION: EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS COALITION
*** ***** ****** *******
-1-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities.
111
Interests of the Amici Curiae
2
Summaryof Argument.
5
Argument
8
The North Carolina Constitution Requires The Provision of Free Public
Education With Equal Opportunities For All Students; However, Children
In Poorer Counties Do Not Receive The Same Quality of Educational
Opportunities That Their Neighbors In Wealthier North Carolina Counties
Receive Year After Year.
8
A. Statistical Data Show That Poorer Counties Are Unable To Provide
The Educational ResourcesThat Wealthy Counties Provide.
.9
B. Individual Children, And Thus All of Us, Suffer When Denied
Educational Opportunity
12
.Hoke County.
.
..12
15
2. Other Counties.
C. The Unfairness Lies In n1e Reality That Some Students BecauseOf
Where They Live Get A Better Education.
Conclusion.
Certificate of Service
17
...20
21
III
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Board of Education v. Board of Commissioners, 74N.C. 469, 472, 93 S.E. 1001,
1002(1917)
9,20
Brown v. Board of Education, 347IV.S. 483 (1954)
19
Marshburn v. Brown,210 N.C. 331, 338,186 S.E.265, 269 (1936)
9,19
Sneedv. GreensboroCity Board of Education,299 N.C. 609, 618, 264 S.E.2d 106, 113(1980) 9
CONSTITUTION
NC CONST. Art. VII, Sect.
8
NC CaNST. Art. IX, Sect. 2(1)
5
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Dr. Gary Barnes, 1994Freshman.tplicatiol1 Report,Hoke County (1996)
5
Dr. Gary Barnes, 1994 Freshman Applicatioll Report, Wake County (1996)
19
Dr. Gary Barnes,1994-95FreshmanPerformanceReport,Hoke County(1996)
15
Interview with Dr. James F. Causby, Superintendent Johnston County (Aug. 22, 1996)
,18
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction New Release, August 22, 1996
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina Public Schools
StatisticaIProfile(1995)
,
Public School Forum, North Carolina Local School Finance Study (1995)
5.
6,10
RaleighNewsand Obsel-ver,Aug. ;5, 1996at 68, col. 2
.II'choolCapital Construction: Public Hearillg in Jackson COlf1ltyon facility needs alld
financing before tile School CaJftal Collstruction Study Conlmission (Oct. 26, 1995)
(StatementbyJoannCarringer)i
16
-iv-
School Capital Construction: Public Hearing in Hoke County on facility needs and
financing before the School Capital Construction Study Commission (Nov. 20, 1995)
(Statement of Catherine Blackwell, Principal) """"""""""""""""'"
16
SchoolCapital Construction: Public Hearing in ChowanCountyonfacility needsand
financing beforethe SchoolCapital ConstructionStudyCommission(Nov. 29, 1995)
(Statementof JaneParr, Music Teacher)
17
Telephone Interview with Jeffrey C. Moss, Assistant Superintendent Hoke County
(Aug.23,1996)
,
7, 11
NO. 179PA96
TENTH DISTRICT
SUPREMECOURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * *
KATHLEEN M. LEANDRO, individually )
and as guardian ad litem of Robert A.
)
Leandro; STEVEN R. SUNKEL,
)
individually and as guardian ad litem for
Andrew J. Sunkel; CLARENCE L.
PENDER, individually and as guardian ad )
litem of Schnika N. Pender; TYRONE T.
)
WILLIAMS, individually and as guardian )
ad litem of Trevelyn L. Williams; D.E.
)
LOCKLEAR, JR., individually and as
)
guardian ad litem of Jason E. Lpcklear;
)
ANGUS B. THOMPSON, II. individually
)
and as guardian ad litem OfV daliah J.
)
Thompson; JENNIE G. PEAR ON,
)
individually and as guardian a litem of
)
ShareseD. Pearson; WAYNE EW,
)
individually and as guardian a~ litem of
)
~
Natosha
L.
Tew;
DANA
HOL
N
JENKINS, individually and as ouardian ad
litem of Rachel M. Jenkins; FLOYD VICK,
individually and as guardian aa1litem of
Ervin D. Vick; HOKE COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION; HALIFAX
OUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION; R BESON
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUC TION;
CUMBERLAND COUNTY -~~ARD OF
.!
EDUCAnON; VANCE COUIiTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION;
and
II
Plaintiff-APpelltts,
:
I)
i
CASSANDRA INGRAM, indiJidually and
as guardian ad litem of Darris Ingram;
CAROL PENLAND, individually and as
guardian ad litem of Jeremy Penland;
DARLENE HARRIS, individually and as
guardian ad litem of Shamek Harris:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
J
)
)
1
From Wake County
-2-
NETnE THOMPSON, individually and as
guardian ad litem of Annette Renee
Thompson; DAVID MARTINEZ,
individually and as guardian ad litem of
Daniela Martinez; OPHELIA AIKEN,
individually and as guardian ad litem of
Brandon Bell; ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD
OF EDUCATION; BUNCOMBE
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION;
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD)
OF EDUCATION; DURHAM PUBLIC)
SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION;
WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION; WINSTON-SALEMI
FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION;
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLI~A;
STATE BOARD OF EDUCA1ION;
I
Defendant-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE
The North Carolina Lqw Wealth Schools Funding and Equalization Consortium ("the
Consortium") is a voluntary association of "low wealth" school systems.! The Consortium's
members,who include the five plaintiff school systems,are listed in Exhibit A. Sixty percent (60%)
'In 1991. the General Assembly classified 74 school systems as "low wealth" and appropriated $6 million to divide among those counties
as supplemcntal funds to assist their school systems. The Genera! Assembly classified as "low wealth" those counties that had a per-student ta."
base below the state average. In the years since 1991. the annual appropriation to this lund. currently $43 million per year. has not kept pace with
the growing gap among low wealth and higher wealth counties. In the special provision governing appropriations to the low wealth supplemental
fund, the General Assembly also has made it clcar that it is undertaking no commitment to increase. or even continue, such supplemental funds
in the future.
...
-.)-
of North Carolina's public school children are enrolled in the 84 school systems in the 71 low wealth
counties. All low wealth schoql systems are listed in Exhibit B.
children in low wealth school s)tstemsand to urge reform of the State's inadequate and inequitable
system of public school finan~e. To date the Consortium's primary efforts have focused on
encouraging the General Assem~ly to provide increased financial support to school systems in low
wealth counties. While that support has increased gradually since FY 1991-92, it falls far short of
what is needed to provide all children an equal opportunity for a quality education, regardless of
where they live.
I
To the Consortium's metPbers,North Carolina's existing system for financing public schools
[
is not an abstract policy issue;1it is a cruel reality that consigns their students to second-class
educationalstatus. Day after +y, the Consortium'smemberschool s)'stemsattemptto prepare
children for life and work in ~he21 st Century despite inadequate and inequitable resources.
!
Inevitably they compare their fa1ilities, courseofferings and teacherswith those of wealthier school
systems,from which they may b1 separatedgeographically only by an invisible county line, but from
which they are separated functiqnally by an unbridgeable economic gulf. Peering across that gulf
they see,and regret, opportunitie~ denied to the children they serve. Looking at their own students
they see, and lament, young peoqle of promise who innocently suffer, merely becausethey have the
misfortune to live in a poor co~nty. Reading the Constitution of North Carolina they see, and
I
embrace, its guaranteeof "a genfral and uniform system of free public schools. ..1vherein equal
opportunities will be provided.frJr all s'tudents." Because they are convinced that whatever these
words mean, they do not and cannot mean that educational opportunity in North Carolina is a matter
-4-
of geographicalaccident. They respectfully urge that the decision of the North Carolina Court of
Appeals be reversed and that .1is lawsuit proceed to trial
The secondamicus curiae, The Education: Everybody's BusinessCoalition ("the Coalition"),
organized in 1991, is an unincorporated associationworking to improve North Carolina's schools.
Its members include North C~olina Citizens for Business and Industry, this State's oldest and
largest organization representi1gthe businesscommunity which effectively servesas the "statewide
chamberof commerce." Another Coalition member is the North Carolina Business Committee for
Educationrepresentingmost tf the State'slargestemployersand their efforts to improve public
schools. The remaining Coa*tion members are the North Carolina Association of Chamber of
Commerce Executives, North ~arolina School Boards Association, North Carolina Association of
School Administrators. and thelPublic School Forum ofNol1h Carolina. The Coalition believes that
-I
North Carolina's future eco1omic vitality depends upon the elimination of the systematic
discrimination inherent in our i~equitable, inadequateand unconstitutional system of public school
finance. Becausea strong econ~my depends,first and foremost, on properly trained workers, North
Carolina simply cannot affordl to neglect the education of a majority of its children. Unless our
,
children are trained in the basif skills required by a global economy that is increasingly based on
infonnation and technology rather than muscle and sweat, existing businesseswill not prosper and
new economic opportunities fill
not happen, and our people will not achieve their economic
potential
The Coalition also un~erstandsthat children cannot reasonablybe expectedto become
independent,contributing citiz+s without adequateand equitable educational opportunities. Good
citizenship requires an unders~nding of, and appreciation for, both the free enterprise economic
Thus,
systemand democratic political processes.We cannot sustain our individual freedoms or meet our
common problems if we continue to discriminate against a majority of our future citizens
Finally, the Coalition islconvinced that eachNorth Carolina child's right to equal educational
opportunity is guaranteed by the state constitution, and that North Carolina's current system for
financing public schools does not comply with that constitutional mandate
For thesereasons,tl1eCoalition also respectfully urges that the decision of the North Carolina
Court of Appealsbe reversedandthis matterproceedto trial
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT
The North Carolina :onstitution requires the General Assembly to provide b)' taxation
a general and unifonn system of free public schools
provided for all students
N.C caNST. Art. IX, Sect. 2
wherein equal opportunities will be
In response to this constitutional
mandate, the General Assembly appropriated approximately 66% of all funds spent for schools in
FY 1993-94 and distributed thqse funds on a per pupil basis throughout the state. North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina Public Schools Statistical Profile 95, tbl. 25
1995). The remaining funds cah1efrom the FederalGovernment, (9%), and from localities tl1rough
property taxes (25%)
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina Public
Schools Statistical Profile 95, tbl. 25
995'
In addition, localities fund nearly 91 % of all capital outlay projects for the construction and
maintenance of school buildings, grounds, and supplies. North Carolina Departmentof Public
Instruction, North Carolina Pu~ic Schools Statistical Profile 95, tbl. 3
1995)
funding of
public education by localities seres a significant role in the overall school finance system in North
Carolina.
