School Feasibility Study

8/13/2019 School Feasibility Study

1/67

Greenville City SchoolSystem

Feasibility Report

Prepared by:

and

Jolly Educational Consulting


2/67

2

SECTIONS

SECTION I: Butler County School System Analysis Student Achievement Curriculum Supports for Teachers and Staff Parent and Community Support Summary

SECTION II: Legal Rights and ResponsibilitiesA. Laws Governing Public Education in AlabamaB. Municipal or City Public School Systems in Alabama

SECTION III: State Funding of Public Schools in AlabamaA. The 1995 Foundation Program AllocationsB. State Categorical Aid Programs

C. Line Item Appropriations for Local Boards of Education

SECTION IV: Butler County Taxes for Public SchoolsA. General Laws For Countywide Taxes for SchoolsB. Ad Valorem Taxes for Butler County SchoolsC. Ad Valorem Breakout for Butler County

SECTION V: Demographic ProfileCity of Greenville and Butler County Demographic Profile 2010 Census Demographic Profile Comparison State, County, City of Greenville 2010 Census Economic Profile - City of Greenville

SECTION VI: Financing the Proposed Greenville School System Income Spread Sheet Expense Spread Sheet

o Schools Comprising City Systemo Central Office

Start-up Spread Sheet for Greenville City School System

SECTION VII: Facility Evaluation

SECTION VIII: Next Steps

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


3/67

3

SECTION I: CurrentAnalysis of Schools ComprisingProposed Greenville City School System

Goal: The educational goal for the proposed Greenville City School System (GCSS) is

to provide students and the community with a high performing school system thatprepares students for a 21stCentury workforce. The focus is to graduate students who

are college ready and career-ready, and who are successful and productive citizens.

Background:In determining whether a new GCSScould create a high performingschool system, we began by looking at current student performance, curricula, and

conditions in the four schools that would comprise the new system. Also noted are

areas in which the current status of those schools could not be determined with

certainty. Recommendations for those areas are based on the information available.

1. Education Analysis:Should Greenville form a city school system, the system will

inherit the educational conditions and culture forming the existing schools. From an

educational feasibility standpoint, the key question is this: Could a new GCSS create

more challenging, supportive schools that would empower students to learn and

perform at higher levels and prepare them with 21st century skills? To provide

information for that question four areas have been addressed: current student

achievement, current curriculum, supports for teachers and staff, and parent and

community support and involvement.

2. Student AchievementAn analysis of student achievement from the web page of the Alabama State

Department of Education (http://www.alsde.edu/Accountability/Accountability.asp)

provides the following information about student achievement at Greenville

Elementary, Middle, and High Schools.

a. Greenville Elementary School (including W.O Parmer) and Greenville Middle

School made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the 2010-2011 school year.

Greenville High School did not make AYP and is currently in Year 3 of School

Improvement. (Note that failing to make AYP does not indicate that all groups

of students failed to progress adequately, but that some categories of

students, such as special education students or students in poverty, failed tomake adequate progress.)

b. On the 2010-2011Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-10) students in Greenville

Elementary School scored approximately 10% below the state average in

both reading and math. Middle school students scored below the state

average by 10% in reading and 8% in math. Students in poverty and minority
http://www.alsde.edu/Accountability/Accountability.asphttp://www.alsde.edu/Accountability/Accountability.asp


4/67

4

students were uniformly underachieving both in Greenville schools and

statewide.

c. On the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT), approximately 75 of

students in Greenville Elementary and Greenville Middle School scored in the

top two levels, indicating that they were performing as expected or higher

than expected on this standards-based test. High School students are not

tested on the ARMT. (Note that the SAT compares individual students with

other students in the same age group across a nationwide population. The

ARMT does not compare students to one another; rather, it measures a

students academic mastery of a particular set of standards in reading and

math.)

d. During the 2010-2011 school year, 66% of GHS 11thgraders taking the 2011

Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) passed the language arts

and reading portions. This was 14% lower than the state average in those

subject areas. In math, 78% of students passed, as compared to a stateaverage of 85%. Both GHS juniors and seniors scored below the state

average in every subject area on the AHSGE, including social studies and

biology.

e. The state of Alabama is changing the way it calculates graduation rates, and

the new data on high school graduation rates are scheduled to be posted at

the conclusion of the 2012 school year. According to the previously calculated

rates, GHS has an 86% graduation rate - approximately equal to the state

average of 87%.

Note that all measures of student achievement cited in this report involve the use ofstate-mandated pencil and paper tests (generally multiple choice). This singleapproach to testing student achievement does not tell the whole story of studentperformance in the Greenville schools, nor does it reflect the potential of students inthese schools. Note that Greenville students perform somewhat better than theircounterparts in several other Alabama school systems with similar demographics.Given the right supports and conditions, students in Greenville schools can performat significantly higher levels and be increasingly prepared to succeed in college andthe workforce.The ability to provide the types of support, conditions, and strategies needed

to help students reach their potential and experience academic and workforce

success would make the creation of a city school system academicallyfeasible. Fortunately, principles and practices from research with high poverty

schools that have become high-performing schools provide a road map for bringing

about needed changes. A report from the Center for Public Education

http://tiny.cc/xqxrd provides one of many examples of this, as does Reeves article,

High Performance in High Poverty Schools: 90/90/90 and Beyond
http://tiny.cc/xqxrdhttp://tiny.cc/xqxrd


5/67

5

(http://tiny.cc/3fsz7). The Gates Foundation provides an extensive review of best

practices involved in creating high performing school systems athttp://tiny.cc/0hiay.

3. Curriculum

The curriculum for the existing Greenville schools was assembled by exploring theButler County School website, Greenville school sites, and a master schedule from

the high school. The curriculum seems both traditional and adequate with regard to

the elementary and middle schools. The high school curriculum has an impressive

selection of advanced level offerings and contains a wide variety of coursework,

including college and career preparation, and distance learning courses. One

component that seems to be absent from the school curriculum is coursework

focusing on use of digital tools and technology software applications. For example,

elementary and middle school software applications might include word processing,

spreadsheet and data management, and presentation software. Digital tools might

include learning the proper use of a variety of Web 2.0 tools and Internet research

skills. High schools might focus on additional applications such as computer-aided

design, photo editing, web site design, and desktop publishing. Other appropriate

curricular offerings might emerge as the proposed GCSS seeks information and

partnerships with local corporations and businesses and partners with Lurleen B.

Wallace.

A review of the 2011 graduates from Greenville High School indicates that none

graduated with a Career Tech Advanced Diploma. This may indicate that advanced

classes in this area are not available.

The GHS web page indicates that high school students and teachers can access anumber of online sites for learning, research, and communication. Additionally,although not listed, the Butler County Schools participate in the Alabama A+ CollegeReady program. This program focuses on increasing the number of students taking

Advanced Placement coursework.

A solid curriculum, such as that which exists in the Greenville elementary,middle, and high schools,increases the educational feasibility of creating asuccessful city school system.A summary of courses derived from the master

schedule for the GHS is attached (Section I - Attachment 1)

Greenville is home to a major corporation and a number of businesses. To informcurrent school curricula, Tony Wagner (Innovation Education Fellow at theTechnology & Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard) has researched the abilitiesstudents need to be successful in the 21stcentury workplace and pinpointed thesespecific skills:

a. Teamwork and collaboration
http://tiny.cc/3fsz7http://tiny.cc/0hiayhttp://tiny.cc/0hiayhttp://tiny.cc/3fsz7


6/67

6

b. Critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to ask the right questions.

c. Effective oral and written communication

d. Accessing and analyzing information

e. Curiosity and imagination

To develop successful students, GCSS would need to focus on a curriculum thatemphasizes these skills and to equip teachers with the necessary knowledge andtools to assist students in acquiring them.

4. Supports for teachers and staff

Providing enabling support structures, conditions, beliefs, and strategies is the most

critical factor in creating high performing systems, and often the least attended. Note

that the CPM team had no opportunity to observe the types of supports in place in

the schools. The fact that the following supports are recommended is not meant to

suggest that they are not already in place and operating effectively in the schools.

To successfully accomplish its educational goal, a new GCSS would need to

develop policies and supports such as these:

1. A clear, common vision and purpose developed with input from the

Greenville community, teachers, and other stakeholders.

