An examination of the effects of local school district discretionary levies on the fiscal equity of a state foundation d...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An examination of the effects of local school district discretionary levies on the fiscal equity of a state foundation distribution system
Physical Description:
viii, 157 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Maiden, Jeffrey A
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Finance -- Florida   ( lcsh )
School boards -- Finance -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1994.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 151-156).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jeffrey A. Maiden.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002023961
notis - AKL1502
oclc - 32886011
System ID:
AA00002068:00001

Full Text










AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
DISCRETIONARY LEVIES ON THE FISCAL EQUITY
OF A STATE FOUNDATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM














BY


JEFFREY


MAIDEN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




























Dedicated


to the memory of my stepfather,


John Robert Snyder.













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


express


deep


appreciation


Lord


Savior


Jesus


Christ.


thank


unlimited,


match


ess


grace,


providing


eternal


salvation


human


race


, and


making


this


dissertation


possible


support


guidance


committee


chair


, Dr


Craig


Wood,


een


invaluable


He has


been


mentor


teacher


over


last


four


years


, and


could


never


express


true


apprec


nation


what


done.


Thanks


Honeyman.


also


Through


committee


Dr. Honeyman


cochair


have


, Dr. David


acquired


appreciation


school


finance


data


analy


S1S


as well


as the


proper


perspecti


never


taking


"stuff"


seriously


Acknowledgement


goes


to Dr


David


Miller


from


whom


have


developed


an appreciation,


respect,


fascination


research


data


analysis


educational


measurement.


Further


acknowledgement


goes


to Dr


Linda


Crocker


providing


opportunity


acquire


coll


teaching


experience.


Thanks


to Dr


. James


Hensel


always


being


available


support


and


direction


dissertation


writing


process






Last


appreciation


to both


encouragement


least


parents


during


this


would


like


stepparents.


entire


process


to express


Their


my deep


support


been


crucial.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLED GEMENTS .................. .. .. .. ..... .. . i11

ABSTRACT .. .. .. .. ........ ... .... .. ... .... ....vil

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..... ................ .. .. ... 1


Purpose of the Study.......
Research Question...........
Significance of the Study...
Limitations.. ...
Delimitations...............
Overview of the Methodology.
Design of the Study ........


NoPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERAL.
PTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERA


.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6


.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8
..............................38


The Theory of Per-pupil Funding Equity.
School Finance Equity Court Cases......
Foundation Method of Financing Schools.
Previous Florida School Finance Equity
Conclusion .... ...... .. .............
Notes .......... ... ..... .. .. .. .........


Population..
FEFP .
Design......
Measurement.
Conclusion..
Notes .


.. ..............12
.... ............ 20
. .. .. ....... .. 43
Studies. .........51

S. . ......... 64


. .. .77
......................................... 80
. .. .. 89
.. . .. .. . . . . . .92
. ....................... t110
. f . . . . ft. t t t t t t t f f 111


Resource Accessibility.


S . .. .. . 118


CHI


CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ... .................. .. .. ...117


_____~


-- ~ w -- _1 -- T .w w wi i


TURE .. .. .. .. .. ....11


CHAPTER 3 METHOD ... ........ .. .. ..77












Summary. ....
Observations..
Conclusions...
Implications..
Notes . ..


APPENDIX A FEFI

APPENDIX B RAW


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


S. . . . . 135
S. S . . . . .137
S. . . . . 141
S. . . . . 143
. . ...... ... . . ..146


? COST FACTORS .. ....... ........... .. .. 147

DATA .... .. .. .. ....... 148


. . . . . 157


CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION. .. .. .. .. .... 13


LIST OF REFERENCES .. ................. ................... .. 151














Abstract


Dissertation


the University
Requirements fi


Presented


Florida


to the


in Partial


Degree


Doctor


Graduate


School


Fulfillment


Philosophy


AN EXAMINATION


OF THE


DISCRETIONARY


OF A STATE


EFFECTS


LEVIES


FOUNDATION


OF LOCAL


ON THE


FISCAL


DISTRIBUTION


SCHOOL


DISTRICT


EQUITY
SYSTEM


Jeffrey


August,


Maiden

1994


Chairman:
Cochair:


Major


Craig


David


Department


Wood


. Honeyman
: Educational


Leadership


This


disequalizing


quantitative


effects


study


was


local


designed


school


examine


district


discretionary


levies


when


applied


to a foundation


system


education


finance.


1992


data


Florida


used


Education


study


Finance


were


Program,


obtained


which


from


included


equalized


foundation


component


separate


discretionary


revenue


sources.


These


discretionary


sources


, the


current


operation


discretionary


levies


capital


outlay


and


maintenance


levies


, were


based


entirely


on property


taxation








yield.


Resource


accessibility


measures


indicated


increasing


variability


distribution


resources


discretionary


revenues


from


either


sources


were


added


to foundation


revenues.


capital


outlay


maintenance 1

accessibility


evies


contributed


variation


than


more


to the


current


resource


operation


discretionary


levies.


addition


discretionary


revenues


from


each


source


demonstrated


neutrality


noteworthy


disequali


distribution


zing


system.


effect

The


on the


wealth


effects


capital


outlay


and


maintenance


revenues


were


more


acute


than


effects


current


operation


discretionary


revenues.


Both


discretionary


equivalence


revenue


yield


when


sources


combined


decreased


with


level


foundation


revenue


source


The


capital


outlay


maintenance


source


more


disequalizing


effects


in the


realm


taxpayer


equity


than


current


operation


discretionary


source.


Replications


current


study


in states


with


similar


systems


education


finance


are


warranted.


Additionally,


studies


into


fiscal


equity


effects


as well


as the


costs


incorporating


statewide


equalization


programs


discretionary


levies


are


recommended.














CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


Fiscal


equity


as it relates


to financing


schools


rich


tradition


education


finance


literature.


Broadly


defined,


fiscal


equity


school


finance


refers


condition


fair


a given state

education give


broad


treatment


should

n their


nature


provided


varying


theory


students,


equivalent


educational


fiscal


that


support


needs


equity,


students


for

Because


best


understood

following


fisc


this


divided


section

equity

study p


includes


through

provides


defined

a short

analysis

more co


various


components.


description


mplete


components.

discussion


theory

Chapter

the


development


theory


equity


realm


financing


education.


Fiscal


degree


equity


equity


is most


among


commonly


groups,


discussed


students


terms


taxpayers.


Equity


among


students


a reference


to the


basic


fairness


distribution


educational


resources


among


students.


Most


per-pupil


equity


studies


include


examination


equity


0 l-* A-


a --


A~C~~Uf 0


1_ I -


t-^ Y.*


, f, ^ l










Horizontal


equity


refers


an equal


treatment


equals.


A horizontally


equitable


condition


is one


which


equal


resources


are


available


to pupils


with


equal


needs


Vertical


equity,


conversely


,refers


to unequal


treatment


unequal s

varying


these


Because


levels


needs.


students

resources


Under


have


varying


per-pupil


concept


are


vertical


educational

necessary


equity


needs,

to meet


such


differences


are


taken


into


account


Wealth


neutrality


support


wealth


neutrality,


or equality


education


state,


alternatively


known


opportunity,


students


local


fiscal


degree


related


community


to which


to the


which


they


are


educated.


A wealth


neutral


condition


one


which


fiscal


support


students


is not


related


to the


fiscal


conditions


local


school


districts


Taxpayer


equity


refers


to the


basic


fairness


among


taxpayers


a state


in terms


their


support


education.


Taxpayer


equity


exists


to the


extent


that


equal


effort


support


education


results


equal


resources


per-pupil


Education


finance


researchers


have


also


been


interested


other


theoretical


considerations


school


funding


systems.


Most


common


are


adequacy,


efficiency,


exce


llence.


Adequacy


a reference


to whether


students


n^ -. r-'f


-~~n -LL a 4--Lt -- A1


1 a


L


^


f


L .


ft r ^










fairness,


adequacy


stresses


acceptability


level


support


throughout


distribution.


Excellence


degree


refers


educational


to the

quality


concept

In the


attainment


school


a high


finance


context,


such


excellence


quality.


implies


Efficiency,


fiscal

on the


support

other h<


sufficient


and,


to fund


as a finance


construct

resources


significant


implies


Thouc

constr


maximizing

;h adequacy,

ucts worthy


educational

excellence,


further


output

and


given


minimum


efficiency


research,


equity


are

has


a longer


history


as a school


finance


theory


generated


a tremendous


number


individual


studies.


Purpose


Studv


A foundation


system


school


funding


pertinent


context


provides


state


fiscal


funding


a minimally


equity


to guarantee


acceptable


that


each


level


system


every


theoretically


child


education.


Because


each


child


is guarant


this


foundational


level


funding,


theory


equality


educational


opportunity


provided


through


distribution


system.


Yet,


despite


this


recognition


states


to take


an active


funding


role


order


to equalize


to a minimally


acceptable


level


children,


foundation


system


typically


include


allowing


local


stricts


4- a 1 - - - A- -A--S


1 -


,II,,,


t


L










funding


assure


each


child


a minimally


acceptable


level


education,


represented


foundation


funding


level,


allows


districts


discretion


raise


funds


beyond


this


minimum.


Because


a foundation


funding


plan


designed


to promote


equity,


are


tension


permitted.


results


Thus


when


unequalized


, discretionary


millage


discretionary


rates


levies


and


resultant


levies


are


problematic


sense


equity.


According


to Wood


Thompson,


The problem i
leeway, the s
foundation.
discretionary
first sought
not to permit


is once
unaided


again


perplexing.


cheme


would


state


village, it
to eliminate.


discretionary
thwarted. Th


discretionary


state


no longer


fails


equalized


local


a minimum


to equalize


restores


Further, if
millage, the
basic fact


counters


village


inequality


state


minimum
is that


it
did


concept
any


equalization,


while
only


denying


other


loca


option


scretionary


solution


1 leeway violate
is to limit the


village,


is only


minimum


intent


amount


clear


that


a compromise


According


to Thompson,


Wood,


Honeyman,


three


problems


related


to equity


emerge


districts


are


permitted


to levy


discretionary


dollars


to supplement


a minimum


foundation


program.


First,


basic


foundation


program


does


include


provisions


equalization


funds


derived


from


millage


rates


above


minimum


foundation


level.


Second,


distri


must


send


less


'AA.'.


discretionary


millaae


^f


_L_ L_










problem


related


to the


inclusion


discretionary


levies


minimum


foundation


program.


Research


Question


research


question


addressed


this


study


was,


state


with


a foundation


program


support


schools


including


one


or more


discretionary


millage


rates,


to what


extent


levies


resulting


from


application


discretionary


millage


rates


introduce


inequities


into


system


distributing


education


funding?"


Significance


the


Study


study


theory


was


per-pupil


intended


fiscal


to make


equity,


a contribution


which


to the


rich


school f

research


finance

activi


literature

ty among s


focus


school


finance


a great


scholars.


The


deal

study


was


local


intended


school


possible


to provide


districts


education


insight


to strive

children


to the


for p

within


problem


providing


allowing


best


parameters


distribution


formula


while


maintaining


fiscal


fairness


throughout


a state.


foundation


program


is by


most


popular


method


financing


public


education.


Currently


, thirty-eight


rI ,,


r 1.1










foundation


system


state


Florida


was


chosen


this


study.


Florida


is one


most


populous


states


nation


serves


one


largest


public


school


enrollments.


This


study


was


intended


to provide


examination


public


school


system


Florida,


with


particular


attention


to its


funding


methodology.


Limitations


current


study


was


limited


to the


theory


equity,


without


assessments


adequacy,


effic


iency,


or excellence.


Equity


equity,


assessments


wealth


were


limited


neutrality,


to horizontal


taxpayer


equity.


per-pupil


Vertical


equity


was


addressed.


A macroanalysis


a state


system


distributing


education


resources


was


included


study,


microanalysis.


Assessments


equity


distribution


resources


among


districts


were


made.


No effort


was


made


examine


distribution


within


districts.


Delimitations


Data


fiscal


were


year,


taken


1992


from


-93,


one


most


state


recent


included


in which


only


data


one


were


available.


Fiscal


data


were


additionally


limited


to those


- ,


r --


- .


C~,


4 *










study


secondary


examined

schools o


fiscal


nly.


data


Neither


from


public


private


elementary


schools


nor


higher


education


organizations


were


considered.


Overview


Methodoloav


foundation


distribution


system


state


Florida


was


used


study.


Data


study


were


taken


from


Florida


Education


Finance


Program


(FEFP)


1992-93


school


Year.


FEFP


included


a foundation


basic


support


program


in addition


to two


unequalized


discretionary


village


rates,


discretionary


millage


capital


outlay


among


maintenance


districts


millage.


derived


Mean


from


per-pupil


foundation


revenues


program,


discretionary


levies,


capital


outlay


maintenance


levies


were


used


to analyze


equity


FEFP


distribution.


per-pupil


revenues


were


divided


into


seven


levels


aggregation


which


included


combinations


foundation,


discretionary,


capital


outlay


and


maintenance


revenues.