-7-
meet the state constitution's mandate to provide, through taxation, a general and uniform public
school system wherein equal opportunities are provided to all students.
To put a human face ~n this disparity in funding, and the concomitant disparity of
educational opportunities, one ~eed only contrast a typical student in Hoke County with a student
of similar age in Wake County. In the amici's view, neither school systemis without flaw, but when
tl1e educational opportunities prbvided to eachchild are compared, Wake is a county that has, and
Hoke is a county that has not. ~nHoke County, for exan1ple,biology and chemistry labs have no
running water, and the system e~ploys only one technical employee to maintain computers at ten
schools. And even if the Hok+ County student encounters a highly motivated and stimulating
English teacher, he may lose Iher to a nearby wealthy school system which can use higher
i
supplemental pay to lure heri away. Telephone Interview with Jeffrey C. Moss, Assistant
SuperintendentHoke County (A~g. 23, 1996). The injuries worsen as the Hoke student completes
high school, goes to college inaciFquatelyprepared (or not at all), and enters the work force. While
he struggles to get off the lower rungs of the economic ladder, his better prepared Wake County
counterpart succeedsin college ~nd takes her place in the "information society." The disparities in
future incomes become inevita~e; the dasheddreams turn into despair.
The Hoke Countystude~ facesanunequaland uncertainfuture not becausehis family and
his local elected officials don't c~e about him, or becausehe is not intelligent, but simply because
he resides in Hoke County.
It is well settled that the ~orth Carolina Constitution does not pennit children to be denied
an equal opportunity to a good ~ducation on account of their color or religion; surely, it does not
mean that the same opportunity ~ay be denied them becausethey happento live in Hoke or Halifax
-8-
County rather than Wake or Mecklenburg County. The state constitution is the social and political
contract for ALL North Carolinians; it takes no notice of, and admits of no distinction between,
"rich" or "poor" counties. Indeed, the county boundaries that may consign a child to an inadequate
education while opening his neighbor to a world of learning are merely lines on a map that the
General Assembly may move qr erase at will. N.C. CaNST. Art. VII, Sect. I
Amici believe that at trial the plaintiffs will show that variations in local funding need not
deprive our children of equal educational opportunities, and that it is possible to create a statewide
system that fulfills the constitutional mandate of equal educational opportunities for all children
while preserving the important! role of local funding for public schools. Decades of neglect and
inaction, howe,'er, demonstrat~ that judicial intervention is necessaryto provide the will to act.
What the plaintiffs seek is a trial of this matter and a declaratory judgment that North Carolina's
systemof public school finance is unconstitutional. Once that is done, compliance will be a matter
of legislative prerogative with many practical and reasonableremedies available.
ARGUMENT
THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION REOUIRES THE PROVISION
OF FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION WITH EOUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ALL STUDENTS: HOWEVER. CHILDREN IN POORER COUNTIES DO
NOT RECEIVE THE SAME OUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
THA T THEIR NEIGHBORS IN WEALTHIER NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES
RECEIVE YEAR AFTER YEAR.
The amici wholeheartedly endorseand agree with the plaintiffs' interpretation of the North
Carolina Constitution entitling all children in North Carolina regardless of where they live to equal
educational opportunities. The~e opportunities involve much more than accessto the door of a
schoolroom. They involve sch~ols adequateto "ensure every child a fair and full opportunity to
A.
-9-
reach his full potential." Sneed v. Greensboro City Board of Education, 299 N.C. 609, 618, 264
S.E.2d 106, 113 (1980). TIley involve establishmentand maintenanceof a public education system
"adequateto the needsof a greatandprogressivepeople.affording schoolfacilities of recognized
and ever-increasing merit to all the children of this State, aIld to the full extent that our means could
afford and intelligent direction accomplish." Board of Education v. Board of Commissioners, 174
N.C. 469, 472, 93 S.E. 1001,1002(1917). Significantly,the constitutionalmandatefor free public
education extends to "every child. ..without regard to the county in which such child will reside
to attend a school in which standardsset up by the State are maintained." Marshburn v. Brown,
210 N.C. 331, 338,186 S.E. 265, 269 (1936).
Unfortunately, for children attending schools in poorer counties, the standardsfor educational
quality are not equitably maintained.
STATISTICAL DATA SHOW THAT POORER COUNTIES ARE
UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES THAT
WEAL THY COVNTIES PROVIDE.
To help identify poor or 'tlow wealth" counties, Exhibit C ranks all North Carolina counties
by their ability to pay for public schools. Public School Forum, North Carolina Local School
Finance Study, 1995,tbl. 4 (1995D. Not surprisingly, Mecklenburg, Wake and Forsyth counties rank
as three of the top four counties in their ability to finance educational expensesfrom their adjusted
tax base; by contrast, the plaintiffs' home counties rank at the bottom of the list. (Hoke, 100;
Robeson, 99; Halifax, 92; Vance, 74; Cumberland, 70).
The low wealth of thesd counties inhibits their capability to levy supplemental taxes and
generateappropriations for public schools in addition to the funding provided by the State on a per
pupil basis. Exhibit C attached shows that wealthy counties such as Mecklenburg, Wake and
-10-
Forsyth rank 5th, 7th and 8th respectively in total spending per pupil. Hoke County ranks IOOth,
Robeson, 97th: Halifax, 83rd; Cumberland, 70th; and Vance 27th. Public School Forum, North
Carolina Local School Finance Study, 1995, tbl.3 (1995).
Exhibit D shows which current educationexpenseswere funded in 1993-94 by local taxes,
by the State, and by the Federal government. The categoriesof current operational expensesfunded
largely by local taxes include supplemental teacher compensation; instructional programs; pupil
support, health and guidance services; and child nutrition. A child whose county cannot provide
local funding must do without classesand support services that his peers in wealthy counties take
for granted.
Exhibit E showsthat local fundingalsohasa significanteffect on capital expendituresfor
schools. Of the $433 million spent in fiscal year 1993-94 in capital outlay, $392 million, or more
than 90%, can1efrom local funds. Thus localities bear the lion's share of responsibility for school
construction; real property acquisition; building renovation; expansion or replacement; furniture;
equipment; and motor vehicle purchases;and when needed,additional school buses. North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina Public Schools Statistical Profile 95, tbl. 31
(1995).
When a school system like Hoke County's r.mks at the bottom of all systems in average
capital outlay over the past five years, the picture becomesclearerof the disadvantageHoke students
and other students in poor counties face when going to school in cramped, deteriorating school
buildings in dire need of maintenance. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, North
Carolina Public Schools Stati.\'tical Profile 95, tbl. 32 (1995).
Last but far from least, local funding directly determines how much a school system can
-11-
suppleme1 a teacher's state-funded base salary. Wealthier counties can, and do, pay teachers
significantfy more than poorer counties. For example, Wake County offers a minimum teacher
supplemen~equivalent to 10% of the state salary; the maximum is 12.8%. Another wealthy school
district, Chrpel Hill/Carrboro, offers a maximum supplement of 25%. Raleigh News & Observer,
Aug. 25, 1?96, at 6B, col. 2. By contrast Hoke County, home to some of the plaintiffs, offers a
$275.00 s~pplement to non-tenured teachers which increases to $325.00 on tenure. Telephone
Interview tith JeffreyC. Moss, AssistantSuperintendent
Hoke County(Aug. 23, 1996).
Jo*ston County offers a salary supplementof 2% with no graduated maximum and Harnett
County onfY offers a maximum supplement of $600.00. (~
generally Complaint, para. 70-72).
Both counties, of course, adjoin Wake; thus it is hardly surprising that the commuters whose
automobil9s clog US 70 and US 401 each morning include many excellent teacherswho, in their
understandfble search for greaterpersonal opportunity, carry a measureof educational opportunity
away from Ithe low-wealth counties in which they reside. Unfortunately, the children who live in
JohnstonarydHarnett have no such mobility. Interview with Dr. James F. Causby, Superintendent
Johnston Clounty(Aug. 22, 1996).
Th9 State apparently cannot comprehendthis basic economic reality. In its brief, it makes
the astonis~ing assertion that school systemsare free to hire more experienced teachers, or teachers
with gradutte degrees,and that if they do so theseteachers' higher salary requirements will infuse
more state Ifunds into their systems. This, the State says, may account for "substantial per-pupil
expenditurr differences between school systems." (State's New Brief at 9, n.4)
With all due
respect,thit argument standsthe issue on its head:the problem is not merely that there are "per-pupil
expenditurr differences between school systems;" the problem is that a low-wealth school system
The
B.
-12-
that offers la flat supplement under $500 cannot expectto attract highly qualified teachersin the first
place
Statistics, however, only tell part of the story,
part left untold is that of a child who
attends scpool in a poor county and must face obstacles every day to obtaining the high quality
education Ithatthis state's economy demands and which the student needs to mature into a good
citizen. W!henthat student's school day is contrasted with that of the student attending school in a
wealthy cC!Junty,
the fundamental unfairness and unconstitutionality of North Carolina's school
finance systemsearsour consciousness
INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN, AND THUS ALL OF US, Sl
DENIED EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
'FER WHEN
Hoke Count~
Meet Bobby, an elementary school student living in Hoke County, North Carolina.
Bobby
not a single child but is a composite child facing many of the sameobstacles to a good education
that childreln in Hoke County already face. (~generall~
Complaint, para. 40-81). Bobby comes
from a low income family in a county which ranks 97 out of 100 in per capita income in North
Carolina. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina Public Schools
Statistical Profile 95, tbl. 24 (1995). He waits by the roadside for a school bus which, once it arrives
at his bus stop, takes another two hours to reach South Hoke Elementary School. It also takes two
hours at th~ end of each day for Bobby to get home.
BolDbyis one of587 students in South Hoke Elementary. a school which was once the old
Native American high school. Its library is in the old shop, and eventhough its gymnasium has been
'The following story is based upon facts rcgarding the Hokc County Sch()ol Systcm as related by JctTrcy C Moss. Assistant
Superintendent. IHoke County Schools.
-13-
condemned and needs to be demolished, classesare still held there. Even so, Bobby is lucky to
attend one lof the two elementary schools in Hoke County that have gyms; the other four do not.
Bopby's music class meets on the old stage in the cafeteria with only a curtain to separate
them from ,otherstudents who, owing to the cafeteria's inadequate facilities, begin eating lunch at
10:30 a.m. !Needlessto say, it's hard for Bobby's class to concentrate when the noise on the other
side of the curtain begins to rise.
