<%BANNER%>

Florida's Public Education Finance Program Regarding Equity and Adequacy

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022421/00001

Material Information

Title: Florida's Public Education Finance Program Regarding Equity and Adequacy
Physical Description: 1 online resource (217 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Tachon, Teresa
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 2004, 2005, 2006, academic, accountability, adequacy, distribution, districts, education, equity, fcat, finance, florida, formulas, funding, performance, public, resources, school, standards
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has raised the standards for accountability for school districts across the country with the objective of increasing student performance. The Florida Legislature implemented an accountability system to measure the annual yearly progress of school districts and students across the state. Students in Florida public school districts in grades three through ten are tested annually on the Sunshine State Standards by means of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. These new federal and state education policies seldom address methods of financing the implementation of these programs. Recent litigation in many states has raised questions regarding the fairness and quantity of resources distributed through state education finance funding formulas. Many state courts have overturned public education funding mechanisms, claiming that the resources are no longer sufficient in providing an opportunity for each student to achieve a minimum acceptable level of academic performance. As a result, education finance systems have shifted focus from equitable distribution of resources toward adequacy. The State of Florida funds public education by means of a formula-driven mechanism known as the Florida Education Finance Program. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Florida Education Finance Program provided equitable funds to public school districts while maintaining an adequate distribution of resources. The Florida Education Finance Program from the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 was analyzed using four measures of equity. Then each of these school years was analyzed in terms of adequacy using an accountability score developed from the research. Statistical measures were used to determine the effectiveness of the Florida Education Finance Program in terms of equity and adequacy. The results of this study indicate that in order to maintain an appropriate equitable distribution of resources for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, adequacy may have been compromised to ensure equity. The Florida Education Finance Program does not recognize the relatively high cost of educating students from low-income families. It is suggested that to achieve any given student performance standard, some schools may need to spend more than others depending on the characteristics of the students and schools. The Florida Education Finance Program should be reexamined and modified to balance today?s need for equity and adequacy.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Teresa Tachon.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022421:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022421/00001