Equity


was


measured


according


to three


standards.


first


was


resource


accessibility,


which


provided


assessment


-pupil


horizontal


equity.


second


was


wealth


neutrality


, using


per-pupil


assess


valuation


as the


1-"n C.


et C 1


r a a


- -A -


m L -


f-*r


iLt -; _-3


_ -


*..









following


section


includes


a summary


contents


study.


Design


of the


Study


Chapter


provided


an introduction


to the


study.


nature


problem


was


presented


as well


as the


specific


research


significance


delimitations


and


question


study


addressed.


as well


an overview


Following


was


limitations


methodology.


the

and


Chapter


presents


a review


literature


pertinent


to the


study.


This


includes


a description


historical


development


theory


fiscal


equity


as well


as a summary


court


cases

was 1


through


egally


which


tested.


the

The


equity


state


literature


foundation


review


further


systems


eludes


both


a written


description


of the


foundation


method


distributing


research


education


studies


dollar


concerning


a review


Florida


s foundation


previous

distribution


system.


Chapter


includes


a description


research


methodology

includes a


in greater


detail


discussion


than p

results


provided


above.

study


Chapter

while


Chapter


includes


a summary


as well


as conclusions


and


implications


derived


from


study.











2Thomas


York:
Burrup


Macmillan
, Vern Br


Jones,


Publishing
imley, Jr,


Introduction


Company,
and Rulon


to School
1985), 5;
Garfield,


Finance


(New


Percy


F inancina


Education


in a Climate


of Change,


(Boston:


Allyn


Bacon,


1988


Lawrence


, 79-80


Pierce,


James


. Guthrie,


ol Finance


Walter


Education


. Garms,
Policy:


Enhancing
(Englewood


Efficiency.


Cliffs


Eaualitv.


Choice


NJ: Prentice-Hall,


1988)


, 2nd


, 130;


David


Monk,


Educational


Finance:


An Economic


Anoroach


(New


York:


McGraw-Hill,
Education Fi


1990


-nance


35;
Law:


Craig


Wood


Constitutional


David


Challenges


. Thompson,
to State Aid


Plans--An


Analvsi


Strategies


(Topeka,


KS: National


Organization
C. Thompson,
Leadership f
NY: Longman


Legal
Craig


Schools


Publishing


Problems


Wood,


: Concerts


Group,


in Education,


David


1993)


Honeyman,


Practices


David


scal


(White


Plains,


1994


Berne


Leanna


Stiefel,


Measurement


Eauitv


in School


University


Guthrie,


McCarthy,
Secondary


Press


Finance
, 1984),


Garms, al
Stephen


Education


(Baltimore
13; Burrup
Pierce, 302


Thomas,


(Columbus


:Me


: The


Johns


, Brimley,


Dean


Hopkins


and
Webb,


Financing Elemen
rrill Publishing


Garfield,
Martha 1


tarv


, 1988),


Monk


Standards
Standards
Aid Progr


Wood


Re.


am,


and


Robert


State


levant to
" Journal
Thompson


Berne


School


Secti


Leann


Programs:
on 5(d) (2


of Education


, 18


; Thompson,


a Stiefel, "
Philosophies


Finance


Wood,


Equity
and


Federal
(Summer


Impact
, 1993),


Honeyman,


4Berne


Steifel,


Measurement


Eauity


, 13;


Burrup,
Pierce,


Berne


Brimley, a
302; Webb,
d Stiefel,


Thompson,


Wood


Garfield,


McCarthy,
"Equity S


, and


Guthrie


and


Thomas,


Standards,


" 95


, Garms,


189;
; Woo


Monk,
d and


and


37-39


Thompson,


Honeyman,


5Berne


Stiefel,


Measurement


Eauitv,


Burrup,
Thomas,


Brimley,


189;


Berne


Garfield,
d Stiefel


80-81;


, "Equity


Webb


, McCarthy


Standards,


, and


" 95


6Berne


and


Stiefel,


Measurement


Equity,


41-42


Guthrie,


Garms,


Pierce,


Webb,


McCarthy,


and


Thomas,


192;


Berne


Stiefel


, "Equity


Standards,


" 96-97


3Robert











8Guthrie


, Garms


Thoma


School


Longman,


, and


Austin


Finance


1991)


: Its2
, 225;


Pierce,
Swanson


Economics
Thompson


and


Wood


150-152


Webb,


Richard


Politics


, and


New


McCarthy
. King,
York:


Honeyman,


9Arthur


Stellar,


"Implications


Programmati


Excellence


The


Equity,


" in


Fiscal. Leaal.


Van
and


Mueller


Political


Mary


. McKeown


AsDects


Elementary


Secondary


Education


(Cambridge


, MA: Ballinger


1986);
Pierce


Burrup
, 29.


, Brimley


, and


Garfield,


Guthrie


, Garms


, and


10Burrup


, Brimley


, and


Garfi


eld,


Guthrie


, Garms


, and


Pierce


, 28-34;


Swanson


Webb


King


, 259


, McCarthy


, and


Thomas


, 192;


Monk


, 4-11;


-278.


1lBerne,


"Equity


Issues,


" 159


Andrea
United


Stephen
C. Hyary


States
Study


and


Canada.


States


David
Publi


Smith


School


1990-91


, Stephen


Finance


, vol.


B Lawton


, and


Proarams


Albany


Center


, 1992


13Wood


Thompson,


14Thompson,


15Gold,


Wood


Smith,


Lawton


Honeyman


, and


Hyrary,


-224

18.


. Gold,
(eds.),


, NY:














CHAPTER


REVIEW


OF THE


LITERATURE


In Chapter


research


question


addressed


this


study


was


presented.


Specifically,


this


study


dealt


with


effects


moneys


raised


through


local


discretionary


millage


rates


on fiscal


equity


a state


foundation


distribution


system.


This


chapter


includes


a summary


literature


related


to the


study.


The


chapter


begins


with


a summary


development


theory


of educational


funding


equity,


which


was


introduced


chapter


of this


study


to which


this


study


was


intended


to contribute.


Subsequently


discussion


turns


to d


decisions


rendered


federal


state


court


systems


dealing


with


problem


providing


equitable


systems


education


funding


states.


Following


this


summary


of relevant


court


cases


is a discussion


foundation


system


distributing


state


funds


to local


school


districts.


final


section


this


chapter


includes


a summary


previous


studi


equity


distribution


school


funds


through


foundation


system


Florida,


state


from


which


data


were


derived.










Theory


Per-Puoil


Funding


Eauity


nature,


providing


an equitable


system


funding


education


requires


state


to provide


greater


financial


support


to less


wealthy


local


education


agencies


because


such


stricts


have


access


to the


same


fiscal


resources


which


wealthier


district


have


access.


Following


discussion


historical


development


theory


equity


relates


to state


financial


support


public


education.


With


publication


monograph


1906,


Ellwood


Cubberley


was


first


modern


scholar


to discuss


concept


equity


relates


to school


finance.


Cubberley


was


first


to develop


concept


that


schools


a state


should


considered


a state


system


schools,


rather


than


series


local


systems,


in order


to foster


equitable


funding.


According


to equalize


resources


to Cubberley,


advantages


available


to all


to the


duty


school


state


state


children


Cubberley


was


considering

theorized


that


that


state


could


itself


generate


should


revenue


provide


fiscal


equivalent


to districts


to other


areas


state


in order


to equalize


educational


opportunity


throughout


state.


According


to Cubberley,


[A]id


should


needs


bear


some


community


definite


and


relationship
the efforts


-- _- 1 A-


* '


SI


S1 --


1


*1


t


K


1


l


_










guarantee


a certain


minimum,


or foundational,


level


funding


each


child.


In collaboration


with


Haig,


Strayer


argued


that


order


to achieve


equalization


educational


opportunity:


[I]t wo
schools


uld


or make


furnish


within


the
stat


opportunities
(2) to raise


purpose


such


manner


localities


their
adequa


control
direct


local


necessary
other a
children
e with e
D to som


ability;


to establi


arrangements
in every 1


qual


e


funds ne
or state


as to bear
at the same


sufficient


ocality


educational


prescribed


cessary r
taxation


upon
rate


tax-paying
tely either


school


admini


education.


station,
6


minimum
This


adjusted


the people
in relation


in all
to


to provide


supervision


, or for


a state


and


their


department


Strayer


envisioned


that


each


local


district


provide


a level


taxation


that


would


provide


funding


minimally


acceptable


level


education


applied


residents

wealthiest


wealthiest


district,


district


in applying


state.


this


rate,


would


raise


money


required


to finance


schools


within


strict


s borders.


The


state


would


grant


each


remaining


district


enough


money


that,


combination


with


funding


raised


locally,


supported


this


minimally


acceptable


level


education.


Strayer


held


that


same


local


tax


rate


should


exerted


throughout


state


In this


respect,










district

Strayer


citizens


believed


that


district


allowing


districts


so desired.

to generate


moneys


beyond


those


resulting


from


statewide


local


effort


rate


would


have


disequalizing


effects


Strayer


claimed


that


"logical


conclusion"


equalizing


educational


opportunity


was


a full


, statewide


system


schools.


administration


Yet,

being


localization


strongly


grounded


financing

American


tradition,


Strayer


maintained


that


some


degree


of local


control


should


maintained


a state


Harlan


Updegraff


, writing


early


1920s,


concurred


state


order


however,


with


should


to provide


that


early


poorer


equal


addition


proponents


districts


opportunity.


distri


equity


more


that


generously


Updegraff


should


argued,


rewarded


effort


sense


willingness


raise


educational


revenues


through


taxation.


Equalization


funding


from


state


, acc


ording


to Updegraff,


should


a function


effort


forth


each


district.


result


same


same


effort


level


from


fiscal


distri


support


would


education


funding


unit.


Updegraff


believed


that


such


a system


would


promote


A----~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- I -A........


I


L. -


I_


A


- t ^ -


_ -


I


A ___ __ ^ I -


"1 -


.. 1










required


to exert


greater


effort


order


to provide


an acceptable


level


education.


Through


equalizing


system


that


rewards


effort,


state


would en

mandated


courage


localities


foundational


rise


level,


above


therefore


a certain


with


state


state


assistance


each


district


would


a position


best.


Henry


Morrison,


like


previously


mentioned


providing


researchers


equitable


supported


funding


theoretical


education,


ideal


took


concept

funding


a step


further


public


advocating


schools


Morrison


completee

believe


statewide

i funding


inequities


emanated


from


fundamental


flaw


existence


localized


funding


educational


enterprise.


Morrison


proposed


that


instead


providing


a system


distribution


state


funds


inverse


proportion

Strayer,


to local


a system


district

which d


needs,


districtt


as advocated

organization


bypa


ssed


should


come


into


fruition.


each


student


would


provided


an equivalent


level


funding


from


revenue


generated


through


state


taxation.


Under


American


ideal


federalism,


according


to Morrison,


states


* .,


maintained


plenary


, S


power


over


* .- ..


I


1










state


level


funding


circumventing


local


control


without


imparting


damage


on the


American


system


governance.


Morrison


argued


that


revenue


these


state


funds


could


come


from


among


four


sources


in any


combination.


These


included


property


taxes


levied


statewide


state


income


taxes


, state


taxes


on corporations,


income


from


state


school


lands


or invested


school


fund


Paul


College,


. Mort,


expanded


a student


concept


Strayer


initially


at Teacher


developed


Strayer


Haig


that


state


should


establish


and


help


support


a foundational


level


education


children.


Because


a foundational


level


education


should


based


on educational


need,


Mort


developed


idea


quantifying


educational


need


using


school


finance


policy.


According


to Mort


, the


educational


need


. of
composite
community


public


a community


of those


that


would


educational


offering


regarded


as the


element


cost


demanded


state pr
children


ogram


making


a satisfactory


opportunity.
element would


cost


available
minimum ed


relative
determined


weighting


to all


ucational


each


18


d










state.


Mort


referred


to this


method


as the


"satisfactory


equalization


program.


Mort


discussed


specific


planning


such


equalization


program.


ssroom,


expressed


teacher


units


, was


cost


unit


plan.


Basic


ally,


according


to Mort,


each


child


would


have


available


where


ssroom


a program


or teacher


of satisfactory


equipped


equal


point


zation


education


would


met.


Each


community,


in turn,


would


have


suffi


cient


classroom


units


to appropriately


educate


children


that


community.


concept


per-pupil


equity


specifically


relates


to the


foundational


state


distribution


system


was


developed


scholar

finance


career,


authors.


Mort

21 as

For


throughout

well as by


.I


example,


remainder


other


Edgar


notable


Morphet


school


discussed


important


elements


which


should


included


in a


worthwhile

granted an


foundation


adequate


program.


level


education,


children sh

financed


lould


jointly


state


respect


tive


local


districts.


system


should


promote


equality


educational


opportunity


among


students


state.


Local


districts


should


able


to fund


schools


above


S1 a a a


* *


* *










substantial


contribution


to the


foundational


level


order


that


no undue


burden


would


placed


on the


local


districts.


foundations


concept


equity


were


laid


these


scholars.


With


their


writings


theory


equity


relates


to education


funding


developed,


late


1960s


and


early


1970s


many


states


established


systems


which


state


made


corrections


existing


National


inequities.


Education


According


Foundation


to data


provided


Project,


late


1960s


forty-two


states


used


equalization


programs


fund


school


seven


states


employed


non-equalizing


flat


grant


distribution


systems,


one


state,


Hawaii,


used


a system


complete


state


federal


support.


