Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-29 Work Session NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 29, 1997 BOOK 25 PAGE 1016 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held ajoint Work Session with the New Hanover County Board of Education on Thursday, May 29, 1997, at 12: 15 P.M. in the Williston Auditorium, Cape Fear Museum, 814 Market Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Commissioners Buzz Birzenieks; Ted Davis, Jr.; Charles R. Howell; Vice-Chairman William A. Caster; Chairman Robert G. Greer; County Manager, Allen O'Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Members present from the Board of Education were: Chairman Charles M. Lineberry, Jr., Janice Cavenaugh, Donald S. Hayes, Debbie Keck, Nancy Wigley, and Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Dale Martin. Chairman Greer called the meeting to order and welcomed the members of the Board of Education. He advised the purpose of the meeting was to hear a presentation on the New Hanover County School Bond Referendum Bench Survey performed by Wirthlin Worldwide. He requested the County Manager to introduce the representative that would be making the presentation. County Manager O'Neal introduced Mr. Neal Rhoades, Vice-President of Wirthlin Worldwide, and advised this firm had performed public opinion surveys on bond referenda throughout the state and country. He advised that one of the most recent successes was the passage of a $250 million school bond issue in Wake County. He requested Mr. Rhoades to present the findings of the public opinion survey performed in New Hanover County. PRESENTATION OF WIRTHLIN WORLDWIDE SURVEY FOR THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOND REFERENDUM Mr. Rhoades reported the survey was developed in the following sequence: Research Methodology: This section describes how the research was designed and implemented as well as how the sample was selected and validated. Detailed Findings: This section provides a description and analysis of the results that are supplemented with key charts and tables. Interview Schedule: This section reflects the questionnaire as it was used in interviewing. Charts and Graphs: This section graphically shows the final results of the survey. Open-Ended Verbatim: This section exhibits the actual responses from the respondents of the open- ended questions. Mr. Rhoades advised the study contains results from a sample of 600 likely bond referendum voters in New Hanover County. In addition, 59 oversample interviews were conducted among likely voters who are parents with children in the public schools. With the added oversample, this study also includes an analysis of a total of 250 interviews among likely county voters with children in public schools. The original data set was stratified by zip code and gender and was gathered May 7- 9, 1997. Wirthlin Worldwide typically uses qualitative (percentages or proportions) and quantitative (averages or means) measures in its survey design. In general, for a qualitative measure, the margin of error for a sample size of 600 is +4.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases; and for a sample size of250 it is +6.2 percentage points. It should be understood, however, that this margin of error only applies to measuring a proportion based on the total sample. Margins of error will be different for comparisons between sub-samples and for quantitative measures, such as means derived from rating scales. Any variation in reported percentages of +/- 1 % is due to rounding offfigures. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 29, 1997 BOOK 25 PAGE 1017 A few of the key questions asked to persons participating in the survey are as follows: (1) Are you likely to vote? 42% extremely likely to vote 36% very likely to vote 32% not likely to vote. A 42% percentage figure is high for persons being likely to vote in a school bond referendum. This indicates that education is a primary social issue in New Hanover County. (2) What is the most important problem facing New Hanover County? Too Much Growth/Overdevelopment 15% Traffic/Congestion 11 % Quality of Education 10% Crime 9% Overcrowding 6% School Redistricting 5% Drugs 4% Drainage Problems 4% (3) Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the New Hanover County School System? Totally Satisfied Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Totally Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Don't Know/Refused to answer 39% 6% 33% 42% 28% 15% 17% 2% Overall, county voters are split on their level of satisfaction with 39% satisfied and 42% dissatisfied. Statistically there findings are equal. Nearly one-fifth are fence-sitters and 2% unsure. ( 4) Are you satisfied with the quality of education in New Hanover County Public Schools? Grades 0-3 Grades 4- 7 Grades 8-10 13% 66% 19% In terms of the overall quality of education received in New Hanover County schools, it was found that voters gave a slightly above average rating of 5.8 on a 0-10 point scale. This means that people feel children receive an above average quality of education; however, 66% of voters are in the 4- 7 grade range. The split-sample methodology was used in performing the bond ballots. This means that half of the respondents were asked one question with the other halfbeing asked another question. The purpose of using the split-sample approach was to determine ifthere were differences in performance depending upon the two different ballots. The first ballot was Split-Sample A which contained information about specific use of the bond funds. The following language was used: To meet its more urgent needs through the year 2001, the New Hanover County School Board proposed that the County borrow 125 million dollars through a bond referendum. This bond would be used to build one new high school, one new middle NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 29, 1997 BOOK 25 PAGE 1018 school, and two new elementary schools to help alleviate current overcrowding. In addition, the money would provide for building renovations, technological improvements, and for upgrading and building new athletic facilities. With this language, the following response was