The mobile unit which housesthe computer lab is probably better heatedthan the rest of the
school, whose boiler is old and does not always work. The main school building's floors are warped,
insulation hangs from the ceiling in places, and the bathroompipes are old and leaking. It's cold and
overcrowd~d in Bobby's school, and students sometimes get sick. But no nurse is on duty there,
since the n~rse must commute from school to school on different days.
Despite all this, Bobby has some motivated teachers who stimulate his interest in various
subjects. They wish they could get up to date computer software for the computer lab which
coincides with the curriculum, but there is no money. Bobby still makes it through, and like most
of his classq1ates,he hopes that next year he will have that special fifth grade teacherwho taught his
older sister. But when next year comes, the teacher Bobby wanted is gone. She now commutes to
a nearbysc4001district which pays a higher supplementthan the $325.00 offered to tenured teachers
at Bobby's school. Instead, Bobby has a first-year teacher who is learning how to handle fifth
graders. As!noted above, this problem plagues students in low wealth school systems across North
Carolina. (~~).
Years pass and Bobby attends Hoke County High School. He's having some adjustment
problems and needsto seethe social worker on staff. The social worker, however, has to commute
-14-
from schotl to school Bobby waits to seeher, andhis adjustmentproblemsmount.
ambitious project which requires financial help from students' parentssince the Hoke system, unlike
wealthier srstems, cannot afford to pay all expensesfor the trip. Bobby's parents cannot afford to
help him gp, so he stays behind and misses an experience that could have changedhis life.
As la result of having grown up in a family where his father fanns a small piece of land,
course an~ enjoys his course work, but he and his classmates have trouble completing their lab
assignrnen~s,becausethe lab has no running water and no gas for the Bunsen burners. The school
also cannot afford enough specimens for dissection.
Bo~by also takes Spanish at Hoke High School, but he does not alwa)'s get to take his
textbook hpme at night to do his homework. (~Complaint,
para. 66). The Spanish class, like
many othe*, has a shortage of textbooks, so Bobby must share. Understandably, Bobby has a hard
time leamirg his vocabulary, and when he takes his exams, he barely manages a passing grade.
Bobby is a~sotaking Civics class and his teacher, understanding the importance of current events,
wants to h,ve a classroomsubscriptionof ~
or Newsweek. Money for such a luxury is not
available, ~or are there funds for newspaperslike the Wall Street.TournaIor New York Times.
Likb some but not all of his classmates,Bobby takes the Scholastic Aptitude Test. He wants
to go to N.f. State University and major in biology or a related field, such as agronomy. Yet, when
he gets his test scoresback, they reflect the average scores of Hoke County students --415 on the
math porti9n of the test and 426 on the verbal portion for a total of841. North Carolina Department
of Public Iqstruction News Release,Aug. 22, 1996. Can he get accepted for admission? Probably
2.
-15-
not; of the nre Hoke County studentswho applied to N.C. State University in t11eFall of 1994, only
five were acFeptedand three enrolled. Dr. Gary Barnes, 1994-95 Freshman Application Report, tbl.
Hoke Coun~y(1996).
Eve, if Bobby doesgetacceptedandenrollsat a UNC constituentuniversity,he may have
to emoll in ~emedialclasseslike one-third of all entering Hoke graduatesto catch up with his peers
who gradua~edfrom wealthier counties with stronger math and English programs. Dr. Gary Barnes,
1994-95 Frll.'shmanPerformance Report, tbl. Hoke County (1996).
No~h Carolina needs students like Bobby to succeed and enter our work force. Not only
should the e~ucation system serveto pull him from near povert)r and prepare him to attend college,
it should a1~oallow someone who can be a contributor or leader in the field of biological sciences
to enter ourlstate's highly competitive work force and better our quality of life.
We all suffer when we as a people do not finance our schools at the level required. The cycle
of near pov9rty (and actual poverty in many cases)in Hoke County cannot be broken when schools
that must a*empt to teach children like Bobby cannot afford to spend what is required when the
counties ca~ot levy the amount of taxes required. Moreover, local economies like that of Hoke
County can rever hope to attractthe kind of businessand industry neededto ultimately increase low
per capita ipcome levels when the labor force is not educated well enough to perform the tasks
required in pigher paying jobs.
Other Counties
The Ieducational deficiencies and inequities describedabove are not limited to Hoke County.
Children iq counties classified as "low wealth" across North Carolina suffer some of the same
hardships tfuatstudents like Bobby suffer in Hoke County.
-16-
F9r example, at a public hearing of the North Carolina School Capital Construction Study
Commissipn, Ms. Joann Carringer of Cherokee County related that the main building of Martins
Creek EleIhentary School burned in July 1993. The structure that burned was built in 1927 and was
described lasa building which could bum faster than the children could run. No one was in the
building v.jhenit caught fire. For the past three school years, and continuing this year, the children
have atten4fedclassesin eleven mobile units with no awnings over the entrancesto shield children
from rain. IThese units are showing a lot of wear and tear, and they are not safe enough to house
children s~ould a tornado warning issue for the area. If that happens,the children must be bused to
a nearby church and wait in the basement. A replacement for the building that burned will not be
available ¥ntil the 1997-98 school year --more than four years after the fire. School Capital
Construct~on:Public Hearing in .JacksonCountyon.facilil)' needs andfinancing before the School
Capital Cfnstruction Study Commission (Oct. 26, 1995) (Statement by loann Carringer).
In ~urnberland County, Gray's Creek Elementary School is so overcrowded that 250 students
attend cla~s in eleven temporary classrooms. The school's sewage must be pumped from septic
tanks thre~ times a week; when this happensthe stenchis so strong that two classesmust be moved
from thei~ temporary classrooms until the pumping is completed. Because there is not enough
running ~ater to wash dishes in the cafeteria, the children must use paper plates. The school has
only six ~atl1foomsto serve 700 children. School Capita! Construction: Public Hearing in Hoke
County o~facility needs and financing before the School Capital Construction Study Commission
(Nov. 20,11995) (Statement Qf Catherine Blackwell, Principal).
A~ Perquimans Central School, music teacherJane Parr has no classroom of her own. To
teachmu~ic. she must migrate from classroombuilding to classroombuilding. and during inclement
-17-
materials frrm building to building. Rehearsalsfor plays or programs must take place in the library
because nol other space is available.
SchoolCapital Construction: Public Hearing in Chowan
County onfi:zcility needs andfinancing before the School Capital Consf1'uction Study Commission
(Nov. 29, 1~95) (Statement of Jane Parr, Music Teacher).
In the face of these and similar situations, the Court of Appeals' detennination that "the
fundarnen~ educational right under the North Carolina Constitution is limited to one of equal access
to educatiof' and it does not embracea qualitativestandard"--i.e., that so long as eachschool
systemhas tll the right components, it makes no difference whether the components are any good
or whether ~ey are remotely comparable to those provided elsewhere in the State --rings hollow;
indeed, it spggests that state constitutional guaranteesare matters of form, not substance. Amici
finnly belie~e that no such cold and cynical interpretation is warranted by the language or history
of the state Iconstitution, or by the prior casesinterpreting it. They also have no doubt that if this
Court rever.j;esthe Court of Appeals and permits this case to proceed to trial, the plaintiffs will be
able to de~onstrate vividly that the Court of Appeals' interpretation would effectively condemn
future generations of school children in low wealth counties to suffer the deleterious effects of
uneQualeducational opportunities.
c.
THE UNFAIRNESS LIES IN THE REALITY THAT SOME STUDENTS
BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY LIVE GET A BETTER EDUCATION
The IStatedefendants say that the deficiencies in the education offered Bobby and the other
studentswhp live in low wealth counties have nothing to do with the state constitution, and that they
can and shopld be better resolved by the General Assembly, which has the power of the purse to tax
-18-
and spend!andshapeeducational policy for the future. (~generally,
State's first brief, pp. 6, 14-
5, 7-18). The defendants further say that the plaintiff children like Bobby do not state a claim for
relief; rather, the North Carolina Constitution guaranteeschildren like Bobby little more than access
to the school building which is deteriorating, where textbooks and supplies are not adequate for
normal instruction and whose best teachersleave these schools for more money in other systems,
Meet Lisa, another hypothetical child. She is a student in Wake County, one of the three
wealthiest coW1ties in North Carolina. Wake County can afford to spend money to build new
schools and renovate existing schools, even in the face of spiraling growth in its studentpopulation.
Becauseof the influx of new students,Lisa may have some classesin portable units outside the main
school building, but unlike her counterparts in Cherokee County, she almost surely won't have to
put up with them for four years. Meanwhile, for the foreseeablefuture Bobby will continue to attend
school in a cold, overcrowded structure, parts of which have been condemned
Wake County can afford to pay Lisa's teacher a 10% to 12.8% supplement to her statefunded basesalary As a result, Lisa does not run the risk that Bobby does of missing that sought
after homeroomteachernext year
In high school, Lisa can take AP Calculus BC and have a reasonable hope of scoring well
enough on Ithe national exam to obtain advanced placement credit for college. On the other hand,
if her family were to move to adjacent JohnstonCounty, she would find that the Johnston County
school system doesn't offer AP Calculus BC. Interview with Dr. James F. Causby, Superintendent
Johnston County (Aug. 22, 1996). She and her parents will be forced to choose between paying
tuition to the Wake School System for Lisa to commute to Wake County to take the course, or she
will simply have to do without.
-19-
Lisa will also take the SAT one day. In all likelihood, she will score near the Wake County
averageof 525 score in math, 517 score in verbal for a total average score of 1042. North Carolina
have little problem getting into Bobby's choice school of N.C. State University, which accepted
76% of the 87 applications from Wake County in 1994. Dr. Gary Barnes, 1994 Freshman
Application Report, tbl. Wake County (1996).
As Bobby's and Lisa's stories make plain, in North Carolina "equal educational
opportunities" exist only in the words of the state constitution; otherwise they are a fiction. The
single most important detern1inantof quality of the educational opportunities available to North
Carolina's students is where they live. North Carolina's public school finance system has created
and perpetuatesa "separate but !illequal" system of education based on geography and class.
In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, (1954) the Supreme Court --not the Congress
--began the eradication of the "separate but equal" doctrine that sentenced generations of minority
studentsto inadequateand unequal educations. By holding that the plaintiffs have stated claims for
relief and remanding this case for trial, this Court has an historic opportunity to eradicate years of
unfairnesstowards thousandsof children attending schools in poor counties. By allowing this matter
to go to trial, this Court can insure that all the evidence of Uluaimess inherent in our current system
of school finance can be taken into accountwhen detennining whether the plaintiffs' constitutional
rights have been infringed. Children like Bobby can get their "day in court."
Our Constitution does not permit children to be denied an equal opportunity to a good
education simply from circumstances of birth. Rather, it guaranteesequal educational opportunities
for all children "without regard to the county in which suchchild shall reside. ..