2. A culture of high expectations and caring for students; a system in which

adults and students believe that everyone can succeed.

3. Facilitative principals who are strong and knowledgeable instructional

leaders.

4. Effective instruction delivered by committed, knowledgeable, and capable

teachers.

5. Opportunities for teachers to engage in collaborative, ongoing

professional learning that is team-based, occurs onsite during the school

day, and focuses on continually studying and improving instruction.

6. Access to consultants and coaches when needed.7. School operations and procedures that protect teachers from non-

instructional duties and provide more time for doing the work of teaching

and learning.8. A safe and disciplined environment.

9. A rigorous curriculum focused on high academic achievement thatprepares students for college and the work force.

Support structures also include adequate classrooms furnished with needed

equipment. For example, the middle school should have two separate science

laboratories, set up and equipped with a full complement of up-to-date science

equipment. Laptop computers, or other computing devices, and high-speed


7/67

7

Internet access should be available to all students during class time in each

subject area. (Many schools accomplish this through rolling carts designed for

this purpose.)

A number of school configurations are correlated with student success. One such

configuration involves creating a Freshman Academy at the 9thGrade level.

On December 11, a report came out in the Birmingham News titled Freshman

Academy reaps rewards at Minor High,http://tinyurl.com/7j98gxl.Benefits that

the article identified included a 40% reduction in disciplinary problems, fewer

student failures, and increased academic achievement. The Alabama State

Department of Education states that these academies can be invaluable, but

cautions that they must be done right in order to be successful.

A similar model, based on a Small Learning Communities approach, has also

proved successful for many high schools and middle schools. This type ofinnovative organizational approach might be considered as a way of increasing

student learning and performance. Note that providing ongoing teacher learning

and support is necessary for this type of change to be effective.

The educational feasibility of Greenville forming a high-performing school

system will depend on having a superintendent and central office staff with

the knowledge and the skill set to establish vital and innovative support

structures and build a culture of confidence and high expectations

throughout the schools and community.

5. Parent and Community support for and involvement in the schools

Active and ongoing parent and community support is integral to the success of a

school system. In a newly-formed GCSS, parents and community would have new

opportunities to be involved in ensuring that their students are prepared to

successfully enter college or embark on a successful career upon graduation from

high school. A community foundation or education commission developed and led by

knowledgeable, committed community members has been an effective way of doing

this in Alabama. The Mobile Area Education Foundation has experience with helping

communities develop collective ownership in their schools. This group is workingcurrently in nearby Monroe County, and CPM has ascertained that they are willing to

work with the Greenville area to lead this process.

Forming a new city school system will be increasingly feasible if Greenville

takes intentional steps to involve parents and the community in decision-
http://tinyurl.com/7j98gxlhttp://tinyurl.com/7j98gxlhttp://tinyurl.com/7j98gxl


8/67

8

making about the schools, and to establish a structure through which that can

happen.

Summary

To summarize, it seems educationally feasible for the City of Greenville to form itsown school system, given these stipulations:

The ability to provide the support, conditions, organization, and

strategies needed to help students reach their potential and experience

academic and workforce success

Rigorous curriculum and teaching which provides knowledge, cutting-

edge skills, and specific abilities to help students to be successful in

college and careers

Ongoing involvement of parents and the community in decision makingabout the schools, and the establishment of a structure through which

that can happen

Leadership with the knowledge and the skill sets to set clear directions,establish vital support structures, inspire confidence, and build a

culture of high expectations throughout the schools and community


9/67

9

Section I - Attachment 1Greenville High School Curriculum (based on information from Master Schedule)

Transition Skills Earth Science Basic TM I

Basic Skills Environmental Science Basic TM II

English 9 Physical Science Basic Skills

English 9 Pre AP Biology

English 10 AP Biology Family Science

English 10 Pre AP Chemistry Food and Nutrition

English 10 Honor Chemistry Pre AP Business and Marketing

English 11 Chemistry AP Law in Society

English 12 Anatomy

AP Literature and Comp 12 Physics Business Technology App

AP Language and Comp 12 Forensic Science Adv Business Tech App

Zoology Business Technology (Distance)

History 9 Adv Bus Tech App (Distance)

History 9 Pre AP Music Appreciation

History 10 Honor Beginning CH Music Agri-Construction

History 10 Instruments 1

History 10 Honor Instrumentsbeginning Semi Conductors

History (Distance Learning) Instruments 3

History 11 Piano I Entrepreneur

History 11 AP Piano II

Economics 12 Theatre I Engine Performance

AP Microeconomics Theatre II

AP Govt. 12 Theatre III Drafting I

Theatre IV

Psychology Art Survey Work Experience

Psychology (Distance Learning) Visual Arts II Work Essentials

Algebra Conn (Connections?) Spanish I Agriscience

Algebra 1 Spanish 1 (Distance Learning)

Algebra 1Pre AP Spanish II Intro to Metal Working

Geometry Spanish II (Distance Learning) 2-4 Stroke Engine Operation

Geometry Pre-AP French I (Distance Learning) Introduction to Welding

Algebra IITrig German I (Distance Learning)

Algebra IIPre AP Auto electronics

PreCal Life Skills Auto brakes

AP Calculus PE

Health Teacher AideJournalism I Baseball Office Aide

Yearbook I Basketball Study Math

Yearbook II Cheerleading Study Reading

Football Study Hall

Drivers Ed - PR Softball

Track Planning

Volleyball


10/67

10

SECTION II: LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. LAWS GOVERNING PUBLIC EDUCATION IN ALABAMA

Laws governing the creation of school systems in Alabama were constructed forthe most part in the period just after the approval of the Constitution of 1901. The firstsignificant codification of these laws occurred in 1911. Thus the basic format andstructure of school systems in Alabama were created prior to the approval of

Amendment 3 in 1916 (authorized local referenda on countywide and school tax districtad valorem taxes for schools). Then, as today, only two types of school systems wererecognized: countywide and municipal or city. No variation is permitted. The area insidethe political boundary of a municipality is a municipal school system; the area outsidethe political boundary of a municipality with separate city school systems belongs to acounty school system.

Given the rural and agrarian nature of the State in the early decades of the

twentieth century, few could have contemplated municipalities straddling not just two,but three and potentially four counties. School townships were logical operating unitswithin a county given geographic and economic isolation centered upon the 16th sectionof each township. The organization that was established to replace township schools in1903 was the creation of separate school districts centered on population centers andgovernmental entities as determined by the county board of education. These areascould become tax districts under Amendment 3, and the authority, upon a referendum,for earmarked school tax district ad valorem taxes was provided. However, operationalauthority remained concentrated in the county board of education, and school taxdistrict ad valorem taxes were levied and collected by the county commission. This wasthe mechanism for funding schools within a community; also provided for were local

school trustees to enhance the symbolism of local community control. In addition,provisions were provided for local attendance zones within the county which areexclusive of cities.Lawmakers did contemplate that as municipalities gained in population, it was a logicalstep that such municipalities would become a separate school system from the countyschool system and be administered by its own board. Today, the statutory populationthreshold for a municipality to create its own municipal school system is 5,000 residents.Such a creation has been held by the Federal Court in Lee v. Chambers County Boardof Education as not only a right, but an obligation by the city to control and operate theschools within its boundaries as the federal judiciary reviewed the creation of a cityschool system by the City of Valley, Alabama:

The City of Valley undeniably has not only a right, but an obligation understate statute to control and operate the schools within its boundariesunless it enters into an agreement with the Chambers County Board of

Education for its schools under control of the county board. Lee v.Chambers County Bd. of Educ., 849 F. Supp. 1474 (M.D. Ala. 1994).


11/67

11

The Court further held that transfer of control of public schools from an electedcounty board of education to an appointed city board of education required federal pre-clearance pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when the county board of educationwas operating under an existing desegregation order. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972created the test that must be applied:

We have today held that any attempt by state or local officials to carve outa new school district from an existing district that is in the process ofdismantling a dual school system must be judged according to whether ithinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposalwould impede the dismantling of a dual system, then a district court, in theexercise of its remedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 460 (1972).