Material Information

Title: Florida's Public Education Finance Program Regarding Equity and Adequacy
Physical Description: 1 online resource (217 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Tachon, Teresa
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 2004, 2005, 2006, academic, accountability, adequacy, distribution, districts, education, equity, fcat, finance, florida, formulas, funding, performance, public, resources, school, standards
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has raised the standards for accountability for school districts across the country with the objective of increasing student performance. The Florida Legislature implemented an accountability system to measure the annual yearly progress of school districts and students across the state. Students in Florida public school districts in grades three through ten are tested annually on the Sunshine State Standards by means of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. These new federal and state education policies seldom address methods of financing the implementation of these programs. Recent litigation in many states has raised questions regarding the fairness and quantity of resources distributed through state education finance funding formulas. Many state courts have overturned public education funding mechanisms, claiming that the resources are no longer sufficient in providing an opportunity for each student to achieve a minimum acceptable level of academic performance. As a result, education finance systems have shifted focus from equitable distribution of resources toward adequacy. The State of Florida funds public education by means of a formula-driven mechanism known as the Florida Education Finance Program. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Florida Education Finance Program provided equitable funds to public school districts while maintaining an adequate distribution of resources. The Florida Education Finance Program from the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 was analyzed using four measures of equity. Then each of these school years was analyzed in terms of adequacy using an accountability score developed from the research. Statistical measures were used to determine the effectiveness of the Florida Education Finance Program in terms of equity and adequacy. The results of this study indicate that in order to maintain an appropriate equitable distribution of resources for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, adequacy may have been compromised to ensure equity. The Florida Education Finance Program does not recognize the relatively high cost of educating students from low-income families. It is suggested that to achieve any given student performance standard, some schools may need to spend more than others depending on the characteristics of the students and schools. The Florida Education Finance Program should be reexamined and modified to balance today?s need for equity and adequacy.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Teresa Tachon.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022421:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101202_AAAABT INGEST_TIME 2010-12-02T19:53:53Z PACKAGE UFE0022421_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6710 DFID F20101202_AABGSB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH tachon_t_Page_035thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
872fd8349086bc436a5eabbf72a7987a
SHA-1
bf8dd3c047e278023fee0d6baba8f974718180d6
6578 F20101202_AABGRN tachon_t_Page_026thm.jpg
7746fa112b83ab70e9218d30c9a604f3
78f3dc176aaa356335fe790575c71be9d32ec8a2
6706 F20101202_AABGQY tachon_t_Page_017thm.jpg
cc5c60825837e198b227c871c053cebe
5d704e62afa755d6998a50b80b8c5ea8412fd392
1051985 F20101202_AABFOL tachon_t_Page_027.jp2
7b4b9d33ce952c6f6f13ee6fdc0dd802
ce8fde4eb046b90d388a3a0dcf19b749197c3c68
1051967 F20101202_AABFNW tachon_t_Page_008.jp2
f1950441b48c1d6df3cb900c962e7e81
5f307cc67c1716a3258da76f663529d3865569e1
6757 F20101202_AABGSC tachon_t_Page_037thm.jpg
ab4d0a5ae63a933fe238d91faf4ae4f6
a3371d3dab0c3303fceb071d0b849e63d593d5d7
25903 F20101202_AABGRO tachon_t_Page_027.QC.jpg
de5e608edc4c13d20370b8c282008ad4
c486a3c7ed3043e70fa4c261a541fc70146beea7
23342 F20101202_AABGQZ tachon_t_Page_018.QC.jpg
492a033f41377a76d4c25b9d9b30727a
41584ee5ae239a0e4c780ea81421e2392f871d11
111753 F20101202_AABFPA tachon_t_Page_043.jp2
6f5e405a33da0e88c510a1a414aae7cd
262d5422cb6f95f5e5c42ee81b4af2bf218da83f
993355 F20101202_AABFOM tachon_t_Page_028.jp2
a90e93a9e47e466c67a14e10ba52f9d0
94bcd1b667be8404f487410d8c12bc98b6a3e01e
299791 F20101202_AABFNX tachon_t_Page_009.jp2
b3ffb1518785865672b2b4dcc0608612
8d197f3b82fe593588c680eb82056d9e9cef1a3f
20712 F20101202_AABGSD tachon_t_Page_038.QC.jpg
329749fd9f7b7cb04e030af540bd4d86
6500e3a8f4b6408fe905e02ca439d80ae552634f
7186 F20101202_AABGRP tachon_t_Page_027thm.jpg
aa29c167c284e7834bb3555933943754
efe1673327716906a6d04ced27983fc035c4abb3
104178 F20101202_AABFPB tachon_t_Page_044.jp2
88e1128b96014a7d86bef8a952d2b486
749e967c14374b9b64259a6c1c241dbcf81914e7
937506 F20101202_AABFON tachon_t_Page_030.jp2
932a3f81662b000efec3b13f20444dbb
dba1e9fc9cdd31544cf1672305ee70f637604be0
1051978 F20101202_AABFNY tachon_t_Page_010.jp2
1005537171c4d2047c9e9b2efadfcd94
233538c7379ef8579985208fad8abccab27a5498
5783 F20101202_AABGSE tachon_t_Page_038thm.jpg
0fcfc0a595f30102f6136bc4309312f9
d217b926e9789a4637bb77b0aed605b00f3aa48c
7054 F20101202_AABGRQ tachon_t_Page_029thm.jpg
ce939e45395d585de2d8adb2d3d305a9
80a9e4f89666e732ee2864253ebe07dcbe535c7f
101690 F20101202_AABFPC tachon_t_Page_045.jp2
37f80cb394799751cfee93d4fefd652d
7fc337c20f376bf13d2917751174dd4145f30308
1051937 F20101202_AABFOO tachon_t_Page_031.jp2
5cbc29e3ba3274a3e7070034f3ebceb4
3fa45b27f41c71c340713c4d59ec489095db10f3
1051918 F20101202_AABFNZ tachon_t_Page_011.jp2
e45331d00755be4601184b77d2472995
4994c53dd3e8d3ce4d32276227072f09b0d364ba
23943 F20101202_AABGSF tachon_t_Page_039.QC.jpg
6d1387d6bce067f8098aa2919d997a25
b0ede26e4da67dcee0c74492f01ccb84ee777c82
20374 F20101202_AABGRR tachon_t_Page_030.QC.jpg
2c5e1723d86b3c61bfe7bb040ec08094
31744d04a0e9bd38a60e6d5d5da128f940caac44
104848 F20101202_AABFPD tachon_t_Page_046.jp2
2861ec1034a7355abf2b10bfb814ad58
778da36f00c57b6f7fbdff6ff1414644547bfd18
1051963 F20101202_AABFOP tachon_t_Page_032.jp2
f686545632a1f896425d629ab868def2
30c446bff78df993a0b68d2277b08283e4fcecc0
6576 F20101202_AABGSG tachon_t_Page_039thm.jpg
79e14b87e16ffa13bc6c99ff13cc34a4
d9263cf3957e585952cd851b72df28af19d2b0be
5967 F20101202_AABGRS tachon_t_Page_030thm.jpg
bd14190a7c323e61ff5646f8e2f38a16
ee00fa79fea85af34dea4ca3fc55cf0fec18227d
102499 F20101202_AABFOQ tachon_t_Page_033.jp2
3d3f5209873123eff6e85ee2b37132e0
3309ab15a9c952bbb45feef07d0d8845a8c78a77
1051976 F20101202_AABFPE tachon_t_Page_047.jp2
66a8661dd3879e49289f84dedb3307a8
261e71063ea788e4be505eff8bd8805c45dfed3f
6532 F20101202_AABGSH tachon_t_Page_040thm.jpg
52573a13b164c422cb087f74d6820352
dc3c284e2258dd1bb90f1fa8e1701b11ba2587bf
101584 F20101202_AABFPF tachon_t_Page_049.jp2
46c2c5c44bd1b937c16aa0d8de7746ad
8128c16aedd1f2d169a298e7964504b8d56649ce
6289 F20101202_AABGSI tachon_t_Page_041thm.jpg
cfff0523ee6efc1d6cd5bdca1aead92f
2d4c133aa6d11713007d941c6caaf6135d310078
24419 F20101202_AABGRT tachon_t_Page_031.QC.jpg
a111f16c2344e60e95c7a3ab3dc68e77
766913e8e89d0a8ee66eda4e553bb2de68dddbbf
111318 F20101202_AABFOR tachon_t_Page_034.jp2
29a65a17ffdef6fac2456be67191eea2
e98b387868cd469651461c68bd70f7154a5abb4c
114536 F20101202_AABFPG tachon_t_Page_050.jp2
1cd8438d718243216eaa276fdc4779e0
0fcb9c06870f46e6fa6ff83acf3ea78b06c23f1f
21370 F20101202_AABGSJ tachon_t_Page_042.QC.jpg
ba825f4a8ef03f22f3b3d651fb0c697c
7bfeed7be2155126969ac8140cae103ba61dce2a
6811 F20101202_AABGRU tachon_t_Page_031thm.jpg
d94dea675b3cba6d5c78909c1ffb8f59
541d0eb6727501e087dea2ab64a558053ee474b5
115128 F20101202_AABFOS tachon_t_Page_035.jp2
b077904581ed0a45dcaf7a0556fbb79e
b7eeeee4ac4ed8736194c4a6422413c86ba48bc9
110246 F20101202_AABFPH tachon_t_Page_051.jp2
ef36d9a66d05e5be476ab5c76d7fb657
3d501d4e9d408dce42f7fb4081c5b1f2c3286165
5918 F20101202_AABGSK tachon_t_Page_042thm.jpg
a566ddf30ed331d225b486d4cb4dec0b
d883091fa9cab5d19193cc8ab8919ef6973bba11
25962 F20101202_AABGRV tachon_t_Page_032.QC.jpg
e0696f24363bb0eddcd63d470d327cd2
37e10f06777a968037b33d539ab95636767d00d7
107830 F20101202_AABFOT tachon_t_Page_036.jp2
4fd94a3c8264e3a8672fae6c56cd64db
f2ecf7ee44b0d5d5cdd4275951dec4a5f50f382c
1051980 F20101202_AABFPI tachon_t_Page_052.jp2
4ec5fae94e977e67ca2b617caf9ce0fd
6f2db98db0b456ad69c622368f57a5b4bc3d3b0e
23720 F20101202_AABGSL tachon_t_Page_043.QC.jpg
15fb4d49f710bb9b8183e2838389b55f
d557dda226aa29b16dea0ce9bb6a05e6584cf8ae
6874 F20101202_AABGRW tachon_t_Page_032thm.jpg
83e440ab05513e33262301d7709558fe
a821d5af67beb89b68dd15e301a1fdfc5b882549
115638 F20101202_AABFOU tachon_t_Page_037.jp2
deb59a8f4812aa36371fe1653662d2c7
87ba12d0c8fad374aa133360c7ccb69300965ed1
1051946 F20101202_AABFPJ tachon_t_Page_053.jp2
bd0d1b212220a48a972c34cd9f1f5e01
b94ab40a282cfa9eba1e9e61493f49e13ded12ab
23481 F20101202_AABGTA tachon_t_Page_054.QC.jpg
dbc1a0fff42377dd1aaaaabcd8abdcc3
636eb80d15612a37736b00394d9f14044ab14ae0
6493 F20101202_AABGSM tachon_t_Page_043thm.jpg
c741f7fdba4093f8a202b74f6f4fe6f7
c84d67f8d4d3c8cb3f4c059602046c5689b79ec0
22036 F20101202_AABGRX tachon_t_Page_033.QC.jpg
9f4a51652fc24f417784534696d82e7d
927ff1b9629e5652c270aa23c0f3d4bbe5d6fd36
98765 F20101202_AABFOV tachon_t_Page_038.jp2
e5a2cd45ba70026d981f385c3981ad54
40aa3661897290520f3769999c078b0d335479e2
115675 F20101202_AABFPK tachon_t_Page_054.jp2
5e0774bd2f92761ae8b18c96579c3acf
3783360b9d4f788926192f9affe7749b70863a3a
6073 F20101202_AABGTB tachon_t_Page_054thm.jpg
d2470a9197b6e411ffa8034580ac58c9
db4092516dd2eca6f8900e48e512fa6f2f8be17e
21232 F20101202_AABGSN tachon_t_Page_044.QC.jpg
24c7135df984d76b5068f8b1653729c9
315a2204534a7107a924f080198581ea0ad60b6f
6173 F20101202_AABGRY tachon_t_Page_033thm.jpg
0d26b58affae9304d62e918d1f6c7612
c6a5ca0a8d3589237c8ff5037b3dd5225a4e036f
111106 F20101202_AABFOW tachon_t_Page_039.jp2
e1a9a8d00a2a28f52adbff0607750e7d
94f9afca88788e900931315195395157db93e299
120321 F20101202_AABFPL tachon_t_Page_055.jp2
8f86a62961a66f371f16a1164236184b
8a1835848688eb88809f7e21e55680a42a325b74
23291 F20101202_AABGTC tachon_t_Page_055.QC.jpg
194777eceaedb3644b1c468825247087
b234f32ee5c36567ab71150d31d3dfeb549c53bd
5910 F20101202_AABGSO tachon_t_Page_044thm.jpg
3b387582d5f07dfbb31973618a291655
33693be7296b7720c7583624fb81d4523af3a5eb
23556 F20101202_AABGRZ tachon_t_Page_034.QC.jpg
caa052164ed117a9a849bc1621d8fefb
bcc62f8efd4d13c1e32523d2f53da674a57095b8
1031402 F20101202_AABFOX tachon_t_Page_040.jp2
2478da719b6448ce9bfda86166f3cd56
b19e7cc7ecca0856ab290e4b1b55a4945e9bb34e
717005 F20101202_AABFQA tachon_t_Page_077.jp2
4052f816527c13e7ca8cff3bc9703665
058cd93dfb37f9c0b8a322869857d3a648465072
F20101202_AABFPM tachon_t_Page_056.jp2
051feeddd9357314ff55a80680bc3265
6fcb75cd073be4b1b7a32783d6c5e938635fdf06
27297 F20101202_AABGTD tachon_t_Page_056.QC.jpg
d9c4b5893b092f1e5d54e8a6e7ac54fb
ca8ab4675e587c5d75b90a47c51df67a3cbcb9ea
20391 F20101202_AABGSP tachon_t_Page_045.QC.jpg
7075bfe3a4aaa9100e1ceee89e63068a
9a89b9153fb2fb4b3e9795af11249f7f972a2dd9
107715 F20101202_AABFOY tachon_t_Page_041.jp2
9e84fbca79ba7d194ea420a4af8ffd59
bbf6076a6263e6f8f75895952008cad9e5098ce5
987919 F20101202_AABFQB tachon_t_Page_078.jp2
af0237984553c9c7ad27cc61d3c6a36a
20b2f736fcc3829e0826314c7fa8bf60433b7de0
115301 F20101202_AABFPN tachon_t_Page_058.jp2
5bf3e02d4d7e88dbf4359825b0bd583b
3d7707670d0a3df21e3d3122207c3ed1aa2830f0
25817 F20101202_AABGTE tachon_t_Page_057.QC.jpg
6b203bd77856c480fe38e39f29a4e7ec
e89ee808ea3042f0e1b8d7e3584255c8e848c19b
5867 F20101202_AABGSQ tachon_t_Page_045thm.jpg
8cf88df44ce997b56734966e8acb58bc
8fe39dee16443bf42d000124e490f2c7510b08e6
109281 F20101202_AABFOZ tachon_t_Page_042.jp2
13ae8b848703058060b95e5e0d0a23c8
1119bdf80984128f3506c611c873d56bf11429c9
540905 F20101202_AABFQC tachon_t_Page_080.jp2
d807eeda39b2b1a305372beda738e505
1ba59e0c059711aa8e6ab89823ef821724eafe6a
994085 F20101202_AABFPO tachon_t_Page_060.jp2
4993eb4d2ce3b61ecb4bbb99cea0fc49
b8c4ae6cd4ddea92623ae1bb9c284345fc7c8f0a
6878 F20101202_AABGTF tachon_t_Page_057thm.jpg
97aba3ad8546eb8a73d1baffb458c494
415ba240c4fbbe2cd957179ad812da0793ae5c11
23814 F20101202_AABGSR tachon_t_Page_047.QC.jpg
5fcbae52fb68a28d3a06735c66d65322
45fe9230d3ff3bb7b1075bd46d2bc0108391fcfa
334842 F20101202_AABFQD tachon_t_Page_081.jp2
7d8d933ea69ee5dae1600b430a14d805
c60fcbef32d35718058c64ec4fc782ded1f82456
1019067 F20101202_AABFPP tachon_t_Page_061.jp2
db8a9adc756055a7c8d17b83e1626e1f
209ee7c7ff14608748b057c51df281cc608b78fb
24471 F20101202_AABGTG tachon_t_Page_058.QC.jpg
77c0bac8a923ec907bd8cc811cff9bb1
771e26e553dc105d3c5d8f8c551fa3b840b17ad2
24193 F20101202_AABGSS tachon_t_Page_048.QC.jpg
bd3f8e1539549e48a8a25d3129742f9b
ded6ad95951f0d3acc03f7b18d0fcd35addc0f61
106002 F20101202_AABFQE tachon_t_Page_083.jp2
a6d27f266500db6d1aa0aed129a3c0f7
88910c628eca03d68f9e112c8de82a727b07351f
980259 F20101202_AABFPQ tachon_t_Page_062.jp2
b7ae4eea41a8666ddeeac32626ca5405
bd8a01f39d90b79821304308c7f63b46de52ffbd
6485 F20101202_AABGTH tachon_t_Page_059thm.jpg
a1f55319029118469c41659db5b4906a
7e2ef46a15e65dffa456c14f6f8ca6ff295977c9
6202 F20101202_AABGST tachon_t_Page_049thm.jpg
8f72eb4e132515cb0fae52679c6f4515
1730ea312224c5d8ba4914e9cc3c514e8fda8466
1051953 F20101202_AABFQF tachon_t_Page_084.jp2
a6b1b1c7b11078d5dfad7eee429194e7
dc8a5d3a57b14aa17d459a3c24804d68f4bba61c
832806 F20101202_AABFPR tachon_t_Page_065.jp2
2ce58d61815ba825f4d53162b20ef112
e4be59096c229d18f6cb08d40e8dda0b877455be
23519 F20101202_AABGTI tachon_t_Page_060.QC.jpg
91f8ebbd404de226bb6030688fca83b7
9840fe9d760e4fd88cec5690363544a553b43987
F20101202_AABFQG tachon_t_Page_085.jp2
b2653a3d9df25196f196aba2a512278b
0432b0126dc9a0901c41f8e4a95eb3cd1561bcfb
6700 F20101202_AABGTJ tachon_t_Page_060thm.jpg
56ac07a2af13740dc89afe30554f4dea
b3c18264c83e961e9c2a76f56d2209d2e759980e
25032 F20101202_AABGSU tachon_t_Page_050.QC.jpg
2869b1c5f2087bf863d6653b8815c374
9cc66e2b42559ce3f23d542492b0c7fb7c0f9f3e
1004887 F20101202_AABFQH tachon_t_Page_086.jp2
12fd25556cf089fd49556f4e77be399e
cf74430e3d0fc6704282be52ba57128db1627036
F20101202_AABFPS tachon_t_Page_067.jp2
83c7f323af9cf627b104bb45342bb669
0ad7beeab245c121ffb10ae22741362e89cdb84d
6612 F20101202_AABGTK tachon_t_Page_061thm.jpg
efd296ff33c992873dbcd255d306df0a
aa4e6926c537b8f168e697b70f25dd69496e718d
6755 F20101202_AABGSV tachon_t_Page_050thm.jpg
e1143284024d6240e9f61dd507b5b7c8
74061f4ddde2c25dfc4d890171065ed7005891f8
924373 F20101202_AABFQI tachon_t_Page_087.jp2
ad5f6db8596d3b706b2ad36d03eebf1c
2961a0b90fda8a759e44187c9f63e4a454b2413d
1002389 F20101202_AABFPT tachon_t_Page_068.jp2
05fcb88670984c3413a811f2b177f0de
4ceeea3b6cb46c33d291e8fafced2f7311501c26
21186 F20101202_AABGTL tachon_t_Page_062.QC.jpg
15c35579fd84ceec0f2c4dbbe34a0e3a
93e48fe0f8a653491fe10a88cd96d20ea897c17d
22602 F20101202_AABGSW tachon_t_Page_051.QC.jpg
56797b7ca49017b1151b4a4f47e09077
c3d903681ebcc7f539ed22b3968bd0e594d2fe59
875671 F20101202_AABFQJ tachon_t_Page_088.jp2
2ffc3d6229e87d9c50bd5c47efd98aa4
09fe2cd69d1239c16e8888c43d5fcf8f87e7965f
1019327 F20101202_AABFPU tachon_t_Page_069.jp2
8c36debcba25733f0a085b61fbfa86b8
403081eddc38efaa41c21c950ecb4758ae2d3dfd
26675 F20101202_AABGUA tachon_t_Page_071.QC.jpg
c3e4dfb993cd0bc1bc11df25f274c58f
fbbf95f81c026df52771dece5b92dd34ebe8d9e6
5924 F20101202_AABGTM tachon_t_Page_062thm.jpg
e6e1976ebf94ea0ac84e01a477c395d4
8357fa0c45389980fc16bdc88dda8f0881a05751
6434 F20101202_AABGSX tachon_t_Page_051thm.jpg
ddf40ef6f35c2426af91becbf8f64ceb
04b80d14b6255f6109f32ba8fa293e5cd9f7571f
101891 F20101202_AABFQK tachon_t_Page_090.jp2
8ecddcdc57d682e83a49fd5c6bba9698
30c1a5e80c115ee0f5ca4c574f7ec82e483a3700
513279 F20101202_AABFPV tachon_t_Page_072.jp2
061f2b3acf2506680686b1160f030e1b
ddbc959c3812cac80d7061a836dd4373bbb0f19b
7288 F20101202_AABGUB tachon_t_Page_071thm.jpg
d8d776e17c9cb27d5d00ea36a387903e
d4cbd56f87bea20c1c6ee65c9e8ab48b374aedfa
6180 F20101202_AABGTN tachon_t_Page_063thm.jpg
8d5778b651d95d6dc763b0c01ee9c167
953f4c8d5ac4f8436f31d4b9219ec4d804bb8d37
25819 F20101202_AABGSY tachon_t_Page_053.QC.jpg
f249e9238f1bbcf7d2ba1c9cf49fc209
f809c782a07152ebf781aabf73330fef66971ffe
97189 F20101202_AABFQL tachon_t_Page_091.jp2
0f131c39a23e0b69fe11a30754f192d6
7e32e28ded92295afaa46df8e2dc2262d6005ee4
748803 F20101202_AABFPW tachon_t_Page_073.jp2
832e06876604712de0c829106a212260
d84f07039fc424476d7830bc3e4a92839bdb5630
12687 F20101202_AABGUC tachon_t_Page_072.QC.jpg
b3490b91d3d8596d9e3738840ae83ac3
93763ca44a60672c1431030a30e93df68deb50ec
22186 F20101202_AABGTO tachon_t_Page_064.QC.jpg
0f718bc01a3b0940b2648cfb6dcaafad
515200e7a2cdc25a4105d2a3e296f0d7c4dfbc40
6884 F20101202_AABGSZ tachon_t_Page_053thm.jpg
99257d9afaaa60e1cb688d29f53aa3f2
b961ef75b9a26e381ee46012b2abf2454cf2c125
209500 F20101202_AABFRA tachon_t_Page_111.jp2
3a018c0135c7d92674fb06cdfcf3625d
a175be2f29acf9d2ca60b3ed2578d1e75460071b
98526 F20101202_AABFQM tachon_t_Page_092.jp2
08c2ff874b20306750cd466e11bcdc9e
bac1269afb25a3590320bef78fa59abb7de92f7e
25742 F20101202_AABFPX tachon_t_Page_074.jp2
0ba7a006ded01ff93149e0ee32aa32e7
f5866ef9c161ca88df6b8015899704a1dba108dd
16669 F20101202_AABGUD tachon_t_Page_073.QC.jpg
97f4a0de3838226df6de3a146948448c
e7301bb482f05e21de7dda6fc27ae4b1cb64e289
6181 F20101202_AABGTP tachon_t_Page_064thm.jpg
76df524f3960fc7a65a4665b67c5aabd
ac5493f47481332f80dafab96f5e995b2768faf6
159920 F20101202_AABFRB tachon_t_Page_112.jp2
ecc1548887b9c95a4d2f0100d6311ffc
6087ef9ff4407057cf3fb81ca9a997ca3139eb12
74029 F20101202_AABFQN tachon_t_Page_095.jp2
dec65a5a0d118049a94697f755a923bf
fa9f1fd1a42f74bc4bb9b40a98e4bb2e922300d9
587950 F20101202_AABFPY tachon_t_Page_075.jp2
4674d8785bf54ad6785e7068e2ea98ee
f6b010df28e3677a76b485b881c1091d3a45f17d
4734 F20101202_AABGUE tachon_t_Page_073thm.jpg
c5640ce93e0806d4ce8342800e45ee67
daf1f1b21ae7607e6684ed6428d6b7021a6c3aae
5624 F20101202_AABGTQ tachon_t_Page_065thm.jpg
75ca7464108a3721bea71e0b9f62807d
5da8b295602dec4ae1c1e84b903abe9dafba580b
935162 F20101202_AABFRC tachon_t_Page_114.jp2
8c6ab45ba79e64d0b975a4ecbbac4c85
5545f0c5878d2e336138581498c6a43aabc096b1
755441 F20101202_AABFQO tachon_t_Page_097.jp2
119bc0a9d42aa428f61b945db75b4bc0
f96450f7aaa063d1b85a486494fa3eaa1780957b
87151 F20101202_AABFPZ tachon_t_Page_076.jp2
4c6caea40f09ac9cbca4e35e542fdd6c
0ec2f3fb9bd2a8005acc0734922da21a52208c41
5401 F20101202_AABHAA tachon_t_Page_167thm.jpg
7e4006ff842593f7d64b2513ac22062e
5f6d7f393a541e8b69f0c758611d75b17fb8e863
7251 F20101202_AABGUF tachon_t_Page_074.QC.jpg
87c51b5abc9e2dc2201a1ee5a462be30
cd8d41af0e9d67bf6b6460ee503ca933e79ca8be
24872 F20101202_AABGTR tachon_t_Page_066.QC.jpg
274ba9428ebbace75c65604c5da0efc8
61b3742233df15ebaf28ccd8ce2df31fa9effacf
411473 F20101202_AABFRD tachon_t_Page_115.jp2
be5c636266f2b0b96fde7bde5b544724
f84ebec022ac2538ad23a571e6f43d58c41d386b
28522 F20101202_AABFQP tachon_t_Page_098.jp2
24af74fc225473f0d9c7bac38e5c3b36
c7efbcd594be13dd2061f0bcc224ff22bedf2249
13868 F20101202_AABGUG tachon_t_Page_075.QC.jpg
a96118a04f55bbb0f7277a45bdf41544
e69a0f86a47e504794a961bf5cc597dfd9950a24
24408 F20101202_AABGTS tachon_t_Page_067.QC.jpg
f4d9d5607b88498877f62d24fe0014d6
3d6165033cf273defdc3945e36426818e22aac97
553305 F20101202_AABFRE tachon_t_Page_117.jp2
fb477518430b8de6702199ee78d1e8aa
f7d2d4ab6c8572a3e56b5ed0a40674996d7d9912
62477 F20101202_AABFQQ tachon_t_Page_099.jp2
270ef7cea4b3d5cab503d917ff6b32cc
3291f2ef6dd278b734740d6e68c87664d6ddc52c
19220 F20101202_AABHAB tachon_t_Page_168.QC.jpg
9444e2a9a1286d82d2592d9a682967a6
86dd6582da87cba50a53c8724c11ee35773b0383
4051 F20101202_AABGUH tachon_t_Page_075thm.jpg
1a67f790ad5fc94b69b5ea5895960f20
9f5c46d3eb2030c12af313971e379d2ce153b458
6765 F20101202_AABGTT tachon_t_Page_067thm.jpg
cb65f0338e20c63ee044bbb9c1ca5235
4f16769a046b1b2d2c7295d4616bfcc8fdbec708
801369 F20101202_AABFRF tachon_t_Page_119.jp2
25ecde0ac2969b96ba2b855b4976acfe
06aede3944f0c79897b0de8a7a6023c9379085c9
1051933 F20101202_AABFQR tachon_t_Page_100.jp2
213826905fc4e344010e7fda06a0c782
cc31877592a92f7051d95c926592230ca5028f2d
5652 F20101202_AABHAC tachon_t_Page_168thm.jpg
f0736bdfbf0dffcc07c8402191987106
5ac392659e97d282b4ed5a2c5dc3414e62ce9a12
17707 F20101202_AABGUI tachon_t_Page_076.QC.jpg
688e4b32ca0d3ca6728fa015267dca5d
f47eb9f336baf3fdbc3d375666e5982210418289
22433 F20101202_AABGTU tachon_t_Page_068.QC.jpg
a788b5d3747a29ddf87d080cd8811513
38b9d70d4aa76541e24e74f60e08371eb628c036
60509 F20101202_AABFRG tachon_t_Page_120.jp2
dde04cc8a7c27df2c30ea0e25a0ec0a5
251ff6b94389cd79c1f554a70276dc1ddc3de50e
F20101202_AABFQS tachon_t_Page_101.jp2
5f1da4ee813b7b526af441319d5185c4
4947db5dc0e5f04b13657b85d3d92a2ddc86276d
19718 F20101202_AABHAD tachon_t_Page_169.QC.jpg
3579670d2182b946be55cfeb816948d8
342740c3591b3ec9bb81aa5cdb49d31d5be5bdb5
4971 F20101202_AABGUJ tachon_t_Page_076thm.jpg
806a6361b4ec5c59d99612a258d80d9b
6d4a7eafc5fa765979f7dbcb995ccbd5340fcb28
31335 F20101202_AABFRH tachon_t_Page_121.jp2
28ed23c0b5f1f02b840a7d1766cd5992
5ce9bffd5a51a9ad96152a4c68bc8bb281ce0ee9
5397 F20101202_AABHAE tachon_t_Page_169thm.jpg
2ce88dce43e5f8ecb4c7e92d23432708
33282595b5904aafb257b5b899d706d03d52268d
4189 F20101202_AABGUK tachon_t_Page_077thm.jpg
503c031ffe0e85775839f6b554775131
927764b96e7f00f5dd2605d8f5c11b3c61d37694
6420 F20101202_AABGTV tachon_t_Page_068thm.jpg
fe2804c787eab309ee2fafa522e76fb4
4ff204a2d34db9043afeb5567d64cb72551f3622
22003 F20101202_AABFRI tachon_t_Page_122.jp2
54671e2593e4edf01f3bbd879b878706
7fa538b8df810da4d9715aeddd857c5cd53bd35d
F20101202_AABFQT tachon_t_Page_102.jp2
412e009775153e4d61e0ce5342c56e81
c5076a9d736c2c64105148bfbbc1efd2d8116676
19533 F20101202_AABHAF tachon_t_Page_170.QC.jpg
6bf386049a2c034015fdcffa11195c9e
e9a7e0f7462881f8cabd067be87d0131bd36518b
19428 F20101202_AABGUL tachon_t_Page_078.QC.jpg
fb21b505c9ed216ec557d4d0d0978780
dbd9d1a4e844fa1f62967f9043d9e979b469db0e
23109 F20101202_AABGTW tachon_t_Page_069.QC.jpg
da51ebe609c3dd32a3410de1d7aca79c
8bb9a7dacca8b8f5561854c8bdb295a5d05522ef
37159 F20101202_AABFRJ tachon_t_Page_123.jp2
ab96af1e3eb3ebdb358b6b05661aea9d
aa86c40bece0279a6ac8ebfdc6accfc5c988eb0b
83527 F20101202_AABFQU tachon_t_Page_103.jp2
c66c3d4dc048b4c5f0e3bec90cb5ebe3
23e55bede9cbc04576718b94221c8cd56d13dba5
5392 F20101202_AABHAG tachon_t_Page_170thm.jpg
18d1024ae9c161a528d4083a97a4f1c6
b5f658ce277713bb6d34977350239e99ad8f0acf
22438 F20101202_AABGVA tachon_t_Page_086.QC.jpg
9ac7497747783c0a74fae0f27041d1e6
e59cd5a1812c752fce55cd1530ee86a46b30fad8
5504 F20101202_AABGUM tachon_t_Page_078thm.jpg
e98d6f485748c070a99f6913cd8202ad
10eb727d56d7f11e97ab8d6c6c716d5f36450b4d
6407 F20101202_AABGTX tachon_t_Page_069thm.jpg
d2b75edb2cb72629ba86a4e76fa8ae8f
17ded87225741ad95aceec16e8d76db5504dffd1
1051982 F20101202_AABFRK tachon_t_Page_124.jp2
ed362f287654760e545d7d5dba820994
cfc67f1d9b5ad07d2012c7b6abc0f2dcd72bf434
84158 F20101202_AABFQV tachon_t_Page_104.jp2
3a350946683e4c09f69677c5370e14b3
9b9dd964d19d5e61b75949eeab96ad9431f6ed20
20116 F20101202_AABHAH tachon_t_Page_171.QC.jpg
3df9e420a53b359c473906d0c8697a3a
be899a446888cf38ce5afc79217527b74c9e32cb
6439 F20101202_AABGVB tachon_t_Page_086thm.jpg
861261356cf1192d3a1cd866bad2f643
cdd71451258f576423ff100310c4cd1ee7bb8779
20291 F20101202_AABGUN tachon_t_Page_079.QC.jpg
24c91571f83296f8df54591c7a1ebfe9
506a0629b9a60d4a527c7e983cb06d210426ece7
22746 F20101202_AABGTY tachon_t_Page_070.QC.jpg
b16ab19047790ddee884bd1cdf1d1928
c9bf811b96cef68db988787ff1caf572a51a37cc
1051964 F20101202_AABFRL tachon_t_Page_125.jp2
5307d3aee35434f8e14396e1b544452e
8e435956139e0fc1bd55ae122cfbb14c5f609901
112732 F20101202_AABFQW tachon_t_Page_105.jp2
52edc616467df6ee8a128071e291d13c
fd6dfc6876b51e6d9f6a0a1a6e4171ab7fa51d6a
5891 F20101202_AABHAI tachon_t_Page_171thm.jpg
03217967c9278d7d6e065a8c75e3b906
3efc2e73eb4bf27586934041cb7f699f37648ad2
22296 F20101202_AABGVC tachon_t_Page_087.QC.jpg
e48f43252aaf3d9d2877ab81a26344dd
a6927a9f9d2fb9b7014212d661b4223e1b9ae3d9
5538 F20101202_AABGUO tachon_t_Page_079thm.jpg
fff8cbb6a12636025f2f8df3cb8dc83f
1c551567d00c5eeac612963c496917318a00fc2c
6382 F20101202_AABGTZ tachon_t_Page_070thm.jpg
349d0ffd51a8e5578fa23a69a9c48afa
f2827d9e38d87696bf2d16f910a311f886c93ef8
1051847 F20101202_AABFRM tachon_t_Page_126.jp2
3f8415315d5d38f9d59142c2bb403e80
bdcd309e9334ae10f6fa78344580bc663bff1419
99262 F20101202_AABFQX tachon_t_Page_106.jp2
91ce6db90e157378ffc9064890268a1b
66dbb86e70da258624e231fb52c870418572f7fd
888133 F20101202_AABFSA tachon_t_Page_142.jp2
775cd17021e38172c80273a303564694
a5d62e2bd9d1c4d57319f9101d096a239620d7ed
19443 F20101202_AABHAJ tachon_t_Page_172.QC.jpg
b12ef297a8c014e6e46950b2aa9f61c9
096e1c43de9446021fab1cc763c0ef28eb480e96
5860 F20101202_AABGVD tachon_t_Page_087thm.jpg
b30a251ccb64942ce1a52a9a8bdb273c
740fc5701d3a8fd0daa62ec882911552e07770ee
14480 F20101202_AABGUP tachon_t_Page_080.QC.jpg
52eda555390e6f47c9bf23ad4beed402
45589e350fb0c88a698d0d7ab842b985554034f7
30823 F20101202_AABFRN tachon_t_Page_127.jp2
95a94433fa4e0d39c4f8a55d8629c303
dd4c691545aeff6524e17c2d4e465503b078c9c7
86646 F20101202_AABFQY tachon_t_Page_107.jp2
cb4d8cb06d859de294ceef4fb112e4c4
12e4c32bdfbbd43d71817133600c9975fbc2bbf9
899617 F20101202_AABFSB tachon_t_Page_144.jp2
78b4a10b120f97ea8ccefb21cb64b5c2
d7639c8949e2e6855547d7fbaa4dd73a14a48523
5600 F20101202_AABHAK tachon_t_Page_172thm.jpg
ecca5e9b0735e8df085f088d221e0720
14b37453e26a3401f84623de4a9529e75e17760f
19899 F20101202_AABGVE tachon_t_Page_088.QC.jpg
003a6d28ef58de40a76956da1d797019
c666ad589489d5c4666457f3715a7810acfc3ec3
4833 F20101202_AABGUQ tachon_t_Page_080thm.jpg
8996c268885c34980bad9e635022c57b
bead2a6de5239f2ebd6e479061c254ccfcab5933
491216 F20101202_AABFRO tachon_t_Page_128.jp2
7fa56cce09c6ba634448e43bc8d16cda
389b21421f2e84ea2e41dae34c29190d44bc7d58
86547 F20101202_AABFQZ tachon_t_Page_108.jp2
4931bf5c231be4abb7d2c533f0da8b76
2323caadd2c7c2e813bb1a435c35060d171466ab
865563 F20101202_AABFSC tachon_t_Page_145.jp2
4860bfd1e6570c2e01836f1b83f0cb65
5126c86a03bbdf62fc7d0efef37417cbe0cc2cfe
5330 F20101202_AABHBA tachon_t_Page_182thm.jpg
c6853fbae17d5183d2d852ebd585adf2
bfe0440ed8b183e460639e3bf30fe069a87c7693
19000 F20101202_AABHAL tachon_t_Page_173.QC.jpg
15582815cf95c11b7e63ecc514514af9
3fef4d98ecb546f20b071ab98e1105cbeef72bcd
5770 F20101202_AABGVF tachon_t_Page_088thm.jpg
832870ba9b9970591e41786e3e579124
35782c58ac0c4291c8f911ecff9c765fce86a88e
9924 F20101202_AABGUR tachon_t_Page_081.QC.jpg
47b59024e434ed18c101ae2e26174b99
816eaef0caef2aed71e145957ad3f9495441c31c
69810 F20101202_AABFRP tachon_t_Page_129.jp2
5e8a17e8d4a1ba6c9f31a5ca596b649b
87a7969b62398947806b7d471dcca9d741b4b337
853143 F20101202_AABFSD tachon_t_Page_147.jp2
ed3eb9db8dc7d5c203688de50310efa4
efd74165671977af896eeac8748517a20aa202ce
19273 F20101202_AABHBB tachon_t_Page_183.QC.jpg
dfdafde90f010f9b320f4dc845aefe43
f279e86cf4ed64f59f37ebf15ce245b7c634ac25
19596 F20101202_AABHAM tachon_t_Page_174.QC.jpg
03b628687ebe78dbf0efdb51ded192c3
434e107037a477b44014c224a0b9123d83980fd9
21004 F20101202_AABGVG tachon_t_Page_089.QC.jpg
ac3807e071e608bd96dd8519d1575513
ff8b42d3748c37a7da650d54cc360fb679acc1aa
7232 F20101202_AABGUS tachon_t_Page_082.QC.jpg
d22ae60a6fb8233a7b9f576d5d6aacd0
1d21347c5da8a8383f0e2a57ca4da23d04c52a9f
46482 F20101202_AABFRQ tachon_t_Page_130.jp2
f0a5811f1b19c19ea30212dc9377a6a9
651384a007b1237f3c48d7af62b747180bcc47ac
890973 F20101202_AABFSE tachon_t_Page_150.jp2
9b963ccc014542b7336eb599ed0242ec
db168fd87305be8ca38bce53283a1fd50c1649b4
5211 F20101202_AABHAN tachon_t_Page_174thm.jpg
a55feda5b559c1563ed55fa2b2bcf255
4f7e5b2435572e1ea5cd4eab7737d46c0a045b5b
5953 F20101202_AABGVH tachon_t_Page_089thm.jpg
8a0671a6f653a797e73ca53f642d6350
4e2432be3183d69e3ebff88be05c72a8dddc2b2f
2590 F20101202_AABGUT tachon_t_Page_082thm.jpg
71404e367b61743bc869d9b247d09fcb
c27ac98f828c60d1688024b6b4f6102ae93d3d74
38816 F20101202_AABFRR tachon_t_Page_131.jp2
6ffa56f50c353b301dd3e721e4b83e4f
0bc8d58430a7a2fd55fecd6c16d6abb1512550eb
853442 F20101202_AABFSF tachon_t_Page_151.jp2
bfd888bd5de737dcc7dc362799627af5
83d233fe1b2336958d31a3160a7b67aebeea1e47
5266 F20101202_AABHBC tachon_t_Page_183thm.jpg
7b58a7f070a496ddda3d9630f949dcdc
da9eb843f71b2f0654b3a9d27fd1a9baccf43bcd
20025 F20101202_AABHAO tachon_t_Page_175.QC.jpg
b8c2400d3cc4535cdf37722c4c6e71df
411c4577a20d728bf0273037bda9ab3d3b498560
22419 F20101202_AABGVI tachon_t_Page_090.QC.jpg
a0748bc6c69607de3c477a28bd448634
dc0736200a3a5dd75db9e16ee48e15ed3d3f1695
22366 F20101202_AABGUU tachon_t_Page_083.QC.jpg
6908d1a1956f681055bac49e31233974
2113076cf0b59ee76578de76a3d45664118e972a
396555 F20101202_AABFRS tachon_t_Page_133.jp2
266ae10680609f6ec86d188078235a15
607ffcb7853ddf11218f6217388888fb6d421e0f
905762 F20101202_AABFSG tachon_t_Page_152.jp2
65b6127f7e7b7a7a979596871bebb20d
02f8137726cf3dee76ebacebcb11fcc744064359
19968 F20101202_AABHBD tachon_t_Page_184.QC.jpg
353c28502f111dc776d11e697ee9edc1
8d5a6e8311e1bd0420578aa6dfdce1182736178f
5271 F20101202_AABHAP tachon_t_Page_175thm.jpg
ffe1edcb750690f0998ba62f60899cb3
83b831209bfb82b774f4f34762dc42189ee81d83
6400 F20101202_AABGVJ tachon_t_Page_090thm.jpg
3b54d085e4f29bd9900173617c7ddc96
753270801bf3f6e05d3c80caea94829827ecd42b
6131 F20101202_AABGUV tachon_t_Page_083thm.jpg
9d94fdda67a5803f44e4b6e84391b962
767b1191b0037701c2c5bbc6b33ee6ef0252e6cd
1051979 F20101202_AABFRT tachon_t_Page_134.jp2
4714d65dbd353976ba4138a3a68a5398
01ab55a5c7188bcb4ee2df230fb9536f26fe9ef9
860444 F20101202_AABFSH tachon_t_Page_153.jp2
6c637a76c2eedc2a0db77e87728749ac
3afc582882f8d5f8d257ddeb64ed10743967e523
5384 F20101202_AABHBE tachon_t_Page_184thm.jpg
696900232eda7f74f4345b589f9bcad5
a552d4b687ff9f439e75d180cee3fc7762b54192
20606 F20101202_AABHAQ tachon_t_Page_176.QC.jpg
8a49224dc1fbceed51a9d33097a72006
76e6f5833830bce82b8b39866edbe727ebc502c1
20843 F20101202_AABGVK tachon_t_Page_091.QC.jpg
6769ba3b00265ec89573ca7d038ed370
e6d8907ab20282ac59959292f611b971df04dda4
923548 F20101202_AABFSI tachon_t_Page_155.jp2
4830a4093c29035e85700220959c892e
7ad9971df293834ff27f9e04e699cca97833c1f3
19427 F20101202_AABHBF tachon_t_Page_186.QC.jpg
62ec286128387910a667bfd6e7854fd5
bed48e5d06194b910cfff198d39065b5d0046d4b
19025 F20101202_AABHAR tachon_t_Page_177.QC.jpg
7145b6b3cb782edc423f6f570e178c5b
40c911c184eefc5211f9af1307c18257ee1a376c
21829 F20101202_AABGVL tachon_t_Page_092.QC.jpg
9154e85f807408e935cbedeb317b1e4b
714c1da35e53909403f713058a675f2e9fdccb14
26850 F20101202_AABGUW tachon_t_Page_084.QC.jpg
96cb2f47113bb974b04f0d5d784e89e7
6c685539b503cb9272a7706f8f1494ad5bdaf3a9
1051957 F20101202_AABFRU tachon_t_Page_135.jp2
553ce729b294afc9cc63324c5d0af46e
4cde91ea89ef3cb0fcea9814fe19e9e3da22c44b
896148 F20101202_AABFSJ tachon_t_Page_156.jp2
c95a56d73b909faebade36f820c6ae3d
d986d75dfde0fd4288900c34cad72976499acc60
19612 F20101202_AABHBG tachon_t_Page_187.QC.jpg
0d99eeb3307deda1530f0f40a8292f84
58b7688ae1c74e1f2f8295d5e126fd7c19e264c1
19514 F20101202_AABHAS tachon_t_Page_178.QC.jpg
afc5ce94bf44b393132642a7531d0495
3225a1f47d63dc21ee0e98976cebe261c1003d5b
23054 F20101202_AABGWA tachon_t_Page_100.QC.jpg
71994239848d00c10377c8c8b9c2acd8
2e3b32c7ebd35cb229b914b1a4b7664c96937726
6057 F20101202_AABGVM tachon_t_Page_092thm.jpg
e300263e01f351fdea7dcf4f12fc3d32
c630b3af43577afe562865e3fdd0994e777f24eb
6920 F20101202_AABGUX tachon_t_Page_084thm.jpg
b9b3e424c5f65ad814ab908d2bb1bc77
83d708e06f35501f3acf96a35e28faf523da7564
1051984 F20101202_AABFRV tachon_t_Page_136.jp2
db24fe7649d3c0b31256a7a279ab8690
88c6d4be6e0968943438b0a22d96f49d5f58a4ec
887061 F20101202_AABFSK tachon_t_Page_158.jp2
4fcda5c8b54867dc1c0e5a3a86bfdc52
93263dfd2073b95ea2a3b4d5ae60c20d6bb07d06
5422 F20101202_AABHBH tachon_t_Page_187thm.jpg
d84a956a4906b822ec6a2967f81062ef
3814614205e037f5c500dfe16d18b1f719e7e1fd
5386 F20101202_AABHAT tachon_t_Page_178thm.jpg
45fb5fd9a1dbc13e1f1e3a3a1cfe895a
6316e79e9744edc5e94946c0ba520bac05bbbd01
6584 F20101202_AABGWB tachon_t_Page_100thm.jpg
df1037b03c76dd72371a269273e59a95
c13922a83ec23d6dbb868217661412507360be0b
24308 F20101202_AABGVN tachon_t_Page_093.QC.jpg
bc0ce1fa84e306d36278e35d8e28a5c9
694d5b6745556be8f79f817bcc68d7c9fddccb33
25890 F20101202_AABGUY tachon_t_Page_085.QC.jpg
14ca75b7084b097cd2140e05aabb5645
733bc302494834e1770dd70898310d314589730b
1051879 F20101202_AABFRW tachon_t_Page_138.jp2
ce9ea02479273b658402d0776dc2f569
ac5a39ee8583a65e8ebb9b15110a6128f34285dc
865662 F20101202_AABFSL tachon_t_Page_159.jp2
e8a46d2bf3ed751d4e3e2d75f569f6b6
c59d4948c2a7c0f95358c10bc935c5df111ac321
18162 F20101202_AABHBI tachon_t_Page_188.QC.jpg
ceae04df48aa4ce42117b087f061d7f4
16715cb431d364a6e83da8d4d87d764b6d4882c9
19828 F20101202_AABHAU tachon_t_Page_179.QC.jpg
0984c92f50a5710d001ea2c3c1e615c7
8bb93fa2db66b3a84491b14e69556dff3828ff3a
24698 F20101202_AABGWC tachon_t_Page_101.QC.jpg
c5373d39da6a4f9f1b7d55ba0a1693ed
9a25f0dfa7da95e34552a6cdb890967c827343e6
6793 F20101202_AABGVO tachon_t_Page_093thm.jpg
f505a78657cea11463035af510b42eda
d196202e90024499288037d3ffe02ecb1aa2cf2e
6519 F20101202_AABGUZ tachon_t_Page_085thm.jpg
9413ae5329c39bcdb7e52f587a7e2c4f
b2e6f28143e1b34a745330ff80c7cc7eedc99b6d
903479 F20101202_AABFRX tachon_t_Page_139.jp2
28cfadf9379ff35f1ccd5197cbdd5742
c6b6172fce3c4f3efbc47bb8e98e236d8ec4b482
890826 F20101202_AABFTA tachon_t_Page_180.jp2
702d3b5f49d652c30632d8e62b43d4fd
71cd87f88efbf66f4da3e8097ba83897aa9817a5
905588 F20101202_AABFSM tachon_t_Page_160.jp2
1ef5286ac7864764155e95038fdae63a
c0fa11348253a55ecf6a5450b0da4c775078c1be
19646 F20101202_AABHBJ tachon_t_Page_189.QC.jpg
f578a6029ac4e615b819f8ec62245dac
32aa2ea6d94972d61490dfd4a0f75f85407aedea
5273 F20101202_AABHAV tachon_t_Page_179thm.jpg
05dc5f4aae870826bfc649226b08bef5
331c7c12ea4d14604f7e2bc53f9483faa20c6d2f
6648 F20101202_AABGWD tachon_t_Page_101thm.jpg
202d96cab0345b24f7798b09c350b70b
e61be045040910affeefc39b73be4693799516fc
20461 F20101202_AABGVP tachon_t_Page_094.QC.jpg
b5c9480a541e5cfe36fa23cbd032ebb3
5ecce26b6c147100e4afbc4a3822b8b7ca8d769d
882988 F20101202_AABFRY tachon_t_Page_140.jp2
a029feb8561f07328a281e61c54e47cd
91f5dbb0365f6df20124a99e0f415937c8b07469
870639 F20101202_AABFTB tachon_t_Page_181.jp2
39bf47e215b9dbd6ba6008e949d15ab0
18a0d2a6e2656e4482b177f00f507714310110e8
867930 F20101202_AABFSN tachon_t_Page_161.jp2
6c5acade30225de90772d3505071aa3a
762274ae12a5c80abfe14adee32007c7e5bb5502
5493 F20101202_AABHBK tachon_t_Page_190thm.jpg
a5b17b5ca1ed03313927db09bf62f821
09ac7d977a2ac192588de93c6b176c62b657bb6e
5237 F20101202_AABHAW tachon_t_Page_180thm.jpg
fbb5ab3de47d8d3149c25a5d73b952f3
b806ef468a443d4e68636c5080ad39c87ed601e1
24333 F20101202_AABGWE tachon_t_Page_102.QC.jpg
df77092dd0119ccb3c13062e9183d628
3c2d1c31f11a38c5032241fa8fa664226fd9910e
5926 F20101202_AABGVQ tachon_t_Page_094thm.jpg
3e63463ce376af3c7e96d17d7b8f54fd
29fd9f70a2208cf08e8401ea2668a9d1b14f2ea1
851919 F20101202_AABFRZ tachon_t_Page_141.jp2
620c11e6c1b07df7a3c58a375ea62f47
0b7159238b058124338e142d5d107839cd2863f7
901492 F20101202_AABFTC tachon_t_Page_182.jp2
6588ffb737fbac4a4cc8e02c4149bddf
03133bd71c8e1d80e41b3faa5b689c4fcca65e16
900263 F20101202_AABFSO tachon_t_Page_162.jp2
8294d07086d7423b8d228698f08cfad1
75f348cd9531108939e33e40f51ab4211d5af355
5187 F20101202_AABHCA tachon_t_Page_198thm.jpg
f2ba7a1837dd8368b67fed24e9d0fba7
2f3f9963165d1d33bb42678c6d2bece40ddeb16a
19002 F20101202_AABHBL tachon_t_Page_191.QC.jpg
e11a5d20193d942057df221d9756fdd4
7f99476dd80f4583aa73540c0268dafff52cdb36
19079 F20101202_AABHAX tachon_t_Page_181.QC.jpg
bdae3256f202b7aadb869f90f767ccab
37c68b4c268d78cfad19f24486e1019607083035
6943 F20101202_AABGWF tachon_t_Page_102thm.jpg
6354a08a45cc751eb3934ffdca6508f1
c831b088eec96306b114e183d2093be7adb52810
16367 F20101202_AABGVR tachon_t_Page_095.QC.jpg
a335b84ab9a49676bc6e7b0e336f85e1
6d7077d392fac7dd4d463957f757c7c6609ac684
862507 F20101202_AABFTD tachon_t_Page_183.jp2
943384c53d9ebf0a25e3a41942f3e913
a34048faa5f0fe47b30b6cc91b1c20b560f69bb9
859675 F20101202_AABFSP tachon_t_Page_163.jp2
aca6f08f542698a4033d698216a17cff
eba52438430b94dcccc5ae323ffc7310b205f417
18800 F20101202_AABHCB tachon_t_Page_199.QC.jpg
247b1d81dadd9f5df1bb4520c33dbd35
c410b3e1f7d8f764ec0181c8d314e0103808213c
5124 F20101202_AABHBM tachon_t_Page_191thm.jpg
51755bf809abe61766a98a9ebdab561c
1363d63ddcef5a2290b6e129765711eadb5c3a44
F20101202_AABHAY tachon_t_Page_181thm.jpg
0abe37881d023aaf0ecf661a8861eec9
0f5cce23cbec24baba2ce7d3109f925fda8cddd3
20073 F20101202_AABGWG tachon_t_Page_103.QC.jpg
941536d42bc5975fe074da1d3b813ec9
1d29ef918215f9eecdbf06b41e180438e5c9e20e
5067 F20101202_AABGVS tachon_t_Page_095thm.jpg
e30bd975644f617cd4e024fdd09451f7
106893b7fae86c9b1e9a7705a83bfb3661784bd5
897345 F20101202_AABFTE tachon_t_Page_184.jp2
f2fbcf1d3d449c50097df44b2243e966
d7483bb3fda5cba30b3e146548f5e0fc965e1a62
821350 F20101202_AABFSQ tachon_t_Page_164.jp2
ff5e22f87a8443e8c2e50a5348697e19
60e68aa3bed643dfea100962a73011fcbdeda9e2
5290 F20101202_AABHCC tachon_t_Page_199thm.jpg
6a3010730be9618f7a0c55da1fdf6316
5e61a39f0eecd7b0498750b7119fd899190407af
18907 F20101202_AABHBN tachon_t_Page_192.QC.jpg
46d98a67a9454430e39bfb8cbcf507e6
ee7a0f1f2264574e13fdfc17723ca03ecdcb8832
19361 F20101202_AABHAZ tachon_t_Page_182.QC.jpg
25f4bf5d23eaaf08b7e44780c6ea6b46
c30ad8f468be00acc89f51c93545e082436cd2e1
5773 F20101202_AABGWH tachon_t_Page_103thm.jpg
f4f40019f1095b1def03a8167187c8d9
179ceb00b764db4a525a77012049ca53fffc839e
17181 F20101202_AABGVT tachon_t_Page_096.QC.jpg
c0a1f8e8844a794565031da7936dd08b
508bdd4b337023a731265a02dc3ac9d4b95fa3dd
871766 F20101202_AABFTF tachon_t_Page_185.jp2
9dee9f20a5107cb108b15820fa74a9c6
a0f0c4a777462e3ddb209978b3106d19b47c5133
918180 F20101202_AABFSR tachon_t_Page_166.jp2
2586465247f8bd1c7e08dc8c0504a615
f4f09933945e244142ac17062dc91b249864a012
5160 F20101202_AABHBO tachon_t_Page_192thm.jpg
680ffe5987725d4f6e6e2b1d99b0d046
417bdd676370f3cb8816cf695b1b70f1fc5e7390
F20101202_AABGWI tachon_t_Page_104.QC.jpg
f340504a24878e29d498e6c03a8be75c
e59f7fa31b69dff275d5d171e3f037ff3672f4ed
18406 F20101202_AABGVU tachon_t_Page_097.QC.jpg
cc4d30a7c4467afd2fe655b172d07800
d83f928f48fd4ef67c70ce63fb69776e0c790639
939024 F20101202_AABFTG tachon_t_Page_187.jp2
094be395307db6d496235659dd955e78
4cfa119ecd39255b61050377b6c0778a617da9a4
873526 F20101202_AABFSS tachon_t_Page_167.jp2
911bc71181d987d0b0334f789c052ad4
aa43a272fd904ab1711dd9e97d2315fed44c5727
19885 F20101202_AABHCD tachon_t_Page_200.QC.jpg
86cae973b5bacdde197075f246a7a6d7
1af68d119f6fd608ecf64a3a957e94f61421f46c
18782 F20101202_AABHBP tachon_t_Page_193.QC.jpg
9ef904d40b4a7061fa92e2205755bc19
5e88bb8ee008c7a81e3a0816fccd3f769d764d54
5591 F20101202_AABGWJ tachon_t_Page_104thm.jpg
37a6600b1bf885cbad9b2db24447f82e
a1083b1f6a7a90922c1d6abdc185c5c8888d9315
5528 F20101202_AABGVV tachon_t_Page_097thm.jpg
daa0b8705a39d369958df061a8265520
9d52d71805b2914541dc435cc4e78a2b66b506a8
893683 F20101202_AABFTH tachon_t_Page_188.jp2
8664f0e5c8736ab8a001a03ec08f14f3
9c59348a6d46895209209365c419fb9ff24a96ba
920015 F20101202_AABFST tachon_t_Page_168.jp2
94396bd5b8abcae559c4555e3904a6fb
f679f0bbd4d0103905a3632646dd1a4bf788db62
5527 F20101202_AABHCE tachon_t_Page_200thm.jpg
fee37721985bae3f9923311af9464354
6d12bcf5fbbb1c331371bf41fea786b6c548e6eb
4925 F20101202_AABHBQ tachon_t_Page_193thm.jpg
c9d2dc8344997c859c193c44c8df9789
378f26bc5e2ee44fa3c5a0a5543d07a3174cc1ff
24368 F20101202_AABGWK tachon_t_Page_105.QC.jpg
09b631d84093f8d6a39fe6a1aa692b87
08fee912a8ae5abf1d6d8c4cabf5274eb6c68056
7511 F20101202_AABGVW tachon_t_Page_098.QC.jpg
93c6962de9e4886c17c5c13fdb48de61
7957b4ff7ae25133b91e72a44df5231fdaaff5a7
871997 F20101202_AABFTI tachon_t_Page_189.jp2
7c0ddac74c177ae8344a6c9b5183e73b
cae348a35fdd909388a01fa60d715d159e468d21
938143 F20101202_AABFSU tachon_t_Page_171.jp2
d6cdbca6cd9cc159fd84355b15eb7d1c
78a873056385b6cd817ce29a9e7a0087c2f2c7cf
19909 F20101202_AABHCF tachon_t_Page_201.QC.jpg
376768ba4d7eb2dff788b8aea10997d8
be0c9ce95083688eb74f36bde397ea5ee08469f0
20035 F20101202_AABHBR tachon_t_Page_194.QC.jpg
682b364a1f1df29a804147ab57210a43
394d9528f8fa808d7bce0107b8ecf1a19e718357
6727 F20101202_AABGWL tachon_t_Page_105thm.jpg
2924bb00872ea3ccd4887378f06eeba7
4e55d21de26fb4e71c4a8e84cec3d20cfc912e6b
891202 F20101202_AABFTJ tachon_t_Page_190.jp2
66f38ca976702b47f4ccb39d3581aad4
a15e844e3b83a9b6c8e7c8fe719dafb3a3d112e4
5321 F20101202_AABHCG tachon_t_Page_201thm.jpg
33301ea100abb4a0e47d98657f50e1a9
77ef3d01feaaa4a6e25dae87f5beaf9f40c910d4
5220 F20101202_AABHBS tachon_t_Page_194thm.jpg
7d95a961b1123e2a4a8c16844a8c633c
aaec36c0a1d45b0d3a876e1d87c10c13e70a6f42
10722 F20101202_AABGXA tachon_t_Page_115.QC.jpg
095977c189a5330e8e4ea25b0e065c17
4c72939f2387b06b5d0613c29a29a3c49e49cec7
21299 F20101202_AABGWM tachon_t_Page_106.QC.jpg
8b9a4af2de4b8b51fef5157aec2def55
83cf9482770a10d4d80e20a298e4fedf8e7acf9f
2409 F20101202_AABGVX tachon_t_Page_098thm.jpg
6736474296c2cc1ce30561bc83ec47e6
6c972dbe72552e9d7d6dc5ecdda198a22cd70f5d
884881 F20101202_AABFTK tachon_t_Page_191.jp2
20d7fad17c2f40265530251092656528
34bd3af7a4fe2fb114dc0334cf6efa2be7528e60
872292 F20101202_AABFSV tachon_t_Page_173.jp2
97e127e8458c0d9c9ab62cdc5bbc304d
d23bb1318c93d8fa0720d8034f0b6ef6362cdcd3
19557 F20101202_AABHCH tachon_t_Page_202.QC.jpg
84283de464cdd6700cd0191f2290d0f9
04b3d43b67ac1a4a3365f07b72e78a0c23312ff6
19003 F20101202_AABHBT tachon_t_Page_195.QC.jpg
3e79fc5e7b6416c6cc546b9aafa31be2
d30d30849fcbb341c83b0338c8e9f43aebbc4493
3593 F20101202_AABGXB tachon_t_Page_115thm.jpg
98b2e50fc0fe464e42771782a4b7a020
fe25d6c0e094ce0e99a82935ce6dd8f5a64d59cb
5964 F20101202_AABGWN tachon_t_Page_106thm.jpg
f15df81b09a6eecd203db2c8b7f19884
1f6b562fb100791f6f99444b3bbe80a78095258a
15059 F20101202_AABGVY tachon_t_Page_099.QC.jpg
2970faa547468579b53b54856cf106dc
41ce9889bdcf20a48493b36d9c1d5bd6e5e1d6ed
904572 F20101202_AABFTL tachon_t_Page_192.jp2
6ca418230f69d7ccae43e7dbb0172d6d
de4f816abbe6eaeba8c402d3b4b6321f75a2d1bb
874430 F20101202_AABFSW tachon_t_Page_175.jp2
e5ec2fa63588ff97b59f4e699002f340
1ce5007b39dca54d6581ec7378df7b3317c3ac3e
5337 F20101202_AABHCI tachon_t_Page_202thm.jpg
7649888a2f445ea1f2a3630605c809e2
a33d54c64df1d9b160887375e2982b6af9f0dd5e
5039 F20101202_AABHBU tachon_t_Page_195thm.jpg
ea3fcdca91d3d9eaef2c3eea203bed14
77700682bf1f27111d9576d85ef5124cc78963a4
19994 F20101202_AABGXC tachon_t_Page_116.QC.jpg
ba22113610375eda91b3bbfae899f528
21d6367f1ece0228985140f1a89f0121cb724d8a
19058 F20101202_AABGWO tachon_t_Page_107.QC.jpg
f5a0566dbf287f5b6f9e9743ea6ff4a4
505dd85370c493c95724b4b23f95f7ca57708f1d
4444 F20101202_AABGVZ tachon_t_Page_099thm.jpg
98c1d6d731715785e2939c22a66a3210
55a153d8aa84159f13f431d4e008e9b9599ddb8b
1051966 F20101202_AABFUA tachon_t_Page_211.jp2
f818a55c80874f007de6fbb2de388445
978c105a00a9b03c3fe762bd79ce5659911136b4
902235 F20101202_AABFTM tachon_t_Page_194.jp2
270c46b01a6fb7c053e478a88c5e8dfa
2cdd832ae2aaac96b10459991858b9ef4d22c30c
883489 F20101202_AABFSX tachon_t_Page_177.jp2
fbb17ff442cfa7d528a5d2a77fa4dda6
e1f8aa359375fc24472e6ce1281a0b0a28ff9a21
23313 F20101202_AABHCJ tachon_t_Page_203.QC.jpg
87154a98d32a104d12da8b0a18c8d3fc
7c34de1a7c70d78e9edd2115e358e539a6741b9f
19308 F20101202_AABHBV tachon_t_Page_196.QC.jpg
2a54beb385226e655bfb4e71285a95da
d048d4fd5d2bf248a1ef232938450430b5139d6a
5117 F20101202_AABGXD tachon_t_Page_116thm.jpg
a39400cdf836dd7b8299a7f438769dd7
a3ff1e3081e79a9d68e353e5daf5abd8a31837ec
20218 F20101202_AABGWP tachon_t_Page_108.QC.jpg
279e23c6ca39ac3d0959efafea220d13
bebac2af0738a6b7c431eac494aee3c3cab268fd
869342 F20101202_AABFTN tachon_t_Page_195.jp2
d71a959f8d4b5838a525f01bac15cfe7
ba315411b6d7da7da98aeb9eb089bc116609b7f5
908174 F20101202_AABFSY tachon_t_Page_178.jp2
b0e7fff6585750454693acb43ffb887b
f24d2eaf9f2af65f6b6cc9f406e0fcd024608f18
1051975 F20101202_AABFUB tachon_t_Page_212.jp2
c9e5c8d66f6a23a7c486eb0b247442af
77ddca425c19b1fdf8463408d718fb1438742c1f
6030 F20101202_AABHCK tachon_t_Page_203thm.jpg
2c0ec83566c277989ca7612d78c41bf1
e68bb613a8aa5dd4265784956776127332c0e6fd
5104 F20101202_AABHBW tachon_t_Page_196thm.jpg
31c329de7079ebea65e72c31f4f5c44c
7d4e1054488dcd458a2d6fda222fdff3a4454d53
11949 F20101202_AABGXE tachon_t_Page_117.QC.jpg
47f79ebe8f43654556e84e62871aed3d
c9991b3de6fea63e9e18133a5b3bb075acbf3351
5794 F20101202_AABGWQ tachon_t_Page_108thm.jpg
b92f7b2bfc84f3a3123852dc1b0d5786
a4bcfb9692761a5dfdd2141f5ef79b23c748d765
896868 F20101202_AABFTO tachon_t_Page_196.jp2
b03a637b1e3967e49c338fe2499dedec
55cc9f35d0c3961d62dc63d92e2dda2ebf23a0b4
875159 F20101202_AABFSZ tachon_t_Page_179.jp2
bfd387932ee42258adc4a39e7acac4ab
607a74790488ff73ec3e176043de539abe9d010b
F20101202_AABFUC tachon_t_Page_213.jp2
ee096fcf021ce22f4aed51fc607aa836
b4d28783d502f767fec92cd7675c14d9705e72cc
26505 F20101202_AABHDA tachon_t_Page_213.QC.jpg
0d0009e3bd654025dae6504216b85058
33803a73fd5a378e038b26cb633e04a9c4dd0c79
22224 F20101202_AABHCL tachon_t_Page_204.QC.jpg
17fdbffcf34c18c812affa49bc4142ba
b6469c93163ce505fb89599853d6e2494ee44223
19353 F20101202_AABHBX tachon_t_Page_197.QC.jpg
37d2c5f4430c342e33434f411176c4e3
7f4b31d969afcfde03bdc5045a25f4ae4c2445c5
6472 F20101202_AABGXF tachon_t_Page_118.QC.jpg
8ead70977d722ef5ed6ec0da0420c551
c59f58258c6c64b76968d4e0a5d702f87f252ece
24545 F20101202_AABGWR tachon_t_Page_109.QC.jpg
127bb1007a0a7b09666e2166e4d323ea
4bf1cb27db274ac3fa0d95a5a3c5669ccd1e46b7
875677 F20101202_AABFTP tachon_t_Page_197.jp2
00e2e2f8107dd783cb8f1c1f30b915e1
279d32f4838dfe2b813b47b26084730ec081b43f
972978 F20101202_AABFUD tachon_t_Page_215.jp2
7fd2f9ddd189a58088151d299801c615
62e5f5d45ddbb591f4b3768e8b73c7c1dadf8994
7091 F20101202_AABHDB tachon_t_Page_213thm.jpg
bf125b13a6a71c63b29da264fb94ba61
8adb752673efa698f4c759cc15ebbff91303d244
5777 F20101202_AABHCM tachon_t_Page_204thm.jpg
67352a55827f0f07ed5d40193ba7121d
fd54da661e04d57264aa6ac4212cd0d6491d3838
5024 F20101202_AABHBY tachon_t_Page_197thm.jpg
5a4b0066a423cd47314b723f07a0461b
b13790545281979cf8685da5f1d3448b72a80c96
16070 F20101202_AABGXG tachon_t_Page_120.QC.jpg
ee55244b43a7445468454f946119b99c
f7ef078352622631f41f8b25072eba44b063bade
6679 F20101202_AABGWS tachon_t_Page_109thm.jpg
6154672923e059db4740563283d9b40b
521fe13bc4ac1b33ef8103cb3234d6e621eb91aa
888744 F20101202_AABFTQ tachon_t_Page_199.jp2
32d62e20a7b77cbe2a8a3a1c0d62e7f9
82411d87386a8e7ed399ecd70ee11037e1efdd5b
600812 F20101202_AABFUE tachon_t_Page_216.jp2
ac98badee61fcfcc16be5dc49b92e46c
9f95725e74aaa00b524682dfc42b32f4b7227381
27783 F20101202_AABHDC tachon_t_Page_214.QC.jpg
7d5547ffd9705d6c42c7a0b1c65d9125
b83ade94d1fa266e3f036293e94119a9c1c8c8af
21554 F20101202_AABHCN tachon_t_Page_205.QC.jpg
7f3d5cf4b5680a930a748ce10d558930
dff6362694ebfcfb8e849a75e1d4e26027a5241b
20181 F20101202_AABHBZ tachon_t_Page_198.QC.jpg
026353e1339d47501e64daada4838bb4
0f671454d385e1b1091076e61e58b04acacf0261
4217 F20101202_AABGXH tachon_t_Page_120thm.jpg
28d89b7e0f9f5c0f77e8e57748dcd787
1bfdc6ab1fd976e6ac8f57f358890ed3fce588cd
6988 F20101202_AABGWT tachon_t_Page_110thm.jpg
bdef8844d2f635b51dea249a4d4198de
21abc1ca980add4ec75c2486c6402dac5ce2c8dd
925092 F20101202_AABFTR tachon_t_Page_200.jp2
c19f370c38739a01132fc2ca0847f798
879157c6e67e3f1f9e1a2c88153f4ea9d413ffa1
25271604 F20101202_AABGAA tachon_t_Page_178.tif
732e64a575310c1d3f6dec3270553364
1aac0f73806fcd884d37c8ee3632c5b747f1c641
909043 F20101202_AABFUF tachon_t_Page_217.jp2
6206f26e69218a95de6e579a8e549046
3ba3e2a12eaef2041f6f31d1fdf564d4c140a502
21498 F20101202_AABHDD tachon_t_Page_215.QC.jpg
ed6880ea5f39aee5db8004e7e84f5643
7a2241a26ccfffe38bf539a5fef9041ed418b434
5632 F20101202_AABHCO tachon_t_Page_205thm.jpg
f6f197bb62f692853f3a6ceb1760280c
d8915a1944098677da20a068de121ac06cdb54ae
9172 F20101202_AABGXI tachon_t_Page_121.QC.jpg
7a0db169f243934689fe67e1d0e947e0
ccb4b2fba83e327a6f8a4f8df5c16603a6953a7c
6918 F20101202_AABGWU tachon_t_Page_111.QC.jpg
777d366d9e57f5f51e5f301a7d7dff41
dd8355cfcc0ee78a4b636bd1651721dc62baa58e
896841 F20101202_AABFTS tachon_t_Page_201.jp2
f06fc3ed5f0b48bac2a3fe5b146a9f04
2aada97177585b86f7af5d3c96212b5157d51b5c
F20101202_AABGAB tachon_t_Page_180.tif
70fe28b33534e3e7626692e41187aee2
38c6839a1bb9aeaade214a41b2fc26e03add4033
F20101202_AABFUG tachon_t_Page_001.tif
6c06dc6681f262730225d930c560834d
e39f8f2871e7c0224d9e798da88b56ec9587ef4d
20694 F20101202_AABHCP tachon_t_Page_206.QC.jpg
7d7cac03361d6e4947403ef03b987a50
31ca444553b6dece24e6492b40d7991f988dc00d
6961 F20101202_AABGXJ tachon_t_Page_122.QC.jpg
bc4e86dce2291b3c361af2da96319f52
38b0154733b0f6a3e393e6047d7f211a5d5bc414
2373 F20101202_AABGWV tachon_t_Page_111thm.jpg
072a2e331bda62380777f080e104fb4b
fc9f18cf47f1fa006d9a8eccf9f3e7724c61963a
890315 F20101202_AABFTT tachon_t_Page_202.jp2
1e70bc9d1dada449900a87093bfbff35
33b98fdf4c0a44eb8a84df1a2b3a91aa09827846
F20101202_AABFUH tachon_t_Page_002.tif
c933291a2baee61cb0b0c3c0c4b0c5a2
4db1700a99dc5e76029f9bb80b35a9b8192513cd
5749 F20101202_AABHDE tachon_t_Page_215thm.jpg
c975f879dccba36094504006383b75c4
d9a70f37b7ec2f6618fc41b7952c22909f5a2c37
5306 F20101202_AABHCQ tachon_t_Page_206thm.jpg
9457ca8be749a838f4761f9d1f59299e
10ac05c432a0d4b1146d2d3a071dd1bf4c314efe
9993 F20101202_AABGXK tachon_t_Page_123.QC.jpg
82fe2055710ae82d715142042a82e435
fa681a13cd80199bf88c2b2c5ff6053525bfa871
2027 F20101202_AABGWW tachon_t_Page_112thm.jpg
b113fd36a0054a7fd40d9eda46c2fe1e
780817b9941524a5badc55df06f35fa91993c084
F20101202_AABFTU tachon_t_Page_203.jp2
b71382feb4390a0da9730422dcc8e7e5
337b64d85c0200c1fe91994d25e5617152fe34b4
F20101202_AABGAC tachon_t_Page_181.tif
531191a7287ad49ab418442ffefb56ae
1d7256180d584e6e3b982ffcfaccea55b027c54d
F20101202_AABFUI tachon_t_Page_003.tif
3971624ec3b310e24cc2a3170c646736
9305261fcf26cff5c2df5dd835c8e53a527090e1
14296 F20101202_AABHDF tachon_t_Page_216.QC.jpg
6affda398c6e55fce2d53bc69782fd0f
bc2b253b69733bf89c42eac7a50b854d0ce750c1
25723 F20101202_AABHCR tachon_t_Page_207.QC.jpg
aa000df43471fbc59c617cbe2a653e12
e5702405f29fb6f0aabbf2c0d992eb83125eda60
2994 F20101202_AABGXL tachon_t_Page_123thm.jpg
26455fdd82dc37ec55f2ea4a1af9a75b
f9e97d7aa8ad4fc052c33e19003289d8b4e4ce22
37717 F20101202_AABGWX tachon_t_Page_113.QC.jpg
8adf24539ba52f4e2b09f85053ce8441
67c6446dcac7f49e7b7231f5608e0367730aa33c
1051884 F20101202_AABFTV tachon_t_Page_204.jp2
ed7331a25e7277c4f9261d6279f820b3
78f6bb26e283f974b07d9d1fc98b9d9aac805e9a
F20101202_AABGAD tachon_t_Page_182.tif
28c50719a09d068ab356b1e4ec27bb41
045fc4526a011bf36f12b4b5479985e6e102e9c0
F20101202_AABFUJ tachon_t_Page_004.tif
6b84485ff5a37ebfbf9746cc12b417be
45487b508827dcc0c7827fd198198ec891d4d757
4200 F20101202_AABHDG tachon_t_Page_216thm.jpg
798dc40e76f5bb223e743e3d1e9d4368
d5dd9190b43271049deab602e34cbc3f459224f6
25184 F20101202_AABHCS tachon_t_Page_208.QC.jpg
29192d507adb016f5a776334934ed33c
a1518a51cb4959927d293c220b6c8d460df91db6
24234 F20101202_AABGYA tachon_t_Page_134.QC.jpg
c79ce597924b91312f2862b4ab989c78
6d693cd090a452f26fce4b1e911da5350ebe25cc
5249 F20101202_AABGXM tachon_t_Page_124thm.jpg
ef292021ccd8302f873cbe494f6c0651
ea4b9c1dc469d8d2c1218b6d5886b91f4234192d
F20101202_AABGAE tachon_t_Page_183.tif
0b380dce3f412ef002edb17efba9c552
7d63bcc22e1e09f5e845b405cb153dd04a2cab5d
F20101202_AABFUK tachon_t_Page_006.tif
2847d5c1922034b69c05129f8b3c36a7
37e5400f446f274c227adf53fde2d476871ed305
21491 F20101202_AABHDH tachon_t_Page_217.QC.jpg
bb457bb1ad444c416c0750338e2c8241
71117a211d1b1cd94afea587715a37346264336b
25160 F20101202_AABHCT tachon_t_Page_209.QC.jpg
d23126d3d1b8ea37a8468a804447f56e
03cf7309b287ad598bb2b13a3deb1eac93d12b20
6555 F20101202_AABGYB tachon_t_Page_134thm.jpg
5e09cfd6b75f0f6ade315eebdf4eb10d
2c8a19b71aa1f5236de9161dfa14470dc1527663
17618 F20101202_AABGXN tachon_t_Page_125.QC.jpg
7ba77d074efe0d7e230105e632cb7d9a
06d641f077661da202e96e0419f49fd4d44be4e2
16316 F20101202_AABGWY tachon_t_Page_114.QC.jpg
35001eea76a62cf8af69160051ddaffd
af229097d12cde0b1f67a5de5c9fd59268b769ce
1051959 F20101202_AABFTW tachon_t_Page_207.jp2
6b87d472db8ad9c12289bebced16a453
1955663f3b7867087af5ab996ec92eb40b4b36a5
F20101202_AABGAF tachon_t_Page_184.tif
258f5364b982bbaede31fa7a403e9881
eb14547236d7c7fe00e03b95fb1833114a1e5625
F20101202_AABFUL tachon_t_Page_009.tif
21c854f560fd49ddf54b97320cc83b9a
42e092acbfa946d1f9689b4267fc0963c1b2ea32
5845 F20101202_AABHDI tachon_t_Page_217thm.jpg
2ddee696529c778ee88c4c210a53262d
40395414e0ad2d8a889acfc5fe745c1e4145ca2d
6962 F20101202_AABHCU tachon_t_Page_209thm.jpg
5afaa8d838dede3b4783e3cbe7f19105
3ecac286cd224e67f7d0e8da6a565f2c2ac923af
25278 F20101202_AABGYC tachon_t_Page_135.QC.jpg
967114aeb28299782dceb1e5547692fa
51e2463d9e26b4313bab8a2744f5bcb3759a0777
4806 F20101202_AABGXO tachon_t_Page_125thm.jpg
504b30acb133c3c1a63c4a194a741eae
720fa953d7a4541a2680e47224858279b493ec07
4044 F20101202_AABGWZ tachon_t_Page_114thm.jpg
7c8c5548ad8c6cd8d699a7f595cdd8b0
698623fb5ed8a995de67def19b6a7f3a90528665
F20101202_AABFTX tachon_t_Page_208.jp2
b0278522df32a42168224345a82c1d98
edeed56a8407f1ae9e0b6a02111ac194c6355cd9
F20101202_AABGAG tachon_t_Page_185.tif
d1da3000ad748b1a42b6cb53bf80db62
0904e332d2e58a3a10ecdca85426ee2591df8996
F20101202_AABFVA tachon_t_Page_027.tif
3ee1e795d65e6474719f5eb91bfc5785
306377e9a1ed79aaf912b247d85fa50d010e4979
F20101202_AABFUM tachon_t_Page_010.tif
e603efd60d6d6d80c5c5978c2ec13b68
1a2467b9ed9b87c3221a9799b7ef0af02bd5a9f9
25282 F20101202_AABHCV tachon_t_Page_210.QC.jpg
30cbe407298968e9b91d0f1b057c5c28
4c8d68504c584c58502945663b9138a3f6d99d7d
24116 F20101202_AABGYD tachon_t_Page_136.QC.jpg
d05768ed3abb165e3574db2194d179b6
3f00f04e4b7bf9b2ad64d49450868b959f04dc8b
18887 F20101202_AABGXP tachon_t_Page_126.QC.jpg
226bfa9ed32f64627a497c01a9b45868
827411be21a9e21326758bf9a1fb098adfa7e2e5
1051981 F20101202_AABFTY tachon_t_Page_209.jp2
4e5a34122497e28b779ba0317c1a2070
9144f4625adb865e11730b41d1eba711aec4deff
F20101202_AABGAH tachon_t_Page_186.tif
64435861b5a0e2b4ede50e9592daac50
fcf90db380280682adf0f8181f0df80407a869c3
F20101202_AABFVB tachon_t_Page_028.tif
b02df07404cf247319117b8927908388
271d1fef1e31e7924026cf3fd36401fef84f266f
F20101202_AABFUN tachon_t_Page_011.tif
e159baebd7dc808976a9a9a69ea5d8ed
4d92713935067a3aacc855d7d1d211cd31bc247b
22124 F20101202_AABHCW tachon_t_Page_211.QC.jpg
502066f46141acba5c602ca339f8e21b
1be087fd5df8259484c01c028e2f53a48c0ef698
6881 F20101202_AABGYE tachon_t_Page_136thm.jpg
cc056bc4d22aa3df9592537004c923fb
5ac109cfc26cc4b29d733b377d4e61ad89f72c8e
4796 F20101202_AABGXQ tachon_t_Page_126thm.jpg
36d3e754c1a109c333e7eb9d2356e370
5437725cbc46b2e6b7582452f82b4cbeb16ff19a
F20101202_AABFTZ tachon_t_Page_210.jp2
fed3a69eeaea75737c56bd49900b7e22
f53ca6f0af9a0039ef301ac53a57a44fe2faba50
F20101202_AABGAI tachon_t_Page_187.tif
37b707bc5e37b8746362f201eebeef90
d2b00c82135c3c76ed0a94a4010f5198f16c9bd0
F20101202_AABFVC tachon_t_Page_029.tif
902f5956be517d8e49b5ca2ee3ecd295
457bbde0ad72e431ca180f5f5bd43a91cbf7bda5
F20101202_AABFUO tachon_t_Page_012.tif
7ac2b55a511d903329f4b3d1c376de4d
1b90e91a4384daa70e5eeb3c1ecf25bbed90e2b3
6151 F20101202_AABHCX tachon_t_Page_211thm.jpg
c475d4535265419568df64abca214d6d
a2de87ad0e2b4bec9fc71a23d602ba1b660c687d
24312 F20101202_AABGYF tachon_t_Page_137.QC.jpg
da05a39df68cb841b3fc121fc8f5f8f3
5b483eabc9b6ae2e7a3ccba938ba9c21cc1e24bf
9182 F20101202_AABGXR tachon_t_Page_127.QC.jpg
59d30272f922b3430d48a22fdd6e0190
2bcafb5e1bed4ba3a24bb4445b44f9511f9ee3ee
F20101202_AABGAJ tachon_t_Page_188.tif
fb50fba9c48424e0531f32609532a4ec
d32f88b471a433093dd411567aed98a9c3380889
F20101202_AABFVD tachon_t_Page_031.tif
a7a2a8585f36bf2ac0229978b429f4a3
a77fb5b1acea7f0327b5041bbb64bbd64acbfd1f
F20101202_AABFUP tachon_t_Page_013.tif
8f33ff5720793ce07ce6f721a3e8bc17
052cc6cec22a17903381c7685d7fa3cad5c2ace3
28467 F20101202_AABHCY tachon_t_Page_212.QC.jpg
1abea1a97d8075b78859df91dd4119f3
e226bd0b08ecac8b640ca3d5a8436fa0434d69d7
6502 F20101202_AABGYG tachon_t_Page_137thm.jpg
ebe459f1319bca6f42053b53b92c9610
2a8d615d66525bd5b36f25acf5b96b67860f6776
2936 F20101202_AABGXS tachon_t_Page_127thm.jpg
c538b16d0c1a59489d2475755babc5fb
2fac713b642daa3720b49e28cd12d6f28dcd2040
F20101202_AABGAK tachon_t_Page_189.tif
c33594b588be7a9d8f4c18e8dd320026
098230ea07dcffad91e7b32ae230c674e27833a8
F20101202_AABFVE tachon_t_Page_032.tif
4d231f1bd517aad0a6667b3ea8b474b9
702d7125a9bffa8f3cefe657e9e8ace65a2ee74a
F20101202_AABFUQ tachon_t_Page_014.tif
60bfb3b50a5aedf3cb560d9e803bb44c
8c6d85d4e3a76e1d01d3aa376b4ae7d874012a86
7485 F20101202_AABHCZ tachon_t_Page_212thm.jpg
f3d6b8e95abe80e1edc3cc8d6e0faf0f
49db41967c48c69fc2b3531e1a01aec00d0f5e3e
27388 F20101202_AABGYH tachon_t_Page_138.QC.jpg
a4b4039a446934cf61e5d5e84312f2f1
d9fb90cb6477e80030ca4eac477fc4dcd9ab5e54
17174 F20101202_AABGXT tachon_t_Page_129.QC.jpg
f5b7bc574f1f64b5d42983cd28f3e240
238c9607c2145baf1a4e655089d99e3302597762
F20101202_AABGBA tachon_t_Page_210.tif
b92c4c77f7388a92bcdd70ed0c377b02
e14716833260530aa12cc592fdebe2364adfd156
F20101202_AABGAL tachon_t_Page_190.tif
2645e04529d67d044f859806ba77ae89
2bd64e1c4a53b0033048ca06c74f05239934bb4b
1053954 F20101202_AABFVF tachon_t_Page_033.tif
e8797ac695f91a5ca9e182b22585a008
840a5a2e62bafc77765691a091178e93699988dc
F20101202_AABFUR tachon_t_Page_015.tif
8a5259a1cc702e402d457c753b1f00ef
73a6c2a08330221e33cb965e30be06e740027b2b
7736 F20101202_AABGYI tachon_t_Page_138thm.jpg
4291130aa82565dc8cd381cbe646e7fb
04a407c3600164a4278b132f5ce13870fdfa028a
4336 F20101202_AABGXU tachon_t_Page_129thm.jpg
c701d109b65e5515765e86ae15dd810d
1f077f88212e93f29d96b7848beb221e886652cb
F20101202_AABGBB tachon_t_Page_211.tif
4d8c2535091d52b882b2cac5ac0e87fc
506057bb7783a72ba3f157bc156fed0ee6ebd70e
F20101202_AABGAM tachon_t_Page_191.tif
7150f0d07581852ff82424615273d16c
4baac1b1e67399a23aec7e460a10881e08d61232
F20101202_AABFVG tachon_t_Page_035.tif
2fb4749d710d36a361a9f6cc3d044840
e49fcad1ebceb7fc2e602dfd79df5e2eaaf70d01
F20101202_AABFUS tachon_t_Page_016.tif
8d6ff58656aca02c41dc19ed8d4192cd
7da9fa7d898c12b88913e1ebc15f49b3e2ae4292
20563 F20101202_AABGYJ tachon_t_Page_139.QC.jpg
0ca7080e984388ae598abc9f7b4876a5
fc6570d022f290e31bc38ef0b3d986d87765ea18
11058 F20101202_AABGXV tachon_t_Page_131.QC.jpg
cc77bf8bb5903e7a89d88f6ffa2556e3
531f005e543430693f39a1c3c6cd49dda3b9d8c0
F20101202_AABGBC tachon_t_Page_212.tif
c12de8b4b4bfe3486aea91ac4037e22b
06cb779738cca2add5c10e8c4f5de1db9622f487
F20101202_AABGAN tachon_t_Page_192.tif
e7603b5596842a126706dd77d834cda5
9074a5e03bcd6fab0ac7ae2126a258a1f280cf44
F20101202_AABFVH tachon_t_Page_036.tif
3db19b6a3c17a3f0c7020698530014d3
a2e088cd35a462a89cbb8b0bf5e73579b28160b0
F20101202_AABFUT tachon_t_Page_017.tif
4d616a51a0a30a44d035725ffa099b8f
e84ff9437b89acdb9d6fcc6cd46c5647a23f0640
5365 F20101202_AABGYK tachon_t_Page_140thm.jpg
dfdeaa79d63f4e3399009074d69da836
9c9d801990a5e5f23bf74cfa57c5ce8fb9d44ff6
3119 F20101202_AABGXW tachon_t_Page_131thm.jpg
f531a9d27946dd4ffc538315d8c81aaa
134ce9bd47b64dfa18c29a2bce541ca73a6cb7cb
F20101202_AABGAO tachon_t_Page_194.tif
7f926fda409ea67f87c7e258058d3cf8
e909d558623352421fd6d519b28aa454bcd97cbc
F20101202_AABFVI tachon_t_Page_037.tif
21181a2289b79a4389560d81a9ada060
284a8791a59199d8873f6cd01dc7546efb33bd4f
F20101202_AABFUU tachon_t_Page_018.tif
921b9b41892f1b83e10e2999d1b0739f
5191c1a64efad9b18c2c5dbb7f214511af4980b2
19131 F20101202_AABGYL tachon_t_Page_141.QC.jpg
a5f718464d3a3fb47180b36f45139cf6
2ff58375072cc1583fc4b1db0d8b385df5e84ca7
F20101202_AABGXX tachon_t_Page_132.QC.jpg
035eea4463296564d7355beedfc471ea
ed96b59030317bfc50582b82a84869a634037046
F20101202_AABGBD tachon_t_Page_215.tif
7e64c7381c400141783fb6a5a8825c0d
46776b334f59990863f81a991f055207b3e9fdd2
F20101202_AABGAP tachon_t_Page_195.tif
4e94aa811c0bdae1cf1b944bf917d6b0
5baa0d43a04b10420f11ff2cafbb5e270fe4503b
F20101202_AABFVJ tachon_t_Page_038.tif
4f16ff84d4c781060a2d74e1dc2fa917
a74d49aa5457a57623a91f6325525e66590b1706
F20101202_AABFUV tachon_t_Page_019.tif
0627dbfefe2fb0f34283c836432f85b3
0c30eb3915c260144c057e7eac48880db3abca52
5391 F20101202_AABGZA tachon_t_Page_151thm.jpg
43bec44f6c155011fbc613039471e9a6
015ed54334a501fb93e0966ceed2c7def2bc578a
5142 F20101202_AABGYM tachon_t_Page_141thm.jpg
9586617ad4d292aaae7b2a532dc3b11b
8b62d546545dec7cce7a45746b86a156f1c4fbe3
2314 F20101202_AABGXY tachon_t_Page_132thm.jpg
b0eeaf07d30ace6cb85aaceba6e67db5
9aee1e4c194cd108951993fae2fe02aa3fa027fd
F20101202_AABGBE tachon_t_Page_216.tif
6d554a3f0770fb4e110b959a80b9790e
aeb8a65b3ec52ed6c8d4578642882ab8c736b24b
F20101202_AABGAQ tachon_t_Page_196.tif
2042ddeab55db83bd0f32cc1f1ea78d7
f17bbeb69d7d1fd3dedc2f515a4ac8b2aba4ca4b
F20101202_AABFVK tachon_t_Page_039.tif
a6c52fe45e3227ad5b54fbe65ac666c1
be0ff8655d5d020d5f8279db3a5bcc990fa28579
F20101202_AABFUW tachon_t_Page_020.tif
9832e88fc29a039f7156b8ec6231e80f
76b716c9d2964e74bf69b5c8f93be3beb1436af2
19977 F20101202_AABGZB tachon_t_Page_152.QC.jpg
a233586b0d96e1c8e04369862bc4b42e
319fd675327ed17ce730f431e4e7dc84f76739f1
19544 F20101202_AABGYN tachon_t_Page_142.QC.jpg
cdfe25454eac1d09ac483c98943831e0
b916a00aee73f682df01acf2e414b285dda039de
F20101202_AABGBF tachon_t_Page_217.tif
6ffcc6fa08ef3950f28c792d3e5d044f
d72e7bdc79cf849fcf287cea07e824acb49c5301
F20101202_AABGAR tachon_t_Page_197.tif
9b4ef0613646f63620411f27ec53e1e1
3423115794c56523d279add640d365140e0a2940
F20101202_AABFVL tachon_t_Page_042.tif
2bcbd7a3ef5e3ed400669977ebb99c0a
6fb57b2db12a3755b605510178d3dd94c7d32671
F20101202_AABGZC tachon_t_Page_153thm.jpg
a47505a3141e2d8232017aeabda61c9c
f8915580fdd90e6e2e952615ad23154c2c37beaf
5231 F20101202_AABGYO tachon_t_Page_142thm.jpg
9758410adafd41f8f8304a7e71fca2fd
4e31eec8e58f1c9415dff14f4617390893b461b0
9721 F20101202_AABGXZ tachon_t_Page_133.QC.jpg
67c99330e2572c52dd66f306722d5a1b
1ad31fb3163ebe0291a7067d80be087bd40779d1
8138 F20101202_AABGBG tachon_t_Page_001.pro
d7fbf18e1de6c277030aa640206df7e8
eaeeaa4276ee20bce4a5e5d65ae60df84c67f9c0
F20101202_AABFWA tachon_t_Page_058.tif
8ad8144c450ff0701eccaaaa0dec0524
38f8551537da51dc6dbae52e0a450e4540ff83bc
F20101202_AABGAS tachon_t_Page_198.tif
086df10379e5165aa5d41bb41438fbf3
eb88bcfbd2ed89647ee239fb91be12a0c6c6f814
F20101202_AABFVM tachon_t_Page_043.tif
35f1765c1341911def483b280d8ee650
69b959c8829eba4ff68106416d54a1f1376e20be
F20101202_AABFUX tachon_t_Page_022.tif
a5a6affd92c107bfbd89a9e21e1ff35b
1433377835a5aec1eaa5a8eb8b5aba7a92ff21a9
20415 F20101202_AABGZD tachon_t_Page_154.QC.jpg
c42f46e5b78fb54148480ece574f0dce
2a51117dd30cf7605cd133606788dcf31c2f32ec
19577 F20101202_AABGYP tachon_t_Page_143.QC.jpg
f7086309f15fe82cae6d5855713424e9
ee452b52f51bc5336a47db4c6a4d7e8fc1e38a87
912 F20101202_AABGBH tachon_t_Page_002.pro
8b3c99c90b68f7b631cdeb5bf086fc1c
11b75715e1412a3a3bdec30ec648cd2bc587ef55
F20101202_AABFWB tachon_t_Page_059.tif
e84b1fd6700ef0d8840afce23dfe47b7
1a795818ce651724423ab6eea32baea3ada767c8
F20101202_AABGAT tachon_t_Page_199.tif
11ddb5cb8caff89f1af0edc8529826b1
2a6c2398770cbe7313ed56191aa90cbab04e08f6
F20101202_AABFVN tachon_t_Page_044.tif
af31c188dee7044da394f05ea2ffa0d8
c9746a47570098b124de46ab88c1c10cc7682dea
F20101202_AABFUY tachon_t_Page_023.tif
5b2c23782c0f1fe1417227c22750b5e0
7afeca01002289a15644ed6727c85d35236dd88a
5335 F20101202_AABGZE tachon_t_Page_154thm.jpg
2f73e56a6168f4a777c8168148ce09e5
22eaca8e12ae36e85b607f9c80fda7a8ff0eefe4
19526 F20101202_AABGYQ tachon_t_Page_145.QC.jpg
c475b4adb24b1591e6bdcbbb4dd2fc8f
0854d62f8165478350e6a9aa8a7140de3edeb6f9
51628 F20101202_AABGBI tachon_t_Page_003.pro
d010fe1d8cf395b7e7659ca60c5d82cd
d1f5cfc405acfbdb2992bda8d08e586050fa57c2
F20101202_AABFWC tachon_t_Page_060.tif
c33ef7f298d526e024778465eeda7cbb
dbb2f4d916f0ad420ce3d129dcc1a7408c5c39e6
F20101202_AABGAU tachon_t_Page_201.tif
032708c2b4e965ce13c0be9aecfce572
8c22c505e4b7ff5d47b05e64023addea38a22a7b
F20101202_AABFVO tachon_t_Page_045.tif
bc48447f6c7d4f12637d307ac208a891
3693690d1ac329e329b182de04261f720f767d8e
F20101202_AABFUZ tachon_t_Page_024.tif
79e9dd913781da6973a6d7e68be6445b
fadd75e0cff8db6d0cf41214eed3df419ca096aa
20849 F20101202_AABGZF tachon_t_Page_155.QC.jpg
fb3f1b1c743cff04c7bdfc2a6fce33f9
fd990c0486c08ca721ac0840d65894762d362bc4
5309 F20101202_AABGYR tachon_t_Page_145thm.jpg
aa27c96b0e3f5d2d6c0a536f41ce5d2c
803adae3dcd3a3e5d10ea6fc869b74ac1e22c34d
8547 F20101202_AABGBJ tachon_t_Page_004.pro
4bb52db3bac4ffc4090be9e6f6a526a1
08457972c74669b37f572baf53ba34256c9b4bf3
F20101202_AABFWD tachon_t_Page_061.tif
507d330c64273afd0ffedb827932d10c
e1c06be5790d330687211613ecc65d9b4a45b9bc
F20101202_AABGAV tachon_t_Page_203.tif
71517507c3245841ba8d398e7738dc78
cfd87f960352c44bd401ab4b261e6437c302f867
F20101202_AABFVP tachon_t_Page_046.tif
f7808a19c1f3464a88e120f91984b354
a9e4fc4755f7438d34cff7af65555a993ca2ce94
5567 F20101202_AABGZG tachon_t_Page_155thm.jpg
81274ef55cc7b2deb436a03609fd559c
28a2021185e6149938406fc71139cc2eda3b4913
19419 F20101202_AABGYS tachon_t_Page_146.QC.jpg
8b24238ee94e3a1094fbccc1deac98cd
e1800b045c110f35a951b5cb5754622eee1b9da9
102084 F20101202_AABGBK tachon_t_Page_006.pro
18930422d02e2fd63bd6bdaf791f03a3
c673157323cd65fd40bd6fa235d934dd539f15ee
F20101202_AABFWE tachon_t_Page_062.tif
af068b2c924e1fd6643d964d1a7039da
78ccd1598915dbd6043a4b1f144838f8c411699e
F20101202_AABGAW tachon_t_Page_204.tif
b4ec9029f432eb824f55660da5547c59
5cc1c4993e6f2bc8cb79fea5ca0e6c2b08e1c703
F20101202_AABFVQ tachon_t_Page_047.tif
2336e9b6bcb3e02f5b1cddabc0c524ac
57e73c156e0bd6ebce68c002f021a44d530228e4
19755 F20101202_AABGZH tachon_t_Page_156.QC.jpg
b355dc7d8bba23cd8b4af7d37064ddaf
a8bab27654e0464c9819864c6061e8642cc96c85
5430 F20101202_AABGYT tachon_t_Page_146thm.jpg
53af77b699f50568a915ab951b12a293
b50a5a4597589a5103f94239c7e7c96ef1b52344
41114 F20101202_AABGCA tachon_t_Page_023.pro
1b17c6d623b4080cad4e5f4a2134b699
ddaa3e8e5cceade31dad36b09a43f9bc84fc59e3
36060 F20101202_AABGBL tachon_t_Page_007.pro
5622724204dbd0c32c0320c3b0cc3aa2
a5d49d1de5de021d5740cbe89da257d4cf76674c
F20101202_AABFWF tachon_t_Page_063.tif
3f5a51fa45143d7018fa78d9e5e8ce5a
08debced4e5554e787db7c82c172c4d36e2a25d8
F20101202_AABGAX tachon_t_Page_205.tif
aea2b5011d136b2aad7af34956537526
2631a1d2594e9874b135ec3b830a011f2739a71c
F20101202_AABFVR tachon_t_Page_048.tif
49d1156025bd62630575836a1b17d3a6
097093dc222b362a88403e4512be0653d9b006b2
18757 F20101202_AABGZI tachon_t_Page_157.QC.jpg
52d6753b7e13cd0bd84ebfe0b2846e2a
5edd915d346ad2e1f29d49473f21ea87213315a2
19501 F20101202_AABGYU tachon_t_Page_147.QC.jpg
2474e4458d13f9e900c1730de3152fdf
9d6da02f15832c8cb751cb00f821bb3db17ad8d7
7017 F20101202_AABGCB tachon_t_Page_024.pro
bdb85bb6ea6b46b7e044eeda2c99f1d2
8e374751b1dacf29a9107407571ef58af1417d9d
67863 F20101202_AABGBM tachon_t_Page_008.pro
2ecf9a66805a86d89f0e0b6c23fbe51a
52e1adba1008fcf467153806c4d9b7c1a60785af
F20101202_AABFWG tachon_t_Page_064.tif
9777d8f53510daaa34a8b948e2fc1597
ca5725840b8edd0a5b783cd8ecae20b29d70316a
F20101202_AABGAY tachon_t_Page_206.tif
ffd0a50ed8bb37d121e8182afa3ef52b
6860e01135150d2ac0ed458c272b60d6f8e21fbb
F20101202_AABFVS tachon_t_Page_049.tif
42bd98ddf4c8a5418fe1bfd0c15a44ca
d6b27acf58d134f3fbeb0d654454e49777745d29
5268 F20101202_AABGZJ tachon_t_Page_157thm.jpg
f2b5b699147322051b08bda3b20150fb
967fa3bda9d15e8c5ac84c9445fee38d1fc0ed0e
19403 F20101202_AABGYV tachon_t_Page_148.QC.jpg
c549f992c97dd8e77e9ce461a134f03b
32ea566260216368d0fa5b4e3dc6419d7af4675b
54000 F20101202_AABGCC tachon_t_Page_026.pro
9b945f80afd009d2b0a2e90c47f2349d
9d1f292800d7716cf28f46871075ccc00a789f1b
7900 F20101202_AABGBN tachon_t_Page_009.pro
2dac2a5d6b6fd9ec389c3616b70795b7
454e3c0f557e691755e80cc8bb9837861a169d28
F20101202_AABGAZ tachon_t_Page_207.tif
b82a66fd636e40e3cd8a84f4129fc826
27e96322403adc132cd9cea3ff0caeb57d242618
F20101202_AABFWH tachon_t_Page_065.tif
94fe2c7515d6d2b65bd5a4cf06e39255
fa9c8ef6ddc6c715765e258f2ea5c8fd8725dc35
F20101202_AABFVT tachon_t_Page_050.tif
e28effc61e3aeaddf718087964a73db0
4e9fee97ff2c070282ca5d875b276de63983d80b
19742 F20101202_AABGZK tachon_t_Page_158.QC.jpg
ee730625f2e7efe3f0d218130cbb79c8
0af6483efaf8794af2d07fb40d7d3d5b97f923e9
5143 F20101202_AABGYW tachon_t_Page_148thm.jpg
2819578ca5d54da8c8bfd2dda3d85edd
3939b7531c3ff3dc1b6e6312d65acecdcd857a67
53509 F20101202_AABGCD tachon_t_Page_027.pro
676f6f2b7ed7c0a8c451e6e0e8f570c6
d758446d6338dd6fb5d776b87de94531e4cb4d14
50775 F20101202_AABGBO tachon_t_Page_010.pro
03fe7f118bc20e4baaab3286e5220da6
fea864aa327dd9c858d2b4294de050b6d297dbb6
F20101202_AABFWI tachon_t_Page_066.tif
1235993fe7e96db878cd1d25c42a0a90
113cedde2c5f41c04687a8eb2b715fe29a1ab5dc
F20101202_AABFVU tachon_t_Page_051.tif
7cfe606dad143d65f3b3369b6a12be44
eab3edfc88cd62aec32eb201a0c9a42c4884a377
F20101202_AABGZL tachon_t_Page_158thm.jpg
bbff987e158013e1876aa141f930cf59
81e99006ffd57fa26bb0fc49da979882554b2519
20183 F20101202_AABGYX tachon_t_Page_149.QC.jpg
21f1400e37291a010458e66afd360fe8
0d0d8bd7a270b9bfa208c9ef7692e24e74e895e0
46653 F20101202_AABGBP tachon_t_Page_011.pro
3192c020040a5aca579fd2c3afe20010
2da38b6b41c1a6bf1a4e03534e4f2b2192253fc3
F20101202_AABFWJ tachon_t_Page_067.tif
64f9458a08e8cb6f39370ed2bb8dee61
811da9ff0bf90696658c9c3005b365d9f47abf2b
F20101202_AABFVV tachon_t_Page_052.tif
a5e29360bb1164f6bd29017d5c338e54
feb7a9fb37399a67623287957939bd7969cfa2d8
19523 F20101202_AABGZM tachon_t_Page_159.QC.jpg
2d9951d7545ea43dbba3ceb94927c663
0af28d89bc74492fd0615de9cf8ce3e2352c8886
F20101202_AABGYY tachon_t_Page_150.QC.jpg
85d8bf17f0d0b378521612d7b7c948c9
7fcd867299ecbdd8e64a241c8b99ece9ab26b5d3
46114 F20101202_AABGCE tachon_t_Page_028.pro
c186dfdb7c18940f28b09242d038952d
0bb9be162f27c9ff535f8bad636d3ced5700732f
28625 F20101202_AABGBQ tachon_t_Page_012.pro
3ab5e1c1d1264526744594191f887104
6007ec11d0906c4db7a08715d64de88c3f461f3b
F20101202_AABFWK tachon_t_Page_068.tif
ce374e367e71f0972f70659d1bb6345e
a821cb65562c26c952f50d989116de57451f7df3
F20101202_AABFVW tachon_t_Page_053.tif
9e175acf425c35ce0328c08cc92b7ab9
52b84f65dd37ea1193898a66f45ade1ea1494c83
5206 F20101202_AABGZN tachon_t_Page_159thm.jpg
f10b94d4deda45abd6068201569eae67
e92c8a8eec89527d8d161c17f32400b469e4d576
5064 F20101202_AABGYZ tachon_t_Page_150thm.jpg
841ae2e8b3a9df863f05e76c49259a20
41f01757b4b3c3f9f3dcb700a9f646bca21a2504
49713 F20101202_AABGCF tachon_t_Page_029.pro
bd185bcc5e4dea60492bdd93b624850b
a6ebea8e3af290cde1f95312a88694b459b69943
48367 F20101202_AABGBR tachon_t_Page_013.pro
d79fadfdfdc95a865b127d53ec133eb5
181369da1a2c4330676fa0b72f5484b4a8bf0ce2
F20101202_AABFWL tachon_t_Page_069.tif
b24a2160deae9d6a3bf6db09e68aba89
243549b6e6735326527b39ac2f2460b6cb39259d
F20101202_AABFVX tachon_t_Page_054.tif
8c520576002fff838ec3edf077add2bb
18243c8f916a23060d29dfadacde67f73f0ee04e
19863 F20101202_AABGZO tachon_t_Page_160.QC.jpg
f8414c682e0b855bb8473ca34df60d69
1754bad76227fa58b6b62353a9c687ebc7989633
51237 F20101202_AABGCG tachon_t_Page_031.pro
bad69097ce4ff8c8eabca8e0c6b82d57
a11d67179a5313f2b71d5ceb977c80797d65ab2d
54437 F20101202_AABGBS tachon_t_Page_014.pro
ab57607c886bd5014668a3d78910a197
75edcf9d21f9b36e2f885f8398c7275701395080
F20101202_AABFWM tachon_t_Page_070.tif
9002a4ce93864ba0877680bfca07ca60
3a3baa9ffd2b28cadf4aed0dace8a2d3ef4642c1
F20101202_AABFXA tachon_t_Page_087.tif
1b403bfc1a6964ed192a40294ab1a0c3
91ae44dabcaded4137f176347290e53cc8d25719
5089 F20101202_AABGZP tachon_t_Page_160thm.jpg
c109c5b09d09176bf1ba8d2aabfe6d83
1187b7920062985740ff2bebb80bb571614fbc06
50865 F20101202_AABGCH tachon_t_Page_036.pro
6853c136c750c92a3d49bdfa64131c19
075527afa12c13507ccb8b39daa36b77938bdfaf
46997 F20101202_AABGBT tachon_t_Page_015.pro
493955164c411a56612f0c0b109735a2
fe0273922744dde2987684265525cf9ad5b4d10c
F20101202_AABFWN tachon_t_Page_071.tif
9cc18fd19d974efdb55b2b7624fd2a56
dfdfa22b1c038bd27741cf735b0ecc526db299b7
F20101202_AABFVY tachon_t_Page_055.tif
35c4b8e73aa2df1fb16359f91891d24a
10edcd0e141ea7f77dd0a85ba2786c0f33d241a8
F20101202_AABFXB tachon_t_Page_088.tif
68e0a31430a3e8df4c36587b2dadc13b
9df9f8efaa3dc00cb5139a2bcb1f86139fe0d153
18646 F20101202_AABGZQ tachon_t_Page_161.QC.jpg
0249f67d98681a08bae95dc47f9fe6e7
7a3048cd74248b9d04746f097c990d5bf0f2720e
55836 F20101202_AABGCI tachon_t_Page_037.pro
f10e21fe187274a66ca95a0e35a78d31
e00c1eaecdbfcae9b59c46a18afdd65e182866e0
54200 F20101202_AABGBU tachon_t_Page_016.pro
eddb9fdace77a21393a2e3612a0c9338
9d7872549347d0d82961319a7f32bc0549749919
F20101202_AABFWO tachon_t_Page_072.tif
80976c283c5d79b8146e2e38b9f20df7
74e56b4a276e89816490da4da42e8f87802f7735
F20101202_AABFVZ tachon_t_Page_056.tif
9381d17dd11fa20fc0497717bf20b7ad
9a9ce3064ec2c8431cf3147a8d93aecfc6c93064
F20101202_AABFXC tachon_t_Page_089.tif
2eacc87e9271a86fd0ed696705869e2c
60677d28fa042375e5c5bcd399af23ddd632cc18
5054 F20101202_AABGZR tachon_t_Page_161thm.jpg
d5c4a2ae8bee4e7591fc406f426fcea3
db4720057e8553d3af19fb9506766444276bfcd0
45287 F20101202_AABGCJ tachon_t_Page_038.pro
cf42707cbd80cfb23f51b367f8d8b6b5
66a75baf904aadc47100a213b6cbc3ee93937d36
51538 F20101202_AABGBV tachon_t_Page_018.pro
8985573e91488207f4da81520107526b
d3041cf971ec7c8c008feb876f2d0a921084d2f9
F20101202_AABFWP tachon_t_Page_074.tif
63e055b86b78a1a1a29d25325d91abc3
81b1d5cb9b5b0c44842dc96db53a47d05df71743
F20101202_AABFXD tachon_t_Page_090.tif
7eaf3b4d3fff280edcd2e98231c66d1c
133db98013b4b4c91c3768fddb5e1ced91bc025f
19047 F20101202_AABGZS tachon_t_Page_162.QC.jpg
0885b4cbf5c484ed6aedbd2e6078f671
6ef47935c9e2d76f97425a680b56a002a92924e5
53051 F20101202_AABGCK tachon_t_Page_039.pro
60d9231dce9397e43e093c5e225635f4
e33dd1d68cceb532ee1b0fd61ad12eee97c2ed58
48707 F20101202_AABGBW tachon_t_Page_019.pro
a726e6c1ce41cc67bcd8d3df2fee1a3f
b0f6f4bcf80726471d4cf7522b97dd7e136b2deb
F20101202_AABFWQ tachon_t_Page_075.tif
2ea92b99b5eb1325758eb1a1d72c7157
12c228437fc25735deabe8bbe6231df78ad9141a
F20101202_AABFXE tachon_t_Page_093.tif
93a23347f68529cc5e5c8bfe9a853871
528f889d410de3ca362387a16be9eb0a9a870d95
5246 F20101202_AABGZT tachon_t_Page_162thm.jpg
1f05ff6343fc3eef2c236b8a6344596f
e947aad2179a5e7224f6cfb83cdbacabb7d1b1db
50135 F20101202_AABGDA tachon_t_Page_059.pro
4307e5f7168503959b8f601fe5405d51
87d8fa05794fcb08907718d3539ac2c92e2aa9cd
46598 F20101202_AABGCL tachon_t_Page_040.pro
12e3190a8e51e62df2f36eb24c1df586
b1ff260603d1507995d8adbd242025a9747cb275
56332 F20101202_AABGBX tachon_t_Page_020.pro
3907e4fdbce9c4328da417fccc726e17
e0c4d2dc57724919e4495e5ceaef22fb969aef6e
F20101202_AABFWR tachon_t_Page_076.tif
53cb6568146cbb711b1094ccf2d1b3ef
b92ef1430d005f5ef59d20bfe17766313742d218
F20101202_AABFXF tachon_t_Page_094.tif
98f1f6222574e9fe5bafa3c830782f21
e5054336bec64f6b83d796f6400d175b661d9e7e
19575 F20101202_AABGZU tachon_t_Page_163.QC.jpg
aab75fef585d13349258a3f051e6ceba
0f3b902787340a745c13125f8b96345b5352af10
47166 F20101202_AABGDB tachon_t_Page_060.pro
b3278601ccf062f14dc47b7fd5a69871
db5c80b877a9e80074913ae994562be6b9766f49
50813 F20101202_AABGCM tachon_t_Page_041.pro
fcb5a1bf0598013e910f1a69bbf829c2
6077978eec828c417a145f025ff5ca044a33211d
49777 F20101202_AABGBY tachon_t_Page_021.pro
ff74578c480b362907c508e79eef6809
0099af13943bd7393a93ee34a6b75a9a37be65d7
F20101202_AABFWS tachon_t_Page_077.tif
8325b7d86586c69efba9e69e09dc307d
5e11c92a7346e1f76ec30a741f81ee95c0c14cee
F20101202_AABFXG tachon_t_Page_095.tif
b21d501a83d989fde356a0eaf2af9a85
62cefb0c318d89596556bfc875d8ffc88827459d
16072 F20101202_AABGZV tachon_t_Page_164.QC.jpg
083f64128d43786517548fed402a0a9c
f5d1d2cda3aac2023926c22833f97eeff9efe62f
48949 F20101202_AABGDC tachon_t_Page_061.pro
37e3d8b158be256afd772cb68ffad858
de785b4022c84222b759edea1002c9b3f00dedd6
53072 F20101202_AABGCN tachon_t_Page_042.pro
54612f85cdcee2f896a0b238e04b905c
c7530f13cda450910f17b5995d9faaf4e82b9b9a
3967 F20101202_AABGBZ tachon_t_Page_022.pro
0bce4ab9bc7e3949a8da550bc3275b9c
92a168088d973e413b6c7263b1fcaa1398432e18
F20101202_AABFWT tachon_t_Page_078.tif
51f6ce8d61f781a9985922a397fe7163
1ac6916d98f571f02d768e2ac2af0975a1091df7
1892 F20101202_AABFAA tachon_t_Page_069.txt
97a7e8ece7c19f27c3f4ad776b77b10a
5d267e0063d04d297d386233e24bb0f6b2ac7614
F20101202_AABFXH tachon_t_Page_096.tif
cc90fc96b9334f82d81b2c7102a7ad6a
f5c20880b8dc8162c13b655d570a6fb9e746c7e5
4797 F20101202_AABGZW tachon_t_Page_164thm.jpg
c1205946e10834da53405a26caba7c9a
e37f220b4ab8a72fe75f9153c52fa1319f823010
44242 F20101202_AABGDD tachon_t_Page_063.pro
4a4cc7bac764e42d27db73bf0125152d
c962d6a47f8d1bd147a6ee049f6ac5744cbe26ac
52747 F20101202_AABGCO tachon_t_Page_043.pro
877a1b8f169dc78d6f45cfab3344fdf6
bbc07bdc245d702e72d07417f53573a94cca1ab7
F20101202_AABFWU tachon_t_Page_079.tif
e51d4d767247a41f0410e17562195e19
c921c2cd7d009fe90d463a3c5fa6545fd0c70464
2710 F20101202_AABFAB tachon_t_Page_201.txt
5501dae495c9b3f574faa7688874f149
05665f33a7119bd886faeae9679b1cc9efec3f40
F20101202_AABFXI tachon_t_Page_097.tif
904d253f25c99b21a484dba80264d1e3
a55fa42f4f2d5bd57a69efb4b48b6c149c8c4a2d
20320 F20101202_AABGZX tachon_t_Page_165.QC.jpg
58395535999ee316e59d6b12b622ae58
5e752a899d95df4bf172cd0be64c905351fa0559
44301 F20101202_AABGDE tachon_t_Page_064.pro
d3b74d87be52b396a8b3364a15c24c1c
2b7ba6eba8ed07e0d0f5394001a232caefe2edbf
50121 F20101202_AABGCP tachon_t_Page_044.pro
2be5b1c5d140661d4d0c50d96f9715cd
7b3d1cd646fca082d18b5b5d485439b05dba9f87
F20101202_AABFWV tachon_t_Page_080.tif
88b2470f590498813ffbf2ad37ffa4fe
cb49888ae5c99ed5518456a7b1b98afe3df68d19
1162 F20101202_AABFAC tachon_t_Page_122.txt
8988a465483e7dd9fae76195b694182c
d6b1f05835b68e14e678ca944c834cfa0278b92a
F20101202_AABFXJ tachon_t_Page_098.tif
c689de9515bee6680b4ea448b6ac5695
7e472b995004d40abbebe63a5bff929c7f31acd5
20325 F20101202_AABGZY tachon_t_Page_166.QC.jpg
917700ea3f2d99595b9dcec06c73491f
7d1879d4e05704a235729f0615ced8a4e77fba1c
50225 F20101202_AABGCQ tachon_t_Page_046.pro
0114c89bb87fb031f6e5d501d43c2b99
e3dbf7812dfe4f0b1f31fcaa7669341086afc0be
F20101202_AABFWW tachon_t_Page_081.tif
9741c9ba09db2b5ab6bd0190abbca305
2d8897eb6186a31a4adccdccaa00f1a113d652df
F20101202_AABFXK tachon_t_Page_100.tif
91e9b2cdd6c9508cc6f912437f06e0b6
5a4f50e3c2c6418c6a47b98ff533daff18786405
19454 F20101202_AABGZZ tachon_t_Page_167.QC.jpg
922c2f4afe546aba6433729d7c19b2f0
7620716bf352ab709da66d3623cd0ce812783c14
39732 F20101202_AABGDF tachon_t_Page_065.pro
096ef62817264027f72db083e6d536cf
0fcc4214546c7e07fa2b90a336a593b5b5666568
52648 F20101202_AABGCR tachon_t_Page_047.pro
ebfd8acf9f093c2b8de5884f79eb9589
d81dce333c9a005017b7ea58341536089d6e55e2
F20101202_AABFWX tachon_t_Page_082.tif
f457a7ecf0be525cf6dc8d041b36cb17
91a3b19f6d973a132c339312c45117f27d194bd1
F20101202_AABFAD tachon_t_Page_179.tif
3c6aee1adc2bb5b13975ea3858366397
ef937ee990f86318329fb3000b18706b429546e2
F20101202_AABFXL tachon_t_Page_101.tif
375235b6c163f723c2ac893a872860b1
a5287fc7b5bee5fe51d9bacd614e30ada1a288e0
49022 F20101202_AABGDG tachon_t_Page_066.pro
a370bb7ac1a3d9dfb85a3892aa2c146f
54b11e9552b3a904d032540bbfae227393c24307
46800 F20101202_AABGCS tachon_t_Page_049.pro
9fd895690454092945af60d69473cdc4
c69d43e0f079f3fd166dd3ff549070a00c8fc633
F20101202_AABFWY tachon_t_Page_083.tif
594647ea8314fdf5d1ab2ba8d548af6f
15bab1afb13489c58afcfe53171de827644042d4
19485 F20101202_AABFAE tachon_t_Page_153.QC.jpg
876f8200b470148d237e2a74952d8af2
9700c63f7e42e58df1dd410bb9ae71645dc8b41b
F20101202_AABFYA tachon_t_Page_116.tif
6283210817271a6c188ab7e7e0d05d4e
c4df83d635086da849e611c56168ccf2ed7e372c
F20101202_AABFXM tachon_t_Page_102.tif
f4053bfa04bcaf2271c9ff63f898283a
f23dca5061d034dfab450703d98be85bda555800
49227 F20101202_AABGDH tachon_t_Page_067.pro
739e888a7ce4e02548d4c98510319fb3
2dc306307675ff7269fd5a199c26dcf4da74ce12
53054 F20101202_AABGCT tachon_t_Page_050.pro
81e92037c38cbd93fac9626b9c8afbdf
73148281fac53d57fcd13a4593ef48aea29359b2
1051968 F20101202_AABFAF tachon_t_Page_048.jp2
e7837abe0c4074d46c3fcd33ba183bb6
9ccbf72ecad58540ac2aaf62e4c98c61fe521ae0
F20101202_AABFYB tachon_t_Page_117.tif
c7dd2b67762954b509fab02a27f60a58
0e7e47870c05b9d924c110aeef59e7583fbcb3a1
F20101202_AABFXN tachon_t_Page_103.tif
408e9027c6550b79900bc0dd0d9a7f01
b8a0e6975b03e2d22210624424676c90752c49a2
45225 F20101202_AABGDI tachon_t_Page_068.pro
be39b8d5bf3c5be0f2a37eab024e7215
64a5dd9c1df303d15b7e77106748f20f2d00fa50
53075 F20101202_AABGCU tachon_t_Page_051.pro
1c3d4b7a56b38a7457dd16195bb41679
919f3b3f93045959e86b6b05f2f23925a99bf4c3
870077 F20101202_AABFAG tachon_t_Page_165.jp2
063a9f6d59be123e83c90783535bea57
43a5704b44b788ae55ea76155073f4c6a9a228f5
F20101202_AABFYC tachon_t_Page_119.tif
6c9f8757904dc61d4260d484b6cb72b2
c18abde49e9a54d995c6f4152cc50ddd9d02dc1e
F20101202_AABFXO tachon_t_Page_104.tif
33a5af1af292c1812da8a28e71693494
0396cbb08d7da9088c49c77c17e6637931b9061f
F20101202_AABFWZ tachon_t_Page_086.tif
0c078e4f4ed94f0cbd6f8ab75b68c5ea
6bc665e7f883aee46c07b51241b8b7a0d373f7f7
46512 F20101202_AABGDJ tachon_t_Page_069.pro
2cc9e6716aab0474c4d32f19a60276e9
189e745d4b0b80c0617ad29b6f1c3eecd34b7a86
65411 F20101202_AABGCV tachon_t_Page_052.pro
846413f7c3c759b905fd4c27dc37af2e
9a3f3ee8c9eeec8b22d53536ff14563a134ed773
5057 F20101202_AABFAH tachon_t_Page_188thm.jpg
d5efdede5d82a9e60cbc4d9f54b9e569
b368d440de5064588d5480b382d54de4a8487c7f
F20101202_AABFYD tachon_t_Page_121.tif
505c39bf443c1ad84e126af253a67ddb
eee88b1be44111d7c276d02a8d57e1a84fd8b5fb
F20101202_AABFXP tachon_t_Page_105.tif
5db87a821ed70dc1bacb0fa0198c16cb
4ad1ed3a695de610377798ecd6f079a74894cfb6
44610 F20101202_AABGDK tachon_t_Page_070.pro
e8cd09cd3ef63396de157670e3fe9d2a
6d1e6cff309a05b83157e50bf5def82c846aa486
56342 F20101202_AABGCW tachon_t_Page_054.pro
858d166b569a7eef4ffc62e4d363cda0
0892587d799488c95e91914463dad23b5c0ee5e5
57125 F20101202_AABFAI tachon_t_Page_103.jpg
e3ac42e246409e9d4889b830c8cd6772
67b2d7bf27befeccdee2e051c700ffe201454761
F20101202_AABFYE tachon_t_Page_122.tif
40dd555d3e20b841205d25893c55a2e3
b6940ee4f9be559dffc4ea483042335cd6b14ff5
F20101202_AABFXQ tachon_t_Page_106.tif
0aeab552e3d3e16a562b899a2a381b05
7d1214c0d05fa9915f365ac4d71d8aebc5a0cc0f
39549 F20101202_AABGEA tachon_t_Page_088.pro
4f2fb543e0486e953bfcb0bc198adbe7
6701a8791d13e47056ac7893e895c1be40aeb8a1
58878 F20101202_AABGDL tachon_t_Page_071.pro
09361d9a94648c51a77e7e0e909a2594
26123cfe237e2e1526ac87e94d580e721a4f767c
58550 F20101202_AABGCX tachon_t_Page_055.pro
e00a98ab4272c25d09bf6ddc951f93c3
595425e387930b79f213af306f7031419efe8b87
16926 F20101202_AABFAJ tachon_t_Page_009.jpg
039d6ccffbd1c1cebd96d45ae23bc5cb
2151ac5104468325790d3fad8b157a1526aa5628
F20101202_AABFYF tachon_t_Page_123.tif
6822086684fc2bbcfcd5cc2e17131110
6ed9df35be85915d94d8ffc5a1e73f8e336649f1
F20101202_AABFXR tachon_t_Page_107.tif
3ad7cd7134c3e0994ea9a14869f4680b
4947c8f00af9abea352c0de418a6123f3bba00cc
41206 F20101202_AABGEB tachon_t_Page_089.pro
90fc9e1dbdba4040f33e3e67b630fb44
9e62329a9b8ec71243af2c648a594656d4ee5250
53571 F20101202_AABGDM tachon_t_Page_073.pro
aafdeafba8d13911980c812da1ae01cf
1038daf58f44929798e09d6e046775475e25ef87
66126 F20101202_AABGCY tachon_t_Page_056.pro
6ecf1f301953ec2e7f2c8dbc21e58a46
0288035cf2274b66d7fd001cb1101946ae1145de
66074 F20101202_AABFAK tachon_t_Page_188.pro
1ee16ab431df099d990dc3d717486da7
64b4293dd51b2168d6e1c15545f0b6efeee31900
F20101202_AABFYG tachon_t_Page_124.tif
b31aa876a08e059799531934b3b89471
bd06a469ec6d9c2790e7aca05a4e74e4bea3ce2d
F20101202_AABFXS tachon_t_Page_108.tif
286d14e235e80082e356f9425fd9b59c
68cd1247fa2a757e1af5fe2e9a8fca16dc105b9d
47598 F20101202_AABGEC tachon_t_Page_090.pro
de829211642f52616e864c46bd3fa0f7
fb803231905758dcc6a1228dd0859f65eea0fa9f
13619 F20101202_AABGDN tachon_t_Page_074.pro
585fcf48b6e60b650cd31d39a2d2755e
aa7839f9376d6d8852cfbe81502e3b6704f36e22
54021 F20101202_AABGCZ tachon_t_Page_058.pro
5217b106dc9f45244a017feac079f113
df26db181f374b3f4f5ddfcd1fe56b214b776ac1
2080 F20101202_AABFAL tachon_t_Page_003.txt
c461b8e3cb050a29c3fbcdc42a5fecbf
f7fcdd216604e7930d15bdc8a3286f9ff69ebc9e
F20101202_AABFYH tachon_t_Page_125.tif
95f822f2be485ac55d436e17f9277a7a
df7d8bf1e56518ce79f46c0ebbb5821fe06e5ef7
F20101202_AABFXT tachon_t_Page_109.tif
6e7efdf24e40bca34b38707017fad5ef
cee4f6d06fd2a54c8cb66889a560ac2f006f7663
137441 F20101202_AABFBA tachon_t_Page_113.jpg
6e228d10a3474b5c5e7ea3157694ff63
74a496016dc64aca24017843de79f2fd2281fa52
44937 F20101202_AABGED tachon_t_Page_091.pro
e449ae4478168e08f33d8f4569674c9a
0d3bbcdcadc0f837f612542b0d23dfbf4b1830cb
25481 F20101202_AABGDO tachon_t_Page_075.pro
5566441efe23a9ad06462fb1e034118f
2eba26ef51ceb01fe3101eb772117c11424d039c
F20101202_AABFYI tachon_t_Page_126.tif
ed772fb0e783b1edf9f28d1e3792ca01
1a44148d0c1caf0cf90c209d9447582dec77f8f6
F20101202_AABFXU tachon_t_Page_110.tif
895ee633f305edb8f24fc9e806097a6c
db559c749cccd3774c670d1481c2028f9bbcd221
51878 F20101202_AABFBB tachon_t_Page_034.pro
ba8e235e32423b669837fe94dcb798b9
2442a21ef59fd68982f2d16ab949885ddd99ffe0
F20101202_AABFAM tachon_t_Page_144thm.jpg
c5c8b786b052216988d5c4def4f36969
31f2e29297c186625fa491a2de84b100a3f565ac
44592 F20101202_AABGEE tachon_t_Page_092.pro
b46e9a99241e1aac797c4439f7ee9ef7
b039353193106908958ab24a27bded56680661ef
43107 F20101202_AABGDP tachon_t_Page_076.pro
8240e9808723fdc2c2ba13fa9d5d9e2f
1ea123ea766adf1dd60089ba042107cd6f4cbc29
F20101202_AABFYJ tachon_t_Page_127.tif
18b2ff3984aaa337f6828295ff04ec86
37f9b8c4401699492bc56cd3bff6d9ce1ccd4a42
F20101202_AABFXV tachon_t_Page_111.tif
91c592edc542baaea80e24ddb2788b7c
4c2508aa8692cffac83ab84e8f158761f045de88
23614 F20101202_AABFBC tachon_t_Page_059.QC.jpg
c04d3790f3cf456681b5cb8c3cf68092
568666752a1aa28d8e9c2b6bde587506ebf0b8e2
19877 F20101202_AABFAN tachon_t_Page_140.QC.jpg
3bbe78a6d2b74155840cf077abe3b8df
a62a352cef2d78c1d1e42c88915f5620c90193f6
F20101202_AABGEF tachon_t_Page_093.pro
d890708086d7152cce5265bca79cb2d9
a9591354ea3c5317df5e20aae6c7a7eb9bf2498a
31451 F20101202_AABGDQ tachon_t_Page_077.pro
17dae2f5ad948e6486b10681c052bafd
7202686c0067d2557d8078990a5e34618e480f92
F20101202_AABFYK tachon_t_Page_128.tif
47f2ac2051b778a1b23b84a738adcc71
1c18c799f2c764cf65375f98dd7c4af65c94e1b6
F20101202_AABFXW tachon_t_Page_112.tif
6bf692ad68b1ab9116761cfdec6debd9
016e90962ec9c23fa587abef42b1898eeaa4a0be
3556 F20101202_AABFBD tachon_t_Page_202.txt
3451a9a6c240ef2a3ccb18fbf16d127f
6e745ee46d9d732f8e42a2cb815193c3c60cbab7
2733 F20101202_AABFAO tachon_t_Page_121thm.jpg
9c2ecead1c779aa6f26f262b3d5bf662
3007f15daffe0abd2617d826097b9225ab5b6c94
64457 F20101202_AABGDR tachon_t_Page_079.pro
a5d22ed4deb35fef92710ca84d3a6792
1b8939003b44e7e3455d9b32f0ec71a7038d61b5
F20101202_AABFYL tachon_t_Page_130.tif
9a50339cd237dd4bf08e4d0f060bbd45
ac1032d90385237ed736224cd8533c53ccfecb9d
F20101202_AABFXX tachon_t_Page_113.tif
2dcf4d5f5af8f149db009fa6a223c742
47fabebd791ac2e15a767584dbebae99e6e52be3
F20101202_AABFAP tachon_t_Page_005.tif
f91113a74d49291642c39447d1c70239
a09aec58b43c20dd23f90fdaa4d15ca2c393d0bc
42948 F20101202_AABGEG tachon_t_Page_094.pro
021a1a74fb9b832974ee958e1326da84
8312e74d95f4e1ec425c0dcb5c107eb09bc0fe1f
29458 F20101202_AABGDS tachon_t_Page_080.pro
35e2a036123622dcbf7f47d654c26b3d
551f4a0191c487f1339042bb4ab79d8b1e042bd8
F20101202_AABFYM tachon_t_Page_133.tif
5b8bc3a7834964da7ced929c94840102
36b18befbb9171d8f1183bdb908087265bc5e401
F20101202_AABFXY tachon_t_Page_114.tif
d8636d770c441b853be48dbf2aff7a4b
17c9f2bf80f061a95d5e4d25ac5770d4d890835e
35594 F20101202_AABFBE tachon_t_Page_157.pro
e6aba3503e9c2d9bd2afc689fca057cd
c9842c4da2491ab5dfb3f20e8d034009f6a2f0bf
6891 F20101202_AABFAQ tachon_t_Page_066thm.jpg
bb2cdb0c14e8b444f667248c1e4cd505
956c1ef8aca3bd4a85d56f414f98e4ddaeed3bae
F20101202_AABFZA tachon_t_Page_149.tif
41ff2e73f7369f3acaca3d87e0f5dd9d
7da730c2425c1f2b1530a550b871a48caef0ec66
35437 F20101202_AABGEH tachon_t_Page_095.pro
d1333b85baa7fabcdd43c50e8afc8876
7094a7bb56e6d49aea67646dd4d27a678dd74273
8953 F20101202_AABGDT tachon_t_Page_081.pro
cf0c1b049d23da2e08a4d9789fa896f9
36d379573379c634220ee4d810ae0482ea35a136
F20101202_AABFYN tachon_t_Page_135.tif
c7b2b9811bdd3653b5e3ecc5439b04ba
a1be4d2f31736fc6eb429d6b08ff188ae4e165c0
F20101202_AABFXZ tachon_t_Page_115.tif
725180d1ce9a8940c12db2f88f21fd3d
94b956db94c916b8bdde583907064937ccf2ee8b
51960 F20101202_AABFBF tachon_t_Page_048.pro
45313676173b9ba211bb309ce2cddeae
52f477cacde20c574f12b4d12692aadb5068cbad
3797 F20101202_AABFAR tachon_t_Page_117thm.jpg
9e5924a2f16099267de07c79e45dc2df
3dd42b75aa78f75d448675db3a90f1bedc830851
F20101202_AABFZB tachon_t_Page_150.tif
077d31c4378f8e9a6dd1f0b1a11288e4
2d708f0f45df1972683208600dae11b4e4004863
11463 F20101202_AABGEI tachon_t_Page_098.pro
04eabf88353e79e8159203b818c96476
efde113ed8c81b847d6411381f2a869412eb3222
31049 F20101202_AABGDU tachon_t_Page_082.pro
886f19bfe733da4958b365faad3ac69e
e6994a88439f9f586c22823cb56824c5c5698849
F20101202_AABFYO tachon_t_Page_136.tif
cdf7c386a62e26339cd3f3b9f4b6497c
1f040f3843ac0f2dc1b79c9af21242186a3590f2
898834 F20101202_AABFBG tachon_t_Page_176.jp2
27d577e8028ac88e1ee2b0369b6e1e21
a1127be8cd87d0e8b82d402973afadf0a62f355d
60814 F20101202_AABFAS tachon_t_Page_129.jpg
6e81bf4f27276cd7351c814361b532c4
391708d010fb943315c239b9357e29c30274f86c
F20101202_AABFZC tachon_t_Page_151.tif
976c35ddd7f66fdbac86851ae14b7aed
5b08200297d651f0b04968ae8b69dd5e0b2b68fd
30232 F20101202_AABGEJ tachon_t_Page_099.pro
200a8a797f3341f6bd1765a6f9c1c618
37d52915506746c44b0617a3a3701e12263ebf38
54171 F20101202_AABGDV tachon_t_Page_083.pro
2da9cbb1a922f153403af2ac8d084fcc
a941547b708eb207af7dce5745cd6ed3247c60d4
F20101202_AABFYP tachon_t_Page_137.tif
3be4d6c28daa264dd38fcb594401abab
31ffce6a66df56e1857de4fdbc448ac0482187c6
18994 F20101202_AABFBH tachon_t_Page_185.QC.jpg
cd36ebf43574d1480a9ffc0169f62aec
05cf2eb26c45b0c5da0810aed3822598fa309a87
82459 F20101202_AABFAT tachon_t_Page_016.jpg
06973e875b2db0c0f88d75fc19f8e1a6
c421686a5312c71d1cba10210eeafb614c2ed0f8
F20101202_AABFZD tachon_t_Page_152.tif
9874b3f8eade81dfad4dabf299472404
f8e2ac6a188db6159de51ae4ae596c8961f359a1
46819 F20101202_AABGEK tachon_t_Page_100.pro
23b51c266b59fc407dd7e8a623f8998b
5d0d6baf6718d9753e861e5ef896725c7be21714
66598 F20101202_AABGDW tachon_t_Page_084.pro
410cc03413caad1b5d62cf01e07cad3e
48b8bcd186aefe9a09769ec1480e42ca8c98168b
F20101202_AABFYQ tachon_t_Page_138.tif
c34b4b7256285d3716ad2e3f4a217f4d
6aff63cc18b9cf3df80558d6ec58d7b3246fae99
F20101202_AABFBI tachon_t_Page_206.jp2
4f0032de0df09a0d9d53d327e4fa4939
580029e50083ed7a5d0c993825730d70c08003e2
109793 F20101202_AABFAU tachon_t_Page_109.jp2
67f061d4cf09a6287eed1b6bdb4fbe45
93f314a38133c439df3ec2ae60e8b8d4fb9ddfcd
F20101202_AABFZE tachon_t_Page_154.tif
9a12248a4f23e493a922873e2905fe6d
f362111e16ef06b4163ecdaa6dcbc7a215b5afe8
40141 F20101202_AABGFA tachon_t_Page_119.pro
08387a0368df7b628bff1f49cd395a12
77e13c169a3ba64b7fb977fb46a763bba59b640c
49729 F20101202_AABGEL tachon_t_Page_101.pro
0016639af5948c7250aeb91e2484d377
0dfbea974b1471597b297d926d35c98141d13585
63588 F20101202_AABGDX tachon_t_Page_085.pro
877660de6ae6b95388875b21190c9212
02dd17ddcdb61ca6b1da4a944afb6090e0b4eba8
F20101202_AABFYR tachon_t_Page_139.tif
86163232759c4fc0fa181d40e1ddbaae
0e0eff06cccc1f8feb72aa78696ae989c0f8065d
F20101202_AABFBJ tachon_t_Page_113.jp2
0b39d98a56060cb85019ba3deaad00a7
1ae4c9b39f20af13b7e4e6c3a0c343d8d2c15842
34926 F20101202_AABFAV tachon_t_Page_133.jpg
273927ab4247f00a864dee65c6adbe38
fa93f415e8182afeacd05da123b9dcfed6ab3be3
F20101202_AABFZF tachon_t_Page_155.tif
16388efc781be912e568e83edf7491b7
e5852636a8e7b11617f3199c3b20f480ac407d76
28877 F20101202_AABGFB tachon_t_Page_120.pro
dbda9fc690e99761a3643e475518ab34
59078866deea2c91655bb28786c6dff02adbb145
48112 F20101202_AABGEM tachon_t_Page_102.pro
860d14876e863e6d17ffa3297638bdd3
94c4b6d69154cc59e124f25c426ab60c03d5d3d6
46241 F20101202_AABGDY tachon_t_Page_086.pro
2463cdee2da3c94be2c155f33cf22e07
0421c964ac4b34e051b4490985bcb708930ae419
F20101202_AABFYS tachon_t_Page_140.tif
7eb14702caa16365f2668e7ad84d2633
81ea459e02a06407682ade14f084957c8268b09f
19991 F20101202_AABFBK tachon_t_Page_065.QC.jpg
e062c8111b9c673a5c3f91250108f15d
34effb98567ec858bab57db4b60615015e4ad13b
5356 F20101202_AABFAW tachon_t_Page_005thm.jpg
f7237c47a023eb33dc595f72ae23b1a3
8dafa9cb5a1bfb32152c7ab0284c7b6b3f484001
F20101202_AABFZG tachon_t_Page_156.tif
620bd871007f2e9f7ec1d3f3a86becbe
ee466f8f27338677f0f4859e1402dd79e07a74ac
13796 F20101202_AABGFC tachon_t_Page_121.pro
82022784f330497d10e634944e787288
9c49d3810f9911cef0e6f4b48dbf8654f3e10f16
39625 F20101202_AABGEN tachon_t_Page_103.pro
d4af83edb92521bde564b19dead4c4c0
c497be983c4ceed2dbb378b0b55f436191c24ba4
42495 F20101202_AABGDZ tachon_t_Page_087.pro
cf4f0b7a2869c67a9ae57ad28122a2b1
a6a4e9b80883fc91a202cfa42d6f88f0ef7209d9
F20101202_AABFYT tachon_t_Page_141.tif
91f3243af48edd19f75c2bd442941192
85ce971b48717960c5bb17702ce62e1583f08add
F20101202_AABFCA tachon_t_Page_134.tif
e4c2ace081ed02776beb5a346b4e3503
22057fa496f303e12fb7137d1fabedd7bb857177
1782 F20101202_AABFBL tachon_t_Page_103.txt
785f907192b4ce95281fcd0f1b19d6e4
5f229a2e5ad20bc34fbaad0d6d8e6f01214ff7cb
7623 F20101202_AABFAX tachon_t_Page_214thm.jpg
b8f6555cc247bf893ebf660a5596dac8
7f203cb5429ee0631df1e2467fd99ff2ff44db23
F20101202_AABFZH tachon_t_Page_157.tif
663985efdc6ba59257515ca24eb847bd
d3039a9266d452188fc7f243eac9889548277b5e
13799 F20101202_AABGFD tachon_t_Page_122.pro
192eaca5b258973fc251e58b85bb5939
ef62b7d227260bcc36ed0443c839107fed6c50ba
38472 F20101202_AABGEO tachon_t_Page_104.pro
e24f55759b0fbc4033b678cc30032b0b
118954cfca8bd7274eb229d67f38abe4db490ec5
F20101202_AABFYU tachon_t_Page_142.tif
a51906937e4c257a7b34451c1e7fb616
499021ea1ecd6f1c4937e403bebce056c18e4b2e
342 F20101202_AABFCB tachon_t_Page_004.txt
5f1cd694b563600e5e06ff340f5b847e
41f5c596f2907fa8aa3bd09130c3137e4eeed34e
990 F20101202_AABFBM tachon_t_Page_123.txt
c1bc5dd2c493e8e4f81ac105cb028964
0743c34eeb121ab49004604910fd204857fdd21b
3261 F20101202_AABFAY tachon_t_Page_198.txt
75f143f3795db194f82f5a522fe384e1
2e1fd1fa563e99cefcd025f6560bee2fcec67e7e
F20101202_AABFZI tachon_t_Page_159.tif
8c743adf88d3a9e6c0c401c78454c285
3f9d8b320d2f250dd4381d6e502e9a67659f4723
16981 F20101202_AABGFE tachon_t_Page_123.pro
846f1867aec2bdb97dc86a09c21dc770
d78b0f294da38329223dd8bfbdcd8f61a9b19c75
52632 F20101202_AABGEP tachon_t_Page_105.pro
2b7dcd9d658f1cea61b3a332e1fd6f13
28cc26d49ca105fd9a0fd4e0c980cd01d9735e9c
F20101202_AABFYV tachon_t_Page_143.tif
57ba0f16ac13469f5aa510a75703ab4f
f280ebe2caab8ee0e4c751bba00e314729afa70f
67817 F20101202_AABFCC tachon_t_Page_180.pro
2de5ce80113ce4d3e4b60e421dc5fbcc
1c485cd18ca71d0a5697be0ba507acbe911d1815
F20101202_AABFBN tachon_t_Page_034.tif
33f1d53af4d402b88865baaa10c23294
a474509c4a7f1e32b1a628790e6aac9c72c3cf47
867052 F20101202_AABFAZ tachon_t_Page_149.jp2
f5b63b8f4db361d23ec957a42588ad71
7d7d04ff6839d9f783449610ee03ab0682b7e972
F20101202_AABFZJ tachon_t_Page_161.tif
c37677efce075e7b560d00086359a21e
6c098b439c2228106c0aee79e566ceba5c79a77b
167967 F20101202_AABGFF tachon_t_Page_124.pro
03466040b4a38ff00587b3393ec84fbc
4251bbe00aa05529dcf30c905e92b6c92477281b
44909 F20101202_AABGEQ tachon_t_Page_106.pro
bb395678b70bfc60f78886fd36ff64ea
d974d28708a17ac1fbe15eb93f1666246f1bafe4
F20101202_AABFYW tachon_t_Page_144.tif
936f0d8e23e7016f79df593ab18a9894
3752554e25d2488114328b858f677c46457cb5fe
2372 F20101202_AABFCD tachon_t_Page_071.txt
b612d68002ef176c0904c4e0ad9e98b2
e76a9d8e0a7d4b18601e426239b0c08dfc587daa
F20101202_AABFBO tachon_t_Page_021.tif
e69e74d9ea0df307a00557312a38965b
dc44ec7b618722a5563d46dd69b77ca49355e5da
F20101202_AABFZK tachon_t_Page_162.tif
0d41f0f2aa967494670125e11c544125
05788f5359db0916b268696a3c5d1a0467141159
68555 F20101202_AABGFG tachon_t_Page_126.pro
3fe070614db9d875475f4646a6b61336
788d07376bf1e35a66470ebb08f50d3f4463a585
38169 F20101202_AABGER tachon_t_Page_107.pro
f7f98f611d206db3eae7e6a450cd2545
8dc057e75cca996eacea4ba737996b06d4307981
F20101202_AABFYX tachon_t_Page_145.tif
9a498ab70f6aa54aa8420b644df918b4
42f85ce73f35d1fe8f46efc4015e5b8eb5dce70b
47199 F20101202_AABFCE tachon_t_Page_033.pro
05c107b15c6619468cd740f8f2920fb0
385a87119d0453e4b0ca82e564ff8f528334a183
7006 F20101202_AABFBP tachon_t_Page_052thm.jpg
cc7a57dea66176a90ada72cb18e5a528
e2422d1d3958e02c1f271e01fb357b28aaf32062
F20101202_AABFZL tachon_t_Page_163.tif
e7bb4b5b952d3cc2ca4c74c8d2ff361b
461f20f302e84899ea6a16fd91e07e7e00415072
39530 F20101202_AABGES tachon_t_Page_108.pro
f6c67b4e6071b5fb605382da0dfef1a2
5a3315d2e2cca39088e79d1e3b505b8b848d5c81
F20101202_AABFYY tachon_t_Page_146.tif
a7a6e90de0ba57a4d4aaa63ddf450bfe
48594b6db4d2a237d11bdda20a74fdf3ef50ef5c
21190 F20101202_AABFBQ tachon_t_Page_063.QC.jpg
7607e4c5a10d3563e0b4e383749e3cee
1cd2996c06b1a2aa867c02a5587b923c2e6c8071
F20101202_AABFZM tachon_t_Page_164.tif
41fe7f8c362919dda18fb0e3a9de4103
cf8dcbc5640512162084d781e35c0af8a17cf669
11035 F20101202_AABGFH tachon_t_Page_127.pro
d2d2e31dc47ab5dc10462d73cea7d74a
55877525b22ebb8074d93bd5bd93f1520d108de3
50669 F20101202_AABGET tachon_t_Page_109.pro
e07b1f8cae54389359acb8c744e2ef11
3d83f231bf53095943fe2c929b2646b0f35d4cd8
F20101202_AABFYZ tachon_t_Page_147.tif
a5dcc2351e7cabbecf203c8f2cd85415
ccd3a1a228407d211bf5db439c6650db2b90ef48
89464 F20101202_AABFCF tachon_t_Page_210.jpg
104fbe7df2feb792c20054ccff946691
749e6cd6cb50510557640462b2cb19538ff40608
5574 F20101202_AABFBR tachon_t_Page_185thm.jpg
7dc9007b1dcbe8f1acd66e98fbe9d635
e39fa6cfe9ac35ad0010d8a71c19ea2f0bee4844
F20101202_AABFZN tachon_t_Page_165.tif
11eb9d5e15ef23f3570cb564432477e6
f93e4d4919dc28ff77f963d80579a018a54458a1
31854 F20101202_AABGFI tachon_t_Page_129.pro
a4b4493556c44f9b294ac7b583c2a23d
dad0a9ef030096ebed91297879e5ba268dfd7100
54423 F20101202_AABGEU tachon_t_Page_110.pro
070b5f151413383c41e384e89e70111a
3dbe4419a9a5d88a90fa9871e3f1df8483f76431
1878 F20101202_AABFCG tachon_t_Page_091.txt
1e524ec2d6e350e018b9fb2722c9b99c
3a81d6ce2b49e7a3b8fa96faed9b8b279f9762f9
3383 F20101202_AABEXA tachon_t_Page_190.txt
0645ec70adcf7633f7a9b68e11b2a589
4880dd5ea08a186b7301c4b08c4592d0e7727a45
F20101202_AABFBS tachon_t_Page_148.tif
1a0f1bd41f3f99624306f7c69de62982
dd4c2aeff501023c2568efe9d92993a756058158
F20101202_AABFZO tachon_t_Page_166.tif
a4ee81d23664a142497907bd606ad5d2
df805aa9129bbdc59d0f2eb9be4bec24f6508113
28419 F20101202_AABGFJ tachon_t_Page_130.pro
bcdf956f52a6a2460a2ace54afd5388b
c9cc64ae2c530136c480e7e93056e0664c294609
9301 F20101202_AABGEV tachon_t_Page_111.pro
64c6e8ec765564d41b5282c75dbed061
5ef4227c211efc7285e0ff499dd14b0e8515d21d
F20101202_AABFCH tachon_t_Page_085.tif
5a3bc9bfa223b0a1dd89dca1d689b492
efa6c27c212774e8dcd5287841c402fe04a2994d
898314 F20101202_AABEXB tachon_t_Page_198.jp2
8d4e5078ac89279a06dd742f31a4ea5e
63f3f02613bbdb944cdc4b767305255f1ca8b830
63694 F20101202_AABFBT tachon_t_Page_078.pro
83a481b28c40e23eba031dcd750eba1a
10cbba55b79712a7cc7d2f290dc318ba849bc0cf
F20101202_AABFZP tachon_t_Page_167.tif
132b60ed5c712dbbfdef1d6f4e2926a2
0457f29cf1771d3c2a8e7f1aad1591b85cc8157e
30138 F20101202_AABGFK tachon_t_Page_131.pro
dc33ec1ffcb6f36773c1240ad127ceeb
7ccba5685145319d4bc5d564153f600fd0a00d31
5812 F20101202_AABGEW tachon_t_Page_112.pro
7c464202fbf8ce6ce4367bb9e15abdda
51263babd6b6def27716a255889f3dea1492dc2a
F20101202_AABFCI tachon_t_Page_214.tif
e7af93ecfab30abadbadd5301ebbc510
516bb5e945e317b0509cf3bfb6406623ae0bdf99
21697 F20101202_AABEXC tachon_t_Page_132.jp2
af788299f1a3755d4ba5e91b318c5f40
839594b00201d87f8382045d1ff861414bca12b9
88755 F20101202_AABFBU tachon_t_Page_094.jp2
09afaf2c06d797cce533a32bde857ba0
67a1cdb64e03549a73bc26228bac81f552493ea3
F20101202_AABFZQ tachon_t_Page_168.tif
dd5330959f2481b93e76da862e6158bd
94dd5a4246cf4c6d1ede176217c65de6f3ff3052
40861 F20101202_AABGGA tachon_t_Page_148.pro
0471ad5e45cc0f65458faa8e37e23fdb
cf9846312b323fadaf21e72c98cfa94cee916839
11613 F20101202_AABGFL tachon_t_Page_132.pro
e75728198209fb8a2369e958a7828eb0
528ed15f245da8c7922a5b89ea0dc3bfca9b12cb
109003 F20101202_AABGEX tachon_t_Page_116.pro
d8447f6b654cf06f18222e7e1fa51dae
b6c131492f18cbfc55cef67d9e099d76d6cfb8ef
54599 F20101202_AABFCJ tachon_t_Page_023.jpg
5441928dea49307e918d591234417b3a
9490be08711ba88ec301322a8f60da6e5d7e13fe
877613 F20101202_AABEXD tachon_t_Page_193.jp2
f28621a9e8ff755c3860f71ee99d5077
ee6cb8f2e765fc49ec361545f4fe56c7343edb6d
923319 F20101202_AABFBV tachon_t_Page_079.jp2
e1b075859323d8bc36e0e79347bfbeb8
a3dbcb939de0c3fb2c5f37b29af3a599ae38b16a
F20101202_AABFZR tachon_t_Page_169.tif
ca04aae9e2c5c1b59e326a56c19c0514
16905dbf9c9b74d688abc92653dbc36333474be2
45092 F20101202_AABGGB tachon_t_Page_149.pro
5f31017584d20a56420933a094589fa4
18ed886a795b7e389ae44bb6d458afcf759ccdd5
17396 F20101202_AABGFM tachon_t_Page_133.pro
fcafbaecdeabe02d3062f65ab71c203b
240eb32c12b4c47ba03f6237a85547416f0dddba
19187 F20101202_AABGEY tachon_t_Page_117.pro
de3913adcadca05f3cc9dc6196631607
ddbe6b36ed1d47a277e1fc6eb15b26e38849cf75
5682 F20101202_AABFCK tachon_t_Page_112.QC.jpg
0daf06e88719005645bdb09327d3f828
fa4c71ee524fc3af0fe040eebb6e7b53b16d7b98
1867 F20101202_AABEXE tachon_t_Page_094.txt
33341b58ad45a35bb3bb3be9342eaa06
c2d3674e94efeacb0e5f31d26da2eb2ae1f421fa
F20101202_AABFBW tachon_t_Page_026.tif
137e8683aff57331e6cfc013f992e3f8
a95f0aafbc4dcd959e601b0479b13e4b2e794592
F20101202_AABFZS tachon_t_Page_170.tif
e4cb0c975db397b1e27372eb09368007
00d30e93161f6c5635e36520b6327ed10e1e2f08
53171 F20101202_AABGGC tachon_t_Page_150.pro
d7aca67cb40cb42978ee0da37dc6597c
d79ff9bc0fd089a3d7b30d8ab25cf4e665d63de4
51034 F20101202_AABGFN tachon_t_Page_134.pro
b3e48f70ceee7749e5d52dc5b136644b
e653c1e66fc97b9a135b6956d78544af20e2c5a9
7376 F20101202_AABGEZ tachon_t_Page_118.pro
ab3eb4482025d4a0cdd65cf842671232
cf43c6ea5d86698590846db19de383e723bacb35
1051951 F20101202_AABFCL tachon_t_Page_214.jp2
92fcead3979e5efa3a134bfcc81768ae
2098b196705ad0b5bc59dfd64c370acbf1dd81a2
6322 F20101202_AABEXF tachon_t_Page_036thm.jpg
afab161298dce4c5f8fce795104fc48b
babb116d4216adc7fed3128b337eeb7722e907e8
243955 F20101202_AABFBX tachon_t_Page_082.jp2
ebc5e91a62fe6e58b960a1ba3f577b5a
5cae66c2a00c4ad0660ab249546776b489fd5646
F20101202_AABFZT tachon_t_Page_171.tif
93802a5234b0b9c815a3f2c644b331db
f0189ea3d199c9bf10f2975eaa579b126040753b
2402 F20101202_AABFDA tachon_t_Page_074thm.jpg
22da840464d223275cb157b158af8dae
d55df25890a599255c2eef7bd0aa9a991a98d912
40693 F20101202_AABGGD tachon_t_Page_151.pro
9ae11607383d80aa15ca691ebd549a55
565a594d8640d116e5f80df49e5e47e8a3b18ba7
49181 F20101202_AABGFO tachon_t_Page_135.pro
9b07b8bedc005c2da19f05c877c4687d
74f28b9841aa33e0a47e0b58e6bba4b4e710c81c
15099 F20101202_AABFCM tachon_t_Page_128.pro
60b03741f29aa7c89c0459f9539fafd5
18e079eb1ad5967a228abe33177e4ce55cfb7dff
914428 F20101202_AABEXG tachon_t_Page_154.jp2
55f457b41c128d1679fcb8c800743144
62ea72456010e9cd698f5679a6311a8a7faafad1
F20101202_AABFBY tachon_t_Page_057.tif
77560d207465acd8f17b3d87cda4c995
b236c071ae7807d1094c1d0a2fcec2616dc8e76e
F20101202_AABFZU tachon_t_Page_172.tif
1cb2a3440fc53c479217e8cce0fe0a79
98ccb0812a15dfa012a488bcdf5f9b7036dc07e6
1051945 F20101202_AABFDB tachon_t_Page_029.jp2
1ba956bd6ea9675c03957625919379f4
a97ea00bd07fa17b081d8240cd3937b151197696
44006 F20101202_AABGGE tachon_t_Page_152.pro
26d7db027ba3f1f8a0b107b5a98de1c2
f52d6accaf3555423e9cf97c64ad1bf54af13263
F20101202_AABGFP tachon_t_Page_136.pro
1381360f2dc1e515a69730859b547579
ed574c8f07649f5073d99a0a4c352343916defce
24247 F20101202_AABFCN tachon_t_Page_037.QC.jpg
e4fab200eb9f5c10a20460c641229e47
d92e5f9efb582cffd00fd09dd9738562b1efa72a
88283 F20101202_AABEXH tachon_t_Page_114.pro
8aae46bb9f50a4417236b66da4432156
45624b75923de01a9fe0ad1519493039cffd613e
904760 F20101202_AABFBZ tachon_t_Page_186.jp2
33a5b53efcf5fc8bfe1d04a03bfa8754
e8b4bdaddac8691e8e50a820d1247832ea44098f
F20101202_AABEWT tachon_t_Page_132.tif
0e212c57aac4e7c3c11736c957e160cd
e99728b4d286733b9ce05523fa3378d6025bf6f0
F20101202_AABFZV tachon_t_Page_173.tif
64020fcd62db51b2f0c6f44a05b5ec5a
0671075d68f5cbe0962895ff01b99252880c882c
F20101202_AABFDC tachon_t_Page_200.tif
0266499b73f7a858f550183ce437fdf6
24aacb703222315b7d3d4f8fd14615e5afdcd18c
45920 F20101202_AABGGF tachon_t_Page_153.pro
1e879fd3e168366baa17c59647e5e06e
c2041c07c26b79fa5bbb900294f5b371b0eab476
49507 F20101202_AABGFQ tachon_t_Page_137.pro
7a04830b7fdf62687526207b7ed16d2e
bc902bc661aa0baa4646bcde8545868fd5044218
35740 F20101202_AABFCO tachon_t_Page_097.pro
03b8df1c27eac081a0cd9c8b92817c1b
1885534f401d5f6d108aeaed1da510f3b956c7fc
77106 F20101202_AABEXI tachon_t_Page_031.jpg
7bbadf036060211f51af845c13b5f0a4
64b5d07c6d14e96831c331e343ef276b208c278b
6613 F20101202_AABEWU tachon_t_Page_034thm.jpg
d2deb17e71c3878dde6231b992ded4fb
fbd2f410f1ea1acb8f3c5f7c71f73d139c66dc72
F20101202_AABFZW tachon_t_Page_174.tif
3916d421b5e50400baa7a3a238050520
0c3db09dfa21994d358199977c4f0e5e54510a83
5167 F20101202_AABFDD tachon_t_Page_119thm.jpg
7f53970e6b3d2700fa06518ef82aec3a
6e59a93947b5958fa36d63625eacacc4200875fb
49572 F20101202_AABGGG tachon_t_Page_154.pro
741b538156bd34a7ab096cc4a2247d5d
07c2bca6679bc5096bfb5db1bf5bd4c893213add
62220 F20101202_AABGFR tachon_t_Page_138.pro
f8c0eef2e3509a126ba79234083b243a
7e23cc57d337e8c87b3610c8e3c655a0f05a9d0a
F20101202_AABFCP tachon_t_Page_118.tif
b7a1deeae794cfdb16db201ff9c54900
f8ca39b0610ddc434ba88bbe54c5029f9dca71e1
20306 F20101202_AABEXJ tachon_t_Page_124.QC.jpg
113eee640b22c7c66f67d6bf12b8aa54
62a423123a57c55a5aa1165cbaf40d50e1392155
22373 F20101202_AABEWV tachon_t_Page_046.QC.jpg
48105046d7c848dc8aa51d32ed6a8110
59b37634a16ecaec3330d404c4e1f619aced06b0
F20101202_AABFZX tachon_t_Page_175.tif
27e542b23db08b7386e1b31c878f3dd8
48430ace80e8c12412596ccf24058a3442666fd9
23676 F20101202_AABFDE tachon_t_Page_072.pro
03ad450aba5d26fb8089de448faedeb9
ae13f875b4b69f6d3da507ca7817f123194657bf
47794 F20101202_AABGGH tachon_t_Page_155.pro
c19abc043c9028284ed2b5690efafc4f
e283e4b114cd3600cabeceec27008e4be4886c45
47478 F20101202_AABGFS tachon_t_Page_139.pro
c1237d08c1cf585de8f7682bc5a23c3e
e97aa1d25131542f9136904ed9b02a9c7aae6d0c
1022107 F20101202_AABFCQ tachon_t_Page_070.jp2
08828bb18aed8b690fa60ee5f384105a
d11753cf0c03f986252858b6ff58016205fb43cd
856243 F20101202_AABEXK tachon_t_Page_157.jp2
dd5c911b6c0f008810202355d4234820
afdbbac32bf17ac60b8f4214068b01b69825cc55
F20101202_AABEWW tachon_t_Page_177thm.jpg
f816578c05e5e477dc85873b9f1cd21f
faa2334c7af7dfd7a3b4e3901db23e42d86fb2df
F20101202_AABFZY tachon_t_Page_176.tif
c84c5c074f545e6bd480847a8c5aabff
11ab815220c9858da15fb39e7f47070933d079d2
16171 F20101202_AABFDF tachon_t_Page_012.QC.jpg
e468a81aab6cfe1cf6c491cc8a4b8630
0cd2f4cad89b0077121936808f43609ab0b0fe4c
47247 F20101202_AABGFT tachon_t_Page_140.pro
c019ffc131fe0ff79174dfd116f704f6
729bd7091e97c74924570b1020f2b4fa506674ad
63014 F20101202_AABFCR tachon_t_Page_114.jpg
5a62e2d2ba5dc7cf398a2985e901aa8d
7571a7ece013d0f0c359e1b8b0351f6690049081
43147 F20101202_AABEXL tachon_t_Page_030.pro
634d7de934dcb60632571a8557b4e42b
e6f574bbe12d430b1aefe765164b05f24d40e46b
31066 F20101202_AABEWX tachon_t_Page_115.jpg
614ded0a84753f74521ffa7f65ca8499
ecd82bbe6ed7e1253542ced59e7743b7bd982151
F20101202_AABFZZ tachon_t_Page_177.tif
f250f233f0d37e8e71c16d6847c2dd73
ccfffe7fcc20590cdb98aa9ba7777f1c02ac4d12
48386 F20101202_AABGGI tachon_t_Page_156.pro
f86a3cf9f18bd99e87f6ddd54d72f5ea
0ef6b6dcdc8ad83d6e76cf6881aa6f92136541bf
61867 F20101202_AABGFU tachon_t_Page_141.pro
5dae779836b09d92393163bf0510fe4e
7bbb0348bd7ff8ff842aa0de049a911c3c59c467
5487 F20101202_AABEYA tachon_t_Page_139thm.jpg
4880f5f9356657a879441c2b2f96ba99
e1dba3b3edb702180d795ab2048092ceb96ea448
23293 F20101202_AABFCS tachon_t_Page_040.QC.jpg
7d11901fa0398458dee35ef41f29fa64
2876c9b3f3828c16fa082a8c07818c4504623d07
75936 F20101202_AABEXM tachon_t_Page_101.jpg
bff2f07a433931ec06b504d3f832f9ec
e6c748dee3e58bf452d1ba934dac43a6987a8cfa
F20101202_AABEWY tachon_t_Page_120.tif
82c3387ac9f8d7adf023c42a358c4277
82fdb40365fa84efe25a420d1b3ccb916471c16c
32649 F20101202_AABFDG tachon_t_Page_096.pro
69cb030f9d0caf21c73e3f9af7d24636
5e85bb58715522262270e26fbed0b5b08a7a3e28
65243 F20101202_AABGGJ tachon_t_Page_158.pro
b20f8103c84c908a3566109c44e1fa93
d044267667b7dbfc91d68afdae90d2bddbbc4cea
64991 F20101202_AABGFV tachon_t_Page_142.pro
5a1ab933260172c4966a72f54bcdd315
79eabb03f8c8ab61fc8d08f23ce157398a664b4c
20159 F20101202_AABEYB tachon_t_Page_118.jp2
86007afd1ca532c1c336183c28b29b09
8779ef8c73419ea1261c054354a777dbd3464e26
963986 F20101202_AABFCT tachon_t.pdf
c2fd723773deaa76dc820b9863cf0ffa
c37a74161565cb84cfe38361af09174208ff2ed7
922508 F20101202_AABEXN tachon_t_Page_063.jp2
1a6932572b3f9ce43b2a413b9a535705
bf2360689332a66f6231c25b20006cf6eeed4796
18566 F20101202_AABEWZ tachon_t_Page_180.QC.jpg
18c24e6b833f282ab41fb321a2c7020c
8ed1dc394af6e234cb487922a4a8bc991da9d42d
50458 F20101202_AABFDH tachon_t_Page_057.pro
4ffa3f49943dec494ddd519aec25669b
daec8a870a7d7fed94f6a069d71d88180988eb1d
43521 F20101202_AABGGK tachon_t_Page_159.pro
27016b106f8c527513e5c59019076931
ec6e1f2afce47a53347be22a1de1e6634ba1bd03
60809 F20101202_AABGFW tachon_t_Page_143.pro
26493899621ec1e90ba8504f8206ba70
99c427b97fc5490029b8c0e3e67787907c568ea0
1051938 F20101202_AABEYC tachon_t_Page_071.jp2
fad154f6c8340fd25e7b3dfd49497d11
2536415cb1a9872ea486fabdbb72b8b61552a9e3
6059 F20101202_AABFCU tachon_t_Page_046thm.jpg
7c2abcef50c56e7560a9b035690f1096
11fc48d894f2ce8c7ca25ec868787982b856f0cc
906379 F20101202_AABEXO tachon_t_Page_146.jp2
d5debc6e19726b20b8a49118a56c0fcb
a931243e53d2076e1e5454731b3a12d97f8492b3
114652 F20101202_AABFDI tachon_t_Page_093.jp2
7cbcc5242520daa34836a5cd2f70db1b
0074fd7c36b055c468852cb24d39498ff20a3b99
37874 F20101202_AABGHA tachon_t_Page_176.pro
ac3734ff6662889d4065117bf1f4fe30
e087cb44f1230bde0fc359eeceb09708e529195b
40136 F20101202_AABGGL tachon_t_Page_160.pro
fe778919da460cb2493a068fe92cfba8
b8b03441811bae063d980dd6da9401eb7d9ddd0a
48943 F20101202_AABGFX tachon_t_Page_145.pro
3dca6fe7ccd397ea0857f2cae98c3d89
9f5165fb22818781a7d2cea4ec1c4c14b491d2a5
2238 F20101202_AABEYD tachon_t_Page_156.txt
cc5ab639ca8318b66c4041c4245b7d7e
6cd09f9bacbc91239218f7389ab301b0cf1d7380
F20101202_AABFCV tachon_t_Page_014.jp2
f06f447f17b8929858b01731feaeed79
7d37e06ee0217992d8e821040f4e744b40f0a0eb
932132 F20101202_AABEXP tachon_t_Page_170.jp2
9e6f3b539765faeed7dea420ee2abdb9
344577af322622d22e21596ce73607eec8300dcf
5331 F20101202_AABFDJ tachon_t_Page_165thm.jpg
3ac4cb8147ccbd9c3c9cd1d3ba18aec9
f994e62cbec80e2395e76f73edf0c48c0305a217
39036 F20101202_AABGHB tachon_t_Page_177.pro
77b31e717faab7bcae40f8e6d12e064b
8f3cb5e59ea766006c4605694d1a0740786d2824
49188 F20101202_AABGGM tachon_t_Page_161.pro
aa17bcea311db979baaf35292694811c
c508241c0583d24acc7e75650a80b5a3a75516c6
49517 F20101202_AABGFY tachon_t_Page_146.pro
8a2d96b811c41d54d477c83dcba633dc
39715fdf59284bb46c23789c51e7ffa1a8dd1624
23043 F20101202_AABEYE tachon_t_Page_041.QC.jpg
0fcec34c484f7a5855d9991fe46d6333
6c45f7ea9ff2fd03a15039a6fe30b7e9d6345a57
F20101202_AABFCW tachon_t_Page_030.tif
579ecdda797bd87594b447c98cd423c3
8f0bc7606b8c44acae3bafa5f9cdefcd79f276b8
F20101202_AABEXQ tachon_t_Page_017.jp2
4d7fb5fdc8b4209b1d82716cc84b30ff
c8ddad6539f014df32f31bb1bc7a9b96c3d1a759
948616 F20101202_AABFDK tachon_t_Page_064.jp2
a67dea3a5a1120e258fe02710a943df1
bb82d72fc3abe7173a16bcfdf5c6460d630befd1
37363 F20101202_AABGHC tachon_t_Page_178.pro
832f51e9ed99c204a2f78306266b3b37
3b534054e17cd9ff8d93d7ca20f6cc473a7ca982
49198 F20101202_AABGGN tachon_t_Page_162.pro
d3aab5d760f356fc427589d634d94f18
f4eeac1ad91d565d1f23c8eb2e11c462e3df9d4d
41692 F20101202_AABGFZ tachon_t_Page_147.pro
909003d18431f5e5c47dea04860521ae
13e86ec023e8435b2e5c009714a85a0d47a512e6
5991 F20101202_AABEYF tachon_t_Page_008thm.jpg
27441c3dff49bc427b2a59b3f2d6f593
2e7bbdd08c96c6c647a567d6a457a00b18327593
6509 F20101202_AABFCX tachon_t_Page_058thm.jpg
a78cc2df315152b2bbae4d264bcda151
68685e9db4e985640c6aa4692bbc539afed27d22
5800 F20101202_AABEXR tachon_t_Page_107thm.jpg
4d22eb174186978f952bba1b2ab3eb74
2176be2522908c80efe6e89c4576f578eb2d3928
2987 F20101202_AABFEA tachon_t_Page_164.txt
beeb586671c2d65352d5d79a28d6a7e2
b47006defe4f56b2a004bac03f7848becf9cc686
F20101202_AABFDL tachon_t_Page_091.tif
9a5aca557c1243c3d66f2b22291aebdb
ae2c0f2a92e46de5158668761c550b34fc285f3b
65113 F20101202_AABGHD tachon_t_Page_179.pro
877fdf2c5f17a70d9bcc401418f40c1c
aa0806c4d6bb84f8d22d3cc3e434cc57afcc0e6e
51879 F20101202_AABGGO tachon_t_Page_163.pro
64bb29812feb2c0417e715c97dd4ae71
1c390e0dba099b6c5188c9539866fd5054779c1d
2224 F20101202_AABEYG tachon_t_Page_153.txt
b82ffa40c060ec2b38820108aa3819de
bef46bb1672bffa3408b8ef197e9795dff23e11a
3290 F20101202_AABFCY tachon_t_Page_199.txt
216e319f01e6df2216ed784f71804b3c
2048ec6378f28e039f48331d2ab07693dcee42f4
F20101202_AABEXS tachon_t_Page_209.tif
14e33cd72e87ca2f53b34984510e2dd0
c7c6a9e89064564051087abcdbd16e9f3804b254
12176 F20101202_AABFEB tachon_t_Page_130.QC.jpg
87ed2b24f8b81207409adc246acba13c
db534270f872d857a5ad1183ff2030515ffed832
F20101202_AABFDM tachon_t_Page_041.tif
e517ab2a58ff8f63634db10d13009914
f263f1398fb7f4093dc88a885c6e9a9dbd9f7916
37897 F20101202_AABGHE tachon_t_Page_181.pro
0797cd2ba90030f5c872fe6d6d612387
db5ae99b957ad89520b602e578779b2edcca2245
60327 F20101202_AABGGP tachon_t_Page_164.pro
ddf3359743613d8243426ae87fada446
9209ac7fca1dbc92b030ed446acf092d70b8a1c0
7202 F20101202_AABEYH tachon_t_Page_207thm.jpg
d8a1785d957aef298cc68570737c24a6
eb3482dfbc399e12989c9c25ff0e27360adbaa11
63076 F20101202_AABFCZ tachon_t_Page_199.pro
0dd65f6361ed6c737b6be021e687860b
51346e64d516023d88645451e703fe4dabf3931a
1834 F20101202_AABEXT tachon_t_Page_130.txt
d29e69d33ee83a27f3161639d1e241f7
07c9a815bcd999ca4ea383c674ead37eec32753a
14864 F20101202_AABFEC tachon_t_Page_115.pro
eb2d46183c2cd3c1a8608097979c1fa5
14310c1944c182113b4d8807144bc6da550bb6c1
106551 F20101202_AABFDN tachon_t_Page_059.jp2
19058be5d93a56e32474fcd6cf92288c
d03584c53226c2ea08b32c42307d4367e3a843e5
43532 F20101202_AABGHF tachon_t_Page_182.pro
91717ea3941a9f6de53f33b615393191
4e25d435da5670432cdcc837797284fa6b5117d7
49438 F20101202_AABGGQ tachon_t_Page_165.pro
19741df44c24056cb9a18e182a4c8790
0805cc3e245d0badcd707d23959698c072b8204c
2185 F20101202_AABEYI tachon_t_Page_134.txt
2c62ab8881d1b5f62f55fc176f6d0d2b
915261dd0fd659330b5406b32e7a77f2a1497cb4
F20101202_AABEXU tachon_t_Page_193.tif
ba05fd256e72d389c041cb571093c3ba
953bc310a01cccd980c99dbd3329a9473bca3716
1792 F20101202_AABFED tachon_t_Page_092.txt
faad7c5012849326e02c12290d5c0ca2
50abf7e4579d5cbe8eab12abdb5b675bb19409a6
1051983 F20101202_AABFDO tachon_t_Page_116.jp2
7d6c4d16dfd26fb1581432fcbf76c1eb
ddfd0541a28a6ca3c4c0924f668cfd992bdf7238
58578 F20101202_AABGHG tachon_t_Page_183.pro
760cddeaf6520c1943f8906d6ae06909
52c27ad6a4c1afd0e76b4a7740b6cd6edff58d97
38362 F20101202_AABGGR tachon_t_Page_167.pro
b7f3244cb18f8a18247d062eccc9c52c
8d6777cdb0c6117c94e03889e0487d31b69685c4
69806 F20101202_AABEYJ tachon_t_Page_126.jpg
0b7e8e7af8f6359475420484f8619069
816d08168ac0f3980c3bea5437d65d904e889955
5116 F20101202_AABEXV tachon_t_Page_176thm.jpg
ef1b0a5f8a59cd7e9c98618e57bb885b
145eb91e1b9f2f48380a0cd30247f0b4ac350f15
2053 F20101202_AABFEE tachon_t_Page_011.txt
a89da2ea63034606ca1f1ff8790d4805
5129b7f8aa6c7e01c57ae3868e8f7094089204ed
195051 F20101202_AABFDP tachon_t_Page_004.jp2
24f71ae83e942e6e13395258ca0d0fb5
6ac2f3a1d94bdd688c9f934f8d852ecf213d5782
33538 F20101202_AABGHH tachon_t_Page_184.pro
be236447f872dce61975a4b91fdccf04
fe1095494653693853586ddf67e9120de33fd63c
41541 F20101202_AABGGS tachon_t_Page_168.pro
2a5dd513091ddfc7f2f86eccf0bc97c3
f447fd96efcfe58bf4b18a2a11f3df372dd14afe
14758 F20101202_AABEYK tachon_t_Page_077.QC.jpg
63e5c26df9cf27db8fda9dd5a2a2ce6a
e09f422e2df6cb831ea05115c83f2162098f254f
895817 F20101202_AABEXW tachon_t_Page_174.jp2
548e4d86185deb97b84bf02c87fd66da
ce4064ea00eb5d0d5783bb71cddd655749461fea
15197 F20101202_AABFEF tachon_t_Page_113.pro
959b97e458b59f5729493e616602422a
78f55a3d42cc5780ba1326bed548ffdce0ef5374
1048 F20101202_AABFDQ tachon_t_Page_117.txt
46d6f9552fbda4124d8f4ad372a4e294
5e63803209ca7009625731c5aa62e3892a9f65fb
55926 F20101202_AABGHI tachon_t_Page_185.pro
e1c1c1767fc37b2cac2b556aa3ea0416
5d7229251b650af75cf9dc1bb560291e6f3f38c8
51813 F20101202_AABGGT tachon_t_Page_169.pro
46b69495a0e8b66b55cd678023e0a853
13745aa4d73b9d081e3f887beaba642f547dbef8
2965 F20101202_AABEYL tachon_t_Page_205.txt
afef686207f436a1d4b120f971227f31
3f3e4511643dd809bcc771b15c25589abf6a27d5
55601 F20101202_AABEXX tachon_t_Page_035.pro
375ccd42a9d531c7d137f51c174e12be
26f6c4e78f9ea2c9de00805df9fb1f7aa0fca7d3
1922 F20101202_AABFEG tachon_t_Page_148.txt
8aa3af17aeb5e86c1fb60c381f31e440
bbf7dd2a4a1b04ca4cfec08a403c07461b750802
5196 F20101202_AABFDR tachon_t_Page_147thm.jpg
a4f4d2a284d10aee31c35faec962c8d5
2aac8b3c451033fd873bcd2e22217952bdfa73a7
55936 F20101202_AABGGU tachon_t_Page_170.pro
6a5be030d46a7a0f4953c0af49b06a81
04f4c95302598d01775f185035851a6c8de678fc
5470 F20101202_AABEXY tachon_t_Page_152thm.jpg
e7b15977a3ab4cfbf64bb0207332b6cc
917f4c3e855b0d4afcd672dbec99bcde4bd920e7
60448 F20101202_AABEZA tachon_t_Page_125.pro
fe9a474905010b64074d5951319693f4
0ec1d4e7415bc2df514e9287f1b9b6fd4cc12081
F20101202_AABFDS tachon_t_Page_163thm.jpg
1d881d7e8b56988f1403bf9ac7336a19
79002ea50d050253dd3652663a88515755ed64fb
5199 F20101202_AABEYM tachon_t_Page_143thm.jpg
d638ccf91deb8005c886c6e0702516b3
bfe2e225ec9819ba1b1f28bd01dbd2affc588c38
70487 F20101202_AABGHJ tachon_t_Page_186.pro
94629dd9a92b3107a2cb6f98ec360944
b9d06fec0e38fa6f0542b27f10e8c2fa85d35511
41263 F20101202_AABGGV tachon_t_Page_171.pro
01a9ac0cbc949fccf32089ffd8773d1f
d9ace089445c6b7e6c141d8c10f48a497de279e0
20300 F20101202_AABEXZ tachon_t_Page_144.QC.jpg
6ea87aa7ae59e442dbfa7531649c649e
3b5ba79d76de0ad995b03bae256b2e2445826325
20057 F20101202_AABFEH tachon_t_Page_122.jpg
c690ced6de340b2eb1483386abf7c6a9
fb10ca53dfaa9f7b2f767268e6743d0b1bd95aed
45447 F20101202_AABEZB tachon_t_Page_025.pro
3ddaaec0f3a1109dc1fd8f58999eac30
e932db4a84c10c508f7ff7a01f54bc9d741e6696
F20101202_AABFDT tachon_t_Page_153.tif
ab40ce84227fcf45c9cd89de74b143de
f5d465de1aa39a1652a3eb3b5924c4b55bc87617
1929 F20101202_AABEYN tachon_t_Page_171.txt
7efc3337d1ee7cf18fba6ee826aab848
03fd85ae5540431e59e29e2916a8dd425b53870c
45242 F20101202_AABGHK tachon_t_Page_187.pro
3ccad3b2e8a8db369406a7e450fa0549
1039cff33aa25b3ec0d303184f0e5d966a073c3d
37293 F20101202_AABGGW tachon_t_Page_172.pro
9659bf48af9f5da59c047de1be76f787
f0d08b535342d110bc0f9bdde3a8a7b5a6cf12e4
5696 F20101202_AABFEI tachon_t_Page_186thm.jpg
80d28c8233acb877867c7478d3faa749
2327f875dc05ddb2898f8da375956f395b703551
54747 F20101202_AABEZC tachon_t_Page_166.pro
484f173f1f7cb45f417b90ee8d12ee31
f436d4adbad65188cb54d5349181cad5962682e8
1051958 F20101202_AABFDU tachon_t_Page_057.jp2
da05d0c4277685364c4f5a27db3dbb9d
fd1b6d90c90f317e2066ed14e8c22ba09933ff45
F20101202_AABEYO tachon_t_Page_110.jp2
e4f691381207ac094a7602107a14e511
d6f23cf9ced7f5fb67c32541c1306ff839d6b061
62527 F20101202_AABGIA tachon_t_Page_205.pro
3c19e6a44eb1483999c5e8e925d1b8ec
a7faa61bb0317e41c15b4564d7119438f9931017
44257 F20101202_AABGHL tachon_t_Page_189.pro
7291f0eb72664f1fb30722e014352b12
1d7430718c45ca1d8a307a1b43b40012a2ed86a7
65572 F20101202_AABGGX tachon_t_Page_173.pro
200947d193fa37e745c5deaa9bc9273a
9b9aa2d09ea94c88aad9ce7eaacdc24923727325
F20101202_AABFEJ tachon_t_Page_137.jp2
854281fd41f312a68bc4814dc501d969
092484a36fbd7fa411d74da7a340b14fa6be669c
F20101202_AABEZD tachon_t_Page_099.tif
a0fef51e877a4de7b7b0c63df42606ba
bc12d95b9eb5201191d0c04018c4dcb602110a0d
22653 F20101202_AABFDV tachon_t_Page_036.QC.jpg
9aeb4e1fca7ce50d25f6eb17ce71ca6b
3ad7d36c62609b67615893c36f3525659045bded
21694 F20101202_AABEYP tachon_t_Page_028.QC.jpg
96d4bf05682bf99550f54fb676741e45
8b328bf55455ef939f06b0b043fa90f983e14715
60952 F20101202_AABGIB tachon_t_Page_206.pro
bc9691cb48c5053e1d6d1265147e05e3
5773d9bec63e60704836ac40182101b8d94445a4
68100 F20101202_AABGHM tachon_t_Page_190.pro
ddf86856ba066d1a57fec9ac4867fa86
cdb099d266e1909deaff9211b52ae1fa9b4fc558
68730 F20101202_AABGGY tachon_t_Page_174.pro
83e87e9bae38e086f41fd17ddaa7a8b8
7763696c2723d122c18e46a34d08fb42e3d152f4
6736 F20101202_AABFEK tachon_t_Page_048thm.jpg
0d710bf2e924f28e8e1166433364244a
b7d2973cd3ae6c0cc2270b453590bd9ff7b5b822
F20101202_AABEZE tachon_t_Page_131.tif
66df8f99f481391e3abe820d53d591eb
e067d416e260c50e2d9cf596a5c0e0cfe8e1ac01
5295 F20101202_AABFDW tachon_t_Page_189thm.jpg
00776ef0a40d63fb8895c1890c8415c8
d3f1f0475cb358966673da228c751ffb17b036c2
900548 F20101202_AABEYQ tachon_t_Page_172.jp2
0d5f9a0dd709f9fc6c56d8ab6f9282d1
356b5b9909b08a4a3ad7c2b7f8855d4ea7123ad3
58240 F20101202_AABGIC tachon_t_Page_207.pro
9e46c54069f7363573136ced8f292a98
5abe8c34c998ed64fa63b8ada70adbfe8f8003a0
34715 F20101202_AABGHN tachon_t_Page_191.pro
a7d4b97ebcbd8cfa3c81b6ef412b8f4f
ce7ec8481d6b0d814e74a70c54ec3564c49e476c
39061 F20101202_AABGGZ tachon_t_Page_175.pro
a4ec5fe5a2e1d93072287e0807445f5e
02e4298c4d26b1dd724d15fbafdeb8694c6c4ba8
9458 F20101202_AABFFA tachon_t_Page_113thm.jpg
0d433d78166941f85ab7f9d9989a57e3
0b4a869cc5fbd934c68ddd515ce039e2e907961d
3160 F20101202_AABFEL tachon_t_Page_081thm.jpg
7c74d266c77f7f34bc2ace39b3187084
9a765623eb1c0ea2445fcd6821d117eef414dab1
5518 F20101202_AABEZF tachon_t_Page_166thm.jpg
38cd959747fa61f16cc472aad6afa3de
e0cbd36ec23c4bfb5e5d782405ccc06521c65179
F20101202_AABFDX tachon_t_Page_158.tif
776a7b01c44fb93629552c1c27296448
012bb68a9988cb74472a9d0a69a5783cc0f19f44
F20101202_AABEYR tachon_t_Page_066.jp2
27bbc1d1a2fbe99a627c58ff23c08a69
56914139c81a70d6af03158f55eaf29899e8ec31
57842 F20101202_AABGID tachon_t_Page_208.pro
0e63ae1fa102924b609bcf267b9b5f95
772392e793f4d8f86d43babe12e0bbc7358ec9fe
33288 F20101202_AABGHO tachon_t_Page_192.pro
c04a78ced5c37b6454393d64490a18e8
ef5f3b25cbd3ed64f7b4da1e54e971b521ac4abf
F20101202_AABFFB tachon_t_Page_149.txt
15099afa1e88939c17da39884ecfad34
398a07643c011d3bf720cec8f74955b9aafabf37
11742 F20101202_AABFEM tachon_t_Page_128.QC.jpg
9e205e0fb8ac4fa8057d82b6994a2332
a31bd5659ea47117b851bc30d0a5cb09b877f939
F20101202_AABEZG tachon_t_Page_073.tif
d4097b48bd13edf917c06d906a3860e1
b7820c6970d0c10c9ba63d664cf34d5665857b9a
72031 F20101202_AABFDY tachon_t_Page_069.jpg
5d0e30ebbabb2569be02c3f1b629fcd7
feb8668ba5e45d251240e4b84fd0491889bdf264
1879 F20101202_AABEYS tachon_t_Page_160.txt
d5b9df112076e9a1884f88ac4feca562
ea347bd6fb185fbb4465b8e47ed6212f9386ee09
58129 F20101202_AABGIE tachon_t_Page_209.pro
14968bbf840aeb24f332b20027539ec9
e2d05dfe5f49ee5a0e3b4d13d31d07739c628aae
45071 F20101202_AABGHP tachon_t_Page_193.pro
4b9429e48b95b4a7b5ed5040bf3f63cf
8dcf8ca04f3cb808461280c5994339fde1d9920a
3736 F20101202_AABFFC tachon_t_Page_072thm.jpg
43b0dc42da63c95c890f3f2511f0eeb9
21af2454f713de89155a5235e2fa21d792f8e56b
6841 F20101202_AABFEN tachon_t_Page_056thm.jpg
918d84c60a22024ba531346171a85fc4
5afbb17d05c55f59c4498f9f5ef64df323770cc9
73381 F20101202_AABEZH tachon_t_Page_105.jpg
177d31acf718764ab058cad33d60493f
fb064bbab1b39f8f630acec2626647d8bebc1224
F20101202_AABFDZ tachon_t_Page_208.tif
2c9a7098fad0d0a089e9d337c22e011f
8d656b891fffcf16eb87dcf83e1cc8af44078f33
3295 F20101202_AABEYT tachon_t_Page_130thm.jpg
61373817ab1fb350fc3d6547f63d55eb
153423206bcf044feaafa73d6253670d392aea8f
57451 F20101202_AABGIF tachon_t_Page_210.pro
dd4762fff0f7d20422298250773d5f51
559b03c47c2726a5737ab8812839f34b6e05703b
66515 F20101202_AABGHQ tachon_t_Page_194.pro
21c90afdbfd39cfc83adcad26cd66196
e1b998e856d7205bc2bd706af3d516c756d389d5
24845 F20101202_AABFFD tachon_t_Page_029.QC.jpg
e562eb9c450ef5e51404d3f1a2b1d3ad
57e935b5ff412cbf9a6c16602a6e76e455649632
48447 F20101202_AABFEO tachon_t_Page_045.pro
106c5411c84810a56028abb817cfabc2
5ced00164450bd0275fe4599c3bdb7472c465af9
235142 F20101202_AABEZI tachon_t_Page_024.jp2
555bc1bceb9d87feac97abb128a035bf
02dce842a9f2a4a546c724c1ae18a855aeb72332
23508 F20101202_AABEYU tachon_t_Page_021.QC.jpg
f472dee73d530fc7152095c514cacd09
24deb99b55dcbd72dcd43717234acb3c2c51f3e7
47743 F20101202_AABGIG tachon_t_Page_211.pro
f659c51085f0cf5dd21362041dc21e78
2b3ef9261fe6c5867a7f2378ce468a57e109c1e8
46511 F20101202_AABGHR tachon_t_Page_195.pro
e037c9f57ed47c1848b0ba6955059298
4a8814eab4fbe717503cf927f487fc67cf81844b
5186 F20101202_AABFFE tachon_t_Page_149thm.jpg
5a92e6560cb8f7d976792a7c0448ce69
145ac4a9b20f8c3ab6f7c056156978c46af21e1e
3078 F20101202_AABFEP tachon_t_Page_133thm.jpg
e78a0ffb4248f45f97b2ec5ffcbdb679
8dd325215754feac53ac87af8657d3c784960878
F20101202_AABEZJ tachon_t_Page_040.tif
0c4994c36a023011f88668bba3707434
ac1152eeb88d69fe97be140e2bb27c004ba700f4
F20101202_AABEYV tachon_t_Page_213.tif
4b965f6cc5199778d1ae48ba42d239ac
5f0d58df87763cb5c985f30cfa18919f151fbc25
61509 F20101202_AABGIH tachon_t_Page_212.pro
0b2da3f247bff54cf3abbcd91a7da54b
d2211a0a6142f0d2f678a2d80a52d8ea0d1abf6f
40205 F20101202_AABGHS tachon_t_Page_196.pro
64f5eaca38aa3df338e84cef05799a2e
2ed88783b66a2e6a2784615617cc207afa5a3bd7
F20101202_AABFFF tachon_t_Page_202.tif
c32a0e1d344d98936a881b5f981446de
0891c624d5f35f45a380aed0313716e4e2e06e2e
3763 F20101202_AABFEQ tachon_t_Page_128thm.jpg
719698ede405aa030d8ad863c5915d7a
505b820be9f855b794d073999938ddf2bfc15693
6212 F20101202_AABEZK tachon_t_Page_055thm.jpg
ce6544b133fe6a4be027f40f5065908b
89e94b7a2db3e2c23aaea4843caeb2db6a9eeab5
1049072 F20101202_AABEYW tachon_t_Page_019.jp2
a125b49e8901fd51b5fa7300fb6db37a
8319b689e7f7008e98f7ed0785dd47d4d1c3ebbb
54635 F20101202_AABGII tachon_t_Page_213.pro
c2c35c71139eb0e38430fe2b23846377
e948eca8f313fec9a13869d425b1370b65505fb6
36760 F20101202_AABGHT tachon_t_Page_197.pro
3f9b613a215d9e0952fccabf888e0199
64f95b65e07afd8b676a096a5ebcbae9bfe6ae23
F20101202_AABFFG tachon_t_Page_205.jp2
9ec217f2be9d8e0238c468c1b8d23df3
91bf2890bdb92d0b078bf6eb40864219debf0e9c
2328 F20101202_AABFER tachon_t_Page_118thm.jpg
1d82a47efb5502c01db7a8991baa2154
3f33cbb24bd0a2c18240be6b323312a7a7767ae9
66494 F20101202_AABEZL tachon_t_Page_191.jpg
27219b976045a565aa9794f63c873deb
01fa6229ba7d6c60bc93c381ff9ae02d54d7b07c
F20101202_AABEYX tachon_t_Page_084.tif
ffdeba5355d354a479a380afa50f583f
b87ab8c63ea9eecf426d1e611d4d4f6fe014c2b2
63683 F20101202_AABGIJ tachon_t_Page_214.pro
290d18276561dd4319ad712dc5894dc6
c518ebcf55d5c9d6a29b7098153f1d5517f379f2
66187 F20101202_AABGHU tachon_t_Page_198.pro
93fde6512640503c892fc43f7ad07816
d18efca1ef8a355ed78cbe9fbccc8171294e1d65
97 F20101202_AABFFH tachon_t_Page_002.txt
f1bf51fb2babdc57a65ccf4ea3efe6f1
d95b5d6f5877bcd5df2b66f15a5442658fa19141
2540 F20101202_AABFES tachon_t_Page_122thm.jpg
e7f1399dc4211278d980fb6c38f47733
377cd19e6bf7693f157a880131fbb44e5adfbde9
7584 F20101202_AABEZM tachon_t_Page_208thm.jpg
9bd68a3369dde7c3c06f89bf4a2e8f6c
482a0b010feb19417d7519a97c656183eab3a952
863764 F20101202_AABEYY tachon_t_Page_143.jp2
5a9bffa2875fb4d255bc8c919096e0e7
378d96e3771221770aa95b784c4648e77375b76a
68403 F20101202_AABGHV tachon_t_Page_200.pro
10e213cb24ef503d10a9d4c83aad0b5b
d539efffadbfe3e1695c7013ac76762b37eaab28
59958 F20101202_AABFET tachon_t_Page_053.pro
4bbaabf0d434dc99a4aab64181459482
76b8d07a7e4996ba23c067114ea68059f0d826a3
F20101202_AABEZN tachon_t_Page_092.tif
7ae2d61e03458b0c086398eb8565b123
8c8d1790a42bf62d005bb52a8b7e57593137497e
6511 F20101202_AABEYZ tachon_t_Page_135thm.jpg
4532095625d5d33f3e1bb9e1aac2c782
c62a8de20ec58590c511f8f06534c241ff97d255
39983 F20101202_AABGIK tachon_t_Page_215.pro
7684c0fd29418909aa3b3030c48c6b2b
0df8e60314499d61049bd7f9ab154ae077a4a76c
55307 F20101202_AABGHW tachon_t_Page_201.pro
0373d8847a4331fc247516f5f4d32e06
2770451f619fee80f20b14f399bf14824cd23541
45513 F20101202_AABFFI tachon_t_Page_062.pro
784789e73fe10e583a48d576e2eddc26
f5bb557b463adfc7b1a0daef268790816bf9236c
78399 F20101202_AABFEU tachon_t_Page_013.jpg
bf6b765bbb6681bf63fa62fd7bcd81e0
73c40149848b37b43286d0270b92f76cefc579c5
688418 F20101202_AABEZO tachon_t_Page_096.jp2
5883cb4aad9a246a30fc211c202ea429
db479212982baf57029fe0848955c6804912f264
2144 F20101202_AABGJA tachon_t_Page_018.txt
2716f956b09a985b02e386221d955949
8c7dbb8579c20667e04c1d3655bc4b8722372668
24208 F20101202_AABGIL tachon_t_Page_216.pro
e965a1189ef859c5fdd6878a11910c8d
6fbc6be9caa2f86250b3de92f59eaf6cf7073482
70623 F20101202_AABGHX tachon_t_Page_202.pro
7fc1e6c59370c0c8678c8c83353f3cb1
42093d2a59d7c000e464c26a306e31b27c88a684
886309 F20101202_AABFEV tachon_t_Page_148.jp2
cc75960cdda92b814bc009c2f8d02938
20e3430fd8bd2d9d059b16e52dd4f75c84447d2b
19198 F20101202_AABEZP tachon_t_Page_151.QC.jpg
b38aa5a7938e7ae3c40e6e89debb7bc5
0272ff78e73ee5deeca7bf67fd619d1afd8be50f
F20101202_AABFFJ tachon_t_Page_028thm.jpg
fc35630ca8f6256b3b6598745aafc4b3
5fb34a9f3d5f464e544a30dae8b1625448f80f01
1974 F20101202_AABGJB tachon_t_Page_019.txt
404d904e78a47857121dc786a375a932
7f5e79ca741c3abe44ef2ea0b4f9619ffb543dc6
38788 F20101202_AABGIM tachon_t_Page_217.pro
598e5ee9e19083aabe4988ad9a54b5b2
814607a4110bc59a2fd43de400e77ca4869fc880
67400 F20101202_AABGHY tachon_t_Page_203.pro
c5ce77da88d95846287bff84647cea1f
2da49e9b62ac0e222322d2d0d7dbf1fa47cee8bb
F20101202_AABFEW tachon_t_Page_025.tif
fb861ef1b74d283f305575c8920d2ec7
ce8cd2db1483c66e9fa5c57ece3f935efb54b5ff
3503 F20101202_AABEZQ tachon_t_Page_174.txt
79472d1c2a087916ae5c0c57ef11069d
6decf5242b4687ac9c91407fa7589411aa128cbf
4836 F20101202_AABFFK tachon_t_Page_096thm.jpg
d0f17cae3898eb88ca97f94b137acc51
0b76ff9355a5598a8bacc1546bf208de5a11f322
2271 F20101202_AABGJC tachon_t_Page_020.txt
cf2750e1f6d6403674d08bba8f984a6d
14f31fe3930e49c7c245a70addd2c705f0cc5fc3
440 F20101202_AABGIN tachon_t_Page_001.txt
79181102a3d865c9936b380d9b8201d9
8644aefdea06506b51980650da6a5b2c81f0a097
56025 F20101202_AABGHZ tachon_t_Page_204.pro
7b22f9b7c9c0ca82cd9a2f14734585c3
9cbdf33dbbc2721b4577656642e558882493be4c
2199 F20101202_AABFEX tachon_t_Page_037.txt
0a64b06a22976c80737097314c3b017a
8c6ea2811ae29f9386042124c5346182aa4c3d74
982 F20101202_AABEZR tachon_t_Page_133.txt
d6c01fc0bd33abf9e816056af30ae8c7
5532d5ab534bad15b638ed69cbc172466e75c4a2
5113 F20101202_AABFGA tachon_t_Page_173thm.jpg
9084da9a15692537ed56213c2a32dea9
329edbaaec9c92f144a82bfa2bf9a02c507ef126
27039 F20101202_AABFFL tachon_t_Page_052.QC.jpg
9bb2623303a125f146c1a442fb6e12f6
2d64a5d87be34d673d8fed7a589790ecd521e1b9
1996 F20101202_AABGJD tachon_t_Page_021.txt
744fa12fda4f937adb416f6927e54b88
3e60cb49e26bc7a8efd91576e7368ddf4ef05cbd
4261 F20101202_AABGIO tachon_t_Page_005.txt
a91dd83604d4093dbc53847c1d9842ec
fa29915f22d9878b7dcea5303e6ad287d5c3cca3
19652 F20101202_AABFEY tachon_t_Page_119.QC.jpg
ef88c597e414033a18cac3f5d36cc281
3241cc91e696c5be656765f5351ee412fbd07c67
66618 F20101202_AABEZS tachon_t_Page_179.jpg
34a07e2ed2e7fdb1f8d00185cc1928c8
19e1836b61fdf908f970b256dbb471b600a24dc3
1971 F20101202_AABFGB tachon_t_Page_101.txt
c8b84f99c164ec4380c5f806781f04e2
6e18887797d6bb69a4cdec2668192d73894c2343
41826 F20101202_AABFFM tachon_t_Page_117.jpg
206ff9aa8cb0da238b5044fe855be9a0
ff20e17f631aed81bef159fe83bbbdaec0a67e7d
223 F20101202_AABGJE tachon_t_Page_022.txt
6aa50e22ef87235b1f7b1e92079d4326
72470281a04bfeb5b16e5553d61da6feb93c133d
4191 F20101202_AABGIP tachon_t_Page_006.txt
b1be278a097c15512eb5565908b1e5f1
fe37ba36a39eaf89d6e6638efd517eea5fe6705a
94827 F20101202_AABFEZ tachon_t_Page_006.jpg
e41e2ff128db68e70e8b6845ce617de9
5958554d2bfe272322b69e85f62247a65e3ba09f
25793 F20101202_AABEZT tachon_t_Page_110.QC.jpg
0871b1fcbef649ffe76d5032802a0a9a
5cf7f63f196f8dd357c4c1b34c090bf58e64d7ae
67790 F20101202_AABFGC tachon_t_Page_143.jpg
f92444a1a442f86825a66b0b4cc6bc00
75393bd222dfb38dd9f36765889c40a88595970b
F20101202_AABFFN tachon_t_Page_008.tif
96e6f1dd05ab944d44b6786792a421db
cca8b2563a359331e091c0712242c5035e2ce1bf
1750 F20101202_AABGJF tachon_t_Page_023.txt
850467e11c8a3579adbebc9fad54f72e
0ce545d35edab00e56a2719363dcbcd841d8a711
1440 F20101202_AABGIQ tachon_t_Page_007.txt
6d8a09c1c50f0c26d0f256030e3b27ea
bedcaf3e34c515aafdadde198bd4649a141bb982
104934 F20101202_AABEZU tachon_t_Page_005.pro
d787509172a60eb2d952e843ce3aa283
876d1562a3780d3cf4f57004b45177bd29006f54
249195 F20101202_AABFGD UFE0022421_00001.mets FULL
ed6002083f36ab5c626d43b1625363d7
df4126875765c0161b42b9e368675e5de2fefa54
F20101202_AABFFO tachon_t_Page_129.tif
a34c986c78ecc96207711afe69a48a08
9101f4aa34261390748b4ada30fb080514e0612e
363 F20101202_AABGJG tachon_t_Page_024.txt
1c7bf40fec2d285f9c01d47b1ea935b9
502a173c8128565e0ccddf49010fe86fdcdfc227
2694 F20101202_AABGIR tachon_t_Page_008.txt
acd549c062a7527005b4c11d49845597
8e0d3f18e90a839d4709b7eb7217f4789f4b342b
56700 F20101202_AABEZV tachon_t_Page_032.pro
0b0e33efbf98df0f91259241bf252e6e
c45d11b338efa8f3a38f1790479df3ab3878fcb9
23292 F20101202_AABFFP tachon_t_Page_019.QC.jpg
048889f5ebffbf73ce9af78739f9befd
433daf01c541fce11772f3e1b18ec8b472a78042
1917 F20101202_AABGJH tachon_t_Page_025.txt
92e8c18ca8d5d5fea69f4d13c10b1b91
9aed1d1e60d2f354a1a36fc85318efc7c23b14fa
318 F20101202_AABGIS tachon_t_Page_009.txt
ae19408c1d29e3dffd38586e1c629d8f
e8b772791db780280745e3afa83b2951100cc523
22688 F20101202_AABEZW tachon_t_Page_049.QC.jpg
442f3cea69051357a5a742d77d0de7d2
d86b54b9d49a666468904b4cd9c018aa028d39c9
66386 F20101202_AABFFQ tachon_t_Page_160.jpg
d507eb3103eee01ce9edef73e40e60d0
ecd792722a7d30073469dc902ec6180ab773b239
2208 F20101202_AABGJI tachon_t_Page_026.txt
c6f1b2a2648b16208d06f64405ddab59
d0b35175c680973091db64e8492bd54877241fbc
2067 F20101202_AABGIT tachon_t_Page_010.txt
0c7b8a2b1d9d44a5656648f0e64389f9
9075b0397e9278b7ef9e8e45365c58777b001b08
92749 F20101202_AABEZX tachon_t_Page_207.jpg
a86e7ed8a6e49ddf50a7856312aeeeb3
f46bd33123dcd612f481af66c468607c84f2b3eb
25679 F20101202_AABFGG tachon_t_Page_001.jpg
7edae11d9fffcd65e69cb175d5f12a11
973a9f2273a975684fb64673c662be88915cf2d0
48942 F20101202_AABFFR tachon_t_Page_017.pro
a78f0a00fae2821fded54efeb40d9019
2d036ea4a9577ceb83800c86c055e8ba4b0f25ca
2113 F20101202_AABGJJ tachon_t_Page_027.txt
c52d65ac24359e626adb69c08e4cc467
10c8133ed39a0883a931aa9bcf08010b6ab474a5
1143 F20101202_AABGIU tachon_t_Page_012.txt
0d0844cec43a54656afb9e4667c1ec79
4289c5a8f45cc340e1e0941e2eb821d3b8d756d9
25728 F20101202_AABEZY tachon_t_Page_003.QC.jpg
8cf4407c05965c1a12e35aa7b5680e57
2edb946ab1b9d2b8a781011a77ac45ad553fc430
10139 F20101202_AABFGH tachon_t_Page_002.jpg
360be49c95b2c9a27e7919b337adab61
3ce9358b014b123774f24af1aef9a561918285f4
67835 F20101202_AABFFS tachon_t_Page_175.jpg
390a4b893e2d16f04d70e4d769397aca
c65873fb210e4a4e4a8fb57e78719da5482884fa
1850 F20101202_AABGJK tachon_t_Page_028.txt
b03c448efdee91e21076f4ca2dcb98cb
77ce50568ac84f7f782b8a903dbeb30e5eee88ef
2142 F20101202_AABGIV tachon_t_Page_013.txt
5f0384f7cf42a1505743d8792204ee88
0c80a74720fa4bbfa6d135917c73a7d48022f8a3
1760 F20101202_AABEZZ tachon_t_Page_089.txt
7db22333b9c7c19a7fd4dacf96714387
9c651c519937e02dd21e7c267907df164f7507be
82966 F20101202_AABFGI tachon_t_Page_003.jpg
c21a627b9521be71912f4c5038445cbb
824a36dc958dfe61ecd466c0acbff130ab3be291
64166 F20101202_AABFFT tachon_t_Page_144.pro
ecd98fc515e739f0e25ee9aa7894dc1a
91abd51f4338780b5b2b2c21be313dfaca86ed80
2326 F20101202_AABGIW tachon_t_Page_014.txt
636731ff90ab68330ee4cbacc8bad419
618dd6c20ac312a1fdef9c98af4a8b1ebe502e67
F20101202_AABFFU tachon_t_Page_007.tif
91a7caa5adf6a25753ed88d472669ff5
6530e3a679b911df26c02faa022e653f083db963
2000 F20101202_AABGKA tachon_t_Page_046.txt
705b517ddd51ad21033b5d2829dd325f
f3a556311bd128377b90f75a10e89d97a64e942d
2021 F20101202_AABGJL tachon_t_Page_029.txt
e5fe02554f5903e80d0222b3ccf92e83
382aea97b279e7f09ff9a2121904ee119667c2a1
1948 F20101202_AABGIX tachon_t_Page_015.txt
ebdd36e0f70eb3cd44030273c36e77c9
1f4aa558c84c424e4d393defb5e8b66d69268f0a
20326 F20101202_AABFGJ tachon_t_Page_004.jpg
5aa9ceb0f091326d87829989e0bdbc1f
06067273dc36b5ceef43039d9bfbacdab2dc2555
6915 F20101202_AABFFV tachon_t_Page_210thm.jpg
ab417e4c37dbacc1a1e4b8a30cd0cf8f
9633f84738c5fda8ceae1441770dce6615ff83c4
2124 F20101202_AABGKB tachon_t_Page_047.txt
866370308c13aac427929bc7f81a51b6
226e95cc24172717c3896220ec6aa729ab50183a
1784 F20101202_AABGJM tachon_t_Page_030.txt
2be325121a9be2bdd9205ff5c98375fc
4470758187280241c507d719428302b862510eca
2237 F20101202_AABGIY tachon_t_Page_016.txt
56863cd0e4d9859e193b76cff10baa4f
7d62b0f708d5efa3743109d37ea3f3a670394a4d
82124 F20101202_AABFGK tachon_t_Page_005.jpg
bc924e463e547c41bd8cc2bcd49b5067
71460f3a65f49b9e9981304e2e471ba935c21c16
F20101202_AABFFW tachon_t_Page_160.tif
7d68646303e8ee25bdefab73d800c442
28b18361b379602fb85cdec6469c7f82c2595ea3
2107 F20101202_AABGKC tachon_t_Page_048.txt
e726704384f2dce9e83c93147e5d38c8
6c3fb4906c056e84555a25ec60680caa522482bb
2043 F20101202_AABGJN tachon_t_Page_031.txt
b6bb1b3f2fcfd928c8b06e1714bd77d0
d1bb4c55310fe48f637c4a19ccc3ed1543479023
1939 F20101202_AABGIZ tachon_t_Page_017.txt
a851c9b36ad8083b09fd210e92a832d1
940075b1efaaeb21d072e1ccb7702d51423728bd
81303 F20101202_AABFHA tachon_t_Page_026.jpg
7465bb65b798f9d75a3126a0280b2a9d
8a33481abfe9e0035806f592c2a527e56d08e275
48729 F20101202_AABFGL tachon_t_Page_007.jpg
497b50cd3364864c3b70837801dad086
029ab768da1d50b1e73b108fb9a7ecef11f174ff
889306 F20101202_AABFFX tachon_t_Page_169.jp2
f3d37944a2320e1d82986f1f3fd2a903
30f8b2f57b8c1ecccce8c392f6e799f833a79282
1873 F20101202_AABGKD tachon_t_Page_049.txt
62c08f95a833e7ec9fa28714eade910b
b6bdc11918a9353740e1da4f9b67c593b2ab22d2
2278 F20101202_AABGJO tachon_t_Page_032.txt
fff250f4bae3b576efb3061d9727b3a5
8c9441f958e889a65261a62b614e9faa7a272e9d
82319 F20101202_AABFHB tachon_t_Page_027.jpg
38fc4ea476a8fcc386ccfa5fceeec02f
82d1c590f5a2ceacb910a1de1de9d1c1c1fa04f6
80140 F20101202_AABFGM tachon_t_Page_008.jpg
371d87f15ab56217945dde36b66e6987
8ec985f77eb0ea77617e9a4066b2675978bb9a02
1945 F20101202_AABFFY tachon_t_Page_033.txt
078df0a77b3027f6585447a73d5e8241
a4cb732fd92c140efe6e1057aca8ca101f17c3eb
2096 F20101202_AABGKE tachon_t_Page_050.txt
c4d58d6b0b972804a43b935849568381
f3fb7bfef852fc63b561276d1f2e791788720c61
2059 F20101202_AABGJP tachon_t_Page_034.txt
9da56968524b3fe2d225c5e32db23352
fdcb769a67d27a3536b843dee0d985a7af9d4e06
72127 F20101202_AABFHC tachon_t_Page_028.jpg
150ea6ac3c634a2c12061e23401a8223
c5842be42929e76ece22046f404e321a17554916
65033 F20101202_AABFGN tachon_t_Page_010.jpg
88bea544ea8d0859db2882f635da2c17
006ea34f16e1921a58541263ce722510025e977d
920198 F20101202_AABFFZ tachon_t_Page_089.jp2
f36a5268476de8d198f1a63ff1936527
47e7782052d5fe23922fc6c9e29ef06f7276274e
2155 F20101202_AABGKF tachon_t_Page_051.txt
f62b38de8073a88fca753559f5816d36
40cc618d59438b3de001c8f327a696130d8a0074
2212 F20101202_AABGJQ tachon_t_Page_035.txt
b3d9a49960c9948b4d45ab02a3688e10
06ac2411cd787e5e8f7a99e6f02152e76a114334
78101 F20101202_AABFHD tachon_t_Page_029.jpg
0895e1cda6d180307bffc60258c1fd42
d6512e3cbb811dcdb68c441d9f197d5a09083dce
77391 F20101202_AABFGO tachon_t_Page_011.jpg
ca3d4aad0e37890584f8401e640266c3
1ebeb0a951fff28239e27f858ccee62d5db191bc
2685 F20101202_AABGKG tachon_t_Page_052.txt
3d67b8733d6ec545b15cc1f0e0a28173
970faaa43c1e33a9cadc1083ef661c3c34f83f90
2023 F20101202_AABGJR tachon_t_Page_036.txt
37beac67b790fe01b4e9d0a8eae85b6a
1152dd3edfc206a31f2bafa97e73f3a815ea8b7b
66956 F20101202_AABFHE tachon_t_Page_030.jpg
71745795c01ba5340012ada94135a0ae
64af3d8ef3ff5030e231c04a1b1377c1cd3de986
50362 F20101202_AABFGP tachon_t_Page_012.jpg
0927071466c06c448a80bd389b8a70c2
b577ff442055360862d362a26d0d2554932426f2
2492 F20101202_AABGKH tachon_t_Page_053.txt
69f4b4bb53992a5d147a64b738c97aba
25d76cbbcc34eb123369b58b65385929dff53f01
1883 F20101202_AABGJS tachon_t_Page_038.txt
439788c55b5b5c8733b4865acedfa2c4
a63cbc92cd6f9dbe60ff5dfeaef1542424b846da
84875 F20101202_AABFHF tachon_t_Page_032.jpg
93567074b7385478a63e1d0c4279fdc7
70728583934505bf8481234a51318a5f51f15ea8
84620 F20101202_AABFGQ tachon_t_Page_014.jpg
8ec03e343c5cdaa2e41d6d868a8bc2a0
c36d924a2c96d2c18ca9fdb052704f2f77c4b112
2376 F20101202_AABGKI tachon_t_Page_054.txt
8d3ad4f6e0f89c36c34c0eba00a28bb2
7a7b2b2a013da1637cf84cc9f4fa796488f1f16f
2148 F20101202_AABGJT tachon_t_Page_039.txt
e5ec73b4db332035be76177ddade79f1
f8cb935bff47cdd72efd2e4f4eeef22eb89d5d09
67545 F20101202_AABFHG tachon_t_Page_033.jpg
20d1f6b3cd8dcdf495f3b07b84b00bf9
581a4ee553335b619556553d23367128eb41bfd0
75279 F20101202_AABFGR tachon_t_Page_015.jpg
2e1d12c1456737a6c1d102bb799f5e0f
3c5086e197c0701dae7ea5c1554233a599dc5a8e
2538 F20101202_AABGKJ tachon_t_Page_055.txt
c712728949d30209bddf18dd4cfde4ae
25aed2d793a1a966527cc48f5a62366e7dad8d28
F20101202_AABGJU tachon_t_Page_040.txt
93221deebf2fac70482a9aac7c66ffe9
f9ab824df78c803c26b6bb41ad4cd485cf727544
71045 F20101202_AABFHH tachon_t_Page_034.jpg
01a5128a8820b1d33c530bd870000fb5
cc508c95112ba29af087c517b559a41f654d185f
76881 F20101202_AABFGS tachon_t_Page_017.jpg
f3a54751d1bb7c9642b6e175e8a9c5b0
d8d9fbbc5530ea02c0d42257a6bd74acdc6e6e27
2816 F20101202_AABGKK tachon_t_Page_056.txt
aaab7b3c9b57ecda4b5e535a47b22f28
786673d1e8cbc5b5ebe46efd4ba4514341f9975d
2072 F20101202_AABGJV tachon_t_Page_041.txt
c0b813b452f4d4ef089fefa68e3067b2
cf45ccad054f89d058c99e9abac4cd86b54029da
72949 F20101202_AABFHI tachon_t_Page_035.jpg
1e782eac77ebc3fd0e0957104803b4c8
aedae24677bd5f5917b2654ac857978fa6ad516d
78687 F20101202_AABFGT tachon_t_Page_018.jpg
402fd62a13a196f8a2c7b21e494d793b
f8e242a163639b667a4306a0419ef07e14529606
2012 F20101202_AABGKL tachon_t_Page_057.txt
7b666784bf0e987e86c71cdc653563bc
5d16904d8d65687f00c31c6784dfe013d59dcd5a
2183 F20101202_AABGJW tachon_t_Page_042.txt
2cf3466dc1d9b55b3dc2d90c2f225ea9
57fc2813bb736d3a99d18ffeaba27ce0714933b8
69204 F20101202_AABFHJ tachon_t_Page_036.jpg
1bf27c91c2311dd990dabdef0ccfcec3
5d411c949a1978bf424e6c976ff5649a7519bb91
74738 F20101202_AABFGU tachon_t_Page_019.jpg
b1b1913f9ce2323183dda320b405c3a6
fe5165b592ff5f493bce4fb9d18577f1b4d07b1a
720 F20101202_AABGLA tachon_t_Page_074.txt
a10455bff7295ce83735d828840a3879
46e579f9b985cc42f6d40218da25d5e53101cfc8
2076 F20101202_AABGJX tachon_t_Page_043.txt
6d2a5dc168d117a7b6b619309ad3fcf5
3608fe44e7a92584d5602be1961ff83a4452267b
83101 F20101202_AABFGV tachon_t_Page_020.jpg
c858346955c314e16b2cdd91e7d0fd85
8f66003fc9f0e4e1390863f75ecbe4ab35b5d490
1260 F20101202_AABGLB tachon_t_Page_075.txt
3c80ecbee92bba63b97ddb3156058300
94ae3031cc482b2319a16ab96c30866d52c22a6f
2147 F20101202_AABGKM tachon_t_Page_058.txt
5dd3d8c1ec1977dbe17de439392081b4
a766275c17931ca0750407702c44883228abf874
2047 F20101202_AABGJY tachon_t_Page_044.txt
808507d70235e3e15284dcc692b044ca
5893513a7a296c61fafd8642abc50189013cac90
74590 F20101202_AABFHK tachon_t_Page_037.jpg
823f4f4e012f9daa2c9ed4397ea48fa0
2b84578aa89456ae7e6f411b7321496e1533964d
76724 F20101202_AABFGW tachon_t_Page_021.jpg
e47daa5594e97027da34e90f2f697eff
64e822f8ca411fda9959769bcfa139c7f78bf726
2084 F20101202_AABGLC tachon_t_Page_076.txt
4c38ee3299c9c5a463200ef685d19e54
18850c3a0c2c212ba135899f3b489be39552cf81
2018 F20101202_AABGKN tachon_t_Page_059.txt
c2bf9d37d978b9f0c29eb7491348c2dc
e4943cc645dca319a4e5ee3b0aa0841b75c10327
1968 F20101202_AABGJZ tachon_t_Page_045.txt
c90136588d3076009a64154056a99ea1
1ed806f7f91a2e04fc8b5f3f249c329c43035401
65930 F20101202_AABFHL tachon_t_Page_038.jpg
4c2573b3ee944c1f3f3ccce7ca4e791d
4ece013c865f6cf9675ae79c5a5c1413cd506fbc
28062 F20101202_AABFGX tachon_t_Page_022.jpg
f3d81346fffa33f9e292572075bd7ffe
fd74637989f5f8984edc2018efa7e117ec769565
89161 F20101202_AABFIA tachon_t_Page_053.jpg
0d2a1870adf64f86a1f3de0b3ba9a7bf
35b466ab9d206964a16097c9fc2b76807f12995d
1633 F20101202_AABGLD tachon_t_Page_077.txt
353576f9e18a10950c4658477446ac0e
8693953496bbdf9d7e123efb1f92d37a134205a5
1901 F20101202_AABGKO tachon_t_Page_060.txt
75b9ad193cbd3f589ddcde7cfdfbb445
2346c5c8f145ce5b93a3d9bb8e190269fb71a5af
72087 F20101202_AABFHM tachon_t_Page_039.jpg
248303baa10e69382703e97d1d5bfecd
32d4f23774dd9957559ecc2efe860b3612ebae4f
20807 F20101202_AABFGY tachon_t_Page_024.jpg
3af6c866bea8d6cb393b4198da198d7a
3c373f0fdd16c1271b33b6a0760a007e80f22043
78268 F20101202_AABFIB tachon_t_Page_054.jpg
2bf37db8cda8339fe12c085682bc40cd
f9da68af4c99e9ea08eb79df246558ea9a62557a
4901 F20101202_AABGLE tachon_t_Page_078.txt
142297bc8db70fccfcc2223e698b3505
c1c0c637d019f2ef55239b7a3005296477a49f1c
1955 F20101202_AABGKP tachon_t_Page_061.txt
af64e7fefacc9dbbcf062f0bb288b244
25f7038016773a072fd7e064964e864502d6e792
74297 F20101202_AABFHN tachon_t_Page_040.jpg
84546092891cb7be1042ecbb94fcb160
a649848a4b4ab16e6dfe5f093e08d611951c458d
73405 F20101202_AABFGZ tachon_t_Page_025.jpg
fac85cce55c7ec9698d3abe325073342
edb9ae203d0220caef3ee4b9fe34476425462397
78404 F20101202_AABFIC tachon_t_Page_055.jpg
72ce4198da098a68c4bd9c30b5253049
20c9f8a05090e8981b1b41b87e24ad57bf89b115
4950 F20101202_AABGLF tachon_t_Page_079.txt
418e7d99a88d71465ed0a5bc43f6711c
f641a383c96447b1c135d1bab384c3838a45a4c7
1887 F20101202_AABGKQ tachon_t_Page_062.txt
513e2cf5dfcc01773406d0451d2b5f61
11cfa219a7637c8f7a506e037799e9fccd528ff4
71841 F20101202_AABFHO tachon_t_Page_041.jpg
e74ca6ea18ba9a979720b5e718807bcd
0e72d5803a0321ade4655f8f0802df6ee0c69b49
100213 F20101202_AABFID tachon_t_Page_056.jpg
f2bcca3ee967897460211425721015c5
ee4df54d4704147962279ebf337642090b767895
2105 F20101202_AABGLG tachon_t_Page_080.txt
030e292e66bfef21ccb8734cfb3b8238
27bf545a766b0414b2a0300692faeeb06185fd54
1821 F20101202_AABGKR tachon_t_Page_063.txt
f4cc2a78852b21f168280020a87ef8f7
2372fd4806490c8af9110798a2d9868480a28b32
71795 F20101202_AABFHP tachon_t_Page_042.jpg
96f4793a3a49e447289c0166601a6908
a32e6ef294d2dbb9f7894a5a70d68f3d4674c815
78750 F20101202_AABFIE tachon_t_Page_057.jpg
64491928d38d401bc1ea0ab24430d058
20d623375322f34c29d63f0ea84700f641046c70
438 F20101202_AABGLH tachon_t_Page_081.txt
753f62ac536f93665f3beef3c82dd628
3fdd7ef38feececce57fc87e73cf925d2ca0da63
1775 F20101202_AABGKS tachon_t_Page_064.txt
2083f2bde281cddb997cc11b4801ad99
29edab73da1a63ba67eb12e71bdf02546a87b1ca
73186 F20101202_AABFHQ tachon_t_Page_043.jpg
702a4843c1a00167e1a74e74760160dc
12684aa84b25f4adf4d95dff771fb72412427551
73252 F20101202_AABFIF tachon_t_Page_058.jpg
ef4a98f049402ef993cccad11884f19e
fc026a13cf20fe5e08fa75ed1443156ead3a7df9
2205 F20101202_AABGLI tachon_t_Page_082.txt
88a73a3ed3e087ddea82086acbada540
f5b2a9652a33d8c8514eecd20a6d7da803c3086c
1626 F20101202_AABGKT tachon_t_Page_065.txt
35d8c421e7d9f80422b697db34d9ad7e
a0c9d7350e51f0281c0f20c4acdbd10cf9ee5bd1
68277 F20101202_AABFHR tachon_t_Page_044.jpg
87523c224439f9b7025f7e81e877d596
898c9f34d4019959f93941b7e6b49c807ae72707
69759 F20101202_AABFIG tachon_t_Page_059.jpg
1cc59493a09520596c2e3ee22e2b1bb2
296e0d00329053b6d4023243bc3fa46ff31fc9e4
2284 F20101202_AABGLJ tachon_t_Page_083.txt
c677977dd84501676dfcea40fce6c945
bf6bd72dcb50c582bddc570d8eab0cc650f8bb53
1958 F20101202_AABGKU tachon_t_Page_066.txt
9e01b42e9d3bcd445a271c68473298cf
ba613318afa186eb9650562e61daf9a2051ac0de
65936 F20101202_AABFHS tachon_t_Page_045.jpg
247b02d57db4c09061ab4fa73c72ebff
4853dfa2913bc8b020ef038e01319edfab52a84b
71459 F20101202_AABFIH tachon_t_Page_060.jpg
1d309048fac556d96e926a66df4276f4
9c1637e265e8c8635d1fbf4adbe7c8058a6b9efc
2673 F20101202_AABGLK tachon_t_Page_084.txt
eb5e07f5c9f8bfc5cae731d4104db6f3
432bcf2beddfee0fe33d05d55c90344cd237d27c
1983 F20101202_AABGKV tachon_t_Page_067.txt
ef90c05aba83f85ac2a3a0e95fd8b12f
db32cef53640b96852c104c772b0b32cda6cbb7c
67910 F20101202_AABFHT tachon_t_Page_046.jpg
4596532e8d7634f561289e1a90d4d6d6
bb40ef2f3592043d4ec7754eddfe5d4aafab7a2e
72487 F20101202_AABFII tachon_t_Page_061.jpg
a67d5e7dcbeb9fe008b2781098ff44bd
bf3e991de92082c4fc3d4eafda35739c66a2e407
2551 F20101202_AABGLL tachon_t_Page_085.txt
b88a51ed2cb363a21a18337a6a34538e
dab15dd793f5fc06f7d3ec616c886d5a8ee7da82
1808 F20101202_AABGKW tachon_t_Page_068.txt
2696394baae57b08926366e1364c6050
91456cd0be5a3be087f842b1efa979808105c980
79914 F20101202_AABFHU tachon_t_Page_047.jpg
af1ed7afe31d5a6c27713665031ac6a8
d245b5412481088c80a201aabb7ce0a64e39f4a0
69090 F20101202_AABFIJ tachon_t_Page_062.jpg
b94aa831fada6231dc4e51d838db5a28
8de9e348ba154984f618fef318fd70c819b3ce29
F20101202_AABGMA tachon_t_Page_106.txt
a7728d070ca08da64d054b9f62f48c21
cd49c1188ff19411eeea9b6f1c6d8dd4b6e8d69e
1962 F20101202_AABGLM tachon_t_Page_086.txt
4ebe198db88ffdd595daba3a05754c5a
a4a9fb23943c7dd50cb1c42ed4ca43e6881b34ce
F20101202_AABGKX tachon_t_Page_070.txt
7b194edcfd2583c2d30be516468204b8
2781369774288e7e96e5c89c0c88b89645a37657
77781 F20101202_AABFHV tachon_t_Page_048.jpg
2d482b0988e46c1684ea35db759556a0
0f032117dfeb925e79151eb61fb67d4e9e67d496
66013 F20101202_AABFIK tachon_t_Page_063.jpg
7a456d1e6f51fecfd08d9d9630e13085
fcaf58b9d966bd4e7174aac184cd2310599f098e
1547 F20101202_AABGMB tachon_t_Page_107.txt
52e53464718ab34200e339628d93e238
a849cb579c06255d90e148641ecaf5ad32a76ca3
944 F20101202_AABGKY tachon_t_Page_072.txt
a6b9a6d34c44ae545eece7607942dda5
e488287dcb87713ff0e768eaa3435b51e3e20a1f
66613 F20101202_AABFHW tachon_t_Page_049.jpg
61acf77ba6f4167b651f1358b5081756
4d4ea32983fcaac75257fd218c88750ba95a51c4
1886 F20101202_AABGMC tachon_t_Page_108.txt
dc087ccdf3d6bdc3ef5e1ea92225639e
da72a7514084ca51a19608101e3dc22167d03929
F20101202_AABGLN tachon_t_Page_087.txt
e7bebcc8e92c7aa98c3efd02b5ee157e
494685a2e7449913ae362b46bc3dda83548ca879
3872 F20101202_AABGKZ tachon_t_Page_073.txt
dd857b562919f511b6f01882bbe4ba1f
863701941da563afe5b1ad23ac1edb1262892608
75769 F20101202_AABFHX tachon_t_Page_050.jpg
608db3760508ff93c2313fc4b8293d29
884c568904951733a802d1038204b89bdb6409b1
45792 F20101202_AABFJA tachon_t_Page_080.jpg
08899ebc81914fb05ecc7536f2b27103
bc24030a8ee196fd650badfb0ff0b50f0b4d3ce7
69467 F20101202_AABFIL tachon_t_Page_064.jpg
ecb662be678df5fc0003ab886a37c3fc
a50e2e7a86989d7df739da1e77b13e8ea82c37fc
2044 F20101202_AABGMD tachon_t_Page_109.txt
211508f27034c014a873114adccb17d8
f326a839f26f36b25daf926170bfef55ab69755d
1731 F20101202_AABGLO tachon_t_Page_088.txt
f93302b7313183f7525017daa0370f4a
10226d4ed3296f408ebdb30d40ea8b65e4b771db
71474 F20101202_AABFHY tachon_t_Page_051.jpg
b57dec45b5cbef606a4bb4374024e0c5
dee1c5ca0c187d6c5209054d2fda38ca03d1042c
31626 F20101202_AABFJB tachon_t_Page_081.jpg
ffacc91e29b9dac39e0baf3a216694d3
4bb77863525f26eecf235841c24d225746ab47e6
60265 F20101202_AABFIM tachon_t_Page_065.jpg
f8052dea98e2d71ed3a641197932e452
584968d6af83ceaad47140eff8d826897d6167c3
2190 F20101202_AABGME tachon_t_Page_110.txt
481fb81191f71289c9b8a706e6327fa1
6d1d7f7ff0a3785c31523642103314c60d9cd506
1898 F20101202_AABGLP tachon_t_Page_090.txt
4899341f61a20fd79449eda11d92fe90
ec4ac69276f93dd821b4228ed96ea17824fac6ef
100830 F20101202_AABFHZ tachon_t_Page_052.jpg
01bec46a56ac18a2d97aaa904e010a72
f94c0adb1743ce7173980eef4914ffc07f85a216
22590 F20101202_AABFJC tachon_t_Page_082.jpg
af3961b2ce3dd49fa971b1371a8aad5a
61b2a5a9051e87af1daf9e938b9577a7e8fae2d2
78423 F20101202_AABFIN tachon_t_Page_066.jpg
f8a5a2b1dcc2b153255a69de12dfcfc6
3c99b5d955f0739c73c09ec36bbcf0a65d8e8134
371 F20101202_AABGMF tachon_t_Page_111.txt
5211c4936ab596f0e5f04f29c8f5424f
ec0ab170aa4d0eb7bf936072c1b300da10340562
F20101202_AABGLQ tachon_t_Page_093.txt
20d2a985ac2c1119f812c78595613797
99e779b226d65595af2c75331d49f25e16a8831f
70174 F20101202_AABFJD tachon_t_Page_083.jpg
7e747961f21612337be249ae3ff6e6f0
6575e6c097f11db2ed24518504f76e5ce5de76ae
78196 F20101202_AABFIO tachon_t_Page_067.jpg
4df10439e4489875015e5732d2d3471c
511311d780e076fc19ed4a3ed6477a06091c24ce
290 F20101202_AABGMG tachon_t_Page_112.txt
bea187efa8ca26c135d09b06acd0174d
5d25f33e0ba6c3fe1c44021956d0611e9f2001b8
1682 F20101202_AABGLR tachon_t_Page_095.txt
dd25d5cd4ecbb427f669325ef243ad38
7b823a446e50a7efcbebfe50f9d47121e8b3a5f4
85617 F20101202_AABFJE tachon_t_Page_084.jpg
96b533a626b1d73e7ae647f6752f93d0
925ec505b63b8a37b94084f5b3ab67c5e40ed8f4
72103 F20101202_AABFIP tachon_t_Page_068.jpg
4ca90470940e7124adda5f5224a78e56
cf7d9cccf8147f11b6d193951205b5759a1f8789
F20101202_AABGMH tachon_t_Page_113.txt
f1966b30900ee9c64a1c0359b027c198
ff02de70a43f8b5c8fa3282be4f5963e8e8c5b87
1460 F20101202_AABGLS tachon_t_Page_096.txt
776af09b71bac0c7e4b34cd0bd4fa22c
d01ad7efce7c865dc99fbe0f486ce193fa2652a1
85340 F20101202_AABFJF tachon_t_Page_085.jpg
9dd80834c4d48466e0c118051a46b78b
0e6a4a84753dfdbbd2952d0cab85cf9d43c07dd2
72671 F20101202_AABFIQ tachon_t_Page_070.jpg
2a1ead08e6e1ce23a3f8ce22c5f0870a
9c3e9a5faac19d28d9d1f704f9f81aab5f5730f8
6402 F20101202_AABGMI tachon_t_Page_114.txt
62793ca72c008246aaabf9f64d204924
8e66f853df5be8c01328a6f693b89557c4fe5949
1570 F20101202_AABGLT tachon_t_Page_097.txt
5865ea72a297f29d91be11d5017b6f73
e0642c643813993a1e2e61a864caedc930161f3e
70560 F20101202_AABFJG tachon_t_Page_086.jpg
d3204f2c9755d4090888d5ddf3b8b8c4
bddef28f374933bff75bbd3f1a49412ab7e9d71e
86017 F20101202_AABFIR tachon_t_Page_071.jpg
9cb19457a49ea1cadd083a71691ce030
0100c1b02fe7cff8a145475af159a55329150376
948 F20101202_AABGMJ tachon_t_Page_115.txt
ee8d2f0dbbb95fbf5c90a88fd24a33aa
198f3359b5fb5a4ee1edad7fd50cffb8c4939ad3
507 F20101202_AABGLU tachon_t_Page_098.txt
430b0dd2ef20ba511da74b9d71e328a4
0961fa57b048661503eb3728e6e0f491cffc5e61
68674 F20101202_AABFJH tachon_t_Page_087.jpg
52e2eb94961186ffa56fc8b5bbfd513b
e674e946d5bba34c99ea1a3658798ea893409304
41099 F20101202_AABFIS tachon_t_Page_072.jpg
c8087b4c3c8fac52c74cab9065bfdbbe
355b5afa5001cdee5737518b29050738a9bce2a9
7082 F20101202_AABGMK tachon_t_Page_116.txt
2d5cacd55bbd51ddc493ab121aa6ce26
281c8360d31e7e7d99cdf2cdfa577473c808cd45
F20101202_AABGLV tachon_t_Page_099.txt
226bd2fc5849234dca02743c3954f85c
b591596aeef10f30a991cbbb65b513b598fbdc20
62564 F20101202_AABFJI tachon_t_Page_088.jpg
f4c720c9cfda0f6f92db75ba965ec2f7
231d90d2b75adbec45e32eb9f450b930406513f3
57466 F20101202_AABFIT tachon_t_Page_073.jpg
66fe6ffb7a0621104e947468b941234d
d16156cbf45fa5b342fed8ff7eef7c1cbac0426d
484 F20101202_AABGML tachon_t_Page_118.txt
d07c71a884010e6f9ee348f498be8185
e6b719bec5a22b0cfff95b8d73fbedce8570a66b
2001 F20101202_AABGLW tachon_t_Page_100.txt
fa991ef732bcbd9aec85aafac139a9e5
18a290fddd9475afbbf394c39da644f4480a32a8
68325 F20101202_AABFJJ tachon_t_Page_089.jpg
19de1c21cf9b6f3f3a662aff44c0b946
809f4d266305c17850f406e1438dee12ef3fc51e
23626 F20101202_AABFIU tachon_t_Page_074.jpg
c23522d8598b8871b3fa3d97a412dfaa
05d465b67bb9e541d4be0890d46cb91a5ed671ec
2472 F20101202_AABGNA tachon_t_Page_138.txt
d4f71a1d6a904a4d7bbe4dfb5166eaf6
f8bec02329cbe8e7beb3a329219dc56d0a2eb2a8
2672 F20101202_AABGMM tachon_t_Page_119.txt
3e5785b7479403af329c47d0c839661e
38ca018272350fb2370b9ac90eef89b40f94cb35
1969 F20101202_AABGLX tachon_t_Page_102.txt
b33b24d8e8dca873d509dd721abf1a6a
2e86a6392aa982c0e7dbf2c0eb137493fbc79ed4
68631 F20101202_AABFJK tachon_t_Page_090.jpg
0b591af5a3c24c28c7961cb955b1a16c
1435426488de1c5b793f40b9dbb9f15519a4e844
48033 F20101202_AABFIV tachon_t_Page_075.jpg
b2f7a71845a886a5ec3a1a2565c94d18
35951e58f737bb32655a3f4e61f4c488d9f29b48
2261 F20101202_AABGNB tachon_t_Page_139.txt
083cbead9b0e28164d379b55e23dbdf9
4e1121cacffca127cdbe848992c5064debc23823
2247 F20101202_AABGMN tachon_t_Page_120.txt
e87b844e151e8f54c2c3c57bfd5227e9
5c430905b24f2a4e0fd8b4440172713bb7f695d7
1730 F20101202_AABGLY tachon_t_Page_104.txt
a916cff78c412fa0d774c2c84faede1c
6fbfd5485ca61b91556d79f3a5638f98a70b0563
64466 F20101202_AABFJL tachon_t_Page_091.jpg
def7dcb8cba24cdd9d76085b035365ed
be8ccac7224ad79bdf5cba1f20855aff70d11874
59070 F20101202_AABFIW tachon_t_Page_076.jpg
6346cc73356a09ce6fb504d5e0831a2d
83e3cd0eb12a933164272cab81c9198e94d390bf
2188 F20101202_AABGNC tachon_t_Page_140.txt
3c3850e55a7cc09afbcd5f89d5048322
757084cf9af08fb1c2a1d8db8a73efdd19cf8008
2141 F20101202_AABGLZ tachon_t_Page_105.txt
e74e1b08c6223aaff675dfecd572ad0c
f5518aaf659d32f116f5f3274ed726c7b0934c41
73129 F20101202_AABFKA tachon_t_Page_109.jpg
87561ad5960b0ae12ed57d9c917fd946
2b3615086ee3029595c57dca7aa7302b2c92d1be
51921 F20101202_AABFIX tachon_t_Page_077.jpg
3f18482cdee972463b83081376a00c80
e0965b9be0a5b1898d5b64862a3d6ec7cb673d65
3322 F20101202_AABGND tachon_t_Page_141.txt
faa2ae9990fd8b9e89425f92f5df00a8
1911d686164d4a304d4af4f39c856586b95d37c7
631 F20101202_AABGMO tachon_t_Page_121.txt
efd650d836d0e59d020708ee84478678
f3fe81e22175c46f3e763b4a840753c62ec2feb8
82361 F20101202_AABFKB tachon_t_Page_110.jpg
0a960c638fa3dc79045d77779e9ece3f
ab5c16fd9ad535d2d0d5b5acfe7f009bcbf1bc98
63752 F20101202_AABFJM tachon_t_Page_092.jpg
db23c0ae6be2690a3680e7309365cd11
b6089ddb656679ed4cb438e52cf1261b7668fd1a
66957 F20101202_AABFIY tachon_t_Page_078.jpg
74124b0b60d3954ae8eee8bd78d49ea1
d1e583626d134656a74be8c1b64896d282b2951d
3268 F20101202_AABGNE tachon_t_Page_142.txt
9063653985c316ed04cec78689de451d
a3e515accfdf1f70461005790e41b3ea7ceb04a8
9041 F20101202_AABGMP tachon_t_Page_124.txt
e853d2eba5e2a5b7293679e09e518326
115d005064297b950e1c1d507bd2a18e04adc8b2
21433 F20101202_AABFKC tachon_t_Page_111.jpg
7820cc7a1583e07cc559933814e6f7f9
e9cc0db0db8a53c0364ade4702dcdbf7acbf2faf
75025 F20101202_AABFJN tachon_t_Page_093.jpg
7d41508c46b1f4a1f46897cf31847c73
9235c5e58e0393382414a4eb71a75578305866b4
67083 F20101202_AABFIZ tachon_t_Page_079.jpg
daf603f9d4301aa1567ebb5a26a4a22e
f117193976658cf9e1525a503892fac81a2475eb
3254 F20101202_AABGNF tachon_t_Page_143.txt
0976dae0d70db3a35e95d6f5b5e1d176
7dda340928abb9edf2cf10bc6994ff7c908f326e
2797 F20101202_AABGMQ tachon_t_Page_125.txt
a34d0f1e9c4c5db8fbbaac93215e28db
3fd1dd554b537723171329069210c171399c08bc
17096 F20101202_AABFKD tachon_t_Page_112.jpg
334739e8ce6faf64f0fc16f544c72a8b
62e6bb5d77f6c677a035885c1499a9c2b25ca4db
60854 F20101202_AABFJO tachon_t_Page_094.jpg
06a7c52275b490c258a0f343399be613
8d19539d61fc6306a2512c56a2c2b7517199720b
3211 F20101202_AABGNG tachon_t_Page_144.txt
bb90c0e10c15b8df6c718bb3ea83d31d
edb0d5884d2cc380813edad163165eda8852300f
3492 F20101202_AABGMR tachon_t_Page_126.txt
e8ee82bbbf93208ecbed4537de2a64e5
90d40797011e8af30e4feb7f17f434348a0c56d5
76148 F20101202_AABFKE tachon_t_Page_116.jpg
8b6466aec07641d0d2f1b15831a25254
1b06efe3f46795a04417963b4e5397193b28c900
50709 F20101202_AABFJP tachon_t_Page_095.jpg
c7854bf2bfc2690252b52dec079b744f
a2098cd3a6bac777601116dc23048ac1cd8ef2da
2377 F20101202_AABGNH tachon_t_Page_145.txt
2b8ea19b77df863f98dcfbcf9fc219e1
580a6e7e309b56c7b0ca6eee2ddaa389ae70d020
524 F20101202_AABGMS tachon_t_Page_127.txt
005fd046e7ffd365499fdade882269c8
2919a7151406c8a5ea689e2dea6076947489dbfe
19315 F20101202_AABFKF tachon_t_Page_118.jpg
3b90091b93dd9ecfa023254fe81c4497
f5b813412c84ad356e1467eb4bb8006bb4f006f7
52611 F20101202_AABFJQ tachon_t_Page_096.jpg
93299208c37b5c39d4397dd655d41cfc
940e73956787a42ed335d5e329d521613ba70ece
2294 F20101202_AABGNI tachon_t_Page_146.txt
d1f90a1b14de91942b4d5db5040e355d
f737a2bdd02cab2ddbaa8319163ff068200a30de
1074 F20101202_AABGMT tachon_t_Page_128.txt
4314a61463674e65dff038066894b8ec
b12fce6f81f1887fee9b2cac0f116ee7ab19354b
63768 F20101202_AABFKG tachon_t_Page_119.jpg
eda3ad13da4cba7a9b08de48d604de50
3045be78b0a34de8701c546f3522527f87efaa89
57224 F20101202_AABFJR tachon_t_Page_097.jpg
37c6861698253098f19ee596691340eb
b9a1f2652994cec73d55ac4666a91cedf6ff5e84
1949 F20101202_AABGNJ tachon_t_Page_147.txt
fbaba3c443b5f2f662c3414fe1f5d77f
6d892e925f3e4f9f0ae8ccd216af6c411d51ad4f
1589 F20101202_AABGMU tachon_t_Page_129.txt
6367cafa1bf7e09728c007999d6c3acc
0e6056a48dd8a26e932291d7dd4758277da0346c
23567 F20101202_AABFJS tachon_t_Page_098.jpg
9944cd8d30438c52663ef5ed7d2abbba
4cc16f1cef1a1c8f86e53fe97a378fe4e27885f0
54026 F20101202_AABFKH tachon_t_Page_120.jpg
16bd01bf249c00cec1b2fbd11850448d
d4c3594c9b3c4e9819bdb2894d46e33d822f791c
2518 F20101202_AABGNK tachon_t_Page_150.txt
2d6f5c7a7efa6c2e878c2a18efa3375e
d52376dfd70e1f60fb1402af5c91d1a76c849ce4
2039 F20101202_AABGMV tachon_t_Page_131.txt
59525c11fda30a4394b41d71c514b856
4e35e803d46734cd36377fabc4672523aac2e0bb
51837 F20101202_AABFJT tachon_t_Page_099.jpg
ad92b818bb641be6cef26c9689f8a672
d35dd066b6cf7fcf94bfbbaa8ebba715f13b027f
31188 F20101202_AABFKI tachon_t_Page_121.jpg
3468956f0d3a7f8f73829016ad9433e5
8c7e67b7c004d33fe797faed81b818719a7f15e8
1908 F20101202_AABGNL tachon_t_Page_151.txt
c0da518a3f444f159d4222fc87691ad9
d3937c3f520d7a2bf69f6f7ef89cab8f1287f63e
802 F20101202_AABGMW tachon_t_Page_132.txt
7940e749ac3337c17eb00163c36308e9
91afebca8d5f1b6034c7e781fae4aa7b4da7eddf
73984 F20101202_AABFJU tachon_t_Page_100.jpg
0d93434804881af39c20c2cb3d525f9a
9c1a08ef1d913eb4409acfce82b9d201a816d2a8
33626 F20101202_AABFKJ tachon_t_Page_123.jpg
de4b5ea1c45dcaa3f19273506446850e
2f4e51110c5bc63321dd2224b9bb239c9954fbd5
2654 F20101202_AABGOA tachon_t_Page_170.txt
48c318060438b9295d40c8a920f3c735
3871da225ded629f81388b2a85e18918b1a0e1f2
F20101202_AABGNM tachon_t_Page_152.txt
2ade6f88a4564e223a73ea840311b2ec
4df0838045bca3451ea602aac3baabd9c73e2522
2004 F20101202_AABGMX tachon_t_Page_135.txt
67941f4bee93fe9b18925a73f54ebc26
50aa95cb54d069205fe90d0076f3ef35d521d202
77603 F20101202_AABFJV tachon_t_Page_102.jpg
fd80362e188a016be23e41d0b4ae2ebd
db273347705ef117d928539e2a3f7eacb25cf765
75090 F20101202_AABFKK tachon_t_Page_124.jpg
a6892940bec09805f5602a710b2cea24
8c242ca991c108c04ab19dc52e2da55a13e975e2
1704 F20101202_AABGOB tachon_t_Page_172.txt
b46fec060a537b01bb5f7bd718492cc1
be7739618480764e88c1f620dbe55195fd08f499
2256 F20101202_AABGNN tachon_t_Page_154.txt
a333e7070343a2ec078626ddeb03ec5d
551f700355fac1e8c5005a56d5a021b7bf029a22
1951 F20101202_AABGMY tachon_t_Page_136.txt
8b713a49766e0f13b9207a3eebb1d4a7
d8ba05d8551101b14f5b2d3b47c07b1f0c6412f6
57754 F20101202_AABFJW tachon_t_Page_104.jpg
59f3c5261207e9e5ca22c04e2ec94f86
07c2a1e83b982d5b0707bd95a889d01402d34dab
63511 F20101202_AABFKL tachon_t_Page_125.jpg
99e9428d4306cc59c7ec9294238a8a46
075e2199fe67714077c201f93a65a47a2b9c25ec
3547 F20101202_AABGOC tachon_t_Page_173.txt
63bb31be99d0672a96fcb0aeb8b4d745
a73b6e17e82cc86b55b0c02dcde062a189c5b916
2264 F20101202_AABGNO tachon_t_Page_155.txt
5d3c05735e3f2101dc540e9c8a8d1311
823084e872a381bbb3e901f470e2765b6408f9d5
1999 F20101202_AABGMZ tachon_t_Page_137.txt
b1ea6a205b03066293d6e38b026c0fe2
1f1e2bf4e03068748480d4bc161def6b4d2f72dd
66018 F20101202_AABFJX tachon_t_Page_106.jpg
50ca9e57e7a364f5e86528cc40cd7ad3
0fd30a28c15781faae5d684f7a3acff0356edd84
71051 F20101202_AABFLA tachon_t_Page_144.jpg
2c74a9e1489aef4c6e0e6bf4af57433b
b05769155f16e639672eee42c7a3549646b8c607
28474 F20101202_AABFKM tachon_t_Page_127.jpg
01ef4b43e1e1171f74d4078c257e5620
a9fe20020c309b2bfc525bacfb28ba7dfc58862f
1817 F20101202_AABGOD tachon_t_Page_175.txt
7515155498a5b2b8241c5518c8c9ba1d
ce3df64743e5a104f7aa00e5033d481c13db650e
59051 F20101202_AABFJY tachon_t_Page_107.jpg
a0f5b8fef513ed883775f4855b3b1480
43786e69a04538a60479680e989663dded0b5c3e
65813 F20101202_AABFLB tachon_t_Page_145.jpg
b5701376d1d6cef02121fe8b269be126
12b0e0b9b06147a46321d2a17543c462b3575f08
1687 F20101202_AABGOE tachon_t_Page_176.txt
bddad97028685e8525db4b800c529037
e053088cbf232100335e338b0e67b62e741c012a
1698 F20101202_AABGNP tachon_t_Page_157.txt
7a9ed241d6433ab9d970e07014a14447
9fd4fe04c7ba98d62a71a1b20e5ab7d5083fcef0
59166 F20101202_AABFJZ tachon_t_Page_108.jpg
cc6a30dfb3bd88501d7fd845f402ee68
5686b710d5c4946b6ece43e21252f6455df22cd0
68997 F20101202_AABFLC tachon_t_Page_146.jpg
0278e73d44d1d1b8d5544f0b43950297
f1e6f541b3375f3984cc68f345aa5b8190b6f280
35965 F20101202_AABFKN tachon_t_Page_128.jpg
cd6d297b8f8a81ae451918ce72534483
5ddb8c7d2a3e0dfe6212bc5d6c796e21f6c00515
1865 F20101202_AABGOF tachon_t_Page_177.txt
450b91f2ab6e26cbf192e5dcf0053627
9fe94d51f1c134f860adc2b5053b8b6f34f6ee67
F20101202_AABGNQ tachon_t_Page_158.txt
036aaa0f598d8624f752488100150ec6
d87205cb727deb911bddf44b39790bfce45b07fd
68464 F20101202_AABFLD tachon_t_Page_147.jpg
21065854332554a17ad7f68cb0facac9
6373a486b7d0bfa49edc57d2057329d4da482cdc
42346 F20101202_AABFKO tachon_t_Page_130.jpg
73700461eb16138b40c2f8d6bac0e90a
673bdb15ed42a61e1ef00e009ac7cdd27f3a9015
1737 F20101202_AABGOG tachon_t_Page_178.txt
82078b9cd0a2810c4e96f2b42f6c1386
4b01f10f9d8ca79e78e0b8733f73fabfa7ba8d4e
2087 F20101202_AABGNR tachon_t_Page_159.txt
1cf74ab87d6ff52be784aa9fdf3c04a4
3013e892d5b16b3d7a358f27d2184748c44b6771
69611 F20101202_AABFLE tachon_t_Page_148.jpg
e90e2c1201e6a8247d2e2f324bead233
7a843760a00db82101b7806d34221e080df8d09e
37767 F20101202_AABFKP tachon_t_Page_131.jpg
73d7dbe24e5c3ccf7970833c92d7b42d
c3312ec91158ad5e5f08619ba2f14269e925ebaf
3479 F20101202_AABGOH tachon_t_Page_179.txt
dc8e553230d5adb32e6e6ae9419513d0
be107ea814e10cb90e0ab4f486fb81c2c016a97b
2349 F20101202_AABGNS tachon_t_Page_161.txt
6539491d902f39ef8ae8d1b5f7633d44
0da3947ee06df4ea94bf15afacc3c7a0beaf1790
66226 F20101202_AABFLF tachon_t_Page_149.jpg
387c72e40caf800249106d093298d707
fe2013c072daefe95be4932925aca6a0dbefcb8a
20152 F20101202_AABFKQ tachon_t_Page_132.jpg
d1e77c9adc658ea7513e0f5a865bbeff
c005469b5b9577a55277446e4564f884ecdce834
3363 F20101202_AABGOI tachon_t_Page_180.txt
4b1ae60fd1e2b736c8b1429c6b067083
e327328c09fa42edaab7a9094134dc9e675972fb
2270 F20101202_AABGNT tachon_t_Page_162.txt
9fb1c0402dea647259edfc9b19504ebe
e42cd258e3fd42f6b67d620051622658102543ed
66987 F20101202_AABFLG tachon_t_Page_150.jpg
c62524696cd4beaac26456b6d561a72d
aa60638a0a4c632de2b38957e1bbdd1db257972a
82612 F20101202_AABFKR tachon_t_Page_134.jpg
4a7e75a2abaaaf64c1bc02464c82dece
a414cd8691b101f71eae00ab2f4ad4732be6a3eb
1719 F20101202_AABGOJ tachon_t_Page_181.txt
2b03d563d980421d8475c1c51972757d
2ecd8cc6a5e4ec96a77034875779727f460243a8
2463 F20101202_AABGNU tachon_t_Page_163.txt
19e55e503e73bdd69cb483798829deed
ef9edb6b53a5810494a2aaa0d509be5baf0b2dac
64914 F20101202_AABFLH tachon_t_Page_151.jpg
d7d37379f909024238497df674795649
284e37fbcd259554412aba2bba4b5ca73feab182
80322 F20101202_AABFKS tachon_t_Page_135.jpg
1164833ed1f3e9d84348c9ba0cdf1c24
cccfccdb10a1ab363b78825c6b563b54e1897878
1979 F20101202_AABGOK tachon_t_Page_182.txt
bbae3592eedcb81f3b5f1e8e541fd48b
67ee94543693bd544fa091643a15c0010ac35f47
F20101202_AABGNV tachon_t_Page_165.txt
8073f6cebb0d1a92fdd55905bc8efb83
7bda07ebdac4b139f3d2a4c1e3d6431e7548a3d0
68450 F20101202_AABFLI tachon_t_Page_152.jpg
2c797687253b6451750b1fe83a47df90
045ec465f5683f9531f2e9b104ed7ed84df5ad20
76945 F20101202_AABFKT tachon_t_Page_136.jpg
e8bd81d203824ee97268a28c1a685cdb
85f15a80115e99d7d3f42de293b3f17263f751c7
2902 F20101202_AABGOL tachon_t_Page_183.txt
b969e2ce45c2716ef59b0fef45c9e69f
020f727c9b34fc44d09f97ae9679d337ec40cff0
2558 F20101202_AABGNW tachon_t_Page_166.txt
fe7ab1380f72f21420478c78ae676209
628f0f207cc81e406c941fc6d02c2295ba63fc4e
66168 F20101202_AABFLJ tachon_t_Page_153.jpg
f86023d57ff57a01ea584bff87f62736
55adebe76868f204d2a548ff7c9f3212c486dbe5
76337 F20101202_AABFKU tachon_t_Page_137.jpg
e89c0f599c047f1f4b544495f3c6c8cc
e1cd36cab2de4f028af94b91a5853150d6415b00
3041 F20101202_AABGPA tachon_t_Page_203.txt
b4b96444f014301d58a5cd4c759b26d0
a3892bdd622b7f25dc16b0cc5f3fee2eb35141f8
1487 F20101202_AABGOM tachon_t_Page_184.txt
2b710f2d4057d76191e037f3522d36e0
37a0c1a3460d54138c85bd589d0af6e9f54b09fe
1824 F20101202_AABGNX tachon_t_Page_167.txt
d51723e54d92aac19363c5ede9699d15
87404400bbd86973253381922abaeca5ee500ffe
69018 F20101202_AABFLK tachon_t_Page_154.jpg
92f3c445b42bdcb916bc42e81911455b
5a286e8b492ec46ef5edd2083ee43855b4be1457
92706 F20101202_AABFKV tachon_t_Page_138.jpg
9a556373fab54c6bbd015a8945e80eb0
d963774f4bb195fde4ead0cbd513da695bfb3794
2556 F20101202_AABGPB tachon_t_Page_204.txt
b39a06cfa3cbf829e05bafc9ea84e1d8
8700e3fd58f86783612798159c2246425f20cf38
2789 F20101202_AABGON tachon_t_Page_185.txt
80660dd9b06b8cf0d31ab7a2053df273
d9cba90e0bbbfd093d3a00e4032603716be59bf2
F20101202_AABGNY tachon_t_Page_168.txt
8e005ca59d4937293e8dafa47daa9ce5
843fc8713dffe7011f3e76c5818c283c027e97c8
71366 F20101202_AABFLL tachon_t_Page_155.jpg
8be084dea99d9d25c8e8e4359c739b1d
6adeb6f3b3e813fb72eda9b15dc295cb1b69dd9c
70659 F20101202_AABFKW tachon_t_Page_139.jpg
5962be9cfcdd291d51a56bdf855dfb60
edd586157749397abc32cf9068264165fabe991b
2877 F20101202_AABGPC tachon_t_Page_206.txt
9177a29fb7ddbe2905374d37c96b57e5
a9cedf0b7184122071661794d726249e87ad0247
F20101202_AABGOO tachon_t_Page_186.txt
f26817ee6313a1f94b79b4a029ac1761
3223ce481bc72688d45def8ce6a16b840180730e
2498 F20101202_AABGNZ tachon_t_Page_169.txt
0448ff5ec2ccdc28adadeb79cc4e4f44
7131e590d38d285e9d4d09808854b7fb25d1a8c3
69639 F20101202_AABFMA tachon_t_Page_171.jpg
38055b9892d9d48b9e0391730d980867
390de68127332801ae79daa36df25c32e182671c
70363 F20101202_AABFLM tachon_t_Page_156.jpg
15fc0200ab4a4814452f912efcf2c34c
830cfc50b5a740969798d77bc851ae552008e2ee
67896 F20101202_AABFKX tachon_t_Page_140.jpg
f6bf1ccb15f2d792ea34de973b77a03b
d4d2bcf5aabae3aefbc32f24eea6482807ac39b2
2427 F20101202_AABGPD tachon_t_Page_207.txt
e9fa92af414b82d5207c85671fbcaef8
28e59c5a1f87c10a85d4db2125e0a5a6d8e493b6
2322 F20101202_AABGOP tachon_t_Page_187.txt
42ab64abb3c7a1150fc416663c9175ab
475e184964bdbad1fd27c1f2d5437a65e25a3168
67646 F20101202_AABFMB tachon_t_Page_172.jpg
17765c2bb23047b158a13d9714449ed3
9154d1d3ecf1a96d0709a28c7a3e638bbe4d41c4
66497 F20101202_AABFLN tachon_t_Page_157.jpg
4a8d8ca79aba32cb9974bd0b4ef20b4a
fa5aefa6ffa99a44878d1b3549963aec13281c0f
65940 F20101202_AABFKY tachon_t_Page_141.jpg
11a6a2703a4adc739f99fd0b45c1fa88
3c86babe303dfce97e789d185903e71e73cc1dea
2400 F20101202_AABGPE tachon_t_Page_208.txt
74f13e614fe433181a1cd4d0ff3880eb
d192a0a316a2700e302648f4faac67fcca9b728e
66766 F20101202_AABFMC tachon_t_Page_173.jpg
0ebbd4c84696e5a651a61b4ba94f7741
ca47e7f463c3727a1d2aed83e75c39aa59323401
F20101202_AABFKZ tachon_t_Page_142.jpg
9ad5bb9336e0e2464fe4f393483f5071
c3407939e70633182d3c56e91d3e9f0a8e88369a
2413 F20101202_AABGPF tachon_t_Page_209.txt
8bf0c31b2f6777ed7ae6a820c9a6214b
4cfa07a3306998a28ff1d2c946a504173964d849
3344 F20101202_AABGOQ tachon_t_Page_188.txt
9bc5203f38dca82401daa3d84ef54f91
5613df2641c4d534feafba0ee0095194aed06e8b
68619 F20101202_AABFMD tachon_t_Page_174.jpg
541a4fb8fd0820590d2d04ab1878ab7f
728ed37738c511a60297a2c79d09293d85a02e31
70220 F20101202_AABFLO tachon_t_Page_158.jpg
bf65d83011e0f07c779183e4525717d0
25818f5e35d620640eb57a47dbd2ee2ce8ae84bb
2370 F20101202_AABGPG tachon_t_Page_210.txt
b7c8c65d3a4c3f6c1dd01bc8df0c7de8
de0dfe085991f20356cb2414ac87ca5121e7a123
2225 F20101202_AABGOR tachon_t_Page_189.txt
71b7f55d4d9b766035cbacba3c9f2720
e7b98bacfb55d1d9ae1ebf9003dc0fa017e8eca9
67831 F20101202_AABFME tachon_t_Page_176.jpg
a16871555d20b3b08c2a4e0fe662dd08
519ab92d231f37a23860dec1c7e6a928d6eae0c0
67305 F20101202_AABFLP tachon_t_Page_159.jpg
b7b3e48f6ba306fda18a0e931483a550
e83a192b1dc757f198d96000e021aebc039e52eb
2019 F20101202_AABGPH tachon_t_Page_211.txt
1a4f1f6c932c011a8756d872df42d1eb
b4be60cf4d38fc72be1fcb063f390a866f928ae8
F20101202_AABGOS tachon_t_Page_191.txt
30a6666c3dfa435dae520e3cb2994f99
6a46ff813a5448f5ec7dcbb72ae8f42db4a9fade
65455 F20101202_AABFMF tachon_t_Page_177.jpg
ea3ff6c9bb8b821bf3523b762c19cb0a
84987426c58bbc1b5af1233539ce072d4720105a
66940 F20101202_AABFLQ tachon_t_Page_161.jpg
8ce8b928c8ddcfee4e673e3585df486e
bfaba4062d01e957a2e2a4ffea3b3ad4cb008f7a
2517 F20101202_AABGPI tachon_t_Page_212.txt
e5d61b97eba19ec3a18318734c43a453
efcdf8aaf03a8cf3031e2800d6f20702f35aeb06
1475 F20101202_AABGOT tachon_t_Page_192.txt
1159ef2d51a8956c45a28157db106a1e
a0b44ee6040ed7526e934c568f2280af04dd2926
67506 F20101202_AABFMG tachon_t_Page_178.jpg
d2db689023ef45b5dfc1b25399fe2c54
ccae358c675159f35067b85a8cfebc0434b1196a
67263 F20101202_AABFLR tachon_t_Page_162.jpg
cda78e223d6a47008145dc7758f276b3
a05dfe954632c1db3edbde8f7dad92886c3f7a8f
2223 F20101202_AABGPJ tachon_t_Page_213.txt
4d16d120f892e17504a557baa76bb390
7b7b2bde393f97b2985ca33386ad50ca6e6dfd17
2304 F20101202_AABGOU tachon_t_Page_193.txt
a5a859517b176d9dc5e4d4d92c94e0a0
aa801c8b453ab2b2bab76df0ac7c98307d87a837
66356 F20101202_AABFMH tachon_t_Page_180.jpg
147da9aa0f66193bacdd43c65faded19
4bdb6b3c9d3d1771f644f0cd0c260315acb7a6f1
67786 F20101202_AABFLS tachon_t_Page_163.jpg
9971c30a4c08ad8c1fe52035bbf63e7c
f592d100e17b57fe28b4ff1578f01a147fd035f5
2612 F20101202_AABGPK tachon_t_Page_214.txt
06abccd17848a61a49fedaf9ff379de3
94b15c30e6eec3e7d153137c9935f1f1c56f484a
3324 F20101202_AABGOV tachon_t_Page_194.txt
468aff57220d396477d8b512e0abca9f
5e8626ff07e7a28216f3e9786be6249719893e4f
65420 F20101202_AABFMI tachon_t_Page_181.jpg
42a521475ca9179fe1f447e81b71a039
4078e45fba1ec462bff46f6a0acfc389ea3187d7
57787 F20101202_AABFLT tachon_t_Page_164.jpg
e8f9061a5b02952228eff9bb6f8fc48b
2bce6544e001cfcecce41228599d0ef62a3462d4
1660 F20101202_AABGPL tachon_t_Page_215.txt
8e66a02a8c1e0df9c2e0c947b70b6110
c27e5841ed13ad35dd6a530381c2a2b0ec65bf66
2333 F20101202_AABGOW tachon_t_Page_195.txt
d6da524a9e192c6334b4683c2217f33a
0ddcd0be41c6761ed97de90090393c48bc41e965
68518 F20101202_AABFMJ tachon_t_Page_182.jpg
081cba9015108be423300e39386ae93f
728dc63e1291920b2c1bae03193a95ff4fbf1c99
66426 F20101202_AABFLU tachon_t_Page_165.jpg
568e370d51000e481da42abc7a8939e0
691d201111262bbfd0ad3dd2b7e919291696d137
1365 F20101202_AABGQA tachon_t_Page_002thm.jpg
2ebc8a2e4b16367ab298912c4d54198c
a645e1550a5a7d69f58a7c65732cc5a5da937d3c
977 F20101202_AABGPM tachon_t_Page_216.txt
86ac36f2f6db3eabcb715e81c36845de
775d0479e53f0b6c9cb1b21394e31502a3b6d038
F20101202_AABGOX tachon_t_Page_196.txt
1248de99a42d35d503fbb9d4432cc6cd
1fb7a42c415e9dca51fbfcbfe7950f17b4948deb
66266 F20101202_AABFMK tachon_t_Page_183.jpg
2e07478a30812f9a243c6264f5549b00
dd3777749a69fe8dcedc7ac50d52d51148afc631
70136 F20101202_AABFLV tachon_t_Page_166.jpg
f035a0624bbf9386c008a47dfb01cbbe
97b4e52b52ddf421257f07a3ca8fa28b922b7095
6739 F20101202_AABGQB tachon_t_Page_004.QC.jpg
c7d76dc7c03c23c9b3cfc1e7d767f679
37a8be81fdf83af3b422ccf59f0cff319f78cdbe
F20101202_AABGPN tachon_t_Page_217.txt
154c96972f34696267a0e4c14f3f48fa
f86e8adf465e2548316f9a9b61392595eb0fb80f
F20101202_AABGOY tachon_t_Page_197.txt
6895345c6053d96d70471c2872bdc243
faeb5f943ae1203138c09d65ded418fb5e1baa12
69854 F20101202_AABFML tachon_t_Page_184.jpg
883066138681f924e5ee008e93093a97
720068a8bef07d82b558d8fd402bf55ee1f0dde5
66967 F20101202_AABFLW tachon_t_Page_167.jpg
13f8cb76090247159db46aa76c46829f
23d54ca89c394bcfe2548c7e2beb2c6f36ac3452
2385 F20101202_AABGQC tachon_t_Page_004thm.jpg
3607b1ead904f65d5cd26ade71ca33e2
d8476b7c9c30a749528892585615584138526835
2310 F20101202_AABGPO tachon_t_Page_001thm.jpg
a2bc13b755a532fe8ec6d2bfef6ea935
c5addd11a51db836b23d31d3031dfaa7794eb4f6
3337 F20101202_AABGOZ tachon_t_Page_200.txt
04f36d415c2cb70504055664de138172
f7cf482da82e5d142e3f41a91c1d2b20273e614d
63170 F20101202_AABFMM tachon_t_Page_185.jpg
6fdc02e431a6c0055101a521876ae134
5a1cc28c9c9b092fdd691635d0d1169fa616f090
69096 F20101202_AABFLX tachon_t_Page_168.jpg
21a80d157b6591a802523dee8d2906ad
9fdfa43326e9e80baad2eb2a9b73605b02d12609
70089 F20101202_AABFNA tachon_t_Page_200.jpg
30c382ffd43ab9f7f1fb59734173b0e8
9555888f3aee47e1368adeedfb87c4648830fc8d
20956 F20101202_AABGQD tachon_t_Page_005.QC.jpg
a25bedaa789e9d8bb1437f694f9ef66f
532dd3b30ab4bc8860b304b159961b9c2fcab1e1
6460 F20101202_AABGPP tachon_t_Page_019thm.jpg
9a523757489b8c896f50f44d07b67a11
c4c9ea4f0e66547d89b528d9c7a05faf6913892b
66853 F20101202_AABFMN tachon_t_Page_186.jpg
ebb81855cccb2fad646940bddf3a9323
e51250efdc21ea9de153304922a5456c80646d13
68102 F20101202_AABFLY tachon_t_Page_169.jpg
bf9528eb738eee725b494580fc957121
078aeffab11c869a41619a0adf9d8d457da089a1
68270 F20101202_AABFNB tachon_t_Page_201.jpg
b459a68ee480ca03349154f4f47f7ed8
4dd67d5a48c244bc487c25744bdd600a7033935f
22578 F20101202_AABGQE tachon_t_Page_006.QC.jpg
d475790fe7f0b3771462fc99cebaf1be
c15c5d66e5eafe24c20c16292dab57e3630a9fbd
23336 F20101202_AABGPQ tachon_t_Page_061.QC.jpg
067c070287fd7d38364b0275960c1e10
7703d3d98ac7c705944baf8b3d82b38bc7245b0c
70908 F20101202_AABFMO tachon_t_Page_187.jpg
cfbd88b5793bc27a3b9c19dd46512792
6b816c7b6ac58c7570fa6e28bc20efabeb01e86e
71064 F20101202_AABFLZ tachon_t_Page_170.jpg
4dfe73c0a223daa793221145c4bfabfc
0f88af193c90de928c642519dacd62f3cbbeebb0
65563 F20101202_AABFNC tachon_t_Page_202.jpg
e7ba16cb5950bcd742f09db1a5772d22
cb5f38bff3b5c868bcaf6a087b4208d1cb83fc94
5635 F20101202_AABGQF tachon_t_Page_006thm.jpg
fa492fd2df43415bf49e39758d3cae87
35a9654bbf18287ea3015f9a76984193975afcb8
85470 F20101202_AABFND tachon_t_Page_203.jpg
1c3ea9ba21cfd8a8abef7ec0065351eb
dd3d9289231014459900dce9f9fbb126ed20b7b1
14277 F20101202_AABGQG tachon_t_Page_007.QC.jpg
97bed589fbb0004a4dd347112782bde2
cb7789b9ef68e33d85f0219ff8496e663d620227
7377 F20101202_AABGPR tachon_t_Page_003thm.jpg
0f8a9ca5ef1fca7e01fd74186896edca
08ae3a302ba964c9848f425632af620489ffda43
67032 F20101202_AABFMP tachon_t_Page_188.jpg
c825157bb389b0b0e0c967d0798c8ae9
1c69a12752122f4c07342a1e443cbcf6362490ec
78373 F20101202_AABFNE tachon_t_Page_204.jpg
f6660ee408f1a64064d99754801aee82
ac28cc9ee5ccd86ebb13c43a8814acc2ec2eb055
3885 F20101202_AABGQH tachon_t_Page_007thm.jpg
a7bfb72a1430b4701b1fabca5249953e
a928193973871e985ac8c10ca879400544f23997
20236 F20101202_AABGPS tachon_t_Page_190.QC.jpg
7ea642dfa3193c307500d14004f3c704
6b45e03e7d2a9731ec367a6af88a0bfcf52f6197
67227 F20101202_AABFMQ tachon_t_Page_189.jpg
5d91258630d8a2aba1e0ef4cbae42f34
9a5fb3d0b4e40a4cc5e0534d3ea5c5e144e6f40f
77570 F20101202_AABFNF tachon_t_Page_205.jpg
914ec83a17b60eaaa062e2787855bd7c
2fe777f3a877f019cb8ea56e15c625508a94849e
23806 F20101202_AABGQI tachon_t_Page_008.QC.jpg
1f592ec3b7e914df9563101cc225c85a
831f10982ab42a1b885449f76bf8575d5bddb0c4
5085 F20101202_AABGPT tachon_t_Page_010thm.jpg
9ef1dcf91d2c6ddad70d6de80849a8b0
c79a8f113ed70e3bcc610041ccc81035c3acfe83
69868 F20101202_AABFMR tachon_t_Page_190.jpg
18b826b22b4508acc3266c9a2ef623aa
88f53d52543a8fff9582c04f9b1b3a17abd2be01
72758 F20101202_AABFNG tachon_t_Page_206.jpg
1d3fb28dc4a5390d7d5c8551325a2ea4
a8bfb58d0dd928bfed0dc99db4f30b2c29ac3501
F20101202_AABGQJ tachon_t_Page_009.QC.jpg
21cbbeea4cf0a99b7cd1bc733f690c48
14e5f57532d037742ce1e89b68c33ddc25889386
6880 F20101202_AABGPU tachon_t_Page_047thm.jpg
56cbe147343cb5b751866dea9d9b03e4
63413a115f81a211e5eecb72eb3f5707df04650c
67526 F20101202_AABFMS tachon_t_Page_192.jpg
8956fb305f36ec5e3e771026cfaadec9
89138199bf0f83af629cb9790b7a3db44c928d38
91495 F20101202_AABFNH tachon_t_Page_208.jpg
f17daa679b889353ef13afaec8f15873
47789b6b2e39006643ce0da01b3ce7f1fecee3fa
F20101202_AABGQK tachon_t_Page_009thm.jpg
614cc7b4599eba0ec4a59310b4c798b0
337c1fabca0925222cf05424575ca16071ebbc7a
6139 F20101202_AABGPV tachon_t_Page_091thm.jpg
1898ec7307f69c688e2e48839a068cfe
5fc7b0e0d2e48ff37d65b72f7678a911b1e5162f
65297 F20101202_AABFMT tachon_t_Page_193.jpg
14a211d5df2895ae73653b0dd4dfef26
2f0b21ecc34aec0486bc16a71b6da7fd0e3b12ae
91634 F20101202_AABFNI tachon_t_Page_209.jpg
56a7241cdc593ef36277b61f20b3f0a0
a09088cbe40494f24569fce06aca4f5dc2edc900
18781 F20101202_AABGQL tachon_t_Page_010.QC.jpg
59e12e838d8c5db8e85b71d794336dd3
f33aa55771ddd70c439727d4b707be72465421c7
5265 F20101202_AABGPW tachon_t_Page_156thm.jpg
48f19caa8c3c700771203fe45eb2d5d3
10c0deac6cd75b0d44f34af57d29b1b995d2778f
68491 F20101202_AABFMU tachon_t_Page_194.jpg
554c1e44e5b84bbfe72f32fa7ad4162e
ad57b16d7b838ed1dca0dba1c6455e95ea049726
80328 F20101202_AABFNJ tachon_t_Page_211.jpg
a2cfed8997a45102f9cb432b16d16765
4359ac388b3c0ef6442730dabfb44c00308efeb5
6474 F20101202_AABGRA tachon_t_Page_018thm.jpg
15ef5923dccfef00df619888c3e54cff
079844f924c8bd35e96867a01e0985a2349ded13
23780 F20101202_AABGQM tachon_t_Page_011.QC.jpg
09090819cc7dd3f6fa51f14ab46a2e55
fedff6ee78cae0c94ae48dbc8b4b636f737e70ca
322838 F20101202_AABGPX UFE0022421_00001.xml
0fa175e9485a17af10bb12221df3f8b9
215a27ea37939e771fce81a406079421d9c3b5e2
65465 F20101202_AABFMV tachon_t_Page_195.jpg
7d4fb61d40ce7f613e24c365e6b86c3e
3a141c3e366f0d90b2158aaa8eeb853e52298b1b
98496 F20101202_AABFNK tachon_t_Page_212.jpg
fb798652c86194181bda1403fe03147d
852ae0301f07b4fae6019116c1c8aa5aa32480c7
25840 F20101202_AABGRB tachon_t_Page_020.QC.jpg
f6dfc2fe72415abebfad0570eacbbde0
cd28574285274b25f8b0625e58cd42075636b9b8
6517 F20101202_AABGQN tachon_t_Page_011thm.jpg
33866d3490d11353b3056c2aac30473a
a8a33a1f657cb4b5cda1a1d2f8abcd8f16b11e4e
7396 F20101202_AABGPY tachon_t_Page_001.QC.jpg
7ea903a4eb96797d0172f40d8e33ad4a
0da197ca625c26df6ebcf3602c2aa951b28b0da4
68414 F20101202_AABFMW tachon_t_Page_196.jpg
55f27a985b97676a28f7f3eef91d4266
ba18aaeb2adae5684866cc653bef1531a475c326
92403 F20101202_AABFNL tachon_t_Page_213.jpg
5bd7446a65c30dbfef0256abcc44c679
4f3afa76277ba954342168d9d2045107c972eeb3
F20101202_AABGRC tachon_t_Page_020thm.jpg
852295a69a4b30bb8ec9422c09f98dd1
5d63b2e30724c27a7782f04c37ad507e0861ca59
4508 F20101202_AABGQO tachon_t_Page_012thm.jpg
ce64a624059cd18889b04903bc585207
5406b90c8aa3be5f3638607de6db0a6913cd2d2b
3110 F20101202_AABGPZ tachon_t_Page_002.QC.jpg
5a746f7af918d0aa8f4ed50cb85b74ba
d803aa0a620b0e012b8323b8fe5b94bfc27cd878
67160 F20101202_AABFMX tachon_t_Page_197.jpg
6a1c156433ea694d772a8ea50645b0a4
22c820f97faad161f597ed6c2fa08bdfccf12666
663502 F20101202_AABFOA tachon_t_Page_012.jp2
94f50af99f98aca9571b13c5e8161460
3f8ff596ea897157d6fcd9c46d7e22cfab7bdd8e
100992 F20101202_AABFNM tachon_t_Page_214.jpg
0f0d61347d38428ed94b4a0bca9e47c0
4dd87379457829f1251d98cec4e2e7d1c8c279ab
6479 F20101202_AABGRD tachon_t_Page_021thm.jpg
b240380a2667be7bc06d4a974c3e46e2
9d13bf27c343d4525a0a08cee19eb8c50d8bdbfe
22791 F20101202_AABGQP tachon_t_Page_013.QC.jpg
9e4bc1bb9f01232128cbda973ee1b15a
8584db79afe852897044b72f54c2b643f9def074
69661 F20101202_AABFMY tachon_t_Page_198.jpg
93342804b9428f3fd218ae9c42d4ca09
d7e79f11af7e049478b8c65beafb6b99e68fe8b5
1051955 F20101202_AABFOB tachon_t_Page_013.jp2
4be38f234bc771072412082a59a786d6
54db2eeb5a20a5bd4892b173b245d04e1c2b0845
68503 F20101202_AABFNN tachon_t_Page_215.jpg
29d6391e2620567bcfb8aa146f5db819
1e3fe70e2da99cd5ec1534297d5c24c09b3e42fb
7767 F20101202_AABGRE tachon_t_Page_022.QC.jpg
2793981771955a32c4b2e21ab11a17b0
3f608f0733f56cdbf8051ae13a3f8afe7b542f2e
6033 F20101202_AABGQQ tachon_t_Page_013thm.jpg
371423b62376c48d85504261941fd6b6
b5e8b182df3c1f71008fecc5ae9ada3dee77363f
66591 F20101202_AABFMZ tachon_t_Page_199.jpg
80968b04a3561829aff391a4017b26f4
649c4e5a0583854308ea709145f09bcb7b34b543
1034929 F20101202_AABFOC tachon_t_Page_015.jp2
d861018ef2d9cdb5b67ef7a7ecff6886
edd58a340cbd60bd496ebb9b31bad6baaf03af2c
45315 F20101202_AABFNO tachon_t_Page_216.jpg
05c24ae39ed669a6806b8b03225678fb
dea0879b4430893cd76a21b4124762200122ec6a
2628 F20101202_AABGRF tachon_t_Page_022thm.jpg
0b4bf4ca4b1a01f0dabaabae72c42dfa
98981800d0a2738a9a2e4303e3c19c39d269b658
24284 F20101202_AABGQR tachon_t_Page_014.QC.jpg
877b3afca0a354f0990505378d3edb91
afc6724ee5ce9eb6fc09b9142f46f6ef7e3d0712
1051962 F20101202_AABFOD tachon_t_Page_016.jp2
ced31b6c4a00d0fd48c4cbb1f37dffeb
bb234bc9d533d09df266e2c74ffe28808d9ecbee
67931 F20101202_AABFNP tachon_t_Page_217.jpg
13fb8ff5e76ce26853ab725686a28c5b
3c176a7b59d108f4df5ba77596ef0f221af0a8c3
15451 F20101202_AABGRG tachon_t_Page_023.QC.jpg
acd7f2d7021d87b5e3d532912f298156
f63838c9aab50721e5eb6b041fa77885e738ebe6
1051939 F20101202_AABFOE tachon_t_Page_018.jp2
0e84fadc170b7b71dd99e3460bee6d09
c2f82dc284c39807d5fdd48521232c80fe3b2063
4582 F20101202_AABGRH tachon_t_Page_023thm.jpg
82704aa72be5382a7887be7663c26e95
4b51cca66eb1c4fbdc25f20f25bc8344aaef4b96
6523 F20101202_AABGQS tachon_t_Page_014thm.jpg
3dad0bdc3a0b0cbe7f1a9055f59816a0
98dc5ea40f8de508547771719be97ad44e44f7e7
F20101202_AABFOF tachon_t_Page_020.jp2
616e9834f9be9992679a155d061e28f1
e3b9b03f275e76dff54a0d6f17b4402d389b62f3
245011 F20101202_AABFNQ tachon_t_Page_001.jp2
af10a0b02321428ffc249bc4ecfe6690
d2168f1cf84f26f3dea17ceaab151fdc75895da8
6944 F20101202_AABGRI tachon_t_Page_024.QC.jpg
a584c4d9a68aff2160a6d2834e31565a
885140881b7d0dbff0daed12a62b1c33a58a0c93
22498 F20101202_AABGQT tachon_t_Page_015.QC.jpg
63efd7c71ed3f190b601a2d2fa4921e3
a6c3cf36d98726e5423b5dd194290379c54aac31
F20101202_AABFOG tachon_t_Page_021.jp2
300936cc5f802b7787be42bb7dbf22e5
0c749d5706b7e4784889a8a28ff0d0c4279f5bfb
27298 F20101202_AABFNR tachon_t_Page_002.jp2
b975ff3d43f47fc3f72613720b24ffb8
05cc1800768c6ea13093099d0aacb47ed7a5cf76
2501 F20101202_AABGRJ tachon_t_Page_024thm.jpg
c1df7ee9256404d507f05b49653b26de
d91e91497fc0880a19681c1dff26862f9abe15aa
6304 F20101202_AABGQU tachon_t_Page_015thm.jpg
aeaa46c650f85d90feb7c52a7edae750
5ee3e02877f266e1b31d654e4f695cb02e27310a
658267 F20101202_AABFOH tachon_t_Page_022.jp2
c7da8217c8ae557ef99ef6b6459c3785
990be8a70502c4474bfc71286bb4b8af1af38968
1051973 F20101202_AABFNS tachon_t_Page_003.jp2
c8641ee1c80300fcca05a621da1f738f
8dfb745525dcc9eddea632596eb7d13c340feffd
22672 F20101202_AABGRK tachon_t_Page_025.QC.jpg
6a6835a2e4f9c5364c05b932c66df9cd
c2914a0479f638ccb887d5b66d53061e9fadc439
25294 F20101202_AABGQV tachon_t_Page_016.QC.jpg
3bceb7247f420941b806bb30e6235ee7
c51b1268a1a85beb039016559faacd2106707257
82737 F20101202_AABFOI tachon_t_Page_023.jp2
b076bfe572002addee701b73d3cbd9a8
ac10acf0a0a5cbd47cd070a9dd46ff98e848c2ef
1051972 F20101202_AABFNT tachon_t_Page_005.jp2
569f36f701335d54cf9750ffa0be9814
c7f73a465a5b5669db22a9e84a4e52a14858e76d
6418 F20101202_AABGRL tachon_t_Page_025thm.jpg
5380579df4c884e7b39d37ca38989122
60850deadeacb59082372790d08dc83a49636e18
6692 F20101202_AABGQW tachon_t_Page_016thm.jpg
fd3548d25ea43c473dccfb5d96899c76
30542e5101394954fd6ab151bf0ae8149cbb2f0b
998738 F20101202_AABFOJ tachon_t_Page_025.jp2
81531e3d07f3613ab53b517b0d636afe
872eebb161954b693caaa7f1595af43ea7a8d89b
1051961 F20101202_AABFNU tachon_t_Page_006.jp2
286b46a8dfe8fce1ced32f05b272a109
57bceaefa1f2ad6e8467cc75eb5a67e5bf5aadd6
24539 F20101202_AABGSA tachon_t_Page_035.QC.jpg
19076ab75d176308454861e4b5c7be39
f10255f9f6d34990f67e084e9e8292523bc3b502
24240 F20101202_AABGRM tachon_t_Page_026.QC.jpg
73cf73e07a3fe72d9e16d3b76d21f84a
04f890f244d0b17b8f7306e43c835a9a2715759c
24560 F20101202_AABGQX tachon_t_Page_017.QC.jpg
b1342c91362c3cf42c20600fed47af24
65ee8e675c7c226c58faa2b46109868d1331f03b
1051896 F20101202_AABFOK tachon_t_Page_026.jp2
3303e26e234cf67a8d0b6fc15f4eb481
4936e539c02bec22fd5373e88dac6605363802a3
F20101202_AABFNV tachon_t_Page_007.jp2
c2f332541edf77544efbe4b0fd8c78e0
c9da2560d86cb8659115b1b1153be743174e7c15