Strayer-Haig


foundation


plan


was


most


popular


equalization


plans,


with


thirty-four


states


using


this


method


that


time.


Although


incorporated


vast


equalization


majority


formulas


states


into


had


respective


school


finance


systems


early


1970s


, the


degree


which


these


systems


were


truly


equalizing


was


questionable.


In 197


, the


President


s Commission


School


Finance


conducted


a nationwide


study


on the


*


i i l










Texas.


ratio


95th


percentile


to the


perc


entile


ranged


from


to 1.2


to 1


Maryland


to 5


to 1


Wyoming.


ratio


90th


percentile


10th


percentile


ranged


from


to 1


Georgia


and


West


Virginia


to 3


to 1


Montana


Clearly,


even


states


where


accomplished,


greatest


relatively


large


equalization


disparities


been


in per-pupil


financial


support


existed.


Similar


results


were


found


area


wealth


neutrality


among


states.


ratio


maximum


to the


minimum


to 1


property


North


Dakota


valuations


to 182


per-pupil


to 1


ranged


Kansas.


from

The


95th


North


to 5th


Dakota


percentile


to 9


ratios


to 1


ranged


New


from


Mexico.


to 1


90th


10th


percentile


Hampshire


ratios


North


ranged


Dakota


from


to 6


to 1


to 1


New


New


Mexico


is apparent


that


resource


accessibility


to fund


education


varied


widely


among


districts


states


(excluding


Hawaii,


which


included


no local


funding


schools


with


some


variations


being


extreme.


Because


continued


existence


these


inequalities


nation'


courts


became


a significant


- -- ^ -A -- 2 a --


SI I


_ _%- 1-,


-...-.--~-I


,~,,, L,~,


i L


s.










courts,


majority


from


early


1970s


through


present


These


challenges


to state


distributions


school


funds


will


be discussed


following


section.


School


Finance


Eauitv


Court


Cases


A plethora


challenges


to state


public


school


distribution


systems


have


been


decided


federal


state


court


systems.


Because


purpose


this


study


specifically


related


to distributional


equity


foundation


system


public


school


finance,


only


those


cases


which


have


involved


challenges


to foundation


systems


equity


grounds


will


discussed.


A small


number


of school


finance


equity


cases


have


been


decided


federal


court


system.


These


cases


involved


challenges


to funding


distribution


based


on the


constitutional


theory


equal


protection


clause


U.S.


Constitution.


claim


usually


made


was


that


system


funding


that


treated


students


distribution


in poorer


system


deprived


districts


unfairly,


students


poorer


districts,


as defined


per-pupil


property


wealth,


educational


opportunity.


These


cases


have


been


unsuccessful


in terms


reforming


state


funding


methodologies


to decrease


per-pupil


funding


disparities.


m 1 1. 1 -- r-


m b *


_ _%- "


r .


IIu


p









whether


Texas


system


financing


public


schools


was


violation


equal


protection


clause


fact


that


children


residing


school


districts


with


relatively


property


values


were


provided


an education


at a lower


level


funding


Such


than


disparities


children


funding


residing


level


in wealthier


allegedly


districts.


resulted


deprivation


educational


opportunities


these


children


. District


Court


Western


Texas


ruled


that


finance


system


indeed


violated


equal


protection


clause.


court


ruled


that


funding


disparities


created


suspect


classification


children


residing


poorer


districts,


that


these


children


were


denied


fundamental


right


of education


because


substandard


funding


court


applied


strict


scrutiny


test,


state


failed


to demonstrate


a compelling


interest


maintaining


such


a system


which


violated


this


fundamental


right.


. Supreme


Court


reversed


decision


on appeal.


Court


decision


declined


use


strict


scrutiny


standard


three


reasons.


First


, the


appellees


could


demonstrate


that


suspect


class


was


disadvantaged


system.


reason


existed


to believe


that


poor


people


state


resided


districts


with


lower


property


----1-~-~- An


J7










supplements)


children.


Therefore,


education


per


was


denied


child


state;


some


children


were


simply


others

Court,


provided


The


"does


Third,


fundamental


education


less


equal


funding


protection


require


Court


right.


was


extremely


absolute


ruled


Court


that


their


clause,


education


according


equality


education


declared


important


that


to society,


than


to the


advantages


was


although


was


province


court


to pick


choose


certain


substantive


rights


(such


guarantee


as education)


equal


protection.


to call


To be


fundamental


and


fundamental,


thus


such


a right


must


explicitly


or implicitly


mentioned


in the


Constitution.


Because


education


was


a fundamental


right


and


because


no suspect


class


was


involved,


according


to the


Court,


only


a rational


relationship


between


school


finance


stem


state


purpose


would


need


to be


demonstrated.


In the


Court


s view,


Texas


foundation


system


was


designed


to extend


education


to all


children,


to improve


quality


Legislature


had


chosen


facilitate


funding


schools


largely


through


local


sources


to promote


local


autonomy


control


education,


which


strongly


grounded


American


tradition.


Furthermore,


_


_ I 1










rational


relationship


test,


was


declared


Court


to be


in compliance


with


equal


protection


clause


Because


precedent


established


Rodriguez


case,


state


court


systems


became


primary


means


attacking


These


state


challenges


finance sy

typically


stems


on equity


involved


grounds.


allegations


violation


given


state


s constitutional


equal


protection


guarantee,


education


arti


constitution,


both.


overall


results


these


challenges,


terms


judicial


determination


distributional


equity


state


finance


systems


light


these


constitutional


provisions,


have


been


mixed.


The


landmark


case


challenges


to state


school


finance


distribution


methodologies


in state


court


systems


was


Serrano


Priest


allegation


was


that


disparities


in per-


pupil


funding


among


California


school


districts


(based


relative


equal


property


protection


values


clause


resulted


both


violation


California


of the


Constitution


Fourteenth


Amendment


to the


Constitution.


California


In its


Supreme


Court


decision,


eventually


court


decided


applied


case.


strict


scrutiny


test

this


to the

measure


state


school


because


finance


cation


system.


was


court


a fundamental


justified


right


SI e *


%I- ---_- --


- -~


i I










court


declared


"irrefutable"


fact


that


a suspect


class


consisting


discriminated


against


less

t due


wealthy

to the


individuals


nature


had


been


finance


system.


appellees


scrimination


individuals.


discrimination


against


court


affected


argued


school


that


districts


, however,


a class


ruled


people


system


, not


that


resulted


a class


this


residing


these


poor


districts.


court


also


ruled


that


education


was


a fundamental


right


which


clause


should


both


protected


constitutions.


equal


Education,


protection


according


to the


court


, was


significant


future


economic


social


success


students.


Education


was


also


declared


to be


necessary


an enlightened


citizenry


, capable


engaging


fruitful


civic


and


political


activities


Therefore,


finance


system


failed


strict


scrutiny


standard


because


state


could


demonstrate


no compelling


interest


in maintaining


year


following


Serrano,


a decision


New


Jersey


court


was


rendered


concerning


that


state


finance


distribution


system


issue


was


constitutionality


New


Jersey


foundation


system


funding


schools


Supreme


Court


New


Jersey


eventually


decided


case


, declaring


foundation


system


in violation


4





I


..













between


expenditures


overall


educational


quality.


Although


New


Jersey


time


case


ranked


third


nation


in terms


total


expenditure


per-pupil


education,


disparities


among


districts


were


nevertheless


large.


determine


The (

just


court

how


admitted


much


that


expenditure


although


per-pupil


was

was


difficult

enough,


clearly


some


districts


expenditure


was


totally


inadequate


(e.g.,


based


on such


factors


as conditions


facilities


academic


status


students).


The


court


believed


some


children


were


definitely


receiving


inadequate


education.


"thorough"


required


New


Jersey


Constitution


meant


thorough


something


beyond


education


minimum


therefore


was


according


being


to the


provided


court.


every


child,


constitutional


mandate


was


being


violated


Furthermore,


fostering


local


control


education


could


used


to justify


a system


with


huge


inequities


pupil


expenditures.


Real


control


was


illusory


poorest


local


districts


that


limited


resources


available


to them.


court


applied


strict


scrutiny


standard


to the


system


could


find


no compelling


state


interest


which


justified


school


finance


system.


court


expressed


_ -. -


L 1_


vl


I*










foundation


system


violation


. Constitution63


New


Jersey


Constitution.


Following


Serrano


Robinson,


state


foundation


distribution


formulas


many


states


were


challenged


respective


state


court


systems.


Michigan


s system


school


finance


was


challenged


that


state


s court


system,


claim


being


made


that


system


was


in violation


both


Michigan


. Constitutions.


U.S.


Constitutional


issue


was


disposed


court


citing


Rodriauez


as precedent


In deciding


state


constitutional


issue,


court


focused


on the


relationship


between


inputs


* .e.


available


monetary


resources)


and


educational


opportunities


court


stated


that


evidence


had


been


provided


that


students


in the


poorer


districts


were


significantly


more


deprived


educational


opportunity


than


students


wealthier


districts


The


court


further


stated


that


no proof


was


available


that


eliminating


per-pupil


funding


disparities


among


stricts


would


somehow


increase


opportunity


students


residing


in poor


districts.


state


s constitutional


obligation,


according


to the


court,


was


children


to provide


throughout


a basic


state.


system

The


schools


Michigan


Constitution










foundation


system


Michigan


was


upheld


as constitutionally


valid.


foundation


system


Idaho


was


challenged


violating


challenge


both


was


U.S.


based


on per-pupil


Idaho


Constitutions.


funding


The


disparities


resulting


from


a heavy


reliance


on local


valorem


taxation


to fund


education


Idaho.


Supreme


Court


Idaho


upheld


constitutionality


finance


system.


According


to the


court,


availability


funds


was


a very


important


factor


determining


educational


adequacy.


Yet,


Court


could


dare


that


smaller


expenditure


levels


resulted


declared


a denial


that


equal


Legislature


protection.


was


court


exercising


further


plenary


power


in developing


administering


a valid


system


financing


schools.


court


would


establish


itself


as a


"super


legislature"


interfere


with


this


authority.


court


unnecessary


found


in that


use


education


strict


was


scrutiny


a fundamental


test


right


state


as a rational


basis


developing


and


admini


control


steering


foundation


education.


program


Therefore,


fostering


foundation


local


plan


was


upheld


as constitutional.


constitutionality


Oregon


state


foundation


__










funding


schools


resulting


in alleged


deprivation


educational


opportunity


students


living


in poorer


areas


state.


Supreme


foundation


Court


Oregon


system.


upheld


court


constitutionality


not


answer


question


whether


education


was


a fundamental


right


therefore


subject


to equal


protection


guarantees


Nevertheless,


court


declared


that


no child


been


deprived


access


to a minimum


level


education


even


though


educational


program


offerings


available


to children


varied


widely.


court


system


was


agreed


to allow


that


local


the objective

control over e


education


finance

. While


admitting


that


lack


adequate


resources


diminished


local


control


poorer


district


, the


court


could


not


conclude


that


equal


protection


been


violated


because


such


diminution.


court


also


agreed


that


perhaps


other


systems


finance


could


developed


more


adequately


equalize


per-


pupil


expenditures


in education.


, the


court


saw


this


no reason


to strike


down


current


system


unconstitutional.


court


ruled


that


Oregon


Constitution


mandate


uniform


funding


per-pupil


across


_


_ *


A


I _


I


1










In West


Virginia,


school


finance


system


was


declared


unconstitutional


State


Supreme


Court


Appeals


based


on both


equity


adequacy


grounds.


court


ruled


that


mechanisms


thorough


free


financing

education


the

and


schools


equal


denied


protection,


children


both


violations


court


West


declared


Virginia


education


Constitution.


a fundamental


constitutionally


protected


right


West


Virginia


The


court


found


"broad


comprehensive


constitutional


inadequacies


structure


compos


ition"


entire


school


system,


including


method


finance


Some


districts


were


"woefully


inadequate,


" though


needed


some


degree


improvement.


finance


system


particular


was


declared


discriminatory


court.


Funding


should


have


been


emphasized


state


level


instead


local


to eliminate


funding


disparities


based


on local


wealth.


therefore


was


in violation


state


constitution


because


a thorough


effi


cient


system


schooling


was


being


provided.


Ohio


scrutiny


system.


Supreme


standard


Finding


Court


declined


examining


no fundamental


to apply


Ohio


interest


finance


strict


distribution


involved,


only










constitutionality


legislative


acts


should


assumed


unles


a clear


violation


were


evident.


The

purpose


state


promoting


, according


local


to the


control


court,


over


educati'


as a rational

on, a tradition


dating


back


to the


Northwest


Ordinance


1785.


Traditionally,


attempted


General


to ameliorate


Assembly


funding


through


disparities.


years


Although


per-pupil


funding


inequities


were


real,


system


was


irrational


Additionally,


wide


discretion


should


given


to the


General


Assembly,


court


should


exercise


great


circumspe


action


defer


legislative


insight


area


financial


provi


education.


Although


discretion


was


unlimited


General


Assembly


had


abused


to the


extent


that


finance


system


should


declared


unconstitutional


Therefore,


court


ruled


that


system


was


violation


Ohio


Constitution.