Alabamas Statewide System of Public Schools

Alabamas statewide system of public schools began with the Public EducationAct of 1854. This Act laid the framework which is still largely in place for the operation ofpublic schools in Alabama. The statewide system was based upon the county unit ofgovernment which was an arm of the State government. All counties were required tooperate a county school system, and one mill of ad valorem tax was authorized for theiroperation. In addition to providing for three commissioners of free public schools at thecounty level, the 1854 Act created the position of trustees of public schools in thetownships and provided for their election. These trustees were granted the immediatesupervision of schools, including the hiring and firing of teachers. These were virtuallytownship school systems.

In 1903, the State abolished townships for the purposes of operating publicschools and placed control in the county board of education. However, the townshipconcept was retained for the administration of the original sixteenth section federal landgrants and the crediting of their revenues. In addition, State laws still provide permissionfor counties to appoint for each school in the county six school trustees to look after thegeneral interests of the school and to report to the county board of education. SeeCode of Alabama 1975, Sections 16-10-1 to 16-10-11.

County Public School Systems Required

The county system of schools is required under current law as follows:

16-8-8. Administration and supervision of schools generally.

The general administration and supervision of the public schools of theeducational interests of each county, with the exception of cities havinga city board of education, shall be vested in the county board ofeducation; provided, that such general administration and supervisionof any city having a city board of education may be consolidated withthe administration and control of educational matters affecting the


12/67

12

county and vested in the county board of education. Code of Alabama1975, Section 16-8-8.

Furthermore, the school code provides for the county board of education toestablish both school tax districts and school attendance districts within the county as in

the Code of 1911. The authorization for the creation of school tax districts is as follows:

16-13-191. School tax district Boundaries fixed by county board.

In order to make it possible to work out a system of local tax unitsadapted to the needs of the whole county, the county board ofeducation of its own initiative shall fix the boundaries of any school taxdistrict within its jurisdiction in which it is proposed to levy a localschool tax. In making application for a special election in any suchdistrict, the county board of education shall submit a map made by thecounty surveyor, or other competent person, showing the boundaries

of the school tax district for which a special tax levy is proposed,indicating the section or sections and ranges, together with the correctdescription of the boundaries of the said district for which a special taxlevy is proposed for education. Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-191.

The applicability of statutes regarding school tax districts applies directly to ButlerCounty, with one school system and currently one school ad valorem tax district.Statutory provisions for the creation of school attendance districts is as follows:

16-28-19. Attendance districts.

The county board of education shall arrange the county, exclusive ofcities, into one or more attendance districts, and said board shallappoint an attendance officer for every district created, who shall holdhis office at the will of the county board of education, and the board ofeducation of each city having a city board of education shall appointone or more attendance officers to serve at the pleasure of theappointing board. City and county boards of education and countycommissions may jointly employ any person or persons to carry out theprovisions of this chapter and such additional duties as may beassigned them by such boards or county commissions. Code of

Alabama 1975, Section 16-28-19.

Since Butler County currently has only one attendance district, the foregoing section isrelevant only to the joint attendance officer provision of the last sentence.


13/67

13

B. MUNICIPAL OR CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN ALABAMA

The School Code of Alabama since first compiled in 1911, has not only anticipated thecreation of municipal public school systems, it has required them unless proactive stepsare taken. First, a definition of city is needed:

16-11-1. "City" defined.

A "city" within the meaning of this title shall include all incorporatedmunicipalities of 5,000 or more inhabitants, according to the last or anysucceeding federal census, or according to the last or any succeedingcensus taken under the provisions of Sections 11-47-90 through 11-47-95. Code of Alabama 1975, 16-11-1.

The Code of Alabama in Sections 11-47-90 through 11-47-95 (Article 3, Title 11)provides the procedure for obtaining an official census. With the definition of a city

meaning municipalities with a population of 5,000 or more, the entitlement for thecreation of a municipal school system is created:

16-13-199. Municipality may remain under county board ofeducation; disposition of tax when city assumes control of schools.

When a municipality under the jurisdiction of a county board ofeducation attains a population of 5,000 or more, according to the lastdecennial or any subsequent federal census, the schools of themunicipality may remain under control of the county board byagreement between that board and the city council of the municipality,which agreement shall be expressed in resolutions adopted by andspread upon the minutes of the two authorities. If the municipality doesnot enter into such an agreement, the control of the school or schoolsof the territory within the municipality shall be vested in a city board ofeducation, and thereafter the district school tax collected in the cityshall be paid over to the custodian of city school funds, and the districtschool tax collected in the contiguous territory shall be paid over to thecustodian of county school funds; provided, that so much of theproceeds of the special school tax collected in the original school taxdistrict as may be required for the retirement of outstanding warrantsissued against such tax, including the interest thereon, shall be paidover to the proper official or authority to be used for such purpose.Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-199.

Control of City Schools and Taxation

The Attorney General has reviewed this statute and in an Opinion of the AttorneyGeneral dated March 30, 1990, has concluded that:


14/67

14

the Legislature intends for the city board of education to have authority overschools within the city. When authority over a certain area is transferred from acounty board of education to a city board of education, the taxes that are alreadylevied therein are automatically paid to the city school system without thenecessity of a new election regarding said taxes in the district, as is required for

the initial levy by 16-13-180, et. seq., Code of Alabama 1975. Although thetransfer of authority addressed in this statute is occasioned by the city reaching apopulation of 5,000, the same results should follow where the transfer ofauthority is occasioned by the citys annexation of new territory.Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 90-00201. See also Opinion of the

Attorney General, Number 86-00301.

16-13-193. School tax district Map Not required of city schooltax district.

Any city having a city board of education shall constitute anindependent school tax district for the purpose of levying the taxauthorized under this article, but it shall not be necessary for the cityboard of education when making application or request for a specialelection under the provisions of this article to submit the map or thedescription of boundaries. Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-193.

Clearly the attendance district and school tax district for a city board of education isdefined as the boundary of the municipality itself.

Furthermore, the State Superintendent of Education has historically concludedthat the county board of education shall under the implementation of Section 16-13-199transfer control of buildings, grounds, equipment, textbooks, materials, and supplies tothe newly formed city board of education. The new city board of education would haveauthority over students residing in the city and would be entitled to ownership of allschool transportation equipment serving the school sites located in the City ofGreenville. (Lee v. Chambers County Bd. of Educ. , 849 F. Supp. 1474 (M.D. Ala.1994)).

In another aspect of this same case, the Court ruled that there is no authorizationunder Alabama law for a city school system to include territory beyond the city limits:The court finds no such authorization, other than through a court -ordereddesegregation plan.

However, there appears to be a statutory provision granting permission for thatvery situation, provided in Code of Alabama 1975Section 16-13-195, which deals withconsolidation of a city district with other territory. The implementation of this statute isdependent upon the mutual agreement of the two boards of education involved andupon a referendum in the affected area, the effect of which is provided in Code of

Alabama 1975Section 16-13-196. Though these statutes may prove noteworthy in thefuture for a Greenville city school system, they are not at this time relevant and are notdiscussed herein.


15/67

15

Who May Attend a City School System?

The Legislature has further addressed the authority of a city board of educationto determine eligibility requirements for attendance. There have been conflicting

interpretations of State law pertaining to eligibility of students to attend a city schoolsystem:

16-11-16. Kindergartens and playgrounds; eligibility for admission topublic schools.

(a) The city board of education shall have power to establish andmaintain a system of public schools including kindergartens andplaygrounds for the benefit of children who are bona fide residents ofand living within the corporate limits of such city.(b) Such children who are six years of age and less than 19 years of

age on the date school opens shall be entitled to admission to theelementary, junior and senior high schools.(c) If a kindergarten is established and maintained, children from five toeight years of age may be admitted on such terms and conditions asthe city board of education may prescribe. Code of Alabama 1975,Section 16-11-16.

An Opinion of the Attorney General dated April 24, 2003, has concluded that thisSection means that city boards of education have the power to establish a system ofpublic schools for the benefit of children only who are bon a f ide residents of and livingwithin the corporate limits of such city (Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 2003-133). However, other interpretations of other statutes open the door for non-residentattendance and have concluded that city boards of education may have an openenrollment policy. The following decision from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals maywell override any previous limitation as may have been placed in law or in an Opinion ofthe Attorney General.

