Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
educational consultant and attorney’s fees under contractual expenses. The additional $6,000 for Title I "this board knows nothing about,” he claimed.
"You’re talking about $6,000 that I know nothing about,” school board member Walter Masterson added.
McDaniel explained later that the $6,369 under contractual services covered “indirect costs” to the county for Title I, including transportation, heating and electricity. If the money isn’t spent, it is carried over along with any other unexpended Title I funds by the state department of education, McDaniel said.
Cutting the Title I budget will have no effect on the tax rate or the county budget since the Title programs are financed with federal dollars.
If Title funds are cut on the expenditure side of the ledger, then anticipated revenue will also have to be reduced by the same amount, according to McDaniel. He also noted that Title I money can only be spent on Title I programs, not on the overall educational system.
"There’s not a single school board member who understands Title I,” maintained Eastham.
“No one has ever asked,” McDaniel replied.
(At the May 13 meeting of the board, the school board voted unanimously with no discussion to approve the $144,236 Title I budget for 1980-81 on a motion from Allen Stokes, seconded by Walter Masterson. The single page document was submitted to the board for early approval at the request of county accountant Wally Cox. Normally, the Title I budget is not submitted to •the school board until later in the summer.
Asked why an education consultant is included in the proposed 1980-81 budget. Masterson indicated the $7,000 appropriation is for a study to determine if existing space at the high school is being properly utilized.
95.2%