Georgia


Supreme


Court


ruled


that


state


school


financing


system,


despite


interdistrict


per-pupil


funding


inequities,


was


in violation


Georgia


Constitution.


state


financing


system,


according


court


, bore


a rational


relationship


to the


state


purpose


providing


a minimum


level


school


funding


to each


student.


court


admitted


that


finance


system


_


i


L_


--X


f










(wealthier


salaries,


districts


superior


could


curricula,


afford


higher


better


instructional


supplies


plant


facilities,


state


finance


scheme


constitutional


requirement


providing


basic


educational


opportunities


to all


children.


court


declared


that


although


state


should


beyond


educational


constitutional


opportunities,


requirement


providing


of providing


equal


basic


expenditures


child


was


reached


required


because


state


state.


Constitution


This


conclusion


provided


great


was


detail


about


institution


of education


mentioned


nothing


about


equalizing


expenditures


court


also


declared


that


although


education


was


vital


was


a fundamental


right


implicitly


or explicitly


guaranteed


ruling


Constitution.


non-fundamentality


U.S.


Rodriguez,


Supreme


Court


although


not


binding


with


regard


to state


constitutional


issues,


provided


worthy


guidance.


Therefore,


strict


scrutiny


model


was


used


Georgia


court.


The


court


decision


made


clear


that


Georgia


school


finance


system


was


a poor


one


in terms


equity,


and


urged


Legislature


to develop


a more


equitable


system


funding


schools.


Yet


court


refused


to rule


that


Al A%


--













to the


court,


term


"adequate"


was


specifically


defined


Constitution.


It would


have


been


difficult


determine


a judicially


manageable


standard


to determine


whether


pupils


are


rec


giving


an adequate


education,


court


declared,


it would


defer


to the


legis


lature


assess


adequacy


court


could


justify


declaring


state


school


financing


system


inadequate


because


per-pupil


funding


disparities


existed.


New


York


Court


Appeals


ruled


that


New


York


foundation


distribution


system


violate


either


New


York


Constitution


or the


equal


protection


clause


U.S.


Constitution.


court


in its


decision


declared


that


New


York


had


consistently


been


among


nation


leader


per-


pupil


school


funding.


Disparities


among


districts


did


exist,


metropolitan


areas


were


hardest


hit.


However


, no claim


had


been


made


that


district


provided


schooling


below


state


mandated


requirements;


only


disparities


were


question.


Because


complex


nature


funding


schools,


court


declared


that


was


best


left


to the


Legislature


staff


professionals


executive


branch.


Though


court


was


responsible


overseeing


compliance


with


constitutional


mandates


, no


violation


was


evidenced


in thi


case.


llr


1 _










education,


funding


disparitie


are


result


local


wealth


differences


legislative


actions


Therefore,


according


to the


court


, no violation


either


constitution


been


demonstrated.


Furthermore,


though


court


considered


education


important,


was


fundamental


right.


court


further


found


that


state


Constitution


required


only


that


a system


free


public


schooling


provided,


equitable


per-pupil


educational


funding.


state


had


complied


with


this


requirement


establishing


minimum


standards,


both


funding


other


educational


areas,


with


which


local


school


boards


must


comply.


Therefore,


school


finance


system


was


ruled


violative


of either


constitution.


Maryland


Supreme


Court


declared


that


state


s school


foundation


distribution


system


constitutionally


valid


light


. Constitution


, the


Maryland


Constitution,


Maryland


laration


Rights


With


regard


to the


state


was


constitutional


required


issue,


to provide


court


exact


ruled


funding


that


levels


state


pupil


event,


state


undertaken


through


years


provide


increased


equalization


expenditures


, and


current


formula


helped


ease


inequities.


"thorough


and


aC d1 *


K


I










education.


With


shared


responsibility


some


measure


funding


differentiation


should


expected.


Citing


Rodriauez112


dealing


with


U.S.


Constitutional


issue,


court


ruled


that


education


should


declared


a fundamental


right,


therefore


strict


scrutiny


should


applied


because


non-fundamentality


nonexistence


a suspect


class


based


on wealth


alone.


Furthermore


, no purposeful


discrimination


state


was


in evidence


Only


rational


basis


test


need


appli


state


had


a rational


basis


using


formula


state


foster


school


local


funding


control


formula


autonomy.


was


Therefore,


in violation


either


constitution


or the


Declaration


Rights.


The


Arkansas


Supreme


Court


declared


that


state


s school


finance


rational


system


unconstitutional


relationship


test


using


court


less


could


rigorous


find


rational


funding


relationship


among


between


districts


disparity


needs


per-pupil


individual


districts.


issue


in the


case


was


whether


financing


system


provided


state


foundation


plan


violated


Arkansas


Constitution.


court


use


strict


scrutiny


test


this


case,


therefore


avoided


question


whether


education










school


districts


rejected


claim


with


regard


that


to funding


purpose


court


foundation


plan


was


to promote


local


control


education,


declaring


that


provi


sion


more


equitable


funding


would


diminish


local


control.


Furthermore,


levels


-pupil


funding


deprived


poor


districts


effective


control


education.


In Oklahoma,


state


school


finance


system


was


charged


with


violating


equal


prote


action


clause


U.S.


Constitution


several


provi


sions


Oklahoma


Constitution.


rendered


a decision,


Oklahoma

declaring


Supreme


Court


system


eventually


constitutionally


valid.


challenge


to the


system


was


that


inequitable


per-pupil

foundation


funding

plan d


levels


eprived


which re

children


suited


from


distri


state


with


lower


property


violation

declared


values


opportunity


equal


that,


under


protection


equal


a good


clause


protection


education,


court

legislative


analysis,


acts


such


as the


foundation


plan


should


considered


valid


courts


unless


a suspect


class


been


deprived


rights


fundamental


right


been


violated.


Citing


Rodriauez


court


found


that


neither


these


conditions


existed.


Furthermore,


allegation


was


III 1










control


relationship


education

D existed


autonomy,


between


therefore


system


a rational


a legitimate


state


purpose.


plaintiffs


decision


argued


Rodri.uez126


that


need


U.S.


apply,


Supreme


that


Court


different


circumstances


existed


Oklahoma


than


Texas.


Court


claimed


that


state


school


systems,


including


funding


plans,


were


dissimilar.


Oklahoma


court


had


no reason

The


to rule d

plaintiffs


differently

charged t


than


hat


state


. Supreme

school f


Court


financing


system


was


in violation


several


provisions


state


constitution.


First,


because


education


is specifically


mentioned


Oklahoma


Constitution),


should


Constitution


qualify


unlike


as a fundamental


U.S.


right


court,


however,


ruled


that


mere


mention


education,


other


establish


phenomenon,


state


as a fundamental


constitution


right.


Furthermore,


providing


equitable


funding


per-pupil


was


mentioned


Oklahoma


Constitution.


Second,


plaintiff


argued


that


funding


inequities


resulted


a violation


constitutional


requirement


uniformity


application


laws


throughout


state.


The


court


countered


that


Legislature


established










plaintiffs


challenged


use


valorem


taxation


foundation


plan,


claiming


that


resultant


funding


disparities


violated


equal


protection


clause


Oklahoma


Constitution.


court


rejected


this


argument,


saying


that


foundation


plan


been


established


minimize


differences


caused


varying


levels


district


wealth


court


further


held


that


was


obligated


uphold


constitutionality


a given


Legislature


Legislature


unless


acted


could


arbitrarily


demonstrated


that


or capriciously.


Court


could


find


no such


violation


with


regard


to the


school


finance


legislation.


Thus,


finance


system


was


upheld


constitutional.


In South


Carolina,


foundation


distribution


system


was


upheld


State


Supreme


Court


valid


light


South


Carolina


Constitution.


According


to the


court,


Legislature


was


constitutionally


mandated


to provide


system


schooling,


Legislature


discretion


how


to fund


system.


Legislative


actions


such


those


relating


to funding


schools


should


normally


considered


valid


courts.


plaintiffs


also


charged


that


students


residing


poor


districts


were


denied


equal


educational


opportunity










state


money


poor


districts.


Therefore


system


was


rational


means


equalizing


educational


opportunity


Montana


foundation


distribution


system


was


charged


with


violating


Montana


Constitution.


plaintiffs


charged


that


although


state


finance


system


included


interdistrict


equali


zing


provi


sions,


per-pupil


funding


differences


among


school


districts


were


as high


as eight


one,


thus


equal


opportunity


was


being


denied.


The


defendants


argued


that


state


foundation


plan


had


been


established


to foster


equal


opportunity,


and


therefore


constitution


was


violated.


Additionally,


according


to the


defendants,


outputs


(i.e.,


assessments


based


factors


such


as standardized


test


scores


dropout


rates


should


have


been


used


measure


equal


opportunity


instead


inputs


* e.,


funding


defendants


further


argued


that


although

equal ed

control


Constitution


ucational


school


established


opportunity,

ng as a state


as a goal


document


goal.


With


state


declared


local


local


control


naturally


disparate


-pupil


spending


levels


occurred.


Montana


Supreme


Court


ruled


that


system


was


violation


constitution.


court


declared


that


state


failed


to present


convincing


evidence


that


outputs


rather


than


inputs


signified


equal


educational


opportunity










goal


a constitutional


state


to equalize


guarantee.


educational


Because


expenditures


failure


(due


part


to the


state


inadequate


failed


funding


to provide


foundation


equal


educational


program)


opportunity


children.


Texas


foundation


distribution


was


charged


with


violating


differences


Texas


in the


property


Constitution


wealth


based


school


on huge


districts


Because


percent


school


funding


statewide


was


derived


from


local


sources


because


localities


relied


heavily


volarem


taxation,


wide


school


funding


disparities


resulted.


A 700


to 1


ratio


in property


value


existed


between


wealthiest


poor


school


stricts,


while


per-


pupil


spending


was


to $2


Supreme


Court


Texas


declared


school


finance


system


unconstitutional.


court


stated


that


amount


money


spent


on pupils


a significant


impact


on educational


opportunity.


Pupils


residing


in poor


districts


were


cycle


poverty


which


deprived


them


educational


opportunity.


These


poor


districts,


despite


normally


taxing


at a higher


rate,


still


raised


less


revenue


than


wealthy


districts,


thus


giving


their


schools


a reputation


inadequacy.


Industry,


a key


increasing


local


wealth,


was










court


through


funding


admitted


years


disparities


that


attempted


through


Texas


to lessen


Foundation


Legislature


interdi


School


had


strict


Program


(FSP).


Although


was


designed


to provide


more


state


money


provided


poorer


district


to guarantee


enough


minimum


funding.


moneys


The


had


court


been


declared


that


constitutional


mandate


state


had


been


FSP.


Much


concept


court


efficiency


s discussion


as found


revolved


state


around


constitution.


court


necessarily

therefore o


declared


exc


outside


that


lusive


judi


cial


determination


realm


efficiency


political


control.


was


system


constitution


give


exclu


sive


discretion


legislature


determining


what


efficient.


Although


"effi


cient"


was


spec


ifically


defined


constitution,


a standard


was


provided


courts


use


to determine


whether


constitution


had


been


violated.


court


cons


titutional


duty


to determine


whether


legi


slature


was


fulfilling


constitutional


duty


state


argued


that


"efficient"


meant


simple


and


inexpensive.


According


The


to the


court


found


court,


no evidence


school


this


system


to be


claim.


efficient










This


was


case,


therefore


school


system


was


financially


efficient.


In Kentucky


school


finance


system,


which


included


foundation


as well


as a guaranteed


yield


component,


was


challenged,


charge


being


that


large


school


funding


disparities


among


Kentucky


districts


violated


both


U.S.


Kentucky


Constitutions


Kentucky


Supreme


Court


declared


finance


program,


as well


entire


state


public


school


system


, in violation


Kentucky


Constitution.


high


court


in its


deci


sion


condemn


system


in light


U.S.


Constitution,


declaring


that


because


educational


system


been


ruled


violation


Kentucky


Constitution


an analysis


Constitutional


issues


was


necessary.


litigation


revolved


largely


around


concept


efficiency.


representatives


state


argued


that


because


Kentucky


Constitution


required


Legislature


provide


an efficient


system


schools,


General


Assembly,


courts,


was


organization


responsible


determining


whether


system


was


indeed


effi


cient.


court,


however,


ruled


that


constitutional


authority


review


legislation


which


established


school


finance


system


to determine


constitutionality.


I










supporting


because


efficiency


was


required


state


Constitution.


high


court


agreed


that


efficiency,


to a large


degree,


referred


to substantial


uniformity


resources


being


applied


throughout


school


system,


resulting


substantial


equal


opportunity


a good


education.


The


court


relied


on the


testimony


experts


who


claimed


that


significant


expenditure


positive


overall


correlation


quality


existed


between


of education,


and


level


that


students


who


were


provided


lower


levels


funding


were


prone


to receiving


a lower


quality


education.


These


experts


presented


data


showing


that


districts


with


per-pupil


expenditures


more


restricted


curricula


lower


overall


achievement


test


scores.


Therefore


, the


court


ruled


that


an efficient


system


common


schools


had


been


provided


because


substantially


different


levels


school


funding


among


districts


throughout


state.