"" !vlar!."hburn,
210
-20-
N.C. at 338, 186 S.E. at 269 (1936). To insure that we achieve this constitutional mandate, our State
must fund public schools equitably from county to county "to the full extent that our means [can]
afford and intelligent direction accomplish." Board of Commissioners, 174 N.C. at 472,93 S.E. at
1002. Only in this way can we fulfill what our framers intended for our state in the Constitutional
Convention of 1776 when they prescribed this nation's first state university "for the people."
CONCLUSION
The amici respectfully request that this Court reverse the decision of the North Carolina
Court of Appeals and determine as a matter of law that the plaintiffs state a claim for which relief
may be granted, and that this matter be remandedto Superior Court for trial.
Respectfully submitted, this the 3rd day of September, 1996.
11:"IL
J.~~
\\1illi~G~ Hi~~~F
.t: / t'\..(...o
tJ v~.&.H
N.C. State Bar No. 1862
y.
jJ JAo
./I1u~&e~-~l~~
/ () Ar'=>
£/#'...1,
I
I;
Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens
Attorneys for The North Carolina Low
Wealth Schools Funding and Equalization
Consortium and Education: Everybody's
Business Coalition
127 West Hargett Street, Suite 600
Post Office Box 911
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0911
Telephone: (919) 755-0025
-21-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Amici Brief on Behalf
of The North Carolina Low Wealth Schools Funding and Equalization Consortium and
Education: Everybody's Business Coalition upon all parties by depositing a copy of the same in
the United Statesmail, postage prepaid, addressedas follows:
Edwin M. Speas,Jr.
Ronald M. Marquette
Tiare B. Smiley
North Carolina Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Robert W. Spearman
Robert H. Tiller
Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP
Post Office Box 389
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0389
H. La\vrence Armstrong. Jr.
Hux, Livermon & Armstrong
Post Office Box 217
Enfield, North Carolina 27823
Richard W. Ellis
Gary R. Govert
Smith, Helms, Mullis & Moore, LLP
Post Office Box 27525
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Allen R. Snyder
Kevin J. Lanigan
Paul A. Minorina
Hogan & Hartson, LLP
555 13th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Ann W. McColl
Post Office Box 27963
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
-22-
Ann Hubbard
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham& Sumter, PA
312 W. Franklin Street
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Gregory C. Malhoit
Post Office Box 27343
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Deborah M. Weissman
Post Office Box 26087
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Michael E. Weddington
B. Davis Home, Jr.
Robert J. Morris
Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, PA
Post Office Box 2611
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-2611
M. Gray Styers, Jr.
Petree Stockton, LLP
4101 Lake Boone Trail, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
1995-96 Low Wealth Schools Funding and Equalization Consortium
Members
Alexander County
Alleghany County (no longer qualified)
Anson County
Bertie County
Bladen County
Camden County
Cherokee County
Chowan County
Clay County
Kings Mountain City
Shelby City
Columbus County
Whiteville City
Cumberland County
Lexington City
Duplin County
Edgecombe County
Franklin County
Gates County
Granville County
Greene County
Halifax County
Roanoke Rapids City
Weldon City
Harnett County
Hertford County
Hoke County
Johnston County
Jones County
Lee County
Lenior County
Lincoln County
Madison County
Martin County
McDowell County
Mitchell County
Montgomery County
Northampton County
Onslow County
Pamlico County
Pasquotank County
Pender County
PerquimansCounty
Pitt County
RandolphCounty
AsheboroCity
Richmond County
RobesonCounty
RockinghamCounty
Rowan County
Rutherford County
Clinton City
ScotlandCounty
Albemarle City
Mount Airy City
Swain County
Tyrrell County
Vance County
WashingtonCounty
Wayne County
Wilkes County
Wilson County
Yancy County
School Sytems that Qualify for the Low Wealth Supplemental Fund
Alexander County
Anson County
Ashe County
Beaufort County
Bertie County
Bladen County
Burke County
Kannapolis City
Caldwell County
Camden County
Caswell County
Cherokee County
Chowan County
Clay County
Cleveland County
Kings Mountain City
Shelby City
Columbus County
Whiteville City
Craven County
Cumberland County
Davidson County
Lexington City
Thomasville City
Duplin County
Edgecombe County
Franklin County
Gates County
Graham County
Granville County
Greene County
Halifax County
Roanoke Rapids City
Weldon City
Harnett County
Haywood County
Hertford County
Hoke County
Johnston County .
Jones County
Lee County
Lenior County
Lincoln county
Madison County
Martin County
McDowell County
Mitchell County
Montgomery County
Nash County
Northampton County
Onslow County
Pamlico County
Pasquotank County
Pender County
Perquimans County
Person County
Pitt County
Randolph County
Asheboro City
Richmond County
Robeson County
Rockingham County
Rowan County
Rutherford County
Sampson County
Clinton City
Scotland County
Stanly County
Albemarle City
Stokes County
Surry County
Elkin City
Mount Airy City
Swain County
Tyrrell County
Union County
Vance County
Warren County
Washington County
Wayne County
Wilkes County
Wilson County
Yadkin County
Yancey County
ay
$4,214,324,756
$0.6027
MECKLENBURG 2
40,768,675,405
0.6027
WAKE
3
31,560,491,893
0.6027
FORSYTH
4
16.258.722,616
0.6027
POLK
5
929.314,615
0.602i
HENDERSON
6
4,502.293,511
0.6027
7
11,470,126.862
0.6027
GUILFORD
8
21,652,915,836
0.6027
ORANGE
9
5,085,356,144
0.6027
MACON
10
2,114,293,9960.6027
BRUNSWICK
11
5,734.504,664
0.6027
NEW HANOVER 12
8,727.338.865
0.6027
TRANSYLVANIA 13
1,928,628,300
0.6027
~ DURHAM
MOORE
14
3,643.018.433
0.6027
CURRITUCK
15
l,59i
0.6027
CARTERET
16
4.022.i50.23i
0.602":-
CATAWBA
17
7.370.i60.581
0.602":-
DAVIE
18
1,484.429.948
0.602:-
AVERY
19
1,224.516.304
0.6027
WATAUGA
20
2,345,i24,416
0.6027
JACKSON
21
1,753,665,110
0.6027
CHATHAM
22
2.231.464.129
0.602":-
HYDE
23
409.46i.056
0.602":-
BUNCOMBE
24
8.755.453.527
0.602:-
AUEGHANY
25
641,66i,610
0.6027
PERSON
26
1,998,435,592
0.6027
,136.954
IREDELL
27
5,438,456,309
0.602::-
ALAMANCE
28
5.266.209,695
0.602:-
HAYWOOD
29
2.502.266.649
0.602:-
CABARRUS
30
5.149.i83,459
0.602:-
LEE
31
2,079,291,929
0.602i
STOKES
32
1,653,414,696
0.6027
SURRY
33
2,568,803,858
0.6027
CLAY
34
469,958,796
0.602:-
UNION
35
4.708,879,993
0.602:-
ASHE
36
1,152.842,040
0.602:-
LINCOLN
37
2,487,729,086
0.6027
RANDOLPH
38
4,916,090,186
0.6027
ROWAN
39
4,789,257,125
0.6027
GASTON
40
7,420,338,259
0.602:-
WILKES
41
2,311,236.127
0.602:-
DAVIDSON
42
5,365,298.920
0.602:-
WILSON
43
2,714,828,272
0.6027
ROCKINGHAM 44
3,569,928,004
0.6027
BURKE
45
2,937,437,585
0.6027
YANCEY
46
777,512,277
0.602:-
Pm
47
4,542,065,364
0.602:-
YADKIN
48
1,219,776,146
0.602:-
RUTHERFORD 49
2,611,531,221
0.6027
PENDER
50
1,702,243,034 0.6027
MITCHELL
51
675,621,642
0.6027
$25,399,735
245,712,807
190,215,085
97,991,321
5,600,979
27,135,323
69,130,455
130,502,124
30,649,441
12.742.850
34.561.860
52.599.671
11,623,843
21,956.472
9,625,944
24.245.116
44,423.5i4
8.946.659
7,380,160
14,137.681
10.569,340
13,449.034
2.467.858
52,769.118
3,86i,331
12.044.5i1
32.i7i ,5i6
31.739,446
15.081.161
31.037.745
12.531,892
9,965,130
15.482,181
2,832.442
28.380,420
6,948.179
14,993,543
29,629,276
28,864,853
44,722,379
13.929,820
32.336,657
16,362,270
21,515,956
17,703,936
4,686.066
27,375,028
7,351,591
15,739,699
10,259,419
4,071,972
Welfare
Payments
$6,765,107 $638,887
102,388,661 22,851,313
67,882,490 13,1&4,597
43.151,849 10,953,&47
1,9&5.5&9
571,370
14,66i,142 2,843.225
30,&98,426 9,265,779
55,922,801 14,&19,391
13,201,922 2,847,180
4,301.645
982,919
8,803.178 2,614.931
24.833.362 &,14&.263
4,703,042 1,142,719
9,904.271 2,518.285
2.431.590
564,260
8.238.538 2.064.215
20.245.091 3.798.183
5,516,433
922.285
2,307,370
7i6,1 53
&,142,039
9&8,517
4,165,106 1,109,768
6.041.198 1.541.262
856.968
398.731
30.538.104 i .876.980
1,406.464
385.790
4,i41.585
1,644.&33
14,6i4,82i
3,i09.290
15.938.143 4.365.019
7.210,796 2.261.063
15.356.101 4,106.955
&.467,003 2,1&3.3&9
7,713,112 1,392,905
11,114,744 2,&67,075
999.300
358.721
12,484,803 3.411,89&
2,70i,466
1,112.029
7,323,754 1,893,029
13,804,664 3,458,835
14,719,642 4,603,019
23,235.66& 8,147.308
9,449,542 2.393,659
17,413,145 4.29&.835
10,066.457 4,155,454
11,703.903 4,004,412
12,08&,662 3,161,433
2.208.691
67&,514
14,693.627 5,678,980
4,102,549 1,147.747
8,702,791 2,894,934
3,801,998 1,754,9&&
2.023,103
&38,&36
$31,525,955
325.250,154
244.932,978
130,189,523
Income
Income
Adjusted
Total
Revenues
$17.625
$29.761,380
1993 Per
Capita
23,959
3
9
')-.;)1
--
6.995,179
22.186
38,959,240
19.335
90,563,102
21.547
171,805,534
41,004.183
16,061,576
40,750,107
22.530
21.945
14.834
71,286,770
18.931
15,184,165
17,131
29,342,458
21.458
11,493.274
30,419.438
15.899
60.870.-182
20.4(,9
.,1 ' 0-
13,540.80i
16.175
-..>
:>
8,911,377
16.813
19,311.203
15.090
13,624.6i8
14.740
17,948.9i1
2.926.095
19.787
75.430.242
15.142
° --
1-.:>:>3
4,888.004
15.416
15,141,524
16.849
43,743,113
43.312.5iO
18.297
20,029.894
18.647
16.217
42.286.891
18.:-99
16.835.526
19,699
16.399
17,406
16.285.338
24,039,850
3.473.021
37,453,327
8.543,616
13.591
17,879
15.778
59,810,736
16,915
17,127
16,841
17.602
20.985,703
16.657
45,462.966
20,424,268
39,975,105
38,991,475
10,306.393
17.153
18.596
16,979
16.633
13.566
17.679
16.761
21,547,555
15,791
12.306,451
14,759
14.573
22,273,273
29,215,447
26,629,166
6,218.245
36.389.6i5
5,456.439
Percent
1994 Final Revenue of Slate
ADM I~erADM Average
3,768 $7,898 311.0%
5,290 208.3%
314,319,722
72,643 4,327 170.4%
164.420,930
38,024 4,324 170.2%
8.312.535
2,059 4,037 158.9%
40.346.915
10,205
3,954 155.7%
104,518.648 26,862 3,891 153.2%
207.326.121
53,483 3,876 152.6"10
48.196,936
12,487 3,860 152.0%
13.271.662
3,522 3,768 148.4%
32.377.455
8,743 3,703 145.8°,:72.283.334
19.869 3,638 143.2%
13,932,509
3,887 3,584 141.1%
33.724.181
9.605 3,511 138.2%
2,8:!5 3,465 136.4%
9,787,443
26.354.280
7.893 3,339 131.5""
66.:-35.827
20.0:!:! 3.333 131.1~"
15.~51.896
4.650 .3.313 130.8""
8.025.013
2.438 3,292 129.6.,\.