FLORIDA' S PUBLIC EDUCATION FINANCE PROGRAM
REGARDING EQUITY AND ADEQUACY

















By


TERESA ANN TACHON


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008




































2008 Teresa Ann Tachon









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writing of this dissertation has been a long academic journey and could not have

been completed without the love and support of family, friends, and members of the University

of Florida's College of Education faculty and staff. I would like to express my sincerest

gratitude to those who have accompanied me through this voyage.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my esteemed committee chair and

adviser, Dr. R. Craig Wood. Dr. Wood's expert guidance and academic advice provided me with

the courage and motivation to complete this work. I would also like to thank Dr. Wood for his

generosity in taking the time to make himself readily available for me as I proceeded through this

process.

The faculty and staff at the University of Florida's College of Education have assisted

and encouraged me throughout my studies. My committee members deserve special praise

because they have been with me since my first days as a University of Florida graduate student.

I would like to thank Dr. James Doud, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Dave Honeyman, and Dr. Pilar

Mendoza for demonstrating exemplary teaching and research methods and providing valuable

advice and critiques.

I would like to thank Kay Godfrey for introducing me to this program and encouraging

me to actively participate with her in this endeavor. Kay has been a cherished friend and a

treasured colleague for almost two decades. I would like to thank my entire cohort for helping

me to grow professionally and to challenge myself academically. Being a member of this cohort

has proved to be a rewarding experience and has provided me with some lifelong friendships.

Finally, I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to my family for their love,

inspiration, and support. To my parents, Angelo and Donna Natoli, I thank you for setting such a

strong family foundation and teaching me the virtues of loyalty, unconditional love, and self-









discipline. To my daughters, Stephanie and Taylor, I thank you for the love and happiness you

fill me with each day. To my beloved husband, Hughes Tachon, I thank you for your support,

encouragement, and patience. It is due to all of your support that I've been able to achieve this

high point in my academic career.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN TS ................................................................. ........... ............. 3

L IST O F T A B L E S ......................................... ..............................8

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. .... ..... ................. 10

A B S T R A C T ......... ....................... ............................................................ 1 1

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .............................. ............................. 13

Introduction ................... .......................................................... ................. 13
State ent of the Problem .................. ............................... ....... ................. 15
Purpose of the Study ............... ...................................................... 16
D definition of T erm s ....................................................................................... ......... 16
The Structure of the Florida Public School System...........................................................18
Equity and A dequacy .................. .................. .................. ........... .. ............ 19
S u m m a ry ...................................... ...........................................................2 0
Organization of the Study ........................................................ ........ .. ............ 21

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................... ............................. 25

In tro d u ctio n .................. .... ........... ..................... ................... ................ 2 5
H history of Education Finance Theories ...............................................................................26
F la t G ra n ts .......................................................................................................................2 8
F foundation P program s........... ................................................................ .......... ....... 28
E qu alization P program s............ ... .............................................................. ........ .. ...... .. 2 8
F u ll S tate F u n d in g ..................................................................................................... 2 9
E q u ity ............................................................................................. 3 0
Adequacy ........................................................... ........33
Estim ating the Cost of Adequacy ......................................................................... 33
Approaches to Estimating the Cost of Adequacy ................ ....................................... 35
Professional Judgm ent Approach ........................................................ ............... 35
E evidence B asked A approach ......................................................................... .............36
Successful Schools A approach ............................................. ........ ...............................36
Cost Function Approach (Statistical Analysis or Econometric Approach)....................37
Adequacy Concerns ................................ ...............................38
C h a o s T h eo ry .................................................................................3 9
R ev iew o f C ase s ..............................................................................4 1
W av e I .........................................................................4 3
W av e II ................... ...................4...................5..........
W ave III ................... ...................4...................9..........
Florida E education Finance Program ................................................................................. 59










Assessm ent and Accountability ......... .. ...................................... ....... ........67
Expenditure .................................. ........... ...................... ............... 69
B balancing Equity and A dequacy ................................................. ............................... 70
Summary ...... ............................................................. .........71

3 METHODS .........................................83

Introduction ............... ......... ................................... 83
Research Design: Equity ............... ... .................... ...... ...............85
R research D design: A dequacy .............................................................90
Student P perform ance M measures ................................................................................. 90
A chievem ent L levels ................................................................90
A Measurement Approach ........................................................................ ...................91
Research Data: Florida Education Finance Program ...............................94
R research D esig n : Statistics............................................................................................... 94
M measuring C enter ................................................................94
M measuring Spread ............................... ........ ............ .............. 95
S catterp lo ts .................................................................9 5
C correlation ............... ..................................................................... ............ 96
Coefficient of Determination ............................................... 97
Sum m ary .......................................................................................... 98

4 PRESEN TATION OF RESULTS .............. .............. ............................................. .....100

In tro d u ctio n ............... .... ... .. .......... ... .. ...................................................1 0 0
Equity M measures Results 2004-2005: .......................................................100
Variance Results 2004-2005................ ............................100
The M cLoone Index Results 2004-2005 ................................................. 101
Coefficient of Variation Results 2004-2005............... .................... 102
Gini Coefficient Results 2004-2005 ......... .............. ...................... 103
Adequacy M measures Results 2004-2005.............................................. 104
Scatterplot Results 2004-2005 .............. .. .... .......... ........ ........................105
Correlation and Coefficient of Determination Results 2004-2005 ..................................... 105
Interpretation of Results 2004-2005 ....................... .. .............. ........ ................. 106
Equity M measures Results 2005-2006 ............................................................................. 107
Variance Results 2005-2006............................................ .........107
Coefficient of Variation Results 2005-2006................. .... .... ................ 107
Equity M measures Sum m ary 2005-2006: ...............................................................................108
Adequacy Results 2005-2006 ........... ...................... ... ................. 108
Scatterplot R results 2005-2006........................... ...................... ..................... 108
Correlation and Coefficient of Determination Results 2005-2006 ........... ......... ............. 109
Interpretation of Results 2005-2006 ............................ .............109
Summary ................ ................. ................. ...... 110







6









5 CONCLUSIONS AND IM PLICATIONS ........................................ ....................... 134

In tro d u ctio n ............................ ............................................................................................... 1 3 4
C on clu sion ...................................................................................134
Im plications of the Study ........................................ ................ .... ............... 135
Recommendations.................. ..... .. .. .... ..... .... ........... 137

APPENDIX

A FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST READING DATA 2006 ............139

B FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST MATHEMATICS DATA 2006..155

C FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST READING DATA 2005 ............171

D FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST MATHEMATICS DATA 2005..187

E G IN I CO EFFICIEN T D A TA 2006 ........................................................... .....................203

F G IN I CO EFFICIEN T D A TA 2005 ........................................................... .....................205

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......... .. ............. ....................................... ...................................207

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................. ....................217









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1 Florida counties ranked by population size: July 1, 2001...............................................23

2-1 Examples of progressive, proportional, and regressive tax burdens...............................74

2-2 State funding "Adequacy" Decisions since 1989 ................................... .................77

2-3 School Funding Adequacy Cases by State................................... .......................... 78

4-1 2005 center and spread summary: (standard deviation to compute the variance) ...........112

4.2 The V ariance Statistic .............................. .. ............. ............ ......... 113

4-3 M cLoone Index D ata ... 2005 .................................... ............................................. 114

4-4 2005 center and spread summary: (median to compute the McLoone Index)...............115

4-5 Funding per district ranked by per-pupil expenditure................... ...................................116

4-6 Linear regression: param eter table............................................................................... 117

4-7 Linear regression: anova sum m ary table ................................. ..................................... 117

4-8 Equity sum m ary 2004-2005 .......................................................................... 118

4-9 Florida School district accountability score 2004-2005 ..........................119

4-10 Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2004-2005 ..................120

4-11 Linear regression: parameter table (dependent variable = per-pupil expenditure) ..........123

4-12 Linear regression: anova summ ary table .............................................. ............... 123

4-14 2006 center and spread summary: (standard deviation to compute the variance) ..........124

4-15 Funding per district ............. .... ............ .......... ............. ........... 125

4-16 Funding per district ranked by per-pupil expenditure.................. ............. ...............126

4-17 Linear regression: parameter table and ANOVA summary table.................................. 127

4-18 Equity sum m ary 2005-2006.................................................. ............................... 128

4-19 Florida school district accountability score 2005-2006...........................129

4-20 Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure .........................130









4-21 Linear regression: parameter table (dependent variable = per-pupil expenditure)..........133

4-22 Linear regression: ANOVA summary table ........................................ ............... 133

4-23 Center and spread............ ...... ..... ............. ....... ............ 133









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 The State of Florida and the sixty-seven school districts. ............. ................................. 22

1-2 Equity and adequacy ................ ................... .............. .............. .. ...... 24

2-1 Financing sources for state funding systems 2004-05 ....................................... .......... 73

2-2 Education cost analysis methods, adequacy studies 1995-2004......................................75

2-3 States in which the State Supreme Court has declared that education is a
Fundam mental State Constitutional Right ............................. ................. ............... 76

2-4 States in which the State Supreme Court has declared that education is not a
Fundamental State Constitutional Right ................................................. ................ 76

2-5 Percent distribution of revenue for Florida public schools 2004-05..............................80

2-6 U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (2007). Public Education
Finances 2005 Government Division U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC. ..................81

3-1 Orange County Public School District FCAT 2005 Example.......................................99

3-2 Orange County Public Schools District Accountability Score .......................................99

4-1 The Distribution of Resources per UFTE ............................................... .................. 115

4-2 Lorenz Curve / Gini Coefficient 2005 ......... .............................117

4-3 Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2004-2005 ..................122

4-4 G ini C efficient 2006 ............................................................................ .................... 12 8

4-5 Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2005-2006 ..................132









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

FLORIDA' S PUBLIC EDUCATION FINANCE PROGRAM
REGARDING EQUITY AND ADEQUACY

By

Teresa Ann Tachon

August 2008

Chair: R. Craig Wood
Major: Educational Leadership

The No ChildLeft BehindAct of 2001 has raised the standards for accountability for

school districts across the country with the objective of increasing student performance. The

Florida Legislature implemented an accountability system to measure the annual yearly progress

of school districts and students across the state. Students in Florida public school districts in

grades three through ten are tested annually on the Sunshine State Standards by means of the

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.

These new federal and state education policies seldom address methods of financing the

implementation of these programs. Recent litigation in many states has raised questions

regarding the fairness and quantity of resources distributed through state education finance

funding formulas. Many state courts have overturned public education funding mechanisms,

claiming that the resources are no longer sufficient in providing an opportunity for each student

to achieve a minimum acceptable level of academic performance. As a result, education finance

systems have shifted focus from equitable distribution of resources toward adequacy.

The State of Florida funds public education by means of a formula-driven mechanism

known as the Florida Education Finance Program. The purpose of this study was to determine if

the Florida Education Finance Program provided equitable funds to public school districts while









maintaining an adequate distribution of resources. The Florida Education Finance Program from

the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 was analyzed using four measures of equity. Then

each of these school years was analyzed in terms of adequacy using an accountability score

developed from the research. Statistical measures were used to determine the effectiveness of

the Florida Education Finance Program in terms of equity and adequacy.

The results of this study indicate that in order to maintain an appropriate equitable

distribution of resources for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, adequacy may have

been compromised to ensure equity. The Florida Education Finance Program does not recognize

the relatively high cost of educating students from low-income families. It is suggested that to

achieve any given student performance standard, some schools may need to spend more than

others depending on the characteristics of the students and schools. The Florida Education

Finance Program should be reexamined and modified to balance today's need for equity and

adequacy.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The No ChildLeft BehindAct of 2001 required stringent changes and improvements in

public elementary and secondary education.1 This Act has required each state legislature to

provide an opportunity for each student to obtain minimum proficiency in the academic

standards as defined in state legislation.

The purpose of this (No ChildLeft BehindAct of 2001) is to ensure that all
children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-
quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State
academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. This
purpose can be accomplished by---(1) ensuring that high-quality academic
assessments, accountability systems, teacher preparation and training,
curriculum, and instructional materials are aligned with challenging State
standards so that students, teachers, parents, and administrators can measure
progress against common expectations for student academic achievement...

The implementation of the No Child Left BehindAct of 2001 (NCLB) has raised new

concerns regarding the distribution of resources through each state legislature's funding formula.

Recent litigation have caused some state legislation to change or adjust its funding formula to

ensure that each school district is provided enough fiscal resources to afford the minimum level

of competency for all students in the school district. The NCLB Act of 2001 can be

accomplished by distributing and targeting resources sufficiently to make a difference to local

educational agencies and schools where needs are greatest.3

The general accountability measures are detailed in the No ChildLeft BehindAct of 2001:





1 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 USC 6301 (2002).
2 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 1001, 20 USC 6301 (2002).

3 Ibid.









Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has developed and is
implementing a single, statewide State accountability system that will be
effective in ensuring that all local educational agencies, public elementary
schools, and public secondary schools make adequate yearly progress...
Each State shall establish statewide annual measurable objectives for
meeting these requirements, and which
(i) shall be set separately for the assessments of mathematics and
reading or language arts,
(ii) shall be the same for all schools and local educational agencies in
the State,
(iii) shall identify a single minimum percentage of students who are
required to meet or exceed the proficient level on the academic
assessments, and
(iv) shall ensure that all students will meet or exceed the State's
proficient level of academic achievement on the State's assessments
within the State's timeline.4

The Florida legislature was one of the first legislatures to implement an accountability

system to measure annual progress in school districts and students across the state. In Florida,

the set of standards specifying the knowledge and skills that students should have as they move

from grade to grade is called the Sunshine State Standards.5 The Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test (FCAT)6 provides one measure of students' knowledge and abilities in reading,

writing, mathematics, and science as prescribed in the Sunshine State Standards benchmarks.

The FCAT also includes norm-referenced tests (NRT) in reading comprehension and

mathematics problem solving, which allow for comparing the performance of Florida students

with students across the nation. The FCAT Sunshine State Standards benchmarks in reading

and mathematics and the FCAT NRT are tested in grades three through ten. The FCAT writing


4 Ibid.
5 Florida Department of Education (2005). Sunshine State Standards. Tallahassee, FL: Florida

Department of Education.
6 Florida Department of Education (2005). Understanding FCATReports 2005. Tallahassee, FL: Florida

Department of Education.
Ibid.









is tested in grades four, eight, and ten. The FCAT science is tested in grades five, eight, and

eleven.

The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) is the formula-driven mechanism used to

fund the operating costs of public schools in the State of Florida. The FEFP was established in

1973 to provide a state policy on equalized funding:

To guarantee to each student in Florida Public Education System the
availability of programs and services appropriate to his or her educational
needs which are substantially equal to those available to any similar student
notwithstanding geographic differences and varying economic factors.8

Each school district which participates in the state appropriations for the FEFP must provide

evidence of its effort to maintain an adequate school program and must meet many requirements

including: maintain adequate and accurate reports, operate schools for a minimum of 180 days,

adopt rules relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer, suspension, and dismissal of

personnel, and levy the required local effort millage on taxable value for school purposes.9 The

Legislature shall prescribe annually in the state appropriations act the maximum amount of

millage a district may levy.10 Public school districts participating in the FEFP must also comply

with the minimum classroom expenditure requirements, and maintain a system of planning and

evaluation as required by law.11

Statement of the Problem

The FEFP is the foundation of the State of Florida's method to fund the operating costs of

public elementary and secondary schools. The program was enacted by the Florida Legislature



8 Florida Statute 236.012 (1) (2000).
9 Florida Statute 1011.60 (2005).
10 Florida Statute 1011.71 (2005).
1 Florida Statute 1011.60 (7, 8) (2005).









in 1973, almost three decades before the rigorous, new accountability measures were developed

and implemented as prescribed in the NCLB Act of 2001 and the Sunshine State Standards

benchmarks assessments in Florida. Recent litigation in Kentucky,12 New York,13 Texas,14 and

Montana15 have raised questions concerning the fairness and quantity of resources distributed in

the public education funding formula. Many courts are overturning school finance systems,

claiming unconstitutionality in that the resources are no longer sufficient in providing each

student an opportunity to achieve the State's minimum level of academic competency.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if the Florida Education Finance Program

provided equitable funds to public school districts while maintaining an adequate distribution of

resources. The following questions were addressed in this study:

1. Based on per-pupil expenditures as stated in the FEFP and outcomes of grades three through
ten assessments on the FCAT, did the Florida legislature provide equitable resources to each
school district while maintaining an adequate distribution of resources for the 2004-2005
school year?

2. Based on per-pupil expenditures as stated in the FEFP and outcomes of grades three through
ten assessments on the FCAT, did the Florida legislature provide equitable resources to each
school district while maintaining an adequate distribution of resources for the 2005-2006
school year?

3. Given a certain level of resources, can a state resource distribution finance plan be developed
to achieve equitable distribution of resources while providing adequate funding
simultaneously throughout the public school districts in Florida?

Definition of Terms




12 Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1989).

13 Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State of ... York 86 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y.1995).
14 West Orange -Cove Consolidated SD v. Alanis 107 S.W.3d 558 (Tex.2003).
15 Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State 109 P.3d 257 (Mont. 1995).









The following terms will be used throughout this study:

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) stated purpose is to ensure that all children have a

fair, equal, and significant opportunity to achieve minimum proficiency on the State's academic

achievement standards and assessments.16

Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) is the finance plan enacted by the Florida

Legislature in 1973 to establish a state policy used to provide the equalization of educational

opportunity to each student in the Florida public education system.17

Sunshine State Standards (SSS) were approved by the Florida State Board of Education in 1996

to provide expectations for student achievement in Florida. The Sunshine State Standards are

standards that identify what public school students should know and be able to do. These

standards delineate the academic achievement of students for which the state will hold its public

schools accountable in grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12, in subjects of language arts, mathematics,

science, social studies, the arts, health and physical education, foreign languages, reading,

writing, history, government, geography, economics, and computer literacy. 18

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) is used to assess student achievement of the

Sunshine State Standards benchmarks in reading, mathematics, science, and writing.

Horizontal Equity principle states that students who are alike should receive alike shares (equal

treatment of equals). 19


16 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, (2002):20 USC 6301.

"Florida Department of Education (2005). Fundingfor Florida School Districts. Tallahassee, FL: Florida

Department of Education.
18 Florida Statute 1000.21 (7) (2005).

19 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, The Measurement of Equity in School Finance, (Baltimore, MD: The

John Hopkins University Press, 1984).









Vertical Equity principle recognizes that students are different and states that unequals receive

appropriately unequal treatment (unequal treatment of unequals).20

Adequacy is the cost of each student achieving the minimum education goals of the State.

FTE is the full-time equivalent student on the membership roll of one school program or a

combination of school programs for the school year comprised of not less than 900 net hours for

a student at the grade level of four through twelve, or not less than 720 net hours for a student at

the grade level of kindergarten through grade three.21

UFTE is the unweighted full-time equivalent student as referred to in the FEFP and the Florida

Statutes.

The Structure of the Florida Public School System

School districts in the state of Florida are organized by county. The state of Florida has

sixty-seven counties.

Each county [in the state of Florida] shall constitute a school district ....
Each district shall constitute a unit for the control, organization, and
administration of schools. The responsibility for the actual operation and
administration of all schools needed within the districts in conformity with
rules and minimum standards prescribed by the state, and also the
responsibility for the provision of any desirable and practicable
opportunities authorized by law beyond those required by the state, are
delegated by law to the school officials of the respective districts.22
The map as shown in Figure 1.1 shows the state of Florida and its sixty-seven counties

giving a visual of the counties and the relative geographic size and location.23

Table 1-1 shows the state of Florida and its sixty-seven counties ranked by population size

as estimated on July 1, 2001. Figure 1-1 together with the Table 1-1 shows the physical


20 Ibid.
21 Florida Statute 1011.61 (2005).
22 Florida Statute 1001.30 (2005).

23 An Imagemap of Florida. www.florida-arts.org. retrieved 3/22/07.









geographic size and the estimated total population of each county (school district region) in

Florida. Figure 1-1 and Table 1-1 show the districts that may contain urban, rural, and beach

populations.

Equity and Adequacy

The system of education finance in the United States is characterized by large disparities

in funding and opportunities for public K-12 education among schools, local school districts, and

states.24 Spending disparities within the states have inspired education finance reform efforts for

decades.25 These reform efforts were originally initialized by the belief of inequitable

distributions of resources. It was believed that high levels of spending in some districts paired

with low levels of spending in other districts caused inequities. Recently, however, questions

concerning education finance reform have shifted to the allocation of resources needed to

improve school performance and student assessment outcomes.

Today, the quality of an American education is of utmost concern. There tends to be

skepticism about the distribution of educational funds within the public school system.

Education finance systems today have shifted focus from equitable distribution of resources

toward adequacy. Courts in many states are rejecting the traditional "equity" claims while the

more ambitious cases demanding "adequacy" are winning.26





24 Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen, Equity andAdequacy in Education Finance Issues

and Perspectives (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
25 Ibid.

26 Paul Minorini and Stephen Sugarman, "School Finance Litigation In the Name of Educational Equity: It's

Evolution, Impact, and Future," in Equity andAdequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives,

eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).










The theory of equity concerns itself with wealth neutrality, which specifies that no

relationship should exist between the education of children and the property wealth that supports

the public funding of that education.27 The theory of adequacy concerns itself with educational

outcomes and the offering of educational programs that promise to teach students to reasonably

high standards.28 Figure 1-2 illustrates the shift from equity with its focus on dollar inputs to

adequacy with its focus on educational outcomes.

Summary

Public education finance issues are among the most fundamental issues being dealt with

today. Questions relating to public education finance include: 1) how much to pay?, and 2) who

pays? These questions are central concepts to equity and adequacy, which have long been at the

heart of public education fiscal policy.29 Equity issues focus on the fairness of the overall

public education allocation system.30 Adequacy issues attempt to link resources to education and

student outcomes on state mandated assessments.31 Given our decentralized system of public

education, differing amounts of public resources tend to be spent on school children throughout



27 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, "Concepts of School Finance Equity: 1970 to the Present," in Equity and

Adequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives, eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet

Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
28 Paul Minorini and Stephen Sugarman, "School Finance Litigation In the Name of Educational Equity: It's

Evolution, Impact, and Future," in Equity andAdequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives,

eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
29 Thomas Parrish, William Fowler. Disparities in Public School District Spending. US Department of

Education Office of Research and Improvement, NCES 95-300 (Washington, DC, 1995).

30 Ibid.

31 Robert Knoeppel, "Resource Adequacy, Equity, and the Right to Learn: Access to High-Quality

Teachers in Kentucky," Journal of Education Finance 32, no. 4(2007): 422-442.









each school district within each state. These differences are sometimes undesirable or

unwarranted. Given the variations in the cost of education resources and in the needs of students

that are known to exist across districts, equal dollars per student may not result in equal

education opportunities.32 Ongoing accountability standards in education policy require that

schools provide all children an equal opportunity to achieve to state standards.33

Organization of the Study

Chapter I introduced the problems being addressed in this study and presented sections

from the Federal Constitution and the Florida State Statutes relevant to this study. Also included

was the structure of the Florida Public School System. Chapter II contains a review of the

related literature including finance litigation, equity, adequacy, chaos theory, the Florida

Education Finance Program and their impact on the path of public educational funding as it

currently impacts the state of Florida. Chapter III includes a discussion on the measures and

formulas of equity and adequacy, and the methodology used in this study. Chapter IV provides

the results of the methodology as analyzed using data from the state of Florida's Department of

Education. Chapter V contains conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further

study related to the problem addressed in this study. The Appendices contain data and

computations used in the methodology, formulas, and analysis to reach the conclusions stipulated

in this study.






32 Thomas Parrish, William Fowler. Disparities in Public School District Spending. US Department of

Education Office of Research and Improvement, NCES 95-300 (Washington, DC, 1995).
33 Robert Knoeppel, "Resource Adequacy, Equity, and the Right to Learn: Access to High-Quality

Teachers in Kentucky," Journal of Education Finance 32, no. 4(2007): 422-442.


































Figure 1-1: The State of Florida and the sixty-seven school districts.
Figure 1-1: The State of Florida and the sixty-seven school districts.











Table 1-1: Florida counties ranked by population size: July 1, 2001


July 1, 2001
Estimate

16,396,515


Dade
Broward
Palm Beach
Hillsborough
Pinellas
Orange
Duval
Polk
Brevard
Lee
Volusia
Seminole
Pasco
Sarasota
Escambia
Manatee
Marion
Collier
Leon
Lake
Alachua
Saint Lucie
Osceola
Okaloosa
Bay
Clay
Charlotte
Hernando
Saint Johns
Martin
Santa Rosa
Citrus
Indian River
Highlands
Monroe
Putnam
Nassau


County


County

Florida


July 1, 2001
Estimate


38. Columbia
39. Flagler
40. Sumter
41. Jackson
42. Gadsden
43. Walton
44. Hendry
45. Okeechobee
46. Suwannee
47. Levy
48. De Soto
49. Hardee
50. Bradford
51. Wakulla
52. Baker
53. Washington
54. Taylor
55. Holmes
56. Madison
57. Gilchrist
58. Dixie
59. Union
60. Hamilton
61. Gulf
62. Calhoun
63. Jefferson
64. Franklin
65. Glades
66. Lafayette
67. Liberty


Table CO- EST2001- 06- 12 Florida Counties Ranked by Population Size: July 1, 2001
Source: Population Division, U. S. Census Bureau
Release Date: April 29, 2002


57,841
54,964
54,504
46,751
45,321
42,644
36,562
36,385
35,668
35,520
32,438
26,759
26,423
24,761
22,707
21,192
19,231
18,811
18,718
14,829
13,992
13,672
13,504
13,417
13,020
12,946
11,202
10,750
7,245
7,067


2,289,683
1,668,560
1,165,049
1,027,318
924,610
923,311
792,434
492,751
489,522
462,455
454,581
374,334
362,658
335,323
293,205
274,523
267,889
265,769
239,376
227,598
218,795
200,018
181,932
173,065
150,316
147,542
147,009
135,751
131,684
130,313
123,101
122,470
116,488
88,972
78,556
70,880
59,830













EQUITY

Dollars


ADEQUACY


Outcomes


Resources



Services



Outcomes


Services



Resources


Dollars


Figure 1-2: Equity and adequacy illustration34


























34 Equity and Adequacy illustration,
http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/mpr/VollONo /figures/equity.ipg









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Education was introduced in Massachusetts through the Massachusetts Educational Law

of 1642. This law was implemented due to "the great neglect of many parents and masters in

training up their children in learning and labor, and other implements which may be profitable to

the commonwealth."1 This law was put into place to ensure that children were developing the

ability to read and understand principles of religion and the laws of our country.

In 1899, educational philosopher John Dewey said: "What the best and wisest parent

wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for

our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy."2 Education was

recognized as essential and significant to the national well-being of our citizens and the common

good of our democracy. It was believed that the public school system would be responsible to

prepare people to become responsible citizens, improve social conditions, promote cultural unity,

help people become economically self-sufficient, and ensure a basic level of quality among

schools.3 Historically, the founding fathers had high expectations for the outcomes of public

education, but with no accountability procedures to measure these outcomes. Michael Rebell

says:




1 David Tyack, Turning Points in American Educational History, (Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Company,

1967).
2 John Dewey, "The School and Social Progress," in The school and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1907), 19-44.

3 Nancy Kober, Do We Still Need Public Schools? (Washington DC: Center on National Education Policy, 1996),

www.cep-dc.org.









The founding fathers and the leaders of the common school movement spoke
eloquently of the need to equip all of the nation's future citizens with the
intellectual skills they would need to be intelligent voters and civic participants,
but the schools in their day did not seriously attempt to implement these ideals.
Spurred by the standards-based reform movement and the adequacy litigations,
schools today are attempting to put into practice this democratic ideal...."4

Public education was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and therefore, by

Amendment X of the Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791): The powers not delegated to the United

States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states

respectively, or to the people.5 Thus, public education and its fiscal responsibility was left to

each state legislature. In 1758, John Adams said: "The whole people must take upon themselves

the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expense of it."6

The Constitution of the State of Florida refers to education as a fundamental value of its

people.7 Therefore, it is a paramount duty of the State of Florida to make adequate provision for

the education of all of its children: Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform,

efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to

obtain a high quality education.8

History of Education Finance Theories

The concept of equalization of education funding for schools was first developed in 1906

by Ellwood Cubberley. He was the first scholar to develop the concept of fiscal equity. In the


4 Michael Rebell, "Adequacy Litigations: A New Path to Equity," in Bringing Equity Back, eds. Janice

Petrovich and Amy Stuartwell (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004).
5US Constitution Bill of Rights (1791).
6 Charles Francis Adams, The Works ofJohn Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown

and Company, 1854).
SFlorida Constitution of 1968, Article IX, 1.
8Id.









1920s, Harlon Updegraff extended Cubberley's concept of fiscal equity by recommending that

states vary the amount of support they give to local districts, depending on the local school

districts ability to raise funds for education. Updegraff believed that every child in the state

should receive a minimum level of educational opportunity equal to every other child in the state.