In its decision in Phenix City Bd. of Educ. v. Teague, 515 So. 2d 971 (Ala. Civ.App. 1987), the court found that in the provisions of Section 16-28-3, the Legislaturehas authorized local boards of education to regulate the admission of students into theirschools. Furthermore, the court found that there is no statute expressly prohibitingchildren who live within a city with a city school system from attending county schools.Reading this in conjunction with Section 16-10-6 which expressly provides for thecollection of fees from elementary students attending schools in a jurisdiction other thanthe jurisdiction of the students residences, children living within city limits of a cityschool system are not statutorily prohibited from attending county schools. Id. at 972.Finally, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has ruled that this section16-28-3creates an entitlement to education in this state for children under the age of 16. C.L.S.v. Hoover Bd. of Educ., 594 So. 2d 138 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991).


16/67

16

Joint Operation by Two Boards of a School Site

Due to the rural nature of the State of Alabama, it has long been recognized thatthere may be a necessity because of geography and demographics to provide for a jointmaintenance by two counties of a school located near a county line. Further provisions

were made for the attendance of students from two counties in this school:

16-8-18. Joint maintenance of schools Between counties; attendanceby pupils near county lines.

The county boards of education of two or more counties shall havepower to provide jointly for the maintenance of schools in or near thedividing line of such counties on the basis of the enrollment in suchschool from the counties represented. Each pupil who lives within fivemiles of a county boundary line shall attend the school nearest to hisresidence. The administration and supervision of such school shall be

placed under one of the county boards of education of said counties byagreement between the county boards of education, and if noagreement as to administration and supervision is made, it shall beunder the board of education of the county in which the schoolhouse islocated. Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-8-18.

An Opinion of the Attorney General in 1979 offered the following additional clarificationto the language of the statute:

Specifically the Legislature provided that board (sic) of education inadjoining school districts may enter into agreements to jointly maintain(provide financial support) for schools on or near a county line. Theagreement should by statute recognize which of the two jurisdictions willbe responsible for the administration and supervision of such schools.Once such an agreement is established, children who live within five milesof the county boundary line shall attend the school closest to hisresidence. (Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 79-00339).

The converse of the situation proposed by the Attorney General is addressed inTeague, in that students residing in a city district are permitted to attend their respectivecounty schools.

The mechanism is set in place for financial support of the jointly maintainedschool. If no Section 16-8-18 agreement is established, one school board may not billanother school board for costs of out-of-district residents. However, the Office of

Attorney General encourages the use of the Section 16-8-18 agreement for jointmaintenance of county line schools for the purposes of providing free public educationfor children at the school closest to their residence. (Opinion of the Attorney General,Number 79-00339). Thus students in one county may attend school in another county.

In 1964, the Alabama Supreme Court considered the question as to whether theabove statute entitled a child to attend the school of his choice closest to his home no


17/67

17

matter in which county the school is located as long as the child lived within five miles ofthe county line. The Court concluded that no such right was created within the statute.Such a right to attend the closest school without paying tuition exists only when therewas an agreement between the two county school systems involved. Without such anagreement, there is no right to attend with or without tuition. (Conecuh County Board of

Education v. Campbell, 276 Ala. 343, 162 So. 2d 233 (Ala.1964)).In an Opinion of the Attorney General written in 1985, this conclusion was furtherrestated that without an agreement, no entitlement exists irrespective of the distanceinvolved (Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 85-00147). The obvious conclusionis that without an agreement, there can be no joint financial support and no assumptionof cost by the county from which the student actually resides. Without such agreement,one school board may not bill another school board of out-of-district residents. (Opinionof the Attorney General, Number 79-00330).

However, the important conclusion of the statutes pertaining to joint operation bytwo county boards of education of a school site is that no provision, except as follows, isprovided by law for a city school system to operate a school site of a county board of

education located outside of the political boundaries of the incorporated municipality.However, law does provide for a city board of education to gain control of acounty board of education school site by annexation:

16-8-20. Annexing to city territory embracing schools - Retention ofcontrol pending agreements.

When any part of the territory embracing a school under thesupervision and control of the county board of education is annexed toa city having a city board of education by extension of the corporatelimits of such city, the county board of education shall retainsupervision and control of said school and for school purposes shallretain the same control of the territory and revenues which it exercisedprior to such annexation, for the purpose of using and devoting saidschool to the benefit of all children who were or would be entitled to theuse and benefit of the school so long as it was a county school, until anagreement has been made between the county board of education andthe city board of education, and the city council or commission or othergoverning body of the city to which the territory was annexed, withreference to the matter of existing indebtedness and of providing thesame or equivalent school facilities for the children in that part of theterritory in the school district or districts not annexed or made a part ofsuch city. Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-8-20.


18/67

18

It is important to note in this case of annexation, that an agreement must bereached between the city and county boards of education regarding existingindebtedness and provision of equivalent school facilities for the children formerlyattending that school site before control of the school site is actually transferred. This isdifferent from the situation in which a city school system is first created and no provision

is necessary to be made or agreed upon for the education of the children formerlyattending that school site. Further authority is grand the county superintendent todetermine conditions of school admission:

16-9-19. Conditions of admittance to high schools.

The county superintendent of education, subject to the provisions ofthis title, shall prepare and submit for approval and adoption by thecounty board of education rules and regulations governing theconditions under which children may be admitted to junior and seniorhigh schools of the county. Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-9-19.

In addition, the Attorney General has ruled a county superintendent does havethe authority to determine the conditions under which non-resident students (of thecounty or the State) may still be allowed to attend the junior and senior high schools ofthe county. These conditions are, of course, subject to board approval (Opinion of the

Attorney General, Number 87-00033). Furthermore, the Opinion further validates theauthority of the boards of education receiving non-resident students to charge a tuitionfee for this privilege which is found in the following statutory provision:

16-10-6. Incidental fees in elementary schools.

No fees of any kind shall be collected from children attending any ofthe first six grades during the school term supported by public taxation;provided, that any county or city board of education shall be authorizedto permit any school subject to its supervision to solicit and receivefrom such children or their parents or guardians voluntary contributionsto be used for school purposes by the school where such children areattending; provided further, that the provisions of this section shall inno way affect or restrict the right or power of a school board to fix andcollect tuition fees or charges from pupils attending schools under the

jurisdiction of such board but who live outside the territory over whichsuch board has jurisdiction. Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-10-6.

This language opens the door for two opportunities. One is for each type ofschool system to determine who can attend that public school system. The second isthat the local board of education is free to charge tuition fees or charges from non-resident students of that school system. This creates the reality of an open enrollmentpolicy.


19/67

19

An Opinion of the Attorney General has addressed the amount of tuition whichshould be charged:

. . . . . the Legislature intended to recognize the right or power of a schoolboard to fix and collect tuition fees or charges from pupils attending

schools under their jurisdiction but who live outside the territory over whichthe board has jurisdiction. However, local boards of education are notauthorized to charge unlimited fees or tuition under the above-discussedcircumstances. It is our opinion that a local board of education may chargeand require a pupil who lives outside its jurisdiction, to pay a tuition fee notto exceed the sum of the local tax effort devoted to school purposesdivided by the number of students attending school within the jurisdictionof the board. In other words, the amount of tuition that may be charged islimited by the amount of local financial support a school system receives.(Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 79-00339).

This conclusion was repeated three years later:

In our opinion to Dr. Wayne Teague, released August 17, 1979, weexpressed our opinion that the Legislature by this statute, intended torecognize the right of a school board to collect tuition fees from studentsattending schools in one school board jurisdiction while living in anotherarea. We are enclosing a copy of that opinion for your consideration. Wealso call your attention to that portion of the opinion which points out thatthe tuition charged should not exceed the sum of the local tax effortdevoted to school purposes divided by the number of students attending(Opinion of the Attorney General, Number 82-00413).

Expenditure of Funds by City for Benefit of Individuals Illegal

A city has authority to expend funds for any legal purposes, and a city with a cityboard of education has the authority to expend funds for any legal educational purpose.In the case presented by the City of Madison regarding students who lived within thecity limits but in a portion of the City of Madison which is located within LimestoneCounty rather than Madison County, the question was raised as to whether the City ofMadison could pay on behalf of these students a $600 tuition fee charged by MadisonCounty to out-of-county residents. This would amount to the City paying a fee on behalfof selected individual residents of the City.