15.W8.251
4,771 3,271 128.8~\
'"
10.756..709
3,405
3,159 1' 4 '"0'
19.022.832 6.039 3.150 1:!4.0~"
2.3:"3.162
810 2.930 115.3°/"
,- _
:> 80
1.835 111.6'!;
78.19i.i69
2.782 109.5.,\'
4,036,073
1,451
13.664,678
5,184 2,636 103.8°,",
42.869,188
16.270 2,635 103.7"",
~3.259.212
17.056 2.536 99.9'!;
17.398.222
6.953 2.502 98.5""
42.579.0i1
18.383 2,316 91.2'!;
1i.763.419
2.27°' 89.4""
i,825
., .,57 88.9"/,
14.304,406
6,33i
22.412,299
10.315 2.173 85.5°h
2.528.218
1,177 2.148 84.6°h
35.866.525
16,769 2.139' 84.:!~1,
24.612 428.765,763
1
1
Non-property
Tax Revenue
Total
Revenues
Less
Welfare
-.')-
Rank
Property
Tax Rate
Mandated
1
Counties
DARE
Adjusted
Tax Base
Adjusted
Property
Tax Revenue
:>
Average
Effective
81,058
~.-
-"1
1,__,
0
20
1
-
18,504,365
6.671,324
35,171,689
56.389..319
18.723.024
41.768,948
2:!,184.991
26.569,313
23,723,777
4.318.302
34.458.118
9.152.568
18.224,8:!3
9.728.490
4.:!59,062
3.425 2.108183.0°;'
8,875 2,085 82.1%
17,875 2,052 "0.8°;'
17,428 2,018',\ '79.5°h
78.4°/,
28,332 1,990
9,584 1.954 '76.9"\
21.741 1.921 75.6°h
11,593 1.914i 75.3°h
13,900 1,911 75.30;,
12.522 1,895 74.6°h
2.389 1.891, 74.5°;'
18,268 1,886; 74.3"\
4,913 1,883: 74.1~',
9,681 1,883 74.1°A
5,199 1.871 73.7°h
2,348 1,814 71.4°h
Ability:To Pay is a measure oj J county:s f)er studt,nt jisCJI caf)Jcity to sulJlJort f)ublic schOlJls. It is a combineclmeasure oj revenue that
would)lJve been generated JI the state average t.1\ rate based on 1994/95 prof)erty vJluations per student (adjusted to rejlect current
market pric'es and to account ior cliiferences in i0l1Jme levels) and the value of non-property tax revenues, such as the county's share of
10cCt.!
option sales taxes, reimbursements ior inventory tax revenues, the intangibles tax, and fines and jorieitures. Each county's mandated
welfare payments were also subtracted from the total adjusted revenues. Large, urban counties combining high adjusted property valuations
with broad-based economic Jctivity and high per capita incomes tend to rank highest in this measure.
Average
Effective
Property
Tax Rate
Adjustcd
Propert~.
Tax Revenue
Non-property
Tax Revenue
0.6027
19,848,430
11,867,863
4,043,176
MJndJled
WelfJre
Rank
Adjusted
Tax8ase
CRAVEN
52
3,293,252.094
BEAUFORT
53
2,152,498.593
0.6027
12,973,109
6,626.532
2.425,091
ALEXANDER 54
0.6027
0.6027
6.415,194
3,949,273
55
1,064,409.225
2.592.638.546
9.259,476
913,091
2.880,979
CLEVELAND
56
3,526.414.b92
0.602i
12.340,71
4,181.025
STANLY
57
2.119.i53.540
0.6027
15,625.833
.,1 '> 53 "_ 01
-,1"-, 7 I;).,;);)
6,958,029
2,002.857
'ENOIR
58
2,327,769.622
0.6027
14,029,468
8,544,226
3,799,083
McDoWELL
59
1,408.220.884
0.6027
8,487,347
5,872,672
1,578,454
PAMlICD
60
624,241.3;2
0.602i
1,398,162
668,183
JONES
61
350.530.036
0.602i
3,762,303
2.11:!.645
MARTIN
62
1,156.190.994
0.602i
6.968.363
4,154.454
JOHNSTON
63
3.030.515.235
0.602i
18.:!64.915
12.683.674
SAMPSON
64
1,812.234,652
0.6027
10.922.338
6,133,764
2,939.797
NASH
65
3,314,716.989
0.6027
19,97;,799
11..232.144
3.880,882
CHEROKEE
66
938,826.;81
0.6027
5,658.309
3,288.949
1,174,124
MONTGOMERY 67
1,086.066.~6;
0.602:-
2.653.315
1.286.428
685.2:-5.-I9j
0.60~:-
&.545.;"22
4.130) 155
Counties
CALDWELL
986.052
PJyments
631.296
1,640,407
4.665.964
1.772.864
955.675
5.743.598
1.740.116
MADISON
68
GRANVILLE
69
1,391. 156.6~2
0.602:-
CUMBERLAND
70
9,426.;26.-182
0.6027
545,01;,192
0.6027
3,284,819
1.170,753
930.222
0.602i
8.:!99.345
3.840.821
2.034,150
1.19:!.:-91
i.9;"2.6.j()
1 -61 ' 0-
487.742
269.238
6.154.150
2.482.506
CHOWAN
71
BLADEN
72
TYRRELL
73
197.90;.90~
O.bO~:-
VANCE
74
0.601:0.60~:-
1,3ii,02i.625
CAMDEN
75
1,322.810,638
259.035. i 35
EDGECOMBE
76
1,i58.;73,O-l8
0.6027
FRANKLIN
77
1,310.085,100
PASQUOTANK
78
1,113,728.288
DUPLIN
79
WAYNE
80
1.523.809.391
3.405.057.991
8.384;501
56.814:881
36,i29,558
11,098,587
Total
Revenues
less
Welfare
1993 Per
C.lpita
Income
27,673,117
17,174,550
9,451,377
22.004,329
29,413,392
17,730,926
18,774,610
12,781,565
4,492,282
2,467.401
9,482.410
26.282.625
14,116.305
27.329,061
7,773,134
7.912.609
16.979
15.166
16.771
16.674
16.514
16.152
17.333
14.740
14,905
18.838
15.763
1:-.450
19.123
18.074
12.824
15.136
4,947,344
14.58:-
1:!.387,983
82,445,852
4.525.350
10,106,017
1.411.:!95
11.644.284
1.988.339
13,125.488
10.549.198
9,i81 ,461
15.191
16.403
15.679
14.507
14.39':'
1 5,:-:!6
14.521
15.432
14.858
15.369
1:-,118
684.829
257.695
10.600.125
6.563.997
4.038.634
0.6027
7,895.883
4,758,202
2.104.88i
0.6027
6.i12.440
0.602:0.602;
9.183.999
.,0 -" " 8-
4,724,101
4.939.645
2.699.893
11.423.751
13.669.428
5;007.67i
29.184.036 15.261
2.456.16411.930
3,212.i79 14.411
3.896,162 16.287
5.362.868 14,480
10.341,230 15.352
.:J
.-;)
-.:J
;)
1.655,081
GRAHAM
81
318.135.i030.602:-
1.917.400
905,088
366.324
PERQUIMANS
82
446,126,312
0.6027
2.688.803
1,137,318
613,343
GREENE
83
462,727,216
0.6027
2.788.857
1..945,644
CASWEU
84
688,471,540
0.6027
2,355,111
1,141,661
ScOTLAND
85
1,118,63i.142
0.6017
4,149.418
6.;42.027
5.902,322
2.303.119
ANSON
86
7.84,899.832 0.602;
4.i30.591
3,232.397
1,551,354
SWAIN
87
317,462.196
0.6027
1.913.465
1,543.444
494,686
0.6027
11,936.022
2.i90.078
6,337,517
3,5iO,5i3
1,841,117
965,045
1,960,269
4,397.359
1,136,204
492,227
2,150,750
1,148.380
838.339
6,411.634
15,265
12.108
15,301
16,055
14,855
11.989
14.587
13,168
14,454
14,29i
14,525
13,246
14.169
14.024
88
1,980,425,153
89
462,929.893
0.602i
90
325,247,865
0.6027
WARREN
91
729,609.920
0.6027
HALIFAX
92
2.061,786.570
0.6027
12.426.388
93
3,341,408.365
0.602i
20.138.668
6,772,129
14.439,208
.4, 135,686
ONSLOW
94
1,328,656,152
0.6027
8.007,811
5,957,875
2,543,036
95
707,922.066
0.6027
4,266.646
2,130,476
1,545,552
96
2,053,804.548
0.6027
7,091,642
3,733,107
HERTFORD
97
679,401,668
0.6027
12,378,280
4.094.754
3,231,007
1,560.852
BERTIE
98
642,407,490
0.602i
3,871.790
1.422,862
99
2,797,554.330
0.6027
16.860,860
2.215,970
14.122,841
2.962,123
14,702,966
3,666,150
2,604,246
5.399.729
15.062,831
30,758.919
11,422,650
4,851,570
15,736,815
5,764,909
4,664.898
7.492.136
23.491,565
100
640,359,612
0.6027
3.859,447
2,238,730
1,397,578
ROBESON
All COUNTIES
3,818.957
4,700,599 11,921
Income
Adjusted
Total
Revenues
Percent
1994FinalRevenue of State
ADM
PerADM Average
14,040 1,792 70.6%
13,951,217
7,804 1,788 70.4%
8,490,040
4,812 1,764 69.5%
19,651,858
11,330 1,734 68.3%
26,016,752
15,149 1,717 !67.6%
15,339,578
8.933 l,i17
67.6%
17,430,119
10,232 1,703 67.1%
10,091,069
5,996 1,683 66.3%
3,586,367
2,133 1.681 66.2%
2.489,603
1,511 1,648 64.9%
8,005.958
4,971 1,611 63.4~o
24.565,174
15.256 1,610 63.4~\,
14.458,817
9,113 1.587 62.5~'o
26,45&,639
16,853 1.570 61.8%
5,339,190
3.419 1.562 61.5%
6.414,850
4,109 1,561 !61.5%
3..865.394
2.510 1,540 !60.6~'o
10.079,585
6.679 1,509 159.4':.