During this same time period, Strayer and Haig introduced their minimum foundation program -

which contradicted ideas developed by Cubberley. While Cubberely believed that local districts

should be rewarded for its tax effort, Strayer and Haig opposed this view and contended that

Cubberley's view would lead to greater inequities.9 In 1924, Paul Mort extended the minimum

foundation program by developing a measure of financial district need based on a weighted-pupil

method.10 Some factors used by Mort to establish the educational need of the district were

educational level, size of district, and students with special needs. In the 1930s, Henry Morrison

argued that earlier efforts to fund public education have failed, and he then proposed a full state

support model to fund public education.11 Morrison's theory was derived from the fact that

under the federal law, education is a state responsibility and all education expenditures should be

funded out of state income tax.

Today, state legislation uses different methods to fund public education. State aid to

school districts can be classified in four categories: flat grants, foundation programs, equalization

programs (which include guaranteed tax base, guaranteed tax yield, and percentage equalization

programs), and full state funding.




9 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional C lIll,.. ( ,, to State Aid
Plans An Analysis ofStrategies. (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007).
10 Paul Mort. The Measurement of Educational Need. (New York: Columbia Teachers College, 1924).
11 Henry C. Morrison, School Revenue. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930).









Flat Grants

The flat grant is the oldest type of state aid to public education.12 Mathematically, a flat

grant is calculated by dividing the available funds by the simple unit of measure. The unit of

measure is selected by the state, such as the student or the teacher. Flat grants do not make an

adjustment to local capability to pay or tax effort. Today, no state relies solely on flat grants to

fund public education.13

Foundation Programs

A foundation program combined state and local resources to provide funding for every

student sufficient to achieve equal educational opportunity. First, the state determines the cost of

providing an adequate education. Then, the state provides financial assistance proportionate to

the local districts wealth to generate an adequate level of funding for each district. Foundation

plans are based on the school district's ability to pay for a minimum educational program.14

Equalization Programs

States with equalization programs allow school districts to determine the amount of

taxation or revenue they consider necessary for education, then ensure that each district has the

same ability to generate that revenue. Equalization plans describe a variety of formulas seeking

to match resources inversely to local capability to pay.15 There are three types of equalization

formulas:


12 David Thompson & R. Craig Wood, Money and Schools: A Handbookfor Practitioners. (Larchmont, NY:

Eye on Education, 1998).

13 Ibid.
14 R. Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional C liil,. i., to State Aid

Plans An Analysis ofStrategies. (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007).
15 David Thompson & R. Craig Wood, Money and Schools: A Handbookfor Practitioners. (Larchmont, NY:

Eye on Education, 1998).









* Guaranteed Tax Base (GTB) (also known as power-equalization programs) and

Guaranteed Tax Yield (GTY): The primary goals of GTB and GTY are local control and

taxpayer equity rather than student equity as is the case with flat grants and foundation

programs. Local districts set its own tax rates for education, then the state subsidizes locally

generated revenue through a formula that that accounts for local effort. The state sets a

maximum tax yield based on the state average of assessed value of property. Under GTB,

poor districts that tax themselves at high levels would receive significant benefits while poor

districts that tax themselves at low rates would spend far below the state average...which

could lead to greater inequity. Also, under GTB, districts with above-average property

wealth may not receive state assistance.

* Percentage equalization programs: Percentage equalization programs are a variation of

GTB programs which provide high levels of local control and taxpayer equity. They are

based on an aid ratio that determines the state-local funding partnership. The ratio is

calculated by dividing the average per-pupil wealth of the district by the average per-pupil

wealth of the state. The state also sets the state equalization percentage factor that applies to

all school districts. This factor is the portion of the local school district's total budget funded

by the state. 16

Full State Funding

The simplest and rarest approach to paying for public education is full state funding -

where the state pays for everything. Hawaii is the only statewide school district using full state

funding. Full state funding eliminates distinctions between state and local governance in




16George H. Sheldon, "Financing America's Public School," National Governors Association: Washington
DC, 1998, lhp \ \ \ .nga.org/cda/files/PUBLICSCHOOLS.pdf.









determining education finance policy. Full state funding requires a statewide tax apportioned

equally without regard to location or wealth. 17

The four categories described represent basic structures of state education funding

programs. Some states combine elements of more than one funding plan. Figure 2-1 describes

financing sources for state funding systems by state in 2004-2005.

Equity

Equity, a value in the American society, is a concept involving notions of fairness,

neutrality, and justice. School finance equity has been a concern for more than a century.

Efforts to link methods of school finance to fairness of the educational system can be traced back

to the beginning of the 20th Century with the work of Ellwood Cubberley.18 His work revealed

that wealthy communities had better schools than poorer communities. Cubberley advocated a

state role in school finance to provide the equalization of opportunities in education programs.

Cubberley stated that "all the children of the state are equally important and are entitled to have

the same advantages."19

The children who receive educational services are the main target for equity. Among the

many reasons for this are: first, education is viewed as an investment in the child's future. A







17 David Thompson & R. Craig Wood, Money and Schools: A Handbookfor Practitioners. (Larchmont, NY:

Eye on Education, 1998).

18 Helen F. Ladd Janet S. Hansen, eds., Making Money Matter -Financing America's Schools.

(Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

19 Ellwood P.Cubberley. School Funds and Their Apportionment. (New York: Columbia Teachers College

1906).









second reason is based on a concern for the experiences of children in the present since a large

part of a child's day is spent in school.20

Equity means equal and implies that one district or school receives the same amount as

another, usually in the same district or state.21 There are two principles used to determine fair

treatment of individuals: horizontal and vertical equity. Many of the definitions of equity can be

encompassed under these two principles.

Horizontal equity requires the equal treatment of equals. "Horizontal equity requires the

equal treatment of taxpayers in the same or equal circumstances. For example, if the property

tax was to meet the demands of this principle, all homeowners whose residences have equal

values would pay equal amounts of property tax."22 The application of the horizontal equity

principle seems simple in theory, however, it is very difficult to implement. The difficulty

comes from the measurement of an individual's ability to pay. In addition to the consideration of

the value of an individual's property, other widely used measures of ability to pay are income,

consumption, and wealth. Horizontal equity embodies the idea that people should pay the same

amount of tax and receive the same amount of benefits.

Vertical equity is the unequal treatment of unequals. When considering how much

property tax taxpayers should pay when they have twice the real property, the issue becomes the

relationship between the amount of tax and the ability to pay. "Because taxes are ultimately paid



20 Robert Berne, Leanna Stiefel. The Measurement ofEquity in School Finance. (Baltimore, MD: The John

Hopkins University Press, 1984).
21 William H. Clune. "The Shift from Equity to Adequacy in School Finance," Educational Policy 8, no. 4

(1994): 376-394.
22 David H. Monk and Brian O. Brent, Raising Money for Education A guide to the Property Tax, (Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1997).









from income, the relative fairness of a tax instrument is often determined by comparing

household tax payments with household personal income."23 There are three types of tax

systems: progressive, proportional, or regressive. In a progressive tax system, individuals with

twice the ability to pay would pay greater than two times the amount of tax, in a proportional tax

system (also known as a flat tax), tax burdens remain constant across all income groups, and in a

regressive tax system, individuals with twice the ability to pay would pay less than two times the

amount of tax. This example is illustrated in Table 2-1.

Vertical equity is the idea that people with greater ability to pay taxes should pay more.

With respect to public education finance, vertical equity specifies that differently situated

children should be treated differently.24 Utilization of vertical equity requires the identification

of the students in these different situations:


The identification is usually done by identifying groups of students who differ in
their needs for quality or use of inputs to achieve defined levels of outputs. Thus,
in concept, vertical equity ties input equity to output equity. Then inputs are
"adjusted" for the costs of educating various groups of children, as is often done
when vertical equity is measured, the adjustment is meant to indicate the amount
of additional resources that are needed (higher costs that are incurred) to bring
some students to given output levels.25

A century ago, the work of Ellwood Cubberley introduced and initiated public education

finance equity awareness. More recently, public school finance had begun to shift from equity

and fairness to acquiring the resources necessary to provide an adequate education to all

students. Many state legislators and public school districts around the country have begun to

23 Ibid.
24 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, "Concepts of School Finance Equity: 1970 to the Present," in Equity and

Adequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives, eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet

Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
25 Ibid.









develop and adopt a policy on adequacy in order to develop a framework for an adequate

education.


Adequacy

In the literature, there is no consensus about how much money is necessary to provide an

"adequate" education, however, there is agreement that high minimum achievement should be

the common goal of educational policy. William Clune defines adequacy as adequate for some

purpose, typically student achievement. "True adequacy," according to Clune, is finding the cost

of achieving high minimum standards in low-income schools and the implications of that goal

for policy.26 In the DeRolph v. State of Ohio27 case, adequacy was defined as an approach to

school funding that begins with the premise that the amount of funding schools receive should be

based on some estimate of the cost of achieving the state's educational goals.

Estimating the Cost of Adequacy

Beginning in the early 1900s, state legislatures appropriated money to local school

districts to assist with the cost of providing an adequate base amount sufficient to provide a

minimum education. State funding took the form of a flat grant, which provided the same

amount of funding for students in both poor and wealthy communities. In the 1920s, many state

legislatures began to adopt some form of a foundation program to relieve the insufficiencies and

inequities caused by using the flat grant system. Studies to estimate the actual cost of a

minimum education have never been determined. Instead, funding public education over the

decades tended to be established by the legislature based on the amount of funding currently




26 William H. Clune. "The Shift from Equity to Adequacy in School Finance," Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994):
376-394.
27 DeRolph v. State of Ohio, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997).









available. From the 1970s through the present, attempts to overcome the limitations of the

public education funding system were undertaken. Many of the studies on "costing-out

educational adequacy" were a direct result of state district and supreme courts declaring the level

of educational funding within the state unconstitutional (e.g., Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc.

v. State of New York28).29 Such studies have been conducted in over thirty-three states, and the

demand for such analyses has only continued to rise as adequacy lawsuits proliferate.30

The No ChildLeft BehindAct of200131 required states to implement annual student

testing and set minimum performance standards as part of a new accountability system. The

State of Florida was one of the first states to move aggressively into implementing higher

standards and requiring passage of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test for student

graduation.

As a result of the implementation of adequacy standards, many states have seen an

increase in litigation. Many state judicial branches and courts seem to interpret education

clauses in its state constitutions as requiring the state to provide an opportunity for all children to

reach an adequate level of student performance. However, funding systems designed to achieve

adequacy standards in education have been unsuccessfully attained.

Attempts to estimate the cost of adequacy have promoted heated debates among the

education finance scholars, policy makers, and the courts across America in recent years. Many

approaches and designs have been introduced in an effort to create a fair and impartial method of


28 Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State oJ .,. ii York 715N.Y.2d 475 (2001).

29 Eric A. Hanushek, "The Alchemy of 'Costing Out' an Adequate Education" (working paper, Education Working

Paper Archive, Hoover Institution, Stanford University2006).
30 Ibid.
31 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, (2002): 20USC6301.









funding our schools, however, much criticism of these funding methods have arisen due to lack

of a valid scientific approach in determining the disbursement of resources to public school

districts. Eric Hanushek says: "it is not possible to definitely identify the precise amount of

money that is needed for an adequate education."32

Approaches to Estimating the Cost of Adequacy

The development estimates of the cost of adequacy involves three steps: first, measures

of student performance must be selected that can be used to identify adequate and inadequate

performance; second, identification of the required spending for adequacy in at least one

"benchmark" school district; and third, adjustment of this adequate spending level is required to

reflect different characteristics in other school districts.33 Several methods have been developed

to estimate the cost of adequacy:

Professional Judgment Approach

In the Professional Judgment approach, a panel of educators teachers, principals,

superintendents, and other professionals are asked what resources they think are required for

public school districts to achieve the adequacy standard. These efforts typically produce "model

schools" defined in terms of class size, guidance and support personnel, and other programs that

might be necessary.34 In Professional Judgment studies, focus groups of educators and


32 Eric A. Hanushek, "Science Violated: Spending Projections and the 'Costing Out' of an Adequate

Education," in C. -,, iir, Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges' Good Intentions and Harm

Our Children. (Hoover Institution: Education Next, 2006).

33 William Duncombe, "Estimating the Cost of Educational Adequacy; A Comparison of Approaches" (paper

presented at American Education Finance Association, Albuquerque, NM, March 2002).
34 Eric A. Hanushek, "Science Violated: Spending Projections and the 'Costing Out' of an Adequate

Education," in C. -,, iir, Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges' Good Intentions and Harm

Our Children. (Hoover Institution: Education Next, 2006).










policymakers are typically convened to prescribe the "basket of educational goods and services"

required for providing an adequate education.35

Evidence Based Approach

The Evidence Based approach is an identification of the research literature as to the

organizational and delivery variables identified in the literature.36 Studies using the Evidence

Based approach are generally conducted by deriving resource needs from the literature on school

reform models proven effective and from judgments of experts who have developed or analyzed

those models. Judgments in these studies are made by a small group of educational policy

experts instead of teachers, administrators, and business officials that comprise the professional

judgment panel. More recently, Evidence Based analyses have strived to integrate a variety of

"proven effective" input strategies such as class size reduction, specific interventions for special

student populations, and comprehensive school reform models, rather than relying on a single

reform model.37

Successful Schools Approach

The successful schools approach first identifies a select group of schools in the state that

are meeting the educational goals. The identification of the successful schools is usually based

on an appropriate level of student achievement. Resources spent on special programs are taken


35 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. "Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools" (Bush

School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University,

2005).
36 R. Craig Wood and Associates, "Determining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education in the State of

Montana," (Gainesville, FL, 2005).

3 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. "Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools" (Bush

School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University,

2005).









out of the budget, then a base-cost figure is obtained for each district. Outliers from this group of

schools are removed, then the remaining schools' base-costs are averaged to develop an effective

performance amount. Successful Schools approach is a statistical modeling approach that

calculates the cost of an adequate education based on specific data with respect to student test

scores and other outcome measures. Opponents of this approach claim that variations in student

demographics make comparisons of expenditures misleading.38

Cost Function Approach (Statistical Analysis or Econometric Approach)

The cost function approach focuses on developing an accurate adjustment for student

needs and resource price differences. The cost function approach relates data on actual spending

in a district to student performance, resource prices, student needs, and other relevant

characteristics of districts. These estimates are used to construct cost indices, which measure

how factors outside a district's control affect the spending required to reach a given student

performance level. 39 Cost Function analysis is a regression technique specifically designed to

measure the district-by-district differences in costs associated with geographic price variations,

economies of scale, and variations in student need.40 As such, it can be used not only to predict

the cost of achieving a desired level of outcomes in an average district, but also to generate a cost




38 R. Craig Wood, Donald Robson, Merle Farrier, Stephen Smith, Joyce Silverthorne, and Michael Griffith,

"Determining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education in the State of Montana," Report to Montana State

Legislature, 2005.

39 William Duncombe, "Estimating the Cost of Educational Adequacy; A Comparison of Approaches" (paper

presented at American Education Finance Association, Albuquerque, NM, March 2002).
40 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. "Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools" (Bush

School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University,

2005).









index that indicates the relative cost of producing the desired outcomes in each district.41 The

cost function approach differs from the successful schools approach in that it attempts to

determine the level of spending that is correlated with academic success and how that level may

change for districts with different characteristics serving different student populations.

Adequacy study methods may be generally characterized as "resource-oriented" or

"performance-oriented" depending on the type of data incorporated into the analyses.42

Resource-oriented analyses focus on categories of educational resource inputs, including

numbers of teachers, classroom of particular dimensions, and technology, while performance-

oriented analyses focus on measures of student performance outcomes of interest to

policymakers.43

Figure 2-2 summarizes adequacy studies on a continuum from resource-oriented to

performance-oriented analysis.

Adequacy Concerns

Determining the cost of an adequate education and developing methods to compute these

costs have been a priority in education finance recently. There have been growing concerns

pertaining to the four approaches of costing out an adequate education. Researchers have been

questioning the validity and reliability of the adequacy approaches.

Costing out studies should be interpreted as political documents not as scientific
studies. ... Costing out studies address questions of the relationship between a
desired outcome (adequate education) and the set of resources needed to reach
that outcome. Put differently, the key to any such study is whether they
accurately identify how much achievement will change with added resources.



41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.









Providing a reliable answer to this issue has defied all past research, and none of
the approaches to costing out an adequate education solve it.44

Four methods have been developed to estimate the cost of an adequate education, however, much

of the literature is stating that there is no scientifically valid method to determine how

achievement will change given a change in resources or spending. The adequacy reports state

that the resources will provide each student an "opportunity" to achieve a standard, not a definite

means of achieving a standard. Since there are no predictions about achievement outcomes in

the adequacy reports to date, then they are completely unverifiable.45

Chaos Theory

A possible explanation for the unscientific nature of the existing costing-out studies of

financing an adequate level of public education could be explained in the new science of chaos

theory. Traditional science, sometimes referred to as Newtonian science produced numerous

laws and theories to attempt to explain the phenomena of nature and of our universe. Newtonian

science operated on the assumption that given the approximate knowledge of a systems initial

conditions and an understanding of natural law, then the approximate behavior of the system

could be calculated. Before 1960, this assumption lay at the heart of science. For as long as the

world has physicists inquiring into the laws of nature, it has suffered a special ignorance about

disorder in the atmosphere, in the turbulent sea, in fluctuations in wildlife populations, in the

oscillations of the heart and the brain.46 Mathematicians, physicists, biologists, chemists,




44 Eric A. Hanushek, "Science Violated: Spending Projections and the 'Costing Out' of an Adequate

Education," in C. ,ii, r, Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges' Good Intentions and Harm

Our Children. (Hoover Institution: Education Next, 2006).

45 Ibid.
46 James Gleick, Chaos: Making A New Science (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA,1987).









physiologists, ecologists, and economists began searching and finding ways through these

irregularities and disorders, hence, the birth of chaos theory.47


The new science of chaos theory evolved with the computer age to explain physical

systems that behaved nonperiodically systems that never quite manage to repeat themselves.

Chaos theory provides a means for understanding and explaining these nonlinear systems.

"Nonlinear systems are historical systems in that they are determined by the interactions between

deterministic elements in a system's history and chance factors that may alter its evolution."48

Nonlinear systems became known to be sensitively dependent on its initial conditions. Any

small changes in the initial conditions of a system could generate very divergent outcomes.

Chaos theory provided the link between nonlinear systems and unpredictability.


Aspects of chaos theory can be applied to the finance issues of education. There are

many inputs into the education system, most of which are economic, social, and political. Thus

making the education finance system a nonlinear system. Nonlinear systems reveal dynamical

behavior such that the relationships between variables are unstable.49 An important element of

nonlinear systems is uncertainty, since the outcomes of changing variable interactions cannot be

known. The relationships between variables over time in nonlinear systems develop

complexities that resist generalizations. This difficulty in developing generalizations makes it

impossible to be able to predict outcomes relevant to complex social phenomena such as linking





47 Ibid.
48 L. Douglas Kiel and Euel Elliott, eds. Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, MI: The University

of Michigan Press, 1997).
49 Ibid.









student achievement to the quantity of educational resources necessary to predict or guarantee

educational growth and improvement.

The concept of chaos theory helps us to understand that devising a finance plan to

allocate the exact amount of resources needed to an absolute certainty to achieve adequate

educational opportunity for every student in every district within each state is virtually

impossible. However, the question "how much does an adequate education cost?" must be

answered by legislatures and policymakers across the United States. Due to federal, state, and

judicial initiatives, mostly resulting from recent litigation outcomes focusing on educational

adequacy, studies to estimate the cost of an adequate education have moved into the policy

platform. "Adequacy studies" are publicly-reported attempts by state officials or special interest

groups to apply an empirical methodology to estimate the costs of providing an adequate public

education at the elementary and/or secondary level.5o Many states have been developing

adequacy studies since the focus of adequacy standards has emerged in the judicial branch of the

government throughout the United States.

Review of Cases

Historically, public education challenges have been focused on the constitutionality of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor

50 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. "Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools" (Bush

School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University,
2005).









shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.5

Many cases have been brought before the courts claiming violations of the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Plessy v. Ferguson52 ruling in 1896 enforced segregation as long as facilities for

blacks were not inferior to those of whites. The courts legally approved "separate but equal"

even though it was argued that "the Constitution is color-blind."53 Justice Brown's interpretation

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as stated in his opinion was:

The object of the Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute
equality of the two races before the law.... Laws permitting, and even
requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into
contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the
other....the most common instance of this is connected with the
establishment of separate schools for white and colored children.54
The "separate but equal" principle in public education held for nearly half a century.

That is, until chief legal council Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP brought five cases before

the U.S. Supreme Court specifically challenging Plessy v. Ferguson. These five cases,

collectively known to become Brown v. Board ofEducation55 (1954) overturned Plessy v.

Ferguson (1896) and became the most important public education ruling in American history.

As stated by Chief Justice Warren in his opinion: "... in the field of public education, the





51 U.S. Const. amend. XIV. And E. Edmund Reutter, The Law of Public Education (New York, NY:

Foundation Press,1994) p988.
52Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
53 Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Justice Harlan's dissent.

54 Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Justice Brown's opinion.

55 Brown v. Board ofEducation 347 U.S. 483 (1954).









doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently

unequal ..."56

The 1970s marked the beginning of court challenges concerning public education funding

structures. Disparities in funding structures across school districts were addressed by the courts,

which led to an investigation into school finance reform. Three waves of school finance reform

have been identified: Wave I occurred in the early 1970s and involved claims that the school

funding system violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, Wave II occurred from 1973 to 1989 and involved claims that the school funding

system violated the Education and Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution, and Wave

III occurred from 1989 to present and involved claims that public education funding should

switch from equity standards to adequacy standards.57 There was some overlap asserted in these

three waves, but organizing cases into these waves provides a means for discussing trends in

school funding litigation.

Wave I

Litigation in the first wave tested whether public school funding systems violated the

equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In American

Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court has held that some rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment are so fundamental, that special significance and recognition be given to them.

Fundamental Rights are basic, natural human rights for all citizens implied from the terms of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Some rights generally recognized as

fundamental are: right to religious belief, right to vote, right to freedom of association, and right

56 Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Justice Warren's opinion.

57 William Duncombe, "Estimating the Cost of Educational Adequacy; A Comparison of Approaches" (paper

presented at American Education Finance Association, Albuquerque, NM, March 2002).









to freedom of expression. Many court cases in Wave I and Wave II based their challenges on the

grounds to determine if education was a Fundamental Constitutional Right.58

In California (1971) school children and their parents residing in Los Angeles county

brought a class action suit against county and state finance officials in Serrano v. Priest.59

California's public school system substantially depended on local property taxes to fund public

education resulting in wide disparities of school revenue. In Justice Sullivan's opinion, the

courts have determined that:

[The State of California's] funding scheme invidiously discriminates
against the poor because it makes the quality of a child's education a
function of wealth of his parents and neighbors ... the right to an education
in our public schools is a fundamental interest ... concluding that such a
system cannot withstand constitutional challenge and must fall before the
Equal Protection Clause.60

This ruling made California the first state during the modem era to strike down the state's

education finance formula.61

In Texas (1973), students whose families resided in poorer districts challenged the state

funding program. They claimed that the public education finance system violated their

Fourteenth Amendment right, and they argued that the system underprivileged students in San

Antonio because their schools did not have the property tax base that wealthier schools attained.






58 William E. Thro, "Judicial Analysis During the Third Wave of School Finance Litigation: The Massachusetts

Decision as a Model," Boston College Review 35 (1994): 597-617.
59 Serrano v. Priest 5 C3d 584 (1971).
60 Serrano v. Priest 5 C3d 584 (1971) Justice Sullivan's opinion.

61 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional ( lIll.. to State Aid

Plans An Analysis ofStrategies. (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007).









This case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez62 was decided in 1973 and was

primarily contested on the grounds that education was a fundamental right. It was also argued

that inequities in school finance were based on wealth, reducing poor students to a suspect class.

Justice Powell delivered the opinion to the court:

... the Texas system does not disadvantage any suspect class...nor does the
Texas school financing system impermissibly interfere with the exercise of
a "fundamental" right or liberty. ... while assuring a basic education for
every child in the State, it permits and encourages participation in and
significant control of each district's schools at the local level.63

Thus, with the Rodriguez ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended arguing education as

a fundamental right at the federal level. Hence, due to Rodriguez, future education finance

complaints were lodged primarily within the state courts.64

Wave II

Litigation in the second wave tested whether public school funding systems violated the

Education and Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution. After the Supreme Court's

ruling in Rodriguez, the California Supreme Court reviewed its decision in the Serrano v. Priest

(1971) case. In 1976, Serrano 1165 upheld its previous decision solely relying on state

constitutional grounds. In Serrano III,66 the California Supreme Court refined its previous







62 San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973).

63 San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973) Justice Powell's opinion.

64 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional C lii,,. i,. to State Aid

Plans An Analysis ofStrategies. (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007).
65 Serrano II, 557 P.2d 929 (1976).

66 Serrano III569 P.2d 1303 (1977).









decisions by allowing that special needs programs should not be considered when examining

wealth-related disparities.67

In the 1973 case, Robinson v. Cahill, 68 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the

funding of its public schools, relying heavily on local property taxes, violated the thorough and

efficient education clause of the state constitution. It was argued that the disparities in school

revenue relied on local property taxes, and as a result of these disparities, there was unequal

educational opportunity. "... Obviously, equality of dollar input will not assure equality in

educational results ... But, it is nonetheless clear that there is a significant connection between

the sums expended and the quality of the educational opportunity"69 The court ruled that the

state funding program created a situation in which education was not being provided to all

students in a thorough manner. In addition, the Robinson case secured the concept of student

equity as a justifiable basis for challenging state finance systems. In 1975, the legislature passed

the Public School Education Act of 1975 to address funding issues.

The Connecticut Supreme Court issued its ruling in Horton v. Meskill70 which stated that

the right to an education is a basic and fundamental right. In this ruling, known as Horton I, it

was ruled that of all the existing forms of distributing state funds throughout the country, the use

of the flat grant had the least equalizing effect on local financial abilities. The Court held that

the state of Connecticut was to ensure that all public school students attained:




6 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional( hC lIll,,. to State Aid

Plans An Analysis ofStrategies. (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007).
68Robinson v. Cahill 63 NJ 196 (1973).

69 Robinson v. Cahill 62 NJ 481 (1973).

70 Horton v. Meskill 172 Conn. 615 (1977). (Horton I)









a substantially equal educational opportunity [by] allocating governmental
support to education so that funds, instead of equally benefiting all towns by
way of flat grant, would offset the demonstrated significant disparities in
the financial ability of local communities to finance local education.7


In 1985, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a second ruling in Horton v. Meskill

(Horton 11)72 in which the court established a three-part test for determining the constitutionality

of state education funding distribution. In part one, the plaintiffs must make an initial showing

that the expenditure disparities are serious enough to threaten students' fundamental right to

education. In part two, in order for the distribution formula to survive, the state must prove that

any funding disparities are a result of state policy, and finally, not so great as to be

unconstitutional. The Horton rulings indicated that, in order for state financial plans to be

constitutional, they must advance a legitimate state policy and not lead to any large disparities in

educational opportunity based on town property wealth.

In Pauley v. Kelly,73 parents of students in low-wealth Lincoln County claimed the state

school funding system violated their rights under the education and equal protection clauses of

the state constitution. The West Virginia Supreme Court found that the state aid distribution

formula violated both the thorough and efficient clause as well as the equal protection clause of

the state constitution.74 The Court held that education was a fundamental right that the legal

requirements of a "thorough and efficient" system of education required the state to develop

standards for high-quality education:


71 Id., 649.
72 Horton v. Meskill 195 Conn. 24 (1985). (Horton II)

73 Pauley v. Kelly 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979).
74 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional ( ll/,. i,. to State Aid

Plans An Analysis ofStrategies. (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007).









With the legally recognized components of thorough and efficient school
systems, it is obvious from the circuit court's findings about Lincoln
County schools that they are, to say the least, woefully inadequate by those
standards, and we would frankly be surprised if the school system will meet
any thorough and efficient standard that may be developed on the remand.7


In the 1984 ruling in Pauley v. Bailey,76 the West Virginia Supreme Court required

the state to develop and implement a detailed master plan for education reform as

mandated by the Pauley v. Kelly decision.

In 1983, the Arkansas Supreme Court, found the state's school funding system

unconstitutional and ruled that education was not a fundamental right under the equal protection

clause of the state constitution, in Dupree v. Alma School District No. 30.77 In this case, the

plaintiffs were able to demonstrate that only seven percent of the state students resided in school

districts with over $1,500 per pupil total revenues as contrasted with twenty-one percent of the

state students residing in school districts with less than $1,100 per pupil revenues.78 Further, the

plaintiffs' methodology reflected that the state aid formula increased the disparity of funds

available to local school districts.79

In Edgewood v. Independent School District v. Kirby8s (Edgewood I), the Texas Supreme

Court held unconstitutional the state's school financing system under which district spending per

student varied from $2,112 to $19,333. The court stated that districts must have "substantially

75 Pauley v. Kelly 255 S.E.2d 878 (1979).

76 Pauley v. Bailey 324 S.E.2d 128 (1984).

SDupree v. Alma School District No. 30, 651 S.W. 2d 90 (Ark. 1983).

8 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional ( lill,,.. i, to State Aid

Plans An Analysis ofStrategies. (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 1996).
79 Ibid.

80 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 777 S.W.2d 391 (1989). (Edgewoodl)









equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort."81 The court also

ordered the state legislature to implement an equitable system by the 1990-91 school year.

In Edgewood l, 82 the Texas Supreme Court reviewed the school funding system enacted

in response to the EdgewoodI decision. Again, the court found the school finance system

unconstitutional because it left the same gaps between high-wealth and low-wealth school

districts.

Figures 2-3 and 2-4 indicate the status of the fundamental state constitutional right issue

in selected states based on school finance constitutional litigation:

Wave III

Litigation in the third wave involved courts overturning school finance systems due to

state education issues rather than equal protection clauses. Wave III involved claims that public

education funding should switch from equity standards to adequacy standards. Third wave cases

contain greater diversity in legal reasoning. Plaintiffs in Waves I and II of school funding cases

emphasized reducing spending disparities and focused on input measures (per pupil spending).

Plaintiffs in Wave III concentrated on the acceptability of school funding and proposed that there

was a constitutional floor of minimally adequate education to which public school students were

entitled.

In 1989, the decision in Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State of Montana83

was notable for its emphasis on access to a quality education, not a minimal and basic education.

The Court noted that equality of educational opportunity was the only right guaranteed in the


81 Ibid.
82 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 804 S.W.2d 491 (1991). (Edgewood Il)

83 Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State of Montana 769 P.2d 684 (1989).









Montana Constitution. The State of Montana recognized the distinct and unique cultural heritage

of the American Indians and was committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their

cultural integrity. The Court held that the then-existing school finance system was

unconstitutional. The court also held that the Foundation Program funding fell short of even

meeting the costs of complying with Montana's minimum accreditation standards. The Montana

Legislature then began to adopt new school funding legislation through enacting a series of

House Bills. Despite legislative attempts to amend the school funding problem in Montana for

more than a decade, the court ruled that the finance program still remained unconstitutional in

Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State84 in 2004. The court held that the current funding system

failed to provide adequate funding for Montana's public schools and the state has shown no

commitment in its educational goals to the preservation of American Indian cultural identity.85

In Rose v. Councilfor Better Education, 86 the State Supreme Court declared the entire

Kentucky educational system of common schools unconstitutional, not just the finance system.

While the Court ruled that education in Kentucky is a fundamental right, evidence was provided

to show that Kentucky's system of common schools was under-funded and inadequate, was

hampered with inequities and inequalities throughout the 177 local school districts, was ranked

nationally in the lower 20-25 percent in every category used to assess educational performance,

and was not uniform among the districts in educational opportunities. The Court declared the

system of common schools in Kentucky to be unconstitutional, and placed the absolute duty on

the General Assembly to re-create and re-establish a new system of common schools in the



84 Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State of Montana 109 P.3d 257 (k2 r14).
85 Ibid.

86 Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989).









Commonwealth. The Court did give some general guidelines which defined an adequate

education as one that provides students with the opportunity to develop at least the following

seven capabilities:

* Sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a
complex and rapidly changing civilization

* Sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable the student to
make informed choices

* Sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student to understand the
issues that affect his or her community, state, or nation

* Sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and physical wellness

* Sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural
heritage

* Sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational
fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and

* Sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to
compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics, or in the job
market. 87

In New Jersey, judicial involvement in education finance reform began with Robinson v.

Cahill (1973). Due to slow implementation of mandated reforms, judicial involvement surfaced

again in a series of Abbott v. Burke"8 decisions:


* Abbott 89 (1985): Abbott v. Burke challenged that the Public School Education Act of
1975 actually increased disparities on public school funding (which relied heavily on
property taxes).


8 Paul A. Minorini and Stephen D. Sugarman, "Educational Adequacy and the Courts:The Promise and

Problems of Moving to a New Paradigm," in Equity andAdequacy in Education Finance: Issues and
Perspectives, eds. Helen F. Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen, 175-208 (Washington DC:

National Academy Press, 1999).
88Abbottv. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990).
89Abbottv. Burke 495 A.2d 376 (1985). (AbbottI)









* Abbott 1190 (1990): the New Jersey Supreme Court found the 1975 Act unconstitutional
since it related only to a specific class of districts. The court ordered the legislature to fund
poor urban districts at a level matching with wealthy districts and to provide additional
funding to accommodate special needs of students in poor, urban districts. The legislature
passed the Quality Education Act of 1990.

* Abbott I191 (1994): the New Jersey Supreme Court declares the Quality Education Act of
1990 unconstitutional because it did not provide equalized educational funding and the
state did not properly address supplemental programs for disadvantaged students. In 1996,
the legislature passed the Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act
(CEIFA), which defined supplemental programs, including a program for Early Childhod
Program Aid (ECPA).

* Abbott IV92 (1997): the New Jersey Supreme Court declares the CEIFA unconstitutional
because it failed to provide sufficient funds. The Court ordered state officials to increase
funds for urban schools to match with suburban schools.

* Abbott V93 (1998): the New Jersey Supreme Court orders a series of entitlements for urban
school children including full-day kindergarten, preschool for all 3- and 4-year olds, a
comprehensive state-managed and funded facilities program to eliminate overcrowding
and correct code violations.

* Abbott V194 (2000): the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state has failed to meet
the educational standards set in 1998. The Court ordered the New Jersey Department of
Education to rebuild the preschool education program immediately.

The Abbott v. Burke series of court cases gave the state of New Jersey a significant push

forward in what quality means in educational programs. In Abbott, the Court made a statement

about the importance to fund our schools, both in the interest of the children, and for society as a

whole:

Those students in the special needs (poorer) districts, given their
educational disadvantages and the circumstances of their environment, will
not be able to compete as workers. They are entitled at least to the chance
of doing so, and without an equal educational opportunity, they will not

90Abbottv. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (1990). (Abbott I)
91 Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (1994). (Abbott II)
92Abbottv. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (1997). (Abbott IV)

93Abbottv. Burke 710 A.2d 450 (1998). (Abbott V)
94Abbottv. Burke 748 A.2d 82 (2000). (Abbott VI)









have that chance. Their situation in society is one of extreme disadvantage;
the state must not compound it by providing an unequal opportunity to take
advantage of the gift of education. So it is not just that their future depends
on the State, the State's future depends on them.95


In 1995, Florida plaintiffs filed Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding

v. Chiles,96 to challenge the state's public education funding structure. The case was dismissed

by the lower court, then in 1996, the Florida Supreme Court accepted the lower court's dismissal

of the case. The Florida Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had "failed to demonstrate ... an

appropriate standard for determining 'adequacy' that would not present a substantial risk of

judicial intrusion into the powers and responsibilities of the legislature."97

In New York, the Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. (CFE), a not-for-profit corporation

of concerned citizens, challenged the constitutionality of the state's public school funding on the

grounds that public school students in New York City were being denied the opportunity for a

"sound basic education."98 In 1995, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court stated:

We do not attempt to definitively specify what the constitutional mandate of
a sound basic education entails. Given the procedural posture of this case,
an exhaustive discussion and consideration of the meaning of a "sound basic
education" is premature. Only after discovery and the development of a
factual record can this issue be fully evaluated and resolved. Rather, we
articulate a template reflecting our judgment of what the trier of fact must
consider in determining whether defendants have met their constitutional
obligation. The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in
plaintiffs' districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the
basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to
function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors. 99

95Abbottv. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994).
96 Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles 680 So.2d 400 (1996).

97 Ibid.
98 Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of .,.. i York 86 N.Y.2d 307 (1995).
99 Ibid.










The Court of Appeals also held that certain essential resources were required in order for

students to attain a sound basic education:

Children are entitled to minimally adequate physical facilities and
classrooms which provide enough light, space, heat, and air to permit
children to learn. Children should have access to minimally adequate
instrumentalities of learning such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably
current textbooks. Children are also entitled to minimally adequate teaching
of reasonably up-to-date basic curricula such as reading, writing,
mathematics, science, and social studies, by sufficient personnel adequately
trained to teach those subject areas.100

In its opinion, the Court outlined its template definition of a sound basic education, emphasizing

minimally adequate basic skills necessary to function productively as a voter and serve on a jury.

The Court indicated that the definition of a sound basic education should be further developed.

In 2001, Justice DeGrasse presiding over the New York State Supreme Court concluded

in Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of New York that:

The court holds that the education provided New York City students is so
deficient that it falls below the constitutional floor set by the Education
Article of the New York State Constitution. ... the court [also] finds that the
State school funding system has an adverse and disparate impact on
minority public school children ...101

Justice DeGrasse gave a remedial order, setting up parameters and guidelines to help the state

reform the current school funding system:

This court has held that a sound basic education mandated by the Education
Article consists of foundational skills that students need to become
productive citizens capable of civic engagement and sustaining competitive
employment. In order to ensure that public schools offer a sound basic
education the State must take steps to ensure at least the following resources
... are ... given to New York City's public school students:

100 Ibid.
101 Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State oJ .,..- York 715 N.Y.2d 475 (2001).









1. Sufficient numbers of qualified teachers, principals, and other
personnel.
2. Appropriate class sizes.
3. Adequate and accessible school buildings with sufficient space to ensure
appropriate class size and implementation of a sound curriculum.
4. Sufficient and up to date books, supplies, libraries, educational
technology, and laboratories.
5. Suitable curricula, including an expanded platform of programs to help
at risk students by giving them "more time on task."
6. Adequate resources for students with extraordinary needs.
7. A safe orderly environment.
In the course of reforming the school finance system, ... the actual cost of
providing a sound basic education in districts around the State ... reforms to
the current system of financing school funding should address:
1. Ensuring that every school district has the resources necessary for
providing the opportunity for a sound basic education.
2. Taking into account the variations in local costs.
3. Providing sustained and stable funding in order to promote long-term
planning by schools and school districts.
4. Providing as much transparency as possible so that the public may
understand how the State distributes school aid.
5. Ensuring a system of accountability to measure whether the reforms
implemented by the legislature actually provide the opportunity for a
sound basic education and remedy the disparate impact of the current
finance system.102

The Court gave the State of New York until July 2004 to comply with the order. The State failed

to devise and implement a reform plan of the public school financing system by this deadline.

Justice DeGrasse then appointed three referees to devise and present a solution. In November

2004, the referees presented and Justice DeGrasse ordered the reform plan which recommended

spending $5.63 billion for operating expenses and $9.2 billion for facilities be phased over four

years. The significance of this case is the illustration of the government failing to remedy

constitutional violations by the court, which then required the court to formulate its own solution

with large budgetary implications.




102 Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of .,..- York 715 N.Y.2d 475 (2001).









The State of Ohio's school funding system spent six years in litigation (1997-2003).

Over a century earlier, in 1851, the Ohio Constitution has required the General Assembly to

provide enough funding to secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools

throughout the state. The State of Ohio held that education was essential in preparing the youth

to be productive members of our democratic society and to progress as a state. In 1997, the Ohio

school funding mechanism was challenged, and a decision was needed to determine whether the

promise of the forefathers of providing the youth a free public education in a thorough and

efficient system has been fulfilled. In the decision ofDeRolph v. State of Ohio (DeRolph 1)103

All the facts documented in the record lead to one inescapable conclusion -
Ohio's elementary and secondary public schools are neither thorough nor
efficient. The operation of the appellant school districts conflicts with the
historical notion that the education of our youth is of utmost concern and
that Ohio children should be educated adequately so that they are able to
participate fully in society. Our state Constitution was drafted with the
importance of education in mind. In contrast, education under the
legislation being reviewed ranks miserably low in the state's priorities. In
fact, the formula amount is established after the legislature determines the
total dollars to be allocated to primary and secondary education in each
biennial budget. Consequently, the present school financing system
contravenes the clear wording of our Constitution and the framers' intent ..
By our decision today, we send a clear message to lawmakers: the time has
come to fix the system. Let there be no misunderstanding. Ohio's public
school financing scheme must undergo a complete systematic overhaul.
The factors which contribute to the unworkability of the system and which
must be eliminated are (1) the operation of the School Foundation Program,
(2) the emphasis of Ohio's school funding system on local property tax, (3)
the requirement of school district borrowing through the spending reserve
and emergency school assistance loan programs, and (4) the lack of
sufficient funding in the General Assembly's biennium budget for the
construction and maintenance of public school buildings. The funding laws
reviewed today are inherently incapable of achieving their constitutional
104
purpose.



103 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 677 N.E.2d 733 (1997). (DeRolph I)
104 Ibid.









Hence, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the school funding system was unconstitutional and

ordered a complete and systematic overhaul of the funding system with the DeRolph I ruling.


In 2000, despite funding increases in public education in Ohio, the court ruled the

funding system virtually unchanged and still unconstitutional in DeRolph v. State of Ohio

(DeRolph II).105 After further efforts to amend the school funding system in Ohio, the court held

that the system still remained unconstitutional in DeRolph III.106 In 2002, the Ohio Supreme

Court again ruled that the school funding process still remained unconstitutional in DeRolph

IV.107 In 2000, 2001, and 2002, instead of implementing a complete and systematic overhaul of

the entire funding mechanism of Ohio, the Ohio Legislature just authorized an increase of state

funds to be dispersed to the school districts. The Ohio Legislature was never provided with

guidance as to how to create a constitutionally sound school funding program by the Ohio

Supreme Court. Finally, on May 16, 2003, the Ohio Supreme Court, with its response to a writ

of prohibition filed by the state, effectively ended the saga that has been known as the DeRolph

108
case.


An interesting note in DeRolph I was Justice Moyer's dissenting opinion. He pointed out

that determining appropriate funding for public schools required policy decisions involving

political budgetary value judgments that the courts are not in position to make. Justice Moyer

concluded that "the judicial branch is neither equipped nor empowered to make these kinds of



105 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 728 N.E.2d 993 (2000). (DeRolph II)
106 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 754 N.E.2d 1184 (2001). (DeRolph III)

107 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 780 N.E.2d 529 (2002). (DeRolph IV)

108 Sandra K. McKinley, "The Journey to Adequacy: The DeRolph Saga," Journal of Education

Finance 30, no. 3 (2005):288-312.









decisions."109 Nevertheless, Ohio public schools have benefited from the DeRolph litigations,

and billions of state dollars continue to be poured into the construction and renovation of school

facilities across the state, but the school funding system in Ohio still remains unconstitutional.110

The Legislatures of the State of Texas spent decades revising the finance system as a

result of a series of litigations beginning with Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School

District (1973), 11 and then continuing with the series of Edgewood Independent School District

v. Kirby (1989, 1991, 1992, 1995).112 In 2003, the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments in the

case West Orange-Cove ConsolidatedlSD v. Nelson. 113 The plaintiff school districts alleged that

the provision of the education finance system that that limits the local tax rate to $1.50 per $100

of assessed valuation violates the Texas State Constitution, therefore deeming the state's school

funding as inadequate. While the state's school funding formula was constitutional, the court

held that the state property tax system had become unconstitutional.

Table 2-2 gives an outline of the highest state-court decisions or un-appealed lower court

decisions:

In conclusion, from the cases reviewed, the last half-a-century has seen many plaintiff

victories. Plaintiffs' success in the recent wave of education adequacy litigations reflects both a

renewed attempt to implement Brown's vision of educational opportunity and also a flowering of


109 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 677 N.E.2d 733 (1997). (DeRolph I)

110 Sandra K. McKinley, "Part II. The Journey to Adequacy: The DeRolph Saga," Journal of Education

Finance 30, no. 4 (2005):321-381.
111 Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
112 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 777 S.W.2d 391(1989). (Edgewoodl), Edgewood I1804

S.W.2d 491 (1991)., EdgewoodIII 826 S.W.2d 489 (1992)., EdgewoodlV893 S.W.2d 450 (1995).
113 West Orange-Cove Consolidated SD v. Nelson 107 S.W.3d 558 (2003).









egalitarian seeds that had been planted long ago in the eighteenth- and nineteenth- century

concepts of education reform. 114 These cases are constitutionally grounded in the notion that for

a democracy to flourish, all of its citizens must be well-educated.115 Furthermore, the need to

actually provide an adequate education to all citizens has become even more urgent today when

the information demands of the computer era have heightened the level of cognitive skills needed

to be an "informed citizen."116 Many political, judicial, and legal servants have made an attempt

to contribute overwhelming support in the reform and implementation of improved public

education finance policies to satisfy the core proposition of the No ChildLeft BehindAct that

all children can and must meet state educational standards. The extent to which actual reforms

will be implemented in particular states and particular school districts will depend on the

effectiveness of advocacy efforts to engage the public and build constituencies that can press

policy makers to fairly fund these initiatives and to strongly support public education.117

Table 2-3 illustrates the school funding adequacy status for each of the fifty states. This

summary is based on adequacy lawsuits and court decisions pertaining to the current state of

affairs of school funding adequacy cases by state.

Florida Education Finance Program

The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) was enacted by the Florida Legislature

in 1973 to provide equalization of funding in order to guarantee equal educational opportunity to

pupils in the State of Florida notwithstanding geographic differences and varying local economic


114 Michael Rebell, Adequacy I ~,,rr. A,, A New Path to Equity. Chapter in Bringing Equity Back,

eds. Janice Petrovich & Amy Stuartwell (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004).
115 Ibid.
116 Ibid.

117 Ibid.










factors.118 Financial support for public school education in Florida and for the operation of the

FEFP are derived from state, local, and federal sources. As shown in Figure 2-5, 42.8 percent of

the support for school districts in Florida was provided by the state, 47.2 percent of the support

came from local sources, and 10 percent was provided by federal sources in 2005.119

State support to Florida school districts are provided by tax sources deposited into the

General Revenue Fund, in which the predominant tax source was the state sales tax.120 Proceeds

from the Florida Lottery were also used to finance school district operations. Other minor state

sources include: proceeds form licensing motor vehicles used for capital outlay, mobile home

licenses, and state forest funds. 121

Local support to Florida school districts was derived almost entirely from property

taxes.122 Each school district must levy the millage set for its required local effort from property

taxes. Each district's share of the state total required local effort was determined by the

Legislature. The Commissioner of Education then certifies each district's required local millage

118 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).;

Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).
119 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Public Education Finances 2005

(Washington DC, 2007).
120 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"


(Tallahassee, FL).;


Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).
121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.









rate. Certifications vary due to the use of assessment ratios designed to equalize the effect on the

FEFP of differing levels of property appraisal in the counties. 123 Required local effort may not

exceed 90 percent of a district's total FEFP entitlement. In 2005, the Florida state average was

5.239 mills. Local school districts also have the option to set two other types of discretionary tax

levies: (1) School boards may levy up to 2.0 mills for new construction and remodeling projects,

maintenance, renovation, and repair projects, purchase or lease of school buses, and lease of

relocatable educational facilities;124 and (2) the Legislature set the maximum discretionary

current operating millage at 0.510 mills; however, districts may make an additional supplemental

levy, not to exceed 0.25 mills that will raise an amount not to exceed $100 per FTE student. 125

Revenues from local taxes are determined by applying the millage levies to 95% of the taxable

value of the property.126

Federal support to Florida school districts are received through a variety of agencies such

as the Department of Labor, Veterans Administration, Department of the Interior, Department of

Education, Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture. 127



123 Ibid.

124 Florida Statute 1011.71 (2) (2005).

125 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).;

Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).
126 Florida Statute 1011.62 (Ir, 4a) (2005).
127 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).;

Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).









The FEFP formula recognizes:

* varying local property tax bases,

* varying education program costs,

* varying costs of living, and

* varying costs for equivalent educational programs due to sparsity and dispersion of student
population. 128

The key feature of the FEFP is to base financial support for education upon the individual

student participating in a particular educational program rather than upon the numbers of

teachers or classrooms.129 As stated in the overview of public school funding for Florida school

districts:

FEFP funds are primarily generated by multiplying the number of full-time
equivalent (FTE) students in each of the funded educational programs by
the cost factors to obtain weighted FTEs. Weighted FTEs are then
multiplied by a base student allocation and by a district cost differential in
the major calculation to determine the base funding from state and local
FEFP funding.Program cost factors are determined by the Legislature and
represent relative cost differences among the FEFP programs.130

A "full-time equivalent (FTE) student" is one student on the active membership roll of

one school program or a combination of school programs for the school year or the equivalent of

the school year. 131 Basic school programs are kindergarten or grades one through twelve and

include, but are not limited to, language arts, mathematics, art, music, physical education,

science, and social studies.132 Instruction in a standard school year or the equivalent of a school

year comprises not less than 900 net hours for a student in or at the grade level of 4 through 12,

128 Ibid.

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid.
131 Florida Statute 1011.61(1) (2005).

132 Florida Statute 1011.62 (Ic, 6) (2005).









or not less than 720 net hours for a student in or at the grade level of kindergarten through grade

3 or in an authorized prekindergarten exceptional program.133

Program cost factors serve to assure that each program receives its equitable share of

funds in relation to its relative cost per student.134 To determine the "weighted FTE (WFTE),"

multiply the FTE students for a program by its cost factor. Cost factors for basic programs in

2005 were:

Kindergarten and Grades 1, 2, and 3 cost factor = 1.018
Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 cost factor = 1.000
Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 cost factor = 1.113

This calculation weights the FTE to reflect costs of the programs as represented by the program

cost factors. 135

The WFTE is then multiplied by the base student allocation. The base student allocation

(BSA) for the Florida Education Finance Program for kindergarten through grade 12 shall be

determined annually by the Legislature.136 The product of the WFTE and the BSA is then

multiplied by the district cost differential (DCD). The Commissioner of Education annually

computes the DCD for each district each year.137 The DCD shall be calculated by adding each

district's price level index as published in the Florida Price Level Index for the most recent three




133 Florida Statute 1011.61 (la, 1) (2005).
134 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).;

Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).
135 Ibid.

136 Florida Statute 1011.62 (lb) (2005).
137 Florida Statute 1011.62 (2) (2005).










years and then dividing the resulting sum by three.138 The result for each district shall be

multiplied by 0.008 and to the resulting product shall be added 0.200; the sum thus obtained shall

be the DCD for that year.139 The DCD's for any given year are published in the Statistical

Report-Funding for Florida Schools of the Florida Department of Education.140 After taking the

WFTE multiplied by the BSA, then multiplied by the DCD, the result is the base funding for the

district.

The Florida Price Level Index (FPLI) was established by the Legislature as the basis for

the DCD in the FEFP. 141 The DCD table is constructed so that the population-weighted district

average is 1.0000. DCD values tend to be highest in the southern portion of the state. This

happens because many areas in south Florida are heavily populated, making land within easy

reach of employment and shopping centers very scarce and very expensive. As a result, workers

will encounter high house prices and long commutes, for which they must be compensated in the

form of higher wages.142

Once the base funding is established, a series of "add-ons" are then considered for each

district. The declining enrollment supplement is determined by comparing the unweighted FTE




138 Ibid.

139 Ibid.

140 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).;

Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).
141 James Dewey, The Florida Price Level Index 2005. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,

(Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 2007).
142 Ibid.










for the current year to the unweighted FTE of the prior year. 143 The purpose of the declining

enrollment supplement is to prevent districts with a decrease in student enrollment from

experiencing a financial hardship. To calculate the declining enrollment supplement, multiply 50

percent of the decline by the prior-year funding base per unweighted FTE. This figure is the

declining enrollment supplement.

The sparsity supplement is applied to schools with smaller student enrollments. To

qualify for the sparsity supplement, a school district's FTE membership shall be no less than

17,000 and no more than 24,000.144 The discretionary tax equalization allows districts that levy

the discretionary 0.510 mills and an additional 0.250 mills to receive a supplement if the

additional 0.250 mills raise less than $100 per FTE.145 This supplement is provided to ensure

that each district receives $100 per FTE when combined with the amount raised by the 0.250

mills. 146





143 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).;

Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).
144 Florida Statute 1011.62 (6) (2005).

145 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"


(Tallahassee, FL).;


Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"


(Tallahassee, FL).

146 Ibid.









A safe schools activities appropriation is allocated to each school district so that each

school district is guaranteed a minimum of $50,000. From the remaining appropriation, 67

percent shall be allocated based on the latest official Florida Crime Index provided by the

Department of Law Enforcement, and 33 percent shall be allocated based on each district's share

of the state's total unweighted student enrollment.147

A Reading Program fund is provided for a K-12 comprehensive, district-wide system of

research-based reading instruction in which $50,000 is allocated to each district and the

remaining balance is allocated based on each district's proportion of the state total K-12 base

funding.148 The Supplemental Academic Instruction allocation funds supplemental intensive

instruction, consistent with the Sunshine State Standards, including summer school and intensive

English immersion instruction, for students who scored Level I on the FCAT.149

Once the "add-ons" (most of which have been described in the preceding paragraphs)

have been factored into the FEFP, the result is the Gross State and Local FEFP Dollars. The next

step is for the district required local effort to be subtracted from the state and local FEFP dollars.

The district required local effort was produced as described in the local support section of the

FEFP of this document. The resulting difference was the state FEFP dollars to be allocated to

each district. This difference may be adjusted based on prior year adjudication of litigation,

arithmetical errors, assessment roll change, FTE student membership errors, or allocation errors

revealed in an audit report.150 Once the state FEFP dollars are determined, then the district

discretionary lottery funds and categorical program funds are added on. District discretionary

147 Ibid.

148 Ibid.
149 Ibid.

150 Ibid.









lottery entitlements are calculated by prorating each district's FEFP base funding entitlement

(WFTE x BSA x DCD) to the amount of the lottery appropriation.151 Categorical program funds

were appropriated to assist districts in satisfying the approved amendment regarding class size

reduction. After adding on the district discretionary lottery funds and the categorical program

funds, the final outcome was the total state finance program.

Assessment and Accountability

The No ChildLeft BehindAct of 2001 mandated that states develop and administer annual

state academic assessments to each student in the districts and develop and implement

accountability systems to measure proficiency and growth of each student. The basic program

requirements outlined in the No ChildLeft BehindAct of 2001 specify that each State devise a

plan that confirms that the State had adopted rigorous academic standards as well as challenging

academic achievement standards.152 Each State plan must demonstrate that there is an

accountability system in place to measure adequate yearly progress of all students in the

district.153 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 prescribed measurable objectives to be used by

each State to meet the goals of the ensuring annual adequate progress. These goals included

separate assessments for mathematics and reading or language arts, same assessments for all

schools in the State, identification of a single minimum percentage of students who are required

to meet or exceed the proficient level on the academic assessments, and ensure that all students

will meet or exceed the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State

assessments within the State's timeline.154


151 Ibid.
152 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 1111(a), 20 USC 6311 (2002).
153 Ibid.
154 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 1111(g), 20 USC 6311 (2002).









The Florida State Legislature committed itself to meeting the requirements of the No

ChildLeft Behind Act of2001 and meeting the educational goals for each student. As stated in

the Florida Statutes, the primary purpose of the student assessment program was to provide

information needed to improve public schools by enhancing the learning gains of all students and

to inform parents of the educational progress of their public school children.155 The program

was designed to assess the annual learning gains of each student toward achieving the Sunshine

State Standards, identify the educational strengths and needs of students and the readiness of

students to be promoted to the next grade level or to graduate from high school with a standard

high school diploma, and assess how well educational goals and performance standards are met

at the school, district, and state levels. 156

In accordance with the statewide assessment standards, the development and

implementation of the student achievement program in Florida came to be known as the Florida

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT).157 The FCAT was a combination of norm-referenced

and criterion-referenced tests, which were designed to measure academic skills and competencies

of each student. The FCAT was to be administered annually in grades 3 through 10 to measure

proficiency levels in reading, writing, mathematics, and science. 158 Students must have earned a

passing score on the grade 10 assessment test to qualify for a regular high school diploma.159






155 Florida Statute 1008.22 (1) (2005).
156 Ibid.
157 Florida Statute 1008.22 (3c) (2005).
158 Florida Statute 1008.22 (3c, 2) (2005).
159 Florida Statute 1008.22 (3c, 5) (2005).









Participation in the FCAT testing program is mandatory for all students attending public

school. 160

The performance accountability system implemented to assess the effectiveness of the

FCAT was designed to answer the following questions:

(1) What is the public receiving in return for funds it invests in education?,

(2) How effectively is Florida's K-12 education system educating its students?,

(3) How effectively are the major delivery sectors promoting student achievement?, and

(4) How are individual schools performing their responsibility to educate their students as

measured by how students are performing and how much they are learning?.161

The accountability system also measured student progress toward the following goals: highest

student achievement, as measured by the FCAT performance and annual learning gains,

graduation completion rates of all learning levels, and school performance by grade

designation.162

Expenditure

Prior to the 1990s, expenditure studies were proposed to develop a per-pupil expenditure

that would meet the needs of educational adequacy goals. One common technique used by

districts was the median expenditure of districts method. Median expenditures of districts in the

prior year were computed and presumed to be adequate, then states were to strive to bring the

lower half of the districts up to the median.163 After decades of adequacy litigations and costing-


160 Florida Statute 1008.22 (3c, 6) (2005).

161 Florida Statute 1008.31 (la) (2005).

162 Florida Statute 1008.31 (2c) (2005).
163 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. "Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools" (Bush

School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University,









out studies, as well as a predominance of state standards and accountability mandates, it is

argued that the simple median expenditure approach is no longer a viable method of determining

per-pupil expenditure.164 Due to the recent completion of adequacy studies within many

different states, per-pupil expenditures are beginning to spread apart amongst the states. For

example, in 2005, the per-pupil expenditure in New York was $14,119 while the per-pupil

expenditure in Utah was $6,257. It is interesting to note that the State of New York has recently

had a lengthy legal battle with educational adequacy in Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v.

State of New York which resulted in major costing-out studies performed, while the State of Utah

has not seen any litigation pertaining to educational adequacy. Figure 2-6 illustrates the per-

pupil expenditures for each state in 2005.165

Balancing Equity and Adequacy

As the Twenty-First century began, the public education finance issues of resource

adequacy, performance funding, and efficiency considerations have become the primary focus of

policy debates and social science research, shifting equity concerns into the background.

Disputes about public school funding systems have engaged lawmakers and taxpayers through

the court system over the past few decades. While equity issues were once the focus of the

lawsuits, the trend in finance litigation has recently shifted to providing adequate resources to

achieve student academic goals. Performance standards and educational adequacy have been at





2005).
164 Ibid.

165 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Public Education Finances 2005
(Washington DC,
2007).









the center of recent debate on educational reform.166 Balancing equitable and adequate

distribution of resources pose a challenge to policymakers as they debate with education finance

issues today.

Summary

The basic premise on which our public education system was created, and that was that:

for a democracy to flourish, all of its citizens must be well-educated. Today, the core

proposition of the No ChildLeft BehindAct of 2001 says that all children can and must meet

state educational standards. This core proposition is evidence that the fundamental democratic

notion is continuing its steady progression forward, despite periodic setbacks.

The last few decades has seen a trend of many plaintiff victories and an increase in the

number of state court educational adequacy litigations. In the last decade, many state courts

have interpreted the education clause in its State Constitution as requiring the state to provide an

opportunity for all children to reach an adequate level of content knowledge. The outcomes of

these recent court victories have resulted in the largest school finance "adequacy" judgments

ever awarded. 167

Recently, adequacy cases have been challenged the equity standard for which state school
finance formulas have received much criticism. Guthrie and Rothstein argue that the concept
of adequacy adds an additional complexity (as compared to equity) because of the
requirement to link cost calculations to decisions about minimally appropriate resource input
levels and schooling outcomes.168 While defining equity is essentially a technical enterprise,

166 William Duncombe and John Yinger, "Performance Standards and Educational Cost Indexes: You Can't

Have One Without the Other," in Equity andAdequacy in Education Finance-Issues and Perspectives,

eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
167 Eric A. Hanushek, "Pseudo-Science and a Sound Basic Education Voodoo Statistics in New York,"

Education Next 5(4) (2005): 67-73. (Hanushek refers to the CFE, Inc. v. State oJ .,. ii York

715N.Y.2d475 (2001)).
168 James Guthrie and Richard Rothstein, "Enabling Adequacy to Achieve Reality: Translating Adequacy into









moving to adequacy requires policy and value judgments about which achieving consensus,
ultimately, may be more suitable.169
When dealing with public education finance policy, equity and adequacy are joint goals.

One could argue that the State of Florida's educational finance plan (the FEFP) is a very fair and

equitable program, but when the finance program is investigated using a school district

accountability score (which is a score based on student achievement), the outcome tends to

become very different. Efforts to properly fund the new educational standards and initiatives has

caused many states to revise its existing state finance plan.


State School Finance Distribution Arrangements," in Equity andAdequacy in Education Finance-Issues

and Perspectives, eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National

Academy Press, 1999).
169 Ibid.














Financing sources) for
State state funding system
Alabama Foundation
Alaska Foundation
Arizona Foundation
Arkansas Foundation
California Foundation
Colorado Foundation
Connecticut Foundation
Delaware Flat Grant & Equalization
Florida Foundation
Georgia Flat Grant & Equalization
Hawaii Full State Funding
Idaho Foundation
Illinois Foundation & Flat Grant
Indiana Foundation & GTB

Iowa Flat Grant & Equalization
Kansas Flat Grant & Equalization
Kentucky Flat Grant & Equalization
Louisiana Flat Grant & Equalization
Maine Foundation
Maryland Flat Grant & Equalization
Massachusetts Foundation
Michigan Foundation
Minnesota Flat Grant & Equalization
Mississippi Foundation
Missouri Foundation & GTB
Montana Foundation

Nebraska Foundation
Nevada Foundation
New Hampshire Foundation
New Jersey Foundation
New Mexico Foundation
New York General Aid*
North Carolina Foundation
North Dakota Foundation
Ohio Foundation
Oklahoma Foundation
Oregon Foundation
Pennsylvania Percentage Equalization
Rhode Island General aid (uses 10 methods in distributing
education funds)

South Carolina Foundation
South Dakota Foundation
Tennessee Foundation
Texas Foundation & Equalization
Utah Foundation
Vermont Full State Funding
Virginia Foundation
Washington Full State Funding & Equalization
West Virginia Foundation
Wisconsin GTB
Wyoming Foundation
Figure 2-1: Financing sources for state funding systems 2004-05170




170 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Funding Sources for State


Funding System, (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005).













Table 2-1: Examples of progressive, proportional, and regressive tax burdens.
progressive proportional regressive
A B A B A B
Income $30,000 $60,000 $30,000 $60,000 $30,000 $60,000
Taxes Paid $3,000 $9,000 $4,500 $9,000 $4,500 $6,000
Tax Burden 10% 15% 15% 15% 15% 10%
Note: Tax Burden = Taxes Paid Income
Adapted from Monk, D.H. and Brent, B.O. (1997), Raising Money for Education, p. 16, table 2.1.
























Professional
Judgment

Wyoming 1997
Oregon 2000
South Carolina 2000
Maryland 2001
Kansas 2002
Nebraska 2003
Indiana 2002
Wisconsin 2002
Colorado 2003
Missouri 2003
Montana 2003
Kentucky 2003
North Dakota 2003
Washington 2003
New York 2004
Tennessee 2004
Vermont 2004


Evidence
Based

New Jersey 1998
Kentucky 2003
Arkansas 2003


pending
Wyoming 2006
Kansas 2006


Cost
Function


New York 2004
Texas 2004, 2005
Minnesota 2004


pending
Kansas 2006


Successful
Schools

Mississippi 1993
Ohio 1999
Maryland 2001
Kansas 2002
Louisiana 2001
Colorado 2003
Missouri 2003
New York 2004
Vermont 2004
New Hampshire 1998
Illinois 2001


Figure 2-2: Education cost analysis methods, adequacy studies 1995-2004171





















71 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. "Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools" (Bush

School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University,

2005).


Performance Oriented



Resource Oriented









States in which the State Supreme Court has declared that education is a
Fundamental State Constitutional Right172

Arizona .hl i tll v. Hollins, 1973
Wisconsin Busse v. Smith, 1976
California Serrano v. Priest, 1977
Connecticut Horton v. Meskill, 1977
Washington Seattle v. Washington, 1978
Wyoming Washakie v. Hershler, 1980
West Virginia Pauley v. Bailey, 1984
Montana Helena v. State, 1989
Kentucky Rose v. Council, 1989

Figure 2-3: States in which the State Supreme Court has declared that education is a
Fundamental State Constitutional Right





States in which the State Supreme Court has declared that education is not a
Fundamental State Constitutional Right173

New Jersey Robinson v. Cahill, 1973
Michigan Milliken v. Green, 1973
Idaho Thompson v. Engelking, 1975
Oregon Olsen v. State, 1976
Pennsylvania Dansen v. Casey, 1979
Ohio Board v. Walter, 1979
New York Levittown v. Nyquist, 1982
Colorado Lujan v. Colorado, 1982
Georgia McDaniel v. Thomas, 1982
Arkansas Dupree v. Alma, 1983

Figure 2-4: States in which the State Supreme Court has declared that education is not a
Fundamental State Constitutional Right





172 G.Alan Hickrod, Robert Lenz, and Paul.. Minorini. Selected Papers in School Finance 1995-Status of

School Finance Constitutional I i~i,, ,. ',, (Appendix A),. (NCES 97-536) US Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1997).
173 Ibid.











Table 2-2: State funding "Ade uacy" Decisions since 1989174
Plaintiff State Defendant Pending (11)
Victory (20) Victory (10)
Alaska* Alabama Alaska*
Arizona (1994)t Arizona (2007)t Arizona
Arkansas Florida Colorado
Idaho Illinois Connecticut
Kansas Indiana Georgia
Kentucky Massachusetts (2005)t Kentucky
Maryland Missouri Oregon
Massachusetts Nebraska South Dakota
(1993)t Oklahoma Washington
Missouri Pennsylvania
Montana Rhode Island
New Hampshire Texas (2005)t
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
South Carolina
Texas (1989)t
Vermont
Wyoming

*Alaska plaintiffs won a capital funding case; an operational funding case is pending.
tMassachusetts, Texas, and Arizona had each had two adequacy cases.
Kentucky plaintiffs won new funding systems years ago; current suits allege that
those systems have changed and become unconstitutional.


174 Molly A. Hunter, "State Funding Adequacy Decisions since 1989," (May 2007), updated by author,

http://www.schoolfunding.info/litigation/AdequacyDecisions07.pdf. (retrieved August 5, 2007).











Table 2-3: School Funding Adequacy Cases by State175
Did the court Was there an
State Has there been an Most recent decision side with adequacy study?
adequacy suit? Adequacy case the state? Who initiated it?
Alabama Coalition for Yes. Case was
Alabama Yes Equity v. Hunt (1992) dismissed in 2002. State initiated, 2001
Kasayulie v.
Kasayulie v. State initiated, 1998
Alaska Yes State (1997) No
Crane Elementary Yes. Case was
Arizona Yes School District v. dismissed and Court ordered, 2001.
State (2001) plaintiffs are Outside initiation,
2005.
appealing. 2005.
Lake View School
Arkansas Yes District, No. 25 v. No Court Ordered, 2003
Huckabee (2001)
Williams v. State Parties settled in
California Yes (1999) 2004. State initiated, 2005
Colorado Yes Unknown (1988) Suit was withdrawn State initiated
Sheff v. O'Neill Parties settled in No
Connecticut Yes (1996) 2003
Delaware No NA NA No
Coalition for
Adequacy and
Florida Yes Fairness in School Yes No
Funding v. Chiles
(1995)
Consortium for
Georgia Yes Adequate School No decision yet No
Funding in Georgia
v. State (2004)
Hawaii No NA NA No
Idaho Schools for The court sided
Equal Educational against the state only
Idaho Yes Opportunity v. State on the issue of No
(1998) facilities and capital
funding.
Lewis E. v. Spagnolo
Illinois Yes (1999) Yes State initiated, 2001
Indiana No NA NA No
Coalition for a
Iowa Yes Common Cents Parties settled in No
Solution v. State 2004.
(2002)
Montoy v. State
Kansas Yes (1999) No State initiated, 2002
State initiated, 2003
Kentucky Yes Young v. Williams No decision yet Outside initiation, 2003
(2003)
Charlet v.
Louisiana Yes Legislature of the Yes No
State of Louisiana
(1998)
Maine No NA NA No

175 Michael Griffith and Molly Burke, "School Funding Adequacy Cases." (February 2005).

http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/59/07/5907.htm (retrieved August 5, 2007).

(With modifications to update 2008).











Table 2-3 continued:
Did the court Was there an
State Has there been an Most recent decision side with adequacy study?
adequacy suit? Adequacy case the state? Who initiated it?
Bradford v.
Maryland Yes Maryland State No. Plaintiffs State initiated, 2001
Board of Education returned to court in Outside initiation, 2001
(1994) 2000.
Hancock v. Driscoll Outside initiation, 2003
Massachusetts Yes (1999) No decision yet
Michigan No NA NA No
Minnesota No NA NA No
Mississippi No NA NA State initiated, 1993
Committee for
Missouri Yes Education Equality Yes Outside Initiation, 2003
v. State (1993, 2004) 2007
Columbia Falls
Montana Yes Public Schools v. No Outside initiation, 2002
State (2002) State initiated, 2007
Douglas County v. Outside initiation, 2003
Nebraska Yes Johanns (2003) No
Nevada No NA NA State initiated, 2007
Claremont School
New Hampshire Yes District v. Governor No State initiated, 1998
(1999)
Abott v. Burke
New Jersey Yes (1985) No State initiated, 1996
New Mexico No NA NA No
Campaign for Fiscal Court ordered, 2004
New York Yes Equity v. State No State initiated, 2004
(1993) Outside initiation, 2004
Hoke County v. State
North Carolina Yes (2004) No No
Williston Public
North Dakota Yes School District v. Decision Pending State initiated, 2003,
State (2003) 2008
DeRolph v. State Court ordered, 1995
Ohio Yes (1997) No Outside initiation, 1993
Plaintiffs decided
Oklahoma No against pursuing an NA No
adequacy lawsuit.
Oregon No NA NA State initiated, 2000
Marrero v.
Pennsylvania Yes Commonwealth Yes. Case dismissed No
(1998)
Town of Exeter v.
Rhode Island Yes State (2000) Yes State initiated, 2007
Abbeville v. State
South Carolina Yes (1993) No decision yet Outside initiation,
1998
South Dakota No NA NA No
State initiated, 1992
Tennessee No NA NA Outside initiation, 2004




























































Figure 2-5: Percent distribution of revenue for Florida public schools 2004-05


Table 2-3 continued:
Did the court Was there an
State Has there been an Most recent decision side with adequacy study?
adequacy suit? Adequacy case the state? Who initiated it?
West-Orange Cove
Texas Yes ISD v. Nelson (2001) Yes No
Utah No NA NA No
Vermont No NA NA State initiated, 2004
Virginia No NA NA No
Washington Yes Seattle II v. State No Outside initiation,
(early 1980's) 2003
West Virginia No NA NA No
Wisconsin No NA NA Outside initiation, 2002
In its second Campbell
decision, the court
Wyoming Yes Campbell County found that the state had Court ordered, 1997,
School District v. complied with court- 2002
ordered remedies, with
State (1995, 2001) some notable
exceptions.


Pnmrcnt DltbulHon of Rvmnue for
Flobri Pubc Sdoasb 31mBI5

Federal 10%


Local 47.2%




















Elementary-Secondary Per Pupil
Expenditure Amounts by State 2004-05


16000T


N NVCM DA PRIWMMWNMIOWHIILVINUMN NOCM GIACMKL NWSA
STATE
I Senes 1


FLS NKAT NOMIDAU


Figure 2-6: U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (2007). Public Education
Finances 2005 Government Division U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC.

















STATE $/ pupil STATE $/ pupil STATE $/pupil

NY 14119 VA 8891 TX 7267

NJ 13800 IN 8798 FL 7207

VT 11835 US 8701 SD 7197

CT 11572 MN 8662 NC 7159

MA 11267 NE 8282 KY 7118

DE 10910 ND 8159 AL 7066

AK 10830 OR 8115 TN 6729

PA 10552 CA 8067 NV 6722

RI 10371 MT 8058 OK 6613

WY 10255 GA 8028 MS 6575

ME 10106 IA 7972 ID 6283

MD 9815 CO 7730 AZ 6261

WI 9744 MO 7717 UT 5257

NH 9448 KS 7706

MI 9329 LA 7605

OH 9260 NM 7580

WV 9005 WA 7560

HI 8997 SC 7555

IL 8944 AR 7504

Figure 2.6 Continued





















































82










CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Introduction

The objective of this study was to determine if the funds allocated to each Florida county

in 2005 and 2006 were sufficient to provide an equitable and (in the same time period) adequate

education to the students of Florida. The estimates provided in this study are based on various

data sources and stated assumptions on how to aggregate the data. Most of these data were from

the Florida Information Resource Network of the Florida Department of Education. In this

equity and adequacy study, the FEFP final calculation from the 2004-05 and the 2005-06 school

years, and the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test results from the 2004-05 and the 2005-06

school years on the Sunshine State Standards benchmarks in reading and mathematics for grades

three through ten were used. 1


1 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).;

Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 3 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 3 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 4 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 4 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 5 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,











Grade 5 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 6 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 6 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 7 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 7 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 8 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 8 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 9 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 9 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 10 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 10 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 3 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 3 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 4 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 4 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).










Research Design: Equity


Measures of horizontal equity (equal treatment are of equals) are statistics applied to

school finance that describe the spread of the distribution. To achieve perfect horizontal equity,

every student in the distribution would have to receive the same amount of fiscal resources.

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 5 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 5 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 6 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 6 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 7 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 7 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 8 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 8 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 9 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 9 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 10 Reading," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

Florida Department of Education, "Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

Grade 10 Math," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).










Horizontal equity measures determine the proximity from the actual distribution to achieve

perfect equality. Measures that could be used to measure horizontal equity are the Variance, the

McLoone Index, the Coefficient of Variation, and the Gini Coefficient.2

The variance is the average of the squared deviations of each per-pupil object from the

mean per-pupil object.3 In terms of educational finance, variance is the difference between

dollars received by each school district and the average dollars administered within the state.4 A

large variance statistic indicates wide diversity of funding and unequal distribution of financial

resources.5 The variance statistic is sensitive to extreme cases because each school district is

treated equally. This can cause the variance statistic to be misleading when used alone. For

example, in a given state, if one school district was receiving a very large or very small amount

of money, this may result in a large variance statistic leading to a conclusion of inequity despite

the fact that the remaining school districts were receiving the same amount of money.6 To avoid

the problem of extreme cases, a weighting system that weighs school district spending by the

size of the school is generally used. To measure variance, the following formula is used:

N
-P (X X,)
Variance =




2 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, The Measurement ofEquity in School Finance. (Baltimore, MD: The

John Hopkins University Press, 1984).

3Ibid.

4 William Fowler, David Monk, Lauri.Peternick, and Becky Smerdon, "Using Cost and Need Adjustments

to Improve Measurements of School Finance Equity," NCES -Developments in School Finance

Washington 1997). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98212-8.pdf

5Ibid.
6 Ibid.










where P, = number of pupils in district, X, = average expenditures per pupil in district i, and


Xp = mean revenues per pupil for all pupils.7

The McLoone Index is defined as the ratio of the total dollar inputs for pupils below the

median to the dollar inputs that would be required if all pupils below the median were receiving

the per-pupil dollar amount at the median.8 Unlike the variance, the McLoone Index is sensitive

to where along the distribution the inequality exists. The McLoone Index is used to assess equity

in the distribution of variables among units in the lower half of the distribution.9 It compares

what recipients below the median in the distribution actually received with the amount they

would have received had they been given the same amount as the median recipient.10 To

calculate the McLoone Index, first compute the median expenditure per pupil for the state.

Second, calculate the total number of dollars spent on students whose per pupil expenditures was

below the median. Third, divide that figure by the total amount that would be spent if every

pupil below the median had been at the median level expenditure. The McLoone Index formula

is:

j

McLoone Index = 1





SRobert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, The Measurement ofEquity in School Finance. (Baltimore, MD: The

John Hopkins University Press, 1984).

8Ibid.

9 William Fowler, David Monk, Lauri Petemick, and Becky Smerdon, "Using Cost and Need Adjustments

to Improve Measurements of School Finance Equity," NCES -Developments in School Finance

(Washington 1997). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98212-8.pdf

10 Ibid.









where districts 1 through J are below Mp.11

(note: P, = number of pupils in district, X, = average expenditures per pupil in district i,

and Mp = median expenditures per pupil). 12

The McLoone Index varies between zero and one, and gets larger as equity increases.

The coefficient of variation is the square root of the variance (the standard deviation) of

adjusted spending per pupil divided by the state's average spending per pupil. As the coefficient

of variation increases, the variation in the amount of money spent per pupil across the districts

increase. A lower coefficient of variation indicates greater equity. An advantage of the

coefficient of variation is that small outlying data do not skew the distribution greatly. A

disadvantage of this measure is that, theoretically, the coefficient of variation can be any value

between zero and infinity, and there is no universal standard that defines a reasonable value of

this measure. The formula is13:

Svariance
coefficient of variation = variance
Xp

(note: ,]variance = standard deviation and Xp = mean expenditure per pupil for all pupils)

As the coefficient of variation increases, the variation in the amount of money spent per pupil

across the districts increases. A lower coefficient of variation indicates greater equity.

The Gini Coefficient shows how far the distribution of per-pupil resources is from

providing each percentage of pupils with an equal percentage of resources.14 The Gini



11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.









Coefficient is based on the Lorenz Curve. The Lorenz Curve is the graph plotted on the

Cartesian Plane in the first quadrant. The percent of pupils in the state is plotted on the x axis

while the percent of total resources is plotted on the y axis. If every pupil receives the same

resources, then the Lorenz Curve is the line y = x. The Gini Coefficient is the ratio of the area

between the line y = x and the Lorenz Curve to the total area below the line y = x. The Gini

Coefficient ranges from zero (perfect equality) to one (perfect inequality). The formula is:

N N
YI Y X, Xi
Gini Coefficient = J




where N = number of districts, P, = number of pupils in district i, Pj = number of pupils in

district j, X = average expenditures per pupil in district i, Xi = average expenditures per pupil

in district j, and Xp = mean expenditures per pupil for all pupils.15

Measures of vertical equity (the unequal treatment of unequals) can be achieved by

modifying the horizontal equity measures. 16 Legitimate differences among pupils first need to

be defined, then the method of education distribution of resources needs to be determined.

"Weighted dispersion measures"17 have been formulated to give special groups financial

considerations. To utilize weighted distribution measures, pupils in a "handicapped" group

receive a weight greater than one as compared to pupils that are not in any special group. Then

the horizontal equity formulas are computed with weighted-pupils replacing pupils to accomplish

vertical equity.

15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.









Research Design: Adequacy


Student Performance Measures

In order to determine the cost of an adequate education, student performance must be

measured. Then, measures of student performance must be selected to provide the baseline for

adequate performance. "Adequacy measures should reflect the underlying standard for

acceptable student performance at different grades and in different subjects."18

The development of these adequacy measures is quite controversial, but determining an

appropriate level of adequate performance is unavoidable in the development of an adequacy-

based finance system. Each year, the State of Florida administers the Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test (FCAT) to each student in grades three through ten. To receive a high school

diploma upon graduation, students must pass the 10th grade FCAT.

School district and student performance results on the FCAT were made available

through the Florida Department of Education. To aggregate results to the school district level,

the FCAT was divided into five levels. The percentage of students reaching a given level in

reading and mathematics per grade level was reported for each school district in Florida.

Achievement Levels

Achievement levels describe the success a student has achieved on the Florida Sunshine

State Standards benchmarks tested on the FCAT. Achievement levels range from 1 to 5, with

Level 1 being the lowest and Level 5 being the highest:19


'8 William Duncombe, "Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York" (working pjpc i 4 4,

Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, NY
2002).

19 Florida Department of Education, "Understanding FCAT Reports 2005," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida

Department of Education, 2005).









Level 5 This student has success with the most challenging content of the Sunshine
State Standards.

Level 4 This student has success with the challenging content of the Sunshine State
Standards.

Level 3 This student has partial success with the challenging content of
the Sunshine State Standards.

Level 2 This student has limited success with the challenging content of the Sunshine
State Standards.

Level 1 This student has little success with the challenging content of the Sunshine
State Standards.20

A Measurement Approach

The approach used to measure adequacy in this study was developed and published by

William Duncombe in "Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York."21

However, adjustments to Duncombe's approach were necessary in order to accommodate the

structure of the State Education System of Florida.

A key element in determining whether the finance formula was providing adequate funding

to all of the sixty-seven districts in Florida is computing a student and school district

performance measure based on FCAT achievement. Florida, through the use of the FCAT, has

long been a leader in developing standards and testing instruments at the elementary and

secondary level. An analysis based on the FCAT achievement results in grades three through ten

will lead to a district accountability measure.


Florida Department of Education, "Understanding FCAT Reports 2006," (Tallahassee, FL: Florida

Department of Education, 2006).
20 Ibid.

21 William Duncombe, "Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York" (working pjpc i 4 4,

Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, NY

2002).









To generate one accountability score per school district in Florida, a formula needed to be

created. The mathematical model and weights used were based upon William Duncombe's

approach to estimate the cost of an adequate education in New York.22 The original approach in

Duncombe's paper was from the New York State Education Department's (SED) System of

Accountability for Student Success (SASS).23 This approach had to be modified slightly to

adjust to Florida's accountability system. For purposes of this study, the adjustment made to the

methodology to adapt to the Florida system was conducted by the author.


To measure adequacy in each school district in Florida, the percent of students reaching

achievement levels at each grade level in reading and mathematics were first identified. Then a

weighted average of these percent was calculated to determine an index to identify acceptable

performance (levels 3, 4 and 5) and to provide some credit for schools moving from very low

performance (level 1) to below average performance (level 2).24 The accountability measure

(A) used was:

A = 0.5(%L2) + (%L3) + 2(%L4 + %L5).

Students achieving Level 1 are given no weight, students achieving Level 2 (L2) are given a

weight of 0.5, students achieving Level 3 (L3) are counted once, and students achieving Level

4 (L4) and Level 5 (L5) are counted twice.25 Accountability scores (A) range from zero to 200.



22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid. (The original approach in Duncombe's paper was from the New York State Education Department's System

of Accountability for Student Success. This approach had to be modified slightly to adjust to Florida's
Accountability System)









If students from a Florida school district all receive Level 1, then the district will receive an

accountability score of zero. If students from a Florida school district all receive Level 4 or

Level 5, then the district will earn an accountability score of 200.26

This accountability measure formula A = 0.5(%L2) + (%L3) + 2(%L4 + %L5) was used

on each grade level in mathematics and on each grade level in reading. The following example

(Figure 3-1) shows the accountability scores at each grade level in reading and mathematics for

Orange County in 2005:

As shown in Figure 3-1, student performance on the FCAT in reading and mathematics

are equally important, thus, at each grade level, the accountability scores for reading and

mathematics are averaged. After computing the averaged accountability scores for each grade

level in each Florida school district, the averaged accountability scores for each grade level need

to be combined to produce a district accountability score. To compute the district accountability

score, take the sum of 10 percent multiplied by each averaged accountability score from grade

level three through nine. To that sum, add 30 percent times the averaged accountability score

from grade ten. The grade ten averaged accountability score carries more weight because high

school performance reflects more accumulated knowledge and skills than earlier grades, and

passing the grade ten FCAT is required to receive a high school diploma.27 Figure 3-2 illustrates

these computations.

A district accountability score was computed for each public school district in the State of

Florida using the procedure described.28 Each district accountability score provides a numeric


26 Ibid. (This method was adapted from William Duncombe's model.)
27 Ibid. (This method was adapted from William Duncombe's model.)

28 William Duncombe, "Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York" (working ppc i 4 4,

Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, NY,










measure, which was used to compare the sixty-seven school districts in terms of student

achievement using the FCAT. Accountability scores range from zero to 200.

Research Data: Florida Education Finance Program

The Florida Education Finance Program Statistical Report of 2004-05 and the Florida

Education Finance Program Statistical Report of 2005-06 provided data used in the equity and

adequacy formulas. The report provided the total number of unweighted full-time equivalent

(UFTE) students, the total number of weighted full-time equivalent (WFTE) students, the total

local funding for each district, the total state funding for each district, and the total funding for

each district.29

Research Design: Statistics

Measuring Center

Methods used to measure the center of a distribution are mean and median. The mean of

a distribution is simply an average of the set of observations. To compute the mean (x ) of a set

of observations, add the values, then divide by the number of observations:

mean30 X1 +X2+...+Xn 1 X
n n





2002). Duncombe's model was similar, but structure of school districts in NY and NY State exams

(Regents exams in grades 4 and 8) differed from Florida, hence, adjustments to model were necessary.
29 Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).;

Florida Department of Education, "Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report"

(Tallahassee, FL).

30 Daniel S. Yates, David S. Moore, and Daren S. Starnes, The Practice of Statistics, (NY: W.H. Freeman

and Company, 2002).









The median is the middle of a distribution. To find the median of a distribution31

1. Arrange all observations in order of size, from smallest to largest,
2. If the number of observations n is odd, the median is the center observation
in the ordered list,
3. If the number of observations n is even, the median is the mean of the two
center observations in the ordered list.

Measuring Spread

The most common method used to measure the spread of a distribution is the standard

deviation. The standard deviation (s) measures spread by looking at how far the observations

are from their mean. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance:32


The variance (s2) of a set of observations is the average of the squares of the
deviations of the observations from their mean. The variance of n observations
,, 2,,..., Xn is:



s2 = (x, )2 + (x )2 +...+(x, -X) Z
s (x, x)
n-l n-1


The standard deviation s is the square root of the variance s2



s = 1 (x x)
n-l


Scatterplots

The most effective way to display the relation between two quantitative variables is a

scatterplot.33 A scatterplot shows the relationship between two quantitative variables measured

on the same individuals. The values of one variable the independent variable appear on the

31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.










horizontal x axis, and the values of the other variable the dependent variable appear on the

vertical y axis .34 Each individual in the data appears as the point in the plot fixed by the

values of both variables for that individual.35


When interpreting a scatterplot, the overall pattern should be considered.36 The overall

pattern of a scatterplot can be described in terms of form, direction, and strength. A scatterplot's

form can be described by observing clusters of points or the possible existence of outliers. A

scatterplot's direction is used to describe if the two variables are positively or negatively

associated. A scatterplot's strength of relationship is determined by how closely the points

follow a clear form.37


Correlation

An example of a clear form is a linear relation between the two quantative variables. In a

scatterplot, a linear relation is strong if the points lie close to that straight line, and weak if they

are widely scattered about the line.38 A correlation (r) measures the direction and strength of

the linear relationship between two quantitative variables39


Sx, 1x-x y, -y
correlation= r = -l -- J Y
n- 1 s sJ






34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.









The correlation r is always a number between -1 and 1. Values close to zero indicate a

very weak linear relationship. As r moves closer to -1 or 1, the strength of the relationship

between the two quantitative variables increases. The extreme value r = -1 indicates a perfect

negative linear relationship while the extreme value r =1 indicates a perfect positive linear

relationship.


Coefficient of Determination

The coefficient of determination can be interpreted in terms of variation in levels of the

dependent variable.40



coefficient of determination = r2 = 1 )2
Z(Y Y)2


Much of the difference between the observed values of Y can be explained in terms of the

r 41 2 exp lained..var nation
regression line:41 r =explainedvariation .For example, an r2 = 0.723 means 72.3% of the
total.. variation

total variation Y around the mean can be explained by the relationship between this variable and

the corresponding X, as estimated by the regression line for X and Y .42 Because the explained

variation can never exceed the total variation, their ratio is at most 1, and the greatest possible

value for r2 is 1.43 The value of r2 always lies between 0 and 1. If X and Y are perfectly

correlated, then r2 = 1.





40 Lawrence Lapin, Statistics Meaning andMethod, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1980).
41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.









Summary

Chapter 3 presented the methods used to analyze the Florida finance mechanism with

respect to equitable and adequate distribution of resources. This study utilized equity formulas

and adequacy guidelines from the public education finance literature. This study also used

statistical methods to analyze these data, measure the outcomes, and draw conclusions. The

following chapter presents the results of these analyses.













MA THEM TICS (%)


Level 2
13
14
17
21
20
30
28
27


Level 3
34
36
34
31
31
29
19
15


Level 4
25
27
22
18
18
11
9
6


Level 5
6
7
7
5
6
2
6
7


Level 1
18
19
20
33
26
24
24
19


Level 2
16
22
27
22
21
19
21
22


Level 3
33
35
25
26
28
30
27
25


AVERAGED ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE
A = 0.5(%L2) + (%L3) + 2(%L4 + %L5)
READING MATHEMATICS AVERAGE
Grade


102.5
111
100.5
87.5
89
70
63
54.5


104.75
102.5
97.5
82.25
88.75
81.75
79.25
79.25


Figure 3-1: Orange County Public School District FCAT 2005 Example



Grade AVERAGE x%
3rd 104.75 x 10% 10.475
4th 102.5 x 10% 10.25
5th 97.5 x 10% 9.75
6th 82.25 x 10% 8.225
7th 88.75 x 10% 8.875
8th 81.75 x 10% 8.175
9th 79.25 x 10% 7.925
10th 79.25 x 30% 23.775


Orange County Public Schools District Accountability Score = 87.45

Figure 3-2: Orange County Public Schools District Accountability Score


Grade
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th


Level 1
22
16
20
26
25
28
38
44


Level 4
24
19
22
14
17
16
19
26


Level 5
9
5
6
6
8
11
10
8


READING (%)









CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the equity and adequacy study. As presented in

chapter one, the research question addressed was: Given a certain level of resources, can a state

resource distribution finance plan be developed to achieve equitable distribution of resources

while providing adequate funding simultaneously throughout the public school districts in

Florida? This chapter presented the results derived by calculating the Florida public education

finance formula with the equity and adequacy formulas from the literature as presented in the

methodology in chapter three. The results were presented by school year. Equity and adequacy

results from the 2004-2005 school year were presented first, followed by the results from the

2005-2006 school year.

Equity Measures Results 2004-2005:

Variance Results 2004-2005

The first equity formula investigated in this study was the variance. These data and

calculations to compute the variance are shown in Table 4-1. The variance is the standard

deviation squared (the standard deviation is denoted SD in the summary below).

The variance is the average of the squared deviations. The variance = 76,859.7997

represents the difference between dollars received by each school district and the average dollars

administered within the state.1 By itself, the variance statistic could be misleading due to its

sensitivity to extreme cases. Another practical difficulty with the use of this statistic is the



1 William Fowler, David Monk, Lauri Peternick, and Becky Smerdon, "Using Cost and Need Adjustments to

Improve Measurements of School Finance Equity," NCES Developments in School Finance

(Washington 1997). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98212-8.pdf.









variance is usually a very large number compared to the number of observations themselves.2 A

third difficulty associated with this statistic is the variance is not expressed in the same units as

the observations.3 The variance is expressed in squared units while the observation is expressed

in units. In spite of these difficulties, the mathematical properties of the variance make it

extremely important in statistical theory.4 Moreover, these difficulties may be overcome simply

by working with the square root of the variance, called the standard deviation.

The McLoone Index Results 2004-2005

The next measure used to analyze the distribution of resources to each Florida district

was the McLoone Index. The McLoone Index varies between zero and one, and a McLoone

Index of one indicates complete equity. The McLoone Index focuses specifically on the extent

of equity in the bottom half of the distribution in relationship to the median.5 Table 4-3 contains

data and calculations necessary in computing the McLoone Index:

Figure 4-1 shows each school district in Florida represented by its district number along

the horizontal axis with the corresponding dollars per UFTE along the vertical axis. As observed

from the graph, there exists a noticeable spread with respect to the school district and its

corresponding UFTE distribution. (e.g., School district #61 Suwannee received $5287.03 per

UFTE while school district #44 Monroe received $6935.74 per UFTE.)



2 Lawrence Lapin, Statistics Meaning and Method (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980).

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Margaret E. Goertz and Gary Natriello, "Court-Mandated School Finance Reform: What Do the New

Dollars Buy?," in Equity andAdequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives, eds. Helen F.

Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen, 175-208 (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).









To compute the McLoone Index, it is first necessary to find the median of the data as

shown in the center and spread summary below.

Table 4-5 contains data and calculations in increasing order by the total funding divided by

UFTE column to give a visual illustration of which districts lie above and below the median.

The figures and tables portray the components necessary to compute the McLoone Index to

assess equity in the distribution of resources. The following process was followed to compute

the McLoone Index. The center and spread summary show the median expenditure per UFTE

was $5658.08. The total number of pupils (UFTE's) below the median was 771,087. To

compute the McLoone Index:

* First, take the total number of UFTE's below the median and multiply by the median
expenditure: 771,087 x 5658.08 = $4,362,871,933

* Then for each district below the median, multiply the total UFTE's in the district by the
average expenditure per UFTE, then add these products together: = $4,245,771,945



S Finally: McLoone Index $4,245,771,945 = 0.973159884
M P $4,362,871,933


The McLoone Index = 0.973159884 indicates an equitable distribution of resources throughout

the districts in Florida in 2005 because the McLoone Index was very close to one.

Coefficient of Variation Results 2004-2005

The coefficient of variation is the standard deviation (the square root of the variance) of

adjusted spending per UFTE divided by the state's average spending per pupil. One advantage

to using the coefficient of variation is that outliers do not skew the distribution. The coefficient

of variation can be any value between zero and infinity. A lower coefficient of variation

indicates greater equity. The coefficient of variation was computed by dividing the standard

deviation by the mean:










r/Variance 277.236
Coefficient of Variation: -Va- =0.0487
Mean 5692.681

The coefficient of variation = 0.0487 indicates an equitable distribution since the value is close to

zero.

Gini Coefficient Results 2004-2005

To compute the Gini Coefficient, it is first required to generate the Lorenz Curve. The

Lorenz Curve is a graph in the first quadrant of the Cartesian Plane. The data used to develop

the Lorenz Curve which generated the Gini Coefficient can be found in Appendix E.

The Lorenz Curve was developed by running a linear regression equation through the 67

points plotted on the Cartesian Plane in the first quadrant. The x coordinate of each point

represented the percent pupils in the state while the y coordinate represented the percent of

total resources. The Lorenz Curve for this set of data was found to be y = 1.00 x + 0.13.

The Gini Coefficient is the ratio of the area between the line y = x and the Lorenz Curve

to the total area below the line y = x. To compute the Gini Coefficient:

1. Compute the area between y = x and y = 1.001x +0.13 by method of integration using

the formula: If f and g are continuous on [a, b] and g(x) < f(x) for all x in [a, b], then the

area of the region bounded by the graphs off and g and the vertical lines x = a and x = b is:

b
Area= JLf(x)- (x)]x.6
a

100
Area= J(1.001x + 0.13 x)dx =18
0



6 Roland E. Larson, Robert P. Hostetler, and Bruce H. Edwards, Calculus, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1998).









2. Compute the area between the line y = x and the x axis using the formula: Area of a

base x height
triangle =
2

100x100
Area (oftriangle)=- 5000
2


3. Gini Coefficient = =0.0036
5000

The Gini Coefficient ranges from zero (perfect equality) to one (perfect inequality). The Gini

coefficient = 0.0036 indicates an equitable distribution of resources to the Florida school districts

during the 2004-2005 school year.

The graph of the Lorenz Curve is shown in Figure 4-2. The Lorenz curve is the solid line

while the equity line is the dashed line. The two lines are very close indicating an equitable

distribution of resources.


Equity Measures Summary 2004-2005:

The results of the equity analysis as presented in Table 4-8 indicates that the level of

distribution of resources remained within the recommended range to confirm the state

distribution finance plan to be equitable.

Adequacy Measures Results 2004-2005

The translation of the abstract term "adequate" into a practical school finance distribution

formula requires the incorporation of student performance measures into the plan. To measure

student performance in the state of Florida, achievement levels from each student in each district

were analyzed. The percentage of students from each grade level at each of the achievement

levels in reading and mathematics were calculated. Then the accountability measure formula as

described in the previous chapter:









A = 0.5(%L2) + (%L3) + 2(%L4 + %L5)

was used to generate a measure for each grade level in reading and mathematics for each district.

Finally, appropriate weights were applied to each grade level in each district to achieve a district

accountability score for each of the sixty-seven districts in the state of Florida. The District

Accountability Scores for each district from the 2004-2005 school year are provided in the Table

4-9. The Florida average District Accountability Score for 2004-2005 was 89.285.


Table 4-10 shows the accountability score and the per-pupil expenditure for each

school district in the state of Florida for the 2004-2005 school year.

Scatterplot Results 2004-2005

To display the relationship between the District Accountability Score and the Per-Pupil

Expenditure, a scatterplot and correlation analysis was used. On the scatterplot, the independent

variable on the x axis is the District Accountability Score and the dependent variable on the

y axis is the Per-Pupil Expenditure. This scatterplot shows the relationship between two

quantitative variables measured on the same group of students in all sixty-seven school districts

in Florida in 2004-2005. Interpreting the scatterplot in Figure 4-3, the overall pattern of the plots

do not appear to be in clusters, nor does it appear to be positively or negatively associated, nor

does it appear to have a strong relationship since the points do not follow a clear form.

Correlation and Coefficient of Determination Results 2004-2005

The scatterplot in Figure 4-3 does not appear to have a linear relationship between the

two quantitative variables, therefore the strength of the relationship is very weak. The

correlation (r ) measures the direction and strength of a linear relationship between two

quantitative variables. For data presented in the scatterplot, the correlation r =0.0316,

indicating a very weak linear relationship. The coefficient of determination is r2 =0.001. This









means that only about 0.1 percent of the observed values can be explained in terms of the

regression line.

Interpretation of Results 2004-2005

The equity analysis of the 2004-2005 school year showed an equitable distribution of

resources throughout the sixty-seven school districts in Florida. This was especially reinforced

through the use of the Gini Coefficient, the Lorenz Curve, the McLoone Index, and the

Coefficient of Variation. The equity analysis indicates that the level of distribution of resources

is within the recommended range to confirm the state distribution finance plan to be equitable.

The adequacy analysis of the 2004-2005 school year showed a weak relationship between

the district accountability score and per-pupil expenditure. While the accountability score

represented each district's student performance on the FCAT, there was no linear relationship

between the accountability score and per-pupil expenditure. This was represented by the

correlation value of r = 0.0316 and the coefficient of determination value of r 2 = 0.001.

Given the results of the 2004-2005 school year equity and adequacy analysis, there is no

evidence to support the fact that resources were distributed equitably and adequately

simultaneously. It appears that the 2004-2005 FEFP funding model achieved a high degree of

equity between Florida school districts; however, components of the plan may need to be

assessed and modified to provide greater adequacy in the distribution of resources. Today's shift

toward adequacy in school finance is inspiring education finance reform efforts throughout the

United States because of the link between funding of schools and its educational performance.









Equity Measures Results 2005-2006


Variance Results 2005-2006

The variance value for the 2005-2006 school year data was equal to 90,944.4649. The

data and computations are shown in Table 4-14.

McLoone Index Results 2005-2006

The McLoone Index for the 2005-2006 school year data was 0.98476531. Since this

value is very close to one, an equitable distribution of resources is achieved. Table 4-15 contains

the number of UFTE's for each school district and its total funding.

To compute the McLoone Index for the 2005-2006 school year: (a) the median

expenditure was found to be $6047.07, (b) the total UFTE's below the mean was found to be

949,194, (c) multiply: (a) (b) = $5,739,842,562, (d) the sum of the total funding for the districts

below the median was found to be $5,652,397,860 and (e) divide: (d)/(c). Table 4-16 shows the

district name and position pertaining to rank order by total funding / UFTE.

Coefficient of Variation Results 2005-2006

The coefficient of variation value for the 2005-2006 school year was 0.0491727364. The

coefficient of variation is computed by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. Since the

coefficient of variation for the 2005-2006 school year was close to zero, the distribution of

resources was considered equitable.

The Gini Coefficent Results 2005-2006

The Gini Coefficient and the Lorenz Curve for the 2005-2006 school year was computed

using the parameters reported in Table 4-17.









The Gini Coefficient is the ratio of the area between the line y = x and the Lorenz Curve

to the total area below the line y = x. The Lorenz Curve was estimated to be y = x + 0.32. To

compute the Gini Coefficient:

100
1. Area= (x + 0.32 x)dx =32
0
100x100
2. Area between y = x and x-axis 5000
2

3. Gini Coefficient =- 0.0064
5000

The Gini Coefficient = 0.0064 indicates an equitable distribution of resources to Florida school

districts for the 2005-2006 school year because the coefficient was very close to zero. The

Lorenz Curve is shown in Figure 4-4.


Equity Measures Summary 2005-2006:

The results of the equity analysis for the 2005-2006 school year is shown in Table 4-18.

The results justify that the level of distribution of resources remained within the recommended

range to confirm that the state distribution finance plan was equitable.


Adequacy Results 2005-2006

The District Accountability Scores for each district from the 2005-2006 school year are

provided on Table 4-19. The State of Florida's average District Accountability Score for 2005-

2006 was 92.6287.


Table 4-20 shows the district accountability score and the per-pupil expenditure for each

school district in the state of Florida for the 2005-2006 school year.

Scatterplot Results 2005-2006

A scatterplot and correlation analysis was used to show the relationship between the two

quantitative variables: the District Accountability Score and the Per-Pupil Expenditure. The









interpretation of the scatterplot indicates that there is no valid relationship between the two

quantitative variables as shown by the absence of clusters, positive association or negative

association.

Correlation and Coefficient of Determination Results 2005-2006

The variables in the scatterplot in Figure 4-5 do not appear to have a strong relationship

because they to not form a linear pattern. The absence of a linear pattern indicates a very weak

relationship between the variables. Other indicators used to justify the weakness of the

relationship are the correlation and coefficient of determination. The correlation for these

variables was r = 0.0894, indicating a very weak linear relationship. The coefficient of

determination r2 = 0.008 means that about 0.8% of the observed values can be explained in

terms of the regression line.

Interpretation of Results 2005-2006

In 2005-2006, evidence from the Gini Coefficient, Lorenz Curve, McLoone Index, and

Coefficient of Variation justified that the distribution of resources was within the recommended

range, which confirmed the Florida finance distribution plan to be equitable. However, there

was no linear relationship between the district accountability score (student achievement

measure) and per-pupil expenditure, indicating that the Florida finance distribution plan may not

be providing adequate funding as it maintains its equitable distribution.

Resembling the results from the 2004-2005 school year, the results of the 2005-2006

school year equity and adequacy analysis again revealed no evidence to support the fact that

resources were distributed equitably and adequately simultaneously. While the FEFP funding

model for both school years accomplished a high degree of equity between Florida school

districts, modifications to the plan may need to be considered to provide greater adequacy in the

distribution of resources.









Spurred by the courts to improve the quality of education provided to its students, state

legislatures are under pressure to define a set of performance goals that, if met, will imply that

students have received an adequate education.7 If the Florida legislature is going to mandate that

students meet more rigorous educational goals, then achieving these goals may require some

districts to receive more resources than in other school districts throughout the state to achieve

greater adequacy in the distribution of resources.

Summary

The results presented in chapter IV suggest that the amount of resources necessary to

meet student performance standards may need to vary across school districts. This variation in

costs is primarily due to factors over which local school officials have little control.8 The

requirement to increase academic performance in students is an important step in improving the

quality of education. However, if cost differences among school districts were substantial, then

imposing statewide student performance standards without simultaneously allocating more state

financial aid to school districts with high costs may result in a situation in which school districts

with above-average costs will not have enough resources to educate students to meet the new

standards.9 These schools may fail, not necessarily because of the inability to effectively educate

children, but because they have insufficient fiscal resources to do the job.10

Providing an equal opportunity for students in Florida to receive an adequate education in

terms of fiscal resources may require the Florida legislature to revisit and improve the FEFP in

7 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, "Achieving Educational Adequacy Through School Finance Reform,"
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Research Report Series, RR-045 (2000):13.

8 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, "Let No Child Be Left Behind: Determining the Cost of

Improving Student Performance," Public Finance Review 31, no. 10 (2003):1-26.
9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.









an effort to balance the achievement results throughout the sixty-seven school districts. To

ensure that all school districts have adequate resources to maintain annual performance gains,

districts with higher costs (due to poverty, non-English speakers, location, and salaries) will have

to be entitled to additional state financial assistance.