Because


heavy


reliance


on local


resources


fund


public


schools


resultant


per-pupil


expenditure


differences


based


on relative


local


property


values,


General


Assembly


created


an inefficient


educational


system.


Supreme


Court


agreed


that


although


General


Assembly


had


recent


years


passed


legi


slation










summary,


challenges


to school


foundation


distribution


methodologies


in state


courts


have


with


mixed


success.


specifically


with


1 of

the


the c

equity


ases


discussed


effects


dealt


state


foundation


formulas


distributing


school


funds.


next


section


includes


a discussion


theoretical


framework


well


foundation


as examples


state


system


foundation


school

systems


finance

which


provide


a funding


component


equalizing


local


discretionary


revenues.


Foundation


Method


Financing


Schools


A foundation


program


financing


education


one


which


state


local


districts


contribute


jointly


to the


financing


education


such


a way


that


each


child


provided


a minimum


educational


program.


In order


accomplish


this


each


student,


foundation


program


based


on the


ability


districts


this


minimum


educational


program.


In other


words,


level


state


support


varies


inversely


with


local


wealth,


thereby


providing


each


district


a foundation


fiscal


support


educational


programs.


Under


a foundation


system,


theoretically,


poorest










taxing


equity


effort.


are


Thus,


recognized


both


with


per-pupil


this


as well


distribution


taxpayer


tem.


state


under


a foundation


system


generally


establishes


minimum


local


property


rate


which


districts


must


pass


order


base


receive


expenditure


state


each


funding


district


Additionally,


obtained


a minimum


to state


support.


Theoretically,


beyond


foundation


level


local


districts


are


able


to provide


funding


finance


additional


programs


or services


above


and


beyond


foundation


level


within


parameters


established


state


constitution


statutes.


Such


additional


funding


cause


disequalizing


effects


system


overall.


foundation


plan


includes


a legislatively


determined


minimum


program


from


which


a local


share


, based


legislatively


determined


rate


subtracted.


remainder


amount


support


from


state


necessary


to finance


such


a program.


Operationally,


amount


state


determined


follows


x State)


- (Vali


x state


where


state


to the


district,


- I. *


I


* *a


1 1


I










district,


state


rate


local


district


The


foundation


amount


established


state


multiplied


number


pupils


to produce


total


foundation


funding


that


district.


From


this


product


subtracted


amount


district


is required


contribute,


assessed


total


based


on the


valuation


foundation


local


that


funding


rate


district.


level


total


difference


amount


between


contributed


district


amount


state


to that


district


Currently


thirty-eight


states


use


some


modification


foundation


program


to support


public


education.


Such


funding


program


as a rationale


provision


each


child


child


state


resides


a foundational


a relatively


level


wealthy


education


local


whether


school


district

states


or a poorer


to take


one


an active


Yet,


funding


despite


role


this

order


recognition

to equalize


a minimally


acceptable


level


children,


nearly


every


one


these


states


allows


local


districts


to apply


locally


determined


millage


rates


in order


levy


funds


above


foundation


level


guaranteed


state.


Although


states


impose


certain


limitations


restrictions


on the


amount


use


these


additional


funds,


effects


may


nonetheless


disequalizing.










additional


separately


equalized


discretionary


equalized


through


funds


state.


a resource


levied


The


accessibility


districts


second


are


level


program,


either


guaranteed


base


(GTB)


or guaranteed


yield


(GTY).


A brief


discussion


operationalization


typical


GTB


and


GTY


programs


is provided


followed


a discussion


distribution


systems


states


that


at the


time


this


writing


use


or have


recently


used


a GTB


or GTY


to augment


foundation


formula.


and


GTY


systems


are


similar


to the


foundation


plan


through


that


state


include


support


equalizing


in inverse


educational


proportion


opportunity


to districts'


ability


pay.


Unlike


a foundation


state,


a state


using


or GTY


system


does


establish


a minimum


foundational


level


levied


educational


districts.


support


Rather,


a minimum


levels


rate


support


to be


are


locally


equal


determined.


access


Thus,


resources,


and


rather


than


GTY


formulas


minimum


include


funding


level


included


foundation


program.


GTB


plan


operates


on the


assumption


that


districts


should


have


access


to the


same


base


wealth


per-


pupil.


state


establishes


a guaranteed


base,


and


state


simply


provides


each


district


sufficient


funding t


hat,










expenditures


as well


as the


local


rate.


The


GTY


similar


to the


GTB


except


that


state


sets


a tax


yield


level


property


in the


state


rather


than


a tax


base


GTB


have


identi


formulas


formulas


are


mathematically


expressed


follows


Expi


x Adj


.Val


where


state


to distri


number


students


dollar


as calculated


per-pupil


state


expenditure


strict


set


Expi


district


state


share


percentage


factor


, and


.Val


is the


ratio


asses


valuation


per-pupil


district


i compared


to that


average


assessed


valuation


districts


This


method


is equitable


in terms


both


-pupil


funding


and


taxpayer


effort


Every


child


is guarantee


certain


level


funding


commensurate


with


or her


educational


local


nee


school


same


given


strict


levy


pupil


level


Each


, thus


tax


mill


effort


effort


promoting


equity


exerted


results


among


taxpayers.


Several


states


currently


use


or have


recently


used


funding


scheme


which


involves


a foundation


component


*1 S S -


1_1


I 1










to a district


is a product


weighted


pupil


count


times


guaranteed


financial


support


base


minus


local


fair


share,


which


participation

contribution


applied


local


the

based


to assessed


contribution


foundation

on a state


property


required


program.


mandated


equalized


millage


at 40


local

e rate


percent


market


value,


or a rate


which


would


generate


percent


district


s foundation


amount,


whichever


smaller.


GTB


component


is available


only


to districts


below


90th


percentile


in terms


property


wealth


per-pupil


that


levy


taxes


above


state


mandated


millage


rate.


additional


mills


above


state


mandated


level,


state


pays


difference


between


amount


actually


generated


and


amount


that


would


be generated


applying


village


rate


to the


assessed


value


property


in a district


at the


90th


percentile


In Montana,


a foundation


program


is supplemented


component.


foundation


level


support


is variable


according


to categories


based


on average


number


belonging


(ANB),


which


represents


enrollment.


foundation


level


thus


increases


with


ANB.


state


provides


funding


this


foundational


level


category


after


subtracting


portion


which


raised


county


level.


No equalization


r .-


* .


I ~ 1


I


* *










which


are


classified


isolated.


These


districts


must


raise


percent


foundation


amount.


Under


component


districts


levy


additional


mills


general


fund


counties


teacher


retirement


average


fund.


mill


state


yield


guarant


each


ees


these


a yield


equivalent


permissive


mills


Oklahoma


public


schools


are


financed


a foundation


program


supplemented


Salary


Incentive


Aid,


which


comparable


district


to a GTY


determined


supplement.


Foundation


multiplying


a legi


each


slatively


established


Base


Foundation


Support


Level


weighted


Average


Daily


Membership


(ADM).


State


foundation


determined


taking


assessed


this


product


valuation


subtracting


district


mills


from


times


previous


year


plus


mill


county


levy


other


minor


adjustments


Distri


further


apply


millage


rates


above


fifteen


mill


foundation


portion


Salary


Incentive


Aid


portion

assure


component,

a guaranteed


in which

yield.


the

Stat


state


provides


Salary


funds


Incentive


Aid


determined


multiplying


an incentive


guarantee


district


s ADM


then


subtracting


number


additional


mills


times


assessed


valuation


district


In Kentucky


state


provides


funding


to augment










district


difference


between


what


was


raised


through


application


a state


mandated


village


rate


on assessed


valuation


local


property


what


was


required


to meet


aggregate


foundation


per-pupil


funding


level


Districts


are


permitted


to exceed


this


minimum


foundational


level


, and


those


that


chose


to do


so are


provided


matching


funds


from


state


to exceed


percent


their


entitlement


ensure


a minimum


yield.


revenue


obtained


through


this


additional


statewide


levy


per-pupil


equalized


property


at 150


percent


assessment


average


Districts


are


permitted


increase


financing


an additional


percent


without


a matching


grant


from


state


A three-tiered


finance


system


used


Texas


was


recently


invalidated


Texas


Supreme


Court


However


, a brief


discussion


of the


system


existed


prior


invalidation


court


will


provided


to exemplify


operationalization


foundation


distribution


systems


augmented


or GTY


components.


Texas


system


included


a foundation,


a GTY


and


unequalized


component.


With


Tier


, the


foundational


component,


state


granted


a district


difference


between


at a certain


amount


required


foundation


to fund


level


each


what


student


was


actually


s education


levied










above


foundation


millage


rate


a certain


dollar


level


per-


pupil


each


additional


cent


rate,


a maximum


rate


taxation.


Under


Tier


additional


millage


rates


above


guaranteed


yield


band


were


permitted


matched


state


funds


present


study


included


data


from


foundation


distribution


system


state


Florida


fiscal


year


-93.


Florida


schools


were


funded


through


foundation


system,


although


state


equalize


dollars


raised


through


application


discretionary


or capital


outlay


maintenance


caused


millage


revenues


rates

raised


The

through


degree

h the


disequalization


application


these


millage


rates


was


focus


present


study.


following


studies


section

Florida


includes


s public


a review


education


previous

funding s


equity


system.


Previous


Florida


School


Finance


Eauitv


Studies


This


method


study

public


focused on

education


equity

finance


aspects

. The


foundation


foundation


plan


state


Florida,


Florida


Education


Finance


Program


(FEFP),


was


chosen


study.


following


discussion


includes


a summary


previous


equity


studies


related


to the


FEFP.


II


* 1


I


I










research


questions


which


are


specifically


relevant


to the


present


study.


first


included


extent


to which


inequalities


distribution


educational


revenues


existed


prior


to and


after


implementation


FEFP.


second


available


included


education


extent


were


to which


related


level


to district


revenues


wealth


before


and


after


implementation


FEFP.


Vaughan


examined


fiscal


data


1972-73


school


year


, prior


implementation


FEFP,


1973


, 1974


, and


1975-76


school


years,


after


FEFP


implementation


Vaughan


s conclusion


with


regard


to distribution


per-


pupil


revenues


was


that


FEFP


was


relatively


equitable.


vast


majority


Florida


s public


school


pupils


fell


between


tenth


ninetieth


percentile


district


mean


state


local


revenue


pupil.


range,


restricted


range,


federal


range


ratios


state


and


local


per-pupil


revenue


among


districts


were


relatively


after


FEFP


implementation.


Although


coefficients


variation


local


revenue


-pupil


were


relatively


high,


they


were


lower


after


FEFP


implementation


than


before


In the


area


fiscal


neutrality


, Vaughan


found


a strong


relationship


revenue,


between


with


local


effect


wealth


increasing


local


per-pupil


in strength


across


r


1


I










implementation


FEFP,


was


nevertheless


significant.


Vaughan


concluded


that


FEFP


was


very


wealth


neutral,


although


greater


wealth


neutrality


was


evident


Florida


after


implementation


FEFP.


Carroll


states,


including


portion


Park


conducted


Florida.


tudy,


which


equity


The


was


analyses


intent


a follow-up


five


Florida


to a similar


study


conducted


equity


Florida


Carroll


state


1979


was


distribution


compare


system


before


current


finance


formula


(FEFP)


with


tribution


which


existed


prior


implementation.


Includ


ed in


study


were


fiscal


comparisons


made


school


year


(before


FEFP)


against


1975-76


school


year


(after


FEFP


implementation).


These


comparisons


were


made


in terms


instructional


expenditu


res


as well


as revenues


six


levels


aggregation


These


included


general


revenues


including

Racing Co


Racing


mission


Commission


funds,


funds,


general


general


revenue


revenues


including


PL 874


revenues,


local


plus


state


revenues


, local


plus


state


plus


revenues


, and


total


revenues.


Carroll


Park


found,


through


a series


regression


equations,


significant


relation


hips


between


wealth,


based


assessed


valuation,


per-pupil


revenues


at all


levels










between


instructional


expenditures


wealth


both


before


and


after


implementation.


Carroll


and


Park


found


no significant


relationship


between


household


income


revenues


instructional


expenditures


per-pupil


before


FEFP,


yet


a significant


relationship


FEFP


community


after


resulted


s tax


implementation.


in a weakened


effort


The


relationship


availability


implementation


between


school


revenues


as well


as instructional


expenditures


Carroll


Park


concluded


that


in terms


both


per-


pupil

widene


revenue


availability


disparities


resulted


instructional


after


expenditures,


implementation


FEFP.


new


program


became


less


fiscally


neutral,


decline being

included in t


attributed


cost


formula.


adjustment


overall


factor


conclusion


reached


Carroll


Park


was


that


reform


benefitted


larger


more


urban


districts


more


readily


than


slightly


smaller


less


urban


ones.


greatest


benefit


reached


poverty


prone


school


districts


Alexander


Shiver


studied


equity


distribution


school


funds


Florida,


comparing


equity


that


existed


before


FEFP


implementation


to equity


after


implementation.


Data


from


1970


1971-72


school


A a S a


r


amA~l M A m


_I_










Alexander


Shiver


studied


levels


aggregation.


first


included


total


state


local


per-pupil


revenues


second


foundation


funds


per-pupil.