In an Opinion of the Attorney General dated October 20, 1993, (Opinion9400027) the AGs Office held that such expenditure by a city to a county board ofeducation must be made as a budgetary appropriation and cannot be made as paymentof tuition or fees for an individual student. The Alabama Constitution of 1901 in Section94 as amended by Amendment 112 prohibits any city or town from granting publicmoney in aid of any individual. Therefore, the paying of fees or tuition for an individualstudent is prohibited:


20/67


21/67

21

those under the authority of 40-12-4) it is not a school tax but is a tax for schools.This distinction will be discussed in Section III.


22/67

22

SECTION III - STATE FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ALABAMA

TYPES OF STATE SCHOOL AID FORMULAS

Funding from the State for the support of public schools in Alabama comes from

tax revenues earmarked to the Education Trust Fund (ETF) and the Public School Fund(PSF). There are other small state revenue sources allocated to local boards ofeducation but in such small amounts as not likely to affect the citys decision. Thesefunds are distributed in four ways:

(1) 1995 Foundation Program allocations from the ETF;(2) Categorical Aid allocations from the 1995 Capital Purchase Program from the PSF;(3) Categorical Aid allocations from the ETF; and(4) State Department of Education allocations from the ETF.

A. THE 1995 FOUNDATION PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS

The predominant state aid program for funding public education in Alabama isthe Foundation Program approved in 1995. The 1995 Foundation Program retains theteacher unit as the allocation unit as did its predecessor of 1935.

Allocation Units of the 1995 Foundation Program - Teacher Units

There are three types of teacher units recognized in the 1995 Foundation Program: (1)Regular Teacher Units, (2) Instructional Support Teacher Units, and (3) CurrentTeacher Units. A discussion of each follows. Figure 3-1 which follows is a generalflowchart of the 1995 Foundation Program.

Regular Teacher Units

Regular teacher units are earned by grade level by building site based on studentdivisors as are recommended annually by the State Board of Education and approvedby the Legislature in the annual Education Appropriations Act. Students are counted in

Average Daily Membership (ADM) by grade for the first 20 scholastic days of theacademic year following Labor Day. The divisors for FY 2010-11 follow in Table 3-1:

Table 3-1


23/67

23

These variable divisors by grade represent the only component of Vertical Equity(unequal treatment of unequals) in the 1995 Foundation Program. Otherwise the 1995Foundation Program is designed for Horizontal Equity (equal treatment of equals) only.These divisors are defined as including teacher units for regular education, specialeducation, and for vocational education. The incidence of need for special andvocational education is defined as being normally distributed and thus a proportionately

equal educational cost to all local boards of education.

Figure 3-1


24/67

24

Special Education Adjustment of Divisor.

Regular teacher unit divisors are adjusted for special education. The adjustmentis statutorily defined as 5.0% of average daily membership (ADM) weighted 2.5 in allgrades. This means that the divisor must be adjusted by 5 times 2.5 or 12.5%.Therefore, the stated divisor to adjust for special education to get the residual divisor forthe regular education program must be multiplied by 1.125 or 112.5%. In Table 3-2,below, several examples are demonstrated for the effect of the inclusion of specialeducation funding in the stated divisors for a K-3 classroom. In Column A, the divisors


25/67

25

for FY 2010-2011 are one earned classroom teacher for each 13.8 ADM for the firsttwenty scholastic days of the school year. In Column B whether the ADM is 13.8 or 138,or 552, it is divided by 13.8 to calculate the earned teacher units shown in Column C.

Section 16-13-232 (b), Code of Alabama 1975, states that the divisors will be

weighted for all grades for special education for a full-time equivalent of 5.0% weightedat 2.5 times the regular student weight. This means that the factor for special educationin Column D is 12.50%. Multiplying this amount of 12.50% (5 x 2.5) times the ADM inColumn B yields the calculated ADM for special education to be served in Column E. Nostipulation is made on local boards as to how this service shall be delivered. Theseweights by statute are required to be recommended annually to the Governor by theState Board of Education. Thus incidence of special education needs is not recognized.

Table 3-2

To find the total ADM which is to be served by the teacher units earned inColumn C, add together the regular ADM found in Column B and the special educationADM found in Column E. Column F is the total ADM to be served. Column G is thepercent of the ADM to be served that is imputed to be for special education purposes,and Column H is the percent of the ADM to be served that is imputed to be for regulareducation. As is readily seen, the percentages are identical whether the calculation isfor ADM of 13.8, 138, or 552. Since the percentage of the divisor which is imputed to beavailable for regular classroom purposes in all cases is 88.89%, each teacher mustserve 15.53 regular education students as found in Column I. This is the effectiveclassroom ratio since 11.11% of the teacher unit is considered to be available forspecial education purposes. Please note that actual class size as calculated from state

units only would be greater on average as ADM is not ideally distributed by school site.This is often referred to as an outcome of diseconomy of scale.

The importance of this calculation is that the 1995 Foundation Programrecognizes the importance of weighting student educational needs. The unfortunateaspect of this particular methodology is that it assumes that each local board ofeducation and each school site has the same educational cost for serving exceptionalstudents as every other school site in the state on a proportional basis.


26/67

26

Vocational Education Adjustment of Divisor.

A similar adjustment for funding vocational education was created based upon7.4% ADM weighted 1.4 in grades 7 and 8 and 16.5% ADM weighted 2.0 in grades 9 -

12. This adjustment is also found in Section 16-13-232 (b), Code of Alabama 1975.Therefore the stated divisor must be increased by (7.4%) x (1.4) or 10.36% in grades 7 -8 and (16.5%) x (2) or 33.00% to get the equivalent divisor for the regular educationprogram. These weights are also recommended annually by the State Board ofEducation. They are unchanged since FY 1998-99. Vocational Education (TechnicalEducation) is included in the divisors and the incidence of vocational education (careertechnical education) needs are not recognized.

Class Size Caps Imposed By State Board of Education.

The State Board of Education on September 11, 1997 approved maximum

classroom sizes or caps for local school classrooms by Resolution as follows in Table 3-3. These class caps do not include classes in physical education, musical performinggroups, ROTC, or typing. Such classes were limited to 1,000 student contacts per week.

Table 3-3

The State Board of Education later declared that these caps are not limits as long as thelocal board of education apportions the teacher units annually to each local school siteon the basis they were earned through calculations based upon prior year ADM. TheState Superintendent of Education can grant waivers for these class caps on a case-by-case basis.

Instructional Support Teacher Units

The 1995 Foundation Program also provides for the allocation of InstructionalSupport Units that are earned for the positions of (a) principal, (b) assistant principal, (c)counselors, and (d) librarians. These units are added to a school's classroom teacherunits based on accreditation standards of the Commissions comprising the Southern


27/67

27

Association of Colleges and Schools or as otherwise determined by an accreditationsystem adopted by the State Board of Education (Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-232).

Current Teacher Units

An amount is calculated for current teacher units based upon comparison ofgrade- by-grade membership for the first 20 scholastic days after Labor Day of thecurrent and prior school year. The change in membership on a grade-by-grade basisdivided by the appropriate divisor yields the positive and negative changes in earnedteacher units. The sum of these changes by grade shall determine if current units areearned by a local school system. No current units are earned by a local school system ifthe sum of changes by grade is equal to or less than zero. However, the ETF fundingfor this purpose is determined annually by recommendation of the State Board ofEducation and as appropriated by the Legislature.

The determination of the dollar value of a current teacher unit is defined as the

average dollar value of a teacher unit in the current foundation program. The distributionof current teacher units is due by December 1 of each fiscal year. If the number ofestimated current teacher units is inadequate to fulfill the amount of current teacherunits actually earned, then the allocation due each local school system shall be proratedto the funds actually available. Should the number of current teacher units actuallyearned be less than the estimated amount, then the estimated amount in excess of theearned amount shall be distributed to all local school systems as an increase in OtherCurrent Expense as in the 1995 Foundation Program.