Table 4-1: 2005 center and spread summary: (standard deviation to compute the variance)


Name Mean Median SD Min Max N



Total Fundina/UFTE 5692.681 5658.085 277.236 5287.031 6935.736 67













Table 4.2: The Variance Statistic


-M-


-aL-

-UL-
-A-

-aL-
2L



-aL-
-aL-
-I .










-U--
-a--
-Na-
-Na-
-I .
-IL.


_a-






-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-

-IL.
-aL-
-U-




-2N-
-Na-
-I .
-I .














-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-AL-
-U-
-a-
-a-
-a
AL
-a-
-a-
-a
-a-
-a-
-N-


-m








-AU


_m
----U_









--U-L
mL






-U
-m

-m
--J-U
-m



_am
-M
-m




-A
m




---


--

-AM






-AUA


-SO


-SK
-ML
-|


r

|
.J




U
J









1
-J












I


|

-u










F

|

i


I
-J

-J


-J
-J





-J

-z


-J
-J
-J


-J
-J
-J

-J
-J


-J


4 4


I


4

















Table 4-3: McLoone Index Data ... 2005


District District
Number Name UFTE Total Funding Total Funding / UFTE


1 ALACHUA 28192 160367164 5688 39
2 BAKER 4626 24764686 5353 37
3 BAY 26496 145732517 5500 17
4 BRADFORD 3657 20698064 5659 85
5 BREVARD 73452 416316943 5667 88
6 BROWARD 269041 1566747539 5823 45
7 CALHOUN 2282 12956209 5677 57
8 CHARLOTTE 17229 98837118 5736 67
9 CITRUS 15437 86826223 5624 55
10 CLAY 32235 176095792 5462 88
11 COLLIER 41587 265142173 6375 60
12 COLUMBIA 9805 54219227 5529 75
13 MIAMI-DADE 362253 2172057536 5995 97
14 DESOTO 5050 28240967 5592 27
15 DIXIE 2057 11977081 5822 60
16 DUVAL 127747 709844763 5556 65
17 ESCAMBIA 43083 234363819 5439 82
18 FLAGLER 9626 53556941 5563 78
19 FRANKLIN 1315 8115187 6171 24
20 GADSDEN 6085 36216510 5951 77
21 GILCHRIST 2740 16006694 5841 86
22 GLADES 1249 7066948 5658 08
23 GULF 2140 12432785 5809 71
24 HAMILTON 1938 11156568 5756 74
25 HARDEE 5096 27395632 5375 91
26 HENDRY 7566 42394198 5603 25
27 HERNANDO 20381 109230402 5359 42
28 HIGHLANDS 11991 66117350 5513 91
29 HILLSBOROUGH 185687 1057630079 5695 77
30 HOLMES 3322 18430564 5548 03
31 INDIAN RIVER 16729 94750465 5663 85
32 JACKSON 7064 40023274 5665 81
33 JEFFERSON 1322 8387323 6344 42
34 LAFAYETTE 1038 5703667 5494 86
35 LAKE 35382 191577342 5414 54
36 LEE 70422 418962175 5949 31
37 LEON 31736 185127074 5833 35
38 LEVY 6137 34865908 5681 26
39 LIBERTY 1345 8291915 6164 99
40 MADISON 3145 18015122 5728 18
41 MANATEE 40808 233567928 5723 58
42 MARION 40640 225196834 5541 26
43 MARTIN 17657 106162813 6012 51
44 MONROE 8511 59030053 6935 74
45 NASSAU 10599 58815526 5549 16
46 OKALOOSA 30833 170867305 5541 70
47 OKEECHOBEE 7230 39738077 5496 28
48 ORANGE 171238 977536504 5708 64
49 OSCEOLA 46891 256830696 5477 19
50 PALM BEACH 172257 1043669211 6058 79
51 PASCO 59531 338517627 5686 41
52 PINELLAS 112284 659228875 5871 08
53 POLK 85669 469402752 5479 26
54 PUTNAM 12029 66040147 5490 08
55 ST JOHNS 24121 135457439 5615 75
56 ST LUCIE 34503 192095586 5567 50
57 SANTA ROSA 24425 132296408 5416 43
58 SARASOTA 41315 251495617 6087 27
59 SEMINOLE 66141 364140270 5505 52
60 SUMTER 7006 38372053 5477 03
61 SUWANNEE 5644 29840001 5287 03
62 TAYLOR 3161 17840547 5643 96
63 UNION 2168 11707340 5400 06
64 VOLUSIA 64609 366685468 5675 45
65 WAKULLA 4765 27094201 5686 09
66 WALTON 6436 36363151 5649 96
67 WASHINGTON 3461 19133696 5528 37








114

















Distribution of Dollars 2004-2005

700000


680000


660000


640000


620000
LL


600000 0
S S


5800 00


560000


540000


520000
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859661626364656667

District Number


Figure 4-1: Distribution of Dollars per UFTE




Table 4-4: 2005 center and spread summary: (median to compute the McLoone Index)



Name Mean Median SD Min Max N




Total Funding/UFTE 5692.681 5658.085 277.236 5287.031 6935.736 67













Table 4-5: Funding per district ranked by per-pupil expenditure
istrlct INunler istrlct Name lotal Itling / iU IE, UitlI lotal funlmg
61 SUWANNEE 5287.03 5644 29839997.32
2 BAKER 5353.37 4626 24764689.62
27 HERNANDO 5359.42 20381 109230339
25 HARDEE 5375.91 5096 27395637.36
63 UNION 5400.06 2168 11707330.08
35 LAKE 5414.54 35382 191577254.3
57 SANTA ROSA 5416.43 24425 132296302.8
17 ESCAMBIA 5439.82 43083 234363765.1
10 CLAY 5462.88 32235 176095936.8
60 SUMTER 5477.03 7006 38372072.18
49 OSCEOLA 5477.19 46891 256830916.3
53 POLK 5479.26 85669 469402724.9
54 PUTNAM 5490.08 12029 66040172.32
34 LAFAYETTE 5494.86 1038 5703664.68
47 OKEECHOBEE 5496.28 7230 39738104.4
3 BAY 5500.17 26496 145732504.3
59 SEMINOLE 5505.52 66141 364140598.3
28 HIGHLANDS 5513.91 11991 66117294.81
67 WASHINGTON 5528.37 3461 19133688.57
12 COLUMBIA 5529.75 9805 54219198.75
42 MARION 5541.26 40640 225196806.4
46 OKALOOSA 5541.7 30833 170867236.1
30 HOLMES 5548.03 3322 18430555.66
45 NASSAU 5549.16 10599 58815546.84
16 DUVAL 5556.65 127747 709845367.6
18 FLAGLER 5563.78 9626 53556946.28
56 ST. LUCIE 5567.5 34503 192095452.5
14 DESOTO 5592.27 5050 28240963.5
26 HENDRY 5603.25 7566 42394189.5
55 ST. JOHNS 5618.75 24121 135529868.8
9 CITRUS 5624.55 15437 86826178.35
62 TAYLOR 5643.96 3161 17840557.56
66 WALTON 5649.96 6436 36363142.56
22 GLADES median--- ----StS. 1249 7066948
4 BRADFORD 5659.85 3657 20698071.45
31 INDIAN RIVER 5663.85 16729 94750546.65
32 JACKSON 5665.81 7064 40023281.84
5 BREVARD 5667.88 73452 416317121.8
64 VOLUSIA 5675.45 64609 366685149.1
7 CALHOUN 5677.57 2282 12956214.74
38 LEVY 5681.26 6137 34865892.62
65 WAKULLA 5686.09 4765 27094218.85
51 PASCO 5686.41 59531 338517673.7
1 ALACHUA 5688.39 28192 160367090.9
29 HILLSBOROUGH 5695.77 185687 1057630444
48 ORANGE 5708.64 171238 977536096.3
41 MANATEE 5723.58 40808 233567852.6
40 MADISON 5728.18 3145 18015126.1
8 CHARLOTTE 5736.67 17229 98837087.43
24 HAMILTON 5756.74 1938 11156562.12
23 GULF 5809.71 2140 12432779.4
15 DIXIE 5822.6 2057 11977088.2
6 BROWARD 5823.45 269041 1566746811
37 LEON 5833.35 31736 185127195.6
21 GILCHRIST 5841.86 2740 16006696.4
52 PINELLAS 5871.08 112284 659228346.7
36 LEE 5949.31 70422 418962308.8
20 GADSDEN 5951.77 6085 36216520.45
13 MIAMI-DADE 5995.97 362253 2172058120
43 MARTIN 6012.51 17657 106162889.1
50 PALM BEACH 6058.79 172257 1043668989
58 SARASOTA 6087.27 41315 251495560.1
39 LIBERTY 6164.99 1345 8291911.55
19 FRANKLIN 6171.24 1315 8115180.6
33 JEFFERSON 6344.42 1322 8387323.24
11 COLLIER 6375.6 41587 265142077.2
44 MONROE 6935.74 8511 59030083.14













Table 4-6: Linear regression: parameter table

Parameter Value SE

Intercept 0.13 0.061
Slope: 1.001 0.001


Table 4-7: Linear regression: anova summary table


Source

Regression
Residual
Total

R-Squared
Adj. R-Sqr


54730.24
3.474
54733.71


MS

54730.238
0.053


1004


90


80


70-


60 -

c u m u la tiv e
total 50-
f u n d ing/
total funds
40-


30-





10-


-20


- -- ------ Equity Line (dotted line


I. . . . ,,,
,


hi C


80


100


Cumulative UFTE/ total UFTE




Figure 4-2: Lorenz Curve / Gini Coefficient 2005






117


2.128
1016.193


0.037
0


1032646


I I I I I ~I_ Y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


)









Table 4-8: Equity summary 2004-2005
Equity Summary 2004-2005
Mean 5692.68
Median 5658.08
Standard Deviation 277.236
Variance 76,859.7997
McLoone Index 0.973159884
Coefficient of Variation 0.0487
Gini Coefficient 0.0036










Table 4-9: Florida School district accountability score 2004-2005


Florida School District
Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Cay
Collier
Columbia
Miani-Dade
DeSoto
Dibie
Duval
Escan-bia
Flagler
Fmnklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hemando
Highlands
Hllsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lake
Lee


District Accountability Score
96.25
87.325
98.525
74.765
113.525
94.375
103.9
102.2
93.35
103.825
90.775
81.4
78.75
76.85
75.55
88.1
81.5
94.85
70.7
55.175
102.325
67.35
94.475
63.9
75
69.15
88.725
86.9
93.1
86.375
100.15
91.45
51.625
88.475
89.25
90.775


Florida School District District Accountability Score
leon 110.625
Levy 79.125
Liberty 88.625
Madison 60.85
Manatee 86.625
Marion 87.925
Martin 113.675
Monroe 102.6
Nassau 101.6
Okaloosa 119.05
Okeechobee 80.075
Orange 87.45
Osceola 76.675
PalmBeach 96.025
Pasco 86.8
Pinellas 96.675
Polk 78.65
Putnam 78.525
St. Johns 114.55
St. Lucie 82.825
Santa Rosa 115.525
Sarasota 103.225
Seminole 111.55
Sunter 92.475
Suwannee 83.15
Taylor 81.15
Union 88.675
Volusia 94.5
Wakulla 101.25
Walton 89.975
Washington 90.975


STATEAVERACE


89.285











Table 4-10: Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2004-2005


Florida School District
Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay
Collier
Columbia
Miami-Dade
DeSoto
Dixie
Duval
Escambia
Flagler
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe


District Accountanility Score
96.25
87.325
98.525
74.765
113.525
94.375
103.9
102.2
93.35
103.825
90.775
81.4
78.75
76.85
75.55
88.1
81.5
94.85
70.7
55.175
102.325
67.35
94.475
63.9
75
69.15
88.725
86.9
93.1
86.375
100.15
91.45
51.625
88.475
89.25
90.775
110.625
79.125
88.625
60.85
86.625
87.925
113.675
102.6


Per Pupil Expenditure
5688
5352
5500
5659
5667
5823
5676
5736
5624
5462
6375
5529
5995
5591
5820
5556
5439
5563
6168
5951
5840
5654
5809
5756
5375
5603
5359
5513
5695
5547
5663
5665
6342
5493
5414
5949
5833
5681
6163
5728
5723
5541
6012
6935











Table 4-10 continued


Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton
Washington


101.6
119.05
80.075
87.45
76.675
96.025
86.8
96.675
78.65
78.525
114.55
82.825
115.525
103.225
111.55
92.475
83.15
81.15
88.675
94.5
101.25
89.975
90.975


5548
5541
5495
5708
5477
6058
5686
5871
5479
5489
5615
5567
5416
6087
5505
5477
5287
5643
5399
5675
5685
5649
5527












Scatterplot
Per-pupil
expenditure
6894.8+






6482.5+
*


*
*

6070.3+ *
*
*
*
* *

5658+ *
* * *
* *
*
*

5245.8+---------+-------------------+- ---
49.9 67 84.1 101.2 118.3
Accountability Score


Figure 4-3: Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2004-2005














Table 4-11: Linear regression: parameter table (dependent variable = per-pupil expenditure)

Parameter Value SE T P

Intercept 5753.031 218.635 26.313 0
Slope: Score -0.685 2.419 -0.283 1.222


Table 4-12:

Source

Regression
Residual
Total

R-Squared
Adj. R-Sqr





Table 4-13:

Name

Score
FTE


Linear regression: anova summary table

SS DF MS

6250 1 6250
5062008 65 77877.046
5068258 66

0.001
-0.014


Center and spread 2004-2005

Mean Median SD

89.285 88.725 14.202
5691.806 5654 277.12


Min

51.625
5287


F

0.08













Max

119.05
6935


P

0.778













N

67
67




















Table 4-14: 2006 center and spread summary: (standard deviation to compute the variance)


Mean Median SD Min


Max


Total Funding/UFTE


6132.87 6047.07


301.57 5670.41 7414.94


District District 2006
Number Name UFTE Total FRnding Total Fundin /UFTE Mean (TF/UFTE) Squared Deviations


1 ALACHUA 28238 171620939 6077 659147 55 21085275 3048 238262
2 BAKER 4719 27779236 5886 678534 246 1914664 60610 23813
3 BAY 26947 159429155 5916 397187 216 4728129 46860 47874
4 BRADFORD 3576 22132742 6189 245526 56 37552573 3178 199901
5 BREVARD 74041 447356808 6042 014668 90 85533245 8254 691435
6 BROWARD 267152 1656157382 6199 307443 -6643744295 4413 933826
7 CALHOUN 2235 14215995 6360 624161 227 7541611 51871 95789
8 CHARLOTTE 17445 106405856 6099 5045 33 36550014 1113 2566
9 CITRUS 15512 93771977 6045 124871 8774512893 7699207651
10 CLAY 34198 201700323 5898 015176 234 8548237 55156 7882
11 COLLIER 42775 293252178 6855 690894 722 8208942 522470 0451
12 COLUMBIA 10133 60420851 5962 780124 170 0898757 289305658
13 MIAMI-DADE 358140 2266541299 6328 646057 -195 7760574 38328 26465
14 DESOTO 5000 30353300 6070 66 62 21 3870 0841
15 DIXIE 2120 13143869 6199 938208 -67 06820755 4498 144464
16 DUVAL 127217 767702857 6034 593309 98 27669093 9658 30798
17 ESCAMBIA 42668 250385846 5868 234883 264 6351167 70031 745
18 FLAGLER 10973 65185171 5940 505878 192 3641219 37003 95541
19 FRANKLIN 1291 8849694 6854 91402 722 0440201 521347 567
20 GADSDEN 6099 38338975 6286 108378 -153 2383784 23482 00062
21 GILCHRIST 2769 17753576 6411 547851 -278 6778512 77661 34475
22 GLADES 1282 7955336 6205 410296 72 54029641 5262 094604
23 GULF 2134 13383350 6271 485473 -138 6154733 19214 24944
24 HAMILTON 1890 11607164 6141 356614 -8 486613757 72 02261305
25 HARDEE 5045 29441875 5835 852329 297 017671 88219 49686
26 HENDRY 7507 45395387 6047 074331 85 79566938 7360 896884
27 HERNANDO 21572 124467665 5769 871361 362 998639 131768 0119
28 HIGHLANDS 12082 71399514 5909 577388 223 2926122 49859 59064
29 HILLSBOROUGH 190604 1161928183 6096 032523 36 83747707 1356 999717
30 HOLMES 3356 19966229 5949 412694 183 4573063 33656 58324
31 INDIAN RIVER 16942 103305499 6097 597627 35 2723728 1244 140283
32 JACKSON 7212 44028020 6104 828064 28 04193566 786 3501557
33 JEFFERSON 1190 8483905 7129 331933 996 4619328 992936 3835
34 LAFAYETTE 1056 6329156 5993 518939 139 3510606 19418 71809
35 LAKE 37456 217918633 5817 989988 314 8800117 991494218
36 LEE 74708 476486137 6377 980096 245 1100958 60078 95908
37 LEON 32057 199113064 6211 219515 78 34951524 6138 646538
38 LEVY 6166 37822997 6134 122121 -1 25212131 1 567807776
39 LIBERTY 1407 9135047 6492 570718 359 7007178 129384 6064
40 MADISON 3029 18950430 6256 332123 -123 4621228 15242 89577
41 MANATEE 41939 251682202 6001 149336 131 7206641 17350 33334
42 MARION 41462 245265993 5915 440476 217 4295244 47275 59807
43 MARTIN 17736 114356173 6447 686795 314 8167952 99109 61455
44 MONROE 8328 61751692 7414 948607 -1282 078607 1643725 555
45 NASSAU 10738 64796327 6034 301267 98 56873347 9715 795218
46 OKALOOSA 30702 183388931 5973 191681 159 6783187 25497 16546
47 OKEECHOBEE 7274 42735072 5875 044267 257 8257327 66474 10847
48 ORANGE 173643 1064682357 6131 444153 1 425847342 2 033040643
49 OSCEOLA 49176 293297409 5964 238836 168 631164 28436 46947
50 PALM BEACH 172597 1111774375 6441 446694 308 5766937 95219 57592
51 PASCO 62085 377784082 6084 949376 47 92062414 2296 386218
52 PINELLAS 111425 697619081 6260 88473 -128 0147296 16387 771
53 POLK 88807 527081015 5935 129156 197 7408435 39101 44119
54 PUTNAM 11890 70813098 5955 685282 177 1847183 31394 42438
55 ST JOHNS 25573 154200626 6029 821531 103 0484695 10618 98706
56 ST LUCIE 36043 214640764 5955 130372 177 7396279 31591 37534
57 SANTA ROSA 24634 143848360 5839 423561 293 4464391 86110 8126
58 SARASOTA 41898 271044665 6469 15521 336 2852103 113087 7426
59 SEMINOLE 66950 395863007 5912 815639 220 0543615 48423 922
60 SUMTER 7205 42478411 5895 68508 237 1849202 56256 68637
61 SUWANNEE 5783 32792027 5670 417949 462 4520508 213861 8993
62 TAYLOR 3040 18327983 6028 941776 103 9282237 10801 07568
63 UNION 2214 13230817 5975 978771 156 8912285 24614 85759
64 VOLUSIA 65235 393511406 6032 212861 100 6571388 10131 85959
65 WAKULLA 4845 29675357 6124 944685 7925314757 62 81061401
66 WALTON 6704 41568020 6200 48031 -67 61031026 4571 154054
67 WASHINGTON 3554 21189116 5962 047271 170 8227293 29180 40485
Sum of Squared Deviations
6001940 51
sum UFTE sum total funding
2631423 16199013986 Variance (Sum ofSq Dev ) (n-1)
Mean 90944 4649
6132 870905


Name














Table 4-15: Funding per district
lDstrict lDstrict
Number I Name


ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
MIAMI-DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS


28238
4719
26947
3576
74041
267152
2235
17445
15512
34198
42775
10133
358140
5000
2120
127217
42668
10973
1291
6099
2769
1282
2134
1890
5045
7507
21572
12082


29 HILLSBOROUGH 190604


HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LAFAYETTE
LAKE
LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
MADISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
OKALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
POLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTA ROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SUMMER
SUWANNEE
TAYLOR
UNION
VOLUSIA
WAKULLA
WALTON
WASHINGTON


3356
16942
7212
1190
1056
37456
74708
32057
6166
1407
3029
41939
41462
17736
8328
10738
30702
7274
173643
49176
172597
62085
111425
88807
11890
25573
36043
24634
41898
66950
7205
5783
3040
2214
65235
4845
6704
3554


171620939
27779236
159429155
22132742
447356808
1656157382
14215995
106405856
93771977
201700323
293252178
60420851
2266541299
30353300
13143869
767702857
250385846
65185171
8849694
38338975
17753576
7955336
13383350
11607164
29441875
45395387
124467665
71399514
1161928183
19966229
103305499
44028020
8483905
6329156
217918633
476486137
199113064
37822997
9135047
18950430
251682202
245265993
114356173
61751692
64796327
183388931
42735072
1064682357
293297409
1111774375
377784082
697619081
527081015
70813098
154200626
214640764
143848360
271044665
395863007
42478411
32792027
18327983
13230817
393511406
29675357
41568020
21189116


UFPIE lotal Funding lotal Funding / UFIE


6077.66
5886.68
5916.40
6189.25
6042.01
6199.31
6360.62
6099.50
6045.12
5898.02
6855.69
5962.78
6328.65
6070.66
6199.94
6034.59
5868.23
5940.51
6854.91
6286.11
6411.55
6205.41
6271.49
6141.36
5835.85
6047.07
5769.87
5909.58
6096.03
5949.41
6097.60
6104.83
7129.33
5993.52
5817.99
6377.98
6211.22
6134.12
6492.57
6256.33
6001.15
5915.44
6447.69
7414.95
6034.30
5973.19
5875.04
6131.44
5964.24
6441.45
6084.95
6260.88
5935.13
5955.69
6029.82
5955.13
5839.42
6469.16
5912.82
5895.69
5670.42
6028.94
5975.98
6032.21
6124.94
6200.48
5962.05














Table 4-16: Funding per district ranked by per-pupil expenditure
I2UU-2UU 1 1


District
Name


61 SUWANNEE
27 HERNANDO
35 LAKE
25 HARDEE
57 SANTA ROSA
17 ESCAMBIA
47 OKEECHOBEE
2 BAKER
60 SUMTER
10 CLAY
28 HIGHLANDS
59 SEMINOLE
42 MARION
3 BAY
53 POLK
18 FLAGLER
30 HOLMES
56 ST. LUCIE
54 PUTNAM
67 WASHINGTON
12 COLUMBIA
49 OSCEOLA
46 OKALOOSA
63 UNION
34 LAFAYETTE
41 MANATEE
62 TAYLOR
55 ST. JOHNS
64 VOLUSIA
45 NASSAU
16 DUVAL
5 BREVARD
9 CITRUS
26 HENRY
14 DESOTO
1 ALACHUA
51 PASCO
29 HILLSBOROUGH
31 INDIAN RIVER
8 CHARLOTTE
32 JACKSON
65 WAKULLA
48 ORANGE
38 LEVY
24 HAMILTON
4 BRADFORD
6 BROWARD
15 DIXIE
66 WALTON
22 GLADES
37 LEON
40 MADISON
52 PINELLAS
23 GULF
20 GADSDEN
13 MIAMI-DADE
7 CALHOUN
36 LEE
21 GILCHRIST
50 PALM BEACH
43 MARTIN
58 SARASOTA
39 LIBERTY
19 FRANKLIN
11 COLLIER
33 JEFFERSON
44 MONROE


lotal Funding / UF1I


5670.42
5769.87
5817.99
5835.85
5839.42
5868.23
5875.04
5886.68
5895.69
5898.02
5909.58
5912.82
5915.44
5916.40
5935.13
5940.51
5949.41
5955.13
5955.69
5962.05
5962.78
5964.24
5973.19
5975.98
5993.52
6001.15
6028.94
6029.82
6032.21
6034.30
6034.59
6042.01
6045.12
median=tOU4/.U/
6070.66
6077.66
6084.95
6096.03
6097.60
6099.50
6104.83
6124.94
6131.44
6134.12
6141.36
6189.25
6199.31
6199.94
6200.48
6205.41
6211.22
6256.33
6260.88
6271.49
6286.11
6328.65
6360.62
6377.98
6411.55
6441.45
6447.69
6469.16
6492.57
6854.91
6855.69
7129.33
7414.95


UFIE lotal Funding


5783
21572
37456
5045
24634
42668
7274
4719
7205
34198
12082
66950
41462
26947
88807
10973
3356
36043
11890
3554
10133
49176
30702
2214
1056
41939
3040
25573
65235
10738
127217
74041
15512
7507
5000
28238
62085
190604
16942
17445
7212
4845
173643
6166
1890
3576
267152
2120
6704
1282
32057
3029
111425
2134
6099
358140
2235
74708
2769
172597
17736
41898
1407
1291
42775
1190
8328


32792027
124467665
217918633
29441875
143848360
250385846
42735072
27779236
42478411
201700323
71399514
395863007
245265993
159429155
527081015
65185171
19966229
214640764
70813098
21189116
60420851
293297409
183388931
13230817
6329156
251682202
18327983
154200626
393511406
64796327
767702857
447356808
93771977
45395387
30353300
171620939
377784082
1161928183
103305499
106405856
44028020
29675357
1064682357
37822997
11607164
22132742
1656157382
13143869
41568020
7955336
199113064
18950430
697619081
13383350
38338975
2266541299
14215995
476486137
17753576
1111774375
114356173
271044665
9135047
8849694
293252178
8483905
61751692


District
Num ber











Table 4-17: Linear regression: parameter table and ANOVA summary table


LINEAR REGRESSION: PARAMETER TABLE


Parameter


Value


Intercept 0.32 0.325 0.986
0.328
Slope: 1 0.005 189.321 0


LINEAR REGRESSION: ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE


Source


Regression
Residual
Total

R-Squared
Adj. R-Sqr


54946.52
99.671
55046.19


1 54946.516 35842.476
65 1.533
66


0.998
0.998













100-


90-

80-


70-


c u m u la t ive40
total
fu nd ing/
total 50
funding
40-

30-


20-

10-


-20

-10 -


-/




















Equity Line (dotted line)
Lorenz Curve (solid line)




20 40 60 80 100
cumulative UFTE/ total UFTE


Figure 4-4: Gini Coefficient 2006


Table 4-18: Equity summary 2005-2006
Equity Summary 2005-2006

Mean 6132.87

Median 6047.07

Standard Deviation 301.57

Variance 90944.4649

McLoone Index 0.9847653

Coefficient of Variation 0.0491727

Gini Coefficient 0.0064

r2 0.998











Table 4-19: Florida school district accountability score 2005-2006
District Name District Accountability Score District Name District Accountability Score


STATEWIDE
ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
MIAMI DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LAFAYETTE
LAKE
LEE


92.62873134
99.5 LEON
86.625 LEVY
103.25 LIBERTY
76.15 MADISON
115.225 MANATEE
102.225 MARION
102.25 MARTIN
104.7 MONROE
99.975 NASSAU
106.25 OKALOOSA
93.525 OKEECHOBEE
85.875 ORANGE
86.125 OSCEOLA
77.15 PALM BEACH
81.175 PASCO
91.475 PINELLAS
86.15 POLK
95.6 PUTNAM
71.825 ST. JOHNS
55.625 ST. LUCIE
107.275 SANTA ROSA
76.35 SARASOTA
96.075 SEMINOLE
63.35 SUMTER
78.975 SUWANNEE
74.725 TAYLOR
93.5 UNION
88.55 VOLUSIA
96.8 WAKULLA
88.875 WALTON
100.65 WASHINGTON
94.2
60.55
86.925
91.95
94.375


112.1
86.725
92.8
67.525
91.1
94.725
115.25
104.325
104.475
119.675
83.4
91.05
78.825
97.8
91.9
99.125
81.15
81.025
118.725
85.225
117.675
108.025
115.45
97.65
85.975
86.075
90.7
94.25
105.6
97.8
96.2













Table 4-20: Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure


Florida School District
ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
MIAMI DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LAFAYETTE


District Accountability Score Per Pupil Expenditure
99.5 6078
86.625 5887
103.25 5916
76.15 6189
115.225 6042
102.225 6199
102.25 6361
104.7 6099
99.975 6045
106.25 5898
93.525 6856
85.875 5963
86.125 6329
77.15 6071
81.175 6200
91.475 6035
86.15 5868
95.6 5941
71.825 6855
55.625 6286
107.275 6412
76.35 6205
96.075 6271
63.35 6141
78.975 5835
74.725 6047
93.5 5770
88.55 5910
96.8 6096
88.875 5949
100.65 6097
94.2 6105
60.55 7129
86.925 5994












Table 4-20 Continued

LAKE 91.95 5818
LEE 94.375 6378
LEON 112.1 6211
LEVY 86.725 6134
LIBERTY 92.8 6493
MADISON 67.525 6256
MANATEE 91.1 6001
MARION 94.725 5915
MARTIN 115.25 6448
MONROE 104.325 7415
NASSAU 104.475 6034
OKALOOSA 119.675 5973
OKEECHOBEE 83.4 5875
ORANGE 91.05 6131
OSCEOLA 78.825 5964
PALM BEACH 97.8 6441
PASCO 91.9 6085
PINELLAS 99.125 6261
POLK 81.15 5935
PUTNAM 81.025 5956
ST. JOHNS 118.725 6030
ST. LUCIE 85.225 5955
SANTA ROSA 117.675 5839
SARASOTA 108.025 6469
SEMINOLE 115.45 5912
SUMTER 97.65 5896
SUWANNEE 85.975 5670
TAYLOR 86.075 6029
UNION 90.7 5976
VOLUSIA 94.25 6032
WAKULLA 105.6 6125
WALTON 97.8 6200
WASHINGTON 96.2 5962












Per-pupil


Expenditure

7372.3+






6935.8+






6499.3+
1


* *


*
* *
*
*


* * *
* *


6062.8+


* * *
*

| *
*

5626.4+---------+-------------------+- ---
54 70.2 86.5 102.8 119


Accountability Score

Figure 4-5: Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2005-2006


* *












Table 4-21: Linear regression: parameter table (dependent variable = per-pupil expenditure)

Parameter Value SE T P

Intercept 6318.973 253.131 24.963 0
Slope: Score -2.01 2.703 -0.743 1.54


Table 4-22: Linear regression:

Source SS

Regression 50620.5
Residual 5952966
Total 6003587

R-Squared 0.008
Adj. R-Sqr -0.007


ANOVA

DF

1
65
66


Table 4-23: Center and spread

Name Mean Median

Score 92.629 93.5
Per-cuoil exo. 6132.806 6047


summary table

MS

50620.5
91584.092


SD

13.779
301.599


Min

55.625
5670


F

0.553













Max

119.675
7415


P

0.46













N

67
67









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction


The purpose of a complex but standard public education funding mechanism is to allocate

state education resources in a most rational, predictable, balanced, and fair process. Early

funding lawsuits centered on equity, defined simply as per pupil funding across school districts.1

This has given way to an emphasis on adequacy, as measured by student performance and other

educational outcomes, moving the courts into areas in which they are completely unprepared.2

The analyses presented in this study served to answer the following research questions:

1. Based on per-pupil expenditures as stated in the FEFP and outcomes of grades three through
ten assessments on the FCAT, did the State of Florida provide equitable resources to each
school district while maintaining an adequate distribution of resources for the 2004-2005
school year?

2. Based on per-pupil expenditures as stated in the FEFP and outcomes of grades three through
ten assessments on the FCAT, did the State of Florida provide equitable resources to each
school district while maintaining an adequate distribution of resources for the 2005-2006
school year?

3. Given a certain level of resources, can a state resource distribution finance plan be developed
to achieve equitable distribution of resources while providing adequate funding
simultaneously throughout the public school districts in Florida?

Conclusion

The analyses presented herein suggest that the distribution of resources allocated by the

State of Florida was within the acceptable range to satisfy the equity formulas as presented in the

research. However, to maintain an appropriate equitable distribution of resources, adequacy may

have been compromised to ensure equity.


1 Eric A. Hanushek, "The Alchemy of Costing Out an Adequate Education" (Education Working Paper

Archive, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 2006).
2 Ibid.









The conclusions of the equity analysis supported fair allocations of educational resources

to each of the sixty-seven school districts throughout the State of Florida. Evidence to support

these conclusions was presented using equity formulas from the research. The McLoone Index

for the 2004-2005 school year was 0.9732, and for the 2005-2006 school year was 0.9848. A

McLoone Index of one would indicate perfect equity. The Gini Coefficient for the 2004-2005

school year was computed to be 0.0036, while the 2005-2006 school year was 0.0064. A Gini

Coefficient of zero would indicate perfect equity.

The conclusions of the adequacy analysis indicated that there was no relationship

between the District Accountability Score and the per pupil expenditure. This outcome was

justified by the correlation of 0.0316 and coefficient of determination of 0.001 for the 2004-2005

school year. This conclusion was then reinforced by the correlation of 0.0894 and coefficient of

determination of 0.008 for the 2005-2006 school year.

Implications of the Study

The No ChildLeft BehindAct of 2001 and recent Florida Legislation have raised the

standards for accountability in public schools in an effort to increase student performance. These

new education policies, however, rarely address the way in which schools are financed.3 They

sometimes ignore the fact that characteristics of schools and students require that some schools

spend more than others to achieve any given student performance standard.4

The results of this study indicate that there exists minimal evidence of maintaining an

equitable distribution of resources while providing adequate levels of funding. Statistical




3 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, "Let No Child Be Left Behind: Determining the Cost of

Improving Student Performance," Public Finance Review 31, no. 10 (2003):1-26.
4Ibid.









evidence presented in this study for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years support this

outcome.

There is consensus among policymakers that to improve the quality of education,

measuring student academic performance is absolutely necessary. This educational goal places

an increased burden on each student to achieve higher on more rigorous educational standards.

The implication is, if each student and school district in Florida must reach a higher performance

standard, then the state has a fiscal responsibility to assist local school districts to supply

resources necessary to account for differences in costs between the school districts.

The FEFP has been the finance mechanism used to fund Florida school districts for many

decades. In the FEFP, the District Cost Differential (DCD) is one of the factors used to resolve

the inequities between school districts. The DCD is used to represent the costs of hiring equally

qualified personnel across school districts.5 Higher costs in hiring qualified personnel are

usually the result of higher housing costs and longer commutes in the area in which the person

resides. The DCD plays a significant role in maintaining an equitable distribution of resources as

prescribed through the FEFP.

The shift from an equitable focus on the distribution of resources to an adequate focus

may require the examination and possible modification of the FEFP. The FEFP does not

recognize the relatively high costs of educating students from low-income families. The FEFP

has no impact regarding adequacy because it was not created to do so. In several states, the

courts have declared state school-financing systems unconstitutional because they have failed to





5 James Dewey, The Florida Price Level Index 2005. Bureau of Economic and Business Research,

(Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 2007).









provide all students, especially those from economically disadvantaged families, an adequate

education.6

The results of this study confirmed the equitable distribution of resources to all school

districts in the State of Florida. However, not all school districts were adequate, based on

student achievement scores. As presented in the literature, this circumstance is defined as

inadequate. This raises the concern that while all school districts in Florida receive equitable

funding, how can it be that some school districts were adequate and some school districts were

inadequate?

While the correlation indicated no relationship in the adequacy analysis, it is important to

note that correlation does not imply causation. Other confounding variables may exist to effect

the relationship between the district accountability score and per pupil expenditure. The other

variables may include individual attributes as well as those of school, home, community and

society. Examples of these variables may be teacher quality, socioeconomic status, and parental

education. Furthermore, the reasons for the inadequate resource distribution may not be known

to an absolute certainty since we do not know how much money it will take to raise student

achievement levels.

Recommendations

Several public policy implications and recommendations can be made either directly or

indirectly from the research presented in this study. These include:

1. The State of Florida should be more aggressive about moving toward an "adequacy" goal for
education finance reform. The findings of this research study suggests that while financial
equity is met, financial adequacy is still at an impasse.

6 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, "Let No Child Be Left Behind: Determining the Cost of

Improving Student Performance," Public Finance Review 31, no. 10 (2003):1-26.









2. Better informed legislators, judges, and policy makers about the impact of the education
finance funding mechanism might influence policy makers and the public to make different
funding decisions. The shift from equity toward adequacy requires policy makers to examine
public education accountability goals and allocate appropriate amounts of resources to
accomplish those goals.

3. Legislators and policymakers should take a proactive approach to examining and improving
education finance systems to minimize or avoid litigation which can sometimes lead to costly
implications to court decisions.

4. Legislators and policymakers should engaga the public (teachers, students, parents,
community members, and stakeholders) in defining adequacy standards, then think creatively
about how to raise and allocate resources appropriately.

5. Legislators and policymakers should increase the extent to which funds generated through
the FEFP are directed toward low-income and disadvantaged students.

6. Reexamine the FEFP incorporating a poverty index which may improve the quality of
educational opportunity, but in doing so, the equitable distribution of resources may decline.

7. Reexamine the data if the adequacy formula weights are redistributed to give the FCAT level
three a significant increase.

Many scholars and courtrooms have argued that improving the performance of public

education requires the reform of public school financing systems. Recently, reformers have

attempted to link financing to the actual educational performance of students in order to achieve

educational adequacy for all students, including those who come from economically

disadvantaged families. Linking educational outcomes to school financing requires the

integration of cost considerations (the minimum amount of money needed to achieve an

educational outcome) into the school financing formula.

National and state mandates now require a minimum acceptable level of educational

performance for all students. It is now the responsibility of our legislators and policymakers to

provide sufficient resources to allow our children to achieve these goals. While the FEFP is a

very equitable funding model for the Florida public school system, improvements of this finance

plan must be generated and implemented to fund current legislative adequacy mandates.











APPENDIX A
FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST READING DATA 2006

FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results

Grade 03


READING
Grade District District Name Number of Mean Developme Mean Scale 1
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


204238
2070
341
1926
274
5266
21346
177
1149
1114
2519
3311
738
28744
362
155
10119
3278
897
95
463
185
109
160
147
437
624
1601
923
14822
275


2 3 4 5 %mi


FCAT


Achievement Accountability
Levels &up Score


313 14 11 37 33 5
318 14 11 34 34 7
319 13 10 34 37 7
328 7 8 37 41 7
317 12 8 41 35 5
324 11 8 34 40 7
314 13 12 38 33 5
325 10 7 34 41 8
323 11 10 34 40 5
326 7 8 36 44 5
328 7 8 36 42 7
309 16 13 36 31 4
316 11 10 36 38 4
306 18 11 37 30 4
299 20 13 42 24 1
307 18 9 35 37 1
310 15 12 38 31 4
310 15 13 36 31 4
320 10 9 39 36 5
307 16 13 41 27 3
286 27 16 37 19 0
327 6 10 32 46 5
305 19 9 35 34 3
327 10 8 34 38 9
300 22 10 41 24 3
308 13 13 39 32 2
302 21 11 38 26 4
321 10 9 38 38 6
309 16 12 38 31 4
311 16 11 36 32 5
317 13 9 36 39 4


118.5
121.5
127
137
125
132
120
135.5
129
138
138
112.5
125
110.5
98.5
115.5
114
112.5
125.5
107.5
83
139
113.5
132
100
113.5
103.5
130.5
114
115.5
126.5











FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 3 continued


3 31 INDIAN RIVER
3 32 JACKSON
3 33 JEFFERSON
3 34 LAFAYETTE
3 35 LAKE
3 36 LEE
3 37 LEON
3 38 LEVY
3 39 LIBERTY
3 40 MADISON
3 41 MANATEE
3 42 MARION
3 43 MARTIN
3 44 MONROE
3 45 NASSAU
3 46 OKALOOSA
3 47 OKEECHOBEE
3 48 ORANGE
3 49 OSCEOLA
3 50 PALM BEACH
3 51 PASCO
3 52 PINELLAS
3 53 POLK
3 54 PUTNAM
3 55 ST. JOHNS
3 56 ST. LUCIE
3 57 SANTA ROSA
3 58 SARASOTA
3 59 SEMINOLE
3 60 SUMMER
3 61 SUWANNEE
3 62 TAYLOR
3 63 UNION
3 64 VOLUSIA
3 65 WAKULLA
3 66 WALTON
3 67 WASHINGTOIN


1267
545
63
88
2951
6069
2439
445
95
186
3332
3107
1282
611
794
2225
587
13671
3679
13200
4948
8214
7167
887
1966
2906
1725
3175
5046
547
444
235
167
4980
333
505
252


318 13 10 34 36 7
309 14 14 37 31 4
293 17 19 48 16 0
308 15 16 32 32 6
317 12 11 38 35 5
315 13 11 37 34 5
323 10 10 35 37 8
314 14 11 36 36 4
327 6 8 33 51 2
312 11 11 44 31 3
309 16 12 37 30 5
314 13 10 39 33 5
327 10 7 34 40 8
323 11 8 35 39 7
329 8 7 35 44 6
330 7 8 35 41 9
305 18 12 37 30 3
309 16 12 37 31 5
303 19 13 38 27 3
313 15 11 35 33 6
312 14 11 38 33 4
315 14 11 36 34 5
306 16 12 39 29 3
310 12 13 43 30 2
332 8 6 31 46 8
308 15 12 38 30 4
338 5 6 32 47 10
329 10 7 32 42 9
329 8 8 34 42 8
319 10 11 38 36 5
314 16 10 35 34 5
315 7 14 44 31 3
323 11 7 35 42 5
315 12 11 38 34 4
329 6 8 37 43 6
324 9 9 36 39 7
309 14 7 45 32 2


125
114
89.5
116
123.5
120.5
130
121.5
143
117.5
113
120
133.5
131
138.5
139
109
115
104.5
118.5
117.5
119.5
109
113.5
142
112
149
137.5
138
125.5
118
119
132.5
119.5
139
132.5
116.5











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results

Grade 04

READING
Grade District District Name Number of Mean Developme Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % m FCAT
Number Student Scal SlScore Score (0-500) Achievement Accountability
(0-3000) Levels3 &up Score



4 0 STATEWIDE 192480 1547 314 19 16 34 26 7 66 108
4 1 ALACHUA 2006 1572 318 18 16 30 28 9 66 112
4 2 BAKER 346 1471 301 26 21 29 21 3 53 87.5
4 3 BAY 1954 1562 316 18 16 31 28 7 66 109
4 4 BRADFORD 253 1512 308 22 15 38 21 4 62 95.5
4 5 BREVARD 5074 1622 327 12 12 34 32 10 76 124
4 6 BROWARD 19248 1572 318 16 15 34 27 8 69 111.5
4 7 CALHOUN 139 1616 326 14 10 39 25 12 76 118
4 8 CHARLOTTE 1193 1571 318 15 15 35 28 7 70 112.5
4 9 CITRUS 1101 1614 325 13 12 36 32 8 76 122
4 10 CLAY 2431 1600 323 13 13 35 31 7 73 117.5
4 11 COLLIER 3206 1534 312 19 16 33 25 6 65 103
4 12 COLUMBIA 734 1535 312 18 20 35 22 5 63 99
4 13 MIAMI-DADE 26315 1529 311 20 16 34 24 5 64 100
4 14 DESOTO 336 1479 302 26 17 38 15 4 57 84.5
4 15 DIXIE 134 1509 307 22 16 37 19 5 61 93
4 16 DUVAL 9624 1539 312 19 17 34 24 6 64 102.5
4 17 ESCAMBIA 2988 1522 310 21 16 34 23 6 63 100
4 18 FLAGLER 812 1574 318 14 16 36 29 6 71 114
4 19 FRANKLIN 92 1480 302 27 18 30 21 3 54 87
4 20 GADSDEN 425 1372 284 35 25 29 11 1 40 65.5
4 21 GILCHRIST 231 1541 313 20 8 38 28 6 72 110
4 22 GLADES 97 1462 299 26 20 38 13 3 55 80
4 23 GULF 143 1502 306 22 17 35 22 4 61 95.5
4 24 HAMILTON 135 1451 297 25 19 39 14 4 56 84.5
4 25 HARDEE 416 1474 301 23 24 30 19 4 53 88
4 26 HENDRY 481 1471 301 23 19 37 19 3 58 90.5
4 27 HERNANDO 1557 1564 317 16 17 35 26 6 67 107.5
4 28 HIGHLANDS 923 1485 303 23 15 37 20 5 62 94.5
4 29 HILLSBOROUGH 14268 1532 311 22 16 31 25 7 63 103
4 30 HOLMES 240 1527 310 15 20 40 20 5 65 100











FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 4 continued



4 31 INDIANRIVER 1221 1571 318 16 15 33 28 7 68 110.5
4 32 JACKSON 508 1574 318 14 16 37 28 5 70 111
4 33 JEFFERSON 75 1428 294 31 24 28 15 3 45 76
4 34 LAFAYETTE 83 1481 302 20 7 42 27 4 72 107.5
4 35 LAKE 2758 1543 313 19 16 32 28 6 66 108
4 36 LEE 5513 1551 314 17 15 36 26 6 68 107.5
4 37 LEON 2337 1620 326 13 14 31 29 12 72 120
4 38 LEVY 460 1491 304 23 17 35 21 3 60 91.5
4 39 LIBERTY 85 1493 304 19 20 44 15 2 61 88
4 40 MADISON 192 1464 300 24 20 39 15 2 56 83
4 41 MANATEE 3185 1525 310 21 17 33 23 5 62 97.5
4 42 MARION 2998 1521 309 20 17 35 24 4 63 99.5
4 43 MARTIN 1226 1606 324 13 14 33 32 8 73 120
4 44 MONROE 583 1605 324 14 12 36 30 9 74 120
4 45 NASSAU 771 1591 321 12 14 38 29 6 73 115
4 46 OKALOOSA 2096 1651 331 9 12 36 34 9 80 128
4 47 OKEECHOBEE 509 1481 303 23 17 38 18 4 59 90.5
4 48 ORANGE 12959 1524 310 21 17 33 24 6 63 101.5
4 49 OSCEOLA 3639 1453 298 28 18 32 19 3 55 85
4 50 PALM BEACH 12479 1547 314 20 15 32 26 7 65 105.5
4 51 PASCO 4730 1522 309 20 17 34 24 5 62 100.5
4 52 PINELLAS 7777 1537 312 20 16 32 25 7 64 104
4 53 POLK 6489 1492 304 23 18 34 21 4 59 93
4 54 PUTNAM 888 1480 302 24 20 33 20 3 56 89
4 55 ST. JOHNS 1998 1661 333 11 11 31 34 14 79 132.5
4 56 ST. LUCIE 2656 1509 307 22 16 33 24 5 61 99
4 57 SANTA ROSA 1727 1634 329 12 11 33 34 10 77 126.5
4 58 SARASOTA 3146 1590 321 16 14 33 28 9 70 114
4 59 SEMINOLE 4879 1615 325 13 12 33 32 10 75 123
4 60 SUMTER 547 1543 313 19 16 33 26 6 65 105
4 61 SUWANNEE 344 1486 303 22 17 38 21 2 60 92.5
4 62 TAYLOR 217 1498 305 23 20 35 19 3 57 89
4 63 UNION 177 1575 319 16 15 32 32 5 69 113.5
4 64 VOLUSIA 4796 1541 313 19 16 35 25 6 66 105
4 65 WAKULLA 356 1584 320 13 17 37 28 6 71 113.5
4 66 WALTON 470 1574 318 16 16 33 29 6 68 111
4 67 WASHINGTON 271 1589 321 11 15 37 31 7 75 120.5











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 05

READING

Grade District District Name Number of Mean Developn Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500) Achievement Accountability
(0-3000) Levels 3 & up Score



5 0 STATEWIDE 197054 1619 304 17 16 35 26 7 67 109
5 1 ALACHUA 1984 1631 307 19 16 29 27 9 66 109
5 2 BAKER 359 1580 298 21 19 29 25 5 60 98.5
5 3 BAY 1835 1681 316 10 14 38 30 8 76 121
5 4 BRADFORD 240 1546 292 21 23 34 20 3 57 91.5
5 5 BREVARD 5429 1705 320 10 12 35 32 10 77 125
5 6 BROWARD 20604 1626 306 17 16 34 26 7 68 108
5 7 CALHOUN 165 1602 301 18 16 35 25 7 66 107
5 8 CHARLOTTE 1213 1655 311 13 15 36 30 7 72 117.5
5 9 CITRUS 1160 1659 312 12 15 37 28 8 74 116.5
5 10 CLAY 2421 1679 315 11 13 37 30 8 75 119.5
5 11 COLLIER 3234 1626 306 16 15 35 26 7 68 108.5
5 12 COLUMBIA 764 1608 303 15 16 41 24 4 68 105
5 13 MIAMI-DADE 26601 1585 299 19 17 35 23 5 64 99.5
5 14 DESOTO 347 1558 294 18 22 35 21 4 60 96
5 15 DIXIE 166 1583 298 18 20 36 18 8 61 98
5 16 DUVAL 9214 1609 303 16 17 37 25 6 67 107.5
5 17 ESCAMBIA 3320 1583 298 19 18 34 23 5 62 99
5 18 FLAGLER 855 1637 308 13 17 36 27 6 70 110.5
5 19 FRANKLIN 82 1568 295 21 18 40 15 6 61 91
5 20 GADSDEN 353 1426 270 35 25 29 11 1 41 65.5
5 21 GILCHRIST 196 1654 311 14 9 39 34 5 78 121.5
5 22 GLADES 113 1492 282 30 18 32 18 3 52 83
5 23 GULF 143 1541 291 24 21 35 15 6 55 87.5
5 24 HAMILTON 135 1459 276 33 24 29 13 1 43 69
5 25 HARDEE 387 1495 282 27 21 34 16 3 52 82.5
5 26 HENDRY 564 1564 295 19 21 35 20 5 60 95.5
5 27 HERNANDO 1597 1612 303 16 17 37 24 6 67 105.5
5 28 HIGHLANDS 890 1572 296 19 20 34 23 4 61 98
5 29 HILLSBOROUGH 14479 1607 302 19 16 33 25 7 65 105
5 30 HOLMES 271 1597 301 15 16 39 25 5 68 107











FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 5 continued



5 31 INDIAN RIVER 1303 1656 311 14 16 34 29 8 70 116
5 32 JACKSON 494 1634 307 15 14 38 26 6 70 109
5 33 JEFFERSON 83 1455 275 27 24 40 8 1 49 70
5 34 LAFAYETTE 75 1614 304 19 19 27 27 9 63 108.5
5 35 LAKE 2985 1605 302 17 17 35 26 6 66 107.5
5 36 LEE 5534 1608 303 17 17 35 25 5 66 103.5
5 37 LEON 2229 1695 318 11 14 35 30 11 76 124
5 38 LEVY 478 1609 303 17 18 38 23 5 66 103
5 39 LIBERTY 78 1565 295 18 10 51 15 5 72 96
5 40 MADISON 202 1474 279 29 21 35 12 2 50 73.5
5 41 MANATEE 3150 1617 304 16 17 35 26 6 67 107.5
5 42 MARION 3163 1614 304 16 17 36 26 6 67 108.5
5 43 MARTIN 1265 1690 317 12 13 35 31 9 75 121.5
5 44 MONROE 564 1663 313 15 14 32 30 8 71 115
5 45 NASSAU 746 1684 316 10 13 39 31 7 77 121.5
5 46 OKALOOSA 2132 1737 326 7 12 36 34 11 80 132
5 47 OKEECHOBEE 493 1559 294 21 18 34 23 4 62 97
5 48 ORANGE 13194 1595 300 18 17 36 24 6 65 104.5
5 49 OSCEOLA 3772 1552 293 22 18 35 21 4 60 94
5 50 PALM BEACH 12795 1615 304 18 17 34 25 7 66 106.5
5 51 PASCO 4792 1605 302 17 17 37 25 5 67 105.5
5 52 PINELLAS 8165 1644 309 15 15 34 29 7 70 113.5
5 53 POLK 6618 1557 293 22 18 35 21 4 61 94
5 54 PUTNAM 897 1554 293 21 20 36 20 4 59 94
5 55 ST. JOHNS 1968 1722 323 10 11 33 34 11 79 128.5
5 56 ST. LUCIE 2801 1576 297 19 19 35 22 5 62 98.5
5 57 SANTA ROSA 1783 1733 325 9 11 35 35 11 81 132.5
5 58 SARASOTA 3258 1679 315 13 13 34 30 10 74 120.5
5 59 SEMINOLE 5057 1702 319 10 12 35 33 10 77 127
5 60 SUMTER 559 1627 306 16 14 33 29 7 69 112
5 61 SUWANNEE 413 1565 295 20 19 36 20 5 61 95.5
5 62 TAYLOR 234 1606 302 14 20 39 22 5 66 103
5 63 UNION 160 1532 289 22 19 36 23 0 59 91.5
5 64 VOLUSIA 4963 1633 307 13 15 39 27 6 72 112.5
5 65 WAKULLA 332 1699 319 10 13 33 35 9 77 127.5
5 66 WALTON 496 1652 311 12 14 40 26 7 74 113
5 67 WASHINGTON 245 1561 294 23 14 36 22 5 62 97











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 06

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develo Mean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENDRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


186948
1824
365
2057
261
5617
19469
153
1228
1134
2584
2772
749
23062
323
127
9285
3009
843
96
481
216
88
167
113
333
514
1576
857
13994
241


1709
1727
1663
1748
1599
1811
1729
1768
1753
1728
1786
1716
1640
1682
1613
1689
1665
1685
1712
1601
1526
1738
1628
1705
1624
1611
1626
1716
1675
1687
1680


1 2 3 4 5 %m FCAT
Achievement Accountabiity
Levels 3 &up Score


311 18 17 33 25 6
314 20 16 28 29 8
303 21 24 27 24 4
318 13 18 34 28 7
291 30 20 30 17 3
329 10 12 34 33 11
315 17 17 31 27 8
322 12 17 35 27 8
319 13 17 34 29 7
314 15 19 34 26 5
325 9 15 37 30 8
312 17 17 33 26 6
298 24 22 32 19 3
306 22 17 31 24 6
294 25 22 34 15 3
307 22 16 32 28 2
303 21 20 33 21 4
307 18 20 34 23 5
312 15 19 35 25 5
292 26 20 34 17 3
278 37 25 27 10 1
316 13 14 40 25 6
296 27 15 31 27 0
310 13 25 37 22 4
296 26 22 29 20 3
293 29 20 32 17 3
296 24 23 30 19 4
312 15 18 37 25 5
305 19 21 35 22 4
307 21 18 32 23 6
306 22 18 33 22 5


103.5
110
95
113
80
128
109.5
113.5
114.5
105.5
120.5
105.5
87
99.5
81
100
93
100
104.5
84
61.5
109
92.5
101.5
86
82
87.5
106
97.5
99
96













FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 6 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1161
534
60
81
2765
5339
2381
486
99
147
2863
3113
1323
632
761
2239
542
11866
3587
12303
4275
7560
6317
854
1931
2621
1895
2895
5069
553
451
201
156
4700
367
485
281


1737
1690
1557
1600
1696
1693
1760
1653
1656
1601
1690
1687
1780
1746
1728
1780
1655
1694
1646
1712
1724
1722
1642
1631
1802
1685
1813
1778
1775
1738
1682
1683
1736
1720
1743
1712
1692


316 15 17 35 24 8
308 17 19 36 24 4
284 38 18 28 15 0
291 26 30 28 15 1
309 19 17 34 24 6
308 19 17 34 25 5
320 13 17 33 28 9
301 20 26 32 18 4
301 19 25 32 21 2
292 31 22 27 16 4
307 19 18 34 24 5
307 18 21 34 22 5
324 14 13 30 33 10
318 14 16 36 26 8
314 14 17 36 27 6
324 10 17 35 30 8
301 23 19 34 19 4
308 20 18 33 24 6
300 24 19 32 20 4
311 19 18 30 26 7
314 16 16 36 26 6
313 17 16 33 27 7
299 24 20 33 19 4
297 22 23 36 15 4
328 10 13 33 33 11
307 20 19 33 24 5
330 10 12 32 34 11
323 11 15 34 31 9
323 12 15 33 32 9
316 15 18 32 29 6
306 20 22 35 20 4
306 17 21 35 23 3
316 16 17 35 27 6
313 16 18 35 25 6
317 13 19 37 24 7
311 18 15 36 26 5
308 21 14 36 24 5


107.5
101.5
67
75
102.5
102.5
115.5
89
90.5
78
101
98.5
122.5
112
110.5
119.5
89.5
102
89.5
105
108
109
89
85.5
127.5
100.5
128
121.5
122.5
111
94
97.5
109.5
106
108.5
105.5
101











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNS HINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 07

READING


Grade District District Name Number of MeanDevelopmeMean Scale 1


Number


2 3 4 5 %nm


Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENDRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


202438
2147
359
1956
297
5695
20552
197
1397
1251
2691
3161
780
27314
353
167
9549
3280
873
121
519
209
133
193
143
369
567
1706
984
14464
270


1773
1783
1744
1835
1729
1851
1800
1785
1817
1790
1836
1755
1750
1717
1734
1732
1767
1758
1777
1708
1634
1810
1640
1826
1659
1641
1667
1779
1734
1761
1759


Acluevemenl Accountability
Levels 3 &u] Score


21 34 21 6
20 32 21 8
26 35 16 4
20 37 25 8
24 40 14 3
17 39 26 8
19 35 23 7
18 36 24 5
20 37 23 7
20 35 24 5
20 38 24 8
22 33 19 5
24 33 20 4
20 31 18 4
25 32 16 4
34 30 13 5
24 35 19 5
21 34 20 5
21 37 21 4
21 31 20 2
30 31 8 0
19 38 19 10
23 31 15 2
16 36 28 5
26 29 9 5
23 31 12 2
24 31 13 3
20 38 20 5
21 35 16 5
21 34 20 5
18 35 19 6


FCAT


98.5
100
88
113
86
115.5
104.5
103
107
103
112
92
93
85
84.5
83
95
94.5
97.5
85.5
62
105.5
76.5
110
70
70.5
75
98
87.5
94.5
94













FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 7 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMMER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1327
583
82
77
2871
5697
2370
533
101
183
3062
3204
1350
695
840
2258
543
13545
3800
13197
4861
8264
6857
906
1988
2842
1994
3244
5222
585
444
260
197
4994
377
563
291


1791
1769
1662
1736
1772
1765
1848
1723
1801
1708
1771
1764
1850
1814
1811
1889
1747
1764
1708
1760
1779
1785
1722
1724
1881
1750
1880
1818
1850
1771
1765
1797
1736
1780
1833
1810
1759


20 33 23 7
21 35 21 4
35 30 10 1
26 35 19 1
22 36 20 5
21 35 20 5
19 35 26 9
21 32 18 4
20 38 25 6
30 33 12 4
21 37 20 5
21 37 19 5
17 31 29 10
16 36 22 9
22 41 23 4
15 39 30 10
24 36 19 3
21 34 20 6
22 33 16 3
21 34 20 6
22 37 21 5
20 34 21 7
22 33 16 4
25 36 16 2
14 37 28 11
22 35 19 4
16 36 30 10
18 35 24 8
16 37 28 8
21 34 23 4
22 34 19 5
21 42 20 4
29 31 18 3
22 37 20 5
18 38 28 5
17 38 25 6
23 34 19 5


103
95.5
69.5
88
97
95.5
114.5
86.5
110
80
97.5
95.5
117.5
106
106
126.5
92
96.5
82
96.5
100
100
84
84.5
122
92
124
108
117
98.5
93
100.5
87.5
98
113
108.5
93.5











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 08

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Developmi Mean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE 200421
1 ALACHUA 2119
2 BAKER 347
3 BAY 1971
4 BRADFORD 262
5 BREVARD 5868
6 BROWARD 20563
7 CALHOUN 167
8 CHARLOTTE 1417
9 CITRUS 1292
10 CLAY 2760
11 COLLIER 3159
12 COLUMBIA 802
13 MIAMI-DADE 27223
14 DESOTO 309
15 DIXIE 156
16 DUVAL 9275
17 ESCAMBIA 3253
18 FLAGLER 871
19 FRANKLIN 83
20 GADSDEN 472
21 GILCHRIST 226
22 GLADES 86
23 GULF 186
24 HAMILTON 155
25 HARDEE 440
26 HENRY 590
27 HERNANDO 1831
28 HIGHLANDS 945
29 HILLSBOROUGH 14371
30 HOLMES 258


1834 299
1837 300
1813 295
1874 308
1785 289
1905 314
1863 305
1867 306
1877 308
1837 300
1872 307
1818 296
1806 293
1786 289
1724 276
1805 293
1821 296
1805 293
1838 300
1778 287
1675 266
1872 307
1722 276
1864 305
1647 260
1695 270
1735 278
1821 296
1797 291
1830 298
1812 294


2 3 4 5 %m FCAT
Achievement Accountability
Levels &up Score


30 32 13 2
27 29 15 3
33 31 10 1
29 36 15 2
33 28 10 1
27 39 18 3
29 34 15 2
31 40 10 2
29 34 16 2
32 33 11 2
31 36 14 2
29 30 12 2
32 29 10 1
29 28 10 2
28 25 6 0
33 29 8 3
32 31 11 2
33 29 10 1
28 37 10 2
33 27 6 2
35 16 3 0
30 37 14 2
23 27 8 1
27 33 16 2
28 16 5 0
27 22 6 1
34 22 6 1
32 30 12 1
33 31 9 1
30 30 13 2
29 30 10 2













FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 8 continued


8 31 INDIAN RIVER 1334
8 32 JACKSON 598
8 33 JEFFERSON 68
8 34 LAFAYETTE 78
8 35 LAKE 2906
8 36 LEE 5574
8 37 LEON 2252
8 38 LEVY 486
8 39 LIBERTY 94
8 40 MADISON 186
8 41 MANATEE 3016
8 42 MARION 3129
8 43 MARTIN 1428
8 44 MONROE 599
8 45 NASSAU 837
8 46 OKALOOSA 2289
8 47 OKEECHOBEE 505
8 48 ORANGE 12362
8 49 OSCEOLA 3844
8 50 PALM BEACH 13067
8 51 PASCO 4792
8 52 PINELLAS 8481
8 53 POLK 6547
8 54 PUTNAM 862
8 55 ST. JOHNS 1966
8 56 ST. LUCIE 2843
8 57 SANTA ROSA 2021
8 58 SARASOTA 3302
8 59 SEMINOLE 5244
8 60 SUMTER 577
8 61 SUWANNEE 458
8 62 TAYLOR 225
8 63 UNION 179
8 64 VOLUSIA 5109
8 65 WAKULLA 398
8 66 WALTON 506
8 67 WASHINGTON 294


1843 301
1831 298
1653 261
1801 292
1824 297
1835 299
1903 314
1807 293
1810 294
1741 280
1805 293
1836 299
1896 312
1870 307
1866 306
1940 321
1784 289
1836 299
1786 289
1831 298
1834 299
1844 301
1781 288
1780 288
1923 318
1806 293
1922 318
1871 307
1906 314
1818 296
1825 297
1850 303
1813 295
1837 300
1901 313
1870 307
1815 295


28 32 14 2
30 34 11 2
32 18 3 0
35 28 9 1
31 33 11 1
29 32 13 2
28 34 19 4
34 31 8 1
29 32 12 0
29 21 10 1
32 31 10 1
35 32 11 2
24 36 19 4
28 34 18 1
32 34 14 2
26 40 21 3
33 29 9 1
30 32 13 2
30 29 10 1
29 31 13 2
32 34 11 1
29 30 14 3
31 29 9 1
35 29 6 1
25 38 21 4
32 31 9 1
27 39 19 2
27 34 16 2
27 37 18 3
31 32 11 2
38 26 11 2
33 34 12 0
32 30 11 1
30 33 13 1
29 39 16 1
31 38 14 1
30 32 11 1


78
75
40
65.5
72.5
76.5
94
66
70.5
57.5
69
75.5
94
86
82
101
65.5
77
66
75.5
74
78.5
64.5
60.5
100.5
67
94.5
83.5
92.5
73.5
71
74.5
70
76
87.5
83.5
71











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 09

READING


Grade District District Name Number of MeanDevelopn Mean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


212904
2285
381
2102
277
5897
21026
166
1510
1341
2820
3567
848
30108
374
178
10326
3480
954
118
411
229
106
180
142
383
570
1899
1071
13611
253


306 30
308 31
304 30
319 20
298 34
326 15
308 28
315 19
318 20
308 25
318 19
299 34
303 32
293 39
288 41
301 32
303 32
304 31
315 21
303 33
281 49
311 23
286 42
304 27
271 57
289 43
285 43
306 28
302 32
310 27
315 22


1 2 3 4 5 %in


FCAT


Acluevement Accountability
Levels 3 & u Score


30 24 11 5
26 21 13 9
34 23 10 2
31 27 14 8
35 19 8 4
30 30 16 9
31 26 11 5
36 28 11 5
30 30 14 6
35 25 10 4
32 30 12 6
29 22 9 5
32 21 12 4
29 20 8 3
29 21 7 2
37 21 7 3
32 23 9 4
30 24 10 5
32 30 12 5
33 23 8 3
36 13 1 0
31 30 10 6
37 16 3 2
37 22 10 3
23 16 2 1
31 18 6 2
32 18 5 1
33 24 11 4
35 20 10 4
30 25 12 6
31 29 11 6











FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 9 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMMER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1499
550
99
81
2985
5836
2396
533
75
237
3222
3488
1632
736
944
2378
518
13616
4306
13500
5548
9928
6829
918
2055
2795
1939
3323
5844
579
468
229
156
5448
376
542
275


1904
1889
1757
1822
1882
1882
1976
1832
2013
1831
1884
1895
1946
1928
1955
2017
1855
1877
1845
1896
1902
1894
1841
1827
2011
1860
2015
1952
1970
1876
1871
1886
1904
1890
1923
1936
1938


309 27
306 28
281 49
293 35
305 30
305 30
322 19
295 38
329 15
295 35
305 29
307 28
316 23
313 24
318 21
329 13
299 32
304 32
298 34
307 29
308 27
307 30
297 37
294 37
328 14
301 33
329 15
317 24
321 19
303 28
302 32
305 30
309 29
306 30
312 26
314 21
315 20


31 25 11 5
34 23 10 4
29 14 4 3
36 21 5 4
30 25 10 4
31 24 10 5
30 26 16 9
30 22 7 2
24 32 17 12
36 21 5 3
31 24 11 5
32 24 10 5
27 26 15 9
30 26 14 6
32 29 12 7
26 33 19 8
35 23 8 3
30 23 10 5
31 23 8 3
29 25 11 6
34 26 10 4
29 24 11 6
29 21 9 4
35 20 7 2
28 30 18 11
32 24 9 3
26 32 18 10
26 26 15 9
29 28 15 8
34 23 11 4
31 22 10 5
35 22 10 3
23 31 11 6
31 23 10 5
35 22 13 5
33 28 13 5
35 25 16 4











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 10

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develop Mean Scale E


Number


1 2 3 4 5 %m


Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


FCAT


Acluevement Accountabilty
Levels 3 &up Score


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGI
30 HOLMES


185568 1918 298
2192 1943 303
310 1845 285
1926 1957 306
251 1821 281
5712 2003 314
18865 1940 302
159 1947 304
1451 1975 309
1190 1929 300
2563 1947 304
3011 1895 294
584 1879 291
25955 1870 290
262 1824 281
145 1851 286
7228 1922 299
2864 1888 293
828 1926 300
70 1778 273
344 1729 263
205 1955 305
49 1805 278
192 1934 301
143 1767 271
299 1792 275
525 1749 267
1598 1905 296
788 1886 293
12481 1942 303
253 1873 290


38 29 17 7 9
36 26 16 8 13
48 27 15 4 6
32 34 18 8 9
52 29 12 4 4
26 32 21 8 12
36 30 17 7 9
33 37 16 3 11
30 34 19 7 10
35 32 18 7 8
34 33 18 6 9
42 28 14 6 9
41 28 18 5 8
45 28 14 6 7
49 29 16 3 3
46 32 12 4 6
38 30 17 6 9
41 29 16 6 7
36 35 18 5 6
56 36 7 0 1
69 23 4 2 2
36 27 20 7 9
51 29 16 4 0
34 34 16 7 9
58 27 8 3 4
58 22 11 4 6
60 24 10 3 3
39 31 18 6 7
40 33 15 5 7
36 29 18 7 10
44 32 13 6 6















FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 10 continued


10 31 INDIAN RIVER
10 32 JACKSON
10 33 JEFFERSON
10 34 LAFAYETTE
10 35 LAKE
10 36 LEE
10 37 LEON
10 38 LEVY
10 39 LIBERTY
10 40 MADISON
10 41 MANATEE
10 42 MARION
10 43 MARTIN
10 44 MONROE
10 45 NASSAU
10 46 OKALOOSA
10 47 OKEECHOBEE
10 48 ORANGE
10 49 OSCEOLA
10 50 PALM BEACH
10 51 PASCO
10 52 PINELLAS
10 53 POLK
10 54 PUTNAM
10 55 ST. JOHNS
10 56 ST. LUCIE
10 57 SANTA ROSA
10 58 SARASOTA
10 59 SEMINOLE
10 60 SUMTER
10 61 SUWANNEE
10 62 TAYLOR
10 63 UNION
10 64 VOLUSIA
10 65 WAKULLA
10 66 WALTON
10 67 WASHINGTON


1228
522
71
80
2794
5092
2115
366
76
189
2763
2894
1379
593
740
2298
468
12398
3676
12764
3811
8193
5960
759
1944
2538
1931
3203
4888
505
410
173
130
4718
313
472
263


1956
1895
1790
1890
1849
1904
2003
1875
1893
1765
1892
1908
2021
1949
1956
2027
1802
1878
1846
1929
1935
1952
1828
1856
2033
1861
2018
1964
2016
1913
1868
1862
1892
1912
1949
1899
1955


35 29 18 7 11
42 29 16 5 7
58 28 10 3 1
45 21 21 9 4
45 28 15 6 6
39 31 16 7 8
30 28 19 8 16
42 30 17 5 6
39 26 22 9 3
58 21 13 5 2
41 29 15 6 8
38 32 17 6 7
25 28 23 10 15
32 31 19 8 10
31 37 17 6 9
25 31 19 10 15
52 27 12 3 5
44 27 15 5 8
47 28 15 5 6
38 28 17 7 10
35 33 18 6 8
34 30 17 8 11
49 27 13 5 6
47 31 13 5 5
24 30 20 10 16
46 29 15 6 5
24 32 22 10 12
33 29 17 8 13
26 31 21 9 14
38 33 15 5 9
46 26 16 6 6
47 29 13 8 3
42 28 19 5 5
39 29 17 7 9
36 33 15 6 10
41 28 18 7 6
31 37 17 8 7


68.5
54.5
32
57.5
53
61.5
81
54
59
37.5
57.5
59
87
70.5
65.5
84.5
41.5
54.5
51
65
62.5
70
48.5
48.5
87
51.5
82
73.5
82.5
59.5
53
49.5
53
63.5
63.5
58
65.5











APPENDIX B
FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST MATHEMATICS DATA 2006

FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results

Grade 03


MATHEMATICS
Grade District District Name Number of Mean Developme Mean Scale 1
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


204402
2066
341
1930
275
5274
21364
177
1149
1111
2522
3314
736
28759
362
155
10124
3277
898
95
463
185
109
160
147
438
626
1599
926
14854
275


2 3 4 5 %mi


FCAT


Achievement Accountability
Levels &up Score


324 12 16 34 27 10
327 11 17 32 27 12
330 10 15 37 24 14
332 8 14 37 32 9
310 12 21 40 24 3
337 8 13 34 32 14
334 10 14 33 30 14
341 6 8 42 31 13
327 10 16 35 32 8
330 6 15 40 31 8
338 6 12 36 34 12
321 13 18 34 26 10
321 13 15 38 27 7
319 15 16 34 26 9
306 17 21 35 23 4
307 17 19 39 17 7
309 17 19 36 22 6
316 15 17 36 24 8
318 11 16 39 29 4
314 14 18 39 26 3
299 18 23 41 16 2
337 5 12 41 31 11
328 10 18 32 28 12
343 6 17 29 28 21
307 16 24 34 20 6
327 10 15 33 36 6
311 15 21 37 22 6
333 8 15 35 32 11
320 13 18 33 28 9
321 14 17 32 26 10
310 15 20 40 20 5


116
118.5
120.5
126
104.5
132.5
128
134
123
125.5
134
115
113.5
112
99.5
96.5
101.5
108.5
113
106
88.5
131
121
135.5
98
124.5
103.5
128.5
116
112.5
100











FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 3 continued


3 31 INDIAN RIVER
3 32 JACKSON
3 33 JEFFERSON
3 34 LAFAYETTE
3 35 LAKE
3 36 LEE
3 37 LEON
3 38 LEVY
3 39 LIBERTY
3 40 MADISON
3 41 MANATEE
3 42 MARION
3 43 MARTIN
3 44 MONROE
3 45 NASSAU
3 46 OKALOOSA
3 47 OKEECHOBEE
3 48 ORANGE
3 49 OSCEOLA
3 50 PALM BEACH
3 51 PASCO
3 52 PINELLAS
3 53 POLK
3 54 PUTNAM
3 55 ST. JOHNS
3 56 ST.LUCIE
3 57 SANTA ROSA
3 58 SARASOTA
3 59 SEMINOLE
3 60 SUMMER
3 61 SUWANNEE
3 62 TAYLOR
3 63 UNION
3 64 VOLUSIA
3 65 WAKULLA
3 66 WALTON
3 67 WASHINGTON


1268
545
65
88
2952
6060
2442
444
94
186
3338
3107
1280
611
795
2226
585
13675
3682
13245
4947
8228
7179
878
1962
2907
1731
3177
5048
549
445
234
167
4981
332
505
255


324 13 17 32 28 10
322 11 14 38 29 8
293 14 31 42 14 0
329 11 11 40 23 15
321 13 17 36 25 10
323 11 17 36 27 9
341 8 12 33 30 17
319 11 18 41 24 6
335 6 9 44 32 10
314 10 27 35 23 5
316 15 18 34 26 8
324 11 15 36 29 9
340 7 11 35 34 14
330 10 11 40 30 9
338 6 13 36 35 11
344 5 12 32 37 15
312 16 17 37 24 7
316 16 18 32 23 11
304 18 19 37 21 4
325 12 15 34 27 10
311 15 18 38 24 5
329 11 15 34 28 12
313 15 19 36 24 7
320 9 20 40 25 6
339 7 12 33 35 13
312 15 19 38 23 6
348 4 9 33 37 17
337 9 13 31 31 15
343 7 12 32 32 17
322 10 19 35 29 7
305 18 23 35 20 4
324 9 18 38 27 7
346 8 7 29 37 20
323 13 15 35 28 9
337 5 13 38 31 13
330 8 14 40 30 9
318 13 15 39 27 5


116.5
119
85.5
121.5
114.5
116.5
133
110
132.5
104.5
111
119.5
136.5
123.5
134.5
142
107.5
109
96.5
115.5
105
121.5
107.5
112
135
105.5
145.5
129.5
136
116.5
94.5
115
146.5
116.5
132.5
125
110.5















FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results

Grade 04

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Developm Mean Scale 1
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


192610
2005
345
1955
253
5078
19277
139
1192
1099
2433
3205
735
26325
337
134
9628
2988
810
91
424
232
97
143
135
418
483
1553
923
14274
240


Achievement Accountability
Levels3&up Score


14 19 36
15 21 31
25 25 32
13 20 38
16 30 40
8 13 38
9 14 35
8 9 45
11 18 41
8 16 42
9 17 41
14 19 34
17 28 36
15 20 36
18 28 38
21 19 37
19 21 36
16 21 37
11 18 41
11 31 35
25 27 35
9 14 41
15 22 42
17 25 33
27 30 34
17 20 39
16 23 37
10 19 38
20 20 39
16 19 35
17 28 38


2 3 4 5 %om


FCAT


107.5
107.5
78.5
106
85
126.5
126
123.5
108
118
115.5
107.5
86
104
84
92.5
96.5
99.5
110
96.5
74.5
120
93
95.5
67
95
96.5
113.5
91
104.5
86















FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 4 continued


4 31 INDIAN RIVER 1222 1550 322 12 17 38 25 8 71 112.5
4 32 JACKSON 508 1587 330 8 15 38 29 9 76 121.5
4 33 JEFFERSON 75 1386 284 21 36 33 8 1 43 69
4 34 LAFAYETTE 83 1514 313 17 18 34 22 10 65 107
4 35 LAKE 2755 1529 317 14 18 37 23 7 68 106
4 36 LEE 5509 1528 316 14 19 38 23 7 68 107.5
4 37 LEON 2347 1599 333 9 16 36 27 13 75 124
4 38 LEVY 460 1484 306 14 25 41 17 3 61 93.5
4 39 LIBERTY 84 1473 304 18 23 45 13 1 60 84.5
4 40 MADISON 192 1385 284 31 28 33 8 1 42 65
4 41 MANATEE 3192 1495 309 16 22 38 18 6 62 97
4 42 MARION 3001 1525 316 13 19 41 22 6 68 106.5
4 43 MARTIN 1225 1583 329 10 14 37 29 9 76 120
4 44 MONROE 582 1561 324 10 16 41 27 6 74 115
4 45 NASSAU 768 1557 323 8 19 40 27 5 72 113.5
4 46 OKALOOSA 2085 1632 340 5 13 38 31 13 82 132.5
4 47 OKEECHOBEE 510 1478 305 15 25 40 16 3 59 90.5
4 48 ORANGE 12989 1511 313 17 18 35 22 8 64 104
4 49 OSCEOLA 3632 1434 295 23 24 35 15 3 53 83
4 50 PALM BEACH 12512 1540 319 13 19 35 23 9 67 108.5
4 51 PASCO 4727 1471 303 17 26 38 16 3 57 89
4 52 PINELLAS 7781 1546 321 12 18 38 24 8 70 111
4 53 POLK 6492 1480 306 17 23 38 18 4 60 93.5
4 54 PUTNAM 888 1466 302 19 24 39 15 4 57 89
4 55 ST. JOHNS 2004 1600 333 9 14 39 27 12 78 124
4 56 ST. LUCIE 2657 1502 310 16 21 37 21 6 64 101.5
4 57 SANTA ROSA 1728 1585 330 8 16 39 28 9 76 121
4 58 SARASOTA 3146 1566 325 12 16 37 25 10 72 115
4 59 SEMINOLE 4887 1601 333 8 14 37 29 11 77 124
4 60 SUMTER 548 1530 317 13 20 36 23 7 67 106
4 61 SUWANNEE 345 1473 304 16 26 38 17 3 58 91
4 62 TAYLOR 217 1477 305 21 22 38 17 3 57 89
4 63 UNION 177 1561 324 9 20 34 31 6 71 118
4 64 VOLUSIA 4799 1519 314 14 19 38 22 6 67 103.5
4 65 WAKULLA 355 1570 326 7 18 44 24 7 74 115
4 66 WALTON 471 1558 323 10 19 38 25 9 72 115.5
4 67 WASHINGTON 270 1580 328 10 13 41 26 10 77 119.5














FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 05

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Developn Mean Scale


Number


Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


197076
1987
360
1835
241
5432
20613
164
1213
1159
2426
3252
766
26591
349
166
9204
3314
854
81
351
196
113
143
134
388
564
1599
875
14484
271


1649
1650
1595
1687
1563
1696
1697
1658
1650
1672
1688
1654
1584
1626
1618
1503
1620
1603
1616
1628
1532
1678
1523
1591
1506
1588
1642
1644
1612
1657
1598


1 2 3 4 5 %m FCAT
Achievement Accountability
Levels 3 & up Score


329 17 27 26
329 20 26 21
317 25 26 27
337 10 26 31
311 27 37 17
339 11 23 27
339 12 23 26
331 12 26 29
329 16 28 26
334 12 26 30
337 11 26 27
330 17 26 26
315 21 32 28
324 19 28 26
322 17 31 24
298 38 32 16
323 18 29 28
319 22 30 24
322 19 29 27
324 17 32 35
304 29 36 23
335 9 26 34
302 34 28 25
317 27 17 29
299 38 22 28
316 22 34 26
327 15 27 31
328 16 29 29
321 19 33 24
331 16 26 25
318 23 32 24


101.5
100
82
110
73.5
114.5
115.5
108
98
109
110
103
82
94
93.5
60
92.5
85
91.5
83
67
107
67
89.5
61
79
96.5
95.5
88.5
104
82











FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 5 continued


5 31 INDIAN RIVER
5 32 JACKSON
5 33 JEFFERSON
5 34 LAFAYETTE
5 35 LAKE
5 36 LEE
5 37 LEON
5 38 LEVY
5 39 LIBERTY
5 40 MADISON
5 41 MANATEE
5 42 MARION
5 43 MARTIN
5 44 MONROE
5 45 NASSAU
5 46 OKALOOSA
5 47 OKEECHOBEE
5 48 ORANGE
5 49 OSCEOLA
5 50 PALM BEACH
5 51 PASCO
5 52 PINELLAS
5 53 POLK
5 54 PUTNAM
5 55 ST. JOHNS
5 56 ST. LUCIE
5 57 SANTA ROSA
5 58 SARASOTA
5 59 SEMINOLE
5 60 SUMTER
5 61 SUWANNEE
5 62 TAYLOR
5 63 UNION
5 64 VOLUSIA
5 65 WAKULLA
5 66 WALTON
5 67 WASHINGTON


1305
496
83
75
2984
5535
2225
478
78
200
3147
3164
1264
564
746
2130
492
13197
3775
12810
4797
8172
6618
897
1969
2800
1784
3254
5055
558
413
235
160
4962
333
497
244


332 15 27 27
330 15 27 25
286 42 28 19
347 9 13 28
325 17 29 28
330 14 28 27
340 11 25 26
324 17 32 29
321 17 29 28
288 38 42 13
327 15 31 27
330 15 26 29
339 11 23 28
335 13 24 34
336 10 26 29
346 7 21 28
321 19 32 25
324 20 26 25
310 27 31 24
330 17 26 26
320 20 33 27
332 16 25 26
320 20 30 25
315 22 34 27
341 10 22 28
318 22 31 26
339 11 23 29
337 13 25 27
342 10 23 26
332 16 22 27
315 25 30 27
315 22 34 28
304 36 29 21
329 16 25 28
338 9 22 35
320 19 36 25
313 26 34 22


102.5
104.5
55
132.5
94.5
101
114.5
91
94.5
50
96.5
102
117.5
104
110
126.5
89
96
73.5
101
83.5
106.5
88
78
119
85.5
114.5
111.5
119.5
108
78
79
63.5
104.5
114
83
75













FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 06

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develop Mean Scale 1


Number


Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENDRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


186792
1827
364
2057
261
5620
19451
154
1229
1133
2584
2774
755
23039
321
131
9214
3014
844
97
480
215
88
167
113
331
514
1575
858
13985
241


1681
1697
1675
1697
1535
1785
1724
1726
1718
1692
1746
1684
1587
1653
1677
1668
1613
1627
1675
1581
1523
1720
1667
1664
1622
1609
1646
1679
1658
1689
1649


2 3 4 5 %m FCAT
Achievement Accountability
Levels 3 &up Score


312 26 21 28 17 8
315 28 19 23 20 11
310 29 20 26 20 6
315 24 21 30 16 8
278 48 20 22 9 2
336 14 16 31 25 14
322 22 19 28 20 11
322 21 17 37 17 8
320 21 21 31 19 8
314 25 20 32 17 7
327 18 19 33 21 10
312 26 19 28 19 7
290 36 26 24 10 4
305 30 21 27 16 6
311 26 21 31 19 4
309 28 19 30 18 5
296 35 24 26 12 4
299 32 24 27 14 4
310 24 26 29 16 5
288 39 25 26 8 2
275 49 24 19 6 1
321 20 19 31 20 10
308 25 23 36 10 6
308 32 17 29 19 4
298 35 21 30 7 6
295 34 21 29 11 5
303 29 25 25 18 4
311 24 23 32 16 5
306 28 21 29 17 4
313 26 21 27 17 9
304 28 27 27 15 4


88.5
94.5
88
88.5
54
117
99.5
95.5
95.5
90
104.5
89.5
65
81.5
87.5
85.5
70
75
84
58.5
45
100.5
79.5
83.5
66.5
71.5
81.5
85.5
81.5
89.5
78.5















FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 6 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1162
538
59
81
2763
5332
2378
487
99
147
2856
3109
1319
630
758
2240
539
11860
3594
12298
4264
7562
6322
850
1929
2620
1897
2894
5067
554
452
201
156
4691
367
484
281


1682
1664
1459
1580
1682
1669
1727
1635
1574
1491
1659
1652
1747
1707
1720
1759
1668
1656
1598
1698
1664
1700
1606
1580
1740
1652
1763
1737
1760
1725
1634
1609
1684
1671
1713
1667
1644


312 27 21 27
308 28 21 32
260 56 17 19
288 40 33 17
312 25 22 29
309 28 21 27
322 21 22 26
301 32 24 27
287 34 36 26
268 47 27 16
307 27 22 29
305 28 23 29
327 19 17 29
318 23 18 32
321 17 23 36
330 16 22 31
309 25 24 30
306 31 20 26
292 37 23 24
316 24 21 28
308 27 24 29
316 25 20 28
294 36 23 24
288 39 26 24
325 20 18 27
305 30 21 29
331 15 20 31
325 19 19 29
330 18 17 30
322 20 21 27
301 33 22 24
295 36 27 24
312 22 22 30
309 26 22 30
319 23 19 33
308 28 22 31
303 31 21 26


17 8
14 5
8 0
9 1
17 7
18 6
19 12
14 3
3 0
9 1
16 5
15 5
24 11
21 7
19 5
21 11
16 5
16 7
12 4
18 9
15 5
19 9
12 4
9 2
21 13
15 5
23 11
23 10
23 12
22 9
16 4
10 2
18 7
16 6
17 7
14 6
16 6


87.5
80.5
43.5
53.5
88
85.5
99
73
50
49.5
82
80.5
107.5
97
95.5
106
84
82
67.5
92.5
81
94
67.5
59
104
79.5
109
104.5
108.5
99.5
75
61.5
91
85
90.5
82
80.5












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNS HINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 07

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of MeanDevelopmeMean Scale 1


Number


2 3 4 5 %nm


Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


7 0 STATEWIDE
7 1 ALACHUA
7 2 BAKER
7 3 BAY
7 4 BRADFORD
7 5 BREVARD
7 6 BROWARD
7 7 CALHOUN
7 8 CHARLOTTE
7 9 CITRUS
7 10 CLAY
7 11 COLLIER
7 12 COLUMBIA
7 13 MIAMI-DADE
7 14 DESOTO
7 15 DIXIE
7 16 DUVAL
7 17 ESCAMBIA
7 18 FLAGLER
7 19 FRANKLIN
7 20 GADSDEN
7 21 GILCHRIST
7 22 GLADES
7 23 GULF
7 24 HAMILTON
7 25 HARDEE
7 26 HENDRY
7 27 HERNANDO
7 28 HIGHLANDS
7 29 HILLSBOROUGH
7 30 HOLMES


202303
2148
359
1957
299
5686
20523
197
1394
1250
2689
3158
777
27312
358
165
9512
3283
874
121
517
209
133
193
143
368
566
1703
984
14498
270


1791
1790
1803
1807
1709
1853
1837
1795
1835
1797
1842
1794
1721
1752
1785
1737
1761
1736
1764
1750
1682
1798
1713
1812
1699
1714
1710
1794
1760
1804
1753


307 23
306 26
310 19
310 18
286 35
322 14
318 18
308 17
317 17
308 21
319 15
307 23
289 30
297 29
305 22
293 27
299 28
293 32
300 25
296 31
280 38
308 24
287 31
312 17
284 34
287 34
286 37
307 20
299 27
310 22
297 23


Acluevemenl Accountability
Levels 3 &u] Score


22 30 18 7
19 25 19 10
22 31 21 7
23 35 18 6
23 31 9 1
18 33 24 11
19 30 21 11
31 29 15 8
18 32 25 8
22 32 18 7
22 34 20 9
21 31 18 7
27 31 10 2
23 28 15 5
26 32 15 5
25 35 10 2
23 28 16 5
23 28 14 4
24 32 15 4
24 30 12 2
31 25 5 1
21 30 17 8
25 32 8 5
24 34 22 3
27 26 12 2
23 24 16 3
28 23 9 3
24 34 17 5
25 28 16 5
22 30 19 8
26 37 11 3


FCAT


91
92.5
98
94.5
62.5
112
103.5
90.5
107
93
103
91.5
68.5
79.5
85
71.5
81.5
75.5
82
70
52.5
90.5
70.5
96
67.5
73.5
61
90
82.5
95
78













FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 7 continued




INDIAN RIVER 1326 1815 312 21 19 31 19 10 60 98.5
JACKSON 583 1762 299 24 23 34 15 3 52 81.5
JEFFERSON 82 1692 282 41 23 22 12 1 35 59.5
LAFAYETTE 77 1769 301 21 27 32 18 1 52 83.5
LAKE 2864 1800 309 19 23 34 18 5 58 91.5
LEE 5696 1781 304 24 23 30 17 6 53 87.5
LEON 2365 1845 320 16 20 30 21 12 64 106
LEVY 533 1776 303 26 24 31 14 6 51 83
LIBERTY 101 1764 300 23 28 34 14 2 50 80
MADISON 183 1657 273 41 29 25 5 0 30 49.5
MANATEE 3043 1788 306 22 22 33 17 6 56 90
MARION 3207 1787 306 22 23 32 18 5 55 89.5
MARTIN 1347 1877 328 13 15 32 29 12 73 121.5
MONROE 692 1821 314 15 22 37 19 7 63 100
NASSAU 840 1815 312 16 22 38 18 5 61 95
OKALOOSA 2260 1885 330 10 18 34 27 12 73 121
OKEECHOBEE 544 1770 301 21 26 36 15 3 53 85
ORANGE 13546 1776 303 26 22 29 17 7 52 88
OSCEOLA 3786 1719 289 33 26 28 11 3 42 69
PALM BEACH 13182 1798 308 23 22 29 18 8 55 92
PASCO 4848 1778 303 24 24 32 15 5 52 84
PINELLAS 8257 1794 307 24 22 28 19 8 55 93
POLK 6856 1727 291 32 24 27 13 4 44 73
PUTNAM 909 1742 294 28 26 31 12 3 46 74
ST. JOHNS 1990 1872 327 14 17 30 25 14 69 116.5
ST. LUCIE 2847 1757 298 28 25 28 15 4 47 78.5
SANTA ROSA 1993 1867 325 12 17 35 25 11 70 115.5
SARASOTA 3244 1829 316 20 19 30 21 11 62 103.5
SEMINOLE 5215 1858 323 13 19 33 24 11 68 112.5
SUMTER 585 1822 314 19 21 28 24 8 60 102.5
SUWANNEE 445 1786 305 22 24 32 16 6 53 88
TAYLOR 260 1741 294 29 24 35 10 2 47 71
UNION 197 1729 291 30 24 33 9 4 46 71
VOLUSIA 4989 1770 301 24 25 31 15 5 51 83.5
WAKULLA 377 1838 318 14 20 34 24 8 66 108
WALTON 563 1775 303 24 23 33 16 5 53 86.5
WASHINGTON 291 1760 299 29 18 36 16 2 54 81












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 08

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Developim Mean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


8 0 STATEWIDE
8 1 ALACHUA
8 2 BAKER
8 3 BAY
8 4 BRADFORD
8 5 BREVARD
8 6 BROWARD
8 7 CALHOUN
8 8 CHARLOTTE
8 9 CITRUS
8 10 CLAY
8 11 COLLIER
8 12 COLUMBIA
8 13 MIAMI-DADE
8 14 DESOTO
8 15 DIXIE
8 16 DUVAL
8 17 ESCAMBIA
8 18 FLAGLER
8 19 FRANKLIN
8 20 GADSDEN
8 21 GILCHRIST
8 22 GLADES
8 23 GULF
8 24 HAMILTON
8 25 HARDEE
8 26 HENDRY
8 27 HERNANDO
8 28 HIGHLANDS
8 29 HILLSBOROUGH
8 30 HOLMES


200431
2129
347
1964
261
5867
20538
167
1416
1290
2753
3160
802
27199
315
154
9244
3259
871
84
468
225
84
186
155
438
592
1826
944
14374
257


1872 314
1865 313
1847 308
1886 318
1796 295
1926 328
1900 322
1891 319
1905 323
1877 316
1897 321
1878 316
1825 303
1830 304
1776 290
1829 304
1860 311
1813 299
1867 313
1823 302
1729 278
1921 327
1801 296
1888 318
1720 276
1826 303
1802 297
1852 309
1851 309
1884 317
1867 313


2 3 4 5 %m FCAT
Achievement Accountability
Levels &up Score


20 33 16 11
17 26 15 16
21 38 14 5
19 38 16 10
30 28 11 3
16 36 22 14
19 32 17 15
17 43 18 7
16 34 19 14
21 36 17 9
20 37 18 10
19 32 18 11
23 36 13 4
22 31 13 7
24 32 9 2
22 36 12 5
20 33 16 9
24 31 13 5
23 37 14 8
31 32 13 1
32 23 4 1
16 38 18 17
25 39 6 1
22 39 17 6
25 17 9 2
21 30 15 6
25 33 11 3
23 36 14 6
21 38 14 7
21 33 16 12
17 33 19 8


97
96.5
86.5
99.5
71
116
105.5
101.5
108
98.5
103
99.5
81.5
82
66
81
93
79
92.5
75.5
49
116
65.5
96
51.5
82.5
73.5
87.5
90.5
99.5
95.5











FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 8 continued


8 31 INDIAN RIVER
8 32 JACKSON
8 33 JEFFERSON
8 34 LAFAYETTE
8 35 LAKE
8 36 LEE
8 37 LEON
8 38 LEVY
8 39 LIBERTY
8 40 MADISON
8 41 MANATEE
8 42 MARION
8 43 MARTIN
8 44 MONROE
8 45 NASSAU
8 46 OKALOOSA
8 47 OKEECHOBEE
8 48 ORANGE
8 49 OSCEOLA
8 50 PALM BEACH
8 51 PASCO
8 52 PINELLAS
8 53 POLK
8 54 PUTNAM
8 55 ST. JOHNS
8 56 ST. LUCIE
8 57 SANTA ROSA
8 58 SARASOTA
8 59 SEMINOLE
8 60 SUMTER
8 61 SUWANNEE
8 62 TAYLOR
8 63 UNION
8 64 VOLUSIA
8 65 WAKULLA
8 66 WALTON
8 67 WASHINGTON


1333 1882 317 19 18 34 18 11


598
67
78
2896
5549
2251
484
94
186
3013
3120
1427
601
838
2290
513
12610
3855
13060
4770
8449
6538
861
1964
2836
2013
3288
5233
575
454
222
180
5115
398
506
291


1848 308
1739 281
1820 301
1873 315
1872 314
1915 325
1872 315
1844 307
1765 287
1860 311
1872 314
1925 328
1904 323
1905 323
1958 336
1849 309
1871 314
1818 301
1883 317
1866 313
1881 317
1822 302
1836 305
1933 330
1840 306
1940 332
1905 323
1930 329
1868 313
1867 313
1886 318
1866 313
1865 313
1930 329
1897 321
1866 313


22 36 17 5
28 31 4 1
22 35 13 4
21 36 17 9
21 35 16 9
19 33 20 15
23 35 18 7
22 40 13 2
27 26 11 2
23 33 16 8
20 38 16 9
16 32 21 18
19 37 19 11
20 38 18 12
15 36 23 19
25 37 12 6
19 33 16 12
23 34 12 5
20 32 17 13
23 36 15 8
20 32 17 12
23 32 13 6
21 36 14 5
16 36 22 15
23 33 14 6
17 35 23 15
19 32 18 15
17 35 19 18
17 38 16 9
25 34 15 7
20 40 14 11
24 38 16 6
21 36 16 8
15 40 22 12
20 36 20 9
19 31 20 8


63 101
57 91
37 55
51 80
62 98.5
60 95.5
68 112.5
60 96.5
55 81
40 65.5
57 92.5
63 98
71 118
67 106.5
67 108
78 127.5
56 85.5
60 98.5
51 79.5
61 102
59 93.5
60 100
50 81.5
55 84.5
73 118
53 84.5
73 119.5
65 107.5
71 117.5
63 96.5
56 90.5
65 100
59 94
60 94.5
74 115.5
65 104
59 96.5














FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 09

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of MeanDevelopn Mean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


212359
2273
381
2098
276
5897
21007
166
1515
1350
2820
3565
851
29966
373
177
10260
3478
953
118
409
228
105
179
138
383
567
1892
1066
13606
250


1 2 3 4 5 %in


Acluevement Accountability
Levels 3 &u Score


23 30 20 9
21 24 20 15
18 37 19 4
24 32 21 11
25 34 11 3
16 33 28 15
21 30 21 12
27 35 25 5
21 32 26 11
26 35 19 6
22 33 23 11
22 31 18 9
28 33 14 5
26 27 15 7
25 31 14 4
30 36 15 5
25 29 19 8
27 29 15 5
26 33 23 6
29 34 9 3
39 27 6 1
17 29 30 10
29 31 8 2
30 36 17 5
35 20 7 0
25 35 14 3
28 32 14 3
29 31 17 4
25 30 19 6
22 30 21 11
18 31 28 7


FCAT


99.5
104.5
92
108
74.5
127
106.5
108.5
116.5
98
112
96
85
84
79.5
91
95.5
82.5
104
72.5
60.5
117.5
65.5
95
51.5
81.5
80
87.5
92.5
105
110















FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 9 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMMER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1500
550
100
81
2980
5816
2393
533
75
236
3222
3485
1629
735
945
2375
521
13611
4290
13473
5485
9873
6822
916
2055
2775
1964
3322
5802
579
466
229
155
5419
376
540
275


1942
1923
1818
1906
1915
1914
1971
1896
1981
1860
1912
1929
1960
1932
1946
2004
1908
1915
1879
1944
1914
1924
1889
1887
1988
1904
1983
1964
1974
1908
1896
1910
1906
1911
1954
1939
1939


21 33 24 8
25 39 18 5
32 22 7 2
35 30 14 5
24 32 20 6
23 33 19 7
20 31 25 14
25 32 16 4
17 25 36 12
33 19 15 5
24 31 20 6
22 33 21 8
19 30 25 13
25 33 19 9
23 34 21 9
17 32 28 17
26 32 19 5
22 28 21 9
26 32 14 3
21 30 22 12
26 32 18 6
23 29 19 10
26 28 16 6
27 26 19 4
16 33 27 15
27 30 17 6
17 33 27 14
20 30 24 13
19 30 25 15
23 29 20 7
27 31 17 4
34 34 15 4
27 31 18 4
24 33 18 6
22 34 23 10
22 40 21 6
24 35 23 5


107.5
97.5
56
85.5
96
96.5
119
84.5
129.5
75.5
95
102
115.5
101.5
105.5
130.5
93
99
79
108.5
93
98.5
85
85.5
125
89.5
123.5
114
119.5
94.5
86.5
89
88.5
93
111
105
103














FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
State Report of District Results
Grade 10

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develop Mean Scale E


1 2 3 4 5 %mn


Number


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)

184635 1987 324
2182 2000 327
308 1957 317
1934 2008 329
248 1911 305
5695 2046 338
18770 1999 327
159 2007 329
1440 2015 331
1187 1992 325
2570 2015 331
3000 1982 323
581 1955 316
25838 1955 316
263 1937 312
145 1926 309
7180 1998 327
2855 1951 315
834 2005 328
69 1873 296
344 1879 298
203 2024 333
47 1947 314
192 1997 326
142 1887 300
301 1943 313
532 1919 307
1592 1966 319
781 1980 322
12436 2002 328
252 1969 320


Achievement Accountabilty
Levels 3 &up Score


15 19 26 31 8
17 18 21 29 15
18 24 26 30 3
11 19 27 34 8
24 21 32 21 2
7 14 25 39 14
14 19 26 32 10
9 21 30 29 11
10 18 27 37 8
14 18 30 31 7
10 17 29 35 9
17 20 26 28 10
18 21 27 28 6
20 22 27 26 6
17 27 35 19 2
18 26 32 22 3
13 18 26 35 8
19 22 27 26 6
12 19 29 34 6
29 29 26 13 3
28 36 25 10 1
11 10 23 49 7
17 28 23 32 0
14 16 28 35 7
26 39 18 15 2
20 19 28 28 5
25 26 26 19 3
14 23 31 27 4
17 17 28 32 6
13 19 26 33 9
17 22 27 29 5


FCAT


113.5
118
104
120.5
88.5
138
119.5
120.5
126
115
125.5
112
105.5
102
90.5
95
121
102
118.5
72.5
65
140
101
120
71.5
103.5
83
104.5
112.5
119.5
106
















FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 10 continued


10 31 INDIAN RIVER
10 32 JACKSON
10 33 JEFFERSON
10 34 LAFAYETTE
10 35 LAKE
10 36 LEE
10 37 LEON
10 38 LEVY
10 39 LIBERTY
10 40 MADISON
10 41 MANATEE
10 42 MARION
10 43 MARTIN
10 44 MONROE
10 45 NASSAU
10 46 OKALOOSA
10 47 OKEECHOBEE
10 48 ORANGE
10 49 OSCEOLA
10 50 PALM BEACH
10 51 PASCO
10 52 PINELLAS
10 53 POLK
10 54 PUTNAM
10 55 ST. JOHNS
10 56 ST. LUCIE
10 57 SANTA ROSA
10 58 SARASOTA
10 59 SEMINOLE
10 60 SUMTER
10 61 SUWANNEE
10 62 TAYLOR
10 63 UNION
10 64 VOLUSIA
10 65 WAKULLA
10 66 WALTON
10 67 WASHINGTON


1224 2012 330
519 1988 324
71 1901 303
80 1954 316
2801 1954 316
5077 1981 323
2129 2032 335
366 1974 321
76 1964 318
189 1889 300
2766 1973 320
2886 1990 325
1381 2036 336
594 2003 328
737 2017 331
2289 2041 337
465 1944 314
12100 1968 319
3658 1946 314
12719 2001 327
3798 1992 325
8119 1997 326
5944 1934 311
759 1960 317
1941 2045 338
2526 1954 316
1946 2030 335
3190 2019 332
4872 2047 339
504 1994 326
405 1976 321
173 1968 319
130 1957 317
4662 1977 322
315 2013 330
473 1995 326
263 2015 331


11 18 26 36 8
15 16 29 35 5
25 32 23 20 0
18 28 29 25 1
19 20 28 28 5
15 19 29 30 7
7 18 27 36 13
17 17 29 30 6
13 24 29 34 0
33 26 17 20 4
17 19 28 29 7
14 20 27 33 7
8 14 24 42 11
12 15 30 39 5
11 16 29 36 8
9 14 25 40 12
19 24 25 28 4
19 21 23 28 8
21 22 27 25 5
14 18 25 32 11
13 20 29 32 6
14 18 26 32 9
23 23 24 25 5
18 23 26 29 4
7 14 26 38 15
20 23 28 24 5
8 15 27 39 11
12 15 26 34 13
8 13 24 40 14
15 19 23 36 7
14 25 26 29 6
20 17 28 30 5
17 25 28 28 2
15 21 29 29 6
10 19 28 35 8
10 25 29 32 5
9 19 29 37 7


123
117
79
95
104
112.5
134
109.5
109
78
109.5
117
137
125.5
125
136
101
105.5
98
120
115
117
95.5
103.5
139
97.5
134.5
127.5
138.5
118.5
108.5
106.5
100.5
109.5
123.5
115.5
126.5











APPENDIX C
FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST READING DATA 2005



FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 3

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develo Mean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


3 0 STATEWIDE 202975


1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROL
30 HOLMES


2101
369
1996
294
5113
21039
144
1210
1108
2389
3347
749
29885
389
132
10202
3207
732
90
499
227
104
135
165
442
514
1588
917
14703
263


1333
1371
1369
1411
1329
1431
1334
1446
1411
1433
1421
1307
1346
1262
1196
1274
1334
1298
1394
1306
1198
1336
1296
1431
1212
1250
1228
1357
1301
1330
1278


1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
Achievement Accountability
level 3 & up Score


13 33 28
13 31 29
16 35 31
11 36 32
13 33 29
9 32 36
13 32 28
8 33 38
9 32 35
11 35 33
10 35 36
15 33 26
14 37 26
14 33 23
17 33 17
8 37 26
13 34 27
12 32 27
11 37 32
12 39 23
19 33 17
12 35 34
17 42 17
8 31 35
18 28 23
14 36 22
16 36 20
13 37 28
12 36 27
13 31 27
18 37 22


107.5
113.5
115
123.5
109.5
126.5
108.5
133
122.5
124.5
126
102.5
110
94
79.5
99
106.5
104
118.5
105
78.5
115
92.5
125
87
93
90
111.5
104
105.5
96












FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 3 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1224
537
89
93
2760
5598
2433
483
81
179
3149
3073
1236
611
780
2168
563
13713
3672
13375
4935
8308
6771
919
1867
2621
1713
3227
5009
543
376
252
166
4875
354
494
258


1405
1376
1236
1257
1350
1355
1419
1285
1372
1331
1308
1298
1434
1416
1439
1465
1254
1304
1254
1325
1305
1346
1296
1301
1463
1332
1505
1405
1452
1326
1303
1325
1391
1368
1443
1402
1395