received: School Bond Referendum Ballot Split Sample A Total For Definitely For Probably For Lean For 74% 52% 20% 1% Total Against Lean Against Probably Against Definitely Against Undecided 25% 1% 10% 14% 2% School Bond Referendum Ballot Split Sample B Total For Definitely For Probably For Lean For 69% 36% 31% 2% Total Against Lean Against Probably Against Definitely Against Undecided 30% 1% 9% 20% 1% With 52% definitely for the bond referendum under Split Sample A, the numbers are very positive for New Hanover County. When the ballots are combined, there is an overall support of 71 % with a definite support of 44%. These are also strong numbers in favor of a bond referendum. After receiving these results, persons were asked why they would vote for or against the bond referendum. More than 50% of voters felt there was a need for new buildings and renovation of existing buildings. Approximately 43% believe that education is important, 19% believe it will make a better community, and 16% believe bond funds will indirectly increase salaries for teachers, and 10% gave other reasons. Some persons mentioned redistricting and year-around schools. When breaking down the survey into categories, overcrowding is the major issue. Approximately 20% feel passage of the bond issue will mean a better quality of education for children, and 19% were very concerned about the maintenance of schools. Approximately 17% felt that bond funds were needed and supported the bond referendum. Approximately 15% believe passage of the bond referendum will provide funds to hire better teachers, increase the salaries of teachers, provide the needed equipment and technology for the future as well as additional buildings. When asking persons why they would vote against the school bond referendum the following responses were received: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 29, 1997 Negative Toward School Board Management Generally Negative Need to Improve Curriculum Don't Want Taxes to Increase Other Disagree with Politics in District Need more Information Other Options are Available Want Money to be Used Elsewhere General Positive Don't have Children in School BOOK 25 PAGE 1019 60% 16% 16% 15% 12% 11% 10% 7% 3% 3% 2% With only 15% being opposed to increasing taxes, this indicates that citizens know improvements need to be made in the educational system, and they are willing to pay higher taxes. Many people voting against the referendum are waiting to receive more information before voting. This is critical issue and factual information must be presented to the voters. When breaking these figures into appropriate categories, the following reasons were given for voting against the referendum: Money not Used Appropriately Make Better Use of What They Have Generally Negative Don't Want Taxes Increased Superintendent/School Board - Negative Quality of Education Needs to Rise Other Need Information Need for More Discipline There Needs to be More Decision Making Year-Round Schools 30% 18% 16% 15% 14% 13% 9% 9% 6% 5% 5% These figures indicated that people feel past bond monies were not spent in a wise manner, and there is a concern for quality education. Also, there is a feeling that existing buildings are not being fully used. Discussion followed on year-round schools. Mr. Rhoades advised the following question was asked relative to year-round calendars: Would you consider some other options? For example, more New Hanover schools could switch to year-calendars. This option needs fewer schools because the year-round calendar gains additional capacity by using schools during the summer. Students still attend schools for only 9 months, but they get four three-week vacations, one in each season of the year. By staggering schedules, each year-round school can handle about 25% more students than using the traditional 9-month calendar. The response to this option was 71 % in favor, with 51 % ofthis group definitely in favor, 24% opposed and 6% undecided. When asking about adopting a double shift calendar, 34% were in favor, with 15% of this group definitely in favor, 62% opposed, and 5% undecided. When persons were asked why they were undecided. The response was that more information was needed. Further discussion was held on overcrowding. Mr. Rhoades advised the public understands NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 29, 1997 BOOK 25 PAGE 1020 overcrowding in the schools. The public is aware of the difference between overcrowding in the schools and the rapid growth that has occurred in New Hanover County. Growth has not been faulted for overcrowding in the schools, but the public recognizes that something must be done to alleviate the overcrowding situation. Commissioner Birzenieks commented on the survey using a $125 million school bond issue and asked if the number had been increased to $175 million or $200 million, would the results be as positive? Mr. Rhoades reported the survey was performed with the use of $125 million with no higher figure mentioned; however, he felt the results would not have been as positive if a larger figure had been presented. Since there is a feeling in New Hanover County that schools have not been adequately funded or maintained over the past 25 years, people felt that $125 million was a reasonable amount. When asking persons opposed to the bond referendum if they would support a $70 million bond issue, the response was that 28% would be in favor with 70% of this group expressing opposition to the lower bond issue and 42% definitely against. A program was used where the respondent was asked to assess their personal property value. If the respondent could present a property value, the program calculated the exact increase in the property tax over a 10-year period from passage of a $125 million school bond referendum. It was found that 68% of respondents would vote in favor of the bond referendum after knowing the personal cost to them individually, and 28% of the respondents were against tax increases. For persons who could not present a property value, they were asked if they knew the County tax rate would increase 16% annually (from 64 cents to 75 cents per $100 of property tax value) would they vote for the $125 million