Each


level


revenue


was


studied


light


several


equity


related


statistics.


In the


both


area


range


total


and


-pupil


restricted


revenue,


range


an increase


distribution


was


evident.


standard


deviation


distribution


doubled


during


variation


foundation


years


remained


funds


study,


virtually


pupil,


while


same.


distribution


coefficient


In the


range


area


quadrupled


from


1970-71 to


1980-


while


restricted


range


nearly


quadrupled.


variation


Both


standard


increased


between


deviation


1970-71


coefficient


1980-81


area


foundation


funds


pupil


Gini


coefficients


increased


overall


after


implementation


FEFP


, both


in terms


total


state


and


local


revenue


per


pupil


foundation


fund


per


pupil.


These


coefficients


demonstrated


a decreased


level


equity


1980-81.


Alexander


Shiver


conducted


correlational


analyses


between


variables


two


which


levels


were


revenue


claimed


seven


to provide


independent


indication










between


assessed


value


per-pupil


foundation


funds


per-


pupil


as well


as personal


income


per-pupil


and


foundation


fund


per-pupil


implied


that


equalization


establi


shed


prior


to the


FEFP


been


maintained


FEFP.


overall


conclusion


Alexander


Shiver


based


on the


analysis


these


data


was


that


greater


equity


had


not


been


achieved


with


implementation


FEFP.


Stark,


FEFP


Florida


Honeyman,


in a study


Lottery


Wood


specifically


on public


examined


related


school


equity


to the


financing


aspects


effects


state.


study


included


basic


analy


ses.


first


was


degree


to which


lottery


funds


distributed


through


FEFP


(approximately


provided


to public


substitute


percent


school


existing


sources


total


state)


school


lottery


were


funds


used


funding


during


1989


school


year.


second


analysis


, the


one


relevant


to the


present


study


, included


an examination


remaining


lottery


fund


those


distributed


through


special


allocations


rather


than


FEFP


itself.


Specifically,


this


second


analysis


dealt


with


whether


these


lottery


funds


distributed


through


FEFP


had


effect


on the


equity


distribution


public


education


funds
s- i-- -


state.
a^-,


Three
I- -


levels


1 -I


aggregation


were


used


- I S -


1


'm










special


allocations


from


state's


general


revenue


fund


included


allocation


the

funds


FEFP.

, and


Third,

lottery


the FEFP

funds not


funds,


special


distributed


through


FEFP.


boxplots


showed


similarity


variation


distributions


first


levels


aggregation,


with


increased


variation


with


introdu


tion


lottery


proceeds.


Both


range


restricted


range


demonstrated


decreased


level


equity


when


moving


across


levels


increased


aggregation.


across


federal


levels


range


aggregation,


ratio,


though


demonstrated


that


Florida


system


was


equitable.


variance,


standard


deviation,


coefficient


variation


across


demonstrated


levels


cumulatively


aggregation.


disequalizing


relative


effects


mean


deviation,


on the


other


hand,


indicated


cumulatively


increased


equity


effects.


Gini


coefficient


FEFP


alone,


aggregation


level


pertinent


to the


present


study,


was


calculated


.00916


system.


reduced


, demonstrating


a great


Interestingly


.00261


, the


.00380


deal


Gini


horizontal


coefficients


, respectively,


across


equity


were


other


levels


aggregation.










Indexes


were


slightly


smaller,


.97185


.97283


, for


other


levels


aggregation.


result


Gini


Coeffi


cient


McLoone


Index


computations


demonstrated


that


least


1989


school


year,


FEFP


provided


an equitable


system


distributing


school


funds.


study


, however


addr


ess


equity


effects


scretionary


capital


outlay


maintenance


millage


levi


es.


These


effects


, for


1992


school


year


, were


addressed


present


study


O'Loughlin,


Wood


, and


Honeyman


examined


equity


distribution


FEFP


dollars


most


specifically


looking


at the


effects


revenues


provided


sparsity


supplement


formula


on per


-pupil


equity.


The


data


were


on the


1990


FEFP


calculation


including


federal


distributions


or capital


outlay


or debt


service


funding


In the


O'Loughlin


, Wood


, and


Honeyman


study


, four


elements


each


were


element


studied


being


with


examined.


cumulative


These


equity


included


effects


foundation


program,


program


supplements


, the


discretionary


local


levy


categorical


special


allocations


Within


each


element


additional


revenues


res


ulting


from


sparsity


supplement


were


examined


to determine


equity


effects










standard


deviation,


coefficient


variation,


McLoone


index,


Gini


coefficient


demonstrated


a cumulatively


sequali


zing


effect


FEFP


across


four


elements


without


sparsity


supplement,


an increased


disequalizing


effect


across


four


elements


in all


measures


except


revenues


McLoone


provided


index


sparsity


Gini


coefficient


supplement


were


when


included.


disequali


school


zing


trend


stricts


occurred


below


across


median


four


when


sparsity


element


supplements


were


included.


Gini


Coefficient


demonstrated


equalizing


trend


across


four


elements


when


sparsity


revenues


were


included.


With


regard


(correlation


coeffi


to the


cient,


wealth


coeffi


neutrality


cient


measures


determination,


slope


regression)


, a cumulatively


increase


association


pupil r

account


revenues

the sp


between


wealth


resulted


arsity


per-pupil


formula

. With


supplement


district


without


taking


per-

into


inclusion


sparsity


supplement


revenues


, a cumulative


decrease


in the


strength


association


variables


occurred.


The


overall


conclusion


was


that


basic


part


FEFP


was


relatively


equitable


, but


addition


supplements,


cretionary


dollar


categorical










dollars


bore


a strong


inverse


relationship


to the


relative


property


wealth


district.


The


sparsity


supplement


effect


reducing


this


relationship.


O'Loughlin,


Wood,


Honeyman


demonstrated


through


this


study


that


FEFP


distributed


school


funds


in an equitable


fashion


1990


school


year,


with


levies


generated


from


application


discretionary


millage


rates


having


slightly


tem.


disequalizing


study


FEFP


cifically


effects


light


examine


related


effects


capital


overall


equity


outlay


maintenance


village,


which


coupled


with


discretionary


levy


was


focus


present


study.


Currie


examined


equity


resources


capital


outlay


FEFP


Florida,


and


part


revenues


which


derived


included


from


assessments


capital


both


outlay


maintenance


village


rate.


Using


1988-89


data,


Currie


examined


four


levels


funding.


first


included


FEFP


operating


expenditures


, which


consisted


FEFP


allocation,


seventh


period


allocation,


prior


year


adjustments,


required


local


effort.


The


second


third


capital


levels


outlay


consisted


total


funding


total


dollar


dollar


value


value


state


local


capital


outlay


funding


, respectively


fourth


final










The


results


examination


at the


first


level,


FEFP,


third


level,


local


capital


outlay


funding


, were


interest


in the


context


present


study.


Results


examination


equity


FEFP


element


provided


evidence


of the


relative


equity


foundation


system


existed


during


that


fiscal


year.


third


level


included


an equity


assessment


revenues


generated


through


application


local


capital


outlay


and


maintenance


millage


rates.


Although


this


level


was


more


broadly


defined


to include


other


local


sources


capital


outlay


financing,


confounding


capital


outlay


maintenance


levies


with


other


local


sources,


examination


results


provided


insight


present


study.


levies


generated


through


application


discretionary


millage


rates


were


examined


Currie


study.


The


FEFP


level


funding


demonstrated


greatest


degree


equity


among


four


levels


studied


in terms


horizontal


equity


measures.


per-pupil


range,


restricted


range,


interquartile


range


, and


federal


range


ratio


were


calculated


.65,


$305


.15, $


.03,


.13,


respectively.


standard


deviation,


coeffi


cient


variation


, and


relative


mean


deviation


per-pupil


were


.04,


, respectively.


McLoone


Index


was










In the


area


wealth


neutrality,


Gini


Coefficient


FEFP


equity


level


correlation


was


an indication


coefficient


between


nearly


local


perfect


assess


valuation


local


property


expenditures


per-pupil


was


entire


distribution


distribution


within


a 95


percent


confidence


interval


around


mean


value.


resultant


coefficients


determination


were


.24,


respectively.


author


suggested


that


a strong


relationship


between


wealth


FEFP


exist


results


horizontal


equity


measurements


local


capital


outlay


funding


level


indicated


less


equitable


distribution


than


FEFP.


per-pupil


range,


restricted


range,


federal


range


ratio


, and


interquartile


range


were


calculated


at $


.59,


$731


.11,


and


.32,


respectively.


standard


deviation,


coeffi


cient


variation,


relative


mean


deviation


were


calculated


$217


.49,


.85,


, respectively.


McLoone


Index


was


calculated


distribution


below


median.


results


from


wealth


neutrality


measures


demonstrated


a less


equitable


distribution


from


local


capital


outlay


sources


than


from


FEFP.


Gini


Coeffi


cient


was


calculated


correlation


coefficient


between


local


assessed


valuation


per-pupil


and










coefficients


determination


were


.63,


respectively.231 The

of wealth neutrality


author


this


suggested


area


that


existed.


major


violations


Again,


revenues


resulting


maintenance


from


millage


the a

rates


application


were


capital


confounded


with


outlay


revenues


from


other


local


sources


capital


outlay


financing.


Nonetheless


, the


capital


outlay


maintenance


levies


contributed


to the


relatively


inequitable


distribution


determined


Currie


study.


summary


, though


various


elements


equity


distribution


aspects


FEFP


have


been


studied,


a need


existed


examine


equity


effects


distributions


resulting


from


discretionary


capital


outlay


and


maintenance


exhaustive


levi


present


analysis


this


study


research


represents


question.


Conclusion


This


chapter


began


with


a discussion


historical


process


which


state


governments


assumed


more


active


roles


providing


financial


support


to school


districts


recognition


need


to provide


less


wealthy


localities


larger


ideal


state


state


grants


support


to make


was


smaller


developed


bases.


early


This


scholarly


_










half


twentieth


century,


state


distribution


methodologies


judicial


were


stems


providing


level


tested


to determine


students


education.


in the


American


state


state


results


federal


governments


an equivalently


these


cases


state


were


adequate


in terms


school


finance


equity


reform


were


mixed.


Following


was


discussion


foundation


system


funding


school


most


common


previous


distribution


research


studies


system


currently


concerning


equity'


in use.

y effects


Finally,


this


Florida


funding


system


were


discussed.


purpose


discretionary


foundation


system.


this


millage

The n


study


was


levies


ext


to analyze


on the


chapter


fiscal


includes


effects


equity


a presentation


specific


methodology


which


these


effects


were


examined.


Notes


1Ellwood


Cubberley,


School


Funds


Their


Anportionment


(New


York:


Columbia


University,


1906).


4Ibid.,

3Ibid.,

4Ibid.


5George
Education in


Macmillan, 1


Strayer
State <


.9


Robert


New


York,


Haig,


vol.


(New


Financina


York:


23).













9Ibid.,


176.


10Harlan


: Financial


State
Rural


Schools


Updegraff


SuDDoort


Rural School Surv~v Vnrlr
- U *-


(Ithaca


, NY: The


, 1922)


Joint


Committee


11Ibid.,

12Ibid.,


136.

110-115.


13Henry
University o


:. Mori
Chicago


son,
Press


School
, 1930


Revenue


(Chicago,


14Ibid.,

15Ibid.,

16Ibid.,


195.

208-214.

200.


17Paul


York:


Teachers


Mort,


College,


-- -


Columbia


University,


(New


1924


18Ibid.,

19Ibid.,


20Ibid.,


8-11.


e.g.,


Schools


State


(New


Suonort


American


Reusser


Company,
John W.


York
for


fnr


council o
, Public


Inc.,
Polley


Paul


: Teachers
Public Ed


2ulcEua o


Mort,


State


College,


n Education,
School Fina


1941);
, Publi


Publi~~.. ScolPanns rnrun ir


Paul


1933


nc e


Mort,


SuoDort


1926


Public


; Paul 1


(Washington,


; Paul


(New


York:


Walter


McGraw-Hi
. Reusser,
ca r olry/\ d r


Mort,


* .
and


The
Walter
11 Book


Structure.


ODeration


(New


, 1960).


York:


McGraw


-Hill


Book


Company,


Edgar


Programs,
Finanrs (


" in
' ]PIW


Morphet,


R.L.
Vn lr


"Characteristics


John


(ed.


Mzt- 4 nr 1


State


P~r~obl ems rhn


r. y ,-, n a n a


Support


a


- 2a


School


School


rce


Issues


I


, Rural


W


SuIrvpv


YVrL


NTew


Measurement


Educational


Need


ucation


Mort


I


, Problems


i


Srhrorl


r











Educational


Finance


Programs


(Gainesville


, FL: National


Education


Finance


Project,


1971)


4Ibid.


5President


Existinga


State


C ommi


School


ssion


Finance


on School
Programs


Finance


Review


(Washington,


United


States


Government


Printing


Office,


1972


26Ibid.,

27Ibid.,


. Const.


amend.