Current teacher units are an unfunded liability from the beginning of theacademic year until after December 1 of each academic year when state funds setaside for reimbursement can be certified as earned. Therefore, local funds must beexpended for this purpose. If however, there are insufficient state funds set aside for thenext fiscal year, the amount due each local board of education is unpaid is a permanentfinancial loss. However, the additional teacher employed by the additional ADMrecorded at the beginning of the academic year will be funded in the next yearscalculation of the Foundation Program. Growth in enrollment in the proposed GreenvilleCity School System could result in additional teacher units in the actual year of growth.

Cost Factors of the 1995 Foundation Program

The 1995 Foundation Program uses four cost factors to define the dollarallocation per teacher unit, which are calculated at the building site level: (1) Salaries;(2) Fringe Benefits; (3) Instructional Support; and (4) Other Current Expense.


28/67

28

Salaries

Salary MatrixState Salary Allocation.The 1995 Foundation Program uses a salary matrix for reimbursement of

teachers salaries by educational attainment and years of service. The degree levels

included are bachelors degree, masters degree, six-year or educational specialistdegree, and the doctoral degree. In addition, provision is made for non-degreepersonnel at the bachelors level for five types of educational attainment. Theexperience adjustment is based upon each three years of experience for a total of 27years. This creates an overall 5 x 10 salary matrix. The relationship between cells isrecommended annually by the State Board of Education and approved by theLegislature.

Initially, the matrix calculated a salary allocation schedule from which each localboard of education was required to pay teachers in their local salary schedule at least95% of each cells value. The residual salary allocation could be used to supplement thelocal salary schedule, to hire additional teachers, or to hire teacher aids. This flexibility

was removed in 1997. Each local board of education is required to develop a localsalary schedule at least equal to 100% of the salary matrix by degree and experiencefor all certificated personnel, federal, state and local (see following section). InstructionalSupport Units have been placed on the salary matrix the same as teachers with theexception of principals. The salary cost for instructional support units is incremented bya formula determined annually by the State Department of Education. The state salarymatrix for FY 2010-11 follows below in Table 3-4.

Salary MatrixMinimum State Salary Schedule.In 1997, the Legislature approved a requirement that each local board of

education pay no less than 100% of the salary matrix by cell to each certificated person.The legislature has by statute annually appropriated an additional salary allocation ofone percent of salaries; however, for FY 2010-11, this statute was ignored. Thisadditional allocation for salaries is actually a categorical aid program outside the 1995Foundation Program Calculations. The salary matrix is now the minimum state salaryschedule as seen in Table 3-4 based upon a per diem amount for 187 contract days.Teachers are paid by a daily rate.


29/67

29

Table 3-4

The above salaries are for a 187 day work period. Additional days workedbeyond this number will require an additional per diem allotment; conversely shoulddays be reduced, total salaries will be proportionately reduced. In addition, all teachersemployed above those earned in the calculation of the 1995 Foundation Program fromwhatever fund source paid will be required to be placed on the same schedule andgiven the same pay raises and other compensation as otherwise provided.

Fringe Benefits

Fringe benefit allocations are calculated either as a percent of salary or by a fixedamount per teacher by building site as a companion cost to salaries. These benefitprograms are administered at the state level, and applicable rates are approvedannually by the Legislature. These factors are adjusted annually to reflect cost changesin the operation of the various programs. FICA and Medicare are obviously set byfederal regulation. Teachers Retirement System (TRS) and Public EducationEmployees Health Insurance Program (PEEHIP) rates are set by action of theirrespective Boards. The Unemployment Compensation annual cost rate is set by theState Insurance Commission but fixed in the annual Education Appropriations Act.

Leave benefits are based upon two personal and five sick leave days per teacherreimbursed at a rate of $60.00 per day. In addition, these rates apply to all locallyfunded employees. The current rates for TRS include cost-of-living allowances forretirees. The current rates for PEEHIP include an allowance for retirees. The followingTable 3-5 lists the benefits and rates for FY 2010-11:


30/67

30

Table 3-5

Any locally funded certificated employee must be paid at least the state minimum

salary schedule for 187 days and a pro rata amount for any contract days in excess of187 from local funds. In addition, any locally funded teacher will have their fringebenefits paid at the same rate as for foundation program teachers.

Classroom Instructional Support

Classroom Instructional Support includes the following six items of expenditurethat existed prior to 1995 as categorical aid programs. These were consolidated in the1995 Foundation Program into a single cost factor.

1. Textbooks. The costs for student textbooks are calculated on a per student basis, the

same basis as for calculating teacher units. A recommendation is made by the StateBoard of Education on an annual basis for the amount per child for textbooks. Thisamount is $15.88 for FY 2010-11.

2. Library Enhancement. A uniform amount is multiplied by the number of teacher unitsearned. The appropriation is for K-12 Public School Library/Media Centers and may bespent for book binding, repair, CD ROMs, computer software, computer equipment,cataloging, audio-visual materials, newspapers, magazines, recordings, and videotapes. This amount was set at $0.00 per teacher unit for FY 2010-11.

3. Classroom Materials and Supplies. Classroom materials and supplies are set as auniform amount per earned teacher unit. These funds must be expended in accordancewith a plan developed by a schools faculty. This amount was set at $0.00 per teacherunit for FY 2010-11.

4. Professional Development. Professional development funds are set as a uniformamount per earned teacher unit and may be used for individual or collective activities.This amount was set at $0.00 per teacher unit for FY 2010-11.


31/67

31

5. Technology. Technology is set up as a uniform amount per earned teacher unit and isto be used for the implementation and ongoing support of educational technology. Thisamount was set at $0.00 per teacher unit for FY 2010-11.

6. Common Purchases. Common Purchases is set up as a uniform amount per earned

teacher unit and is to be used in a pool by teachers of a school site to purchase supportsuch as a copy machine lease and supplies. This amount was set at $0.00 per teacherunit for FY 2010-11.

The sum of these six categories constitutes a local school's allotment forClassroom Instructional Support. Each of these amounts, with the exception of thetextbook allocation, must be provided for each locally funded and federally fundedteacher unit.

Other Current Expense

The purpose of "Other Current Expense" is unrestricted revenues to local boardsof education to provide funding for administrative costs, additional salary support forprincipals and other administrative staff, support personnel salaries and fringe benefits,salaries above the allocation amount, fringe benefits for local funded educationpersonnel, additional teachers, central office costs, utilities, facility maintenance, travel,and any other expense incurred in the normal operation of the day school. This amountwas set at $11,368.00 per teacher unit for FY 2010-11 from the ETF (for FY 2010-11, asupplemental amount is appropriated from the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of 2009 {ARRA} at $3,694.00 per teacher unit). These unrestricted state revenuesmay be expended by the local board of education for any legal purpose. This is the onlymajor state categorical aid allocation which the local board of education has someflexibility in budgeting.

Total Cost of the 1995 Foundation Program

The sum of the four cost factors by school site represents the foundationprogram cost for that school. The sum of the school sites constituting a local schoolsystem is the foundation program cost for that local school system. From this total costof the Program is subtracted the Required Local Effort funds or Chargeback. This is theequivalent yield from local tax-based revenues of 10.0 mills of school district ad valoremtax systemwide calculated for each local board of education. This statewide chargebackfor FY 2010-11 is $520,887,380. The balance of the funding due the 1995 FoundationProgram (state share) is annually appropriated from the Education Trust Fund (ETF).

Although the foundation program cost is calculated for each local school site, the stateamount from the ETF is distributed on an equal monthly basis to the local schoolsystem. The ETF allocation is requested monthly by the State Superintendent ofEducation, and the State Comptroller distributes the amount by electronic transfer assoon in the month as tax receipts are available.