10 32 35
12 30 34
22 35 17
16 31 25
12 33 30
13 35 28
12 31 32
14 36 26
16 31 32
18 35 28
15 35 24
14 35 26
10 36 35
10 32 36
10 32 39
10 33 38
15 38 19
13 34 25
15 35 22
13 33 27
14 35 26
13 32 29
15 34 25
17 33 25
10 29 37
14 33 27
8 30 41
11 31 33
9 32 36
13 32 29
12 37 26
9 35 29
10 36 34
12 36 30
8 34 36
12 36 30
11 36 31


123
118
82
93
113
111.5
123
101
113
106
102.5
102
129
127
129
134
91.5
102.5
94.5
105.5
104
110.5
101.5
101.5
132
106
140
120.5
130.5
106.5
105
107.5
119
116
130
120
117.5













FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 4

READING

Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develop Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500) AchievementAccountability
(0-3000) level 3 & up Score
4 0 STATEWIDE 195678 1575 319 15 13 35 29 8 71 115.5
4 1 ALACHUA 1996 1585 320 18 14 29 29 10 68 114
4 2 BAKER 358 1575 318 15 17 34 28 7 68 112.5
4 3 BAY 1826 1622 327 12 11 35 33 9 77 124.5
4 4 BRADFORD 251 1522 309 20 14 40 22 4 66 99
4 5 BREVARD 5345 1659 333 10 9 33 36 12 81 133.5
4 6 BROWARD 21307 1561 316 17 14 35 27 7 69 110
4 7 CALHOUN 161 1610 325 14 6 39 31 10 80 124
4 8 CHARLOTTE 1152 1600 323 13 13 35 33 6 74 119.5
4 9 CITRUS 1106 1622 327 11 11 37 32 8 78 122.5
4 10 CLAY 2204 1657 332 8 12 34 36 10 80 132
4 11 COLLIER 3219 1566 317 17 14 33 29 8 69 114
4 12 COLUMBIA 737 1559 316 14 14 38 30 4 72 113
4 13 MIAMI-DADE 26741 1547 314 17 14 35 27 6 69 108
4 14 DESOTO 367 1561 316 14 14 36 31 4 71 113
4 15 DIXIE 159 1542 313 19 12 42 19 8 69 102
4 16 DUVAL 9461 1583 320 14 15 35 29 8 71 116.5
4 17 ESCAMBIA 3382 1527 310 19 16 34 25 5 65 102
4 18 FLAGLER 735 1600 323 14 12 34 33 7 75 120
4 19 FRANKLIN 88 1542 313 16 13 49 18 5 72 101.5
4 20 GADSDEN 434 1447 297 27 18 38 15 2 55 81
4 21 GILCHRIST 186 1618 326 10 10 34 39 6 80 129
4 22 GLADES 104 1485 303 15 27 37 17 4 58 92.5
4 23 GULF 146 1536 312 18 10 42 24 6 72 107
4 24 HAMILTON 136 1457 298 26 15 35 18 4 58 86.5
4 25 HARDEE 391 1488 304 21 17 39 19 4 62 93.5
4 26 HENDRY 576 1509 307 20 16 36 23 5 64 100
4 27 HERNANDO 1496 1576 319 13 13 39 28 6 73 113.5
4 28 HIGHLANDS 882 1548 314 16 13 39 26 5 71 107.5
4 29 HILLSBOROUGH 14204 1559 316 17 15 34 27 8 68 111.5
4 30 HOLMES 250 1552 315 14 16 34 31 5 70 114












FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 4 continued


4 31 INDIAN RIVER 1262 1629 328 11 11 34 34 10 78 127.5
4 32 JACKSON 486 1615 325 12 12 35 34 8 76 125
4 33 JEFFERSON 90 1372 284 38 18 30 13 1 44 67
4 34 LAFAYETTE 76 1623 327 8 12 41 28 12 80 127
4 35 LAKE 2771 1570 318 15 13 37 31 5 73 115.5
4 36 LEE 5296 1578 319 15 14 36 28 7 71 113
4 37 LEON 2244 1646 331 11 11 34 32 12 78 127.5
4 38 LEVY 291 1529 311 16 14 40 26 3 70 105
4 39 LIBERTY 83 1582 320 10 10 47 27 7 81 120
4 40 MADISON 212 1432 294 28 17 38 14 2 54 78.5
4 41 MANATEE 3189 1563 316 15 14 38 26 6 71 109
4 42 MARION 3096 1563 316 15 14 38 27 6 71 111
4 43 MARTIN 1258 1668 334 9 10 33 36 13 82 136
4 44 MONROE 580 1621 326 12 12 34 33 9 76 124
4 45 NASSAU 772 1628 328 11 9 38 34 9 80 128.5
4 46 OKALOOSA 2168 1682 337 7 10 33 37 13 83 138
4 47 OKEECHOBEE 495 1527 310 19 15 35 27 5 66 106.5
4 48 ORANGE 12902 1555 315 16 14 36 27 7 70 111
4 49 OSCEOLA 3568 1513 308 19 15 36 25 5 65 103.5
4 50 PALMBEACH 13013 1572 318 16 13 34 28 8 71 112.5
4 51 PASCO 4634 1566 317 15 14 38 27 6 71 111
4 52 PINELLAS 8303 1587 321 15 13 34 30 9 73 118.5
4 53 POLK 6444 1525 310 19 15 36 25 5 66 103.5
4 54 PUTNAM 920 1540 313 16 17 39 25 4 67 105.5
4 55 ST. JOHNS 1838 1687 338 9 8 30 39 14 83 140
4 56 ST. LUCIE 2698 1560 316 16 15 36 27 6 69 109.5
4 57 SANTA ROSA 1718 1705 341 6 6 33 41 14 88 146
4 58 SARASOTA 3137 1641 330 11 10 33 34 11 78 128
4 59 SEMINOLE 5004 1649 331 10 9 35 36 10 81 131.5
4 60 SUMTER 568 1586 320 15 11 36 29 8 74 115.5
4 61 SUWANNEE 411 1550 314 18 15 35 26 6 67 106.5
4 62 TAYLOR 229 1587 321 13 15 41 25 7 72 112.5
4 63 UNION 157 1570 318 15 14 32 36 3 71 117
4 64 VOLUSIA 4902 1595 322 12 12 37 32 7 76 121
4 65 WAKULLA 315 1652 332 7 9 37 37 9 84 133.5
4 66 WALTON 484 1630 328 11 10 37 34 9 80 128
4 67 WASHINGTON 243 1557 315 15 16 30 33 6 69 116












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade5

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develor Mean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


5 0 STATEWIDE 181651


1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


1813
328
1970
236
5571
19389
155
1113
1098
2351
2648
690
22608
333
114
9018
3001
719
84
462
209
94
151
115
338
512
1428
844
13741
233


1611
1651
1568
1660
1546
1707
1604
1689
1657
1652
1669
1623
1579
1578
1543
1584
1590
1587
1630
1560
1404
1622
1499
1590
1497
1501
1523
1610
1574
1585
1598


1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
Achievem enlAccountability
level 3 & up Score


16 34 25
14 29 27
17 31 23
14 35 30
20 30 20
12 33 32
17 34 24
13 37 28
13 33 30
16 35 27
14 35 28
15 33 25
17 37 22
16 35 23
19 38 19
24 38 19
17 35 23
19 32 23
15 36 29
20 35 20
32 27 7
11 39 29
14 35 16
15 35 24
19 24 23
19 32 15
20 29 19
16 38 24
16 36 23
18 32 23
16 30 27


106
112
97.5
118
92
127
104.5
121.5
115.5
113
116
108.5
99.5
101
91.5
96
101.5
99.5
111.5
93
59
112.5
82
100.5
83.5
81.5
89
106
100
101
104












FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 5 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1125
469
78
75
2604
4914
2349
263
88
170
2902
2889
1288
624
731
2215
545
11947
3330
12001
3997
7569
6068
847
1798
2404
1790
2954
4844
518
401
221
156
4633
338
456
252


1653
1633
1443
1538
1615
1615
1689
1571
1605
1480
1587
1600
1711
1634
1668
1737
1532
1584
1524
1609
1618
1634
1544
1565
1695
1600
1743
1692
1694
1678
1597
1556
1573
1646
1681
1676
1563


17 34 26
16 35 28
26 31 13
17 37 19
17 35 24
17 35 25
15 32 27
14 40 20
13 35 27
23 29 16
18 34 24
17 34 25
12 31 33
19 32 27
16 37 27
12 33 33
21 34 17
17 34 22
19 32 19
16 33 24
15 37 25
15 33 27
17 33 20
18 35 22
13 33 30
17 34 25
11 32 34
12 33 31
12 34 31
13 33 31
19 36 23
21 33 20
14 29 23
15 37 27
11 31 31
14 33 32
17 34 22


114.5
111
72
89.5
107.5
107.5
117.5
95
109.5
78.5
103
104.5
125
111.5
117
131
88.5
100.5
89.5
105
108.5
110.5
93.5
98
123.5
104.5
131.5
121
124
119.5
99.5
93.5
100
114.5
122.5
122
96.5












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade6

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean DevelolMean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


6 0 STATEWIDE 201609


1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


2132
361
1985
294
5508
20962
194
1343
1174
2626
3116
808
27137
352
165
10239
3388
779
127
512
195
110
172
145
385
574
1638
927
14432
264


1644
1662
1659
1708
1586
1788
1659
1666
1688
1676
1739
1628
1608
1548
1597
1546
1636
1594
1660
1678
1496
1700
1540
1707
1565
1542
1535
1641
1614
1639
1643


1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
Achievement Accountability
level 3 & up Score


20 31 19
19 29 20
22 30 20
18 36 22
24 28 17
15 34 30
20 32 19
19 34 20
18 35 22
19 35 23
18 37 25
20 29 19
25 30 16
21 27 14
23 29 18
21 25 15
21 31 18
20 29 17
20 35 20
22 31 20
26 28 7
18 30 24
23 29 15
18 31 27
23 30 12
22 31 12
22 27 12
20 31 19
21 31 18
20 29 19
18 32 20


89
92.5
93
101
78
121.5
92
95.5
100
98.5
110
87
82.5
71.5
82.5
69.5
87.5
81
95
94
55
101
72.5
106
73.5
70
68
89
85.5
89
87












FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 6 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1262
586
84
77
2763
5466
2468
547
105
178
3061
3130
1333
679
819
2343
567
13473
3604
13263
4659
8312
6638
978
1929
2747
1970
3231
5173
580
441
266
170
4891
388
549
258


1678
1627
1473
1632
1671
1641
1732
1581
1679
1537
1651
1625
1752
1694
1713
1778
1607
1629
1580
1645
1654
1674
1591
1588
1767
1631
1773
1687
1736
1669
1635
1714
1624
1674
1731
1637
1665


18 33 21
20 31 18
27 23 7
17 38 18
19 35 20
19 32 19
19 34 23
20 29 17
19 23 30
22 26 13
22 32 19
22 31 18
15 33 27
18 32 24
18 38 25
15 36 28
22 32 16
21 31 18
22 29 15
20 31 19
20 34 20
18 32 20
21 29 15
25 28 13
14 33 28
20 32 18
14 35 28
17 31 22
17 34 25
20 31 21
18 33 18
17 41 20
21 28 20
19 35 20
19 35 25
22 32 20
17 33 25


98
87
50.5
88.5
94.5
89.5
107.5
79
106.5
69
91
86
114.5
101
105
119.5
81
87.5
76
91
92
95
77.5
74.5
116
86
118
99.5
108.5
97
88
101.5
88.5
96.5
106.5
89
95.5












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 7

READING

Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develop Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500) Achievement Accountability
(0-3000) level 3 & up Score
7 0 STATEWIDE 202520 1712 299 27 21 30 17 5 53 84.5
7 1 ALACHUA 2105 1725 301 27 19 28 19 7 54 89.5
7 2 BAKER 379 1674 291 30 21 27 18 3 49 79.5
7 3 BAY 2049 1769 310 20 20 35 20 6 60 97
7 4 BRADFORD 283 1637 284 37 24 22 14 3 39 68
7 5 BREVARD 5885 1814 318 15 17 35 25 8 68 109.5
7 6 BROWARD 21160 1742 304 24 21 31 19 6 56 91.5
7 7 CALHOUN 178 1721 300 23 25 31 15 6 52 85.5
7 8 CHARLOTTE 1393 1758 308 22 20 31 20 7 59 95
7 9 CITRUS 1299 1720 300 24 21 35 16 4 56 85.5
7 10 CLAY 2630 1755 307 19 23 33 20 5 58 94.5
7 11 COLLIER 3146 1704 297 28 20 30 17 5 53 84
7 12 COLUMBIA 837 1696 296 25 24 32 14 5 51 82
7 13 MIAMI-DADE 27796 1629 283 37 21 26 13 4 43 70.5
7 14 DESOTO 311 1644 286 33 19 34 12 2 48 71.5
7 15 DIXIE 153 1645 286 35 22 25 15 4 44 74
7 16 DUVAL 9766 1711 298 26 22 32 16 4 52 83
7 17 ESCAMBIA 3563 1654 288 33 23 27 13 4 44 72.5
7 18 FLAGLER 793 1725 301 24 21 33 17 5 55 87.5
7 19 FRANKLIN 97 1628 283 36 20 32 7 5 44 66
7 20 GADSDEN 503 1530 264 46 27 22 4 1 26 45.5
7 21 GILCHRIST 223 1729 302 20 24 34 18 4 57 90
7 22 GLADES 104 1593 276 44 16 27 8 5 39 61
7 23 GULF 178 1775 311 19 23 29 23 7 58 100.5
7 24 HAMILTON 163 1522 262 53 15 21 10 1 32 50.5
7 25 HARDEE 429 1581 274 42 23 24 10 2 35 59.5
7 26 HENDRY 604 1617 281 36 22 29 11 2 42 66
7 27 HERNANDO 1714 1685 294 29 20 32 14 5 50 80
7 28 HIGHLANDS 923 1688 294 26 26 31 13 4 48 78
7 29 HILLSBOROUGH 14355 1698 296 29 21 29 17 5 50 83.5
7 30 HOLMES 265 1692 295 30 19 30 15 5 51 79.5











FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 7 continued



7 31 INDIAN RIVER 1330 1735 303 24 21 30 18 7 55 90.5
7 32 JACKSON 596 1710 298 26 20 32 17 4 54 84
7 33 JEFFERSON 81 1569 271 38 28 26 6 1 33 54
7 34 LAFAYETTE 78 1692 295 31 23 23 18 5 46 80.5
7 35 LAKE 2825 1720 300 24 20 34 17 5 55 88
7 36 LEE 5484 1727 301 25 20 32 18 6 55 90
7 37 LEON 2400 1805 316 17 20 32 23 9 64 106
7 38 LEVY 506 1654 288 31 25 30 11 2 44 68.5
7 39 LIBERTY 94 1709 298 26 18 38 16 2 56 83
7 40 MADISON 215 1646 286 35 26 23 12 4 39 68
7 41 MANATEE 3014 1708 298 26 22 31 17 4 52 84
7 42 MARION 3149 1694 295 26 23 32 15 5 51 83.5
7 43 MARTIN 1431 1820 319 18 15 31 24 11 67 108.5
7 44 MONROE 654 1749 306 22 20 31 20 6 58 93
7 45 NASSAU 836 1773 310 19 21 35 21 5 61 97.5
7 46 OKALOOSA 2315 1850 325 11 18 35 26 10 71 116
7 47 OKEECHOBEE 539 1685 294 27 23 34 13 4 50 79.5
7 48 ORANGE 12633 1727 301 25 20 31 18 6 55 89
7 49 OSCEOLA 3692 1658 288 33 21 28 14 3 46 72.5
7 50 PALM BEACH 13207 1714 299 27 20 30 17 6 53 86
7 51 PASCO 4629 1720 300 24 22 31 17 5 54 86
7 52 PINELLAS 8512 1734 303 25 20 30 18 7 55 90
7 53 POLK 6619 1640 285 34 22 28 13 3 44 71
7 54 PUTNAM 899 1667 290 30 23 31 13 2 46 72.5
7 55 ST. JOHNS 1879 1822 320 16 17 33 24 10 67 109.5
7 56 ST. LUCIE 2778 1687 294 29 21 31 15 4 50 79.5
7 57 SANTA ROSA 2049 1825 320 15 17 34 24 9 67 108.5
7 58 SARASOTA 3267 1747 305 24 19 31 19 7 56 92.5
7 59 SEMINOLE 5232 1796 315 18 19 34 22 8 64 103.5
7 60 SUMTER 607 1709 298 27 19 32 18 5 54 87.5
7 61 SUWANNEE 450 1691 295 27 25 29 13 6 48 79.5
7 62 TAYLOR 251 1765 309 21 21 35 15 8 58 91.5
7 63 UNION 195 1680 293 29 24 29 16 2 47 77
7 64 VOLUSIA 5095 1743 305 22 20 35 18 5 58 91
7 65 WAKULLA 392 1814 318 15 18 36 25 7 67 109
7 66 WALTON 525 1710 298 23 22 36 14 4 54 83
7 67 WASHINGTON 293 1718 300 26 23 27 20 4 51 86.5












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 8

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develo Mean Scale 1 2 3
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


201758
2177
364
2049
301
5780
21010
166
1454
1299
2629
3214
754
28404
347
157
9260
3426
825
99
468
201
102
203
145
389
589
1672
926
14036
274


1824
1829
1800
1867
1814
1904
1845
1882
1877
1821
1862
1816
1818
1753
1731
1808
1823
1792
1856
1774
1677
1860
1756
1816
1686
1739
1723
1822
1816
1835
1848


5 Percent in FCAT
AchievemenlAccountability
level 3 & up Score


297 27 30 30
298 29 27 25
292 25 38 29
306 18 32 35
295 27 35 26
314 14 28 37
301 24 29 31
309 17 30 36
308 18 32 33
296 23 34 32
305 20 32 33
295 28 28 30
296 25 33 29
282 37 29 24
277 37 32 22
294 27 37 25
297 26 32 30
290 29 33 27
304 21 32 34
286 27 36 26
266 48 38 13
305 20 29 33
283 34 38 17
295 27 28 36
268 46 32 15
279 39 29 23
276 40 30 24
297 25 32 31
295 27 32 30
299 25 30 29
302 22 31 31












FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 8 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMMER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1262
538
83
83
2674
5317
2159
512
78
217
2992
3274
1429
686
900
2258
526
13174
3684
13138
4739
8754
6331
975
1900
2747
2005
3148
5292
580
433
239
157
5125
360
536
269


1854
1833
1713
1783
1823
1825
1911
1779
1887
1724
1825
1812
1901
1842
1868
1968
1760
1813
1769
1821
1820
1851
1778
1772
1933
1809
1927
1862
1894
1808
1820
1818
1838
1830
1860
1846
1832


303 22 29 34 13
299 23 34 30 12
274 42 31 20 5
288 27 35 33 4
297 25 32 31 10
297 26 30 31 11
315 16 26 35 19
288 29 35 27 8
310 26 13 31 27
276 36 35 22 6
297 25 31 32 10
294 25 32 31 11
313 19 24 31 20
301 24 29 32 13
306 19 33 35 11
327 8 23 41 23
284 35 33 24 6
295 28 30 29 11
286 34 30 27 8
296 27 29 30 12
296 25 33 31 10
303 24 29 30 14
287 33 30 26 9
286 34 33 25 7
320 13 25 37 21
294 28 32 28 11
319 13 24 39 20
305 23 27 32 16
312 17 28 35 17
294 26 33 29 10
296 27 31 30 11
296 24 38 26 10
300 20 31 38 8
298 25 32 30 12
305 20 34 31 13
302 23 29 35 13
299 25 32 29 12


78.5
73
47.5
62.5
71
72
94
62.5
99.5
51.5
69.5
71
93
76.5
79.5
108.5
54.5
70
60
72.5
69.5
78.5
61
57.5
101.5
68
99
83.5
89
69.5
71.5
69
75.5
74
80
77.5
73












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNS HINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 9

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Devel, Mean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


9 0 STATEWIDE
9 1 ALACHUA
9 2 BAKER
9 3 BAY
9 4 BRADFORD
9 5 BREVARD
9 6 BROWARD
9 7 CALHOUN
9 8 CHARLOTTE
9 9 CITRUS
9 10 CLAY
9 11 COLLIER
9 12 COLUMBIA
9 13 MIAMI-DADE
9 14 DESOTO
9 15 DIXIE
9 16 DUVAL
9 17 ESCAMBIA
9 18 FLAGLER
9 19 FRANKLIN
9 20 GADSDEN
9 21 GILCHRIST
9 22 GLADES
9 23 GULF
9 24 HAMILTON
9 25 HARDEE
9 26 HENRY
9 27 HERNANDO
9 28 HIGHLANDS
9 29 HILLSBOROUGH
9 30 HOLMES


214984
2384
403
2193
290
6177
21525
186
1535
1316
2681
3400
836
30615
344
186
10455
3448
874
103
376
222
78
217
180
350
607
1808
1113
13370


1860
1894
1814
1914
1783
1975
1870
1925
1938
1889
1925
1837
1837
1785
1751
1790
1845
1837
1915
1705
1705
1887
1765
1891
1725
1745
1761
1858
1827
1893


301 3
307 3
292 4
310 2
286 4
322 2
302 3
313 2
315 2
306 3
313 2
296 3
296 3
287 4
280 4
288 4
298 3
296 3
311 2
272 5
272 5
305 3
283 5
306 3
276 5
279 4
282 4
300 3
294 4
307 3


1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
AchievemenlAccountability
level 3 & up Score
5 28 21 10 6 36 67
5 24 19 11 11 41 75
3 30 16 8 3 27 53
27 31 25 11 6 42 74.5
45 28 19 6 2 27 49
20 29 27 14 10 51 89.5
4 29 21 10 6 37 67.5
26 30 26 9 8 44 75
23 32 26 12 7 45 80
1 30 24 9 6 39 69
i5 32 25 11 7 43 77
8 27 21 8 6 34 62.5
8 28 21 9 5 34 63
46 26 17 7 4 28 52
49 27 16 7 2 24 47.5
3 30 18 5 4 27 51
7 29 20 9 5 33 62.5
7 29 20 9 5 34 62.5
26 33 25 11 5 41 73.5
5 27 15 3 0 17 34.5
9 27 12 2 1 15 31.5
0 32 22 8 7 37 68
1 31 13 3 3 18 40.5
5 26 20 13 6 39 71
7 27 11 2 3 16 34.5
49 28 14 7 2 23 46
48 28 15 6 3 24 47
4 31 22 9 4 36 63.5
[0 29 20 8 4 31 58.5
1 30 22 11 6 39 71


301 33 34 21 6 6 33


267 1864












FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 9 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1479
568
111
83
2880
5650
2606
508
84
233
3128
3320
1627
717
883
2534
525
13850
4263
15273
5195
9987
6635
910
2076
2712
2073
3466
5754
562
498
229
168
5203
430
533
289


1918
1877
1722
1859
1844
1864
1947
1789
1909
1755
1852
1847
1962
1919
1906
1982
1815
1843
1815
1853
1862
1876
1795
1821
1992
1847
1986
1916
1940
1836
1807
1833
1824
1877
1863
1892
1901


311 28 30
304 33 30
275 60 26
300 35 29
297 36 30
301 35 28
317 27 27
287 44 28
309 26 29
281 50 27
299 37 29
298 38 29
319 25 23
311 27 27
309 25 35
323 20 27
292 42 26
297 38 28
292 41 29
299 36 29
301 33 32
303 34 28
288 45 28
293 41 30
325 20 26
298 36 31
324 19 29
311 29 27
315 25 28
296 36 31
291 42 29
296 45 23
294 38 33
304 34 28
301 34 31
306 30 33
308 32 26












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 10

READING


Grade District District Name Number of Mean DeveltMean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


179354
2233
273
1873
252
5512
19129
141
1350
1084
2425
2746
571
26519
309
150
7164
2863
688
99
317
191
68
157
103
327
580
1491
730
11857
250


1906
1929
1920
1956
1837
2003
1894
1986
1963
1928
1973
1887
1861
1829
1844
1791
1923
1889
1944
1795
1731
1979
1741
1960
1798
1815
1723
1916
1903
1939
1899


296
300
299
306
283
314
294
311
307
300
309
293
288
282
285
275
299
293
303
276
264 C
310
266
306
276
279
262 6
298
296
302
295


1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
Achievement Accountability
level 3 & up Score
39 29 17 7 8 32 61.5
37 23 17 8 14 39 72.5
38 33 16 6 7 29 58.5
33 31 20 9 8 37 69.5
18 30 13 5 4 22 46
25 33 20 10 12 42 80.5
41 30 16 6 7 29 57
29 33 19 7 11 38 71.5
30 33 20 9 8 37 70.5
34 34 18 7 7 32 63
30 32 20 9 10 38 74
12 29 16 6 7 29 56.5
15 28 15 5 7 27 53
50 27 14 5 5 23 47.5
18 30 13 6 4 22 48
53 24 9 8 6 23 49
37 31 17 7 8 32 62.5
10 30 17 7 7 31 60
33 34 20 7 7 33 65
56 28 7 5 4 16 39
63 30 7 0 1 8 24
29 28 26 12 6 43 76
51 32 10 0 6 16 38
34 33 18 5 10 33 64.5
59 18 14 8 1 22 41
53 26 12 6 3 21 43
61 24 10 3 2 15 32
36 32 19 6 7 32 61
35 36 19 5 5 29 57
35 31 18 7 9 34 65.5
12 33 13 5 7 25 53.5












FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 10 continued



10 31 INDIAN RIVER 1128 1964 307 31 33 19 7 10 36 69.5
10 32 JACKSON 480 1889 293 41 33 15 5 7 27 55.5
10 33 JEFFERSON 76 1813 279 51 41 5 1 1 8 29.5
10 34 LAFAYETTE 65 1875 290 40 32 15 5 8 28 57
10 35 LAKE 2597 1870 290 41 31 15 6 7 28 56.5
10 36 LEE 4691 1905 296 40 30 16 6 8 30 59
10 37 LEON 1912 2027 319 25 28 21 12 15 47 89
10 38 LEVY 412 1864 288 47 27 12 6 7 25 51.5
10 39 LIBERTY 72 1894 294 43 32 19 1 4 25 45
10 40 MADISON 223 1706 259 60 22 13 4 2 18 36
10 41 MANATEE 2765 1872 290 43 28 16 6 7 30 56
10 42 MARION 2941 1875 290 42 30 17 6 6 28 56
10 43 MARTIN 1267 2016 317 24 30 23 10 13 46 84
10 44 MONROE 599 1969 308 30 27 21 10 12 43 78.5
10 45 NASSAU 742 1969 308 31 35 19 6 9 34 66.5
10 46 OKALOOSA 2210 2026 318 22 32 22 10 13 46 84
10 47 OKEECHOBEE 480 1835 283 45 32 16 4 4 23 48
10 48 ORANGE 12356 1869 289 44 27 15 6 7 28 54.5
10 49 OSCEOLA 2776 1848 286 44 30 16 5 5 26 51
10 50 PALM BEACH 10927 1947 304 34 30 18 8 10 36 69
10 51 PASCO 3756 1901 295 37 33 18 6 6 30 58.5
10 52 PINELLAS 8165 1966 307 33 29 19 8 11 38 71.5
10 53 POLK 5501 1843 285 46 27 15 5 6 26 50.5
10 54 PUTNAM 755 1833 283 49 29 13 5 4 22 45.5
10 55 ST. JOHNS 1876 2012 316 24 30 23 10 13 46 84
10 56 ST. LUCIE 2380 1856 287 46 29 15 5 5 25 49.5
10 57 SANTA ROSA 1797 2018 317 23 32 23 11 11 45 83
10 58 SARASOTA 2961 1958 306 32 29 19 10 10 39 73.5
10 59 SEMINOLE 4762 2013 316 26 30 21 10 13 44 82
10 60 SUMTER 490 1879 291 42 31 16 4 7 26 53.5
10 61 SUWANNEE 339 1893 294 41 32 16 4 7 27 54
10 62 TAYLOR 208 1853 286 48 30 12 4 5 22 45
10 63 UNION 141 1907 296 38 29 20 9 4 33 60.5
10 64 VOLUSIA 4672 1908 297 37 30 18 8 8 33 65
10 65 WAKULLA 318 1935 302 34 31 23 7 6 36 64.5
10 66 WALTON 466 1890 293 41 30 17 7 6 29 58
10 67 WASHINGTON 218 1887 293 38 33 20 3 7 29 56.5











APPENDIX D
FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST MATHEMATICS DATA 2005



FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 3

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean DevelMean Scale


Number


Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


203037
2090
368
1996
292
5119
21050
144
1209
1108
2392
3346
750
29880
389
132
10185
3208
733
91
499
227
104
135
165
441
514
1585
919
14708
263


1380
1398
1405
1393
1271
1452
1427
1494
1423
1427
1446
1363
1347
1345
1292
1348
1332
1332
1367
1241
1264
1404
1292
1385
1223
1345
1278
1411
1360
1362
1255


1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT


Achievement4ccountability
level 3 & up Score
68 110.5
69 114
73 118.5
70 114
55 85
78 127.5
73 122
85 140
76 122
77 121.5
77 125.5
66 107.5
65 105
63 102
57 89.5
61 108.5
62 100
63 101
70 109.5
57 84
53 81.5
76 114
59 87
70 109.5
48 78
63 101.5
57 87.5
75 118.5
66 108.5
64 106
54 83.5


17 34 25
16 32 25
17 36 28
16 34 28
20 35 17
13 35 31
14 33 28
8 34 36
14 37 28
15 40 28
15 36 30
19 34 24
20 37 24
18 33 22
23 36 17
19 25 30
20 34 21
18 34 22
17 41 25
18 37 15
25 37 14
16 44 27
20 39 16
13 37 24
24 32 15
19 34 23
21 35 18
15 39 28
17 34 25
18 33 23
25 37 15











FCAT 2005 Mathematics Grade 3 continued



3 31 INDIAN RIVER 1224 1442 331 10 15 32 30 12 75 123.5
3 32 JACKSON 536 1413 324 14 15 28 31 12 71 121.5
3 33 JEFFERSON 91 1171 272 36 24 31 5 3 40 59
3 34 LAFAYETTE 92 1372 316 16 16 30 27 10 67 112
3 35 LAKE 2751 1365 314 17 16 33 26 8 67 109
3 36 LEE 5598 1376 317 14 18 36 24 8 68 109
3 37 LEON 2433 1467 336 10 13 32 29 16 77 128.5
3 38 LEVY 483 1303 301 16 28 37 17 2 56 89
3 39 LIBERTY 80 1409 323 6 18 49 21 6 76 112
3 40 MADISON 179 1291 298 21 21 36 17 4 58 88.5
3 41 MANATEE 3146 1346 310 15 20 38 21 6 65 102
3 42 MARION 3071 1340 309 17 18 38 21 5 65 99
3 43 MARTIN 1237 1468 336 7 13 34 33 13 80 132.5
3 44 MONROE 621 1421 326 10 13 39 29 9 78 121.5
3 45 NASSAU 780 1452 333 8 12 38 33 10 81 130
3 46 OKALOOSA 2167 1502 344 5 10 35 35 14 85 138
3 47 OKEECHOBEE 563 1363 314 14 17 38 24 7 68 108.5
3 48 ORANGE 13713 1360 313 18 16 33 24 9 66 107
3 49 OSCEOLA 3672 1276 295 24 20 34 19 4 56 90
3 50 PALM BEACH 13393 1386 319 15 16 34 25 10 69 112
3 51 PASCO 4924 1324 305 17 20 39 20 4 63 97
3 52 PINELLAS 8312 1408 323 13 15 33 27 11 71 116.5
3 53 POLK 6842 1342 309 16 21 35 22 6 63 101.5
3 54 PUTNAM 920 1344 310 17 18 38 23 5 65 103
3 55 ST. JOHNS 1867 1474 338 9 12 32 33 14 79 132
3 56 ST. LUCIE 2618 1338 308 18 18 35 22 6 64 100
3 57 SANTA ROSA 1713 1496 342 5 11 35 36 13 84 138.5
3 58 SARASOTA 3223 1437 330 11 14 34 28 13 75 123
3 59 SEMINOLE 5006 1467 336 9 13 33 31 14 78 129.5
3 60 SUMTER 542 1379 317 13 18 36 26 6 68 109
3 61 SUWANNEE 375 1292 298 19 22 39 17 2 58 88
3 62 TAYLOR 252 1374 316 11 20 40 23 5 69 106
3 63 UNION 165 1480 339 9 6 36 35 14 85 137
3 64 VOLUSIA 4882 1410 324 12 15 34 28 11 73 119.5
3 65 WAKULLA 354 1485 340 6 12 36 34 13 82 136
3 66 WALTON 494 1373 316 14 18 38 21 8 68 105
3 67 WASHINGTON 258 1406 323 12 12 39 28 8 75 117











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNS HINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 4

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean DeveltMean Scale
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


4 0 STATEWIDE 195866


1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


1995
358
1828
250
5359
21331
161
1151
1107
2201
3217
742
26770
367
159
9452
3387
739
88
434
187
104
146
136
390
578
1502
882
14205
249


1509
1502
1452
1528
1406
1563
1542
1515
1517
1513
1557
1527
1422
1493
1490
1440
1479
1460
1492
1441
1400
1528
1388
1497
1422
1451
1457
1512
1476
1493
1456


2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT


21 38 21
21 30 21
24 31 16
21 40 22
33 34 10
17 39 26
19 37 23
16 49 18
21 40 22
24 41 21
19 42 24
18 38 22
30 38 11
22 38 19
21 40 18
25 30 14
22 38 18
23 37 16
23 41 18
35 39 6
31 33 10
19 44 24
34 29 10
27 39 15
34 34 11
25 42 15
23 43 13
20 41 20
22 40 18
23 36 19
29 39 16


Achievementkccountability
level 3 & up Score
64 102.5
59 98.5
52 85
67 104.5
44 72.5
72 115.5
69 108.5
71 101
66 102.5
65 101
72 113.5
67 105
50 77
61 97
62 94.5
48 78.5
60 93
57 88.5
62 94.5
49 78.5
44 70.5
71 107.5
42 74
60 92.5
46 75
58 88.5
58 84.5
66 101
61 91
60 95.5
56 85.5















FCAT 2005 Mathematics Grade 4 continued


4 31 INDIAN RIVER 1265 1545 320 11 18 39 25 7 71 112
4 32 JACKSON 486 1523 315 13 22 38 20 7 65 103
4 33 JEFFERSON 90 1266 257 49 27 22 1 1 24 39.5
4 34 LAFAYETTE 76 1606 334 7 17 33 30 13 76 127.5
4 35 LAKE 2775 1499 310 15 22 39 20 4 63 98
4 36 LEE 5296 1506 312 14 22 40 19 5 64 99
4 37 LEON 2240 1569 326 11 17 38 24 10 72 114.5
4 38 LEVY 284 1418 291 23 33 31 12 2 44 75.5
4 39 LIBERTY 83 1523 315 11 19 52 14 4 70 97.5
4 40 MADISON 212 1333 272 37 37 21 5 0 26 49.5
4 41 MANATEE 3192 1477 305 17 24 38 18 4 59 94
4 42 MARION 3093 1510 312 13 22 41 20 4 65 100
4 43 MARTIN 1260 1592 331 8 14 41 28 10 78 124
4 44 MONROE 580 1552 322 10 18 40 25 7 72 113
4 45 NASSAU 772 1532 317 10 21 41 24 4 69 107.5
4 46 OKALOOSA 2167 1611 335 6 14 38 33 10 80 131
4 47 OKEECHOBEE 492 1489 308 15 21 42 18 3 64 94.5
4 48 ORANGE 12987 1479 305 19 22 35 19 5 59 94
4 49 OSCEOLA 3565 1437 296 23 25 33 16 3 52 83.5
4 50 PALM BEACH 13043 1521 315 15 19 38 22 7 66 105.5
4 51 PASCO 4632 1469 303 18 26 37 16 3 56 88
4 52 PINELLAS 8302 1525 316 14 20 37 23 7 66 107
4 53 POLK 6448 1471 304 17 24 38 17 3 58 90
4 54 PUTNAM 918 1456 300 20 26 37 14 3 54 84
4 55 ST. JOHNS 1839 1591 331 7 15 40 30 9 78 125.5
4 56 ST. LUCIE 2696 1472 304 18 26 38 15 4 56 89
4 57 SANTA ROSA 1719 1585 330 7 16 40 30 7 77 122
4 58 SARASOTA 3142 1554 322 11 18 37 27 7 71 114
4 59 SEMINOLE 5006 1573 327 10 15 39 28 8 75 118.5
4 60 SUMTER 568 1525 316 13 20 39 23 5 67 105
4 61 SUWANNEE 410 1454 300 20 27 36 16 1 54 83.5
4 62 TAYLOR 229 1443 297 19 28 40 10 3 53 80
4 63 UNION 155 1492 308 17 21 40 18 4 62 94.5
4 64 VOLUSIA 4906 1518 314 14 19 39 23 5 67 104.5
4 65 WAKULLA 315 1565 325 8 13 47 27 5 79 117.5
4 66 WALTON 485 1521 315 13 21 40 20 6 66 102.5
4 67 WASHINGTON 243 1521 315 14 21 35 24 6 65 105.5











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 5

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Devel Mean Scale )
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


181434
1818
328
1971
236
5556
19378
155
1112
1102
2349
2646
690
22606
333
114
9007
2996
720
83
463
209
94
153
115
336
513
1422
843
13752
233


2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
Achievement4ccountability
level 3 & up Score


27 27 24
25 23 24
30 24 19
27 29 23
28 28 18
22 29 29
25 26 28
28 30 24
24 30 25
30 31 22
28 29 24
23 28 26
31 24 15
27 27 24
32 29 16
26 29 18
29 27 20
30 24 19
30 28 20
31 37 16
40 22 9
24 31 24
26 23 13
31 24 23
39 17 9
34 26 17
28 26 22
28 30 23
31 26 21
27 26 23
28 26 15


100.5
103.5
85
98.5
82
114
110.5
108
106
96
103
107.5
75.5
100.5
81
82
89.5
85
89
86.5
60
103
66
89.5
60.5
87
94
96
89.5
97.5
74















FCAT 2005 Mathematics Grade 5 continued


31 INDIAN RIVEF
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1124
468
79
75
2605
4915
2349
261
89
170
2878
2882
1288
623
732
2214
545
11846
3318
12000
3998
7567
6065
846
1796
2401
1791
2952
4845
518
403
221
155
4607
338
455
250


25 27 26
23 29 25
27 16 10
33 37 11
27 28 25
25 27 27
26 26 28
35 30 20
31 38 11
27 20 11
29 28 21
30 28 21
21 30 30
26 27 28
27 32 24
23 31 29
33 26 17
27 25 22
31 24 14
25 27 25
30 29 20
25 27 26
29 26 20
34 25 15
24 26 29
29 26 23
24 29 30
23 28 28
22 28 30
22 27 30
29 28 15
41 19 9
28 25 16
26 29 26
20 36 23
31 29 21
31 27 18


107.5
100.5
49.5
77.5
101.5
105.5
113
87.5
77.5
57.5
92.5
93
116.5
104
103.5
116.5
82.5
94.5
71.5
103.5
90
107.5
88.5
78
114
98.5
113
115.5
115
114
74.5
61.5
79
106
108
94.5
84.5












FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 6

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean Devel Mean Scale )
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


6 0 STATEWIDE 201550


1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENDRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


2131
361
1982
294
5525
20965
193
1339
1172
2622
3116
807
27173
354
166
10201
3385
778
127
512
195
110
172
145
385
574
1632
928
14428
263


1653
1643
1687
1667
1607
1775
1698
1674
1695
1656
1723
1652
1579
1600
1666
1524
1602
1583
1660
1669
1556
1667
1619
1709
1630
1587
1598
1639
1611
1661
1621


1 2 3 4


31 22 26 15
34 19 24 16
27 20 25 20
27 25 30 14
34 28 26 10
15 16 32 24
26 20 27 18
24 24 31 18
24 21 29 19
30 25 26 14
20 22 32 19
32 21 25 16
40 24 27 8
39 21 24 12
28 24 29 14
46 26 21 5
38 24 25 10
40 24 22 11
27 24 28 17
29 24 28 14
45 26 22 7
30 19 31 14
32 33 22 12
20 23 34 19
34 17 29 18
38 27 23 10
36 25 25 11
31 25 26 15
33 25 28 11
31 22 26 15
34 25 25 12


5 Percent in FCAT
Achievement4ccountability


level 3 & up
47
47
53
48
38
69
54
52
55
45
58
47
36
40
48
28
38
36
48
47
29
50
35
57
50
35
39
44
43
47
41


Score
79
79.5
91
78.5
66
114
91
87
89.5
76.5
97
79.5
57
66.5
79
48
63
62
82
78
49
78.5
66.5
91.5
79.5
60.5
65.5
74.5
70.5
79
69.5













FCAT 2005 Mathematics Grade 6 continued


6 31 INDIANRIVER 1263 1666 308 30 21 26 16 7 49 82.5
6 32 JACKSON 587 1614 296 35 24 26 12 3 41 68
6 33 JEFFERSON 84 1482 265 57 26 13 4 0 17 34
6 34 LAFAYETTE 77 1594 291 38 23 31 8 0 39 58.5
6 35 LAKE 2756 1660 307 28 23 30 14 4 49 77.5
6 36 LEE 5446 1652 305 30 24 27 14 5 46 77
6 37 LEON 2462 1706 318 23 21 29 18 8 55 91.5
6 38 LEVY 546 1579 288 38 24 27 9 2 38 61
6 39 LIBERTY 105 1599 293 34 26 30 10 1 40 65
6 40 MADISON 178 1507 271 54 21 17 7 1 25 43.5
6 41 MANATEE 3061 1643 303 31 23 29 13 4 46 74.5
6 42 MARION 3125 1633 301 32 24 27 13 3 44 71
6 43 MARTIN 1335 1732 323 20 19 28 23 10 61 103.5
6 44 MONROE 679 1676 310 24 24 33 15 4 52 83
6 45 NASSAU 817 1685 312 23 26 34 14 2 50 79
6 46 OKALOOSA 2341 1754 328 17 21 29 24 10 62 107.5
6 47 OKEECHOBEE 566 1621 298 32 27 28 9 3 40 65.5
6 48 ORANGE 13466 1642 303 33 22 26 14 6 46 77
6 49 OSCEOLA 3598 1580 288 41 23 24 10 2 36 59.5
6 50 PALM BEACH 13269 1672 310 28 23 27 15 7 49 82.5
6 51 PASCO 4660 1629 300 34 26 26 11 3 40 67
6 52 PINELLAS 8315 1659 307 31 22 26 16 6 47 81
6 53 POLK 6633 1587 290 41 24 23 10 3 36 61
6 54 PUTNAM 976 1608 295 35 25 28 9 3 40 64.5
6 55 ST. JOHNS 1922 1722 321 24 18 27 22 10 58 100
6 56 ST. LUCIE 2747 1625 299 36 23 25 13 4 41 70.5
6 57 SANTA ROSA 1970 1729 323 20 20 32 20 8 60 98
6 58 SARASOTA 3230 1676 311 29 22 26 16 8 49 85
6 59 SEMINOLE 5170 1731 323 20 21 29 21 9 59 99.5
6 60 SUMTER 579 1684 312 26 19 30 15 9 55 87.5
6 61 SUWANNEE 442 1617 297 36 27 23 11 3 37 64.5
6 62 TAYLOR 266 1627 299 31 23 32 11 3 46 71.5
6 63 UNION 169 1649 304 28 23 33 12 3 49 74.5
6 64 VOLUSIA 4904 1660 307 27 24 31 14 4 49 79
6 65 WAKULLA 388 1703 317 23 21 34 16 6 56 88.5
6 66 WALTON 548 1589 290 39 25 24 10 1 35 58.5
6 67 WASHINGTON 258 1674 310 24 26 32 15 4 51 83











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVEASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 7

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean DevelMean Scale )
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


7 0 STATEWIDE 202361


1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


2089
375
2046
283
5879
21132
178
1386
1297
2624
3146
836
27765
319
150
9739
3569
794
96
503
222
104
178
163
426
604
1712
923
14337
265


1778
1768
1751
1794
1698
1856
1817
1817
1833
1772
1806
1779
1730
1726
1733
1748
1754
1709
1761
1700
1662
1805
1685
1799
1632
1719
1705
1751
1760
1790
1782


2 3 4 5 Percent in


26 22 28 17
30 19 22 17
29 20 29 17
23 22 31 17
36 24 26 11
15 17 32 24
21 21 28 19
17 22 36 19
20 16 30 22
24 24 32 15
20 24 31 17
25 21 28 18
29 26 29 12
34 22 26 13
31 24 29 12
26 30 29 10
29 23 28 15
34 25 25 12
24 27 32 12
32 22 36 7
42 28 24 5
16 27 30 19
38 30 26 6
17 29 34 16
52 17 20 10
33 23 27 15
35 25 27 10
27 25 30 13
25 20 35 14
25 22 28 17
27 22 28 18


FCAT


AchievementAccountability
level 3 & up Score
53 89
51 87.5
51 85
55 90
40 66
68 112.5
58 98.5
61 99
64 106
52 84
56 93
54 90.5
45 74
44 73
45 71
44 74
48 79.5
41 67.5
50 79.5
46 65
30 50
57 99.5
32 53
53 86.5
31 50.5
45 74.5
40 65.5
48 76.5
54 83
53 91
51 87















FCAT 2005 Mathematics Grade 7 continued


31 INDIAN RIVER
32 JACKSON
33 JEFFERSON
34 LAFAYETTE
35 LAKE
36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTA ROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 VOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASHINGTON


1327
595
81
78
2817
5489
2394
506
94
216
3015
3150
1428
654
839
2315
539
12628
3714
13206
4625
8524
6611
902
1878
2780
2047
3263
5223
606
449
246
195
5092
392
525
293


1807
1756
1701
1738
1779
1775
1830
1756
1787
1676
1770
1765
1851
1785
1813
1884
1734
1777
1713
1793
1772
1783
1711
1738
1845
1749
1851
1811
1851
1798
1763
1779
1758
1780
1848
1772
1755


22 20 28 19
25 27 31 14
32 33 25 10
28 18 33 15
23 22 32 17
24 23 31 16
18 22 28 21
25 25 34 13
15 34 35 12
41 26 25 6
25 24 30 17
24 24 30 16
17 17 28 24
23 22 33 17
19 21 33 20
10 19 34 24
30 24 30 11
26 21 28 17
34 25 26 12
24 21 28 18
25 25 30 14
26 21 27 17
35 24 26 12
29 22 30 14
17 18 30 23
29 23 30 13
15 18 33 23
22 21 27 18
16 19 30 23
21 22 29 21
27 24 28 15
25 23 34 11
29 19 29 17
24 22 32 16
17 17 35 21
23 27 31 15
26 22 31 16


98
78.5
61.5
82
89
86.5
103
78.5
84
52
86
86
112.5
88
97.5
119.5
74
88.5
68.5
92.5
82.5
87.5
68
79
109
77.5
110
95.5
111.5
98
82
81.5
84.5
87
105.5
82.5
84











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNS HINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 8

MATHEMATICS


Grade District District Name Number of Mean DevelMean Scale ) 1
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


0 STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 MIAMI-DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


201488
2181
361
2050
302
5787
21003
166
1448
1297
2627
3216
755
28393
344
154
9222
3416
829
98
468
201
103
203
147
391
589
1676
923
14029
274


2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT


32 15
25 14
37 16
36 15
32 14
35 21
30 17
33 22
34 19
35 18
34 18
31 16
36 12
29 12
32 13
38 14
31 14
31 12
36 17
42 4
26 5
29 19
36 5
45 12
25 7
31 11
30 11
34 15
33 14
33 16
31 24


AchievemenAccountability
level 3 & up Score
59 94
56 95.5
59 92.5
S 60 97
51 82
73 117
63 103
63 107.5
69 112.5
60 96.5
S 64 106
59 96
54 83.5
49 79.5
50 78
S 55 83.5
54 88
48 77
62 96.5
50 68
31 51
65 111.5
45 68
59 84
34 51
49 78.5
45 70.5
55 89.5
58 93.5
S 62 101
69 113













FCAT 2005 Mathematics Grade 8 continued



8 31 INDIAN RIVEF 1262 1878 316 20 19 33 18 11 62 100.5
8 32 JACKSON 537 1850 309 19 24 36 14 7 57 90
8 33 JEFFERSON 81 1732 279 44 26 21 2 6 30 50
8 34 LAFAYETTE 83 1833 304 20 28 33 8 11 52 85
8 35 LAKE 2665 1867 313 19 22 35 15 9 59 94
8 36 LEE 5171 1863 312 21 20 34 15 10 59 94
8 37 LEON 2163 1927 328 13 16 33 21 17 71 117
8 38 LEVY 512 1839 306 24 21 34 15 5 55 84.5
8 39 LIBERTY 78 1881 317 17 14 41 19 9 69 104
8 40 MADISON 217 1755 285 37 24 24 10 5 39 66
8 41 MANATEE 2993 1859 311 20 22 35 15 8 58 92
8 42 MARION 3270 1858 311 20 21 36 15 9 60 94.5
8 43 MARTIN 1421 1918 326 15 15 33 21 16 70 114.5
8 44 MONROE 687 1883 317 17 20 35 18 10 63 101
8 45 NASSAU 899 1900 321 15 20 36 16 13 65 104
8 46 OKALOOSA 2259 1981 342 6 12 36 24 23 82 136
8 47 OKEECHOBEE 529 1824 302 24 27 32 14 3 49 79.5
8 48 ORANGE 13166 1855 310 24 19 30 16 11 57 93.5
8 49 OSCEOLA 3676 1809 299 29 23 32 12 5 49 77.5
8 50 PALM BEACH 13119 1884 317 19 19 32 16 14 62 101.5
8 51 PASCO 4730 1851 309 22 23 34 13 8 55 87.5
8 52 PINELLAS 8761 1873 315 21 20 32 16 11 60 96
8 53 POLK 6337 1820 301 28 22 30 12 8 50 81
8 54 PUTNAM 979 1821 302 27 22 30 15 6 50 83
8 55 ST. JOHNS 1901 1948 334 10 14 35 23 18 76 124
8 56 ST. LUCIE 2740 1839 306 25 21 33 14 7 54 85.5
8 57 SANTAROSA 2008 1938 331 11 14 36 21 18 75 121
8 58 SARASOTA 3152 1904 323 17 17 34 17 15 66 106.5
8 59 SEMINOLE 5289 1921 327 13 16 35 19 16 70 113
8 60 SUMTER 581 1824 302 24 22 34 13 8 54 87
8 61 SUWANNEE 432 1841 307 27 17 34 16 6 56 86.5
8 62 TAYLOR 239 1881 317 16 21 41 16 6 63 95.5
8 63 UNION 157 1847 308 22 21 27 23 8 57 99.5
8 64 VOLUSIA 5112 1852 309 20 23 35 15 7 57 90.5
8 65 WAKULLA 360 1904 323 16 15 36 19 14 69 109.5
8 66 WALTON 534 1871 314 16 21 38 18 6 63 96.5
8 67 WASHINGTOI\ 269 1864 312 20 16 41 15 7 63 93











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 9

MATHEMATICS

Grade District District Name Number of Mean Devel Mean Scale ) 1 2 3 4 5 Percent in FCAT
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500) Achievementxccountability
(0-3000) level 3 & up Score
9 0 STATEWIDE 214360 1918 300 20 21 30 20 9 59 98.5
9 1 ALACHUA 2394 1932 305 21 19 23 21 16 60 106.5
9 2 BAKER 403 1886 291 24 22 32 18 4 54 87
9 3 BAY 2185 1937 306 15 21 34 21 9 64 104.5
9 4 BRADFORD 291 1866 285 27 23 30 15 4 49 79.5
9 5 BREVARD 6169 1991 322 9 17 32 27 16 75 126.5
9 6 BROWARD 21434 1935 305 18 21 30 21 11 62 104.5
9 7 CALHOUN 186 1956 312 14 20 35 20 11 66 107
9 8 CHARLOTTE 1535 1962 313 13 18 34 25 11 70 115
9 9 CITRUS 1320 1931 304 15 21 34 22 8 64 104.5
9 10 CLAY 2666 1962 313 11 18 35 25 10 70 114
9 11 COLLIER 3412 1918 300 21 20 30 19 10 59 98
9 12 COLUMBIA 837 1881 289 24 24 31 16 5 52 85
9 13 MIAMI-DADE 30498 1870 286 28 24 27 15 6 48 81
9 14 DESOTO 343 1856 282 29 24 31 14 2 47 75
9 15 DIXIE 186 1877 288 23 26 34 14 3 52 81
9 16 DUVAL 10405 1902 296 23 21 29 19 8 56 93.5
9 17 ESCAMBIA 3448 1878 288 26 23 28 17 6 51 85.5
9 18 FLAGLER 874 1951 310 14 20 35 22 9 66 107
9 19 FRANKLIN 102 1810 269 38 21 28 11 2 41 64.5
9 20 GADSDEN 374 1839 277 29 33 27 9 2 38 65.5
9 21 GILCHRIST 220 1950 310 12 16 39 23 10 71 113
9 22 GLADES 76 1858 283 29 28 25 17 1 43 75
9 23 GULF 218 1935 305 17 21 32 22 9 62 104.5
9 24 HAMILTON 180 1809 268 41 23 29 5 3 37 56.5
9 25 HARDEE 351 1882 290 24 27 30 14 5 49 81.5
9 26 HENDRY 609 1871 286 27 23 31 15 4 50 80.5
9 27 HERNANDO 1805 1892 293 20 26 33 16 4 53 86
9 28 HIGHLANDS 1114 1893 293 22 23 33 16 6 55 88.5
9 29 HILLSBOROUGH 13348 1953 311 13 21 31 23 11 66 109.5
9 30 HOLMES 267 1931 304 13 23 34 24 6 64 105.5















FCAT 2005 Mathematics Grade 9 continued


9 31 INDIAN RIVER 1480 1937 306 17 22 31 20 10 62 102
9 32 JACKSON 570 1934 305 16 21 32 25 6 63 104.5
9 33 JEFFERSON 110 1814 270 32 37 25 6 0 31 55.5
9 34 LAFAYETTE 83 1926 303 19 19 31 28 2 61 100.5
9 35 LAKE 2865 1908 297 20 23 30 20 7 57 95.5
9 36 LEE 5656 1917 300 19 22 32 19 8 59 97
9 37 LEON 2606 1965 314 12 20 31 25 12 68 115
9 38 LEVY 514 1885 290 25 22 31 18 5 54 88
9 39 LIBERTY 85 1922 302 15 22 36 24 2 62 99
9 40 MADISON 234 1831 275 35 29 22 9 5 36 64.5
9 41 MANATEE 3108 1911 298 20 23 30 19 9 57 97.5
9 42 MARION 3311 1917 300 19 21 31 21 7 60 97.5
9 43 MARTIN 1639 1961 313 13 15 32 28 11 72 117.5
9 44 MONROE 715 1939 306 16 17 34 24 9 67 108.5
9 45 NASSAU 883 1952 310 12 19 36 22 10 68 109.5
9 46 OKALOOSA 2533 1989 321 9 17 32 28 15 75 126.5
9 47 OKEECHOBEE 524 1886 291 26 19 30 20 5 56 89.5
9 48 ORANGE 13778 1904 296 24 21 27 19 10 56 95.5
9 49 OSCEOLA 4263 1874 287 26 25 29 15 5 49 81.5
9 50 PALM BEACH 15210 1925 303 20 20 29 20 11 60 101
9 51 PASCO 5173 1908 297 19 24 31 19 7 57 95
9 52 PINELLAS 9939 1918 300 21 20 29 20 9 58 97
9 53 POLK 6612 1875 288 27 24 27 16 6 49 83
9 54 PUTNAM 909 1896 294 23 23 31 17 7 54 90.5
9 55 ST. JOHNS 2067 1990 322 10 15 32 28 16 75 127.5
9 56 ST. LUCIE 2703 1907 297 20 25 30 18 7 55 92.5
9 57 SANTA ROSA 2072 1982 319 9 15 34 28 14 75 125.5
9 58 SARASOTA 3456 1958 312 15 19 30 24 13 67 113.5
9 59 SEMINOLE 5738 1970 316 13 18 30 26 14 69 119
9 60 SUMTER 562 1923 302 19 19 28 24 10 62 105.5
9 61 SUWANNEE 493 1891 292 24 20 32 19 4 56 88
9 62 TAYLOR 228 1903 296 18 29 31 20 3 54 91.5
9 63 UNION 168 1881 289 23 30 27 14 6 48 82
9 64 VOLUSIA 5171 1915 299 19 21 33 20 8 60 99.5
9 65 WAKULLA 429 1913 299 20 21 34 19 7 59 96.5
9 66 WALTON 532 1926 303 16 22 33 22 7 61 102
9 67 WASHINGTOI\ 287 1949 309 13 20 33 26 8 68 111


200











FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005
SUNS HINE STATE STANDARDS
Grade Report of District Results
Grade 10

MATHEMATICS

Grade District District Name Number of Mean Develoi Mean Scale ) 1 2 3 4
Number Students Scale Score Score (0-500)
(0-3000)


STATEWIDE
1 ALACHUA
2 BAKER
3 BAY
4 BRADFORD
5 BREVARD
6 BROWARD
7 CALHOUN
8 CHARLOTTE
9 CITRUS
10 CLAY
11 COLLIER
12 COLUMBIA
13 DADE
14 DESOTO
15 DIXIE
16 DUVAL
17 ESCAMBIA
18 FLAGLER
19 FRANKLIN
20 GADSDEN
21 GILCHRIST
22 GLADES
23 GULF
24 HAMILTON
25 HARDEE
26 HENDRY
27 HERNANDO
28 HIGHLANDS
29 HILLSBOROUGH
30 HOLMES


178530
2225
275
1867
255
5520
19067
141
1332
1085
2429
2748
571
26378
303
149
7105
2862
682
95
310
193
67
156
103
325
568
1483
727
11813
250


1979
1980
1963
2003
1917
2036
1977
2031
2003
1999
2006
1979
1947
1935
1951
1916
1983
1941
2006
1891
1896
2022
1907
2002
1870
1956
1897
1968
1985
2001
1974


322 15 22 27 28
322 17 19 23 29
318 15 21 35 25
328 11 21 28 32
307 22 27 31 19
336 7 17 28 36
321 15 22 28 27
335 11 15 26 38
328 11 19 29 34
327 10 22 29 31
329 11 20 28 33
322 14 23 29 27
314 17 25 29 23
311 22 24 27 22
315 16 25 34 22
307 21 31 27 18
323 14 21 29 30
313 20 23 26 25
329 11 20 30 33
301 26 37 21 15
302 22 35 31 12
333 9 13 31 38
304 30 19 30 21
328 9 18 37 29
295 28 25 24 19
316 14 26 33 25
302 26 34 23 16
319 14 24 31 27
324 13 20 33 29
327 12 21 27 31
321 14 22 29 28


5 Percent in FCAT
Achievement accountability
level 3 & up Score
8 63 110
3 64 116.5
4 63 103.5
8 68 118.5
2 51 86.5
3 76 134.5
8 63 109
1 74 131.5
7 70 120.5
8 67 118
9 69 122
8 63 110.5
5 58 97.5
5 54 93
2 59 94.5
3 48 84.5
7 66 113.5
6 57 99.5
7 70 120
1 37 71.5
0 43 72.5
9 78 131.5
0 51 81.5
8 73 120
3 47 80.5
2 60 100
2 40 76
4 62 105
6 68 113
9 68 117.5
7 64 110














FCAT 2005 Mathematics Grade 10 continued



10 31 INDIANRIVER 1128 2003 328 11 21 26 34 8 67 120.5
10 32 JACKSON 477 1973 321 15 19 32 30 4 66 109.5
10 33 JEFFERSON 76 1903 303 28 34 29 8 1 38 64
10 34 LAFAYETTE 65 1985 323 11 14 38 34 3 75 119
10 35 LAKE 2582 1954 316 18 23 28 26 4 59 99.5
10 36 LEE 4510 1974 321 14 24 29 27 6 62 107
10 37 LEON 1917 2041 337 6 16 30 34 14 78 134
10 38 LEVY 408 1962 318 15 26 30 23 6 58 101
10 39 LIBERTY 70 1983 323 13 23 41 20 3 64 98.5
10 40 MADISON 224 1822 284 37 25 25 13 0 38 63.5
10 41 MANATEE 2756 1956 316 18 25 25 25 7 58 101.5
10 42 MARION 2941 1974 321 14 22 29 29 6 64 110
10 43 MARTIN 1266 2039 337 7 14 30 36 13 79 135
10 44 MONROE 598 2021 332 9 18 26 37 10 73 129
10 45 NASSAU 740 2019 332 6 19 35 33 7 74 124.5
10 46 OKALOOSA 2198 2048 339 6 15 27 39 13 79 138.5
10 47 OKEECHOBEE 478 1944 314 17 24 29 27 3 59 101
10 48 ORANGE 12270 1958 317 19 22 25 26 8 58 104
10 49 OSCEOLA 2780 1941 313 19 24 27 26 4 57 99
10 50 PALM BEACH 10897 2013 330 11 18 27 34 11 71 126
10 51 PASCO 3725 1975 321 14 23 29 27 6 62 106.5
10 52 PINELLAS 8118 2002 328 12 21 28 30 10 67 118.5
10 53 POLK 5503 1941 313 20 25 28 23 5 55 96.5
10 54 PUTNAM 750 1943 313 20 27 24 26 3 54 95.5
10 55 ST. JOHNS 1874 2030 334 8 17 28 34 13 75 130.5
10 56 ST. LUCIE 2361 1944 314 20 25 27 23 4 54 93.5
10 57 SANTA ROSA 1800 2030 334 7 16 29 38 10 77 133
10 58 SARASOTA 2965 2012 330 11 19 27 32 11 70 122.5
10 59 SEMINOLE 4756 2044 338 8 16 24 38 14 76 136
10 60 SUMTER 490 1968 319 13 26 29 27 6 61 108
10 61 SUWANNEE 337 1974 321 12 25 29 26 8 63 109.5
10 62 TAYLOR 208 1941 313 19 33 23 21 4 48 89.5
10 63 UNION 140 1976 321 16 21 32 26 4 63 102.5
10 64 VOLUSIA 4658 1972 320 15 22 28 27 8 63 109
10 65 WAKULLA 319 1978 322 14 19 36 26 5 66 107.5
10 66 WALTON 465 1955 316 15 26 35 23 2 60 98
10 67 WASHINGTON 215 1955 316 14 26 28 30 2 60 105


202













APPENDIX E
GINI COEFFICIENT DATA 2006


Gini Coefficient Data 2006


District District
Number Name


Cumulative 2006
UFTE UFTE/ Total UFTE UFTE /Total UFTE Total Funding


Cumulative
Total Funding / Total Funding
Total Amount iTotal Amount of Funds


ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
MIAMI-DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGI
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LAFAYETTE
LAKE


28238
4718
26947
3575
74040
267152
2235
17445
15512
34198
42774
10133
358141
4999
2120
127217
42668
10973
1291
6099
2769
1282
2133
1890
5045
7507
21572
12083
190604
3356
16942
7212
1190
1056
37456


1.073110039
0.179295034
1.02404902
0.135858361
2.813693155
10.15240078
0.084935227
0.662950798
0.589492277
1.299603978
1.625512034
0.385077698
13.61019557
0.189973691
0.080564958
4.834543518
1.621483786
0.416999662
0.049061019
0.231776264
0.105228476
0.048718998
0.081058988
0.07182442
0.191721799
0.285283556
0.81978645
0.459182258
7.243397759
0.127535849
0.643835622
0.274072866
0.045222783
0.04013047
1.423415597


1.073110039
1.252405073
2.276454093
2.412312454
5.226005608
15.37840639
15.46334161
16.12629241
16.71578469
18.01538867
19.6409007
20.0259784
33.63617397
33.82614766
33.90671262
38.74125614
40.36273992
40.77973959
40.8288006
41.06057687
41.16580534
41.21452434
41.29558333
41.36740775
41.55912955
41.84441311
42.66419955
43.12338181
50.36677957
50.49431542
51.13815104
51.41222391
51.45744669
51.49757716
52.92099276


171620939
27779236
159429155
22132742
447356808
1656157382
14215995
106405856
93771977
201700323
293252178
60420851
2266541299
30353300
13143869
767702857
250385846
65185171
8849694
38338975
17753576
7955336
13383350
11607164
29441875
45395387
124467665
71399514
1161928183
19966229
103305499
44028020
8483905
6329156
217918633


1.06
0.17
0.98
0.14
2.76
10.22
0.09
0.66
0.58
1.25
1.81
0.37
13.99
0.19
0.08
4.74
1.55
0.40
0.05
0.24
0.11
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.18
0.28
0.77
0.44
7.17
0.12
0.64
0.27
0.05
0.04
1.35


1.06
1.230940199
2.215130688
2.351760868
5.113390733
15.33720672
15.42496512
16.08183137
16.66070597
17.90584548
19.71615429
20.08914521
34.0809925
34.26836995
34.34950988
39.08870486
40.63439058
41.03679267
41.09142374
41.32809848
41.43769513
41.48680513
41.56942343
41.64107695
41.82282798
42.10306348
42.87142916
43.31219373
50.4850265
50.60828233
51.24600941
51.51780385
51.57017682
51.60924806
52.95450669


203













Gini Coefficient Data 2006


District
Name


LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
MADISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
OKALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
POLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTA ROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SUMTER
SUWANNEE
TAYLOR
UNION
VOLUSIA
WAKULLA
WALT ON
WASHING ON


Cumulative
UFTE UFTE/ Total UFTE UFTE / Total UFT E


74708
32057
6166
1407
3029
41938
41462
17736
8328
10738
30702
7274
173643
49175
172597
62085
111425
88807
11890
25573
36043
24634
41898
66950
7205
5783
3040
2214
65235
4845
6704
3554


2.839078717
1.218240971
0.23432242
0.053469291
0.115109084
1.593742079
1.575652966
0.674009479
0.316483476
0.408069113
1.166747802
0.276429011
6.598840093
1.868765004
6.559089646
2.359375196
4.234410586
3.37487369
0.451847807
0.971833807
1.369718292
0.936149611
1.592221985
2.544256574
0.27380685
0.219767524
0.11552711
0.084137178
2.479082563
0.184121331
0.254767678
0.135060312


55.76007147
56.97831245
57.21263487
57.26610416
57.38121324
58.97495532
60.55060828
61.22461776
61.54110124
61.94917035
63.11591815
63.39234717
69.99118726
71.85995226
78.41904191
80.7784171
85.01282769
88.38770138
88.83954919
89.81138299
91.18110128
92.1172509
93.70947288
96.25372945
96.5275363
96.74730383
96.86283094
96.94696812
99.42605068
99.61017201
99.86493969
100


District
Number


Cumulative
Total Funding Total Funding/
Total Amount Total Amount of Funds


2006
Total Funding



476486137
199113064
37822997
9135047
18950430
251682202
245265993
114356173
61751692
64796327
183388931
42735072
1064682357
293297409
1111774375
377784082
697619081
527081015
70813098
154200626
214640764
143848360
271044665
395863007
42478411
32792027
18327983
13230817
393511406
29675357
41568020
21189116


204


55.89595817
7.32305594
57.35861548
57.41500809
57.53199317
59.08568157
60.59976134
61.30570661
61.6869131
62.08691477
63.21901411
63.48282691
70.05534026
71.8659283
78.72915081
81.06129326
85.36784601
88.62163056
89.05877506
90.01068871
91.33571235
92.22371923
93.89693629
96.34068384
96.60291221
96.80534445
96.91848704
97.00016372
99.42939433
99.61258669
99.86919503
100













APPENDIX F
GINI COEFFICIENT DATA 2005






Gini Coefficient Data 2005


District District
Number Name


ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
MIAMI-DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LAFAYETTE
LAKE


Cumulative
UFIE UFTE/ Total UFTE UFTE / Total UFTE


28192
4626
26496
3657
73452
269041
2282
17229
15437
32235
41587
9805
362253
5050
2057
127747
43083
9626
1315
6085
2740
1249
2140
1938
5096
7566
20381
11991
185687
3322
16729
7064
1322
1038
35382


1.083633755
0.177812491
1.01844353
0.140566425
2.823321035
10.34129928
0.087714679
0.662241983
0.593361744
1.239037107
1.598505852
0.376880994
13.92414794
0.194110048
0.079066212
4.91029233
1.656008552
0.370000657
0.050545488
0.233892998
0.105319115
0.048008604
0.082256535
0.074492133
0.195878179
0.290819133
0.783397402
0.46090566
7.137368798
0.127689818
0.643023166
0.271523441
0.050814551
0.039898263
1.360000338


1.083633755
1.261446247
2.279889776
2.420456201
5.243777235
15.58507651
15.67279119
16.33503317
16.92839492
18.16743202
19.76593788
20.14281887
34.06696681
34.26107686
34.34014307
39.2504354
40.90644395
41.27644461
41.3269901
41.5608831
41.66620221
41.71421082
41.79646735
41.87095948
42.06683766
42.3576568
43.1410542
43.60195986
50.73932866
50.86701847
51.51004164
51.78156508
51.83237963
51.87227789
53.23227823


2005
Total Funding



160367164
24764686
145732517
20698064
416316943
1566747539
12956209
98837118
86826223
176095792
265142173
54219227
2172057536
28240967
11977081
709844763
234363819
53556941
8115187
36216510
16006694
7066948
12432785
11156568
27395632
42394198
109230402
66117350
1057630079
18430564
94750465
40023274
8387323
5703667
191577342


Cumulative
Total Funding/ Total Funding
Total Amount of Funds Total Amount of Funds


1.07
1.235549357
2.208151951
2.346288526
5.124741457
15.58104011
15.66750841
16.32713633
16.90660488
18.08184859
19.85137793
20.21323102
34.70930121
34.89777828
34.97771198
39.7151369
41.27925494
41.636688
41.69084786
41.93255281
42.03937971
42.08654373
42.16951875
42.24397645
42.42681185
42.709746
43.43873755
43.87999738
50.93850278
51.06150632
51.69386037
51.96097125
52.01694731
52.05501295
53.3335788


205















Cni Coefficient Data 2005


District District
Number Name



36 LEE
37 LEON
38 LEVY
39 LIBERTY
40 MADISON
41 MANATEE
42 MARION
43 MARTIN
44 MONROE
45 NASSAU
46 OKALOOSA
47 OKEECHOBEE
48 ORANGE
49 OSCEOLA
50 PALM BEACH
51 PASCO
52 PINELLAS
53 POLK
54 PUTNAM
55 ST. JOHNS
56 ST. LUCIE
57 SANTAROSA
58 SARASOTA
59 SEMINOLE
60 SUMTER
61 SUWANNEE
62 TAYLOR
63 UNION
64 WOLUSIA
65 WAKULLA
66 WALTON
67 WASINGT ON


Cmuulative 2005
UFIE UFIE/ Total UFIE UFTE/ Total UFTE Total Funding Total Funding/


70422 2.706855006
31736 1.219856728
6137 0.235891755
1345 0.051698617
3145 0.120886356
40808 1.568562936
40640 1.562105414
17657 0.67869329
8511 0.327142696
10599 0.407400474
30833 1.185147545
7230 0.277904088
171238 6.581983436
46891 1.802379059
172257 6.621151384
59531 2.288230743
112284 4.315931207
85669 3.2929136
12029 0.46236629
24121 0.927154151
34503 1.326213659
24425 0.938839191
41315 1.588050816
66141 2.542303498
7006 0.269294058
5644 0.216942002
3161 0.121501359
2168 0.083332789
64609 2.483417044
4765 0.183155322
6436 0.247384607
3461 0.133032649


55.93913324
57.15898997
57.39488172
57.44658034
57.56746669
59.13602963
60.69813504
61.37682833
61.70397103
62.1113715
63.29651905
63.57442314
70.15640657
71.95878563
78.57993702
80.86816776
85.18409897
88.47701257
88.93937886
89.86653301
91.19274666
92.13158586
93.71963667
96.26194017
96.53123423
96.74817623
96.86967759
96.95301038
99.43642742
99.61958274
99.86696735


418962175
185127074
34865908
8291915
18015122
233567928
225196834
106162813
59030053
58815526
170867305
39738077
977536504
256830696
1043669211
338517627
659228875
469402752
66040147
135457439
192095586
132296408
251495617
364140270
38372053
29840001
17840547
11707340
366685468
27094201
36363151


100 19133696


206


Cumulative
Total Funding/


Total Amount of Funds Total Amount of Funds


56.12968571
7.340880297
57.59789438
57.6532337
57.77346462
59.33227097
60.83520957
61.54372836
61.93768837
62.33021664
63.47056601
63.73577351
70.25974331
71.97380279
78.93913491
81.19836387
85.59798399
88.7307257
89.17147029
90.07549816
91.35752271
92.24045421
93.91890796
96.34913959
96.6052304
96.80437924
96.92344506
97.00157855
99.44879654
99.62962022
99.87230384









LIST OF REFERENCES


Public School Finance

Adams, Charles F. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company, 1854.

Berne, R. and L. Stiefel. 1999. "Concepts of school finance: 1970 to the present." In Equity and
adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives, eds. H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and
J.S. Hansen, 7-33. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Berne, R. and L. Stiefel. 1984. The Measurement of equity in school finance -conceptual,
methodological, and empirical dimensions. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Clune, W.H. 1993. "The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance." The World & I
8:389-405. Also published in 1994. EducationalPolicy 8 :376-394.

Cubberley, E.P. 1906. School funds and their apportionment. New York: Columbia Teachers
College.

Dewey, John. 1907. "The School and Social Progress." In School and Society, 19-44. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, James. 2006. The 2005 price level index. Gainesville, FL: Bureau of Economic
Business Research.

Duncombe, W. 2002. Estimating the cost of an educational adequacy: A comparison of
approaches. Faculty Working Paper 44, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of
Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, NY.

Duncombe, W. D. & J.M. Yinger. 1999. "Performance standards and educational cost indexes:
You can't have one without the other." Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues
and perspectives, eds. H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and J.S. Hansen, 260-297. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 3 mllthem/t'l/ii \ Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 3 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 4 mllthemt'li/ii \ Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org


207










Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 4 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 5 millitihUt/iii Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 5 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 6 millitihUt/iii Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 6 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 7 lmit/iheItiiL \ Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 7 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 8 miti/ih1t/niLc Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 8 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 9 miiti/he1tniLc Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 9 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org


208









Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 10 mllt1hemiitiL \ Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 10 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2005.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 3 illithem,'t/ii \ Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 3 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 4 illithem,'t/ii \ Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 4 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 5 mltheml'iitiL \ Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 5 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 6 mllithem1iitiL \ Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 6 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 7 llt'hem,11tiL \% Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org


209









Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 7 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 8 mlti/hei'lit/ii Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 8 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 9 mlti/hlt'lit/ii Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 9 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 10 mllitheUitI'uiL Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District
Scores, Grade 10 reading. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006.
http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Florida Education Finance Program. Tallahassee, FL:
Florida Department of Education. 2005. http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Fundingfor Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical
Report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2006. http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Fundingfor Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical
Report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 2007. http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Sunshine State Standards. Tallahassee, FL: Florida
Department of Education. 2005. http://fcat.fldoe.org

Florida Department of Education. Understanding FCAT reports 2005. Tallahassee, FL: Florida
Department of Education. 2005. http://fcat.fldoe.org


210









Florida Statutes:


FLA. STAT. 236.012 (1)(2000).

FLA. STAT. 1000.21 (7) (2005).

FLA. STAT. 1001.30 (2005).

FLA. STAT. 1008.22 (2005).

FLA. STAT. 1011.60 (2005).

FLA. STAT. 1011.61 (2005).

FLA. STAT. 1011.62 (2005).

FLA. STAT. 1011.71 (2005).

Fowler, W. J., D. Monk, L. Petemick, and B. Smerdon. See US Department of Education.

Griffith, M. & M. Burke. 2005. School Funding Adequacy Cases. ECS, (February
2005).http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/59/07/5907.htm (retrieved August 5, 2007).


Guthrie, J.W. 2001. Constructing new finance models that balance equity, adequacy, and
efficiency i/ ith responsiveness. Denver, CO: The Education Commission of the States
(ECS).

Guthrie, J.W. & R. Rothstein. 1999. "Enabling "adequacy" to achieve reality: Translating
adequacy into state school finance distribution arrangements." In Equity and adequacy in
education finance: Issues and perspectives, eds. H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and J.S. Hansen,
209-259. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Hanushek, E. A. 2006. The alchemy of 'costing out' an adequate education. Education Working
Paper Archive, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Hanushek, E. A. 2005. "Science violated: Spending projections and the "costing out" of an
adequate education." In, Courting failure: How schoolfinance lawsuits exploit judges'
good intentions and harm our children, ed. E. Hanushek, Hoover Institution: Education
Next Books. (Paper presented at the conference: Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, October 14, 2005).

Hanushek, E. 2005. "Pseudo-science and a sound basic education: voodoo statistics in New
York." Education Next 5:67-73.

Hanushek, E. 2006. The Alchemy of Costing Out an Adequate Education. Education Working
Paper Archive. Hoover Institution, Stanford University.










Hickrod, G.A., R. Lenz, and P. Minorini. 1997. Selected Papers in School Finance 1995-Status
of School Finance Constitutional Litigation (Appendix A),. (NCES 97-536) US
Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, Washington DC:
Government Printing Office.

Hunter, M. A. 2007. "State Funding Adequacy Decisions since 1989," (May 2007)
lihp \ \ \ .schoolfunding.info/litigation/AdequacyDecisions07.pdf (retrieved August 5, 2007).

Knoeppel, R. 2007. "Resource adequacy, equity, and the right to learn: Access to high-quality
teachers in Kentucky." Journal of Education Finance 32:422-442.

Kober, N. 1996. "Do We Still Need Public Schools?." Washington DC: Center on National
Education Policy. www.cep-dc.org

Ladd H.F. & J.F. Hansen. 1999. Making Money Matter -Financing America's Schools.
Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Ladd H.F., R. Chalk and J.F. Hansen. 1999. Equity andAdequacy in Education Finance -Issues
and Perspectives. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Lapin, L. 1980. Statistics Meaning andMethod. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc.

Larson, R., R. Hostetler, and B. Edwards. 1998. Calculus (6th edition). Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin Company.

McKinley, S. K. 2005. "The journey to adequacy: The DeRolph saga." Journal ofEducation
Finance 30 no. 3:288-312.

McKinley, S. K. 2005. "Part II: The journey to adequacy: The DeRolph saga." Journal of
Education Finance 30 no. 4:321-381.

Minorini, P. A. and S.D. Sugarman. 1999. "School finance litigation in the name of educational
equity: Its evolution, impact, and future." In Equity and adequacy in education finance:
Issues and perspectives, eds. H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and J.S. Hansen, 34-71. Washington
DC: National Academy Press.

Minorini, P. A. and S.D. Sugarman. "Educational adequacy and the courts: The promise and
problems of moving to a new paradigm." In Equity and adequacy in education finance:
Issues and perspectives, eds. H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and J.S. Hansen,175-208. Washington
DC: National Academy Press.

Monk, D.H. and B.O. Brent. 1997. Raising money for education A guide to the Property tax.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Morrison, H.C. 1930. School Revenue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mort, P. 1924. The Measurement of Educational Need. New York: Columbia Teachers College.


212









No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,20 USC 6301 (2002).


No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 1001, 20 USC 6301 (2002).

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 1111 (a), 20 USC 6301 (2002)

Odden, A. 2003. Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Madison: University of
Wisconsin, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Parrish, T. and W. Fowler. 1995. "Disparities in Public School District Spending." Washington,
DC: US Department of Education Office of Research and Improvement, NCES 95-300.

Rebell, M. 2004. "Adequacy litigations: a new path to equity?" In Bringing equity Back, eds.
J. Petrovich and A. Stuartwell. New York: Teachers College Press.

Reschovsky, A. and J. Imazeki. 2003. "Let no child be left behind: Determining the cost of
improving student performance." Public Finance Review 31, no. X: 1-26.

Reschovsky, A. and J. Imazeki. 2000. Achieving educational adequacy through school finance
reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) Research Report Series
(RR-045). Pennsylvania.

Reutter, E. E. 1994. The law ofpublic education (4 edition). Westbury, NY: The Foundation
Press, Inc.

Sheldon, G.H. 1998. Financing America's Public School, National Governors Association:
Washington DC. http://www.nga.org/cda/files/PUBLICSCHOOLS.pdf

Taylor, L., B. Baker, and A. Vedlitz. 2005. Measuring educational adequacy in public schools.
Bush School Working Paper #580. TX A&M University: George Bush School of
Government and Public Service.

Thompson, D.C. and R.C. Wood. 1998. Money and schools -A handbookfor practioners.
Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Thro, W. E. 1994. Judicial analysis during the third wave of school finance litigation: The
Massachusetts decision as a model. Boston College Review 35:597-617.

Tyack, D. 1967 Turning Points in American Educational History, Waltham, MA: Blaisdell
Publishing Company.

U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights, Amendment X. (1791).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2007. Public education finances 2005.
Government Division U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C.


213









U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2006. Public education finances 2004.
Government Division U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2005. Public education finances 2003.
Government Division U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2003. States ranked by total taxes andper
capital amount: 2001. Government Division U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2001. Projections of
education statistics to 2011 (figure #56), Washington DC: U.S.Government Printing
Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2001. A primer for
making cost adjustments in education, NCES 2001-323, by W. J. Fowler & D. H. Monk,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1997. Selected papers in
schoolfinance 1995-status of schoolfinance Constitutional litigation (Appendix A),.
NCES 97-536, by G.A. Hickrod, R. Lenz, and P. Minorini, Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1997. Using cost and
need adjustments to improve measurements of schoolfinance equity,. NCES 98-212, by
W.J. Fowler, D. Monk, L. Petemick, and B. Smerdon, Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98212-8.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1995. Disparities in
public school district spending, NCES 95-300, by T. Parrish, and W. Fowler,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2005. Funding sources for
state funding system. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wood, R.C. & D.C. Thompson, 1996. Educationalfinance law: Constitutional challenges to
state aidplans -An analysis of strategies. Topeka, KS: National Organization on Legal
Problems of Education.

Wood, R.C., D. Robson, M. Farrier, S. Smith, J. Silverthome, M. Griffith. 2005. Determining
the cost ofproviding an adequate education in the state of Montana. Report to Montana
State Legislature. Gainesville, FL: R.C. Wood & Associates.

Yates, D., Moore, D., and Starnes, D. The Practice of Statistics. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company, 2002.


214









Chaos Theory

Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: Making a new science. New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc.

Keil, L.D. and E. Elliott. 1997. "Introduction & Exploring Nonlinear dynamics with a
spreadsheet." In Chaos theory in the social sciences, eds. L.D. Kiel and E. Elliott, 1-30.
University of Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.


Court Cases

Abbott v. Burke 495 A.2d 376 (1985). (Abbott I)

Abbottv. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (1990). (Abbott II)

Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575(1994). (Abbott III)

Abbott v. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (1997). (Abbott IV)

Abbott v. Burke 710 A.2d 450 (1998). (Abbott V)

Abbott v. Burke 748 A.2d 82 (2000). (Abbott VI)

Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York 719 N.Y.S. 2d 475 (2001).

Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles 680 So.2d 400 (1996).

Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State 109 P.3d257 (Mont. 1995).

DeRolph v. State of Ohio, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). (DeRolph I)

DeRolph v. State of Ohio, 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000). (DeRolph II)

DeRolph v. State of Ohio, 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001). (DeRolph III)

DeRolph v. State of Ohio, 780 N.E.2d 529 (Ohio 2002). (DeRolph IV)

Dupree v. Alma School District No. 30, 651 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1983).

Edgewood Independent School District v.Kirby 777 S.W.2d 391 (1989). (EdgewoodI)

Edgewood Independent SchoolDistrict v.Kirby 804 S.W.2d 491 (1991). (EdgewoodlI)

Edgewood Independent School District v.Kirby 826 S.W.2d 489 (1992). (Edgewood II)


215










Edgewood Independent School District v.Kirby 893 S.W.2d 450 (1995). (Edgewood V)

Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State of Montana 769 P.2d 684 (1989).

Horton v. Meskill 172 Conn. 615 (1978). (Horton I)

Horton v. Meskill 195 Conn. 24 (1985). (Horton II)

Moore v. State ofAlaska 3AN-04-9756 CIV (2004).

Pauley v. Kelly 255 S.E.2d 878 (1979).

Pauley v. Bailey 324 S.E.2d 128 (1984).

Plessyv. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Robinson v. Cahill 63 NJ 196 (1973).

Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District 411 U.S. 1 (1973).

Rose v. Councilfor Better Education 790 S.W. 2d 186 (Ky 1989).

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973).

Serrano v. Priest 5 C3d 584 (1971). (Serrano l)

Serrano v. Priest 557 P.2d 929 (1976). (Serrano II)

Serrano v. Priest 569 P.2d 1303 (1977). (Serrano III)

West Orange -Cove Consolidated ISD v. Nelson (Texas) 107 S.W. 3d 558 (2003).


216









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Teresa Ann Tachon was born in 1964 in Syracuse, New York. She graduated from West

Genesee High School in 1982. She earned her B.A. in mathematics and secondary Education in

1986 from State University of New York (SUNY) College at Potsdam. She earned her M.S. in

instructional technology in 1990 from SUNY College at Potsdam. She earned her Specialist in

education in 2002 from the University of Florida. Teresa is currently pursuing her Ph.D. in

educational leadership from the University of Florida.

Teresa is a high school mathematics teacher for the School Board of Orange County,

Florida. She currently holds an active Professional Educators Teaching Certificate in the State of

Florida and a Permanent Public School Teaching Certificate for the State of New York to teach

mathematics. She also once held Professional Teaching Certificates to teach music in the States

of Florida and New York. Teresa has taught mathematics and woodwind music lessons for

twenty-two years. She has taught in Canton Central School District, Canton New York,

Syracuse City School District, Syracuse, New York, and Orange County Public School District,

Orlando, Florida. Teresa was William R. Boone High School's Teacher of the Year in 2004 and

Orange County Florida's Mathematics Teacher of the Year in 2006.

Teresa has been married to Hughes Tachon for seventeen years. They have two

daughters: Stephanie, age 15 and Taylor, age 12. They reside in Orlando, Florida.





PAGE 1

1 FLORIDAS PUBLIC EDUC ATION FINANCE PROGRAM REGARDING EQUITY AND ADEQUACY By TERESA ANN TACHON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Teresa Ann Tachon

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writing of this dissertation has been a long academ ic journey and could not have been completed without the love and support of family, friends, and members of the University of Floridas College of Education faculty and st aff. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to those who have accompanied me through this voyage. I would like to express my deepest appreci ation to my esteemed committee chair and adviser, Dr. R. Craig Wood. Dr Woods expert guidance and academic advice provided me with the courage and motivation to complete this wor k. I would also like to thank Dr. Wood for his generosity in taking the time to make himself read ily available for me as I proceeded through this process. The faculty and staff at the University of Floridas College of Education have assisted and encouraged me throughout my studies. My committee members deserve special praise because they have been with me since my first da ys as a University of Florida graduate student. I would like to thank Dr. James Doud, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Dave Honeyman, and Dr. Pilar Mendoza for demonstrating exemplary teaching a nd research methods an d providing valuable advice and critiques. I would like to thank Kay G odfrey for introducing me to this program and encouraging me to actively participate with her in this en deavor. Kay has been a cherished friend and a treasured colleague for almost two decades. I would like to thank my entire cohort for helping me to grow professionally and to challenge myself academically. Being a member of this cohort has proved to be a rewarding experience and ha s provided me with some lifelong friendships. Finally, I would like to extend a heartfe lt thank you to my family for their love, inspiration, and support. To my parents, Angelo and Donna Natoli, I thank you for setting such a strong family foundation and teaching me the vi rtues of loyalty, unconditional love, and self-

PAGE 4

4 discipline. To my daughters, Stephanie and Ta ylor, I thank you for the love and happiness you fill me with each day. To my beloved husband, Hughes Tachon, I thank you for your support, encouragement, and patience. It is due to all of your support that Ive been able to achieve this high point in my academic career.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................11 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........13 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .15 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....16 Definition of Terms................................................................................................................16 The Structure of the Florida Public School System................................................................18 Equity and Adequacy............................................................................................................ ..19 Summary.................................................................................................................................20 Organization of the Study.......................................................................................................21 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................ 25 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........25 History of Education Finance Theories..................................................................................26 Flat Grants.......................................................................................................................28 Foundation Programs....................................................................................................... 28 Equalization Programs.....................................................................................................28 Full State Funding........................................................................................................... 29 Equity......................................................................................................................................30 Adequacy................................................................................................................................33 Estimating the Cost of Adequacy........................................................................................... 33 Approaches to Estimating the Cost of Adequacy................................................................... 35 Professional Judgment Approach....................................................................................35 Evidence Based Approach...............................................................................................36 Successful Schools Approach..........................................................................................36 Cost Function Approach (Statistical Analysis or Econom etric Approach)..................... 37 Adequacy Concerns...............................................................................................................38 Chaos Theory..........................................................................................................................39 Review of Cases.....................................................................................................................41 Wave I.............................................................................................................................43 Wave II............................................................................................................................45 Wave III....................................................................................................................... ....49 Florida Education Finance Program....................................................................................... 59

PAGE 6

6 Assessment and Accountability.............................................................................................. 67 Expenditure.............................................................................................................................69 Balancing Equity and Adequacy............................................................................................ 70 Summary.................................................................................................................................71 3 METHODS.............................................................................................................................83 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........83 Research Design: Equity....................................................................................................... .85 Research Design: Adequacy..................................................................................................90 Student Performance Measures....................................................................................... 90 Achievemen t Levels ........................................................................................................ 90 A Measurement Approach............................................................................................... 91 Research Data: Florida Education Finance Program.............................................................. 94 Research Design: Statistics.....................................................................................................94 Measuring Center............................................................................................................ 94 Measuring Spread............................................................................................................ 95 Scatterplots......................................................................................................................95 Correlation.......................................................................................................................96 Coefficient of Determination........................................................................................... 97 Summary.................................................................................................................................98 4 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS........................................................................................ 100 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........100 Equity Measures Results 2004-2005:................................................................................... 100 Variance Results 2004-2005..........................................................................................100 The McLoone Index Results 2004-2005.......................................................................101 Coefficient of Variation Results 2004-2005.................................................................. 102 Gini Coefficient Results 2004-2005.............................................................................. 103 Adequacy Measures Results 2004-2005...............................................................................104 Scatterplot Results 2004-2005.............................................................................................. 105 Correlation and Coefficient of Determ ination Results 2004-2005.......................................105 Interpretation of Results 2004-2005.....................................................................................106 Equity Measures Results 2005-2006.................................................................................... 107 Variance Results 2005-2006..........................................................................................107 Coefficient of Variation Results 2005-2006................................................................. 107 Equity Measures Summary 2005-2006:............................................................................... 108 Adequacy Results 2005-2006...............................................................................................108 Scatterplot Results 2005-2006.............................................................................................. 108 Correlation and Coefficient of Determ ination Results 2005-2006.......................................109 Interpretation of Results 2005-2006.....................................................................................109 Summary...............................................................................................................................110

PAGE 7

7 5 CONCLUSIONS AND I MPLICATIONS........................................................................... 134 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........134 Conclusion............................................................................................................................134 Implications of the Study...................................................................................................... 135 Recommendations................................................................................................................ .137 APPENDIX A FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSM ENT TEST READING DATA 2006 .............139 B FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST MATHEMATICS DATA 2006.. 155 C FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSM ENT TEST READING DATA 2005 .............171 D FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST MATHEMATICS DATA 2005.. 187 E GINI COEFFICIENT DATA 2006...................................................................................... 203 F GINI COEFFICIENT DATA 2005...................................................................................... 205 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................207 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................217

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Florida counties ranked by population size: July 1, 2001 .................................................. 23 2-1 Examples of progressive, proporti onal, and regressive tax burdens. .................................74 2-2 State funding Adequacy Decisions since 1989.............................................................. 77 2-3 School Funding Adequacy Cases by State.........................................................................78 4-1 2005 center and spread summary: (standard deviation to compute the variance) ........... 112 4.2 The Variance Statistic......................................................................................................113 4-3 McLoone Index Data ... 2005.......................................................................................... 114 4-4 2005 center and spread summary: (median to compute the McLoone Index) ................. 115 4-5 Funding per district rank ed by per-pupil expenditure...................................................... 116 4-6 Linear regression: parameter table................................................................................... 117 4-7 Linear regression: anova summary table ......................................................................... 117 4-8 Equity summary 2004-2005.............................................................................................118 4-9 Florida School district accountability score 2004-2005 ..................................................119 4-10 Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2004-2005 .................... 120 4-11 Linear regression: parame ter table (dependent variab le = per-pupil expenditure) .......... 123 4-12 Linear regression: anova summary table ......................................................................... 123 4-14 2006 center and spread summ ary: (standard deviation to compute the variance)........... 124 4-15 Funding per district...................................................................................................... ....125 4-16 Funding per district rank ed by per-pupil expenditure...................................................... 126 4-17 Linear regression: paramete r table and ANOVA s ummary table....................................127 4-18 Equity summary 2005-2006.............................................................................................128 4-19 Florida school district accountability score 2005-2006 ................................................... 129 4-20 Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure ....................................... 130

PAGE 9

9 4-21 Linear regression: parame ter table (dependent variab le = per-pupil expenditure) .......... 133 4-22 Linear regression: ANOVA su mmary table.................................................................... 133 4-23 Center and spread......................................................................................................... ....133

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The State of Florida and th e sixty-seven school districts. .................................................22 1-2 Equity and adequacy........................................................................................................ ..24 2-1 Financing sources for state funding system s 2004-05....................................................... 73 2-2 Education cost analysis me thods, adequacy studies 1995-2004 ........................................75 2-3 States in which the State Supreme C ourt has declared th at ed ucation is a Fundamental State Constitutional Right............................................................................ 76 2-4 States in which the State Supreme Cour t has declared th at education is not a Fundamental State Constitutional Right............................................................................ 76 2-5 Percent distribution of revenue for Florida public schools 2004-05..................................80 2-6 U.S.Department of Commer ce, Bureau of the Census (2007). Public E ducation Finances 2005 Government Division U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC................... 81 3-1 Orange County Public School District FCAT 2005 Exam ple...........................................99 3-2 Orange County Public Schools Di strict Accountability Score ..........................................99 4-1 The Distribution of Resources per UFTE........................................................................115 4-2 Lorenz Curve / Gini Coefficient 2005.............................................................................117 4-3 Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2004-2005 .................... 122 4-4 Gini Coefficient 2006...................................................................................................... 128 4-5 Florida district accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2005-2006 .................... 132

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy FLORIDAS PUBLIC EDUCAT ION FINANCE PROGRAM REGARDING EQUITY AND ADEQUACY By Teresa Ann Tachon August 2008 Chair: R. Craig Wood Major: Educational Leadership The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has raised the standards for accountability for school districts across the country with the objective of increas ing student performance. The Florida Legislature implemented an accountability system to measure the annual yearly progress of school districts and students across the state. Students in Fl orida public school districts in grades three through ten are test ed annually on the Sunshine St ate Standards by means of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. These new federal and state education policies seldom address methods of financing the implementation of these programs. Recent litig ation in many states has raised questions regarding the fairness and quant ity of resources distributed through state education finance funding formulas. Many state courts have overturned public education funding mechanisms, claiming that the resources are no longer suffici ent in providing an opportunity for each student to achieve a minimum acceptable level of academic performance. As a result, education finance systems have shifted focus from equitable distribution of resources toward adequacy. The State of Florida funds public educati on by means of a formula-driven mechanism known as the Florida Education Finance Program. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Florida Education Finance Program provided e quitable funds to public school districts while

PAGE 12

12 maintaining an adequate distribution of resources. The Florida Education Finance Program from the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 was analyzed using four measures of equity. Then each of these school years was analyzed in term s of adequacy using an accountability score developed from the research. Statistical measures were used to determine the effectiveness of the Florida Education Finance Program in terms of equity and adequacy. The results of this study indicate that in order to maintain an appropriate equitable distribution of resources fo r the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, adequacy may have been compromised to ensure equity. The Florida Education Finance Program does not recognize the relatively high cost of educating students from low-income families. It is suggested that to achieve any given student perfor mance standard, some schools may need to spend more than others depending on the characteristics of the students and schools. The Florida Education Finance Program should be reexamined and modifi ed to balance todays need for equity and adequacy.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required stringent changes and im provements in public elementary and secondary education.1 This Act has required e ach state legislature to provide an opportunity for each student to obtain minimum proficiency in the academic standards as defined in state legislation. The purpose of this ( No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and si gnificant opportunity to obtain a highquality education and reach, at a mini mum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished by---(1) ensuring that high-quality academic assessments, accountability systems, teacher preparation and training, curriculum, and instructional material s are aligned with challenging State standards so that students, teachers, pa rents, and administrators can measure progress against common expectations for student academic achievement...2 The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has raised new concerns regarding the distribution of resources through each state legislat ures funding formula. Recent litigation have caused some state legislation to change or adjust its funding formula to ensure that each school district is provided e nough fiscal resources to afford the minimum level of competency for all students in the school district. The NCLB Act of 2001 can be accomplished by distributing and targeting resources sufficiently to make a difference to local educational agencies and school s where needs are greatest.3 The general accountability meas ures are detailed in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 : 1 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 0 USC 6301 (2002). 2 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 001, 20 USC 6301 (2002). 3 Ibid.

PAGE 14

14 Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has developed and is implementing a single, statewide State accountability system that will be effective in ensuring that all local ed ucational agencies, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools make adequate yearly progress... Each State shall estab lish statewide annual meas urable objectives for meeting these requirements, and which (i) shall be set separately for the assessments of mathematics and reading or language arts, (ii) shall be the same for all school s and local educatio nal agencies in the State, (iii) shall identify a single mini mum percentage of students who are required to meet or exceed the pr oficient level on the academic assessments, and (iv) shall ensure that all students will meet or exceed the States proficient level of academic achievement on the States assessments within the States timeline.4 The Florida legislature was one of the first legislatures to implement an accountability system to measure annual progress in school districts and students across the state. In Florida, the set of standards specifying th e knowledge and skills that stude nts should have as they move from grade to grade is called the Sunshine State Standards .5 The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)6 provides one measure of students knowledge and abilities in reading, writing, mathematics, and science as prescribed in the Sunshine State Standards benchmarks. The FCAT also includes norm-referenced te sts (NRT) in reading comprehension and mathematics problem solving, which allow for co mparing the performance of Florida students with students across the nation.7 The FCAT Sunshine State Standards benchmarks in reading and mathematics and the FCAT NRT are tested in grades three through ten. The FCAT writing 4 Ibid. 5 Florida Department of Education (2005). Sunshine State Standards Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 6 Florida Department of Education (2005). Understanding FCAT Reports 2005 Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 7 Ibid.

PAGE 15

15 is tested in grades four, eight, and ten. The FCAT science is te sted in grades five, eight, and eleven. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) is the formula-driven mechanism used to fund the operating costs of public schools in the State of Florida. The FEFP was established in 1973 to provide a state policy on equalized funding: To guarantee to each student in Florida Public Education System the availability of programs and services appropriate to his or her educational needs which are substantially equal to those available to any similar student notwithstanding geographic differen ces and varying economic factors.8 Each school district which participates in th e state appropriations fo r the FEFP must provide evidence of its effort to maintain an adequate school program and must meet many requirements including: maintain adequate and accurate repor ts, operate schools for a minimum of 180 days, adopt rules relating to the appointment, prom otion, transfer, suspension, and dismissal of personnel, and levy the required local effort millage on taxable value for school purposes.9 The Legislature shall prescribe annua lly in the state appropriations act the maximum amount of millage a district may levy.10 Public school districts participating in the FEFP must also comply with the minimum classroom expenditure requirem ents, and maintain a system of planning and evaluation as required by law.11 Statement of the Problem The FEFP is the foundation of the State of Floridas m ethod to fund the operating costs of public elementary and secondary schools. The pr ogram was enacted by the Florida Legislature 8 Florida Statute 36.012 (1) (2000). 9 Florida Statute 011.60 (2005). 10 Florida Statute 011.71 (2005). 11 Florida Statute 011.60 (7, 8) (2005).

PAGE 16

16 in 1973, almost three decades before the rigorou s, new accountability measures were developed and implemented as prescribed in the NCLB Act of 2001 and the Sunshine State Standards benchmarks assessments in Florida. Recent litigation in Kentucky,12 New York,13 Texas,14 and Montana15 have raised questions concer ning the fairness and quantity of resources distributed in the public education funding formula. Many co urts are overturning scho ol finance systems, claiming unconstitutionality in that the resour ces are no longer sufficient in providing each student an opportunity to achieve the State s minimum level of academic competency. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determ ine if the Florida Education Finance Program provided equitable funds to public school districts while maintaini ng an adequate distribution of resources. The following questions were addressed in this study: 1. Based on per-pupil expenditures as stated in th e FEFP and outcomes of grades three through ten assessments on the FCAT, did the Florida legislature provide equitable resources to each school district while maintaining an adequa te distribution of resources for the 2004-2005 school year? 2. Based on per-pupil expenditures as stated in th e FEFP and outcomes of grades three through ten assessments on the FCAT, did the Florida legislature provide equitable resources to each school district while maintaining an adequa te distribution of resources for the 2005-2006 school year? 3. Given a certain level of resources, can a state resource distribution fina nce plan be developed to achieve equitable distribution of re sources while providing adequate funding simultaneously throughout the public school districts in Florida? Definition of Terms 12 Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1989). 13 Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State of New York 86 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y.1995). 14 West Orange Cove Consol idated ISD v. Alanis 107 S.W.3d 558 (Tex.2003). 15 Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State 109 P.3d 257 (Mont.1995).

PAGE 17

17 The following terms will be used throughout this study: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) stated purpose is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to achie ve minimum proficiency on the States academic achievement standards and assessments.16 Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) is the finance plan enacted by the Florida Legislature in 1973 to establish a state policy us ed to provide the equa lization of educational opportunity to each student in the Florida public education system.17 Sunshine State Standards (SSS) were approved by the Florida State Board of Education in 1996 to provide expectations for stude nt achievement in Florida. The Sunshine State Standards are standards that identify what public school students should know and be able to do. These standards delineate the a cademic achievement of students for which the state will hold its public schools accountable in grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 912, in subjects of language arts, mathematics, science, social studie s, the arts, heal th and physical education, fo reign languages, reading, writing, history, government, geography, ec onomics, and computer literacy.18 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) is used to assess student achievement of the Sunshine State Standards benchmarks in reading, mathem atics, science, and writing. Horizontal Equity principle states that students who are alike should receive alike shares (equal treatment of equals).19 16 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, (2002):20 USC 6301. 17Florida Department of Education (2005). Funding for Florida School Districts Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. 18 Florida Statute 000.21 (7) (2005). 19 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, The Measurement of Equity in School Finance, (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984).

PAGE 18

18 Vertical Equity principle recognizes that students are different and states that unequals receive appropriately unequal treatment (unequal treatment of unequals).20 Adequacy is the cost of each student achieving the minimum education goals of the State. FTE is the full-time equivalent student on the me mbership roll of one school program or a combination of school programs for the school ye ar comprised of not less than 900 net hours for a student at the grade level of four through twelve, or not less th an 720 net hours for a student at the grade level of kinderg arten through grade three.21 UFTE is the unweighted full-time equivalent stude nt as referred to in the FEFP and the Florida Statutes. The Structure of the Florida Public School System School districts in the state of Florida are organized by count y. The state of Florida has sixty-seven counties. Each county [in the state of Florida] shall constitute a school district .... Each district shall constitute a uni t for the control, organization, and adm inistration of schools. The responsibility for the actu al operation and administration of all schools needed with in the districts in conformity with rules and minimum standards prescr ibed by the state, and also the responsibility for the provision of any desirable and practicable opportunities authorized by law beyond t hose required by the state, are delegated by law to the school offi cials of the respective districts.22 The map as shown in Figure 1.1 shows the stat e of Florida and its sixty-seven counties giving a visual of the counties and th e relative geographic size and location.23 Table 1-1 shows the state of Florida and its sixty-seven counties ra nked by population size as estimated on July 1, 2001. Figure 1-1 toge ther with the Table 1-1 shows the physical 20 Ibid. 21 Florida Statute 011.61 (2005). 22 Florida Statute 001.30 (2005). 23 An Imagemap of Florida. www.florida-arts.org. retrieved 3/22/07.