XIV


29Julie


Underwood


Deborah


Verstegen,


"School


Finance Ch
Protection
Verstegen
on Public


allenges


Analy


(eds.),
School


S1S


in Federal
," in Julie
he Imoacts


Finance


(New


Cour
K.
of L


York:


ts: Changing
Underwood an
itication an


Harper


Equal
Deborah A.
Legislation


& Row,


1990)


Antonio


Independent


School


District


SRodriguez,


(1973)


31Id.


at 17.


San


Antonio


Independent


School


District


Rodriauez,


F.Supp


33Id.


280.


at 282.


34San


Antonio,


. at


17-23.


35Id.,

36id.

37id.

38Id.,


23-24.

at 24.

at 33.

33-34.
- Ar











42Id. ,

43Id.


53-54.

at 55.


44William E.


State Courts,


Sparkman,


" in Julie K.


"School Finance Challenges in
Underwood and Deborah A. Verstegen


(eds.)


, The Impacts of Litigation and Leaislation on Public


School Finance


(New York:


Harper


& Row,


1990),


193.


45487


P.2d 1241


(1971


46Id.

47Id.


at 1244.


1250.


48The case was decided prior to the precedent


established by


Rodriauez


of using the rational


relationship


standard in light


Amendment


equal


of alleged violation of


the Fourteenth


protection clause.


49Serrano,


P.2d


at 1250.


50Id.,

51Id.0


1250

1252


-125

-125


52Id.,

53Id.,

54Id.,


1255-1256.

1256-1259.


1259-126


55Robinson v


SCahill,


A.2d 187


(1972).


56Id.,

57Id.,


58Id.,

59Id.


-190.


199-200.

at 205.












63The case was decided prior to


the precedent


established by


Rodriauez


of using


the rational relationship


standard in light of alleged violation of


Amendment


equal


the Fourteenth


protection clause.


64Robinson,


A.2d at


217.


65Milliken v.


Green,


212 N.W.2d 711


1973).


66Id.

67Id.

68Id.,

69Id.

70id.


at 714.


716.


716-718.

at 719.

at 720.


71Thomoson v.


Enkelkina,


P.2d


(1975)


638-640.

641-642.


72Id.,

73Id.

74Id.

75Id.,

76Id.,


642.


642-645.

646-653.


7701sen v


State,


P.2d 239


(1976).


78Id.,

79Id.,

80Id.,

81id.


140-142.

144-145.

145-146.


147.











84Id. at 878.

85id.

86id.


878-883.


88Board of Education of City School District.


etc.


Walter,


390 N.E.2d 813


(1980)


89Id. at 819.

90id.

91Id. at 820.

92Id. at 821.


823-826.


94Id. at 822.


95McDaniel v.


Thomas,


285 S.E.2d 156


(1981).


96Id. at 159.


160-161.

164-165.


99San Antonio,


411 U.S. 1


(1973).


100McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 167.

101Id. at 168.


165-166.


103 Board of Education. Levittown.


etc. v. Nvouist, N.Y.,


AqQ 1T F 2c1


(f1 QR2)


97Id.,

98Id.,


87Id.,


93Id.,.


102Id.,











106San Antonio, 41]

107Levittown, N.Y.,


U.S.


(1973).


439 N.E.2d at


364-365.


at 368-369.


109Hornbeck v.


Somerset County Board of Education,


A.2d


(M.D.


1983


1101d.

lllld.,


at 776.

776-780.


112San Antonio,


U.S.


(1973).


113Hornbeck,


458 A.2d at


787-788.


114Id.,

115Id.,

116Id.,


782-783.

786-787.

788-790.


117Duoree v


Alma School District no.


S.W.2d 90


(1983).


118Id.,

119Id.


92-93.

at 93.


120Eair...School_inanctCouncil


Oklahoma,


P.2d 1135


_~o Oklahoma. mc>... v
- -


(1987


121Id.

122Id.


1138.

1144.


123San Antonio,


U.S.


(1973).


124Fair School Finance


P.2d at


1144-1146.


Incr.


108Id.


of0klahoma












1148.


128id.

129id.,

130id.,

131Id.

132id.,

133Id.,

134id.


1148-1149.

1149-1150.


1150.


1141-1142.

1142-1143.


1150.


135Richland County v.


Camobell,


1988)


364 S.E.2d


(S.C.


136Id.,


471-472.


137Helena Elementary School District No.


Montana,


P.2d 584


1 v. State of


(1989)


686.

689.

690.


138Id.

139Id.

140Id.

141Id.

142Id.


at 690.


691.


143Edaewood Indecendent School District


V Kirby.


S.W.2d 391 4

144Id.

145id.
1 AK--,


(1989


at 392.

at 393.


1 v. State of


v


Kirbyv.


,











149Rose


Council


Better


Education.


S.W.2d 186


(1989


. at


151Id.


152Id., 2

153Id. at


-209


-213

213.


. Craig


Wood


David


Thompson,


Education


Finance
Analvsi


Law


: Cons


titutional


of Strategies


Challenges.


(Topeka,


to State


KS: National


Aid


Organi


Plans
zation


: An


Legal


Problems


in Education,


1993),


155David


Honeyman,
Practices


Thompson


Fiscal
(White


Leader
Plains


. Craig


shin


Wood


Schools


, NY: Longman


, and


David


: Concerts


Publishing


and


Group,


1994


220.


156Ibid.


, 221.


157Wood


and


Thompson


158Thompson,


Wood


, and


Honeyman


159Ibid.


160Ibid.


161Stephen


Andrea
United


. Gold


Hyary


States


, David M


Public


Canada.


1990


. Smith


School


-91,


, Stephen


Finance


B Lawton,
Programs


Albany


, NY


Center


Study


States


, 199


'bzIbid.

163Ibid.


164Deborah


. Verstegen,


r~mmn oo


School


Finance


IP~ fiirnr h r-ta


at a Glance


loon\


Inc .,


, 26


, 18


ha la- t


150Id


154R


iInamroT"


I


I I I w












167Ibid.,

168Ibid.,

169Ibid.,


226.

228.


229


-230


171Ga.

172Ga.

173Ga.


Code

Code

Code


20-2-165(b)

20-2-164.

20-2-166.


174Mont


. Code


20


-301


to 20


-368


175Mont


. Code


Ann


. 20-0-301


to 20-9


176Mont


. Code


Ann


-367


to 2


-9-368.


. Code


-109


Sch.


Code


-109


(B) (3


179Ky

180Ky

181Ky


. Rev

. Rev

. Rev


. Stat

. Stat

. Stat


. Ann.

. Ann.

. Ann.


.470

.440


.440(2


Carrollton-Farmers


Branch


IndePendent


School


Dist.


Texas


S.W.2d


(1992)


183Tex


184Tex


185Tex


. Educ


. Educ


. Educ


. Code


. Code


. Code


Ann


Ann.


Ann


. 16


. 16


.252


.302


.303.


186David


Finance


Reform


Vaughan,
on Poor


"The


Impact


Minority


>f Florida
Children,


s 1973


" in


School


Robert


nI nA n fl


r.-


170Ibid.


177Ok.


1780Ok.


f ^ %y ^jn


rr rrk AC )" A


e t1 h


nhhr













189Ibid.,


25-37.


190Stephen


Eauitv
Press,


School


Carroll


Finance


Rolla


(Cambridge,


Park,


MA.: The


1983).


Search


Ballinger


191Stephen


Finance


: Results


Corporation,


. Carroll


frn


Search


(Santa


Eauitv


School


Monica,


Rand


1979).


192Carroll


193Ibid,

194Ibid,

195Ibid,

196Ibid.

197Ibid,


Park,


84-85.

85.

87.


199Kern


Florida
(Summer


School
, 1983)


Alexander


Districts,


d Lee Shiver,
" Journal of


"Equalization


Education


Among


Finance


, 55-62


200ibid.,

201ibid.,

202ibid.,

203ibid.,

204ibid.,

205ibid.,


-Inc


55-56.

56-57.

57-59.

59.

59-61.

62.


-In .


from


Pi \r/


StCatesQ


198Ibid,


I











of
199


School
3), 23


Funding,
1-242.


" Journal


Education


Finance


(Winter,


207Stark,


Florida


Honeyman,


Wood,


Lottery,


208Stark,


Florida


Honeyman,


Wood,


Lottery,


209Stark,


Florida


Honeyman,


Wood,


Lottery.-


210Stark,
Florida Lottery

211Stark,
Florida Lottery


212Stark,


,


Honeyman,
, 15-16.


Honeyman,


and


Honeyman,


Wood,


Wood,


Wood,


An Examination of the


An Examination of the


An Examination of the


An Examination of the


An Examination of the


An Examination of the


Florida


Lottery,


213j.
Honeyman,


Michael
A Studvy


O'Loughlin, R
f the Effects


. Craig


Wood, an
Sna-rsit t-


n tt Cn.an


David


on the


Ecuitv


(Gainesville,


of the


FL: UCEA


Florida


cation


Center


Finance


Education


Program


Finance,


1992).


14Ibid.,


215Ibid.,

216Ibid.,

217Ibid.,

218Ibid.,


13-14.

12.

14-24.

19-24.

24.


219Gaylon


Capital


Outlav


Currie,


Fund incr


An Examination


nf Publi


Education


-- -: --p--'a'a'.'-t ~ .~ S ~.J ar*A J s o.1.


litv


Eauitv


of the


Current


Methhnd


fl tr bt c Thd-n


Outlay


Fundinca


General


in the


itures


State


ir Education


PFl nr ral


(Doctoral


Eauitv


Dissertation,


- -- - -


ExDend


Suoolement


A Comr a !i/"


DistributinG


Capital










222ibid.,

223ibid,

224ibid,

225ibid.

226ibid,

227ibid.,

228ibid.,

229Ibid.,

230ibid.,

231ibid.,

232ibid.,


120-126.

127-128.

128-129.

145-146.

132.

115-120.

120-126.

127-128.

128-129.

145-147.

153.















CHAPTER
METHOD


present


raised


through


study


local


focused


on the


discretionary


effects


millage


rates


revenues

on the


fiscal


equity


a foundation


school


distribution


system.


previous


chapter


relevant


literature


was


reviewed


chapter


includes


a discussion


method


which


these


equity


effects


were


examined.


chapter


begins


with


a discus


population


from


which


data


were


derived.


Following


a description


education


funding


system


Florida,


state


chosen


study


the design

discussion


next


data.

method


section


provides


chapter


through


a description


concludes


which


with


disequalizing


ects


local


levies


were


assessed.


Population


foundation


distribution


system


state


Florida


was


chosen


this


study


Several


reasons


were


involved


selection


Florida


as the


target


state.


First,


Florida


education


funding


system


was


well


suited


w










Additionally,


local


districts


authority


to rai


scretionary


levi


, and


revenues


generated


these


levies


were


equali


zed by


state.


Thus,


intuitively


possibility


disequalizing


exists


effects


that


when


these


added


levi


introduced


revenues


generated


through


was


foundation


to determine


program.


magnitude


purpose


these


study


disequalizing


effects


they


indeed


existed.


ond


, although


at the


time


of thi


writing


current


foundation


system


Florida


avoided


a major


equity


court


deci


sion


foundation


program


state


is susceptible


an equity


lawsuit.


Thus,


equity


effects


such


as those


examined


in the


present


study


might


relevant


in the


context


future


equity


court


decisions


Third


, the


people


Florida


are


guarant


a fi


scally


equitable


system


financing


public


schools


Funds


school


to be


stributed


such


a manner


as to


. guarantee


to each


student


Florida


public


and
which
any


school


services
0: ^ ^0


are


similar


differences


system the
appropriate


substantially


student


availability


to his
equal t


notwiths


varying


loca


programs


educational


o those


standing ge
1 economic


nee


available
graphic
factors.2


& a





m


I a













Fourth,


results


from


recent


studies


have


indicated


that


foundation


portion


Florida


s funding


system


relatively


equitable.


Therefore,


a good


baseline


existed


from


which


this


study


operated.


present


study


included


an assessment

discretionary


degree


levies


disequalization


on a relatively


equitable


introduced


foundational


system.


Fifth


states


Florida


one


one


nation


nation'


largest


most


public


populous


school


enrollments.


Additionally,


both


population


in general


and


school


enrollment


in particular


have


been


growing


rapidly


relative


to the


significant


from


nation


as a whole.


a national


Therefore


perspective


Florida


Following


is a more


detailed


cuss ion


population


present


study.


public


school


system


Florida


divided


into


sixty-seven


local


distri


, each


countywide.


In 1990-91,


state


served


an unweighted


full-time


membership


enrollment


district


with


largest


was


Dade


at 356


smallest


was


Glades


with


.46.


enrollment


Florida


s public


schools


seen


pattern


overall


growth


since


1970s


, while


nationally


school


enrollments


have


declined


slightly


during


that


time.










1989


enrollment


Florida


s public


schools,


however,

Florida


grew

public


steadily

school


during


this


enrollment


period.


was


In 1969


1,312


, the


Enrollment


had


grown


to 1


1979


,646


,583


1989


Total


expenditures


Florida


public


school


increased


rather


dramatically


during


this


same


time


period


In 1969


, total


expenditure


were


$961


273,000


In 1979


, expenditures


grown


to $2


,531,000


1989


-pupil


expenditures


likewise


have


undergone


a sharp


increase.