i2.43-1,885 48.304 1.500 59.0%
3,800,373
2,573 1.477 58.2%
5- 701
I. .0
7,852,59i
5,360 1.465
,-744
1.088.065
1.462 )1. 60....0
9.808.142 6,916 1,418 55.8~'o
1.5-1&,4i4
1,117 1.384 :>...5°'.0
10,849,091
7,886 1.376 54.2~.'o
8,39S,:!86
6,278 1,337 52.6%
6.059 1.329 52.3%
8,052,023
10,-17-1.117
7.910 1.324 52.1%
23.855.:!53 18,240 1,308 51.5~'o
1.569,4i2
1,217 1.290 50.8"10
2.480,052
1,930 1.285 50.6%
3.398,864
2,672 1.272 50.1%
4,159,311
3,336 1.247 49.1%
8.503.405 6.932 1.227 48.3%
5.242.292
4,316 1,215 47.8%
1.9:!1,082
1,597 1.203 47.4%
12,049,817
10,317 1.168 46.0%
3,152,654
2,712 1.162 45.8%
,
2,072,098
1,784 1,161 45.7%
3.467,453
2,992 1.159 '45.6%
11,768.694
10.447 1.127 44.4%
21,694.347
19,278 1,125 44.3%
8.843,223
7,987 1,107 43.6%
3,673 1,011 39.8%
3,715,206
973 38.3%
12,578
12,243,023
957 37.7%
4,090,090
4,272
895 35.3%
3,540,275
3,954
782 30.8%
17.045,726
22,573
558 22.0%
5,380
3,001,384
25,166,677
..
$348,458,971,551$0.602752,100,162,222 $1,018,828,220 $302,786,382 $2,816,204,059518,6iO $2,816,204,059 1,108,625 $2,540 100.0%
1993/94
County
Rank
DARE
1
DURHAM
2
ORANGE
3
CURRITUCK
4
MECKLENBURG
5
'HENDERSON
6
'\
.WAKE
foRSYTH
7
B
GUILFORD
9
CHATHAM
10
BUNCOMBE
11
TYRRELL
12
BURKE
13
CARTERET
14
PERSON
15
RUTHERFORD
16
CHOWAN
17
ALAMANCE
lB
BRUNSWICK
19
SURRY
20
GRAHAM
21
WATAUGA
22
SWAIN
23
MONTGOMERY
24
UNION
25
ANSON
26
VANa
27
CASWELL
28
CATAWBA
29
RANDOLPH
30
IREDEU
31
HYDE
32
CLEVELAND
33
GRANVILLE
34
POLK
35
CABARRUS
36
NEW HANOVER
37
TRANSYLVANIA
38
DAVIDSON
39
WARREN
40
MOORE
41
AVERY
42
JOHNSTON
43
Current
Expense
$5.234.801
41.023.167
17,258,306
3.697.473
115.631,064
8.851.220
87.228,319
57,108.833
86,000.000
5.900.896
25.169.116
580.004
8,300,000
6,282,020
4,292,229
6.466.580
1.823.226
.13.395.907
8,730.072
5.891.966
350,000
3.619.123
509.832
2.092.922
8.448,032
2,380.200
4,347.000
1.715.736
16.803.163
8.177.267
12.435.444
796.461
7.456,496
5.018.329
2,134.750
13.394.610
19.446.195
3,058.661
13,665,815
1.662,270
8.500,000
1.959.882
9,270,780
NORTHAMPTON 44
2,094,960
HAYWOOD
45
DAVIE
46
MACON
47
6.490,302
3.750.437
2.604.956
5.925.657
5.814.037
4,985,849
4,871.565
EDGECOMBE
48
BEAUFORT
49
STOKES
50
LINCOLN
51
Five-Year
Capital
Average
1993/94
Supplemental
Schoollevies
$4.854.189
$0
26,778.879
0
4,562,985
Current
Total
Spending
1994 Final
ADM
Spending
$10,088,990
67,802,046
3,768
51,389
26,862
1,527
Per ADM
Capital
Spending
PerADM
Tatal Current
$1,288
997
$1,389
Spending
PerADM
1,527
12,487
2,825
483
1,748
0
27,849,089
5,874.262
1,382
2.176.789
1.309
771
48,660.901
o
164.291.965
81,058
1.427
600
1,309
1.427
6,027,798
9,439.301
°
°
°
°
4.424.263
o
14,474.550
3,96;,729
10,851.306
49,633,865
13,867,214
580.186
°
19,702,526
10,205
867
136,862.184
72,643
70,976,047
38,024
95.439,301
0.325,159
43.611.395
53,483
1.201
1.502
1.608
9i7
6,039
867
Total
Spendir
PerAD
$2,67
2.52.
2.231
2.07'
2.02~
1.93
1,063
683
1,201
1,88-
365
1,502
1,86:
176
1,608
977
1.781.71(
733
27,580
744
913
1.056
1.58"
1.160.190
780
780
780
~'
:J-
5
0
19,455,652
12,522
663
891
663
1.55~
1,55~
5,223,051
0
11,505,071
7,893
796
662
796
1,451
3,116.666
0
1.42~
668
601
-'1-5
828
0
5,184
9.681
828
7.018.445
7,408,895
13.485.025
668
1.39::
709
675
i09
1,38':
17.056
;'85
513
867
1.38C
12.020.970
8,743
999
376
999
14,140.336
10.315
571
698
288
1,375
1,371
1.366
1.341
1.336
11,155,652
1.736.816
8.74;".747
3.290.898
0
1.385.689
0
23.529.343
.,_,:II-- 3
1,312.985
0
1,662,985
1,217
2.;"80.324
o
4.771
--9
..:1
1,079
583
1.623.302
0
6,399,447
2,133,134
6i3
288
;;> q
1.59i
319
1,016
319
3.378.304
0
5,471,226
4.109
509
822
509
1.332
22.012,985
504
637
675
1.313
7.197.370
1,051,000
3.560.042
2.878,562
--
3.274.975
o
5,655,175
16,769
4,316
551
i59
551
1.310
4.559.064
0
8,906.064
6,916
629
659
629
4.189.322
3.336
20.0~2
514
741
514
839
388
839
17,875
45;'
636
588
19,653.553
978,023
16,270
810
764
409
799
983
224
983
18,200,281
15,149
6.679
-::1 1
552
649
1.288
1.256
1.228
1.224
1,208
1.207
1,201
4-12
751
1.194
2,059
1.037
136
451
1.046
~"
1-9
1,182
1,179
1,174
, 1,159
10.686.391
2.473,586
---,
I., "',- ., 06
11.365,572
6,653.346
181.562
8,364,530
2,954.024
279,704
°
o
2.331.505
564,763
0
2.379,255
0
18.364
14,5;7.369
11.874.344
7.972.353
1.432.818
492
8.286.853
0
11.681.463
18,383
729
3.872.818
0
979
195
979
0
23,319,013
4,503,364
19,869
1.444.703
3,887
787
372
787
21,741
629
415
733
2.992
556
567
556
1,123
9,605
885
225
885
1.110
2.438
804
301
804
608
495
608
1,105
1,103
1,066
1,048
1.037
1,031
1,021
1,012
1,007
1,005
2,268,148
1.697.039
0
24,958,329
3.359.309
2.164.410
o
10.664.410
9,024.366
734.338
°
7.553,058
0
16,823,838
15,256
1.821.372
0
570
496
570
0
3,916,332
7.288,016
3,673
797,714
6,953
933
115
933
1.070.624
0
4.821.061
4.650
230
1.02;".2611
()
3.632.224
3,52~
7.81\(,
807
740
292
807
740
889
1.039.481
1.085.435
1.694.220
751
132
745
267
745
6.381,274
7,804
6,337
787
220
787
8,916,705
8,875
549
456
549
8.050.5i3
2.085.049
o
7,899,086
1.395.425
0
4,045,140
0
, 1,148
.Actual 'Effort is a summary oj d.1tJ ior the 100 collnties in North Carolina. It in<ludes counlY spencJing ior 1993/94 current expenses
(inciudiRg supplemental schooileviesl and a five-year average of capital outlay, net change in capital reserves, and interest on debt. This
n:'easure retlects the actual dollJr efion oi communities to fund schools without taking into account property wealth. High- wealth
communities with correspondingly high levels oj spending tend to rank highest in this measure.
Five-YeJr
Rank
1993/94
Current
Expense
ScOTlAND
52
5,907,760
PENDER
53
3,744,914
SAMPSON
54
55
4,538,804
PASQUOTANK
3.415.4'70
1,047,895
1,446,459
3.941,749
2.583.404
WILSON
56
9,306.482
2.149.4iO
0
GATES
1,352.853
0
ALLEGHANY
59
1,048,824
402,340
1,432,507
333,344
0
~HE
57
58
LEE
60
1,i71,859
0
FRANKLIN
61
5,679,295
3.511.145
0
MARTIN
62
3.908.486
WASHINGTON
63
1.225.000
JACKSON
64
2.328.687
McDoWELL
65
Pm
66
3,55i,410
12,974.875
GASTON
67
NASH
68
21.171.145
11.375.000
2.~55,876
810.231
1.333.631
856,389
2.038,837
4.057,893
3.094.678
WILKES
69
5,767.626
:.502,Oi5
0
CUMBERLAND
70
30,400.439
11,042,i49
0
WAYNE
10.088,165
CALDWELL
71
72
i'3
74
75
76
ROWAN
77
12.486.998
CRAVEN
CLAY
78
79
8,280.000
478.919
STANLY
80
:J.0_:J.:J:J..