PAGE 19

19 geographic size and the estimated total population of each county (school district region) in Florida. Figure 1-1 and Table 1-1 show the di stricts that may contain urban, rural, and beach populations. Equity and Adequacy The system of education finance in the Unite d States is characterized by large disparities in funding and opportunities for publ ic K-12 education among schools, local school districts, and states.24 Spending disparities within the states have inspired education finance reform efforts for decades.25 These reform efforts were originally initialized by the belief of inequitable distributions of resources. It was believed that high levels of sp ending in some districts paired with low levels of spending in other district s caused inequities. Recently, however, questions concerning education finance reform have shifte d to the allocation of resources needed to improve school performance and student assessment outcomes. Today, the quality of an American education is of ut most concern. There tends to be skepticism about the distribution of educatio nal funds within the public school system. Education finance systems today have shifted fo cus from equitable distribution of resources toward adequacy. Courts in many states are rejecting the traditional equity claims while the more ambitious cases demanding adequacy are winning.26 24 Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen, Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 25 Ibid. 26 Paul Minorini and Stephen Sugarman, School Finance Litigation In the Name of Educational Equity: Its Evolution, Impact, and Future, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives, eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

PAGE 20

20 The theory of equity concerns itself with wealth neutrality, which specifies that no relationship should exist between the education of child ren and the property wealth that supports the public funding of that education.27 The theory of adequacy con cerns itself with educational outcomes and the offering of educational program s that promise to teach students to reasonably high standards.28 Figure 1-2 illustrates the shift from equity with its focus on dollar inputs to adequacy with its focus on educational outcomes. Summary Public education finance issues are among th e most fundamental issues being dealt with today. Questions relating to public education finance include: 1) how much to pay?, and 2) who pays? These questions ar e central concepts to equity and ade quacy, which have long been at the heart of public education fiscal policy.29 Equity issues focus on the fairness of the overall public education allocation system.30 Adequacy issues attempt to link resources to education and student outcomes on state mandated assessments.31 Given our decentralized system of public education, differing amounts of public resources tend to be spent on school children throughout 27 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, Concepts of School Finance Equity: 1970 to the Present, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives, eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 28 Paul Minorini and Stephen Sugarman, School Finance Litigation In the Name of Educational Equity: Its Evolution, Impact, and Future, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives, eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 29 Thomas Parrish, William Fowler. Disparities in Public School District Spending US Department of Education Office of Research and Impr ovement, NCES 95-300 (Washington, DC, 1995). 30 Ibid. 31 Robert Knoeppel, Resource Adequacy, Equity, and the Right to Learn: Access to High-Quality Teachers in Kentucky, Journal of Education Finance 32, no. 4(2007): 422-442.

PAGE 21

21 each school district within each state. Thes e differences are sometimes undesirable or unwarranted. Given the variations in the cost of education resour ces and in the needs of students that are known to exist across districts, equa l dollars per student ma y not result in equal education opportunities.32 Ongoing accountability standards in education policy require that schools provide all children an equal oppor tunity to achieve to state standards.33 Organization of the Study Chapter I introduced the problem s being addres sed in this study and presented sections from the Federal Constitution and th e Florida State Statutes relevant to this study. Also included was the structure of the Florid a Public School System. Chapte r II contains a review of the related literature including finance litigation, equity, ad equacy, chaos theory, the Florida Education Finance Program and their impact on the path of public educational funding as it currently impacts the state of Fl orida. Chapter III includes a discussion on the measures and formulas of equity and adequacy, and the met hodology used in this study. Chapter IV provides the results of the methodology as analyzed using data from the st ate of Floridas Department of Education. Chapter V contains conclusions, im plications, and recomm endations for further study related to the problem addressed in th is study. The Appendices contain data and computations used in the methodology, formulas, a nd analysis to reach the conclusions stipulated in this study. 32 Thomas Parrish, William Fowler. Disparities in Public School District Spending US Department of Education Office of Research and Improvement, NCES 95-300 (Washington, DC, 1995). 33 Robert Knoeppel, Resource Adequacy, Equity, and the Right to Learn: Access to High-Quality Teachers in Kentucky, Journal of Education Finance 32, no. 4(2007): 422-442.

PAGE 22

22 Figure 1-1: The State of Florida a nd the sixty-seven school districts.

PAGE 23

23 Table 1-1: Florida counties ranke d by population size: July 1, 2001 Table COEST20010612 Florida Countie s Ranked by Population Size: July 1, 2001 Source: Population Division, U. S. Census Bureau Release Date: April 29, 2002 July 1, 2001 County Estimate Florida 16,396,515 1. Dade 2,289,683 2. Broward 1,668,560 3. Palm Beach 1,165,049 4. Hillsborough 1,027,318 5. Pinellas 924,610 6. Orange 923,311 7. Duval 792,434 8. Polk 492,751 9. Brevard 489,522 10. Lee 462,455 11. Volusia 454,581 12. Seminole 374,334 13. Pasco 362,658 14. Sarasota 335,323 15. Escambia 293,205 16. Manatee 274,523 17. Marion 267,889 18. Collier 265,769 19. Leon 239,376 20. Lake 227,598 21. Alachua 218,795 22. Saint Lucie 200,018 23. Osceola 181,932 24. Okaloosa 173,065 25. Bay 150,316 26. Clay 147,542 27. Charlotte 147,009 28. Hernando 135,751 29. Saint Johns 131,684 30. Martin 130,313 31. Santa Rosa 123,101 32. Citrus 122,470 33. Indian River 116,488 34 Highlands 88,972 35. Monroe 78,556 36. Putnam 70,880 37. Nassau 59,830 July 1, 2001 County Estimate 38. Columbia 57,841 39. Flagler 54,964 40. Sumter 54,504 41. Jackson 46,751 42. Gadsden 45,321 43. Walton 42,644 44. Hendry 36,562 45. Okeechobee 36,385 46. Suwannee 35,668 47. Levy 35,520 48. De Soto 32,438 49. Hardee 26,759 50. Bradford 26,423 51. Wakulla 24,761 52. Baker 22,707 53. Washington 21,192 54. Taylor 19,231 55. Holmes 18,811 56. Madison 18,718 57. Gilchrist 14,829 58. Dixie 13,992 59. Union 13,672 60. Hamilton 13,504 61. Gulf 13,417 62. Calhoun 13,020 63. Jefferson 12,946 64. Franklin 11,202 65. Glades 10,750 66. Lafayette 7,245 67. Liberty 7,067

PAGE 24

24 Figure 1-2: Equity and adequacy illustration34 34 Equity and Adequacy illustration, http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/mpr/Vol10No1/figures/equity.ipg EQUITY ADEQUACY Dollars Resources Services Outcomes Outcomes Services Resources Dollars

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Education w as introduced in Massachusetts through the Massachusetts Educational Law of 1642. This law was implemented due to the great neglect of many parents and masters in training up their children in lear ning and labor, and other implemen ts which may be profitable to the commonwealth.1 This law was put into place to ensu re that children were developing the ability to read and understand principles of religion and the laws of our country. In 1899, educational philosopher John Dewey said: What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community wa nt for all of its childre n. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; act ed upon, it destroys our democracy.2 Education was recognized as essential and signi ficant to the national well-bei ng of our citizens and the common good of our democracy. It was believed that th e public school system wo uld be responsible to prepare people to become responsible citizens, improve social conditions, promote cultural unity, help people become economically self-sufficien t, and ensure a basic level of quality among schools.3 Historically, the founding fathers had high expectations for the outcomes of public education, but with no accountability procedures to measure these outcomes. Michael Rebell says: 1 David Tyack, Turning Points in American Educational History, (Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1967). 2 John Dewey, The School and Social Progress, in The school and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907), 19-44. 3 Nancy Kober, Do We Still Need Public Schools? (Washington DC: Center on National Education Policy, 1996), www.cep-dc.org.

PAGE 26

26 The founding fathers and the leaders of the common school movement spoke eloquently of the need to equip all of the nations future citizens with the intellectual skills they would need to be intelligent voters and civic participants, but the schools in their day did not serious ly attempt to implement these ideals. Spurred by the standards-based reform m ovement and the adequacy litigations, schools today are attempting to put into practice this democratic ideal....4 Public education was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and therefore, by Amendment X of the Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791): The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.5 Thus, public education and its fi scal responsibility was left to each state legislature. In 1758, John Adams said : The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expense of it.6 The Constitution of the State of Florida refers to education as a f undamental value of its people.7 Therefore, it is a paramount duty of the St ate of Florida to make adequate provision for the education of all of its children: Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education.8 History of Education Finance Theories The concept of equalization of education f unding for schools was first developed in 1906 by Ellwood Cubberley. He was the first scholar to develop the concept of fiscal equity. In the 4 Michael Rebell, Adequacy Litigations: A New Path to Equity, in Bringing Equity Back eds. Janice Petrovich and Amy Stuartwell (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004). 5 US Constitution Bill of Rights (1791). 6 Charles Francis Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854). 7 Florida Constitution of 1968, Article IX 1. 8 Id

PAGE 27

27 1920s, Harlon Updegraff extended Cubberleys concept of fiscal equity by recommending that states vary the amount of support they give to local districts, dependi ng on the local school districts ability to raise funds for education. Updegraff believed that ev ery child in the state should receive a minimum level of educational opport unity equal to every othe r child in the state. During this same time period, Strayer and Haig introduced their minimum foundation program which contradicted ideas developed by Cubberley. While Cubberely believed that local districts should be rewarded for its tax effort, Strayer and Haig opposed this view and contended that Cubberleys view would l ead to greater inequities.9 In 1924, Paul Mort extended the minimum foundation program by developing a measure of fina ncial district need based on a weighted-pupil method.10 Some factors used by Mort to establish the educational need of the district were educational level, size of distri ct, and students with special need s. In the 1930s, Henry Morrison argued that earlier effort s to fund public education have faile d, and he then proposed a full state support model to fund public education.11 Morrisons theory was derived from the fact that under the federal law, education is a state responsibility and all education expend itures should be funded out of state income tax. Today, state legislation uses different methods to fund public education. State aid to school districts can be classified in four categories: flat gran ts, foundation programs, equalization programs (which include guaranteed tax base, guar anteed tax yield, and pe rcentage equalization programs), and full state funding. 9 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans An Analysis of Strategies (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007). 10 Paul Mort. The Measurement of Educational Need (New York: Columbia T eachers College, 1924). 11 Henry C. Morrison, School Revenue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930).

PAGE 28

28 Flat Grants The flat grant is the oldest type of state aid to public education.12 Mathematically, a flat grant is calculated by dividing th e available funds by the simple unit of measure. The unit of measure is selected by the state, such as the stude nt or the teacher. Flat grants do not make an adjustment to local capability to pay or tax effort Today, no state relies so lely on flat grants to fund public education.13 Foundation Programs A foundation program combined state and lo cal resources to provi de funding for every student sufficient to achieve equal educational opportunity. First, th e state determines the cost of providing an adequate education. Then, the state provides financ ial assistance proportionate to the local districts wealth to generate an adequa te level of funding for each district. Foundation plans are based on the school districts ability to pay for a minimum educational program.14 Equalization Programs States with equalization programs allow school districts to determine the amount of taxation or revenue they consider necessary for ed ucation, then ensure that each district has the same ability to generate that revenue. Equalizatio n plans describe a variety of formulas seeking to match resources inversely to local capability to pay.15 There are three types of equalization formulas: 12 David Thompson & R. Craig Wood, Money and Schools: A Handbook for Practitioners (Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 1998). 13 Ibid. 14 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans An Analysis of Strategies (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007). 15 David Thompson & R. Craig Wood, Money and Schools: A Handbook for Practitioners (Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 1998).

PAGE 29

29 Guaranteed Tax Base (GTB) (also known as power-equalization programs) and Guaranteed Tax Yield (GTY): The primary goals of GTB and GTY are local control and taxpayer equity rather than student equity as is the case with flat grants and foundation programs. Local districts set its own tax rates fo r education, then the state subsidizes locally generated revenue through a formula that that accounts for local effort. The state sets a maximum tax yield based on the state average of assessed value of property. Under GTB, poor districts that tax themselves at high leve ls would receive significant benefits while poor districts that tax themselves at low rates w ould spend far below the state average...which could lead to greater inequity. Also, under GTB, districts with a bove-average property wealth may not receive state assistance. Percentage equalization programs : Percentage equalization programs are a variation of GTB programs which provide high levels of lo cal control and taxpayer equity. They are based on an aid ratio that determines the st ate-local funding partnership. The ratio is calculated by dividing the aver age per-pupil wealth of the district by the average per-pupil wealth of the state. The state also sets the state equalization pe rcentage factor that applies to all school districts. This fact or is the portion of the local sc hool districts total budget funded by the state.16 Full State Funding The sim plest and rarest appr oach to paying for public edu cation is full state funding where the state pays for everything. Hawaii is the only statewide school district using full state funding. Full state funding eliminates distinct ions between state and local governance in 16 George H. Sheldon, Financing Americas Public School, National Governors Association : Washington DC, 1998, http://www.nga.org/cda/f iles/PUBLICSCHOOLS.pdf

PAGE 30

30 determining education finance policy. Full state funding requires a statewide tax apportioned equally without regard to location or wealth.17 The four categories described represent basic structures of state education funding programs. Some states combine elements of more than one f unding plan. Figure 2-1 describes financing sources for state funding systems by state in 2004-2005. Equity Equity, a value in the A merican society, is a concept involving notions of fairness, neutrality, and justice. School finance equity has been a con cern for more than a century. Efforts to link methods of school finance to fairne ss of the educational system can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th Century with the work of Ellwood Cubberley.18 His work revealed that wealthy communities had better schools than poorer communities. Cubberley advocated a state role in school finance to provide the equalizati on of opportunities in education programs. Cubberley stated that all the ch ildren of the state ar e equally important and are entitled to have the same advantages.19 The children who receive educat ional services are the main target for equity. Among the many reasons for this are: first, education is view ed as an investment in the childs future. A 17 David Thompson & R. Craig Wood, Money and Schools: A Handbook for Practitioners (Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 1998). 18 Helen F. Ladd Janet S. Hansen, eds., Making Money Matter Financing Americas Schools (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 19 Ellwood P.Cubberley. School Funds and Their Apportionment. (New York: Columb ia Teachers College 1906).

PAGE 31

31 second reason is based on a concern for the experi ences of children in th e present since a large part of a childs day is spent in school.20 Equity means equal and implies that one district or school receives the same amount as another, usually in the same district or state.21 There are two principles used to determine fair treatment of individuals: horizontal and vertical equity. Many of the definitions of equity can be encompassed under these two principles. Horizontal equity requires the equal treatment of equals. Horizonta l equity requires the equal treatment of taxpayers in the same or e qual circumstances. For example, if the property tax was to meet the demands of this principle, all homeowners whose residences have equal values would pay equal amounts of property tax.22 The application of the horizontal equity principle seems simple in theory, however, it is very difficult to implement. The difficulty comes from the measurement of an individuals ability to pay. In addition to the consideration of the value of an individuals prop erty, other widely used measures of ability to pay are income, consumption, and wealth. Horizontal equity em bodies the idea that people should pay the same amount of tax and receive the same amount of benefits. Vertical equity is the unequal treatment of unequals. When considering how much property tax taxpayers should pay when they have twice the real propert y, the issue becomes the relationship between the amount of tax and the ability to pay. Because taxes are ultimately paid 20 Robert Berne, Leanna Stiefel. The Measurement of Equity in School Finance (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984). 21 William H. Clune. The Shift from Equ ity to Adequacy in School Finance, Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994): 376-394. 22 David H. Monk and Brian O. Brent, Raising Money for Education A guide to the Property Tax (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1997).

PAGE 32

32 from income, the relative fairness of a tax in strument is often determined by comparing household tax payments with household personal income.23 There are three types of tax systems: progressive, proportional, or regressive. In a progressive tax system, individuals with twice the ability to pay would pay greater than two times the amount of tax, in a proportional tax system (also known as a flat tax), tax burdens rema in constant across all in come groups, and in a regressive tax system, individuals with twice the ability to pay would pay less than two times the amount of tax. This example is illustrated in Table 2-1. Vertical equity is the idea that people with greater ability to pay taxes should pay more. With respect to public education finance, vertic al equity specifies that differently situated children should be treated differently.24 Utilization of vertical equity requires the identification of the students in thes e different situations: The identification is usually done by iden tifying groups of students who differ in their needs for quality or use of inputs to achieve defined levels of outputs. Thus, in concept, vertical equity ties input equity to output equity. Then inputs are adjusted for the costs of educating vari ous groups of children, as is often done when vertical equity is measured, the ad justment is meant to indicate the amount of additional resources that are needed (h igher costs that are incurred) to bring some students to given output levels.25 A century ago, the work of Ellwood Cubberley introduced and initiated public education finance equity awareness. More recently, public school finance had begun to shift from equity and fairness to acquiring the reso urces necessary to provide an adequate education to all students. Many state legislators and public school district s around the country have begun to 23 Ibid. 24 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, Concepts of School Finance Equity: 1970 to the Present, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance Issues and Perspectives eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 25 Ibid.

PAGE 33

33 develop and adopt a policy on adequacy in orde r to develop a framework for an adequate education. Adequacy In the literature, there is no consensus about how much money is necessary to provide an adequate education, however, there is agreem ent that high minimum achievement should be the common goal of educational policy. William Cl une defines adequacy as adequate for some purpose, typically student achievement. True adequacy, according to Clune, is finding the cost of achieving high minimum standards in low-inco me schools and the implications of that goal for policy.26 In the DeRolph v. State of Ohio27 case, adequacy was defined as an approach to school funding that begins with the premise that the amount of funding schools receive should be based on some estimate of the cost of achieving the states educational goals. Estimating the Cost of Adequacy Beginning in the early 1900s, state legisl atures appropriated m oney to local school districts to assist with the cost of providing an adequate base amount sufficient to provide a minimum education. State funding took the form of a flat grant, which provided the same amount of funding for students in both poor and wealthy communities. In the 1920s, many state legislatures began to adopt some form of a foun dation program to relieve the insufficiencies and inequities caused by using the flat grant system Studies to estimate the actual cost of a minimum education have never been determine d. Instead, funding public education over the decades tended to be established by the legi slature based on the amount of funding currently 26 William H. Clune. The Shift from Equ ity to Adequacy in School Finance, Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994): 376-394. 27 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997).

PAGE 34

34 available. From the 1970s through the present, attempts to overcome the limitations of the public education funding system were undertak en. Many of the studies on costing-out educational adequacy were a direct result of state distri ct and supreme courts declaring the level of educational funding within the state unconstitutional (e.g., Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of New York28).29 Such studies have been conducted in over thirty-thr ee states, and the demand for such analyses has only continued to rise as adequacy lawsuits proliferate.30 The No Child Left Behind Act of 200131 required states to implement annual student testing and set minimum performance standards as part of a new accountability system. The State of Florida was one of the first states to move aggressively into implementing higher standards and requiring passage of the Florid a Comprehensive Assessment Test for student graduation. As a result of the implementation of adequacy standards, many states have seen an increase in litigation. Many stat e judicial branches and courts seem to interpret education clauses in its state constitutions as requiring the state to provide an opportunity for all children to reach an adequate level of student performance. However, funding systems designed to achieve adequacy standards in education ha ve been unsuccessfully attained. Attempts to estimate the cost of adequacy have promot ed heated debates among the education finance scholars, policy makers, and th e courts across America in recent years. Many approaches and designs have been introduced in an effort to create a fair and impartial method of 28 Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of New York 715N.Y.2d 475 (2001). 29 Eric A. Hanushek, The Alchemy of Costing Out an Adequate Education (working paper, Education Working Paper Archive, Hoover Institution, Stanford University2006). 30 Ibid. 31 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, (2002): 20USC6301.

PAGE 35

35 funding our schools, however, much criticism of these funding methods have arisen due to lack of a valid scientific approach in determining the disbursement of resources to public school districts. Eric Hanushek says: it is not possible to definitely identify the precise amount of money that is needed for an adequate education.32 Approaches to Estimating the Cost of Adequacy The development estimates of the cost of adequacy involves three steps: first, measures of student performance must be selected that can be used to identify adequate and inadequate performance; second, identification of the requi red spending for adequ acy in at least one benchmark school district; and third, adjustment of this adequate spending level is required to reflect different characteristi cs in other school districts.33 Several methods have been developed to estimate the cost of adequacy: Professional Judgment Approach In the Professional Judgment approach, a panel of educators teachers, principals, superintendents, and other professionals are as ked what resources they think are required for public school districts to achieve the adequacy standard. These efforts typically produce model schools defined in terms of class size, guidan ce and support personnel, and other programs that might be necessary.34 In Professional Judgment studies, focus groups of educators and 32 Eric A. Hanushek, Science Violated: Spending Projections and the Costing Out of an Adequate Education, in Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges Good Intentions and Harm Our Children (Hoover Institution: Education Next, 2006). 33 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of Educational Adequacy; A Comparison of Approaches (paper presented at American Education Finan ce Association Albuquerque, NM, March 2002). 34 Eric A. Hanushek, Science Violated: Spending Projections and the Costing Out of an Adequate Education, in Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges Good Intentions and Harm Our Children (Hoover Institution: Education Next, 2006).

PAGE 36

36 policymakers are typically convened to prescribe the basket of educati onal goods and services required for providing an adequate education.35 Evidence Based Approach The Evidence Based approach is an identific ation of the research literature as to the organizational and delivery variable s identified in the literature.36 Studies using the Evidence Based approach are generally conducted by deriving resource needs from the literature on school reform models proven effective and from judgment s of experts who have developed or analyzed those models. Judgments in these studies are made by a small group of educational policy experts instead of teachers, administrators, and business officials that comprise the professional judgment panel. More recently, Evidence Based anal yses have strived to integrate a variety of proven effective input strategi es such as class size reduction, specific interventions for special student populations, and comprehensive school re form models, rather than relying on a single reform model.37 Successful Schools Approach The successful schools approach first identifies a select group of schools in the state that are meeting the educational goals. The identifi cation of the successful schools is usually based on an appropriate level of student achievement. Resources spent on special programs are taken 35 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. Measur ing Educational Adequacy in Public Schools (Bush School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 2005). 36 R. Craig Wood and Associates, Det ermining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education in the State of Montana, (Gainesville, FL, 2005). 37 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. Measur ing Educational Adequacy in Public Schools (Bush School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 2005).

PAGE 37

37 out of the budget, then a base-cost figure is obtain ed for each district. Out liers from this group of schools are removed, then the remaining schools base -costs are averaged to develop an effective performance amount. Successful Schools approach is a statistical modeling approach that calculates the cost of an adequate education base d on specific data with re spect to student test scores and other outcome measures. Opponents of this approach claim that variations in student demographics make comparisons of expenditures misleading.38 Cost Function Approach (Statistical Analysis or Econometric Approach) The cost function approach focuses on developing an accurate adjustment for student needs and resource price differences. The cost f unction approach relates data on actual spending in a district to student perf ormance, resource prices, student needs, and other relevant characteristics of districts. These estimates ar e used to construct cost indices, which measure how factors outside a districts control affect the spending required to reach a given student performance level. 39 Cost Function analysis is a regression technique specifically designed to measure the district-by-district differences in costs associated with geographic price variations, economies of scale, and vari ations in student need.40 As such, it can be used not only to predict the cost of achieving a desired leve l of outcomes in an average distri ct, but also to generate a cost 38 R. Craig Wood, Donald Robson, Merle Farrier, Step hen Smith, Joyce Silverthorne, and Michael Griffith, Determining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Educatio n in the State of Montana, Report to Montana State Legislature, 2005. 39 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of Educational Adequacy; A Comparison of Approaches (paper presented at American Education Finan ce Association Albuquerque, NM, March 2002). 40 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. Measur ing Educational Adequacy in Public Schools (Bush School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 2005).

PAGE 38

38 index that indicates the relative cost of producing the desired outcomes in each district.41 The cost function approach differs fr om the successful schools appro ach in that it attempts to determine the level of spending that is correlated with academic success and how that level may change for districts with diffe rent characteristics serving di fferent student populations. Adequacy study methods may be generally characterized as res ource-oriented or performance-oriented depending on the type of data incorporated into the analyses.42 Resource-oriented analyses focus on categorie s of educational resource inputs, including numbers of teachers, classroom of particular dimensions, and technology, while performanceoriented analyses focus on measures of st udent performance outcomes of interest to policymakers.43 Figure 2-2 summarizes adequacy studies on a continuum from resource-oriented to performance-oriented analysis. Adequacy Concerns Determining the cost of an adequate educa tion and developing methods to compute these costs have been a priority in education finance recently. There have been growing concerns pertaining to the four approaches of costing out an adequate education. Researchers have been questioning the validity and reliabil ity of the adequacy approaches. Costing out studies should be interpreted as political doc uments not as scientific studies. ... Costing out st udies address questions of the relationship between a desired outcome (adequate education) and the set of resources needed to reach that outcome. Put differently, the ke y to any such study is whether they accurately identify how much achievement will change with added resources. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

PAGE 39

39 Providing a reliable answer to this issue has defied all past research, and none of the approaches to costing out an adequate education solve it.44 Four methods have been developed to estimate th e cost of an adequate education, however, much of the literature is stating th at there is no scien tifically valid method to determine how achievement will change given a change in reso urces or spending. The adequacy reports state that the resources will provide each student an opportunity to ach ieve a standard, not a definite means of achieving a standard. Since there are no predictions about achievement outcomes in the adequacy reports to date, then they are completely unverifiable.45 Chaos Theory A possible explanation for the unscientific na ture of the existing costing-out studies of financing an adequate level of public education could be explained in the new science of chaos theory. Traditional science, sometimes referred to as Newtonian science produced numerous laws and theories to attempt to explain the pheno mena of nature and of our universe. Newtonian science operated on the assumption that given the approximate knowledge of a systems initial conditions and an understanding of natural law, th en the approximate behavior of the system could be calculated. Before 1960, this assumption la y at the heart of science. For as long as the world has physicists inquiring into the laws of nature, it has suffered a special ignorance about disorder in the atmosphere, in th e turbulent sea, in fluctuations in wildlife populations, in the oscillations of the heart and the brain.46 Mathematicians, physicists, biologists, chemists, 44 Eric A. Hanushek, Science Violated: Spending Projections and the Costing Out of an Adequate Education, in Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges Good Intentions and Harm Our Children (Hoover Institution: Education Next, 2006). 45 Ibid. 46 James Gleick, Chaos: Making A New Science (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA,1987).

PAGE 40

40 physiologists, ecologists, and economists be gan searching and finding ways through these irregularities and disorder s, hence, the birth of chaos theory.47 The new science of chaos theory evolved with the computer age to explain physical systems that behaved nonperiodically systems that never quite manage to repeat themselves. Chaos theory provides a means for understandin g and explaining these nonlinear systems. Nonlinear systems are historical systems in that they are determined by the interactions between deterministic elements in a systems history and chance factors that may alter its evolution.48 Nonlinear systems became known to be sensitiv ely dependent on its initial conditions. Any small changes in the initial conditions of a sy stem could generate very divergent outcomes. Chaos theory provided the link between nonlinear systems a nd unpredictability. Aspects of chaos theory can be applied to the finance issues of education. There are many inputs into the education syst em, most of which are economic, social, and political. Thus making the education finance system a nonlinear system. Nonlinear systems reveal dynamical behavior such that the relationshi ps between variables are unstable.49 An important element of nonlinear systems is uncertainty, si nce the outcomes of changing va riable interactions cannot be known. The relationships between variable s over time in nonlinear systems develop complexities that resist generalizations. This difficulty in developing generalizations makes it impossible to be able to predict outcomes releva nt to complex social phenomena such as linking 47 Ibid. 48 L. Douglas Kiel and Euel Elliott, eds. Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1997). 49 Ibid.

PAGE 41

41 student achievement to the quantit y of educational resources nece ssary to predict or guarantee educational growth and improvement. The concept of chaos theory helps us to understand that devising a finance plan to allocate the exact amount of resources needed to an absolute certainty to achieve adequate educational opportunity for every student in every district within each state is virtually impossible. However, the question how much does an adequate education cost? must be answered by legislatures and policymakers across the United States. Due to federal, state, and judicial initiatives, mostly resulting from recent litigation outcomes focusing on educational adequacy, studies to estimate the cost of an adequate education have moved into the policy platform. Adequacy studies are publicly-reported attempts by state officials or special interest groups to apply an empirical methodology to estima te the costs of providing an adequate public education at the elementary and/or secondary level.50 Many states have been developing adequacy studies since the focus of adequacy sta ndards has emerged in the judicial branch of the government throughout the United States. Review of Cases Historically, public education challenges have been focused on the constitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: All persons born or naturalized in th e United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor 50 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. Measur ing Educational Adequacy in Public Schools (Bush School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 2005).

PAGE 42

42 shall any State deprive any person of lif e, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.51 Many cases have been brought before the courts claiming violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Plessy v. Ferguson52 ruling in 1896 enforced segregation as long as facilities for blacks were not inferior to those of whites. The courts legally approve d separate but equal even though it was argued that the Constitution is color-blind.53 Justice Browns interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as stated in his opinion was: The object of the Amendment was un doubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law.... Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are li able to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other....the most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate school s for white and colored children.54 The separate but equal prin ciple in public education held for nearly half a century. That is, until chief legal council Thurgood Mars hall and the NAACP brought five cases before the U.S. Supreme Court specifically challenging Plessy v. Ferguson. These five cases, collectively known to become Brown v. Board of Education55 (1954) overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and became the most important public education ruling in American history. As stated by Chief Justice Warren in his opini on: ... in the field of public education, the 51 U.S. Const. amend. XIV. And E. Edmund Reutter, The Law of Public Education (New York, NY: Foundation Press,1994) p988. 52 Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896). 53 Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Justice Harlans dissent. 54 Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Justice Browns opinion. 55 Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

PAGE 43

43 doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal ...56 The 1970s marked the beginning of court ch allenges concerning publ ic education funding structures. Disparities in fundi ng structures across school district s were addressed by the courts, which led to an investigation in to school finance reform. Three waves of school finance reform have been identified: Wave I occurred in the early 1970s and involved claims that the school funding system violated the Equal Protection clau se of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Wave II occurred from 1973 to 1989 and involve d claims that the school funding system violated the Education and Equal Pr otection Clause of the State Constitution, and Wave III occurred from 1989 to present and involved claims that p ublic education funding should switch from equity standards to adequacy standards.57 There was some overlap asserted in these three waves, but organizing cases into these waves provides a means for discussing trends in school funding litigation. Wave I Litigation in the first wave tested whet her public school funding systems violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In American Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court has he ld that some rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are so fundamental, that special si gnificance and recognition be given to them. Fundamental Rights are basic, natural human rights for all citizens implied from the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutio n. Some rights generally recognized as fundamental are: right to religious belief, right to vote, right to freedom of association, and right 56 Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Justice Warrens opinion. 57 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of Educational Adequacy; A Comparison of Approaches (paper presented at American Education Finan ce Association Albuquerque, NM, March 2002).

PAGE 44

44 to freedom of expression. Many court cases in Wave I and Wave II based their challenges on the grounds to determine if education was a Fundamental Constitutional Right.58 In California (1971) school children and th eir parents residing in Los Angeles county brought a class action suit against county and state finance officials in Serrano v. Priest.59 Californias public school system substantially depended on local property taxes to fund public education resulting in wide disp arities of school revenue. In Justice Sullivans opinion, the courts have determined that: [The State of Californias] funding scheme invidiously discriminates against the poor because it makes th e quality of a childs education a function of wealth of hi s parents and neighbors ... the right to an education in our public schools is a fundamental interest ... concl uding that such a system cannot withstand constitutional challenge and must fall before the Equal Protection Clause.60 This ruling made California the first state during the modern er a to strike down the states education finance formula.61 In Texas (1973), students whose families reside d in poorer districts challenged the state funding program. They claimed that the public education finance system violated their Fourteenth Amendment right, and they argued that the system underprivileged students in San Antonio because their schools did not have the prope rty tax base that wealthier schools attained. 58 William E. Thro, Judicial Analysis During the Third Wave of School Finance Litigation: The Massachusetts Decision as a Model, Boston College Review 35 (1994): 597-617. 59 Serrano v. Priest 5 C3d 584 (1971). 60 Serrano v. Priest 5 C3d 584 (1971) Justice Sullivans opinion. 61 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans An Analysis of Strategies (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007).

PAGE 45

45 This case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez62 was decided in 1973 and was primarily contested on the grounds that education was a fundament al right. It was also argued that inequities in school finan ce were based on wealth, reducing poor students to a suspect class. Justice Powell delivered the opinion to the court: ... the Texas system does not disadvanta ge any suspect class...nor does the Texas school financing system impermissi bly interfere with the exercise of a fundamental right or liberty. ... while assuring a basic education for every child in the State, it permits and encourages participation in and significant control of each distri cts schools at the local level.63 Thus, with the Rodriguez ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court eff ectively ended arguing education as a fundamental right at the federal level. Hence, due to Rodriguez future education finance complaints were lodged primarily within the state courts.64 Wave II Litigation in the second wave tested whethe r public school funding systems violated the Education and Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution. Afte r the Supreme Courts ruling in Rodriguez the California Supreme Court reviewed its decision in the Serrano v. Priest (1971) case. In 1976, Serrano II65 upheld its previous decisi on solely relying on state constitutional grounds. In Serrano III,66 the California Supreme C ourt refined its previous 62 San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973). 63 San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973) Justice Powells opinion. 64 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans An Analysis of Strategies (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007). 65 Serrano II 557 P.2d 929 (1976). 66 Serrano III 569 P.2d 1303 (1977).

PAGE 46

46 decisions by allowing that spec ial needs programs should not be considered when examining wealthrelated disparities.67 In the 1973 case, Robinson v. Cahill,68 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the funding of its public schools, relying heavily on local property taxes, violated the thorough and efficient education clause of the state constitution. It was argued that the disparities in school revenue relied on local property ta xes, and as a result of thes e disparities, there was unequal educational opportunity. ... Obviously, equality of dollar input will not assure equality in educational results ... But, it is nonetheless clear that there is a significant connection between the sums expended and the quality of the educa tional opportunity69 The court ruled that the state funding program created a situation in which education was not being provided to all students in a thorough manner. In addition, the Robinson case secured the concept of student equity as a justifiable basis for challenging state finance systems. In 1975, the legislature passed the Public School Education Act of 1975 to address funding issues. The Connecticut Supreme Court issued its ruling in Horton v. Meskill70 which stated that the right to an education is a basic and f undamental right. In this ruling, known as Horton I it was ruled that of all the existi ng forms of distributing state funds throughout the country, the use of the flat grant had the least eq ualizing effect on local financial ab ilities. The Court held that the state of Connecticut was to ensure that all public school students attained: 67 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans An Analysis of Strategies (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007). 68 Robinson v. Cahill 63 NJ 196 (1973). 69 Robinson v. Cahill 62 NJ 481 (1973). 70 Horton v. Meskill 172 Conn. 615 (1977). ( Horton I )

PAGE 47

47 a substantially equal edu cational opportunity [by] allocating governmental support to education so that funds, inst ead of equally benefiting all towns by way of flat grant, would offset the demonstrated signifi cant disparities in the financial ability of local communities to finance local education.71 In 1985, the Connecticut Supreme Co urt issued a second ruling in Horton v. Meskill (Horton II)72 in which the court established a three-part test for determining the constitutionality of state education funding distribut ion. In part one, the plaintiffs must make an initial showing that the expenditure disparities are serious enough to threaten students fundamental right to education. In part two, in order for the distributi on formula to survive, the state must prove that any funding disparities are a result of state policy, and finally, not so great as to be unconstitutional. The Horton rulings indicated that, in order for state financial plans to be constitutional, they must advance a legitimate state policy and not l ead to any large disparities in educational opportunity base d on town property wealth. In Pauley v. Kelly,73 parents of students in low-wealth Lincoln County claimed the state school funding system violated their rights under the education and equal protection clauses of the state constitution. The West Virginia Supr eme Court found that the state aid distribution formula violated both the thorough a nd efficient clause as well as the equal protection clause of the state constitution.74 The Court held that education wa s a fundamental right that the legal requirements of a thorough and efficient system of education required the state to develop standards for high-quality education: 71 Id., 649. 72 Horton v. Meskill 195 Conn. 24 (1985). ( Horton II ) 73 Pauley v. Kelly 255 S.E.2d 859 (1979). 74 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans An Analysis of Strategies (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 2007).

PAGE 48

48 With the legally recognized componen ts of thorough and efficient school systems, it is obvious from the circ uit courts findings about Lincoln County schools that they are, to say the least, woefully inadequate by those standards, and we would frankly be su rprised if the school system will meet any thorough and efficient standard th at may be developed on the remand.75 In the 1984 ruling in Pauley v. Bailey,76 the West Virginia Supreme Court required the state to develop and implement a detailed master plan for education reform as mandated by the Pauley v. Kelly decision. In 1983, the Arkansas Supreme Court, found the states school funding system unconstitutional and ruled that e ducation was not a fundamental ri ght under the equal protection clause of the state constitution, in Dupree v. Alma School District No. 30 .77 In this case, the plaintiffs were able to demonstr ate that only seven per cent of the state studen ts resided in school districts with over $1,500 per pupil total revenues as contrasted with twen ty-one percent of the state students residing in school district s with less than $1,100 per pupil revenues.78 Further, the plaintiffs methodology reflected th at the state aid formula incr eased the disparity of funds available to local school districts.79 In Edgewood v. Independent School District v. Kirby80 ( Edgewood I ), the Texas Supreme Court held unconstitutional the states school fi nancing system under which district spending per student varied from $2,112 to $19,333. The court stat ed that districts must have substantially 75 Pauley v. Kelly 255 S.E.2d 878 (1979). 76 Pauley v. Bailey 324 S.E.2d 128 (1984). 77 Dupree v. Alma School District No. 30 651 S.W. 2d 90 (Ark. 1983). 78 R.Craig Wood & David Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans An Analysis of Strategies (Topeka, KS: NOLPE, 1996). 79 Ibid. 80 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 777 S.W.2d 391 (1989). ( Edgewood I )

PAGE 49

49 equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort.81 The court also ordered the state legislature to implement an equitable system by the 1990-91 school year. In Edgewood II,82 the Texas Supreme Court reviewed the school funding system enacted in response to the Edgewood I decision. Again, the court found the school finance system unconstitutional because it left the same gaps between high-wealth and low-wealth school districts. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 indicate the status of the fundamental state constitutional right issue in selected states based on school finance constitu tional litigation: Wave III Litigation in the third wave involved courts overturning school finance systems due to state education issues rather than equal protection clauses. Wave III involved claims that public education funding should switch from equity standard s to adequacy standards. Third wave cases contain greater diversity in lega l reasoning. Plaintiffs in Waves I and II of school funding cases emphasized reducing spending disparities and focused on input measures (per pupil spending). Plaintiffs in Wave III concentrated on the accep tability of school funding and proposed that there was a constitutional floor of mini mally adequate education to wh ich public school students were entitled. In 1989, the decision in Helena Elementary School Distri ct No. 1 v. State of Montana83 was notable for its emphasis on access to a quality education, not a minimal and basic education. The Court noted that equality of educational opportunity was the only right guaranteed in the 81 Ibid. 82 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 804 S.W.2d 491 (1991). ( Edgewood II) 83 Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State of Montana 769 P.2d 684 (1989).

PAGE 50

50 Montana Constitution. The State of Montana recogni zed the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indians and was committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural integrity. The Court held that the then-existi ng school finance system was unconstitutional. The court also held that the Foundation Program fundi ng fell short of even meeting the costs of complying with Montanas minimum accreditation standards. The Montana Legislature then began to adopt new school funding legislatio n through enacting a series of House Bills. Despite legislativ e attempts to amend the school funding problem in Montana for more than a decade, the court ruled that the fi nance program still rema ined unconstitutional in Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State84 in 2004. The court held that the current funding system failed to provide adequate funding for Montan as public schools and the state has shown no commitment in its educational goals to the pres ervation of American I ndian cultural identity.85 In Rose v. Council for Better Education,86 the State Supreme Cour t declared the entire Kentucky educational system of common schools unc onstitutional, not just the finance system. While the Court ruled that educa tion in Kentucky is a fundamental right, evidence was provided to show that Kentuckys system of common schools was under-funded and inadequate, was hampered with inequities and inequalities thr oughout the 177 local school districts, was ranked nationally in the lower 20-25 perc ent in every category used to assess educational performance, and was not uniform among the dist ricts in educational opportuniti es. The Court declared the system of common schools in Kentucky to be un constitutional, and place d the absolute duty on the General Assembly to re-c reate and re-establish a new sy stem of common schools in the 84 Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State of Montana 109 P.3d 257 (2004). 85 Ibid. 86 Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989).

PAGE 51

51 Commonwealth. The Court did give some gene ral guidelines which defined an adequate education as one that provides students with th e opportunity to develop at least the following seven capabilities: Sufficient oral and written communication skil ls to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization Sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and po litical systems to enable the student to make informed choices Sufficient understanding of governmental proce sses to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, or nation Sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and physical wellness Sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciat e his or her cultural heritage Sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and Sufficient levels of academic or vocational sk ills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics, or in the job market.87 In New Jersey, judicial involvement in education finance reform began with Robinson v. Cahill (1973). Due to slow implementation of manda ted reforms, judicial involvement surfaced again in a series of Abbott v. Burke88 decisions: Abbott I89 (1985): Abbott v. Burke challenged that the Public School Education Act of 1975 actually increased disparities on public school funding (which relied heavily on property taxes). 87 Paul A. Minorini and Stephen D. Sugarman, Educational Adequacy and the Courts:The Promise and Problems of Moving to a New Paradigm, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives eds. Helen F. Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen, 175-208 (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 88 Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990). 89 Abbott v. Burke 495 A.2d 376 (1985). ( Abbott I )

PAGE 52

52 Abbott II90 (1990): the New Jersey Supreme Co urt found the 1975 Act unconstitutional since it related only to a specific class of districts. The court ordered the legislature to fund poor urban districts at a level matching with wealthy dist ricts and to provide additional funding to accommodate special needs of student s in poor, urban districts. The legislature passed the Quality Education Act of 1990. Abbott III91 (1994): the New Jersey Supreme Court declares the Quality Education Act of 1990 unconstitutional because it did not provide equalized educational funding and the state did not properly address supplemental programs for disa dvantaged students. In 1996, the legislature passed the Comprehensive E ducational Improvement and Financing Act (CEIFA), which defined supplemental program s, including a program for Early Childhod Program Aid (ECPA). Abbott IV92 (1997): the New Jersey Supreme Court declares the CEIFA unconstitutional because it failed to provide sufficient funds. Th e Court ordered state o fficials to increase funds for urban schools to match with suburban schools. Abbott V93 (1998): the New Jersey Supreme Court orde rs a series of entitlements for urban school children including full-day kindergarten, preschool for all 3and 4-year olds, a comprehensive state-managed and funded fac ilities program to eliminate overcrowding and correct code violations. Abbott VI94 (2000): the New Jersey Supreme Court ru led that the state has failed to meet the educational standards set in 1998. The Court ordered th e New Jersey Department of Education to rebuild the preschool education program immediately. The Abbott v. Burke series of court cases gave the state of New Jersey a significant push forward in what quality means in educational programs. In Abbott the Court made a statement about the importance to fund our sc hools, both in the inte rest of the children, and for society as a whole: Those students in the special need s (poorer) districts, given their educational disadvantages and the circ umstances of their environment, will not be able to compete as workers. They are entitled at least to the chance of doing so, and without an equal educational opportunity, they will not 90 Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (1990). ( Abbott II ) 91 Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (1994). ( Abbott III ) 92 Abbott v. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (1997). ( Abbott IV ) 93 Abbott v. Burke 710 A.2d 450 (1998). ( Abbott V ) 94 Abbott v. Burke 748 A.2d 82 (2000). ( Abbott VI)

PAGE 53

53 have that chance. Their situation in society is one of extreme disadvantage; the state must not compound it by providing an unequal opportunity to take advantage of the gift of education. So it is not just that their future depends on the State, the States future depends on them.95 In 1995, Florida plaintiffs filed Coalition for Adequacy and Fa irness in School Funding v. Chiles,96 to challenge the states pub lic education funding structur e. The case was dismissed by the lower court, then in 1996, the Florida S upreme Court accepted the lower courts dismissal of the case. The Florida Suprem e Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate ... an appropriate standard for determining adequacy that would not present a substantial risk of judicial intrusion into the powers and res ponsibilities of th e legislature.97 In New York, the Campaign for Fiscal Equalit y, Inc. (CFE), a not-f or-profit corporation of concerned citizens, challenged the constituti onality of the states public school funding on the grounds that public school students in New York City were being denied the opportunity for a sound basic education.98 In 1995, the Court of Appeals, New Yorks highest court stated: We do not attempt to definitively specif y what the constitutional mandate of a sound basic education entails. Given th e procedural posture of this case, an exhaustive discussion and consideration of the meaning of a "sound basic education" is premature. Only afte r discovery and the development of a factual record can this issue be fully evaluated and resolved. Rather, we articulate a template reflecting our judg ment of what the tr ier of fact must consider in determining whether defendants have met their constitutional obligation. The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs' districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic particip ants capable of voting and serving as jurors. 99 95 Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994). 96 Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles 680 So.2d 400 (1996). 97 Ibid. 98 Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of New York 86 N.Y.2d 307 (1995). 99 Ibid.

PAGE 54

54 The Court of Appeals also held that certain es sential resources were required in order for students to attain a s ound basic education: Children are entitled to minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms which provide enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn. Children should ha ve access to minimally adequate instrumentalities of learning such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably current textbooks. Children are also entitled to minimally adequate teaching of reasonably up-to-date basic curr icula such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social stud ies, by sufficient personnel adequately trained to teach those subject areas.100 In its opinion, the Court outlined its template definition of a sound basic education, emphasizing minimally adequate basic skills necessary to func tion productively as a voter and serve on a jury. The Court indicated that the definition of a sound basic educati on should be further developed. In 2001, Justice DeGrasse presiding over th e New York State Supreme Court concluded in Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of New York that: The court holds that the education provided New York City students is so deficient that it falls below the cons titutional floor set by the Education Article of the New York State Constitu tion. ... the court [also] finds that the State school funding system has an adverse and disparate impact on minority public school children ...101 Justice DeGrasse gave a remedial order, setting up parameters and guidelines to help the state reform the current school funding system: This court has held that a sound basi c education mandated by the Education Article consists of foundational ski lls that students need to become productive citizens capable of civic e ngagement and sustaining competitive employment. In order to ensure th at public schools offer a sound basic education the State must take steps to ensure at least the following resources ... are ... given to New York C itys public school students: 100 Ibid. 101 Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of New York 715 N.Y.2d 475 (2001).

PAGE 55

55 1. Sufficient numbers of qualified t eachers, principals, and other personnel. 2. Appropriate class sizes. 3. Adequate and accessible school buildings with sufficient space to ensure appropriate class size and implem entation of a sound curriculum. 4. Sufficient and up to date books, su pplies, libraries, educational technology, and laboratories. 5. Suitable curricula, including an expa nded platform of programs to help at risk students by giving them more time on task. 6. Adequate resources for students with extraordinary needs. 7. A safe orderly environment. In the course of reforming the school finance system, ... the actual cost of providing a sound basic education in dist ricts around the State ... reforms to the current system of financi ng school funding should address: 1. Ensuring that every school district has the resources necessary for providing the opportunity fo r a sound basic education. 2. Taking into account the vari ations in local costs. 3. Providing sustained and stable fundi ng in order to promote long-term planning by schools and school districts. 4. Providing as much transparency as possible so that the public may understand how the State distributes school aid. 5. Ensuring a system of accountability to measure whether the reforms implemented by the legislature actu ally provide the opportunity for a sound basic education and remedy the disparate impact of the current finance system.102 The Court gave the State of New York until July 2004 to comply with the order. The State failed to devise and implement a reform plan of the public school financing system by this deadline. Justice DeGrasse then appointed three referees to devise and pr esent a solution. In November 2004, the referees presented and Justice DeGrasse ordered the reform plan which recommended spending $5.63 billion for operating expenses and $9.2 billion for facilities be phased over four years. The significance of this case is the i llustration of the government failing to remedy constitutional violations by the court, which then required the court to formulate its own solution with large budgeta ry implications. 102 Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of New York 715 N.Y.2d 475 (2001).

PAGE 56

56 The State of Ohios school funding system spent six years in litigation (1997-2003). Over a century earlier, in 1851, th e Ohio Constitution has required the General Assembly to provide enough funding to secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state. The State of Ohio held that education was essential in preparing the youth to be productive members of our democratic society and to progress as a state. In 1997, the Ohio school funding mechanism was challenged, and a d ecision was needed to determine whether the promise of the forefathers of providing the youth a free public education in a thorough and efficient system has been fulfilled. In the decision of DeRolph v. State of Ohio ( DeRolph I )103: All the facts documented in the record lead to one inescapable conclusion Ohios elementary and secondary pu blic schools are neither thorough nor efficient. The operation of the appellant school districts conflicts with the historical notion that th e education of our youth is of utmost concern and that Ohio children should be educated ad equately so that they are able to participate fully in society. Our state Constitution was drafted with the importance of education in mind. In contrast, education under the legislation being reviewed ranks miserably low in the states priorities. In fact, the formula amount is established after the legislature determines the total dollars to be allocated to pr imary and secondary education in each biennial budget. Consequently, th e present school financing system contravenes the clear wording of our Constitution and the framers intent. ... By our decision today, we send a clear message to lawmakers: the time has come to fix the system. Let there be no misunderstanding. Ohios public school financing scheme must undergo a complete systematic overhaul. The factors which contribute to the un workability of the system and which must be eliminated are (1) the oper ation of the School Foundation Program, (2) the emphasis of Ohios school fu nding system on local property tax, (3) the requirement of school district borrowing through the spending reserve and emergency school assistance loan programs, and (4) the lack of sufficient funding in the General As semblys biennium budget for the construction and maintenance of public school buildings. The funding laws reviewed today are inherently incap able of achieving their constitutional purpose.104 103 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 677 N.E.2d 733 (1997). ( DeRolph I ) 104 Ibid.

PAGE 57

57 Hence, the Ohio Supreme Court held that th e school funding system was unconstitutional and ordered a complete and systematic over haul of the funding system with the DeRolph I ruling. In 2000, despite funding increases in public education in Ohio, the court ruled the funding system virtually unchange d and still unconstitutional in DeRolph v. State of Ohio ( DeRolph II ).105 After further efforts to amend the school funding system in Ohio, the court held that the system still remained unconstitutional in DeRolph III .106 In 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court again ruled that the school funding process still remained unconstitutional in DeRolph IV .107 In 2000, 2001, and 2002, instead of implementing a complete and systematic overhaul of the entire funding mechanism of Oh io, the Ohio Legislature just au thorized an increase of state funds to be dispersed to the school districts. The Ohio Legislature was never provided with guidance as to how to create a constitutio nally sound school funding program by the Ohio Supreme Court. Finally, on May 16, 2003, the Ohio Supreme Court, with its response to a writ of prohibition filed by the state, effectively ended the saga that has been known as the DeRolph case.108 An interesting note in DeRolph I was Justice Moyers dissent ing opinion. He pointed out that determining appropriate funding for public schools required policy decisions involving political budgetary value judgments that the cour ts are not in position to make. Justice Moyer concluded that the judi cial branch is neither equipped nor empowered to make these kinds of 105 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 728 N.E.2d 993 (2000). ( DeRolph II ) 106 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 754 N.E.2d 1184 (2001). ( DeRolph III ) 107 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 780 N.E.2d 529 (2002). ( DeRolph IV ) 108 Sandra K. McKinley, The Journey to Adequacy: The DeRolph Saga, Journal of Education Finance 30, no. 3 (2005):288-312.

PAGE 58

58 decisions.109 Nevertheless, Ohio public schools have benefited from the DeRolph litigations, and billions of state dollars c ontinue to be poured into the co nstruction and renovation of school facilities across the stat e, but the school funding system in Ohio still remains unconstitutional.110 The Legislatures of the State of Texas spen t decades revising the finance system as a result of a series of litigations beginning with Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District (1973),111 and then continuing with the series of Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby (1989, 1991, 1992, 1995).112 In 2003, the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments in the case West Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD v. Nelson.113 The plaintiff school di stricts alleged that the provision of the education finance system that that limits the local tax rate to $1.50 per $100 of assessed valuation violates the Texas State Constitution, therefore deeming the states school funding as inadequate. While the states school funding formula was constitutional, the court held that the state property tax system had become unconstitutional. Table 2-2 gives an outline of th e highest state-court decision s or un-appealed lower court decisions: In conclusion, from the cases reviewed, the last half-a-century ha s seen many plaintiff victories. Plaintiffs success in the recent wave of education adequacy litigations reflects both a renewed attempt to implement Browns vision of educational opportuni ty and also a flowering of 109 DeRolph v. State of Ohio 677 N.E.2d 733 (1997). ( DeRolph I ) 110 Sandra K. McKinley, Part II The Journey to Adequacy: The DeRolph Saga, Journal of Education Finance 30, no. 4 (2005):321-381. 111 Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District 411 U.S. 1 (1973). 112 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 777 S.W.2d 391(1989). ( Edgewood I ), Edgewood II 804 S.W.2d 491 (1991)., Edgewood III 826 S.W.2d 489 (1992)., Edgewood IV 893 S.W.2d 450 (1995). 113 West Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD v. Nelson 107 S.W.3d 558 (2003).

PAGE 59

59 egalitarian seeds that had been planted long a go in the eighteenthand nineteenthcentury concepts of education reform.114 These cases are constitutionally grounded in the notion that for a democracy to flourish, all of it s citizens must be well-educated.115 Furthermore, the need to actually provide an adequate education to all ci tizens has become even more urgent today when the information demands of the computer era have heightened the level of cognitive skills needed to be an informed citizen.116 Many political, judicial, and legal servants have made an attempt to contribute overwhelming support in the reform and implementation of improved public education finance policies to satis fy the core proposition of the No Child Left Behind Act that all children can and must meet state educational standards. The extent to which actual reforms will be implemented in particular states and particular school districts will depend on the effectiveness of advocacy efforts to engage the public and build constitu encies that can press policy makers to fairly fund these initiatives and to st rongly support public education.117 Table 2-3 illustrates the school funding adequacy status for each of the fifty states. This summary is based on adequacy lawsuits and cour t decisions pertaining to the current state of affairs of school funding adequacy cases by state. Florida Education Finance Program The Florida Education Finance Program (FE FP) was enacted by the Florida Legislature in 1973 to provide equalization of funding in orde r to guarantee equal edu cational opportunity to pupils in the State of Florida notwithstanding geographic differenc es and varying local economic 114 Michael Rebell, Adequacy Litigations: A New Path to Equity Chapter in Bringing Equity Back, eds. Janice Petrovich & Amy Stuartwe ll (New York: Teachers Co llege Press, 2004). 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid.

PAGE 60

60 factors.118 Financial support for public school educa tion in Florida and for the operation of the FEFP are derived from state, local, and federal sources. As shown in Fi gure 2-5, 42.8 percent of the support for school districts in Florida was pr ovided by the state, 47.2 percent of the support came from local sources, and 10 percent was provided by federal sources in 2005.119 State support to Florida school districts are provi ded by tax sources deposited into the General Revenue Fund, in which the predomin ant tax source was the state sales tax.120 Proceeds from the Florida Lottery were also used to fina nce school district operations. Other minor state sources include: proceeds form licensing motor vehicles used for capital outlay, mobile home licenses, and state forest funds.121 Local support to Florida school districts was de rived almost entirely from property taxes.122 Each school district must levy the millage se t for its required local effort from property taxes. Each districts share of the state to tal required local effort was determined by the Legislature. The Commi ssioner of Education then certifies each districts required local millage 118 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). 119 U.S. Department of Commer ce, Bureau of the Census, Public Education Finances 2005 (Washington DC, 2007). 120 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid.

PAGE 61

61 rate. Certifications vary due to the use of assessment ratios desi gned to equalize the effect on the FEFP of differing levels of pr operty appraisal in the counties.123 Required local effort may not exceed 90 percent of a districts total FEFP entitl ement. In 2005, the Florida state average was 5.239 mills. Local school districts also have the op tion to set two other types of discretionary tax levies: (1) School boards may levy up to 2.0 mills for new construction and remodeling projects, maintenance, renovation, and repair projects, pur chase or lease of school buses, and lease of relocatable educational facilities;124 and (2) the Legislature se t the maximum discretionary current operating millage at 0.510 mills; however, di stricts may make an additional supplemental levy, not to exceed 0.25 mills that will raise an amount not to exceed $100 per FTE student.125 Revenues from local taxes are determined by appl ying the millage levies to 95% of the taxable value of the property.126 Federal support to Florida school district s are received through a va riety of agencies such as the Department of Labor, Vete rans Administration, De partment of the Interior, Department of Education, Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture.127 123 Ibid. 124 Florida Statute 011.71 (2) (2005). 125 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). 126 Florida Statute 011.62 (1r, 4a) (2005). 127 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).

PAGE 62

62 The FEFP formula recognizes: varying local property tax bases, varying education program costs, varying costs of living, and varying costs for equivalent educational program s due to sparsity and dispersion of student population.128 The key feature of the FEFP is to base fina ncial support for educa tion upon the individual student participating in a particular educational program rather than upon the numbers of teachers or classrooms.129 As stated in the overview of public school funding for Florida school districts: FEFP funds are primarily generated by multiplying the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students in each of the funded educational programs by the cost factors to obtain weighted FTEs. Weighted FTEs are then multiplied by a base student allocation and by a district cost differential in the major calculation to determine th e base funding from state and local FEFP funding.Program cost factors are determined by the Legislature and represent relative cost differences among the FEFP programs.130 A full-time equivalent (FTE) student is on e student on the active membership roll of one school program or a combination of school programs for the school year or the equivalent of the school year.131 Basic school programs are kindergarte n or grades one through twelve and include, but are not limited to, language arts, mathematics, art, music, physical education, science, and social studies.132 Instruction in a standard school year or the equivalent of a school year comprises not less than 900 net hours for a student in or at the gr ade level of 4 through 12, 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid. 131 Florida Statute 011.61(1) (2005). 132 Florida Statute 011.62 (1c, 6) (2005).

PAGE 63

63 or not less than 720 net hours for a student in or at the grade leve l of kindergarten through grade 3 or in an authorized prek indergarten exceptional program.133 Program cost factors serve to assure that each program receives its equitable share of funds in relation to its relative cost per student.134 To determine the weighted FTE (WFTE), multiply the FTE students for a program by its cost factor. Cost factors for basic programs in 2005 were: Kindergarten and Grades 1, 2, and 3 cost factor = 1.018 Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 cost factor = 1.000 Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 cost factor = 1.113 This calculation weights the FTE to reflect cost s of the programs as re presented by the program cost factors.135 The WFTE is then multiplied by the base stude nt allocation. The base student allocation (BSA) for the Florida Education Finance Program for kindergarten through grade 12 shall be determined annually by the Legislature.136 The product of the WFTE and the BSA is then multiplied by the district cost differential (DCD). The Commissioner of Education annually computes the DCD for each district each year.137 The DCD shall be calculated by adding each districts price level index as published in the Florida Price Level Index for the most recent three 133 Florida Statute 011.61 (1a, 1) (2005). 134 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). 135 Ibid. 136 Florida Statute 011.62 (1b) (2005). 137 Florida Statute 011.62 (2) (2005).

PAGE 64

64 years and then dividing the resulting sum by three.138 The result for each district shall be multiplied by 0.008 and to the resulting product sh all be added 0.200; the sum thus obtained shall be the DCD for that year.139 The DCDs for any given year are published in the Statistical ReportFunding for Florida Schools of the Florida Department of Education.140 After taking the WFTE multiplied by the BSA, then multiplied by the DCD, the result is the base funding for the district. The Florida Price Level Index (FPLI) was established by the Legislature as the basis for the DCD in the FEFP.141 The DCD table is constructed so that the population-weighted district average is 1.0000. DCD values tend to be highest in the southern portion of the state. This happens because many areas in south Florida are heavily populated, making land within easy reach of employment and shopping centers very scar ce and very expensive. As a result, workers will encounter high house prices and long commutes, for which they must be compensated in the form of higher wages.142 Once the base funding is estab lished, a series of add-ons are then considered for each district. The declining enrollment supplement is determined by comparing the unweighted FTE 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 140 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). 141 James Dewey, The Florida Price Level Index 2005. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 2007). 142 Ibid.

PAGE 65

65 for the current year to the unw eighted FTE of the prior year.143 The purpose of the declining enrollment supplement is to prevent districts with a decrease in student enrollment from experiencing a financial hardship. To calculate the declining enrollment supplement, multiply 50 percent of the decline by the pr ior-year funding base per unweighted FTE. This figure is the declining enrollment supplement. The sparsity supplement is applied to sc hools with smaller student enrollments. To qualify for the sparsity supplement, a school dist ricts FTE membership shall be no less than 17,000 and no more than 24,000.144 The discretionary tax equaliza tion allows districts that levy the discretionary 0.510 mills and an additional 0.250 mills to receive a supplement if the additional 0.250 mills raise less than $100 per FTE.145 This supplement is provided to ensure that each district receives $100 per FTE when combined with the amount raised by the 0.250 mills.146 143 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). 144 Florida Statute 1.62 (6) (2005). 145 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). 146 Ibid.

PAGE 66

66 A safe schools activities appropriation is allo cated to each school district so that each school district is guaranteed a minimum of $50,000. From the remaining appropriation, 67 percent shall be allocated base d on the latest official Flor ida Crime Index provided by the Department of Law Enforcement, and 33 percent sh all be allocated based on each districts share of the states total unwei ghted student enrollment.147 A Reading Program fund is provided for a K12 comprehensive, district-wide system of research-based reading instru ction in which $50,000 is allocate d to each district and the remaining balance is allocated based on each dist ricts proportion of the state total K-12 base funding.148 The Supplemental Academic Instructio n allocation funds supplemental intensive instruction, consistent with th e Sunshine State Standards, in cluding summer school and intensive English immersion instruction, for stude nts who scored Level I on the FCAT.149 Once the add-ons (most of which have been described in the preceding paragraphs) have been factored into the FEFP, the result is the Gross State and Local FEFP Dollars. The next step is for the district required local effort to be subtracted from the state and local FEFP dollars. The district required local effort was produced as described in the local support section of the FEFP of this document. The resulting difference was the state FEFP dollars to be allocated to each district. This difference may be adjusted based on prior year adjudication of litigation, arithmetical errors, assessment roll change, FTE student membership errors, or allocation errors revealed in an audit report.150 Once the state FEFP dollars are determined, then the district discretionary lottery funds and categorical prog ram funds are added on. District discretionary 147 Ibid. 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid. 150 Ibid.

PAGE 67

67 lottery entitlements are calculated by prorating each districts FEFP base funding entitlement (WFTE x BSA x DCD) to the amount of the lottery appropriation.151 Categorical program funds were appropriated to assist di stricts in satisfying the approved amendment regarding class size reduction. After adding on the di strict discretionary lottery f unds and the categorical program funds, the final outcome was the total state finance program. Assessment and Accountability The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 m andated that states deve lop and administer annual state academic assessments to each student in the districts and develop and implement accountability systems to measure proficiency a nd growth of each student. The basic program requirements outlined in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 specify that each State devise a plan that confirms that the State had adopted ri gorous academic standards as well as challenging academic achievement standards.152 Each State plan must demonstrate that there is an accountability system in place to measure adequa te yearly progress of all students in the district.153 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 prescribed measurable objectives to be used by each State to meet the goals of the ensuring a nnual adequate progress. These goals included separate assessments for mathematics and readin g or language arts, same assessments for all schools in the State, iden tification of a single minimum percen tage of students who are required to meet or exceed the proficient level on the a cademic assessments, and ensure that all students will meet or exceed the States proficient level of academic achievement on the State assessments within the States timeline.154 151 Ibid. 152 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 111(a), 20 USC 6311 (2002). 153 Ibid. 154 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 111(g), 20 USC 6311 (2002).

PAGE 68

68 The Florida State Legislature committed itself to meeting the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and meeting the educational goals for each student. As stated in the Florida Statutes, the primary purpose of th e student assessment program was to provide information needed to improve public schools by enhancing the learning ga ins of all students and to inform parents of the educational progress of their public school children.155 The program was designed to assess the annual learning gains of each student toward achieving the Sunshine State Standards, identify the e ducational strengths and needs of students and the readiness of students to be promoted to the next grade level or to graduate from hi gh school with a standard high school diploma, and assess how well educati onal goals and performance standards are met at the school, district, and state levels.156 In accordance with the statewide assessment standards, the development and implementation of the student achievement program in Florida came to be known as the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT).157 The FCAT was a combination of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests, which were designed to measure academic skills and competencies of each student. The FCAT was to be administ ered annually in grades 3 through 10 to measure proficiency levels in reading, wr iting, mathematics, and science.158 Students must have earned a passing score on the grade 10 assessment test to qualify for a regular high school diploma.159 155 Florida Statute 008.22 (1) (2005). 156 Ibid. 157 Florida Statute 008.22 (3c) (2005). 158 Florida Statute 008.22 (3c, 2) (2005). 159 Florida Statute 8. 22 (3c, 5) (2005).

PAGE 69

69 Participation in the FCAT testing program is mandatory for all students attending public school.160 The performance accountability system implemented to assess the effectiveness of the FCAT was designed to answer the following questions: (1) What is the public receiving in return for funds it invests in education?, (2) How effectively is Floridas K-12 education system educating its students?, (3) How effectively are the major delivery se ctors promoting student achievement?, and (4) How are individual schools performing their responsibility to educ ate their students as measured by how students are performi ng and how much they are learning?.161 The accountability system also measured student progress toward the fo llowing goals: highest student achievement, as measured by the FC AT performance and annual learning gains, graduation completion rates of all learning levels, and school performance by grade designation.162 Expenditure Prior to the 1990s, expenditure studies were proposed to develop a per-pupil expenditure that would meet the needs of educational ad equacy goals. One common technique used by districts was the median expenditu re of districts method. Median expenditures of districts in the prior year were computed and presumed to be ade quate, then states were to strive to bring the lower half of the districts up to the median.163 After decades of adequacy litigations and costing160 Florida Statute 008.22 (3c, 6) (2005). 161 Florida Statute 008.31 (1a) (2005). 162 Florida Statute 008.31 (2c) (2005). 163 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. Measur ing Educational Adequacy in Public Schools (Bush School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University,

PAGE 70

70 out studies, as well as a predominance of stat e standards and accountability mandates, it is argued that the simple median expenditure appro ach is no longer a viable method of determining per-pupil expenditure.164 Due to the recent completion of adequacy studies within many different states, per-pupil expenditures are begi nning to spread apart am ongst the states. For example, in 2005, the per-pupil expenditure in New York was $14,119 while the per-pupil expenditure in Utah was $6,257. It is interesting to note that the State of New York has recently had a lengthy legal battle w ith educational adequacy in Campaign for Fiscal Equality, Inc. v. State of New York which resulted in major costing-out stud ies performed, while the State of Utah has not seen any litigation pertaining to educa tional adequacy. Figure 2-6 illustrates the perpupil expenditures for each state in 2005.165 Balancing Equity and Adequacy As the Twenty-First century began, the pub lic education finance issues of resource adequacy, performance funding, and efficiency cons iderations have become the primary focus of policy debates and social science research, shif ting equity concerns into the background. Disputes about public school funding systems have engaged lawmakers and taxpayers through the court system over the past few decades. While equity issues were once the focus of the lawsuits, the trend in finance litigation has rece ntly shifted to providing adequate resources to achieve student academic goals. Performance standa rds and educational adequacy have been at 2005). 164 Ibid. 165 U.S. Department of Commer ce, Bureau of the Census, Public Education Finances 2005 (Washington DC, 2007).

PAGE 71

71 the center of recent debate on educational reform.166 Balancing equitable and adequate distribution of resources pose a ch allenge to policymakers as they debate with education finance issues today. Summary The basic prem ise on which our public educati on system was created, and that was that: for a democracy to flourish, all of its citizens must be well-educated. Today, the core proposition of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 says that all children can and must meet state educational standards. This core propositio n is evidence that the fundamental democratic notion is continuing its steady progressi on forward, despite periodic setbacks. The last few decades has seen a trend of many plaintiff victories and an increase in the number of state court educational adequacy litig ations. In the last decade, many state courts have interpreted the education clause in its Stat e Constitution as requiring the state to provide an opportunity for all children to reach an adequate level of content knowledge. The outcomes of these recent court victories have resulted in the largest school finance adequacy judgments ever awarded.167 Recently, adequacy cases have been challenged the equity standard for which state school finance formulas have received much criticism. Guthrie and Rothstein argue that the concept of adequacy adds an additional complexity (as compared to equity) because of the requirement to link cost calcula tions to decisions about minima lly appropriate resource input levels and schooling outcomes.168 While defining equity is esse ntially a technical enterprise, 166 William Duncombe and John Yinger, Performance Standards and Educational Cost Indexes: You Cant Have One Without the Other, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance-Issues and Perspectives eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 167 Eric A. Hanushek, Pseudo-Science and a Sound Basi c Education Voodoo Statistics in New York, Education Next 5(4) (2005): 67-73. ( Hanushek refers to the CFE, Inc. v. State of New York 715N.Y.2d475 (2001)). 168 James Guthrie and Richard Rothstein, Enabling Adequa cy to Achieve Reality: Translating Adequacy into

PAGE 72

72 moving to adequacy requires policy and value judgments about which achieving consensus, ultimately, may be more suitable.169 When dealing with public education finance pol icy, equity and adequacy are joint goals. One could argue that the State of Floridas educati onal finance plan (the FEFP) is a very fair and equitable program, but when the finance progra m is investigated us ing a school district accountability score (which is a score based on student achievement), the outcome tends to become very different. Efforts to properly fund the new educational standards and initiatives has caused many states to revise its existing state finance plan. State School Finance Distribution Arrangements, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance-Issues and Perspectives eds. Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet Hansen (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 169 Ibid.

PAGE 73

73 State Financing source(s) for state funding system Alabama Foundation Alaska Foundation Arizona Foundation Arkansas Foundation California Foundation Colorado Foundation Connecticut Foundation Delaware Flat Grant & Equalization Florida Foundation Georgia Flat Grant & Equalization Hawaii Full State Funding Idaho Foundation Illinois Foundation & Flat Grant Indiana Foundation & GTB Iowa Flat Grant & Equalization Kansas Flat Grant & Equalization Kentucky Flat Grant & Equalization Louisiana Flat Grant & Equalization Maine Foundation Maryland Flat Grant & Equalization Massachusetts Foundation Michigan Foundation Minnesota Flat Grant & Equalization Mississippi Foundation Missouri Foundation & GTB Montana Foundation Nebraska Foundation Nevada Foundation New Hampshire Foundation New Jersey Foundation New Mexico Foundation New York General Aid* North Carolina Foundation North Dakota Foundation Ohio Foundation Oklahoma Foundation Oregon Foundation Pennsylvania Percentage Equalization Rhode Island General aid (uses 10 methods in distributing education funds) South Carolina Foundation South Dakota Foundation Tennessee Foundation Texas Foundation & Equalization Utah Foundation Vermont Full State Funding Virginia Foundation Washington Full State Funding & Equalization West Virginia Foundation Wisconsin GTB Wyoming Foundation Figure 2-1: Financing sources for state funding systems 2004-05170 170 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Funding Sources for State Funding System (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005).

PAGE 74

74 Table 2-1: Examples of progressive, pr oportional, and regressive tax burdens. progressive proportional regressive A B A B A B Income $30,000 $60,000 $30,000 $60,000 $30,000 $60,000 Taxes Paid $3,000 $9,000 $4,500 $9,000 $4,500 $6,000 Tax Burden 10% 15% 15% 15% 15% 10% Note: Tax Burden = Taxes Paid Income Adapted from Monk, D.H. and Brent, B.O. (1997), Raising Money for Education, p. 16, table 2.1.

PAGE 75

75 Figure 2-2: Education cost analys is methods, adequacy studies 1995-2004171 171 Lori Taylor, Bruce Baker, and Arnold Vedlitz. Measur ing Educational Adequacy in Public Schools (Bush School working paper #580, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 2005). Resource Oriented Professional Judgment Wyoming 1997 Oregon 2000 South Carolina 2000 Maryland 2001 Kansas 2002 Nebraska 2003 Indiana 2002 Wisconsin 2002 Colorado 2003 Missouri 2003 Montana 2003 Kentucky 2003 North Dakota 2003 Washington 2003 New York 2004 Tennessee 2004 Vermont 2004 Evidence Based New Jersey 1998 Kentucky 2003 Arkansas 2003 pending Wyoming 2006 Kansas2006 Cost Function New York 2004 Texas 2004, 2005 Minnesota 2004 pending Kansas 2006 Successful Schools Mississippi 1993 Ohio 1999 Maryland 2001 Kansas 2002 Louisiana 2001 Colorado 2003 Missouri 2003 New York 2004 Vermont 2004 New Hampshire 1998 Illinois 2001 Performance Oriented

PAGE 76

76 States in which the State Supreme C ourt has declared that education is a Fundamental State Constitutional Right172 Arizona Shofstall v. Hollins 1973 Wisconsin Busse v. Smith, 1976 California Serrano v. Pries t, 1977 Connecticut Horton v. Meskill 1977 Washington Seattle v. Washington 1978 Wyoming Washakie v. Hershler, 1980 West Virginia Pauley v. Bailey, 1984 Montana Helena v. State, 1989 Kentucky Rose v. Council 1989 Figure 2-3: States in which the State Supreme Court has declared that education is a Fundamental State Constitutional Right States in which the State Supreme Cour t has declared that education is not a Fundamental State Constitutional Right173 New Jersey Robinson v. Cahill 1973 Michigan Milliken v. Green 1973 Idaho Thompson v. Engelking, 1975 Oregon Olsen v. State, 1976 Pennsylvania Dansen v. Casey 1979 Ohio Board v. Walter, 1979 New York Levittown v. Nyquist 1982 Colorado Lujan v. Colorado, 1982 Georgia McDaniel v. Thomas 1982 Arkansas Dupree v. Alma, 1983 Figure 2-4: States in which the State Supreme Court has declared that education is not a Fundamental State Constitutional Right 172 G.Alan Hickrod, Robert Lenz, and Paul.. Minorini. Selected Papers in School Finance 1995-Status of School Finance Constitutional Litigation (Appendix A),. (NCES 97-536) US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1997). 173 Ibid.

PAGE 77

77 Table 2-2: State funding Adequacy Decisions since 1989174 Plaintiff Victory (20) State Defendant Victory (10) Pending (11) Alaska* Arizona (1994) Arkansas Idaho Kansas Kentucky Maryland Massachusetts (1993) Missouri Montana New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio South Carolina Texas (1989) Vermont Wyoming Alabama Arizona (2007) Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts (2005) Missouri Nebraska Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island Texas (2005) Alaska* Arizona Colorado Connecticut Georgia Kentucky Oregon South Dakota Washington *Alaska plaintiffs won a capital funding cas e; an operational f unding case is pending. Massachusetts, Texas, and Arizona had each had two adequacy cases. Kentucky plaintiffs won new funding system s years ago; current suits allege that those systems have changed and become unconstitutional. 174 Molly A. Hunter, State Funding Adequacy Decisions since 1989, (May 2007), updated by author, http://www.schoolfunding.info/litiga tion/AdequacyDecisions07.pdf (retrieved August 5, 2007).

PAGE 78

78 Table 2-3: School Funding Adequacy Cases by State175 State Has there been an adequacy suit? Most recent Adequacy case Did the court decision side with the state? Was there an adequacy study? Who initiated it? Alabama Yes Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt (1992) Yes. Case was dismissed in 2002. State initiated, 2001 Alaska Yes Kasayulie v. State (1997) No State initiated, 1998 Arizona Yes Crane Elementary School District v. State (2001) Yes. Case was dismissed and plaintiffs are appealing. Court ordered, 2001. Outside initiation, 2005. Arkansas Yes Lake View School District, No. 25 v. Huckabee (2001) No Court Ordered, 2003 California Yes Williams v. State (1999) Parties settled in 2004. State initiated, 2005 Colorado Yes Unknown (1988) Suit was withdrawn State initiated Connecticut Yes Sheff v. ONeill (1996) Parties settled in 2003 No Delaware No NA NA No Florida Yes Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles (1995) Yes No Georgia Yes Consortium for Adequate School Funding in Georgia v. State (2004) No decision yet No Hawaii No NA NA No Idaho Yes Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. State (1998) The court sided against the state only on the issue of facilities and capital funding. No Illinois Yes Lewis E. v. Spagnolo (1999) Yes State initiated, 2001 Indiana No NA NA No Iowa Yes Coalition for a Common Cents Solution v. State (2002) Parties settled in 2004. No Kansas Yes Montoy v. State (1999) No State initiated, 2002 Kentucky Yes Young v. Williams (2003) No decision yet State initiated, 2003 Outside initiation, 2003 Louisiana Yes Charlet v. Legislature of the State of Louisiana (1998) Yes No Maine No NA NA No 175 Michael Griffith and Molly Burke, School Funding Adequacy Cases. (February 2005). http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/59/07/5907.htm (retrieved August 5, 2007). (With modifications to update 2008).

PAGE 79

79 Table 2-3 continued: State Has there been an adequacy suit? Most recent Adequacy case Did the court decision side with the state? Was there an adequacy study? Who initiated it? Maryland Yes Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education (1994) No. Plaintiffs returned to court in 2000. State initiated, 2001 Outside initiation, 2001 Massachusetts Yes Hancock v. Driscoll (1999) No decision yet Outside initiation, 2003 Michigan No NA NA No Minnesota No NA NA No Mississippi No NA NA State initiated, 1993 Missouri Yes Committee for Education Equality v. State (1993, 2004) Yes 2007 Outside Initiation, 2003 Montana Yes Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State (2002) No Outside initiation, 2002 State initiated, 2007 Nebraska Yes Douglas County v. Johanns (2003) No Outside initiation, 2003 Nevada No NA NA State initiated, 2007 New Hampshire Yes Claremont School District v. Governor (1999) No State initiated, 1998 New Jersey Yes Abott v. Burke (1985) No State initiated, 1996 New Mexico No NA NA No New York Yes Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State (1993) No Court ordered, 2004 State initiated, 2004 Outside initiation, 2004 North Carolina Yes Hoke County v. State (2004) No No North Dakota Yes Williston Public School District v. State (2003) Decision Pending State initiated, 2003, 2008 Ohio Yes DeRolph v. State (1997) No Court ordered, 1995 Outside initiation, 1993 Oklahoma No Plaintiffs decided against pursuing an adequacy lawsuit. NA No Oregon No NA NA State initiated, 2000 Pennsylvania Yes Marrero v. Commonwealth (1998) Yes. Case dismissed No Rhode Island Yes Town of Exeter v. State (2000) Yes State initiated, 2007 South Carolina Yes Abbeville v. State (1993) No decision yet Outside initiation, 1998 South Dakota No NA NA No Tennessee No NA NA State initiated, 1992 Outside initiation, 2004

PAGE 80

80 Table 2-3 continued: State Has there been an adequacy suit? Most recent Adequacy case Did the court decision side with the state? Was there an adequacy study? Who initiated it? Texas Yes West-Orange Cove ISD v. Nelson (2001) Yes No Utah No NA NA No Vermont No NA NA State initiated, 2004 Virginia No NA NA No Washington Yes Seattle II v. State (early 1980s) No Outside initiation, 2003 West Virginia No NA NA No Wisconsin No NA NA Outside initiation, 2002 Wyoming Yes Campbell County School District v. State (1995, 2001) In its second Campbell decision, the court found that the state had complied with courtordered remedies, with some notable exceptions. Court ordered, 1997, 2002 Figure 2-5: Percent dist ribution of revenue for Florida public schools 2004-05

PAGE 81

81 Figure 2-6: U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (2007). Public Education Finances 2005 Government Division U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC. Elementary-Secondary Per PupilExpenditure Amounts by State 2004-05 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 NNVCMDAPRIWMMWNMIOWHIILVINUMNNOCMGIACMKLNWSATFLSNKATNOMIDAUDOLLARSSTATESeries 1

PAGE 82

82 Figure 2.6 Continued STATE$/ pupilNY 14119 NJ 13800 VT 11835 CT 11572 MA 11267 DE 10910 AK 10830 PA 10552 RI 10371 WY 10255 ME 10106 MD 9815 WI 9744 NH 9448 MI 9329 OH 9260 WV 9005 HI 8997 IL 8944 STATE$/ pupilVA 8891 IN 8798 US 8701 MN 8662 NE 8282 ND 8159 OR 8115 CA 8067 MT 8058 GA 8028 IA 7972 CO 7730 MO 7717 KS 7706 LA 7605 NM 7580 WA 7560 SC 7555 AR 7504 STATE$/ pupilTX 7267 FL 7207 SD 7197 NC 7159 KY 7118 AL 7066 TN 6729 NV 6722 OK 6613 MS 6575 ID 6283 AZ 6261 UT 5257

PAGE 83

83 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Introduction The objective of this study was to determine if the funds allo cated to each Florida county in 2005 and 2006 were sufficient to provide an equitable and (in th e same time period) adequate education to the students of Flor ida. The estimates provided in this study are based on various data sources and stated assumptions on how to aggr egate the data. Most of these data were from the Florida Information Resource Network of the Florida Department of Education. In this equity and adequacy study, the FEFP final cal culation from the 2004-05 and the 2005-06 school years, and the Florida Comprehensive Assessm ent Test results from the 2004-05 and the 2005-06 school years on the Sunshine State Standards benchmarks in reading and mathematics for grades three through ten were used.1 1 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 3 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 3 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 4 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 4 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 5 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores,

PAGE 84

84 Grade 5 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 6 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 6 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 7 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 7 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 8 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 8 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 9 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 9 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 10 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 10 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2005). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 3 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 3 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 4 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 4 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

PAGE 85

85 Research Design: Equity Measures of horizontal equity (equal treatment are of equals ) are statistics applied to school finance that describe the spread of the di stribution. To achieve perfect horizontal equity, every student in the distribution would have to receive the same amount of fiscal resources. Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 5 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 5 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 6 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 6 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 7 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 7 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 8 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 8 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 9 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 9 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Education, Florida Comprehe nsive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 10 Reading, (Tallahassee, FL : Florida Department of Education 2006). Florida Department of Educa tion, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, State and District Scores, Grade 10 Math, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education 2006).

PAGE 86

86 Horizontal equity measures determine the prox imity from the actual di stribution to achieve perfect equality. Measures that could be used to measure horizontal equity are the Variance, the McLoone Index the Coefficient of Variation and the Gini Coefficient.2 The variance is the average of the squared deviat ions of each per-pupil object from the mean per-pupil object.3 In terms of educational finance, variance is the difference between dollars received by each school district and the av erage dollars administered within the state.4 A large variance statistic indicates wide diversity of funding and unequal distribution of financial resources.5 The variance statistic is sensitive to extreme cases becau se each school district is treated equally. This can cause the variance statistic to be misleading when used alone. For example, in a given state, if one school district was receiving a very large or very small amount of money, this may result in a la rge variance statistic leading to a conclusion of inequity despite the fact that the remaining school districts were receivi ng the same amount of money.6 To avoid the problem of extreme cases, a weighting system that weighs school district spending by the size of the school is generally used. To m easure variance, the following formula is used: Variance = N i i N i iPiP XXP1 1 2)( 2 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, The Measurement of Equity in School Finance (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984). 3 Ibid. 4 William Fowler, David Monk, Lauri.Peternick, and Becky Smerdon, Using Cost and Need Adjustments to Improve Measurements of School Finance Equity, NCES Developments in School Finance Washington 1997). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98212-8.pdf 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

PAGE 87

87 where iP number of pupils in district, iX average expenditures per pupil in district i, and PX = mean revenues per pupil for all pupils.7 The McLoone Index is defined as the ratio of the to tal dollar inputs for pupils below the median to the dollar inputs that would be require d if all pupils below the median were receiving the per-pupil dollar amount at the median.8 Unlike the variance, the McLoone Index is sensitive to where along the distribution the inequality exists. The McLoone Index is used to assess equity in the distribution of variables among units in the lower half of the distribution.9 It compares what recipients below the median in the distribution actually received with the amount they would have received had they been given the same amount as the median recipient.10 To calculate the McLoone Index, firs t compute the median expenditure per pupil for the state. Second, calculate the total number of dollars spen t on students whose per pupil expenditures was below the median. Third, divide that figure by the total amount that would be spent if every pupil below the median had been at the median level expenditure. The McLoone Index formula is: McLoone Index = J i iP J i iiPM XP1 1 7 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, The Measurement of Equity in School Finance (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984). 8 Ibid. 9 William Fowler, David Monk, Lauri Peternick, and Becky Smerdon, Using Cost and Need Adjustments to Improve Measurements of School Finance Equity, NCES Developments in School Finance (Washington 1997). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98212-8.pdf 10 Ibid.

PAGE 88

88 where districts 1 th rough J are below PM.11 (note: iP number of pupils in district, iX average expenditures per pupil in district i, and PM median expenditures per pupil).12 The McLoone Index varies between zero and one, and ge ts larger as equity increases. The coefficient of variation is the square root of the varian ce (the standard deviation) of adjusted spending per pupil divided by the st ates average spending per pupil. As the coefficient of variation increases, the variation in the amount of money spent per pupil across the districts increase. A lower coefficient of variation i ndicates greater equity. An advantage of the coefficient of variation is that small outlying data do not skew the distribution greatly. A disadvantage of this measure is that, theoretically, the coefficient of variation can be any value between zero and infinity, and th ere is no universal standard that defines a reasonable value of this measure. The formula is13: coefficient of variation = PX iance var (note: iancevar = standard deviation and PX = mean expenditure per pupil for all pupils) As the coefficient of variation increases, the vari ation in the amount of money spent per pupil across the districts in creases. A lower coefficient of variation indicates greater equity. The Gini Coefficient shows how far the distribution of per-pupil resources is from providing each percentage of pupils with an equal percentage of resources.14 The Gini 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.

PAGE 89

89 Coefficient is based on the Lorenz Curve. The Lorenz Curve is the graph plotted on the Cartesian Plane in the first quadrant. The pe rcent of pupils in the state is plotted on the axis x while the percent of total resources is plotted on the axis y If every pupil receives the same resources, then the Lorenz Curve is the line x y The Gini Coefficient is the ratio of the area between the line x y and the Lorenz Curve to the total area below the line x y The Gini Coefficient ranges from zero (perfect equa lity) to one (perfect ine quality). The formula is: Gini Coefficient = P N i i N i N j jijiXP XXPP2 1 112 where N= number of districts, iP= number of pupils in district i, jP= number of pupils in district j iX= average expenditures per pupil in district i, jX= average expenditures per pupil in district j and PX= mean expenditures pe r pupil for all pupils.15 Measures of vertical equity (the unequal treatment of unequals) can be achieved by modifying the horizontal equity measures.16 Legitimate differences among pupils first need to be defined, then the method of education distri bution of resources needs to be determined. Weighted dispersion measures17 have been formulated to gi ve special groups financial considerations. To utilize weighted distribution measures, pupils in a handicapped group receive a weight greater than one as compared to pupils that are not in any special group. Then the horizontal equity formulas are computed w ith weighted-pupils replacing pupils to accomplish vertical equity. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.

PAGE 90

90 Research Design: Adequacy Student Performance Measures In order to determine the cost of an ade quate education, student performance must be measured. Then, measures of student performan ce must be selected to provide the baseline for adequate performance. Adequacy measures should reflect the underlying standard for acceptable student performance at different grades and in different subjects.18 The development of these adequacy measures is quite controversial, but determining an appropriate level of adequate performance is unavoidable in the development of an adequacybased finance system. Each year, the State of Florida administers the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) to each student in grad es three through ten. To receive a high school diploma upon graduation, st udents must pass the 10th grade FCAT. School district and student performance re sults on the FCAT were made available through the Florida Department of Education. To aggregate results to the school district level, the FCAT was divided into five levels. The percentage of students re aching a given level in reading and mathematics per grade level was reported for each school district in Florida. Achievement Levels Achievement levels describe the succ ess a student has achieved on the Florida Sunshine State Standards benchmarks tested on the FCAT. Achiev ement levels range from 1 to 5, with Level 1 being the lowest and Level 5 being the highest:19 18 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York (working paper #44, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of Citi zenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, NY 2002). 19 Florida Department of Education, Understanding FCAT Reports 2005, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 2005).

PAGE 91

91 Level 5 This student has success with the most challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards. Level 4 This student has success with the challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards. Level 3 This student has partial succe ss with the challeng ing content of the Sunshine State Standards. Level 2 This student has limited success with the challengi ng content of the Sunshine State Standards. Level 1 This student has little succe ss with the challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards.20 A Measurement Approach The approach used to measure adequacy in this study was developed and published by William Duncombe in Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York.21 However, adjustments to Duncombes approach were necessary in order to accommodate the structure of the State Education System of Florida. A key element in determining whether the finance formula was provi ding adequate funding to all of the sixty-seven districts in Florid a is computing a student and school district performance measure based on FCAT achievement. Florida, through the use of the FCAT, has long been a leader in developing standards a nd testing instruments at the elementary and secondary level. An analysis based on the FCAT achievement results in grades three through ten will lead to a district accountability measure. Florida Department of Education, Understanding FCAT Reports 2006, (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 2006). 20 Ibid. 21 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York (working paper #44, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of C itizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, NY 2002).

PAGE 92

92 To generate one accountability sc ore per school district in Florida, a formula needed to be created. The mathematical model and weights used were based upon William Duncombes approach to estimate the cost of an adequate education in New York.22 The original approach in Duncombes paper was from the New York State Education Departments (SED) System of Accountability for Student Success (SASS).23 This approach had to be modified slightly to adjust to Floridas accountability system. For purposes of this study, the adjustment made to the methodology to adapt to the Florid a system was conducted by the author. To measure adequacy in each school district in Florida, the percent of students reaching achievement levels at each grade level in reading and mathematics were first identified. Then a weighted average of these percents was calculated to determine an index to identify acceptable performance (levels 3, 4 and 5) and to provide some credit for schools moving from very low performance (level 1) to below average performance (level 2).24 The accountability measure )( A used was: )5%4(%2)3(%)2(%5.0 LLLLA Students achieving Level 1 are given no weight, students achieving Level 2 ) 2( L are given a weight of 0.5, students achieving Level 3 ) 3( L are counted once, and students achieving Level 4) 4( L and Level 5 ) 5( L are counted twice.25 Accountability scores ) ( A range from zero to 200. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. (The original approach in Duncombes paper was from the New York State Education Departments System of Accountability for St udent Success. This approach had to be modified slightly to adjust to Floridas Accountability System)

PAGE 93

93 If students from a Florida school di strict all receive Leve l 1, then the district will receive an accountability score of zero. If students from a Florida school district all receive Level 4 or Level 5, then the district will earn an accountability score of 200.26 This accountability measure formula ) 5%4(%2)3(%)2(%5.0 LLLLA was used on each grade level in mathematics and on each gr ade level in reading. The following example (Figure 3-1) shows the accountabil ity scores at each grade level in reading and mathematics for Orange County in 2005: As shown in Figure 3-1, stude nt performance on the FCAT in reading and mathematics are equally important, thus, at each grade level, the accountab ility scores for reading and mathematics are averaged. After computing the averaged accountability scores for each grade level in each Florida school district, the averag ed accountability scores for each grade level need to be combined to produce a district accountability score To compute the district accountability score, take the sum of 10 percent multiplied by each averaged accountability score from grade level three through nine. To that sum, add 30 percent times the averaged accountability score from grade ten. The grade ten averaged accountab ility score carries more weight because high school performance reflects more accumulated kn owledge and skills than earlier grades, and passing the grade ten FCAT is require d to receive a high school diploma.27 Figure 3-2 illustrates these computations. A district accountability score was computed for each public school district in the State of Florida using the procedure described.28 Each district accountabil ity score provides a numeric 26 Ibid. (This method was adapted from William Duncombes model.) 27 Ibid. (This method was adapted from William Duncombes model.) 28 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York (working paper #44, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of C itizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, NY,

PAGE 94

94 measure, which was used to compare the sixt y-seven school districts in terms of student achievement using the FCAT. Accountability scores range from zero to 200. Research Data: Florida Education Finance Program The Florida Education Finance Program St atistical Report of 2004-05 and the Florida Education Finance Program Statis tical Report of 2005-06 provided da ta used in the equity and adequacy formulas. The report provided the tota l number of unweighted full-time equivalent (UFTE) students, the total number of weighted full-time equivale nt (WFTE) students, the total local funding for each district, th e total state funding for each dist rict, and the total funding for each district.29 Research Design: Statistics Measuring Center Methods used to measure the center of a distribution are mean and median The mean of a distribution is simply an average of the set of observations. To compute the mean ( x ) of a set of observations, add the values, then divide by the number of observations: mean30 = n xxx xn ...21 = ix n 1 2002). Duncombes model was similar, but structure of school districts in NY and NY State exams (Regents exams in grades 4 and 8) differed from Florida, hence, adjustments to model were necessary. 29 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2004-05, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL).; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts 2005-06, Statistical Report (Tallahassee, FL). 30 Daniel S. Yates, David S. Moore, and Daren S. St arnes, The Practice of Statistics, (NY: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2002).

PAGE 95

95 The median is the middle of a distribution. To find the median of a distribution31: 1. Arrange all observations in order of size, from smallest to largest, 2. If the number of observations n is odd, the median is the center observation in the ordered list, 3. If the number of observations n is even, the median is the mean of the two center observations in the ordered list. Measuring Spread The most common method used to measur e the spread of a distribution is the standard deviation The standard deviation (s) measures spread by looking at how far the observations are from their mean. The standard deviat ion is the square root of the variance:32 The variance (2s ) of a set of observations is th e average of the squares of the deviations of the observations from their mean. The variance of n observations nxxx ,...,,21 is: 1 )(...)()(2 2 2 2 1 2 n xxxxxx sn = 2)( 1 1 xx ni The standard deviation s is the square root of the variance 2s: 2)( 1 1 xx n si Scatterplots The most effective way to display the rela tion between two quantit ative variables is a scatterplot .33 A scatterplot shows the relationship be tween two quantitative variables measured on the same individuals. The va lues of one variable the inde pendent variable appear on the 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.

PAGE 96

96 horizontal axis x and the values of the other variable the dependent variable appear on the vertical axis y .34 Each individual in the data appears as the point in the plot fixed by the values of both variables for that individual.35 When interpreting a scatterplot, the overall pattern should be considered.36 The overall pattern of a scatterplot can be described in terms of form direction and strength A scatterplots form can be described by observing clusters of points or the possible exis tence of outliers. A scatterplots direction is used to describe if the two variables are positively or negatively associated. A scatterplots strength of relationship is determined by how closely the points follow a clear form.37 Correlation An example of a clear form is a linear relati on between the two quantative variables. In a scatterplot, a linear relati on is strong if the points lie close to that straight line, and weak if they are widely scattered about the line.38 A correlation ( r ) measures the direction and strength of the linear relationship between two quantitative variables39: correlation = y i x is yy s xx n r 1 1 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.

PAGE 97

97 The correlation r is always a number between 1 and 1. Values close to zero indicate a very weak linear relationship. As r moves closer to 1 or 1, the strength of the relationship between the two quantita tive variables increases. The extreme value r = 1 indicates a perfect negative linear relationship while the extreme value r =1 indicates a perfect positive linear relationship. Coefficient of Determination The coefficient of determination can be interpreted in terms of variation in levels of the dependent variable.40 coefficient of determination = 2 2 2)( )( 1YY YY rX Much of the difference between the observed values of Y can be explained in terms of the regression line:41 iation total iation lained rvar.. var..exp2 .For example, an 723.02r means 72.3% of the total variation Y around the mean can be explained by the re lationship between this variable and the corresponding X as estimated by the regression line for X and Y .42 Because the explained variation can never exceed the total variation, their ratio is at most 1, and the greatest possible value for 2 r is 1.43 The value of 2 r always lies between 0 and 1. If X and Y are perfectly correlated, then 12 r 40 Lawrence Lapin, Statistics Meaning and Method (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1980). 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

PAGE 98

98 Summary Chapter 3 presented the methods used to an alyze the Florida finance mechanism with respect to equitable and adequate distribution of resources. This study utilized equity formulas and adequacy guidelines from the public educati on finance literature. This study also used statistical methods to analyze these data, measure the outcomes, and draw conclusions. The following chapter presents the results of these analyses.

PAGE 99

99 READING (%) MATHEMATICS (%) AVERAGED ACCOUNTABILITY SCORE )5%4(%2)3(%)2(%5.0LLLLA Figure 3-1: Orange County Public School District FCAT 2005 Example Orange County Public Schools Dist rict Accountability Score = 87.45 Figure 3-2: Orange County Public Sc hools District Accountability Score GradeLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 3rd22 13 34 25 6 18 16 33 24 9 4th16 14 36 27 7 19 22 35 19 5 5th20 17 34 22 7 20 27 25 22 6 6th26 21 31 18 5 33 22 26 14 6 7th25 20 31 18 6 26 21 28 17 8 8th28 30 29 11 2 24 19 30 16 11 9th38 28 19 9 6 24 21 27 19 10 10th44 27 15 6 7 19 22 25 26 8 READINGMATHEMATICS AVERAGE Grade 3rd102.5 107 104.75 4th111 94 102.5 5th100.5 94.5 97.5 6th87.5 77 82.25 7th89 88.5 88.75 8th70 93.5 81.75 9th63 95.5 79.25 10th54.5 104 79.25 GradeAVERAGEx % = = 3rd104.75 x 10% 10.475 4th102.5 x 10% 10.25 5th97.5 x 10% 9.75 6th82.25 x 10% 8.225 7th88.75 x 10% 8.875 8th81.75 x 10% 8.175 9th79.25 x 10% 7.925 10th79.25 x 30% 23.775

PAGE 100

100 CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS Introduction This chapter presents the results of the e quity and adequacy study. As presented in chapter one, the research question addressed was: Given a certain level of resources, can a state resource distribution finance plan be developed to achieve equ itable distribution of resources while providing adequate f unding simultaneously throughout th e public school districts in Florida? This chapter presented the results derived by calculating the Florida public education finance formula with the equity and adequacy form ulas from the literature as presented in the methodology in chapter three. The results were pr esented by school year. Equity and adequacy results from the 2004-2005 school year were pres ented first, followed by the results from the 2005-2006 school year. Equity Measures Results 2004-2005: Variance Results 2004-2005 The first equity formula investigated in th is study was the variance. These data and calculations to compute the variance are shown in Table 4-1. The variance is the standard deviation squared (the standard deviation is denoted SD in the summary below). The variance is the average of the squared deviations The variance = 76,859.7997 represents the difference between dollars received by each school district and the average dollars administered within the state.1 By itself, the variance statistic could be misleading due to its sensitivity to extreme cases. Another practical di fficulty with the use of this statistic is the 1 William Fowler, David Monk, Lauri Peternick, and Becky Smerdon, Using Cost and Need Adjustments to Improve Measurements of School Finance Equity, NCES Developments in School Finance (Washington 1997). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98212-8.pdf

PAGE 101

101 variance is usually a very large number compar ed to the number of observations themselves.2 A third difficulty associated with this statistic is the variance is not expresse d in the same units as the observations.3 The variance is expressed in squared units while the observation is expressed in units. In spite of these difficulties, the ma thematical properties of the variance make it extremely important in statistical theory.4 Moreover, these difficulties may be overcome simply by working with the square root of the vari ance, called the standard deviation. The McLoone Index Results 2004-2005 The next measure used to analyze the distribu tion of resources to each Florida district was the McLoone Index. The McLoone Index varies be tween zero and one, and a McLoone Index of one indicates complete equity. The McL oone Index focuses specifically on the extent of equity in the bottom half of the di stribution in relationship to the median.5 Table 4-3 contains data and calculations necessary in computing the McLoone Index: Figure 4-1 shows each school district in Florid a represented by its di strict number along the horizontal axis with the corresponding dollars per UFTE along the vertical axis. As observed from the graph, there exists a noticeable spread with respect to the school district and its corresponding UFTE distribution. (e.g., School district #61 Suwannee received $5287.03 per UFTE while school district #44 Mo nroe received $6935.74 per UFTE.) 2 Lawrence Lapin, Statistics Meaning and Method (New York: Harcourt Br ace Jovanovich, 1980). 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Margaret E. Goertz and Gary Natriello, Court-M andated School Finance Reform: What Do the New Dollars Buy?, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives eds. Helen F. Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen, 175-208 (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

PAGE 102

102 To compute the McLoone Index, it is first ne cessary to find the median of the data as shown in the center and spread summary below. Table 4-5 contains data and calculations in increasing order by the total funding divided by UFTE column to give a visual illustration of which districts lie abov e and below the median. The figures and tables portray the components necessary to compute the McLoone Index to assess equity in the distribution of resources. The following process was followed to compute the McLoone Index. The center and spread su mmary show the median expenditure per UFTE was $5658.08. The total number of pupils (U FTEs) below the median was 771,087. To compute the McLoone Index: First, take the total number of UFTEs be low the median and multiply by the median expenditure: 771,087 5658.08 = $4,362,871,933 Then for each district below the median, multiply the total UFTEs in the district by the average expenditure per UFTE, then a dd these products together: = $4,245,771,945 Finally: McLoone Index = J i iP J i iiPM XP1 1= 933,871,362,4$ 945,771,245,4$ = 973159884.0 The McLoone Index = 0.973159884 indicates an equ itable distribution of resources throughout the districts in Florida in 2005 because th e McLoone Index was very close to one. Coefficient of Variation Results 2004-2005 The coefficient of variation is the standard de viation (the square root of the variance) of adjusted spending per UFTE divided by the state s average spending per pupil. One advantage to using the coefficient of variation is that outli ers do not skew the distribution. The coefficient of variation can be any value between zero and infinity. A lower coefficient of variation indicates greater equity. The coefficient of variation was computed by dividing the standard deviation by the mean:

PAGE 103

103 Coefficient of Variation: Mean Variance = 681.5692 236.277 = 0.0487 The coefficient of variation = 0.0487 indicates an e quitable distribution since the value is close to zero. Gini Coefficient Results 2004-2005 To compute the Gini Coefficient, it is first required to generate the Lorenz Curve. The Lorenz Curve is a graph in the first quadrant of the Cartesian Plan e. The data used to develop the Lorenz Curve which generated the Gini Coefficient can be found in Appendix E. The Lorenz Curve was developed by running a linear regression equation through the 67 points plotted on the Cartesian Plan e in the first quadrant. The coordinate x of each point represented the percent pupils in the state while the coordinate y represented the percent of total resources. The Lorenz Curve for this set of data was found to be 13.0001.1 xy. The Gini Coefficient is the ratio of the area between the line x y and the Lorenz Curve to the total area below the line x y. To compute the Gini Coefficient: 1. Compute the area between x y and 13.0001.1 xy by method of integration using the formula: If fand g are continuous on ba, and ) ()(xfxg for all x in ba,, then the area of the region bounded by the graphs offand g and the vertical linesa x and bx is: Area = b adxxgxf)()(.6 Area =100 0)13.0001.1(dxxx = 18 6 Roland E. Larson, Robert P. Hostetler, and Bruce H. Edwards, Calculus, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998).

PAGE 104

104 2. Compute the area between the line x y and the axis x using the formula: Area of a triangle = 2 heightxbase Area (of triangle)= 2 100100 = 5000 3. Gini Coefficient = 5000 18 = 0.0036 The Gini Coefficient ranges from zero (perfect equality) to one (perfect inequality). The Gini coefficient = 0.0036 indicates an eq uitable distribution of resources to the Florida school districts during the 2004-2005 school year. The graph of the Lorenz Curve is shown in Fi gure 4-2. The Lorenz curve is the solid line while the equity line is the dashed line. The two lines are very close indicating an equitable distribution of resources. Equity Measures Summary 2004-2005: The results of the equity analysis as presen ted in Table 4-8 indicat es that the level of distribution of resources remained within the recommended range to confirm the state distribution finance plan to be equitable. Adequacy Measures Results 2004-2005 The translation of the abstract term adequate into a practical school finance distribution formula requires the incorporati on of student performance measures into the plan. To measure student performance in the state of Florida, achieve ment levels from each student in each district were analyzed. The percentage of students fr om each grade level at each of the achievement levels in reading and mathematics were calculat ed. Then the accountability measure formula as described in the previous chapter:

PAGE 105

105 )5%4(%2)3(%)2(%5.0 LLLLA was used to generate a measure for each grade leve l in reading and mathematics for each district. Finally, appropriate weights were applied to each gr ade level in each district to achieve a district accountability score for each of the sixty-seven dist ricts in the state of Fl orida. The District Accountability Scores for each district from the 2004-2005 school year are provided in the Table 4-9. The Florida average District Accountability Score for 2004-2005 was 89.285. Table 4-10 shows the accountability scor e and the per-pupil expenditure for each school district in the state of Florida for the 2004-2005 school year. Scatterplot Results 2004-2005 To display the relationship between the Dist rict Accountability Score and the Per-Pupil Expenditure, a scatterplot and corr elation analysis was used. On the scatterplot, the independent variable on the axis x is the District Accountability Score and the dependent variable on the axis y is the Per-Pupil Expenditure. This scatterplot shows the relationship between two quantitative variables measured on the same group of students in all sixt y-seven school districts in Florida in 2004-2005. In terpreting the scatterplot in Figure 4-3, the overa ll pattern of the plots do not appear to be in clusters, nor does it appear to be positively or negatively associated, nor does it appear to have a strong relationship since the points do not follow a clear form. Correlation and Coefficient of Determination Results 200 4-2005 The scatterplot in Figure 4-3 does not appear to have a linear relationship between the two quantitative variable s, therefore the strength of the relationship is very weak. The correlation ( r ) measures the direction and strength of a linear relationship between two quantitative variables. For data presente d in the scatterplot, the correlation r =0.0316, indicating a very weak linear relationship. The coefficient of determination is 2 r =0.001. This

PAGE 106

106 means that only about 0.1 percent of the observe d values can be explained in terms of the regression line. Interpretation of Results 2004-2005 The equity analysis of the 2004-2005 school year showed an equitable distribution of resources throughout the sixty-seven school districts in Florida. Th is was especially reinforced through the use of the Gini Coefficient, the Lorenz Curve, the McLoone Index, and the Coefficient of Variation. The equity analysis indi cates that the level of distribution of resources is within the recommended range to confirm the st ate distribution finance pl an to be equitable. The adequacy analysis of the 2004-2005 school year showed a weak relationship between the district accountability sc ore and per-pupil expenditure. While the accountability score represented each districts student performance on the FCAT, there was no linear relationship between the accountability score and per-pupil expenditure. This was represented by the correlation value of 0316.0 r and the coefficient of determination value of 001 .02r Given the results of the 2004-2005 school year equity and adequacy analysis, there is no evidence to support the fact th at resources were distributed equitably and adequately simultaneously. It appears that the 2004-2005 FEFP funding model achieved a high degree of equity between Florida school di stricts; however, components of the plan may need to be assessed and modified to provide greater adequacy in the distribu tion of resources. Todays shift toward adequacy in school finance is inspiri ng education finance reform efforts throughout the United States because of the link between funding of schools and its educational performance.