-pupil


expenditures


Florida


public


schools


were


,461,


3,198


, and


4,497


1969


, 1979


, and


1989


, respectively


The


average


statewide


per-pupil


expenditure


was


1990


per-pupil


expenditure


among


districts


ranged


from a

$3,836


high


Clay


County


Hamilton

following


County tc

a section


Sa low


provides


description


how


funds


are


distributed


to Florida


school


districts


FEFP


Florida


s public


schools


are


funded


primarily


through


Florida


school


funding


Education


mechanism


Finance


since


Program


1973


(FEFP),


basi


state

component










finance


more


specific


educational


needs


various


local


school


districts


Following


a brief


introductory


overview


calculation


FEFP


formula


1992-93,


after


which


a more


detailed


discussion


system


provided.


The


funds


distributed


to each


local


school


district


through


equivalent


FEFP


(FTE)


were


calculated


enrollment


each


multiplying


specific


full-time


program


education


program


cost


factor


assigned


Legi

the


slature.


base


student


resultant

allocation.


weight

This


FTEs


product


were

was


multiplied

multiplied


district


cost


differential,


which


accounted


disparate


costs


living


communities


served


various


districts.


To this


new


product


supplemental


allocations


were


added,


depending

declining


on district

enrollment


eligibility.

supplement, s


These


sparsity


included


supplement,


funding


adjustment.


When


eligible


supplements


had


been


added,


result


was


total


state


local


dollars


which


district


was


entitled.


required


local


effort,


amount


district


was


required


to contribute


order


to participate


FEFP,


was


subtracted,


resulting


State


FEFP


contribution


to that


school


district.


this










aggregate


amount


moneys


to be


distributed


to the


local


school


districts


from


state


annually


determined


through


legi


slative


appropriation


1992-93


a total


was


appropriated


from


state


treasury


to be


distributed


to the


local


stricts


through


FEFP.


this


, $40


,500,00


was


appropriated


from


State


School


Trust


Fund


remainder


from


General


Revenue


Fund.


formula


was


enrollment


driven,


therefore


each


district


funding


was


based


on weighted


FTE.


Each


district


s weighted


was


calculated


through


surveys


taken


throughout


year


student


membership


various


programs.


each


program


area


was


weighted


according


to cost


factors


ass


signed


to the


individual


program


areas.


The


weighted


district


was


product


each


program


area


program


area


s cost


factor.


In utilizing


these


program


cost


factors,


differences


educational


costs


based


on grade


level


differences


and


differences


based


on program


instruction


were


recognized.


Grade


level


programmatic


cost


factors


were


incorporated


into


FEFP


which


were


designed


to base


financial


support


on these


system


differences


of unequal


use


treatment


cost


of unequals


factors


, which


resulted


addressed










weighted


base


FTEs


student


as determined


allocation


herein


were


(BSA)


multiplied


was


set


at $2


Florida


Legi


slature


1992


school


year


Three


adjustments


were


made


to thi


amount


in recognition


varying


fiscal


conditions


faced


local


cost


stricts


differential,


These


declining


included


enrollment


district


supplement


and


sparsity


supplement.


district


cost


differential


was


intended


equalize


distributions


to districts


on the


relative


costs


living


associated


with


community


they


based


serve


on the


cost


Florida


factors


Price


used


Level


formula


Index


were


as determined


Office


Governor


Specifically


, the


sum


last


three


year


indexes


were


divided


three


multiplied


.008


added


to 0.200


In the


1992


Appropriations


, these


differential


were


indexed


such


a way


that


lowest


value


was


1.000


Additionally


, the


stricts


were


placed


in regions


corresponding


districts


state


in a given


region


s judi

were


cial

given


circuits


and


highest


all

value


calculated


district


region.


declining


enrollment


supplement


was


intended










allocation.


these


eligible


districts,


percent


decline


was


multiplied


prior


year


FEFP


unweighted


FTE


added


to the


current


year


allocation


sparsity


supplement


was


intended


ass


rural


stricts


that


faced


additional


cost


burdens


assoc


iated


with


population


sparsity


, higher


per


pupil


transportation


costs


An allocation


was


provided


to districts


with


an unweighted


ess


A total


,000


,000


was


distribute


ed through


sparsity


supplement


1992


school


year


result


addition


eligible


supplements


product


weighted


BSA


was


total


gross


state


local


FEFP


dollars


available


to the


distri


A funding


adjustment


was


applied


ensure


that


distri


received


same


percentage


change


in funding


as occurred


1991


From


this


result


aggregate


required


local


effort


RLE)


was


subtracted.


district


S RLE


was


based


product


valuation


millage


property


rate


Following


local


a di


assessed


scussion


method


ch the


millage


rates


districts


were


determined.


aggregate


required


local


revenue


used


general


or 1










local


amount


was


at $3,034


Using


rolls


provided


Department


Revenue,


commissioner


education


computed


millage


rate


which


when


applied


to 95


percent


total


nonexempt


property


in the


state


would


generate


proscribed


aggregate


required


local


effort


result


was


basic


millage


rate


districts.


Equalization


factors


were


then


used


to determine


specific


millage


rates


individual


districts.


factor


a given


district


was


equal


to the


quotient


prior


year


year


s state


aggregate


s assessment


assessment


that


district


level


divided


, subtracted


prior


from


one.


resultant


equalization


factor


was


then


multiplied


basic


millage


rate


to determine


RLE


millage


rate


district


School


board


approval


RLE


millage


rate


was


required


order


a given


district


receive


FEFP


funds


from


state.


subtraction


required


local


effort


from


gross


state


local


FEFP


dollars


resulted


state


FEFP


dollars.


To this


amount


funding


adjustments


were


made,


which


accounted


arithmetical


errors,


roll


changes,


errors


or other


allocation


errors.


result


these


adjustments


was


net


state


FEFP


dollars


combination


state


FEFP


funds


required


local


effort










Because


these


categorical


programs


special


allocations


were


special


without


included


Community


part


funding


being


analysis


programs


discussed


Comprehensive


Schools


detail


School


35 School


present


are


study,


listed


Categorical


Construction


Lunch,


these


briefly


programs


Debt


36 Instructional


Service,


Materials


Student


Transportation.


Special


Allocations


were


Blue


Print


Schools,


Career


Summer


Preparation,


Inservice


Pre-School


Institutes,


Projects,


Programs


Safe


Emphasis,


Full


Service


School


s/Interagency


Cooperation,


and


Education


Business


Cooperative.


local


Florida


revenue


given


used


year


to support


derived


public


from


schools


property


taxation.


Local


school


districts


are


authorized


to tax


property


support


education


Florida


Constitution.


support


effort


public


school


Five


categories


schools.


operating


millage,


millages


first


are


used


required


as established


local


FEFP


The


second


scretionary


village,


determined


each


local


school


board


(within


statutory


limitations)


without


a vote


electorate.


third


capital


outlay


maintenance


millage,


determined


each


school


board


Without


a vote


electorate.


remaining


millage










districts


exceeding


effort,


are


prohibited


10 mills


from


discretionary,


Florida


Constitution


combination


capital


outlay


from


required


and


local


maintenance


rates


a given


year


present


study


nonvoted


focused


millage


on the


rates


disequalizing


, discretionary


effects


millage


and


school


capital


improvement


village,


when


combined


with


revenues


obtained


through


equalized


foundation


portion


FEFP.


Thus,


focus


was


on the


disequali


zing


effects


rates


which


each


were


applied


at local


board


discretion.


discretionary


village


rate,


levie


from


which


were


equalized


state,


was


determined


each


individual


school


board


without


a vote


local


electorate.


Districts


were


permitted


use


revenues


obtained


from


application


discretionary


millage


rate


to support


current


operations.


Legislature


annually


prescribes


maximum


discretionary


millage


rate


that


districts


choo


never


to exceed


mills


The


1992-


maximum


discretionary


millage


rate


was


set


at 0


.510


mills


Florida


Legislature.


capital


outlay


maintenance


millage


rate


given d


districtt


was


determined


local


school


board










rates.


These


revenues


could


used


district


new


construction


modeling


projects,


sites


site


improvement


or expansion


new


sites


, existing


auxiliary


facilities


or ancillary


iliti


or to fund


maintenance,


renovation,


repair


existing


school


plants


These


revenues


could


furthermore


used


to support


pupil


transportation


their


use


in purcha


sing


school


buse


driver

vehicle


education


, security


vehi


vehi


, plaint


maintenance


or vehicle


related


related


to storing


or distributing


material


equipment


New


or replacement


equipment


could


also


purchased


using


these


funds.


stricts


through


were


capital


permitted


outlay


use


maintenance


revenues


rate


obtained


payments


educational


facilities


sites


under


a lease-


purchase


agreement


, as


long


as these


funds


exceed


one-


half


total


levy


from


village


rate


The


revenues


could


used


payment


certain


loans


used


finance


school


facilities


These


loans


were


restricted


term


one


year


or 1


ess


, unl


ess


otherwi


extended


lender


never


exc


four


years


Additionally


, the


amount


loan


could


exceed


one-


fourth


total


volarem


revenue


from


preceding


fiscal


year


Districts


could


also


use


these


revenues


pay


costs










Finally


, these


revenues


could


used


to support


payment


costs


leasing


relocatable


educational


facility


three


nonvoted,


locally


derived


millage


rates


used


support


school


, only


required


local


effort


portion was

equalize the


levies


supplemented


stribution


levies


matching


among


resulting


state


districts.


from


fund

The


capital


in order


discretionary


improvement


millages


were


equalized


on a statewide


basi


disequalizing


foundation


effect


program


these


revenues


levie


is the


when


focus


combined


this


with


study


following


section


includes


a discussion


spec


ific


method


which


these


equity


effects


were


examined


Desian


study


addr


ess


question


what


extent


did


local


discretionary


levies


introduce


sequalizing


effects


into


an equalized


foundation


program


previous


section


included


a summary


FEFP


as it operated


1992-93


scal


year


current


section


includes


a discussion


design


study.


scal


equity


realm


education


finance


refers


to fairness


in the


distribution


fiscal


resources.


examination


fiscal


equity


a distribution


stem










revenues


are


used


to represent


resource


availability


equity


studio


In the


current


study


, per-pupil


revenues


were


chosen


choosing


per


as the


-pupil


measurement


revenues


object


as opposed


rationale


to per-pupil


expenditures


was


fact


that


revenues


could


matched


with


their


millage


rate


source


, whereas


expenditures


were


identified


such


a source.


Thus


, in the


present


study


per-


pupil


revenues


was


representative


resources


used


support


education.


To determine


degree


disequity


caused


introduction


scretionary


millages


revenues


millages


, per-pupil


revenue


raised


capital

s were


through


outlay

examined


application


maintenance


across


seven


levels


aggregation.


first


level


included


per-


pupil

the F


revenues


EFP


stributed


An examination


through


this


foundation


aggregate


level


portion

provided


seline


from


which


degree


disequali


zation


caused


local


second


discretionary


third


levi


was


level


assess


aggregation


included


stribution


among


local


distri


-pupil


revenues


raised


through


application


discretionary


capital


outlay


maintenance


millage


rates


, respectively


An analyst


-pupil


revenues


stribution


these










included


combination


discretionary


and


capital


outlay


level


maintenance


indicated


levies,


total


results


degree


from


disequalization


this


resulting


from


levies.


fifth,


sixth,


seventh


levels


aggregation


included


combinations


first


through


fourth.


The


fifth


aggregation


through


level


included


foundation


per-pupil


portion


FEFP


revenues


combined


distributed


with


per-pupil


revenues


raised


through


application


discretionary


millage


rate.


sixth


level


aggregation


included


a combination


per-pupil


revenues


distributed


through


foundation


portion


FEFP


combined


with


per-pupil


revenues


raised


through


application


capital


outlay


maintenance


millage


rate.


results


from


these


levels


, when


compared


to the


results


from


aggregate


level


one,


indicated


through


application


magnitude


inequity


of each


introduced


unequalized


millage


rates,


respectively.


seventh


combination of the

foundation program,


final


per-pupil

the per-


level


aggregation


revenues


pupil


distributed


revenues


included


through


through


generated


application


discretionary


millage


rate,


per-


pupil


revenues


generated


through


application


capital










only


demonstrated


revenues


generated


total


through


disequalizing


millage


effects


rates


Per-pupil


revenues


across


these


seven


level


aggregation


were


examined


light


three


standards


fiscal


equity


These


included


resource


access


sibility


, wealth


neutrality


these


techniques


, and


concepts,


through


yield.


coupled


which


Following


with


they


a discussion


specific


were


each


quantitative


assessed.


Measurement


previous


design


section


data


included


study


a de


cription


In this


section


method


which


fiscal


equity


was


measured


presented


most


equity


studi


resource


accessibility


, wealth


neutrality


, and


yield


have


been


means


assess


relative


equity


a distribution


In the


present


study


measures


related


to all


three


these


equity


constructs


were


used


assess


degree


disequali


zation


introduced


millage


rates.


In the


present


study


, the


revenues


generated


through


application


discretionary


capital


outlay


and


maintenance


village


rates


were


examined


to determine


effects


on student


resource


accessibility


Resource


*


_


ii ii


m R


I


I_