Required Local Effort in the 1995 Foundation Program


32/67

32

Local fiscal capacity is measured by one variable - the yield of 1.0 mill of schooltax district ad valorem tax systemwide. Assessed valuation data by local school systemis not collected at the state level for use by the State Department of Education (SDE).The proxy for appraised or assessed valuation is the yield of one mill of the school

district ad valorem tax systemwide that is used since exemptions may be applied to thecountywide property tax as well as varying costs of collection. Alabamas wealth indexfor each local school system is that local school systems share of a mathematicallycreated statewide 1.0 mill ad valorem tax by school tax district systemwide (and sincethe number of required equivalent mills is 10.0, this would be a 10.0 mill statewide tax).In order for a local school system to participate in the 1995 Foundation Program, theappropriate local governing body must insure that the local school system is receivingan amount of local tax receipts equal to ten mills of school tax district ad valorem taxsystemwide. This is the required local taxation. This is also the amount that is thechargeback or required local effort (sometimes referred to as local share) in the 1995Foundation Program (Code of Alabama 1975, Sections 16-13-231(b) (1)a and 16-13-

237). All of these terms are defined in the following Table 3-6.Also for a local school system to participate in the allocation of the Public SchoolFund from the statewide 3.0 mill ad valorem tax (the Capital Purchase Program

Allocation), each local board must provide a local match. This allocation is also basedupon the same yield of 1.0 mill of school district ad valorem tax. However, this amountof local taxation is not required to be levied and collected at the local level by statute(Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-234(e)). Therefore, required local taxation isnumerically less than required local effort in Alabama.

Table 3-6

Definition of Terms Relating to Local School System Tax Revenues

1. Tax CapacityIn Alabama, this is defined for a local school system as the yield ofone mill of school tax district ad valorem tax and is expressed in dollars. This value,however, is not a measure of the Tax Wealth of a local school system.2. Wealth of a Local School SystemIn Alabama, the wealth of a local school system ismeasured by the yield of one mill of local school tax district tax divided by the number ofstudents enrolled in Average Daily Membership. This definition is used in the allocationof the Foundation Program and the Capital Outlay Allocation.3. Tax EffortThe degree to which the tax capacity of a local school system is utilized.In other states, this is usually measured in terms of tax rates. In Alabama, the measureis in terms of number of equivalent mills of tax-based revenues.4. Required Local EffortThe amount of required local taxation which is calculated asbeing available for the funding of state educational purposes. In a foundation program,this is the chargeback of the amount subtracted from the total calculated cost of thestate required educational program. These revenues are restricted to accomplish onlystate educational purposes. Chargeback Required to Participate in Foundation Programplus Local Match to Participate in Guaranteed Tax Yield Program


33/67

33

5. Required Local TaxationThe tax rate (specified tax rate to be levied by tax type) ortax yield (amount of tax yield measured by an index of wealth) which must be levied onbehalf of a local board of education in order to participate in the state financial aidprograms (actually receive the state allocations). Amendment 778 Requires the Levyand Collection of 10.0 Mills of Ad Valorem Tax and Section 16-13-231 Requires the

Levy and Collection of the Equivalent of 10.0 Mills of School Tax District Ad ValoremTaxes from Tax-Based Local Revenues.6. Unrestricted Local TaxationThe tax revenues or rate of taxation available to a localboard of education over and beyond those amounts necessary to meet required statematches and which can be used by local boards of education for local purposes.

Ten Mills of School District Tax or Its Tax-Based Equivalent

The requirement of the State of Alabama that 7.0 mills of local property tax mustbe levied and collected was repealed in 1980 and replaced with the current requirementof the equivalent of 10.0 mills of school district ad valorem tax from any tax based

source. In 1969, the Legislature authorized through general legislation the levy andcollection of the franchise, excise, and privilege license taxes for local school fundingpurposes (Sections 40-12-4, 11-51-90, and 11-51-200). These could be levied byresolution of the county commission or the city council. Local school systems couldmeet their required local taxation minimums from any tax-based revenue source.Currently, local tax effort for the purpose of accountability is measured in terms of thenumber of equivalent mills reported by the following formula in Figure 3-2:

Figure 3-2

Amendment 778, Approved November 7, 2006

Prior to the approval by the voters of the State on November 7, 2006 (proclaimedratified 12-4-2006), of the constitutional amendment entitled Proposing an amendmentto the Constitution of Alabama 1901 to provide for a statewide minimum levy and

collection, commencing with the tax year beginning October 1, 2006, and without limitas to time, of 10.0 mills of ad valorem property tax in each school district in the State(Acts of Alabama, 2005-215), which is also known as The Representative NelsonStarkey Act of 2005 (Acts of Alabama, 2006-443), there was no statutory requirementfor any specific type of taxation to be levied and collected by local boards of educationin order to participate in the Foundation Program of 1995. Any requirement for advalorem tax had been repealed by the Legislature in 1980.


34/67

34

This Amendment now appears as section 269.08 of the Official Recompilation ofthe Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended. Since there was no staterequirement for any local ad valorem tax to be levied and collected, many local boardsof education were still collecting the 7.0 mills first required back in 1916. Sincecompliance with budgeting the proceeds of the equivalent of 10.0 mills of ad valorem

tax was a statutory requirement, the shortfall between whatever local ad valorem taxwas levied and collected and the amount 10.0 mills would have produced was generallyderived from sales tax, a major problem developed. Property tax wealth could rise fasterthan sales tax revenues and thus increase difficulty in providing local revenues for advalorem taxes not levied and collected. This Amendment leveled the playing field toguarantee each local board not fewer that 10.0 mills of ad valorem tax on each schooltax district of the local school system.

Children With Disabilities and Gifted ChildrenFunding in the 1995 FoundationProgram

Prior to the 1995 Education Finance Reform Legislation, Special Education wasfunded as a categorical aid program. The 1995 Foundation Program absorbed thefunding formerly provided for Special Education and incorporated that funding bylowering the divisors for earning Regular Classroom Teachers. No statutes governingthe required provision of special education services were modified in 1995.

State Law Mandating Education for Exceptional Children Unchanged, 1995

The Legislature enacted the Alabama Exceptional Child Education Act in 1971.Its provisions for allocating special education teacher units to local boards of educationwere amended in 1981 and defined the student load which would earn a teacher unit.These included one for each group of eight to 15 exceptional children, whether in aspecial class or by on-site instruction to home bound students or hospitalized students,and for students in public State institutions. Twenty percent of teacher units so earnedwere required to be used for the purpose of instruction of gifted children. The provisionsfor teacher units and for setting aside of teacher units for gifted children were repealedby the 1995 Foundation Program Law, while leaving the mandate to provide appropriateinstruction intact (Section 16-39-7, Code of Alabama 1975). The requirement of servicesto the intellectually gifted would remain in the Code also.

Appropriate Instruction to be Provided

The statutory mandate for providing appropriate instruction and special servicesto exceptional children was left unchanged. This mandate follows.

16-39-3. Education required for exceptional children; source of funds.

Each school board shall provide not less than 12 consecutive years ofappropriate instruction and special services for exceptional children,beginning with those six years of age, in accordance with the


35/67

35

provisions of this chapter. Such public instruction and special servicesshall be made available at public expense for each school year toexceptional children as provided herein. The funds for such instructionand special services shall be derived from state, county, municipal,district, federal or other sources or combinations of sources. Each

school board shall set aside from its revenues from all such sourcessuch amounts as are needed to carry out the provisions of this chapter,if such funds are available without impairment of regular classes andservices provided for nonexceptional children. If sufficient funds are notavailable to a school board to provide fully for all the provisions of thischapter as well as the educational needs of nonexceptional children,such board must prorate all funds on a per capita basis betweenexceptional and nonexceptional children. No matriculation or tuitionfees or other fees or charges shall be required or asked of exceptionalchildren or their parents or guardians, except such fees or charges asmay be charged uniformly of all public school pupils (Code of Alabama

1975, Section 16-39-3).

Special Services to be Provided. The Legislature further defined the Special Services tobe provided:

16-39-2. Definitions

(7) SPECIAL SERVICES. Services relating to instruction of exceptionalchildren (but not including the instruction itself) including, but notlimited to: administrative services; transportation; diagnostic andevaluation services; social services; physical and occupational therapy;

job placement; orientation and mobility training; braillist services andmaterials; typists and readers for the blind; special materials andequipment; and such other similar personnel, services, materials, andequipment as may from time to time be approved by regulationsadopted hereunder by the State Board of Education (Code of Alabama1975, Section 16-39-2).

Definition of Children to be Served.