ROCKINGHAM
8,7i6.427
PERQUIMANS
81
82
83
84
85
YANCEY
86
1,375.000
HERTFORD
87
2,417,988
DUPLIN
3,457,000
GREENE
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
MADISON
96
ROBESON
97
HOKE
98
1.753.257
HARNm
99
4,927,697
100
1,488,000
County
CAMDEN
PAMlICO
Y ADKIN
LENOIR
BLADEN
HALIFAX
ONSLOW
COLUMBUS
MITCHEU
CHEROKEE
RICHMOND
ALEXANDER
JONES
BERTIE
All COUNTIES
1,880,000
760,000
1.054.800
2.862.800
i.077.310
i .442.323
_
'---'
3,614,102
4,506,184
8,564,609
1,029.730
4,831,052
1,170,313
,.
1,596.623
4,062.500
2,086.804
616,964
1,374,896
1,025,000
9.943,570
$949,914,730
CapitJI
Average
, 9 ") 88
j.
-.jj
--
1993/94
Supplemental
Schoollevies
0
0
585,062
0
0
0
0
0
Current
Total
Spemiing
6,9:;5.655
5,191.373
9,065.615
5,998.874
11,455.952
1,755.193
3,312,507
1,382.168
7,451,154
5,967.021
4,718.717
2.558.631
0
3,185.076
5,596.247
17,032.768
26.:!65823
15,303.855
8.:!69.701
41,443,188
15.409.580
935.:!33
1.765.416
3.98:!.300
8.:!89.710
9,060,794
13,898.:!97
11,158,789
0
934.99i
0
0
0
0
5.321,415
175.233
710.61b
;.119.500
; .212.400
0
1.618,471
1,411,299
2.878,789
456.078
; .515,571
2.120.469
573,336
1.884,315
6.289,381
448,265
446.623
:-38.116
2.366,537
2.647,207
444,616
747,964
1.013,919
931,479
325,030
279,737
485,551
2.~19,126
1.183,799
1.828,419
591,650
0
0
0
0
0
0
466.054
7.007.179
0
10,896.896
0
4,18i,438
1.689,372
0
0
0
8,079,871
14.853.990
1,4ii .995
1,821,623
1994 Final
ADM
6,932
5,199
9,113
6.059
11,593
1,784
3,425
1,451
7,825
6.278
4,971..
2,712
3,405
5,996
18,268
28.332
16.853
9,584
48,304
18,240
1,117
2.133
4,913
10.232
11,330
17,428
14,040
1,1ii
8,933
13,900
5,360
10,447
19,278
1,930
2.389
0
3,156.104
4,272
0
5,823,53i
7,910
0
7,478.259
1,614,929
2,344.587
5,076.419
3,018.:!83
941,994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.82.046
0
S~~8.392,570 $25,315,969
1,654.633
1,510,551
12,362.696
2,937.056
6,838.162
2,079,650
$1,423,623.269
10,317
2,348
3.419
7,987
4,812
1,511
2,672
2,510
22,573
5,:180
12.578
3,954
1,108,625
Spending
Per ADM
852
720
498
564
803
758
549
723
726
559
786
452
684
593
Capital
Spending
Per ADM
Total Current
Spending
PerADM
Total
Spending
PerADM
151
852
278
720
1,003
999
433
562
995
426
564
990
185
803
988
226
758
984
418
549
967
230
723
953
226
726
952
391
559
950
163
786
949
492
452
943
252
684
935
340
593
933
710
222
i47
675
602
629
553
680
495
583
692
657
716
590
407
563
631
674
431
444
534
576
566
437
468
498
46i
509
434
408
515
408
441
326
392
376
180
710
747
932
927
233
6i5
908
261
602
863
229
629
858
292
553
845
157
333
680
495
837
828
228
583
811
118
692
810
143
657
800
81
716
797
205
795
387
590
407
170
615
784
153
631
784
107
6i4
781
$857
794
180
593
773
326
444
771
232
534
766
187
5i6
763
173
566
739
299
437
736
257
468
189
219
498
467
127
509
636
194
434
215
408
627
623
105
515
619
193
408
602
107
441
548
220
326
145
398
546
544
150
376
526
$404
$880
\
,
~25
'
688
686
$1,284
TABLE 30
CURRENT EXPENSE EXPENDITURES BY PURPOSE CODES, 1993-94
PURPOSE
OBJECT DESCRIPTIONS
5100
REGULAR
INSTRUCTIONAL
STATE
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
1,701,480,202
7,160,114
64,645,826
21,315,033
450,436
1,795,051,611
SOO INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
.
5200
"
.
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
SPECIAL
INSTRUCTIONAL
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
256,
13,
8,
5,
345,
488,
604,
903,
38,
284, 379,
SOO INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
5300
ADULT
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
EDUCATION
11,689,976
1,903,096
7,548,942
4,996,686
3,245
26,141,945
INSTRUCTIONAL
425
01.6
696
232
238
607
121.
7,
13,
4,
880
544
814,
075
480
876
077,131
211 869
147, 526 433
SJI.I.J\RIES
300
PURCHASED
400
500
600
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
CO-~CULAR
5610
INSTRUCTIONAL
100
SALARIES
300
PURCHASED SERVICES
400
500
600
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
5910
MATH/SCIENCE
1,000
SUBTOTAL
300
400
PURC"tiASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATER!ALS
500
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
600
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
OTHER INSTR.
PROGRAMS
-EMPLOYEE
OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL
100
6110
OFFICERS
-ADDITIONAL
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
OF PUPIL SUPPORT
100
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
500
600
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
ATTENDANCE
-SOCIAL
26,475,369
2,957,481
:,976,155
375,431
229,632
32,014,068
404 701, 274
23 990, 373
928
24, 394,,353.
10
794
479, 739
463 920, 108
21 981
11 300
12 062
12 894
186 325
12 ,894
186 325
244
244,
562
12.
062
562
1C.561.128
:.366.756
:.218.758
';78.523
518.896
1~.~44,O61
10.579.427
1.376.046
1.219,732
~78,523
818.890
14.~72.62~
3,052,087
265,514
:91,177
34,868
32,966
3,845
550
263,406
3,364,753
168,787
43,072
3,845
550
3,581,007
493,797,777
493,797,777
32,854,490
32,854,490
62,:74,539
62,:74,539
588,826,806
588,826,806
36,788,473
36,788.473
5,685,385
5,685,385
41,668,829
41,668.829
84,142,687
84,142,687
PAY
575,392
575,392
571.771
571.771
SERVICES
285,015
6,106
36,174
467
68,635
360.356
36,641
926,
154,
193,
14,
1,
1,290,
306
857
070
1,247
162
193
83
726
728
495
030
070
404
1 726
1,687 725
898
494
23 ,417
5 712
c
988
3,37~ 509
12,490.320
436.632
98,643
20,392
8,804
13,O!O4,791
769
WORK SERVICES
100
SALARIES
300
PURCHASED SERVICES
400
500
600
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
58
121,489
133,919
10,106
2,379
2,379
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
6120
21,563
3,052,087
SALARIES
DIRECTION
017
632
077
128
PROGRAMS -LONGEVITY
SALARIES
RECRUITING
848
554
BENEFITS
EMPLOYEEBENEFITS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
5921
1,879, 765,
20 246,
114 545,
36 348,
1 835,
2,052 741,
COMPUTER PROGRAMS
SALARIES
100
18.299
2,290
974
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
5920
670
344
249
913
396
572
PROGRAMS
7,000
100
200
...
PROG~
SERVICES
PURPOSE
166, 595,
--, 183,
..2, 350,
~O, 036,
1, 381,
231, 547,
21 981
11 300
100
PURPOSE Su"BTOTAL
5400
TOTAL
PROG~
100
600
LOCAL
PROG~
100
600
FEDERAL
7,724,258
83,707
28,938
7,652
1,673. 164
106, 431
46 288
7,844,555
1,835
7 ,028
2, 816
727
3,092
246,
CURRENT
PURPOSE
OBJECT
6130
16140
I
6150
TABLE 30 (Continued)
EXPENDITURES
BY PURPOSE
EXPENSE
DESCRIPTIONS
GUIDANCE
STATE
SALARIES
300
PURCHASED SERVICES
400
500
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
600
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE S1J"?TOTAL
71,583,849
108,875
12,577
734
6,323
71,712,358
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
500
INSTRUCTIONAL EC'J!P.
600
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SL-:=':":)TAL1
PSYCHOLOGICAL
5,656,330
2,240,365
157,787
18,363
89
8,072,934
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERV:=~S
SUPPLIES
& MA7~?:ALS
600
OTHER OBJEC'!S
SPEECH,
PATHOLOGY AND AUDIOLOGY
100
SALARIES
300
400
PURCrtASED SERV:=ES
SUPPLIES
& MA7E~.:ALS
XNDUSTRY EDUCATION.
100
300
400
500
600
6180
:.~I:E-
6190
3 ,680
156
2,3J.2 100
8.559
102
414
33 633
35 811
,782
9.547
82,309,649
498,800
683,454
38,047
42,290
83,572,240
1,930,200
1,284,146
445,497
12,730
23,474
3,696,047
8,660,962
4,295,90e
616,553
31,093
23,603
13,628,117
17,045,701
3,047,770
293
625 822
SEX
POPULATIONS
SALARIES
PURCHASEDSERVI=ES
400
SUPPLIES
500
INSTRUCTIONAL E:~IP.
600
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SL=~OTAL
EQtr:rTY
SUPPOR~
:36
300
400
PURCHASED SERVI:::::S
SUPPLIES
& MA~ERrALS
500
INSTRUCTIONAL ECuIP.
600
OTHER OBJECTS
OF INSTRUCTIONAL
100
SALARIES
300
PURCHASED SERV:::ES
400
500
600
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL EC~IP.