school bond referendum. The response received was 54% for and 39% against. It is interesting to note that 68% responded favorably to the $125 million bond issue knowing exactly how their personal property tax rate would be increased compared to 54% in favor with only a generic percentage increase. A key point during bond issues is to communicate in personal terms, which was reflected in the difference between 68% and 54%. After developing an index, it was found that 61 % always voted for the $125 million bond referendum regardless of how the questions were asked. Eight percent were in favor of the bond issue until the actual tax increase was applied with 23% always voting against the bond issue. Slides were presented on the similarities between growth factors in Wake County and New Hanover County. The bond referendum in Wake County was so successful because no organized opposition was established and the entire community supported the referendum. Due to this support and work by the various civic organizations, the percentage increased from 64% to 79% on election day. In closing, Mr. Rhoades reported the percentage of support for a school bond referendum in New Hanover County was high, and he felt the public was aware of the importance of education to the community and its contribution to the overall quality of life. The public strongly feels that overcrowding in schools should be addressed. Chairman Greer, on behalf of the Board, expressed appreciation to Mr. Rhoades for informative report and opened the floor for discussion. A lengthy discussion followed on developing a vocational education center between the New Hanover County School System and Cape Fear Community College. Ms. Cavenaugh agreed with the concept and advised a center of this type would have to be equipped with computerized equipment because of the technology being used in all businesses. She stated this would be quite costly. Commissioner Howell expressed concern for placing too much emphasis on technology and stated students can learn many skills without computers. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 29, 1997 BOOK 25 PAGE 1021 Ms. Cavenaugh urged all parties involved to approach this as a quality project and provide the equipment and technology necessary to train students to become skilled workers. She advised that cooperation, financing, planning, and information to pursue this goal would be needed. Chairman Greer reported students must have an alternative option to college preparatory courses when attending school. A vocational education center should be created by the New Hanover County School System and Cape Fear Community College to provide an opportunity for students to decide in the 8th grade if they want to pursue learning a skill or trade. The center should be equipped with high-tech equipment and the necessary materials to train students. This would remove the stigma attached with vocational education and prepare these students with the necessary skills to obtain good payingjobs. He stated, in his opinion, a center of this type should reduce school dropouts and resolve some of the discipline problems. Commissioner Birzenieks reported on his visit to the School ofT echnology in Lincoln County and suggested arranging a trip for the members of the Board of Education and County Commissioners to visit this facility as well as the Weaver Center in Greensboro, North Carolina. He emphasized the importance of gathering information on how these schools were developed and the success of the vocational educational programs. Ms. Cavenaugh agreed and recommended visiting the schools and cataloguing the courses offered and the equipment needed to formulate an idea of what is possible and the cost involved. Chairman Greer advised the vocational education program should be unique to New Hanover County. If the State law has to be changed to offer this type of program, the legislature should be approached. Ms. Cavenaugh requested Chairman Greer and Commissioner Howell to join members ofthe Board of Education when meeting with the Cape Fear Community College staff to discuss the development of a vocational education center. Commissioner Birzenieks commented on being a rookie County Commissioner and stated he had been impressed by the commitment to education shown by the County Commissioners. He advised the Board had strived to do what was right and best for New Hanover County and its children. Vice-Chairman Caster recommended holding more joint meetings between the Board of Education and County Commissioners. He stated with the commitment to public education, this would be an ideal time to move forward with innovative programs and make the necessary changes. The report received today was enlightening and informative. County Manager O'Neal advised it would take two days to visit both school facilities. The trip would provide an opportunity for the two Boards to discuss the visits and the issues that will have to be addressed. He suggested inviting Dr. Eric McKeithan and appropriate staff members from Cape Fear Community College to participate in the visit. Superintendent Martin reported the same type offacility might be needed for Brunswick and Pender Counties. He recommended checking into this possibility, which would create a joint effort between three counties and associated community colleges. After discussion, it was generally agreed to move forward with gathering information on developing a vocational education facility and schedule a trip to visit centers in Lincoln County and Guilford County. Also, the idea of approaching Brunswick and Pender counties about development of a regional vocational education center should be pursued. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Greer reported on the excellent information presented in the report and the positive manner in which the respondents supported the proposed school bond issue. He advised NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 29, 1997 BOOK 25 PAGE 1022 the meeting had been most productive and recommended scheduling more meetings in the future to discuss educational issues. Chairman Greer adjourned the meeting at 1 :55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board