The 1995 revisions also left intact the definitions of Exceptional Children firstdeveloped by the Legislature in 1971 eligible to receive these services:

16-39-2. Definitions

(1) EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN. Persons between the ages of six and21 years who have been certified under regulations of the State Boardof Education by a specialist as being unsuited for enrollment in regularclasses of the public schools or who are unable to be educated ortrained adequately in the regular programs including, but not limited to:


36/67

36

the mildly and moderately to severely retarded, and also the profoundlyretarded; the speech impaired; the hearing impaired, deaf, and partiallyhearing; the blind and vision impaired; the crippled and those havingother physical handicaps not otherwise specifically mentioned herein;the emotionally conflicted; those with special learning disabilities; the

multiple handicapped; and the intellectually gifted (Code of Alabama1975, Section 16-39-2).

Responsibilities of State Board of Education.

The Legislature also made it clear that this was a state-mandated and governedprogram and that responsibility for the operation of the program was delegated to theState Board of Education by the following statutory requirement:

16-39-5. Responsibilities of State Board of Education.

The State Board of Education shall adopt regulations covering:(1) The qualifications of specialists for each type of exceptionality andstandards for certification of exceptional children;(2) Minimum standards of instruction and special services to beprovided for each type of exceptionality at each grade level;(3) Reasonable qualifications for teachers, instructors, therapists andother personnel needed to work with exceptional children;(4) Guidelines for suitable five-year incremental plans forimplementation of the program set forth in this chapter for varioustypes of typical situations likely to be encountered by school boards inthe State of Alabama; and(5) Such other rules and regulations as may be necessary orappropriate for carrying out the purposes of this chapter.(Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-39-5).

Responsibilities of Local Boards of Education.

The combination of state and federal statutory requirements for providingservices to exceptional children places the financial and programmatic burden squarelyon local boards of education. While such services as are necessary must be provided,with the exception of the line item appropriation for At-Risk children, the State of

Alabama in its funding scheme does not recognize incidence of special educationneeds.

The 1995 Foundation Program is the source of funding for educational programcosts for children with disabilities and gifted children and is neutral, as previouslyexplained, on the incidence of special education needs. The 1995 Foundation Programsassumes that such incidence of this program needs is normally distributed across theState and each local board of education has equal state funding on a population- orcensus-based theory. Therefore, a the City of Greenville board of education mustcritically review any policy approved which will allow children living outside the municipal


37/67

37

boundaries of the school system to attend because of unanticipated and un-reimbursedcost for special education services as may be required.

The overall conclusion regarding the current status of special educationlegislation in the State of Alabama is that state funding is inadequate. All provisionsconstituting federal mandates for services were unchanged and trumped any state laws.

Federal funding for special education has been and still is inadequate to meet thestatutory needs for services. Alabama has historically had strong special education lawswhich are still in force and which are underfunded. Unfortunately, Alabama has noscheme to measure needs of exceptional education and assumes that funding asprovided through the decreased divisors meets such needs. Alabama does not identifyfor state funding purposes the exceptionalities and childcount by such exceptionalitiesas defined by state law. In addition, there is no evidence by the childcount for federalspecial education purposes to further conclude that such needs are normally distributed.

B. STATE CATEGORICAL AID PROGRAMS

Capital Purchase Allocation From Public School Fund

In order to provide a continuing revenue stream for local boards of education forcapital improvements, the vast majority of the Public School Fund (3.0 mill statewide advalorem tax) is distributed on a local match basis which takes into account the wealth ofeach local board of education in terms of the yield of one mill of school district advalorem tax per pupil in ADM. The determination of wealth is based on the prior fiscalyear tax yield and the prior year's first 20 scholastic days ADM after Labor Day. Theallotment of state funds is through a guaranteed tax yield calculation. This is a type ofstate aid program in which each local school system is guaranteed the same orconstant yield per unit of tax effort per unit of educational need. Thus the combination ofstate allocation and local required match is the same for every ADM in every localschool system of the State.

The Education Finance Reform Legislation of 1995 re-designated the PublicSchool Fund from being appropriated for the payment of teachers to an allocation forcapital purchase uses as follows:

16-13-234. Allocation of funds.

(a) In making apportionment of the Public School Fund held by thestate, to the local boards of education, the State Superintendent ofEducation shall first set apart and distribute to the schools of eachtownship the amount due from the state thereto as interest on itssixteenth section fund, or other trust fund held by the state.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to insure that no local board ofeducation receive less state funds per pupil than it received in fiscalyear 1994-95. For this reason the Foundation Program for each localboard of education shall be supplemented, if necessary, by a holdharmless allowance. The base amount of each local board's hold


38/67

38

harmless allowance calculation is the 1994-95 program cost as definedherein. The 1994-95 program cost of each local board of educationwas determined by using the first forty scholastic days of average dailymembership from 1993-94. Beginning with the fiscal year 1995-96, thehold harmless allowance calculation shall be the current year

Foundation Program state allocation, including allocated PublicEducation Employees' Health Insurance Plan reserves, less the fiscalyear 1994-95 program cost as defined herein. The fiscal year 1994-95program cost is defined as including the local boards of educationallocations for kindergarten through grade twelve plus fringe benefitsincluding Public Education Employees' Health Insurance Plan reservesand the Public School Fund less the transportation allowance.

(c) Beginning with the fiscal year 1995-96, the first cost to the PublicSchool Fund, after complying with the provisions of subsection (a),shall be the hold harmless allowance. The hold harmless calculation

shall continue until no local board of education receives less funds perpupil than it received in fiscal year 1994-95. However, this holdharmless allowance shall terminate not later than September 30, 2002.

(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that funds shall be provided tolocal boards of education in addition to Foundation Program funds toprovide continuing funding to provide for soundness and adequacy ofpublic school facilities in Alabama. To that end the remainder of thePublic School Fund after deducting the costs pursuant to subsections(a) and (c) shall be available to the local boards of education for capitaloutlay projects, including the planning, construction, reconstruction,enlargement, improvement, repair or renovation of public schoolfacilities, for the purchase of land for public school facilities and for theacquisition and/or purchase of education technology and equipment.

(e) It is the intent of the Legislature that the distribution of capital fundsfor the purpose of capital purchases from the Public School Fund bemade to all school systems, require a variable matching with localfunds based on yield per mill per average daily membership of districtproperty tax, and guarantee the same amount per student in eachsystem for capital purchases from the total of state and matching localfunds. The State Superintendent of Education shall allocate theavailable funds pursuant to the rules adopted by the State Board ofEducation. Also, to receive funds from this appropriation, the localboard of education must develop a comprehensive, long range capitalplan addressing the facility, educational technology and equipmentneeds of the local board of education, pursuant to the rules adopted bythe State Board of Education. The goal of this program is to have eachlocal board of education complete its comprehensive, long rangecapital plan and begin making satisfactory progress in implementing


39/67

39

the plan for providing adequate public school facilities for all students.Code of Alabama 1975, Section 16-13-234.

The formulation follows for the calculation of the state and local shares which isfunctionally a guaranteed tax yield program. The outcome of this type of calculation and

state aid formula is that each child counted in ADM has the same amount of fundsavailable for capital purchase needs as every other school child in the state (that is thesum of the state capital purchase allocation plus the local share which is required to becontributed). The formulas for the determination of the state and local share follow.

State Funds for Capital Purchase.

The state share from the Public School Fund is determined by the followingformula:State Share = Z [(KM)-Y] A where

Z = number of guaranteed mills (varies annually by revenue estimated to beavailable to the Public School Fund)K = 2.0 (fixed by annual SBE regulation)M = maximum yield per mill over all local boards (varies annually)Y = yield per mill per ADM for a local board of education (varies annually)

A = prior year ADM for a local board of education (varies annually)

A pure guaranteed tax yield program would not reflect 2.0 times the maximumyield. Were this multiplier not included, then the top ranked local school system inwealth would receive no matching funds. Therefore, additional funding would beavailable for distribution to the less wealthy school systems. Inclusion of this multiplierfavors the wealthy school systems. The more funding that is available for this program,the greater the number of mills that can be equalized.

The result of setting K = 2.0 is a flat grant allocation per student in ADM to eachlocal board of education equal to 50% of the total allocation and a guaranteed tax yieldgrant which is based on local tax capacity equal to 50% of the total allocation.Therefore, only of the allocation is distributed based upon local tax capacity. Thisfeature diminishes the equalizing capacity of the allocation.

Local Board Funds for Capital Purchase.

T

Documents

School Feasibility Study