O~HER OBJECTS
MEDIA
2.594 809
14,483,609
2,239,;74
3.544
13,358,612
4,875.401
1,610,..78
50,332
6.536,7:1
848,046
350,403
11,405
1,209,85';
778
258
168 140
3 165
372
171,319
3,165
20,267,955
19,082,059
6,149,144
62,237
25,293,440
6,275,973
16,613
14,975
9,792
6,317,353
901, 994
66 ::'0
167 2:'7
12 ,~67
2 791
1,149 979
238,788
42,16';
11,132
7,508
299,592
7,416,
124,
193,
29,
2,
7,766,
655
787
324
367
791
924
3,049,564
3,637
4,026
1,907,
35,
148,
21,
2.112,
3,057,227
080
175
180
178,648
48,681
29,279
5,135
87
181
21
467
819
721
256,608
292
493
485
467
819
5,426 ,556
SERVICES
SALARIES
EDtJCA~IONAL
40
1,859
COORDINATION
& MATE~.:ALS
100
IMPROVEMENT
13 ,269
COORDXNATION
100
300
OTHER PUPIL
432
771 395
1,775,259
462,7:6
2,~S9
17,546,875
SALARIES
PURCrtASEDSERV:=ES
SUPPLIES & MA7E~:ALS
INSTRUC7IONAL E:~IP.
OTHER OBJEC7S
PURPOSE S~=7~7AL
SPECIAL
1,074
12,675,733
1,806,796
1,080
4,188,263
PURPOSE St."E":'O~AL
,~~O
2,166 698,5:1
96
45 ,055
SERVICES
6,528,
3,535,
628,
164,
21,
10,878,
PURPOSE St."E70~AL
6210
TOTAL
SERVICES
100
PURPOSE S~=7:TAL
6170
LOCAL
SERVICES
100
PURPOSE SL-:=':":;TAL
6160
1993-94
SERVICES
100
HEALTH
FEDERAL
CODES,
745
597
555
547
405
849
7,612,
2,135,
1,165,
64,
38,
11,016,
760
340
525
011
703
439
16, 601
6 780
2,459
"-.109
487
36
218
';,311
500
683
343
217
553
,296
1~,622
7,959
1,371
476
299
29,729
946
671
894
142
49,
21,
1,
1,
03~
6~2
74.
005
620
2 281 523
264 ,775,661
278
26
,206 ,584
SERVICES
24.561,812
8,599,801
329,428
490,635
500
33,988,116
5,192,
4,988,
228,
128,
10,
10,549.
211
907
978
992
843
931
382 969
548 ,379
930 300
095 769
310 382
267 799
SERVICES
100
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERV!::ES
SUPPLIES
& MA~ERIALS
500
INSTRUCTIONAL EC~IP.
600
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSES~":ETOTAL
63,431,
15,
1,356,
2,939,
690
167
900
219,287
4,476
1,721,568
249,674
67,743,
709
2.195.005
952
14,012,345
662,325
4,142,267
250,226
10,625
19,077,788
77,663,322
681,968
7,220,787
3,439,800
10,625
89,016,502
TABLE 30 (Continued)
CURRENT EXPENSE EXPENDITURES BY PURPOSE CODES, 1993-94
OBJECT DESCRIPTIONS
6230
NATIONAL
400
DIFFUSION
6310
"
6320
CtJRRJ:CULtn( DEVELOPMENT
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
500
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
567
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
500
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
600
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
=CUT:rVE
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
500
600
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
892
19 967
590, 215
177 661
36, 418
146, 302
38
398
755, 842
38 602
147 194
58, 098
512
15,809
5,377
42,476
15,809
14,150
62,003
17,608,960
26,034
4,250
17,639.244
SUBTC':'AL
SALARIES
PURCHASEDSERVICES
SUPPLIES & MATERr~S
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
SUPPORT
100
SALARIES
300
PURCHASED
400
500
600
SUPPLIES & ~ATERI~S
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
OFFICE
14,955,085
60,892
38,223
26,012
6.297
14,986,509
St."BTO7AL
OTHER ADMI~STRATrvE
11,009
999
736
773,786
9,544,526
2~2,681
20,815
3,740,888
14,322,696
163
811
681
815
038
508
779,
9,602
2~2.
20,
3,755.
14,400
895 551
42, 049
33, 397
9 405
2 308
982, 710
9,6';2
6,686,
1,775
96
1.35';,
5
_'0
--.~C
051
84.
617
723
827
066
28,146
6,754
1,8:'3
106
1,357
38,178
.562
.~31
.264
.:28
"' 5
.-'.::20
6,849
492
282
206
11
7,841
:'lO
l71
331
.,.,--~
778
6l5
65,927
53,792
7,021
126,740
SUBTO7AL
28,821
2,~21
9C1"
253
--.,
::.)-
32,93C
265
4..3
c54
793
673
628
55,986
15,240
25,161
96,387
78~, 644
:.003,
590
132 :24
3 ,~54
378, 330
2.306 932
91:,
1.072.
139,
3,
403,
2,530.
557
612
245
154
491
059
OF THE PRINCIPAL
202. 178. 123
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
500
600
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
DIRECTION
51 645
12, 079
133, 988
OF BUSINESS
SUPPORT
SALARIES
300
400
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
171. 510
12, 435
17.
202 375, 915
347
8, 679
80
SUBTOTAL
100
210.
669
640
PURCHASED SERVICES
6.351,
3.000
604
776
149 175
721 352
6"-.517 2:2
1,394.839
309,099
117,479
5,8C1
1.227.290
3,054,498
462,945
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
FACILITIES
ACQUISITION
100 SALARIES
="-.294, :25
253,643,858
6,415,744
3,030,202
291,842
722,131
264,103,777
SERVICES
FISCAL SERVICES
100 SALARIES
300 PURCHASEDSERVICES
400 SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
500
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
600 OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
300
7,117,070
:,86e,380
58:,100
21,556
514,598
~C,102,704
SERVICES
SERVr=ES
100
600
60
85
131
SOO INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
6530
10,924
GENERAL ADKtN1:STRATXON
PURPOSE
6520
363
363
ADHJ:N:ISTRATION
100
PURPOSE
6510
257
2, 099
SUBTOTAL
100
PURPOSE
6410
363
363
BOARD OF EDUCATION
100
300
400
500
600
6390
TOTAL
(VOCATS)
SALARIES
PURPOSE
6330
LOCAL
SUBTOTAL
100
PURPOSE
,
FEDERAL
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
PURPOSE
6250
STATE
NETWORX -SUPERVISOR
462.945
10.399,407
29,274
47.322
4.985
5.103
63
10,428,681
57,473
12.481.
2.748,
l.627
189.
1.218,
19.266
71c
.}7';
5"!'
55:
67~
0;)9
1,857,
309
784
089
479
117
5. 801
1,227 290
3,517 443
23,928,
2,182.
1,632
189
1,:!18,
29,152
445
733
68~
58:
7-11
183
AND CONSTRUCTION
30,343
l,716,S9";
821.SSr
1,716,597
S$1,99:1
TABLE
30
(Continued)
~RENT EXPENSE EXPENDITURES
BY PURPOSE CODES, 1993-94
.
TABLE
30
(Continued)
CURRENT EXPENSE EXPENDITURES
BY PURPOSE CODES,
1993-94
PURPOSE
600
6630
6640
PLANNING.
238
],26,344
SUBTOTAL
RESEARCH.
DEV.
AND EVAL.
100
SALARIES
300
400
500
600
PURCHASED SERVICES
SUPPLIES
& MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL
EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
25,329
394,947
153,102
229,236
339,465
81,796
140,993
802,614
562.254
19,120
1,122
3,004
54,248
13,334
23,246
67,582
SALARIES
300
PURCHASED SERVICES
1.840.390
171,452
PURPOSE
300
PURCHhSED
400
SUPP~IES & MATERIALS
300
PURCHASED
400
500
600
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
INSTRU:TIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
72
OTHER CENTRAL
SUPPORT
300
PURCHASED
400
500
600
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
OTHER OBJECTS
OTHER SUPPORTING
SERVICES
-EMPLOYEE
2,204
566
OTHER SUPPORTING
SERVICES
SUBTOTAL
OFFICERS
:.:;2C ,979
:3: ,636
4 ,511
11.28, ,355
3,720
33.379
148.295
3,972,206
6,178,070
1,020.979
135,636
4,511
11,311,402
-ADDITIONAL
806
80,559
845
787
865
6 957
307 594
048
1.319
540,
149
313
651, 137
196, 206
327
58
349
1,583
179
835
706
063
8,826,911
8,826,911
71.139,473
71,139,473
214,387,302
214,387,302
15,789,724
15,789,724
1,751.289
1.751,289
13,758,601
13,758,601
31,299,614
31,299,614
PAY
2,788
2,788
SUBTOTAL
3,387,456
3,387,456
COMMUNITYSERVICES
SUBTOTAL
NON-PROGRAMMED CHANGES
75,380
4,373
134,420,918
134,420,918
SALARIES
GRAND TOTAL
3.147
., 0-- ,262
-.-~"
;: ' 6 c ,967
111,196
-LONGEVITY
SALARIES
RECRUITrNG
3,147
8,157,586
1,806,712
224,365
80,097
123,495
10,392,255
BENEFITS
EMPLOYEEBENEFITS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
AND/OR
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
62
34 912
42 046
12 50B
51 B7B
42 112
183 456
SUBTOTAL
PURPOSE
8100
24,900
SERVICES
PURPOSE
7100
452
372
993
16 668
7 081
361,
465,
SERVICES
SALARIES
100
19,944
4,956
SUBTOTAL
PURPOSE
6921
:11,196
3,720
33.379
148,295
SERVICES
100
100
1,353,
224.365
80,097
:23,495
6,380,341
SUBTOTAL
PURPOSE
6920
1,334,332
306,002
449,655
16,668
7,081
2,113,738
:.635,188
SERVICES
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
100 SALARIES
200
2,423,248
807,878
1,029,446
315,579
19,506
4,595,657
6,317,196
STATISTICAL SERVICES
100 SALARIES
PURPOSE
6910
2,011,842
SUBTOTAL
PURPOSE
6690
2,058,454
331,135
735,351
86,343
19,506
3.230,789
72
SOO INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
600 OTHER OBJECTS
6660
238
126,344
SERVICES
100
400 SUPPLIES * MATERIALS
6650
TOTAL
SERVICES
INFORMATION SERVICES
100 SALARIES
300 PURCHASEDSERVICES
400 SUPPLIES'
MATERIALS
500
INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIP.
600 OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE SUBTOTAL
STAFF
LOCAL
FEDERAL
OTHER OBJECTS
PURPOSE
6620
STATE
DESCRIPTIONS
OBJECT
TRANSFER
73,766
73,766
$3,517,076,477
117.505
117.505
5,516.461
5,516.461
$448,674,871
96,033
96,033
98,821
98,821
26,762,210
26,762,210
30,267,171
30,267,171
6.471.987
6.471.987
12,062,214
12,062,214
$1,262,824,569
$S,~28,575,917