PAGE 107

107 Equity Measures Results 2005-2006 Variance Results 2005-2006 The variance value for the 2005-2006 school year data was equal to 90,944.4649. The data and computations ar e shown in Table 4-14. McLoone Index Results 2005-2006 The McLoone Index for the 2005-2006 school year data was 0.98476531. Since this value is very close to one, an e quitable distribution of resources is achieved. Table 4-15 contains the number of UFTEs for each school district and its total funding. To compute the McLoone Index for th e 2005-2006 school year: (a) the median expenditure was found to be $6047.07, (b) the to tal UFTEs below the mean was found to be 949,194, (c) multiply: (a) (b) = $5,739,842,562, (d) the sum of the total f unding for the districts below the median was found to be $5,652,397,860 a nd (e) divide: (d)/(c). Table 4-16 shows the district name and position pertaining to rank order by total funding / UFTE. Coefficient of Variation Results 2005-2006 The coefficient of variation value for the 2005-2006 school year was 0.0491727364. The coefficient of variation is computed by dividing the standard deviation by the mean. Since the coefficient of variation for the 2005-2006 school y ear was close to zero the distribution of resources was considered equitable. The Gini Coefficent Results 2005-2006 The Gini Coefficient and the Lorenz Curv e for the 2005-2006 school year was computed using the parameters reported in Table 4-17.

PAGE 108

108 The Gini Coefficient is the ratio of the area between the line x y and the Lorenz Curve to the total area below the line x y The Lorenz Curve was estimated to be 32 .0xy To compute the Gini Coefficient: 1. Area =100 0)32.0(dxxx = 32 2. Area between x y and x-axis = 2 100100 = 5000 3. Gini Coefficient = 5000 32 = 0.0064 The Gini Coefficient = 0.0064 indicates an equita ble distribution of resources to Florida school districts for the 2005-2006 school year because th e coefficient was very close to zero. The Lorenz Curve is shown in Figure 4-4. Equity Measures Summary 2005-2006: The results of the equity an alysis for the 2005-2006 school year is shown in Table 4-18. The results justify that the level of distributi on of resources remained within the recommended range to confirm that the state distri bution finance plan was equitable. Adequacy Results 2005-2006 The District Accountability Scores for each district from the 2005-2006 school year are provided on Table 4-19. The Stat e of Floridas average Distri ct Accountability Score for 20052006 was 92.6287. Table 4-20 shows the district accountability score and the per-pupil expenditure for each school district in the state of Florida for the 2005-2006 school year. Scatterplot Results 2005-2006 A scatterplot and correlation analysis was us ed to show the relationship between the two quantitative variables: the Dist rict Accountability Score and the Per-Pupil Expenditure. The

PAGE 109

109 interpretation of the scatterplot indicates that there is no valid relationship between the two quantitative variables as shown by the absence of clusters, positive association or negative association. Correlation and Coefficient of Determination Results 2005-2006 The variables in the scatterplot in Figure 45 do not appear to have a strong relationship because they to not form a linear pattern. The ab sence of a linear pattern indicates a very weak relationship between the variable s. Other indicators used to justify the weakness of the relationship are the correlation and coefficient of determination. The correlation for these variables was r = 0.0894, indicating a very weak linear re lationship. The coefficient of determination 2 r = 0.008 means that about 0.8% of the obs erved values can be explained in terms of the regression line. Interpretation of Results 2005-2006 In 2005-2006, evidence from the Gini Coeffi cient, Lorenz Curve, McLoone Index, and Coefficient of Variation justified that the dist ribution of resources was within the recommended range, which confirmed the Florida finance distribution plan to be equitable. However, there was no linear relationship between the district accountability score (student achievement measure) and per-pupil expenditure indicating that the Florida fi nance distribution plan may not be providing adequate funding as it maintains its equitable distribution. Resembling the results from the 2004-2005 school year, the re sults of the 2005-2006 school year equity and adequacy analysis agai n revealed no evidence to support the fact that resources were distributed equitably and adequately simulta neously. While the FEFP funding model for both school years accomplished a high degree of equity between Florida school districts, modifications to the plan may need to be considered to provide greater adequacy in the distribution of resources.

PAGE 110

110 Spurred by the courts to improve the quality of education provided to its students, state legislatures are under pressure to define a set of performance goals that, if met, will imply that students have received an adequate education.7 If the Florida legislatur e is going to mandate that students meet more rigorous educational goals, then achieving these goals may require some districts to receive more resources than in ot her school districts throughout the state to achieve greater adequacy in the distribution of resources. Summary The results presented in chap ter IV suggest that the amount of resources necessary to meet student performance standards may need to va ry across school districts. This variation in costs is primarily due to factors over whic h local school official s have little control.8 The requirement to increase academic performance in students is an important step in improving the quality of education. However, if cost differenc es among school districts were substantial, then imposing statewide student performance standard s without simultaneously allocating more state financial aid to school districts wi th high costs may result in a situ ation in which school districts with above-average costs will not have enough resources to educat e students to meet the new standards.9 These schools may fail, not necessarily beca use of the inability to effectively educate children, but because they have insufficient fiscal resources to do the job.10 Providing an equal opportunity for students in Florida to rece ive an adequate education in terms of fiscal resources may require the Florid a legislature to revisit and improve the FEFP in 7 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, Achieving Educational Adequacy Through School Finance Reform, Consortium for Policy Research in Education Research Report Series, RR-045 (2000):13. 8 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, Let No Child Be Left Behind: Determining the Cost of Improving Student Performance, Public Finance Review 31, no. 10 (2003):1-26. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.

PAGE 111

111 an effort to balance the achievement results throughout the sixty-seven school districts. To ensure that all school districts have adequate resources to main tain annual performance gains, districts with higher costs (due to poverty, non-English speakers, location, and salaries) will have to be entitled to additional state financial assistance.

PAGE 112

112 Table 4-1: 2005 center and spread summary: (s tandard deviation to compute the variance) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Name Mean Median SD Min Max N ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Funding/UFTE 5692.681 5658.085 277.236 5287.031 6935.736 67 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 113

113 Table 4.2: The Variance Statistic

PAGE 114

114 Table 4-3: McLoone Index Data ... 2005 DistrictDistrict Number NameUFTETotal FundingTotal Funding / UFTE 1 ALACHUA28192 160367164 5688.39 2 BAKER4626 24764686 5353.37 3 BAY 26496 145732517 5500.17 4 BRADFORD3657 20698064 5659.85 5 BREVARD73452 416316943 5667.88 6 BROWARD269041 1566747539 5823.45 7 CALHOUN2282 12956209 5677.57 8 CHARLOTTE17229 98837118 5736.67 9 CITRUS15437 86826223 5624.55 10 CLAY32235 176095792 5462.88 11 COLLIER41587 265142173 6375.60 12 COLUMBIA9805 54219227 5529.75 13 MIAMI-DADE362253 2172057536 5995.97 14 DESOTO5050 28240967 5592.27 15 DIXIE 2057 11977081 5822.60 16 DUVAL127747 709844763 5556.65 17 ESCAMBIA43083 234363819 5439.82 18 FLAGLER9626 53556941 5563.78 19 FRANKLIN1315 8115187 6171.24 20 GADSDEN6085 36216510 5951.77 21 GILCHRIST2740 16006694 5841.86 22 GLADES1249 7066948 5658.08 23 GULF 2140 12432785 5809.71 24 HAMILTON1938 11156568 5756.74 25 HARDEE5096 27395632 5375.91 26 HENDRY7566 42394198 5603.25 27 HERNANDO20381 109230402 5359.42 28 HIGHLANDS11991 66117350 5513.91 29 HILLSBOROUGH185687 1057630079 5695.77 30 HOLMES3322 18430564 5548.03 31 INDIAN RIVER16729 94750465 5663.85 32 JACKSON7064 40023274 5665.81 33 JEFFERSON1322 8387323 6344.42 34 LAFAYETTE1038 5703667 5494.86 35 LAKE35382 191577342 5414.54 36 LEE 70422 418962175 5949.31 37 LEON31736 185127074 5833.35 38 LEVY 6137 34865908 5681.26 39 LIBERTY1345 8291915 6164.99 40 MADISON3145 18015122 5728.18 41 MANATEE40808 233567928 5723.58 42 MARION40640 225196834 5541.26 43 MARTIN17657 106162813 6012.51 44 MONROE8511 59030053 6935.74 45 NASSAU10599 58815526 5549.16 46 OKALOOSA30833 170867305 5541.70 47 OKEECHOBEE7230 39738077 5496.28 48 ORANGE171238 977536504 5708.64 49 OSCEOLA46891 256830696 5477.19 50 PALM BEACH172257 1043669211 6058.79 51 PASCO59531 338517627 5686.41 52 PINELLAS112284 659228875 5871.08 53 POLK85669 469402752 5479.26 54 PUTNAM12029 66040147 5490.08 55 ST. JOHNS24121 135457439 5615.75 56 ST. LUCIE34503 192095586 5567.50 57 SANTA ROSA24425 132296408 5416.43 58 SARASOTA41315 251495617 6087.27 59 SEMINOLE66141 364140270 5505.52 60 SUMTER7006 38372053 5477.03 61 SUWANNEE5644 29840001 5287.03 62 TAYLOR3161 17840547 5643.96 63 UNION2168 11707340 5400.06 64 VOLUSIA64609 366685468 5675.45 65 WAKULLA4765 27094201 5686.09 66 WALTON6436 36363151 5649.96 67 WASHINGTON3461 19133696 5528.37

PAGE 115

115 Figure 4-1: Distributi on of Dollars per UFTE Table 4-4: 2005 center and sp read summary: (median to compute the McLoone Index) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Name Mean Median SD Min Max N ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Funding/UFTE 5692.681 5658.085 277.236 5287.031 6935.736 67 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Distribution of Dollars 2004-2005 5200.00 5400.00 5600.00 5800.00 6000.00 6200.00 6400.00 6600.00 6800.00 7000.00 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667$ per UFTEDistrict Number

PAGE 116

116 Table 4-5: Funding pe r district ranked by per-pupil expenditure Di s t r i c t N um b er Di s t r i c t N ame T o t a l F un di n g / UFTE UFTE T o t a l F un di n g 61 SUWANNEE 5287 03 5644 29839997 32 2 BAKER 5353 37 4626 24764689 62 27 HERNANDO 5359 42 20381 109230339 25 HARDEE 5375 91 5096 27395637 36 63 UNION 5400 06 2168 11707330 08 35 LAKE 5414 54 35382 191577254 3 57 SANTA ROSA 5416 43 24425 132296302 8 17 ESCAMBIA 5439 82 43083 234363765 1 10 CLAY 5462 88 32235 176095936 8 60 SUMTER 5477 03 7006 38372072 18 49 OSCEOLA 5477 19 46891 256830916 3 53 POLK 5479 26 85669 469402724 9 54 PUTNAM 5490 08 12029 66040172 32 34 LAFAYETTE 5494 86 1038 5703664 68 47 OKEECHOBEE 5496 28 7230 39738104 4 3 BAY 5500 17 26496 145732504 3 59 SEMINOLE 5505 52 66141 364140598 3 28 HIGHLANDS 5513 91 11991 66117294 81 67 WASHINGTON 5528 37 3461 19133688 57 12 COLUMBIA 5529 75 9805 54219198 75 42 MARION 5541 26 40640 225196806 4 46 OKALOOSA 5541 7 30833 170867236 1 30 HOLMES 5548 03 3322 18430555 66 45 NASSAU 5549 16 10599 58815546 84 16 DUVAL 5556 65 127747 709845367 6 18 FLAGLER 5563 78 9626 53556946 28 56 ST LUCIE 5567 5 34503 192095452 5 14 DESOTO 5592 27 5050 28240963 5 26 HENDRY 5603 25 7566 42394189 5 55 ST JOHNS 5618 75 24121 135529868 8 9 CITRUS 5624 55 15437 86826178 35 62 TAYLOR 5643 96 3161 17840557 56 66 WALTON 5649 96 6436 36363142 56 22 GLADES me di an ------5658 08 1249 7066948 4 BRADFORD 5659 85 3657 20698071 45 31 INDIAN RIVER 5663 85 16729 94750546 65 32 JACKSON 5665 81 7064 40023281 84 5 BREVARD 5667 88 73452 416317121 8 64 VOLUSIA 5675 45 64609 366685149 1 7 CALHOUN 5677 57 2282 12956214 74 38 LEVY 5681 26 6137 34865892 62 65 WAKULLA 5686 09 4765 27094218 85 51 PASCO 5686 41 59531 338517673 7 1 ALACHUA 5688 39 28192 160367090 9 29 HILLSBOROUGH 5695 77 185687 1057630444 48 ORANGE 5708 64 171238 977536096 3 41 MANATEE 5723 58 40808 233567852 6 40 MADISON 5728 18 3145 18015126 1 8 CHARLOTTE 5736 67 17229 98837087 43 24 HAMILTON 5756 74 1938 11156562 12 23 GULF 5809 71 2140 12432779 4 15 DIXIE 5822 6 2057 11977088 2 6 BROWARD 5823 45 269041 1566746811 37 LEON 5833 35 31736 185127195 6 21 GILCHRIST 5841 86 2740 16006696 4 52 PINELLAS 5871 08 112284 659228346 7 36 LEE 5949 31 70422 418962308 8 20 GADSDEN 5951 77 6085 36216520 45 13 MIAMI DADE 5995 97 362253 2172058120 43 MARTIN 6012 51 17657 106162889 1 50 PALM BEACH 6058 79 172257 1043668989 58 SARASOTA 6087 27 41315 251495560 1 39 LIBERTY 6164 99 1345 8291911 55 19 FRANKLIN 6171 24 1315 8115180 6 33 JEFFERSON 6344 42 1322 8387323 24 11 COLLIER 6375 6 41587 265142077 2 44 MONROE 6935 74 8511 59030083 14

PAGE 117

117 Table 4-6: Linear regr ession: parameter table ---------------------------------------------------------------------Parameter Value SE T P ---------------------------------------------------------------------Intercept 0.13 0.061 2.128 0.037 Slope: 1.001 0.001 1016.193 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Table 4-7: Linear regre ssion: anova summary table -----------------------------------------------------------------------Source SS DF MS F P -----------------------------------------------------------------------Regression 54730.24 1 54730.238 1032646 0 Residual 3.474 65 0.053 Total 54733.71 66 R-Squared 1 Adj. R-Sqr 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 -20 20 40 60 80 100 1 Equity Line (dotted line) ____ Lorenz Curve (solid line) cumulative UFTE/ total UFTE cumulative total funding/ total funds A B Figure 4-2: Lorenz Curv e / Gini Coefficient 2005

PAGE 118

118 Table 4-8: Equity summary 2004-2005 Equity Summary 2004-2005 Mean 5692.68 Median 5658.08 Standard Deviation 277.236 Variance 76,859.7997 McLoone Index 0.973159884 Coefficient of Variation 0.0487 Gini Coefficient 0.0036 r2 1

PAGE 119

119 Table 4-9: Florida School dist rict accountability score 2004-2005 Florida School DistrictDistrict Accountability ScoreFlorida School DistrictDistrict Accountability Score District Accountability Score Alachua 96.25 Leon 110.625 Baker 87.325 Levy 79.125 Bay 98.525 Liberty 88.625 Bradford 74.765 Madison 60.85 Brevard 113.525 Manatee 86.625 Broward 94.375 Marion 87.925 Calhoun 103.9 Martin 113.675 Charlotte 102.2 Monroe 102.6 Citrus 93.35 Nassau 101.6 Clay 103.825 Okaloosa 119.05 Collier 90.775 Okeechobee 80. 075 Columbia 81.4 Orange 87.45 Miami-Dade 78.75 Osceola 76.675 DeSoto 76.85 Palm Beach 96. 025 Dixie 75.55 Pasco 86.8 Duval 88.1 Pinellas 96.675 Escambia 81.5 Polk 78.65 Flagler 94.85 Putnam 78.525 Franklin 70.7 St. Johns 114.55 Gadsden 55.175 St. Lucie 82.825 Gilchrist 102.325 Santa Rosa 115.525 Glades 67.35 Sarasota 103.225 Gulf 94.475 Seminole 111.55 Hamilton 63.9 Sumter 92.475 Hardee 75 Suwannee 83.15 Hendry 69.15 Taylor 81.15 Hernando 88.725 Union 88.675 Highlands 86.9 Volusia 94.5 Hillsborough 93.1 Wakulla 101.25 Holmes 86.375 Walton 89.975 Indian River 100.15 Washington 90.975 Jackson 91.45 Jefferson 51.625 STATE AVERAGE: 89.285 Lafayette 88.475 Lake 89.25 Lee 90.775

PAGE 120

120 Table 4-10: Florida distri ct accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2004-2005 Florida School DistrictDistrict Accountanility ScorePer Pupil Expenditure Alachua 96.25 5688 Baker 87.325 5352 Bay 98.525 5500 Bradford 74.765 5659 Brevard 113.525 5667 Broward 94.375 5823 Calhoun 103.9 5676 Charlotte 102.2 5736 Citrus 93.35 5624 Clay 103.825 5462 Collier 90.775 6375 Columbia 81.4 5529 Miami-Dade 78.75 5995 DeSoto 76.85 5591 Dixie 75.55 5820 Duval 88.1 5556 Escambia 81.5 5439 Flagler 94.85 5563 Franklin 70.7 6168 Gadsden 55.175 5951 Gilchrist 102.325 5840 Glades 67.35 5654 Gulf 94.475 5809 Hamilton 63.9 5756 Hardee 75 5375 Hendry 69.15 5603 Hernando 88.725 5359 Highlands 86.9 5513 Hillsborough 93.1 5695 Holmes 86.375 5547 Indian River 100.15 5663 Jackson 91.45 5665 Jefferson 51.625 6342 Lafayette 88.475 5493 Lake 89.25 5414 Lee 90.775 5949 Leon 110.625 5833 Levy 79.125 5681 Liberty 88.625 6163 Madison 60.85 5728 Manatee 86.625 5723 Marion 87.925 5541 Martin 113.675 6012 Monroe 102.6 6935

PAGE 121

121 Table 4-10 continued Nassau 101.6 5548 Okaloosa 119.05 5541 Okeechobee 80. 075 5495 Orange 87.45 5708 Osceola 76.675 5477 Palm Beach 96. 025 6058 Pasco 86.8 5686 Pinellas 96.675 5871 Polk 78.65 5479 Putnam 78.525 5489 St. Johns 114.55 5615 St. Lucie 82.825 5567 Santa Rosa 115.525 5416 Sarasota 103.225 6087 Seminole 111.55 5505 Sumter 92.475 5477 Suwannee 83.15 5287 Taylor 81.15 5643 Union 88.675 5399 Volusia 94.5 5675 Wakulla 101.25 5685 Walton 89.975 5649 Washington 90.975 5527

PAGE 122

122 Scatterplot Per-pupil expenditure 6894.8+ | | | | 6482.5+ | | | | 6070.3+ | | | | * * 5658+ * | * * | * | | 5245.8+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 49.9 67 84.1 101.2 118.3 Accountability Score Figure 4-3: Florida distri ct accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2004-2005

PAGE 123

123 Table 4-11: Linear regression: parameter table (dependent va riable = per-pupil expenditure) ---------------------------------------------------------------------Parameter Value SE T P ---------------------------------------------------------------------Intercept 5753.031 218.635 26.313 0 Slope: Score -0.685 2.419 -0.283 1.222 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Table 4-12: Linear regression: anova summary table -----------------------------------------------------------------------Source SS DF MS F P -----------------------------------------------------------------------Regression 6250 1 6250 0.08 0.778 Residual 5062008 65 77877.046 Total 5068258 66 R-Squared 0.001 Adj. R-Sqr -0.014 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Table 4-13: Center and spread 2004-2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Name Mean Median SD Min Max N ---------------------------------------------------------------------Score 89.285 88.725 14.202 51.625 119.05 67 FTE 5691.806 5654 277.12 5287 6935 67 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 124

124 Table 4-14: 2006 center and spread summary: (standard deviation to compute the variance) ---------------------------------------------------------------------Name Mean Median SD Min Max N ---------------------------------------------------------------------Total Funding/UFTE 6132.87 6047.07 301.57 5670.41 7414.94 67 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Distric t Distric t 2006 Number NameUFTETotal Funding Total Funding / UFTEMean (TF/UFTE) Squared Deviations 1 ALACHU A 28238 171620939 6077.659147 55.21085275 3048.238262 2 BAKER 4719 27779236 5886.678534 246.1914664 60610.23813 3 BAY 26947 159429155 5916.397187 216.4728129 46860.47874 4 BRADFORD 3576 22132742 6189.245526 -56.37552573 3178.199901 5 BREVARD 74041 447356808 6042.014668 90.85533245 8254.691435 6 BROWARD 267152 1656157382 6199.307443 -66.43744295 4413.933826 7 CALHOUN 2235 14215995 6360.624161 -227.7541611 51871.95789 8 CHARLOTTE 17445 106405856 6099.5045 33.36550014 1113.2566 9 CITRUS 15512 93771977 6045.124871 87.74512893 7699.207651 10 CLAY 34198 201700323 5898.015176 234.8548237 55156.7882 11 COLLIER 42775 293252178 6855.690894 -722.8208942 522470.0451 12 COLUMBIA 10133 60420851 5962.780124 170.0898757 28930.5658 13 MIAMI-DADE 358140 2266541299 6328.646057 -195.7760574 38328.26465 14 DESOTO 5000 30353300 6070.66 62.21 3870.0841 15 DIXIE 2120 13143869 6199.938208 -67.06820755 4498.144464 16 DUVA L 127217 767702857 6034.593309 98.27669093 9658.30798 17 ESCAMBI A 42668 250385846 5868.234883 264.6351167 70031.745 18 FLAGLER 10973 65185171 5940.505878 192.3641219 37003.95541 19 FRANKLIN 1291 8849694 6854.91402 -722.0440201 521347.567 20 GADSDEN 6099 38338975 6286.108378 -153.2383784 23482.00062 21 GILCHRIST 2769 17753576 6411.547851 -278.6778512 77661.34475 22 GLADES 1282 7955336 6205.410296 -72.54029641 5262.094604 23 GULF 2134 13383350 6271.485473 -138.6154733 19214.24944 24 HAMILTON 1890 11607164 6141.356614 -8.486613757 72.02261305 25 HARDEE 5045 29441875 5835.852329 297.017671 88219.49686 26 HENDRY 7507 45395387 6047.074331 85.79566938 7360.896884 27 HERNANDO 21572 124467665 5769.871361 362.998639 131768.0119 28 HIGHLANDS 12082 71399514 5909.577388 223.2926122 49859.59064 29 HILLSBOROUGH190604 1161928183 6096.032523 36.83747707 1356.999717 30 HOLMES 3356 19966229 5949.412694 183.4573063 33656.58324 31 INDIAN RIVER 16942 103305499 6097.597627 35.2723728 1244.140283 32 JACKSON 7212 44028020 6104.828064 28.04193566 786.3501557 33 JEFFERSON 1190 8483905 7129.331933 -996.4619328 992936.3835 34 LAFAYETTE 1056 6329156 5993.518939 139.3510606 19418.71809 35 LAKE 37456 217918633 5817.989988 314.8800117 99149.4218 36 LEE 74708 476486137 6377.980096 -245.1100958 60078.95908 37 LEON 32057 199113064 6211.219515 -78.34951524 6138.646538 38 LEVY 6166 37822997 6134.122121 -1.25212131 1.567807776 39 LIBERTY 1407 9135047 6492.570718 -359.7007178 129384.6064 40 MADISON 3029 18950430 6256.332123 -123.4621228 15242.89577 41 MANATEE 41939 251682202 6001.149336 131.7206641 17350.33334 42 MARION 41462 245265993 5915.440476 217.4295244 47275.59807 43 MARTIN 17736 114356173 6447.686795 -314.8167952 99109.61455 44 MONROE 8328 61751692 7414.948607 -1282.078607 1643725.555 45 N ASSAU 10738 64796327 6034.301267 98.56873347 9715.795218 46 OKALOOS A 30702 183388931 5973.191681 159.6783187 25497.16546 47 OKEECHOBEE 7274 42735072 5875.044267 257.8257327 66474.10847 48 ORANGE 173643 1064682357 6131.444153 1.425847342 2.033040643 49 OSCEOL A 49176 293297409 5964.238836 168.631164 28436.46947 50 PALM BEACH 172597 1111774375 6441.446694 -308.5766937 95219.57592 51 PASCO 62085 377784082 6084.949376 47.92062414 2296.386218 52 PINELLAS 111425 697619081 6260.88473 -128.0147296 16387.771 53 POL K 88807 527081015 5935.129156 197.7408435 39101.44119 54 PUTNAM 11890 70813098 5955.685282 177.1847183 31394.42438 55 ST. JOHNS 25573 154200626 6029.821531 103.0484695 10618.98706 56 ST. LUCIE 36043 214640764 5955.130372 177.7396279 31591.37534 57 SANTA ROS A 24634 143848360 5839.423561 293.4464391 86110.8126 58 SARASOTA 41898 271044665 6469.15521 -336.2852103 113087.7426 59 SEMINOLE 66950 395863007 5912.815639 220.0543615 48423.922 60 SUMTER 7205 42478411 5895.68508 237.1849202 56256.68637 61 SUWANNEE 5783 32792027 5670.417949 462.4520508 213861.8993 62 TAYLOR 3040 18327983 6028.941776 103.9282237 10801.07568 63 UNION 2214 13230817 5975.978771 156.8912285 24614.85759 64 VOLUSI A 65235 393511406 6032.212861 100.6571388 10131.85959 65 WAKULLA 4845 29675357 6124.944685 7.925314757 62.81061401 66 WALTON 6704 41568020 6200.48031 -67.61031026 4571.154054 67 WASHINGTON 3554 21189116 5962.047271 170.8227293 29180.40485 Sum of Squared Deviations = 6001940.51 sum UFTE =sum total funding = 2631423 16199013986 Variance = (Sum of Sq Dev.)/ (n-1) Mean = 90944.4649 6132.870905

PAGE 125

125 Table 4-15: Fundi ng per district Di s t r i c t Di s t r i c t N um b er N ame UFTE T o t a l F un di n g T o t a l F un di n g / UFTE 1 ALACHUA 28238 171620939 6077 66 2 BAKER 4719 27779236 5886 68 3 BAY 26947 159429155 5916 40 4 BRADFORD 3576 22132742 6189 25 5 BREVARD 74041 447356808 6042 01 6 BROWARD 267152 1656157382 6199 31 7 CALHOUN 2235 14215995 6360 62 8 CHARLOTTE 17445 106405856 6099 50 9 CITRUS 15512 93771977 6045 12 10 CLAY 34198 201700323 5898 02 11 COLLIER 42775 293252178 6855 69 12 COLUMBIA 10133 60420851 5962 78 13 MIAMI DADE 358140 2266541299 6328 65 14 DESOTO 5000 30353300 6070 66 15 DIXIE 2120 13143869 6199 94 16 DUVAL 127217 767702857 6034 59 17 ESCAMBIA 42668 250385846 5868 23 18 FLAGLER 10973 65185171 5940 51 19 FRANKLIN 1291 8849694 6854 91 20 GADSDEN 6099 38338975 6286 11 21 GILCHRIST 2769 17753576 6411 55 22 GLADES 1282 7955336 6205 41 23 GULF 2134 13383350 6271 49 24 HAMILTON 1890 11607164 6141 36 25 HARDEE 5045 29441875 5835 85 26 HENDRY 7507 45395387 6047 07 27 HERNANDO 21572 124467665 5769 87 28 HIGHLANDS 12082 71399514 5909 58 29 HILLSBOROUGH 190604 1161928183 6096 03 30 HOLMES 3356 19966229 5949 41 31 INDIAN RIVER 16942 103305499 6097 60 32 JACKSON 7212 44028020 6104 83 33 JEFFERSON 1190 8483905 7129 33 34 LAFAYETTE 1056 6329156 5993 52 35 LAKE 37456 217918633 5817 99 36 LEE 74708 476486137 6377 98 37 LEON 32057 199113064 6211 22 38 LEVY 6166 37822997 6134 12 39 LIBERTY 1407 9135047 6492 57 40 MADISON 3029 18950430 6256 33 41 MANATEE 41939 251682202 6001 15 42 MARION 41462 245265993 5915 44 43 MARTIN 17736 114356173 6447 69 44 MONROE 8328 61751692 7414 95 45 NASSAU 10738 64796327 6034 30 46 OKALOOSA 30702 183388931 5973 19 47 OKEECHOBEE 7274 42735072 5875 04 48 ORANGE 173643 1064682357 6131 44 49 OSCEOLA 49176 293297409 5964 24 50 PALM BEACH 172597 1111774375 6441 45 51 PASCO 62085 377784082 6084 95 52 PINELLAS 111425 697619081 6260 88 53 POLK 88807 527081015 5935 13 54 PUTNAM 11890 70813098 5955 69 55 ST JOHNS 25573 154200626 6029 82 56 ST LUCIE 36043 214640764 5955 13 57 SANTA ROSA 24634 143848360 5839 42 58 SARASOTA 41898 271044665 6469 16 59 SEMINOLE 66950 395863007 5912 82 60 SUMTER 7205 42478411 5895 69 61 SUWANNEE 5783 32792027 5670 42 62 TAYLOR 3040 18327983 6028 94 63 UNION 2214 13230817 5975 98 64 VOLUSIA 65235 393511406 6032 21 65 WAKULLA 4845 29675357 6124 94 66 WALTON 6704 41568020 6200 48 67 WASHINGTON 3554 21189116 5962 05

PAGE 126

126 Table 4-16: Funding per district ranked by per-pupil expenditure 2005 2006 Di s t r i c t Di s t r i c t N um b er N ame T o t a l F un di ng / UFTE UFTE T o t a l F un di ng T o t a l F un di ng 61 SUWANNEE 5670 42 5783 32792027 27 HERNANDO 5769 87 21572 124467665 35 LAKE 5817 99 37456 217918633 25 HARDEE 5835 85 5045 29441875 57 SANTA ROSA 5839 42 24634 143848360 17 ESCAMBIA 5868 23 42668 250385846 47 OKEECHOBEE 5875 04 7274 42735072 2 BAKER 5886 68 4719 27779236 60 SUMTER 5895 69 7205 42478411 10 CLAY 5898 02 34198 201700323 28 HIGHLANDS 5909 58 12082 71399514 59 SEMINOLE 5912 82 66950 395863007 42 MARION 5915 44 41462 245265993 3 BAY 5916 40 26947 159429155 53 POLK 5935 13 88807 527081015 18 FLAGLER 5940 51 10973 65185171 30 HOLMES 5949 41 3356 19966229 56 ST LUCIE 5955 13 36043 214640764 54 PUTNAM 5955 69 11890 70813098 67 WASHINGTON 5962 05 3554 21189116 12 COLUMBIA 5962 78 10133 60420851 49 OSCEOLA 5964 24 49176 293297409 46 OKALOOSA 5973 19 30702 183388931 63 UNION 5975 98 2214 13230817 34 LAFAYETTE 5993 52 1056 6329156 41 MANATEE 6001 15 41939 251682202 62 TAYLOR 6028 94 3040 18327983 55 ST JOHNS 6029 82 25573 154200626 64 VOLUSIA 6032 21 65235 393511406 45 NASSAU 6034 30 10738 64796327 16 DUVAL 6034 59 127217 767702857 5 BREVARD 6042 01 74041 447356808 9 CITRUS 6045 12 15512 93771977 26 HENDRY me di an= 6047 07 7507 45395387 14 DESOTO 6070 66 5000 30353300 1 ALACHUA 6077 66 28238 171620939 51 PASCO 6084 95 62085 377784082 29 HILLSBOROUGH 6096 03 190604 1161928183 31 INDIAN RIVER 6097 60 16942 103305499 8 CHARLOTTE 6099 50 17445 106405856 32 JACKSON 6104 83 7212 44028020 65 WAKULLA 6124 94 4845 29675357 48 ORANGE 6131 44 173643 1064682357 38 LEVY 6134 12 6166 37822997 24 HAMILTON 6141 36 1890 11607164 4 BRADFORD 6189 25 3576 22132742 6 BROWARD 6199 31 267152 1656157382 15 DIXIE 6199 94 2120 13143869 66 WALTON 6200 48 6704 41568020 22 GLADES 6205 41 1282 7955336 37 LEON 6211 22 32057 199113064 40 MADISON 6256 33 3029 18950430 52 PINELLAS 6260 88 111425 697619081 23 GULF 6271 49 2134 13383350 20 GADSDEN 6286 11 6099 38338975 13 MIAMI DADE 6328 65 358140 2266541299 7 CALHOUN 6360 62 2235 14215995 36 LEE 6377 98 74708 476486137 21 GILCHRIST 6411 55 2769 17753576 50 PALM BEACH 6441 45 172597 1111774375 43 MARTIN 6447 69 17736 114356173 58 SARASOTA 6469 16 41898 271044665 39 LIBERTY 6492 57 1407 9135047 19 FRANKLIN 6854 91 1291 8849694 11 COLLIER 6855 69 42775 293252178 33 JEFFERSON 7129 33 1190 8483905 44 MONROE 7414 95 8328 61751692

PAGE 127

127 Table 4-17: Linear regression: para meter table and ANOVA summary table LINEAR REGRESSION: PARAMETER TABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------Parameter Value SE T P --------------------------------------------------------------------Intercept 0.32 0.325 0.986 0.328 Slope: 1 0.005 189.321 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------LINEAR REGRESSION: ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE -----------------------------------------------------------------------Source SS DF MS F P -----------------------------------------------------------------------Regression 54946.52 1 54946.516 35842.476 0 Residual 99.671 65 1.533 Total 55046.19 66 R-Squared 0.998 Adj. R-Sqr 0.998

PAGE 128

128 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -10 -20 20 40 60 80 100 Equity Line (dotted line) ____ Lorenz Curve (solid line) cumulative UFTE/ total UFTE cumulative total funding/ total funding Figure 4-4: Gini Coefficient 2006 Table 4-18: Equity summary 2005-2006 Equity Summary 2005-2006 Mean 6132.87 Median 6047.07 Standard Deviation 301.57 Variance 90944.4649 McLoone Index 0.9847653 Coefficient of Variation 0.0491727 Gini Coefficient 0.0064 r2 0.998

PAGE 129

129 Table 4-19: Florida school dist rict accountability score 2005-2006 District NameDistrict Accountability Score District NameDistrict Accountability ScoreSTATEWIDE 92.62873134 ALACHUA99.5 LEON112.1 BAKER86.625 LEVY86.725 BAY103.25 LIBERTY92.8 BRADFORD76.15 MADISON67.525 BREVARD115.225 MANATEE91.1 BROWARD102.225 MARION94.725 CALHOUN102.25 MARTIN115.25 CHARLOTTE104.7 MONROE104.325 CITRUS99.975 NASSAU104.475 CLAY106.25 OKALOOSA119.675 COLLIER93.525 OKEECHOBEE83.4 COLUMBIA85.875 ORANGE91.05 MIAMI DADE86.125 OSCEOLA78.825 DESOTO77.15 PALM BEACH97.8 DIXIE81.175 PASCO91.9 DUVAL91.475 PINELLAS99.125 ESCAMBIA86.15 POLK81.15 FLAGLER95.6 PUTNAM81.025 FRANKLIN71.825 ST. JOHNS118.725 GADSDEN55.625 ST. LUCIE85.225 GILCHRIST107.275 SANTA ROSA117.675 GLADES76.35 SARASOTA108.025 GULF96.075 SEMINOLE115.45 HAMILTON63.35 SUMTER97.65 HARDEE78.975 SUWANNEE85.975 HENDRY74.725 TAYLOR86.075 HERNANDO93.5 UNION90.7 HIGHLANDS88.55 VOLUSIA94.25 HILLSBOROUGH96.8 WAKULLA105.6 HOLMES88.875 WALTON97.8 INDIAN RIVER100.65 WASHINGTON96.2 JACKSON94.2 JEFFERSON60.55 LAFAYETTE86.925 LAKE91.95 LEE94.375

PAGE 130

130 Table 4-20: Florida dist rict accountability score and per pupil expenditure Florida School DistrictDistrict Accountability ScorePer Pupil Expenditure Per Pupil Expenditure ALACHUA99.5 6078 BAKER 86.625 5887 BAY 103.25 5916 BRADFORD 76.15 6189 BREVARD 115.225 6042 BROWARD 102.225 6199 CALHOUN 102.25 6361 CHARLOTTE 104.7 6099 CITRUS 99.975 6045 CLAY 106.25 5898 COLLIER 93.525 6856 COLUMBIA 85.875 5963 MIAMI DADE 86. 125 6329 DESOTO 77.15 6071 DIXIE 81.175 6200 DUVAL 91.475 6035 ESCAMBIA 86.15 5868 FLAGLER 95.6 5941 FRANKLIN 71. 825 6855 GADSDEN 55.625 6286 GILCHRIST 107.275 6412 GLADES 76.35 6205 GULF 96.075 6271 HAMILTON 63.35 6141 HARDEE 78.975 5835 HENDRY 74.725 6047 HERNANDO 93.5 5770 HIGHLANDS 88.55 5910 HILLSBOROUGH 96.8 6096 HOLMES 88.875 5949 INDIAN RIVER 100.65 6097 JACKSON 94.2 6105 JEFFERSON 60.55 7129 LAFAYETTE 86.925 5994

PAGE 131

131 Table 4-20 Continued LAKE 91.95 5818 LEE 94.375 6378 LEON 112.1 6211 LEVY 86.725 6134 LIBERTY 92.8 6493 MADISON 67.525 6256 MANATEE 91.1 6001 MARION 94.725 5915 MARTIN 115.25 6448 MONROE 104.325 7415 NASSAU 104.475 6034 OKALOOSA 119.675 5973 OKEECHOBEE 83.4 5875 ORANGE 91.05 6131 OSCEOLA 78.825 5964 PALM BEACH 97.8 6441 PASCO 91.9 6085 PINELLAS 99.125 6261 POLK 81.15 5935 PUTNAM 81.025 5956 ST. JOHNS 118.725 6030 ST. LUCIE 85.225 5955 SANTA ROSA 117.675 5839 SARASOTA 108.025 6469 SEMINOLE 115.45 5912 SUMTER 97.65 5896 SUWANNEE 85. 975 5670 TAYLOR 86.075 6029 UNION 90.7 5976 VOLUSIA 94.25 6032 WAKULLA 105.6 6125 WALTON 97.8 6200 WASHINGTON 96.2 5962

PAGE 132

132 Per-pupil Expenditure 7372.3+ | | | | 6935.8+ | | | | 6499.3+ * | * | * | * | * * 6062.8+ * * | * * | * | | 5626.4+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 54 70.2 86.5 102.8 119 Accountability Score Figure 4-5: Florida distri ct accountability score and per pupil expenditure 2005-2006

PAGE 133

133 Table 4-21: Linear regression: parameter table (dependent va riable = per-pupil expenditure) ---------------------------------------------------------------------Parameter Value SE T P ---------------------------------------------------------------------Intercept 6318.973 253.131 24.963 0 Slope: Score -2.01 2.703 -0.743 1.54 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Table 4-22: Linear regr ession: ANOVA summary table -----------------------------------------------------------------------Source SS DF MS F P -----------------------------------------------------------------------Regression 50620.5 1 50620.5 0.553 0.46 Residual 5952966 65 91584.092 Total 6003587 66 R-Squared 0.008 Adj. R-Sqr -0.007 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Table 4-23: Center and spread ---------------------------------------------------------------------Name Mean Median SD Min Max N ---------------------------------------------------------------------Score 92.629 93.5 13.779 55.625 119.675 67 Per-pupil exp. 6132.806 6047 301.599 5670 7415 67 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 134

134 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Introduction The purpose of a complex but standard public education funding mech anism is to allocate state education resources in a most rational, pr edictable, balanced, and fair process. Early funding lawsuits centered on equity, defined simply as per pupil funding across school districts.1 This has given way to an emphasis on adequacy, as measured by student performance and other educational outcomes, moving the courts into areas in which th ey are completely unprepared.2 The analyses presented in this study served to answer the following research questions: 1. Based on per-pupil expenditures as stated in the FEFP and outcomes of grades three through ten assessments on the FCAT, did the State of Florida provide equitable resources to each school district while maintaining an adequa te distribution of resources for the 2004-2005 school year? 2. Based on per-pupil expenditures as stated in the FEFP and outcomes of grades three through ten assessments on the FCAT, did the State of Florida provide equitable resources to each school district while maintaining an adequa te distribution of resources for the 2005-2006 school year? 3. Given a certain level of resources, can a state resource distribution fina nce plan be developed to achieve equitable distribution of resources while providing adequate funding simultaneously throughout the public school districts in Florida? Conclusion The analyses presented herein suggest that the distribution of resources allocated by the State of Florida was within the acceptable range to satisfy the equity formulas as presented in the research. However, to maintain an appropriate equitable distribution of resources, adequacy may have been compromised to ensure equity. 1 Eric A. Hanushek, The Alchemy of Costing Out an Adequate Education (Education Working Paper Archive, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 2006). 2 Ibid.

PAGE 135

135 The conclusions of the equity analysis supporte d fair allocations of educational resources to each of the sixty-seven school districts through out the State of Florida. Evidence to support these conclusions was presented using equity fo rmulas from the research. The McLoone Index for the 2004-2005 school year was 0.9732, and fo r the 2005-2006 school year was 0.9848. A McLoone Index of one would indicate perfect equity. The Gini Coefficient for the 2004-2005 school year was computed to be 0.0036, wh ile the 2005-2006 school year was 0.0064. A Gini Coefficient of zero would indicate perfect equity. The conclusions of the adequacy analysis indicated that ther e was no relationship between the District Accountab ility Score and the per pupil e xpenditure. This outcome was justified by the correlation of 0.0316 and coefficient of determ ination of 0.001 for the 2004-2005 school year. This conclusion was then reinforced by the correlation of 0. 0894 and coefficient of determination of 0.008 for the 2005-2006 school year. Implications of the Study The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and recent Florida Legislation have raised the standards for accountability in public schools in an effort to increase student performance. These new education policies, however, rarely addr ess the way in which schools are financed.3 They sometimes ignore the fact that characteristics of schools and students re quire that some schools spend more than others to achieve an y given student performance standard.4 The results of this study indicate that there exists minimal evidence of maintaining an equitable distribution of resour ces while providing adequate le vels of funding. Statistical 3 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, Let No Child Be Left Behind: Determining the Cost of Improving Student Performance, Public Finance Review 31, no. 10 (2003):1-26. 4 Ibid.

PAGE 136

136 evidence presented in this study for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years support this outcome. There is consensus among policymakers that to improve the quality of education, measuring student academic performance is absolute ly necessary. This educational goal places an increased burden on each student to achieve higher on more rigorous educational standards. The implication is, if each student and school di strict in Florida must reach a higher performance standard, then the state has a fiscal responsibil ity to assist local school districts to supply resources necessary to account for differen ces in costs between the school districts. The FEFP has been the finance mechanism used to fund Florida school districts for many decades. In the FEFP, the District Cost Differential (DCD) is one of the factors used to resolve the inequities between school districts. The DCD is used to represent the costs of hiring equally qualified personnel across school districts.5 Higher costs in hiri ng qualified personnel are usually the result of higher housing costs and long er commutes in the area in which the person resides. The DCD plays a significant role in main taining an equitable dist ribution of resources as prescribed through the FEFP. The shift from an equitable focus on the dist ribution of resources to an adequate focus may require the examination and possible m odification of the FEFP. The FEFP does not recognize the relatively high costs of educating students from low-income families. The FEFP has no impact regarding adequacy because it was not created to do so. In several states, the courts have declared state school-financing syst ems unconstitutional because they have failed to 5 James Dewey, The Florida Price Level Index 2005. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 2007).

PAGE 137

137 provide all students, especially those from ec onomically disadvantaged families, an adequate education.6 The results of this study confirmed the equi table distribution of re sources to all school districts in the State of Florid a. However, not all school di stricts were adequate, based on student achievement scores. As presented in the literature, th is circumstance is defined as inadequate. This raises the concern that while all school districts in Fl orida receive equitable funding, how can it be that some school districts were adequate and some school districts were inadequate? While the correlation indicated no relationship in the adequacy analysis, it is important to note that correlation does not imply causation. Other confounding variables may exist to effect the relationship between the dist rict accountability score and pe r pupil expenditure. The other variables may include individual attributes as well as those of school, home, community and society. Examples of these variables may be teacher quality, socioeconomic status, and parental education. Furthermore, the reasons for the inadequate resource dist ribution may not be known to an absolute certainty since we do not know how much money it will ta ke to raise student achievement levels. Recommendations Several public policy implicati ons and recommendations can be made either directly or indirectly from the research presen ted in this study. These include: 1. The State of Florida should be more aggressive about moving toward an adequacy goal for education finance reform. The findings of this research study suggests that while financial equity is met, financial adequacy is still at an impasse. 6 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, Let No Child Be Left Behind: Determining the Cost of Improving Student Performance, Public Finance Review 31, no. 10 (2003):1-26.

PAGE 138

138 2. Better informed legislators, judges, and polic y makers about the impact of the education finance funding mechanism might influence polic y makers and the public to make different funding decisions. The shift from equity toward adequacy requires polic y makers to examine public education accountability goals and allocate appropria te amounts of resources to accomplish those goals. 3. Legislators and policymakers should take a pr oactive approach to examining and improving education finance systems to minimize or avoid litigation which can sometimes lead to costly implications to court decisions. 4. Legislators and policymakers should engaga the public (teachers, students, parents, community members, and stakeholders) in defining adequacy standards, then think creatively about how to raise and alloca te resources appropriately. 5. Legislators and policymakers should increase the extent to which funds generated through the FEFP are directed toward low-income and disadvantaged students. 6. Reexamine the FEFP incorporating a poverty index which may improve the quality of educational opportunity, but in doing so, the equi table distribution of resources may decline. 7. Reexamine the data if the adequacy formula wei ghts are redistributed to give the FCAT level three a significant increase. Many scholars and courtrooms have argued th at improving the performance of public education requires the reform of public school fi nancing systems. Recently, reformers have attempted to link financing to the actual educatio nal performance of students in order to achieve educational adequacy for all students, in cluding those who come from economically disadvantaged families. Linking educationa l outcomes to school financing requires the integration of cost considerat ions (the minimum amount of money needed to achieve an educational outcome) into the school financing formula. National and state mandates now require a minimum acceptable level of educational performance for all students. It is now the res ponsibility of our legisl ators and policymakers to provide sufficient resources to a llow our children to achieve these goals. While the FEFP is a very equitable funding model for the Florida publi c school system, improvements of this finance plan must be generated and implemented to f und current legislative adequacy mandates.

PAGE 139

139 APPENDIX A FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSE SSMENT TEST READING DATA 2006 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 03 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Developm e Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore3 0 STATEWIDE 204238 1382 313 14 11 37 33 5 75 118.5 3 1 ALACHUA2070 1408 318 14 11 34 34 7 75 121.5 3 2 BAKER341 1417 319 13 10 34 37 7 77 127 3 3 BAY1926 1471 328 7 8 37 41 7 85 137 3 4 BRADFORD274 1401 317 12 8 41 35 5 81 125 3 5 BREVARD5266 1445 324 11 8 34 40 7 81 132 3 6 BROWARD21346 1383 314 13 12 38 33 5 75 120 3 7 CALHOUN177 1454 325 10 7 34 41 8 84 135.5 3 8 CHARLOTTE1149 1439 323 11 10 34 40 5 80 129 3 9 CITRUS1114 1459 326 7 8 36 44 5 84 138 3 10 CLAY2519 1471 328 7 8 36 42 7 85 138 3 11 COLLIER3311 1354 309 16 13 36 31 4 71 112.5 3 12 COLUMBIA738 1400 316 11 10 36 38 4 78 125 3 13 MIAMI-DADE28744 1335 306 18 11 37 30 4 71 110.5 3 14 DESOTO362 1291 299 20 13 42 24 1 67 98.5 3 15 DIXIE155 1345 307 18 9 35 37 1 73 115.5 3 16 DUVAL10119 1359 310 15 12 38 31 4 72 114 3 17 ESCAMBIA3278 1361 310 15 13 36 31 4 72 112.5 3 18 FLAGLER897 1420 320 10 9 39 36 5 80 125.5 3 19 FRANKLIN95 1342 307 16 13 41 27 3 72 107.5 3 20 GADSDEN463 1216 286 27 16 37 19 0 57 83 3 21 GILCHRIST185 1462 327 6 10 32 46 5 84 139 3 22 GLADES109 1330 305 19 9 35 34 3 72 113.5 3 23 GULF160 1462 327 10 8 34 38 9 82 132 3 24 HAMILTON147 1298 300 22 10 41 24 3 68 100 3 25 HARDEE437 1347 308 13 13 39 32 2 73 113.5 3 26 HENDRY624 1313 302 21 11 38 26 4 68 103.5 3 27 HERNANDO1601 1428 321 10 9 38 38 6 81 130.5 3 28 HIGHLANDS923 1357 309 16 12 38 31 4 73 114 3 29 HILLSBOROUG H 14822 1369 311 16 11 36 32 5 73 115.5 3 30 HOLMES275 1404 317 13 9 36 39 4 78 126.5

PAGE 140

140 FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 3 continued 3 31 INDIAN RIVER1267 1412 318 13 10 34 36 7 77 125 3 32 JACKSON545 1353 309 14 14 37 31 4 72 114 3 33 JEFFERSON63 1260 293 17 19 48 16 0 63 89.5 3 34 LAFAYETTE88 1346 308 15 16 32 32 6 69 116 3 35 LAKE2951 1403 317 12 11 38 35 5 78 123.5 3 36 LEE6069 1391 315 13 11 37 34 5 76 120.5 3 37 LEON2439 1440 323 10 10 35 37 8 79 130 3 38 LEVY445 1385 314 14 11 36 36 4 75 121.5 3 39 LIBERTY95 1462 327 6 8 33 51 2 85 143 3 40 MADISON186 1372 312 11 11 44 31 3 77 117.5 3 41 MANATEE3332 1355 309 16 12 37 30 5 72 113 3 42 MARION3107 1387 314 13 10 39 33 5 77 120 3 43 MARTIN1282 1462 327 10 7 34 40 8 83 133.5 3 44 MONROE611 1439 323 11 8 35 39 7 81 131 3 45 NASSAU794 1473 329 8 7 35 44 6 85 138.5 3 46 OKALOOSA2225 1481 330 7 8 35 41 9 84 139 3 47 OKEECHOBE E 587 1329 305 18 12 37 30 3 70 109 3 48 ORANGE13671 1355 309 16 12 37 31 5 72 115 3 49 OSCEOLA3679 1318 303 19 13 38 27 3 69 104.5 3 50 PALM BEACH13200 1381 313 15 11 35 33 6 74 118.5 3 51 PASCO4948 1372 312 14 11 38 33 4 75 117.5 3 52 PINELLAS8214 1393 315 14 11 36 34 5 76 119.5 3 53 POLK7167 1337 306 16 12 39 29 3 71 109 3 54 PUTNAM887 1358 310 12 13 43 30 2 75 113.5 3 55 ST. JOHNS1966 1496 332 8 6 31 46 8 86 142 3 56 ST. LUCIE2906 1349 308 15 12 38 30 4 72 112 3 57 SANTA ROSA1725 1531 338 5 6 32 47 10 89 149 3 58 SARASOTA3175 1474 329 10 7 32 42 9 83 137.5 3 59 SEMINOLE5046 1475 329 8 8 34 42 8 84 138 3 60 SUMTER547 1417 319 10 11 38 36 5 80 125.5 3 61 SUWANNEE444 1382 314 16 10 35 34 5 74 118 3 62 TAYLOR235 1390 315 7 14 44 31 3 78 119 3 63 UNION167 1438 323 11 7 35 42 5 82 132.5 3 64 VOLUSIA4980 1391 315 12 11 38 34 4 76 119.5 3 65 WAKULLA333 1479 329 6 8 37 43 6 86 139 3 66 WALTON505 1444 324 9 9 36 39 7 82 132.5 3 67 WASHINGTO N 252 1355 309 14 7 45 32 2 79 116.5

PAGE 141

141 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 04 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Developm e Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore4 0 STATEWIDE 192480 1547 314 19 16 34 26 7 66 108 4 1 ALACHUA2006 1572 318 18 16 30 28 9 66 112 4 2 BAKER346 1471 301 26 21 29 21 3 53 87.5 4 3 BAY1954 1562 316 18 16 31 28 7 66 109 4 4 BRADFORD253 1512 308 22 15 38 21 4 62 95.5 4 5 BREVARD5074 1622 327 12 12 34 32 10 76 124 4 6 BROWARD19248 1572 318 16 15 34 27 8 69 111.5 4 7 CALHOUN139 1616 326 14 10 39 25 12 76 118 4 8 CHARLOTTE1193 1571 318 15 15 35 28 7 70 112.5 4 9 CITRUS1101 1614 325 13 12 36 32 8 76 122 4 10 CLAY2431 1600 323 13 13 35 31 7 73 117.5 4 11 COLLIER3206 1534 312 19 16 33 25 6 65 103 4 12 COLUMBIA734 1535 312 18 20 35 22 5 63 99 4 13 MIAMI-DADE26315 1529 311 20 16 34 24 5 64 100 4 14 DESOTO336 1479 302 26 17 38 15 4 57 84.5 4 15 DIXIE134 1509 307 22 16 37 19 5 61 93 4 16 DUVAL9624 1539 312 19 17 34 24 6 64 102.5 4 17 ESCAMBIA2988 1522 310 21 16 34 23 6 63 100 4 18 FLAGLER812 1574 318 14 16 36 29 6 71 114 4 19 FRANKLIN92 1480 302 27 18 30 21 3 54 87 4 20 GADSDEN425 1372 284 35 25 29 11 1 40 65.5 4 21 GILCHRIST231 1541 313 20 8 38 28 6 72 110 4 22 GLADES97 1462 299 26 20 38 13 3 55 80 4 23 GULF143 1502 306 22 17 35 22 4 61 95.5 4 24 HAMILTON135 1451 297 25 19 39 14 4 56 84.5 4 25 HARDEE416 1474 301 23 24 30 19 4 53 88 4 26 HENDRY481 1471 301 23 19 37 19 3 58 90.5 4 27 HERNANDO1557 1564 317 16 17 35 26 6 67 107.5 4 28 HIGHLANDS923 1485 303 23 15 37 20 5 62 94.5 4 29 HILLSBOROUG H 14268 1532 311 22 16 31 25 7 63 103 4 30 HOLMES240 1527 310 15 20 40 20 5 65 100

PAGE 142

142 FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 4 continued 4 31 INDIAN RIVER1221 1571 318 16 15 33 28 7 68 110.5 4 32 JACKSON508 1574 318 14 16 37 28 5 70 111 4 33 JEFFERSON75 1428 294 31 24 28 15 3 45 76 4 34 LAFAYETTE83 1481 302 20 7 42 27 4 72 107.5 4 35 LAKE2758 1543 313 19 16 32 28 6 66 108 4 36 LEE5513 1551 314 17 15 36 26 6 68 107.5 4 37 LEON2337 1620 326 13 14 31 29 12 72 120 4 38 LEVY460 1491 304 23 17 35 21 3 60 91.5 4 39 LIBERTY85 1493 304 19 20 44 15 2 61 88 4 40 MADISON192 1464 300 24 20 39 15 2 56 83 4 41 MANATEE3185 1525 310 21 17 33 23 5 62 97.5 4 42 MARION2998 1521 309 20 17 35 24 4 63 99.5 4 43 MARTIN1226 1606 324 13 14 33 32 8 73 120 4 44 MONROE583 1605 324 14 12 36 30 9 74 120 4 45 NASSAU771 1591 321 12 14 38 29 6 73 115 4 46 OKALOOSA2096 1651 331 9 12 36 34 9 80 128 4 47 OKEECHOBE E 509 1481 303 23 17 38 18 4 59 90.5 4 48 ORANGE12959 1524 310 21 17 33 24 6 63 101.5 4 49 OSCEOLA3639 1453 298 28 18 32 19 3 55 85 4 50 PALM BEACH12479 1547 314 20 15 32 26 7 65 105.5 4 51 PASCO4730 1522 309 20 17 34 24 5 62 100.5 4 52 PINELLAS7777 1537 312 20 16 32 25 7 64 104 4 53 POLK6489 1492 304 23 18 34 21 4 59 93 4 54 PUTNAM888 1480 302 24 20 33 20 3 56 89 4 55 ST. JOHNS1998 1661 333 11 11 31 34 14 79 132.5 4 56 ST. LUCIE2656 1509 307 22 16 33 24 5 61 99 4 57 SANTA ROSA1727 1634 329 12 11 33 34 10 77 126.5 4 58 SARASOTA3146 1590 321 16 14 33 28 9 70 114 4 59 SEMINOLE4879 1615 325 13 12 33 32 10 75 123 4 60 SUMTER547 1543 313 19 16 33 26 6 65 105 4 61 SUWANNEE344 1486 303 22 17 38 21 2 60 92.5 4 62 TAYLOR217 1498 305 23 20 35 19 3 57 89 4 63 UNION177 1575 319 16 15 32 32 5 69 113.5 4 64 VOLUSIA4796 1541 313 19 16 35 25 6 66 105 4 65 WAKULLA356 1584 320 13 17 37 28 6 71 113.5 4 66 WALTON470 1574 318 16 16 33 29 6 68 111 4 67 WASHINGTO N 271 1589 321 11 15 37 31 7 75 120.5

PAGE 143

143 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 05 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Develop m Mean Scale S 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore5 0 STATEWIDE 197054 1619 304 17 16 35 26 7 67 109 5 1 ALACHUA1984 1631 307 19 16 29 27 9 66 109 5 2 BAKER359 1580 298 21 19 29 25 5 60 98.5 5 3 BAY1835 1681 316 10 14 38 30 8 76 121 5 4 BRADFORD240 1546 292 21 23 34 20 3 57 91.5 5 5 BREVARD5429 1705 320 10 12 35 32 10 77 125 5 6 BROWARD20604 1626 306 17 16 34 26 7 68 108 5 7 CALHOUN165 1602 301 18 16 35 25 7 66 107 5 8 CHARLOTTE1213 1655 311 13 15 36 30 7 72 117.5 5 9 CITRUS1160 1659 312 12 15 37 28 8 74 116.5 5 10 CLAY2421 1679 315 11 13 37 30 8 75 119.5 5 11 COLLIER3234 1626 306 16 15 35 26 7 68 108.5 5 12 COLUMBIA764 1608 303 15 16 41 24 4 68 105 5 13 MIAMI-DADE26601 1585 299 19 17 35 23 5 64 99.5 5 14 DESOTO347 1558 294 18 22 35 21 4 60 96 5 15 DIXIE166 1583 298 18 20 36 18 8 61 98 5 16 DUVAL9214 1609 303 16 17 37 25 6 67 107.5 5 17 ESCAMBIA3320 1583 298 19 18 34 23 5 62 99 5 18 FLAGLER855 1637 308 13 17 36 27 6 70 110.5 5 19 FRANKLIN82 1568 295 21 18 40 15 6 61 91 5 20 GADSDEN353 1426 270 35 25 29 11 1 41 65.5 5 21 GILCHRIST196 1654 311 14 9 39 34 5 78 121.5 5 22 GLADES113 1492 282 30 18 32 18 3 52 83 5 23 GULF143 1541 291 24 21 35 15 6 55 87.5 5 24 HAMILTON135 1459 276 33 24 29 13 1 43 69 5 25 HARDEE387 1495 282 27 21 34 16 3 52 82.5 5 26 HENDRY564 1564 295 19 21 35 20 5 60 95.5 5 27 HERNANDO1597 1612 303 16 17 37 24 6 67 105.5 5 28 HIGHLANDS890 1572 296 19 20 34 23 4 61 98 5 29 HILLSBOROUGH14479 1607 302 19 16 33 25 7 65 105 5 30 HOLMES271 1597 301 15 16 39 25 5 68 107

PAGE 144

144 FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 5 continued 5 31 INDIAN RIVE R 1303 1656 311 14 16 34 29 8 70 116 5 32 JACKSON494 1634 307 15 14 38 26 6 70 109 5 33 JEFFERSON83 1455 275 27 24 40 8 1 49 70 5 34 LAFAYETTE75 1614 304 19 19 27 27 9 63 108.5 5 35 LAKE2985 1605 302 17 17 35 26 6 66 107.5 5 36 LEE5534 1608 303 17 17 35 25 5 66 103.5 5 37 LEON2229 1695 318 11 14 35 30 11 76 124 5 38 LEVY478 1609 303 17 18 38 23 5 66 103 5 39 LIBERTY78 1565 295 18 10 51 15 5 72 96 5 40 MADISON202 1474 279 29 21 35 12 2 50 73.5 5 41 MANATEE3150 1617 304 16 17 35 26 6 67 107.5 5 42 MARION3163 1614 304 16 17 36 26 6 67 108.5 5 43 MARTIN1265 1690 317 12 13 35 31 9 75 121.5 5 44 MONROE564 1663 313 15 14 32 30 8 71 115 5 45 NASSAU746 1684 316 10 13 39 31 7 77 121.5 5 46 OKALOOSA2132 1737 326 7 12 36 34 11 80 132 5 47 OKEECHOBEE493 1559 294 21 18 34 23 4 62 97 5 48 ORANGE13194 1595 300 18 17 36 24 6 65 104.5 5 49 OSCEOLA3772 1552 293 22 18 35 21 4 60 94 5 50 PALM BEACH12795 1615 304 18 17 34 25 7 66 106.5 5 51 PASCO4792 1605 302 17 17 37 25 5 67 105.5 5 52 PINELLAS8165 1644 309 15 15 34 29 7 70 113.5 5 53 POLK6618 1557 293 22 18 35 21 4 61 94 5 54 PUTNAM897 1554 293 21 20 36 20 4 59 94 5 55 ST. JOHNS1968 1722 323 10 11 33 34 11 79 128.5 5 56 ST. LUCIE2801 1576 297 19 19 35 22 5 62 98.5 5 57 SANTA ROSA1783 1733 325 9 11 35 35 11 81 132.5 5 58 SARASOTA3258 1679 315 13 13 34 30 10 74 120.5 5 59 SEMINOLE5057 1702 319 10 12 35 33 10 77 127 5 60 SUMTER559 1627 306 16 14 33 29 7 69 112 5 61 SUWANNEE413 1565 295 20 19 36 20 5 61 95.5 5 62 TAYLOR234 1606 302 14 20 39 22 5 66 103 5 63 UNION160 1532 289 22 19 36 23 0 59 91.5 5 64 VOLUSIA4963 1633 307 13 15 39 27 6 72 112.5 5 65 WAKULLA332 1699 319 10 13 33 35 9 77 127.5 5 66 WALTON496 1652 311 12 14 40 26 7 74 113 5 67 WASHINGTON245 1561 294 23 14 36 22 5 62 97

PAGE 145

145 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 06 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Develo p Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore6 0 STATEWIDE 186948 1709 311 18 17 33 25 6 64 103.5 6 1 ALACHUA1824 1727 314 20 16 28 29 8 64 110 6 2 BAKER365 1663 303 21 24 27 24 4 55 95 6 3 BAY2057 1748 318 13 18 34 28 7 69 113 6 4 BRADFORD261 1599 291 30 20 30 17 3 50 80 6 5 BREVARD5617 1811 329 10 12 34 33 11 78 128 6 6 BROWARD19469 1729 315 17 17 31 27 8 66 109.5 6 7 CALHOUN153 1768 322 12 17 35 27 8 71 113.5 6 8 CHARLOTTE1228 1753 319 13 17 34 29 7 70 114.5 6 9 CITRUS1134 1728 314 15 19 34 26 5 66 105.5 6 10 CLAY2584 1786 325 9 15 37 30 8 76 120.5 6 11 COLLIER2772 1716 312 17 17 33 26 6 66 105.5 6 12 COLUMBIA749 1640 298 24 22 32 19 3 54 87 6 13 MIAMI-DADE23062 1682 306 22 17 31 24 6 62 99.5 6 14 DESOTO323 1613 294 25 22 34 15 3 52 81 6 15 DIXIE127 1689 307 22 16 32 28 2 62 100 6 16 DUVAL9285 1665 303 21 20 33 21 4 58 93 6 17 ESCAMBIA3009 1685 307 18 20 34 23 5 61 100 6 18 FLAGLER843 1712 312 15 19 35 25 5 65 104.5 6 19 FRANKLIN96 1601 292 26 20 34 17 3 54 84 6 20 GADSDEN481 1526 278 37 25 27 10 1 38 61.5 6 21 GILCHRIST216 1738 316 13 14 40 25 6 72 109 6 22 GLADES88 1628 296 27 15 31 27 0 58 92.5 6 23 GULF167 1705 310 13 25 37 22 4 62 101.5 6 24 HAMILTON113 1624 296 26 22 29 20 3 52 86 6 25 HARDEE333 1611 293 29 20 32 17 3 52 82 6 26 HENDRY514 1626 296 24 23 30 19 4 53 87.5 6 27 HERNANDO1576 1716 312 15 18 37 25 5 67 106 6 28 HIGHLANDS857 1675 305 19 21 35 22 4 61 97.5 6 29 HILLSBOROUGH13994 1687 307 21 18 32 23 6 61 99 6 30 HOLMES241 1680 306 22 18 33 22 5 60 96

PAGE 146

146 FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 6 continued 6 31 INDIAN RIVE R 1161 1737 316 15 17 35 24 8 68 107.5 6 32 JACKSON534 1690 308 17 19 36 24 4 63 101.5 6 33 JEFFERSON60 1557 284 38 18 28 15 0 43 67 6 34 LAFAYETTE81 1600 291 26 30 28 15 1 44 75 6 35 LAKE2765 1696 309 19 17 34 24 6 64 102.5 6 36 LEE5339 1693 308 19 17 34 25 5 64 102.5 6 37 LEON2381 1760 320 13 17 33 28 9 70 115.5 6 38 LEVY486 1653 301 20 26 32 18 4 54 89 6 39 LIBERTY99 1656 301 19 25 32 21 2 56 90.5 6 40 MADISON147 1601 292 31 22 27 16 4 46 78 6 41 MANATEE2863 1690 307 19 18 34 24 5 63 101 6 42 MARION3113 1687 307 18 21 34 22 5 61 98.5 6 43 MARTIN1323 1780 324 14 13 30 33 10 73 122.5 6 44 MONROE632 1746 318 14 16 36 26 8 69 112 6 45 NASSAU761 1728 314 14 17 36 27 6 69 110.5 6 46 OKALOOSA2239 1780 324 10 17 35 30 8 73 119.5 6 47 OKEECHOBEE542 1655 301 23 19 34 19 4 58 89.5 6 48 ORANGE11866 1694 308 20 18 33 24 6 62 102 6 49 OSCEOLA3587 1646 300 24 19 32 20 4 57 89.5 6 50 PALM BEACH12303 1712 311 19 18 30 26 7 63 105 6 51 PASCO4275 1724 314 16 16 36 26 6 68 108 6 52 PINELLAS7560 1722 313 17 16 33 27 7 66 109 6 53 POLK6317 1642 299 24 20 33 19 4 56 89 6 54 PUTNAM854 1631 297 22 23 36 15 4 55 85.5 6 55 ST. JOHNS1931 1802 328 10 13 33 33 11 77 127.5 6 56 ST. LUCIE2621 1685 307 20 19 33 24 5 61 100.5 6 57 SANTA ROSA1895 1813 330 10 12 32 34 11 78 128 6 58 SARASOTA2895 1778 323 11 15 34 31 9 74 121.5 6 59 SEMINOLE5069 1775 323 12 15 33 32 9 73 122.5 6 60 SUMTER553 1738 316 15 18 32 29 6 67 111 6 61 SUWANNEE451 1682 306 20 22 35 20 4 59 94 6 62 TAYLOR201 1683 306 17 21 35 23 3 62 97.5 6 63 UNION156 1736 316 16 17 35 27 6 67 109.5 6 64 VOLUSIA4700 1720 313 16 18 35 25 6 66 106 6 65 WAKULLA367 1743 317 13 19 37 24 7 67 108.5 6 66 WALTON485 1712 311 18 15 36 26 5 67 105.5 6 67 WASHINGTON281 1692 308 21 14 36 24 5 65 101

PAGE 147

147 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 07 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Developm e Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % inFCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) Achievemen t Accountability (0-3000)Levels 3 & u p Score7 0 STATEWIDE 202438 1773 310 19 21 34 21 6 61 98.5 7 1 ALACHUA2147 1783 312 19 20 32 21 8 61 100 7 2 BAKER359 1744 305 18 26 35 16 4 55 88 7 3 BAY1956 1835 322 10 20 37 25 8 69 113 7 4 BRADFORD297 1729 302 19 24 40 14 3 57 86 7 5 BREVARD5695 1851 325 10 17 39 26 8 73 115.5 7 6 BROWARD20552 1800 315 16 19 35 23 7 64 104.5 7 7 CALHOUN197 1785 313 17 18 36 24 5 65 103 7 8 CHARLOTTE1397 1817 319 13 20 37 23 7 67 107 7 9 CITRUS1251 1790 314 17 20 35 24 5 64 103 7 10 CLAY2691 1836 322 11 20 38 24 8 70 112 7 11 COLLIER3161 1755 307 21 22 33 19 5 57 92 7 12 COLUMBIA780 1750 306 19 24 33 20 4 57 93 7 13 MIAMI-DADE27314 1717 300 26 20 31 18 4 53 85 7 14 DESOTO353 1734 303 22 25 32 16 4 53 84.5 7 15 DIXIE167 1732 303 19 34 30 13 5 48 83 7 16 DUVAL9549 1767 309 17 24 35 19 5 59 95 7 17 ESCAMBIA3280 1758 308 20 21 34 20 5 58 94.5 7 18 FLAGLER873 1777 311 17 21 37 21 4 63 97.5 7 19 FRANKLIN121 1708 298 26 21 31 20 2 53 85.5 7 20 GADSDEN519 1634 284 31 30 31 8 0 39 62 7 21 GILCHRIST209 1810 317 14 19 38 19 10 67 105.5 7 22 GLADES133 1640 285 30 23 31 15 2 47 76.5 7 23 GULF193 1826 320 15 16 36 28 5 69 110 7 24 HAMILTON143 1659 288 31 26 29 9 5 43 70 7 25 HARDEE369 1641 285 31 23 31 12 2 46 70.5 7 26 HENDRY567 1667 290 30 24 31 13 3 46 75 7 27 HERNANDO1706 1779 311 16 20 38 20 5 64 98 7 28 HIGHLANDS984 1734 303 23 21 35 16 5 56 87.5 7 29 HILLSBOROUGH14464 1761 308 20 21 34 20 5 59 94.5 7 30 HOLMES270 1759 308 22 18 35 19 6 60 94

PAGE 148

148 FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 7 continued 7 31 INDIAN RIVER1327 1791 314 17 20 33 23 7 63 103 7 32 JACKSON583 1769 310 18 21 35 21 4 61 95.5 7 33 JEFFERSON82 1662 289 23 35 30 10 1 41 69.5 7 34 LAFAYETTE77 1736 303 18 26 35 19 1 56 88 7 35 LAKE2871 1772 310 17 22 36 20 5 61 97 7 36 LEE5697 1765 309 19 21 35 20 5 60 95.5 7 37 LEON2370 1848 325 11 19 35 26 9 70 114.5 7 38 LEVY533 1723 301 26 21 32 18 4 53 86.5 7 39 LIBERTY101 1801 316 12 20 38 25 6 68 110 7 40 MADISON183 1708 298 21 30 33 12 4 49 80 7 41 MANATEE3062 1771 310 17 21 37 20 5 62 97.5 7 42 MARION3204 1764 309 18 21 37 19 5 61 95.5 7 43 MARTIN1350 1850 325 13 17 31 29 10 70 117.5 7 44 MONROE695 1814 318 16 16 36 22 9 67 106 7 45 NASSAU840 1811 318 10 22 41 23 4 68 106 7 46 OKALOOSA2258 1889 333 6 15 39 30 10 78 126.5 7 47 OKEECHOBEE543 1747 305 18 24 36 19 3 58 92 7 48 ORANGE13545 1764 309 19 21 34 20 6 59 96.5 7 49 OSCEOLA3800 1708 298 25 22 33 16 3 52 82 7 50 PALM BEACH13197 1760 308 20 21 34 20 6 59 96.5 7 51 PASCO4861 1779 312 16 22 37 21 5 62 100 7 52 PINELLAS8264 1785 313 18 20 34 21 7 62 100 7 53 POLK 6857 1722 301 24 22 33 16 4 54 84 7 54 PUTNAM906 1724 301 22 25 36 16 2 54 84.5 7 55 ST. JOHNS1988 1881 331 10 14 37 28 11 76 122 7 56 ST. LUCIE2842 1750 306 20 22 35 19 4 58 92 7 57 SANTA ROSA1994 1880 331 8 16 36 30 10 76 124 7 58 SARASOTA3244 1818 319 15 18 35 24 8 67 108 7 59 SEMINOLE5222 1850 325 11 16 37 28 8 73 117 7 60 SUMTER585 1771 310 18 21 34 23 4 60 98.5 7 61 SUWANNEE444 1765 309 20 22 34 19 5 58 93 7 62 TAYLOR260 1797 315 13 21 42 20 4 66 100.5 7 63 UNION197 1736 303 19 29 31 18 3 52 87.5 7 64 VOLUSIA4994 1780 312 16 22 37 20 5 62 98 7 65 WAKULLA377 1833 322 11 18 38 28 5 71 113 7 66 WALTON563 1810 317 14 17 38 25 6 69 108.5 7 67 WASHINGTON291 1759 308 18 23 34 19 5 59 93.5

PAGE 149

149 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 08 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Developm e Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore8 0 STATEWIDE 200421 1834 299 24 30 32 13 2 46 77 8 1 ALACHUA2119 1837 300 26 27 29 15 3 48 78.5 8 2 BAKER347 1813 295 25 33 31 10 1 42 69.5 8 3 BAY1971 1874 308 18 29 36 15 2 53 84.5 8 4 BRADFORD262 1785 289 28 33 28 10 1 39 66.5 8 5 BREVARD5868 1905 314 14 27 39 18 3 60 94.5 8 6 BROWARD20563 1863 305 20 29 34 15 2 51 82.5 8 7 CALHOUN167 1867 306 18 31 40 10 2 51 79.5 8 8 CHARLOTTE1417 1877 308 19 29 34 16 2 52 84.5 8 9 CITRUS1292 1837 300 22 32 33 11 2 46 75 8 10 CLAY2760 1872 307 17 31 36 14 2 52 83.5 8 11 COLLIER3159 1818 296 26 29 30 12 2 44 72.5 8 12 COLUMBIA802 1806 293 27 32 29 10 1 41 67 8 13 MIAMI-DAD E 27223 1786 289 31 29 28 10 2 40 66.5 8 14 DESOTO309 1724 276 41 28 25 6 0 31 51 8 15 DIXIE156 1805 293 27 33 29 8 3 40 67.5 8 16 DUVAL9275 1821 296 26 32 31 11 2 43 73 8 17 ESCAMBIA3253 1805 293 27 33 29 10 1 40 67.5 8 18 FLAGLER871 1838 300 22 28 37 10 2 49 75 8 19 FRANKLIN83 1778 287 33 33 27 6 2 35 59.5 8 20 GADSDEN472 1675 266 47 35 16 3 0 19 39.5 8 21 GILCHRIST226 1872 307 17 30 37 14 2 53 84 8 22 GLADES86 1722 276 41 23 27 8 1 36 56.5 8 23 GULF186 1864 305 23 27 33 16 2 50 82.5 8 24 HAMILTON155 1647 260 51 28 16 5 0 21 40 8 25 HARDEE440 1695 270 44 27 22 6 1 29 49.5 8 26 HENDRY590 1735 278 37 34 22 6 1 29 53 8 27 HERNANDO1831 1821 296 25 32 30 12 1 43 72 8 28 HIGHLANDS945 1797 291 26 33 31 9 1 40 67.5 8 29 HILLSBOROUGH14371 1830 298 25 30 30 13 2 45 75 8 30 HOLMES258 1812 294 29 29 30 10 2 42 68.5

PAGE 150

150 FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 8 continued 8 31 INDIAN RIVER1334 1843 301 24 28 32 14 2 48 78 8 32 JACKSON598 1831 298 24 30 34 11 2 46 75 8 33 JEFFERSON68 1653 261 47 32 18 3 0 21 40 8 34 LAFAYETTE78 1801 292 27 35 28 9 1 38 65.5 8 35 LAKE2906 1824 297 24 31 33 11 1 45 72.5 8 36 LEE5574 1835 299 24 29 32 13 2 47 76.5 8 37 LEON2252 1903 314 16 28 34 19 4 56 94 8 38 LEVY486 1807 293 26 34 31 8 1 40 66 8 39 LIBERTY94 1810 294 28 29 32 12 0 44 70.5 8 40 MADISON186 1741 280 39 29 21 10 1 32 57.5 8 41 MANATEE3016 1805 293 27 32 31 10 1 41 69 8 42 MARION3129 1836 299 21 35 32 11 2 45 75.5 8 43 MARTIN1428 1896 312 17 24 36 19 4 59 94 8 44 MONROE599 1870 307 19 28 34 18 1 52 86 8 45 NASSAU837 1866 306 18 32 34 14 2 50 82 8 46 OKALOOSA2289 1940 321 10 26 40 21 3 64 101 8 47 OKEECHOBE E 505 1784 289 28 33 29 9 1 39 65.5 8 48 ORANGE12362 1836 299 24 30 32 13 2 47 77 8 49 OSCEOLA3844 1786 289 30 30 29 10 1 39 66 8 50 PALM BEAC H 13067 1831 298 25 29 31 13 2 46 75.5 8 51 PASCO4792 1834 299 23 32 34 11 1 46 74 8 52 PINELLAS8481 1844 301 24 29 30 14 3 47 78.5 8 53 POLK 6547 1781 288 31 31 29 9 1 39 64.5 8 54 PUTNAM862 1780 288 29 35 29 6 1 36 60.5 8 55 ST. JOHNS1966 1923 318 13 25 38 21 4 62 100.5 8 56 ST. LUCIE2843 1806 293 27 32 31 9 1 41 67 8 57 SANTA ROS A 2021 1922 318 12 27 39 19 2 61 94.5 8 58 SARASOTA3302 1871 307 20 27 34 16 2 53 83.5 8 59 SEMINOLE5244 1906 314 15 27 37 18 3 58 92.5 8 60 SUMTER577 1818 296 25 31 32 11 2 44 73.5 8 61 SUWANNEE458 1825 297 24 38 26 11 2 39 71 8 62 TAYLOR225 1850 303 21 33 34 12 0 46 74.5 8 63 UNION179 1813 295 27 32 30 11 1 41 70 8 64 VOLUSIA5109 1837 300 23 30 33 13 1 47 76 8 65 WAKULLA398 1901 313 14 29 39 16 1 57 87.5 8 66 WALTON506 1870 307 16 31 38 14 1 52 83.5 8 67 WASHINGTON294 1815 295 26 30 32 11 1 44 71

PAGE 151

151 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 09 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Develop m Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % inFCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) Achievemen t Accountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & u p Score9 0 STATEWIDE 212904 1890 306 30 30 24 11 5 40 71 9 1 ALACHUA2285 1902 308 31 26 21 13 9 43 78 9 2 BAKER381 1877 304 30 34 23 10 2 36 64 9 3 BAY2102 1961 319 20 31 27 14 8 49 86.5 9 4 BRADFORD277 1845 298 34 35 19 8 4 30 60.5 9 5 BREVARD5897 1996 326 15 30 30 16 9 55 95 9 6 BROWARD21026 1901 308 28 31 26 11 5 42 73.5 9 7 CALHOUN166 1941 315 19 36 28 11 5 45 78 9 8 CHARLOTTE1510 1955 318 20 30 30 14 6 49 85 9 9 CITRUS1341 1902 308 25 35 25 10 4 40 70.5 9 10 CLAY2820 1955 318 19 32 30 12 6 48 82 9 11 COLLIER3567 1851 299 34 29 22 9 5 36 64.5 9 12 COLUMBIA848 1873 303 32 32 21 12 4 36 69 9 13 MIAMI-DADE30108 1819 293 39 29 20 8 3 32 56.5 9 14 DESOTO374 1791 288 41 29 21 7 2 30 53.5 9 15 DIXIE 178 1864 301 32 37 21 7 3 31 59.5 9 16 DUVAL10326 1872 303 32 32 23 9 4 36 65 9 17 ESCAMBIA3480 1881 304 31 30 24 10 5 39 69 9 18 FLAGLER954 1939 315 21 32 30 12 5 47 80 9 19 FRANKLIN118 1871 303 33 33 23 8 3 34 61.5 9 20 GADSDEN411 1754 281 49 36 13 1 0 15 33 9 21 GILCHRIST229 1918 311 23 31 30 10 6 46 77.5 9 22 GLADES 106 1780 286 42 37 16 3 2 21 44.5 9 23 GULF 180 1880 304 27 37 22 10 3 36 66.5 9 24 HAMILTON142 1702 271 57 23 16 2 1 20 33.5 9 25 HARDEE383 1796 289 43 31 18 6 2 26 49.5 9 26 HENDRY570 1777 285 43 32 18 5 1 25 46 9 27 HERNANDO1899 1890 306 28 33 24 11 4 38 70.5 9 28 HIGHLANDS1071 1869 302 32 35 20 10 4 34 65.5 9 29 HILLSBOROUGH13611 1912 310 27 30 25 12 6 42 76 9 30 HOLMES253 1939 315 22 31 29 11 6 47 78.5

PAGE 152

152 FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 9 continued 9 31 INDIAN RIVER1499 1904 309 27 31 25 11 5 42 72.5 9 32 JACKSON550 1889 306 28 34 23 10 4 37 68 9 33 JEFFERSON99 1757 281 49 29 14 4 3 21 42.5 9 34 LAFAYETTE81 1822 293 35 36 21 5 4 30 57 9 35 LAKE2985 1882 305 30 30 25 10 4 39 68 9 36 LEE5836 1882 305 30 31 24 10 5 39 69.5 9 37 LEON2396 1976 322 19 30 26 16 9 51 91 9 38 LEVY533 1832 295 38 30 22 7 2 32 55 9 39 LIBERTY75 2013 329 15 24 32 17 12 61 102 9 40 MADISON237 1831 295 35 36 21 5 3 29 55 9 41 MANATEE3222 1884 305 29 31 24 11 5 39 71.5 9 42 MARION3488 1895 307 28 32 24 10 5 39 70 9 43 MARTIN1632 1946 316 23 27 26 15 9 50 87.5 9 44 MONROE736 1928 313 24 30 26 14 6 46 81 9 45 NASSAU944 1955 318 21 32 29 12 7 48 83 9 46 OKALOOSA2378 2017 329 13 26 33 19 8 61 100 9 47 OKEECHOBE E 518 1855 299 32 35 23 8 3 34 62.5 9 48 ORANGE13616 1877 304 32 30 23 10 5 38 68 9 49 OSCEOLA4306 1845 298 34 31 23 8 3 34 60.5 9 50 PALM BEAC H 13500 1896 307 29 29 25 11 6 42 73.5 9 51 PASCO 5548 1902 308 27 34 26 10 4 39 71 9 52 PINELLAS9928 1894 307 30 29 24 11 6 41 72.5 9 53 POLK 6829 1841 297 37 29 21 9 4 34 61.5 9 54 PUTNAM918 1827 294 37 35 20 7 2 29 55.5 9 55 ST. JOHNS2055 2011 328 14 28 30 18 11 58 102 9 56 ST. LUCIE2795 1860 301 33 32 24 9 3 35 64 9 57 SANTA ROS A 1939 2015 329 15 26 32 18 10 59 101 9 58 SARASOTA3323 1952 317 24 26 26 15 9 50 87 9 59 SEMINOLE5844 1970 321 19 29 28 15 8 52 88.5 9 60 SUMTER579 1876 303 28 34 23 11 4 37 70 9 61 SUWANNEE468 1871 302 32 31 22 10 5 37 67.5 9 62 TAYLOR229 1886 305 30 35 22 10 3 35 65.5 9 63 UNION156 1904 309 29 23 31 11 6 47 76.5 9 64 VOLUSIA5448 1890 306 30 31 23 10 5 39 68.5 9 65 WAKULLA376 1923 312 26 35 22 13 5 40 75.5 9 66 WALTON542 1936 314 21 33 28 13 5 46 80.5 9 67 WASHINGTON275 1938 315 20 35 25 16 4 45 82.5

PAGE 153

153 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 10 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean DevelopMean Scale S 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore10 0 STATEWIDE 185568 1918 298 38 29 17 7 9 32 63.5 10 1 ALACHUA2192 1943 303 36 26 16 8 13 37 71 10 2 BAKER 310 1845 285 48 27 15 4 6 25 48.5 10 3 BAY 1926 1957 306 32 34 18 8 9 34 69 10 4 BRADFORD251 1821 281 52 29 12 4 4 19 42.5 10 5 BREVARD5712 2003 314 26 32 21 8 12 42 77 10 6 BROWARD18865 1940 302 36 30 17 7 9 34 64 10 7 CALHOUN159 1947 304 33 37 16 3 11 30 62.5 10 8 CHARLOTTE1451 1975 309 30 34 19 7 10 36 70 10 9 CITRUS1190 1929 300 35 32 18 7 8 33 64 10 10 CLAY 2563 1947 304 34 33 18 6 9 33 64.5 10 11 COLLIER3011 1895 294 42 28 14 6 9 30 58 10 12 COLUMBIA584 1879 291 41 28 18 5 8 31 58 10 13 MIAMI-DADE25955 1870 290 45 28 14 6 7 27 54 10 14 DESOTO262 1824 281 49 29 16 3 3 22 42.5 10 15 DIXIE145 1851 286 46 32 12 4 6 22 48 10 16 DUVAL7228 1922 299 38 30 17 6 9 32 62 10 17 ESCAMBIA2864 1888 293 41 29 16 6 7 30 56.5 10 18 FLAGLER828 1926 300 36 35 18 5 6 30 57.5 10 19 FRANKLIN70 1778 273 56 36 7 0 1 9 27 10 20 GADSDEN344 1729 263 69 23 4 2 2 7 23.5 10 21 GILCHRIST205 1955 305 36 27 20 7 9 37 65.5 10 22 GLADES49 1805 278 51 29 16 4 0 20 38.5 10 23 GULF192 1934 301 34 34 16 7 9 32 65 10 24 HAMILTON143 1767 271 58 27 8 3 4 15 35.5 10 25 HARDEE299 1792 275 58 22 11 4 6 20 42 10 26 HENDRY525 1749 267 60 24 10 3 3 15 34 10 27 HERNANDO1598 1905 296 39 31 18 6 7 30 59.5 10 28 HIGHLANDS788 1886 293 40 33 15 5 7 27 55.5 10 29 HILLSBOROUG H 12481 1942 303 36 29 18 7 10 35 66.5 10 30 HOLMES253 1873 290 44 32 13 6 6 25 53

PAGE 154

154 FCAT 2006 Reading Grade 10 continued 10 31 INDIAN RIVER1228 1956 305 35 29 18 7 11 36 68.5 10 32 JACKSON522 1895 294 42 29 16 5 7 29 54.5 10 33 JEFFERSON71 1790 275 58 28 10 3 1 14 32 10 34 LAFAYETTE80 1890 293 45 21 21 9 4 34 57.5 10 35 LAKE 2794 1849 286 45 28 15 6 6 26 53 10 36 LEE 5092 1904 296 39 31 16 7 8 31 61.5 10 37 LEON 2115 2003 314 30 28 19 8 16 42 81 10 38 LEVY 366 1875 291 42 30 17 5 6 28 54 10 39 LIBERTY 76 1893 294 39 26 22 9 3 34 59 10 40 MADISON189 1765 270 58 21 13 5 2 21 37.5 10 41 MANATEE2763 1892 294 41 29 15 6 8 30 57.5 10 42 MARION2894 1908 297 38 32 17 6 7 30 59 10 43 MARTIN1379 2021 318 25 28 23 10 15 47 87 10 44 MONROE593 1949 304 32 31 19 8 10 37 70.5 10 45 NASSAU740 1956 305 31 37 17 6 9 32 65.5 10 46 OKALOOSA2298 2027 319 25 31 19 10 15 44 84.5 10 47 OKEECHOBE E 468 1802 277 52 27 12 3 5 20 41.5 10 48 ORANGE12398 1878 291 44 27 15 5 8 29 54.5 10 49 OSCEOLA3676 1846 285 47 28 15 5 6 25 51 10 50 PALM BEAC H 12764 1929 301 38 28 17 7 10 34 65 10 51 PASCO3811 1935 302 35 33 18 6 8 32 62.5 10 52 PINELLAS8193 1952 305 34 30 17 8 11 36 70 10 53 POLK5960 1828 282 49 27 13 5 6 24 48.5 10 54 PUTNAM759 1856 287 47 31 13 5 5 22 48.5 10 55 ST. JOHNS1944 2033 320 24 30 20 10 16 47 87 10 56 ST. LUCIE2538 1861 288 46 29 15 6 5 26 51.5 10 57 SANTA ROS A 1931 2018 317 24 32 22 10 12 44 82 10 58 SARASOTA3203 1964 307 33 29 17 8 13 38 73.5 10 59 SEMINOLE4888 2016 317 26 31 21 9 14 44 82.5 10 60 SUMTER505 1913 298 38 33 15 5 9 29 59.5 10 61 SUWANNEE410 1868 289 46 26 16 6 6 28 53 10 62 TAYLOR173 1862 288 47 29 13 8 3 24 49.5 10 63 UNION 130 1892 294 42 28 19 5 5 30 53 10 64 VOLUSIA4718 1912 297 39 29 17 7 9 32 63.5 10 65 WAKULLA313 1949 304 36 33 15 6 10 31 63.5 10 66 WALTON472 1899 295 41 28 18 7 6 31 58 10 67 WASHINGTON263 1955 305 31 37 17 8 7 32 65.5

PAGE 155

155 APPENDIX B FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST MATHEMATICS DATA 2006 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 03 MATHEMATICSGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Developm e Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore3 0 STATEWIDE 204402 1409 324 12 16 34 27 10 72 116 3 1 ALACHUA2066 1425 327 11 17 32 27 12 71 118.5 3 2 BAKER341 1441 330 10 15 37 24 14 75 120.5 3 3 BAY1930 1447 332 8 14 37 32 9 78 126 3 4 BRADFORD275 1346 310 12 21 40 24 3 67 104.5 3 5 BREVARD5274 1471 337 8 13 34 32 14 80 132.5 3 6 BROWARD21364 1458 334 10 14 33 30 14 77 128 3 7 CALHOUN177 1488 341 6 8 42 31 13 86 134 3 8 CHARLOTT E 1149 1425 327 10 16 35 32 8 75 123 3 9 CITRUS1111 1437 330 6 15 40 31 8 79 125.5 3 10 CLAY2522 1477 338 6 12 36 34 12 82 134 3 11 COLLIER3314 1397 321 13 18 34 26 10 70 115 3 12 COLUMBIA736 1397 321 13 15 38 27 7 72 113.5 3 13 MIAMI-DADE28759 1387 319 15 16 34 26 9 69 112 3 14 DESOTO362 1328 306 17 21 35 23 4 62 99.5 3 15 DIXIE155 1335 307 17 19 39 17 7 64 96.5 3 16 DUVAL10124 1344 309 17 19 36 22 6 64 101.5 3 17 ESCAMBIA3277 1374 316 15 17 36 24 8 68 108.5 3 18 FLAGLER898 1381 318 11 16 39 29 4 72 113 3 19 FRANKLIN95 1364 314 14 18 39 26 3 68 106 3 20 GADSDEN463 1296 299 18 23 41 16 2 59 88.5 3 21 GILCHRIST185 1471 337 5 12 41 31 11 83 131 3 22 GLADES109 1429 328 10 18 32 28 12 72 121 3 23 GULF160 1501 343 6 17 29 28 21 78 135.5 3 24 HAMILTON147 1332 307 16 24 34 20 6 60 98 3 25 HARDEE438 1423 327 10 15 33 36 6 75 124.5 3 26 HENDRY626 1349 311 15 21 37 22 6 65 103.5 3 27 HERNANDO1599 1451 333 8 15 35 32 11 78 128.5 3 28 HIGHLANDS926 1392 320 13 18 33 28 9 69 116 3 29 HILLSBOROUG H 14854 1397 321 14 17 32 26 10 69 112.5 3 30 HOLMES275 1346 310 15 20 40 20 5 64 100

PAGE 156

156 FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 3 continued 3 31 INDIAN RIVER1268 1410 324 13 17 32 28 10 70 116.5 3 32 JACKSON545 1402 322 11 14 38 29 8 74 119 3 33 JEFFERSON65 1269 293 14 31 42 14 0 55 85.5 3 34 LAFAYETTE88 1433 329 11 11 40 23 15 77 121.5 3 35 LAKE2952 1399 321 13 17 36 25 10 71 114.5 3 36 LEE6060 1404 323 11 17 36 27 9 72 116.5 3 37 LEON2442 1489 341 8 12 33 30 17 80 133 3 38 LEVY444 1386 319 11 18 41 24 6 71 110 3 39 LIBERTY94 1461 335 6 9 44 32 10 85 132.5 3 40 MADISON186 1365 314 10 27 35 23 5 63 104.5 3 41 MANATEE3338 1375 316 15 18 34 26 8 67 111 3 42 MARION3107 1410 324 11 15 36 29 9 74 119.5 3 43 MARTIN1280 1484 340 7 11 35 34 14 82 136.5 3 44 MONROE611 1438 330 10 11 40 30 9 79 123.5 3 45 NASSAU795 1476 338 6 13 36 35 11 81 134.5 3 46 OKALOOSA2226 1505 344 5 12 32 37 15 83 142 3 47 OKEECHOBE E 585 1357 312 16 17 37 24 7 67 107.5 3 48 ORANGE13675 1375 316 16 18 32 23 11 66 109 3 49 OSCEOLA3682 1321 304 18 19 37 21 4 63 96.5 3 50 PALM BEACH13245 1414 325 12 15 34 27 10 72 115.5 3 51 PASCO4947 1352 311 15 18 38 24 5 67 105 3 52 PINELLAS8228 1436 329 11 15 34 28 12 74 121.5 3 53 POLK7179 1360 313 15 19 36 24 7 66 107.5 3 54 PUTNAM878 1393 320 9 20 40 25 6 71 112 3 55 ST. JOHNS1962 1483 339 7 12 33 35 13 81 135 3 56 ST. LUCIE2907 1354 312 15 19 38 23 6 66 105.5 3 57 SANTA ROSA1731 1524 348 4 9 33 37 17 86 145.5 3 58 SARASOTA3177 1470 337 9 13 31 31 15 77 129.5 3 59 SEMINOLE5048 1497 343 7 12 32 32 17 81 136 3 60 SUMTER549 1402 322 10 19 35 29 7 71 116.5 3 61 SUWANNEE445 1322 305 18 23 35 20 4 60 94.5 3 62 TAYLOR234 1411 324 9 18 38 27 7 73 115 3 63 UNION167 1513 346 8 7 29 37 20 85 146.5 3 64 VOLUSIA4981 1409 323 13 15 35 28 9 73 116.5 3 65 WAKULLA332 1473 337 5 13 38 31 13 82 132.5 3 66 WALTON505 1440 330 8 14 40 30 9 79 125 3 67 WASHINGTO N 255 1383 318 13 15 39 27 5 72 110.5

PAGE 157

157 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 04 MATHEMATICSGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Developm e Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore4 0 STATEWIDE 192610 1534 318 14 19 36 23 8 67 107.5 4 1 ALACHUA2005 1545 320 15 21 31 22 11 65 107.5 4 2 BAKER345 1437 296 25 25 32 13 4 50 78.5 4 3 BAY1955 1531 317 13 20 38 22 7 67 106 4 4 BRADFORD253 1450 299 16 30 40 15 0 55 85 4 5 BREVARD5078 1602 333 8 13 38 29 12 78 126.5 4 6 BROWARD19277 1604 334 9 14 35 29 13 77 126 4 7 CALHOUN139 1602 333 8 9 45 25 12 83 123.5 4 8 CHARLOTT E 1192 1532 318 11 18 41 24 5 71 108 4 9 CITRUS1099 1571 326 8 16 42 27 7 75 118 4 10 CLAY2433 1570 326 9 17 41 25 8 74 115.5 4 11 COLLIER3205 1536 318 14 19 34 22 10 66 107.5 4 12 COLUMBIA735 1467 303 17 28 36 15 3 55 86 4 13 MIAMI-DADE26325 1522 315 15 20 36 22 7 65 104 4 14 DESOTO337 1460 301 18 28 38 14 2 54 84 4 15 DIXIE134 1472 304 21 19 37 20 3 60 92.5 4 16 DUVAL9628 1480 306 19 21 36 20 5 60 96.5 4 17 ESCAMBIA2988 1500 310 16 21 37 20 6 63 99.5 4 18 FLAGLER810 1533 318 11 18 41 24 6 71 110 4 19 FRANKLIN91 1505 311 11 31 35 19 4 58 96.5 4 20 GADSDEN424 1400 287 25 27 35 11 2 48 74.5 4 21 GILCHRIST232 1589 331 9 14 41 29 7 78 120 4 22 GLADES97 1499 310 15 22 42 15 5 63 93 4 23 GULF143 1483 306 17 25 33 22 3 57 95.5 4 24 HAMILTON135 1391 285 27 30 34 8 1 43 67 4 25 HARDEE418 1492 308 17 20 39 18 5 63 95 4 26 HENDRY483 1487 307 16 23 37 20 4 61 96.5 4 27 HERNANDO1553 1562 324 10 19 38 25 8 71 113.5 4 28 HIGHLANDS923 1466 302 20 20 39 18 3 60 91 4 29 HILLSBOROUG H 14274 1520 315 16 19 35 22 8 65 104.5 4 30 HOLMES240 1456 300 17 28 38 15 2 55 86

PAGE 158

158 FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 4 continued 4 31 INDIAN RIVER1222 1550 322 12 17 38 25 8 71 112.5 4 32 JACKSON508 1587 330 8 15 38 29 9 76 121.5 4 33 JEFFERSON75 1386 284 21 36 33 8 1 43 69 4 34 LAFAYETTE83 1514 313 17 18 34 22 10 65 107 4 35 LAKE2755 1529 317 14 18 37 23 7 68 106 4 36 LEE5509 1528 316 14 19 38 23 7 68 107.5 4 37 LEON2347 1599 333 9 16 36 27 13 75 124 4 38 LEVY460 1484 306 14 25 41 17 3 61 93.5 4 39 LIBERTY84 1473 304 18 23 45 13 1 60 84.5 4 40 MADISON192 1385 284 31 28 33 8 1 42 65 4 41 MANATEE3192 1495 309 16 22 38 18 6 62 97 4 42 MARION3001 1525 316 13 19 41 22 6 68 106.5 4 43 MARTIN1225 1583 329 10 14 37 29 9 76 120 4 44 MONROE582 1561 324 10 16 41 27 6 74 115 4 45 NASSAU768 1557 323 8 19 40 27 5 72 113.5 4 46 OKALOOSA2085 1632 340 5 13 38 31 13 82 132.5 4 47 OKEECHOBE E 510 1478 305 15 25 40 16 3 59 90.5 4 48 ORANGE12989 1511 313 17 18 35 22 8 64 104 4 49 OSCEOLA3632 1434 295 23 24 35 15 3 53 83 4 50 PALM BEACH12512 1540 319 13 19 35 23 9 67 108.5 4 51 PASCO4727 1471 303 17 26 38 16 3 57 89 4 52 PINELLAS7781 1546 321 12 18 38 24 8 70 111 4 53 POLK6492 1480 306 17 23 38 18 4 60 93.5 4 54 PUTNAM888 1466 302 19 24 39 15 4 57 89 4 55 ST. JOHNS2004 1600 333 9 14 39 27 12 78 124 4 56 ST. LUCIE2657 1502 310 16 21 37 21 6 64 101.5 4 57 SANTA ROSA1728 1585 330 8 16 39 28 9 76 121 4 58 SARASOTA3146 1566 325 12 16 37 25 10 72 115 4 59 SEMINOLE4887 1601 333 8 14 37 29 11 77 124 4 60 SUMTER548 1530 317 13 20 36 23 7 67 106 4 61 SUWANNEE345 1473 304 16 26 38 17 3 58 91 4 62 TAYLOR217 1477 305 21 22 38 17 3 57 89 4 63 UNION177 1561 324 9 20 34 31 6 71 118 4 64 VOLUSIA4799 1519 314 14 19 38 22 6 67 103.5 4 65 WAKULLA355 1570 326 7 18 44 24 7 74 115 4 66 WALTON471 1558 323 10 19 38 25 9 72 115.5 4 67 WASHINGTO N 270 1580 328 10 13 41 26 10 77 119.5

PAGE 159

159 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 05 MATHEMATICSGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Develop m Mean Scale S 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore5 0 STATEWIDE 197076 1649 329 17 27 26 24 7 57 101.5 5 1 ALACHUA1987 1650 329 20 26 21 23 10 55 100 5 2 BAKER360 1595 317 25 26 27 16 5 49 82 5 3 BAY1835 1687 337 10 26 31 26 7 64 110 5 4 BRADFORD241 1563 311 27 37 17 18 1 36 73.5 5 5 BREVARD5432 1696 339 11 23 27 29 9 66 114.5 5 6 BROWARD20613 1697 339 12 23 26 28 11 65 115.5 5 7 CALHOUN164 1658 331 12 26 29 26 7 62 108 5 8 CHARLOTTE1213 1650 329 16 28 26 24 5 55 98 5 9 CITRUS1159 1672 334 12 26 30 28 5 62 109 5 10 CLAY2426 1688 337 11 26 27 27 8 62 110 5 11 COLLIER3252 1654 330 17 26 26 25 7 57 103 5 12 COLUMBIA766 1584 315 21 32 28 17 2 46 82 5 13 MIAMI-DADE26591 1626 324 19 28 26 21 6 53 94 5 14 DESOTO349 1618 322 17 31 24 23 4 52 93.5 5 15 DIXIE166 1503 298 38 32 16 13 1 30 60 5 16 DUVAL9204 1620 323 18 29 28 21 4 53 92.5 5 17 ESCAMBIA3314 1603 319 22 30 24 19 4 48 85 5 18 FLAGLER854 1616 322 19 29 27 22 3 52 91.5 5 19 FRANKLIN81 1628 324 17 32 35 11 5 51 83 5 20 GADSDEN351 1532 304 29 36 23 12 1 36 67 5 21 GILCHRIST196 1678 335 9 26 34 24 6 65 107 5 22 GLADES113 1523 302 34 28 25 12 2 38 67 5 23 GULF143 1591 317 27 17 29 21 5 55 89.5 5 24 HAMILTON134 1506 299 38 22 28 10 1 40 61 5 25 HARDEE388 1588 316 22 34 26 16 2 45 79 5 26 HENDRY564 1642 327 15 27 31 23 3 57 96.5 5 27 HERNANDO1599 1644 328 16 29 29 21 5 55 95.5 5 28 HIGHLANDS875 1612 321 19 33 24 20 4 49 88.5 5 29 HILLSBOROUGH14484 1657 331 16 26 25 25 8 58 104 5 30 HOLMES271 1598 318 23 32 24 17 4 45 82

PAGE 160

160 FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 5 continued 5 31 INDIAN RIVER1305 1664 332 15 27 27 23 8 58 102.5 5 32 JACKSON496 1656 330 15 27 25 26 7 57 104.5 5 33 JEFFERSON83 1446 286 42 28 19 10 1 30 55 5 34 LAFAYETTE75 1737 347 9 13 28 41 8 77 132.5 5 35 LAKE2984 1631 325 17 29 28 21 5 53 94.5 5 36 LEE5535 1656 330 14 28 27 24 6 58 101 5 37 LEON2225 1702 340 11 25 26 28 10 64 114.5 5 38 LEVY478 1627 324 17 32 29 20 3 52 91 5 39 LIBERTY78 1610 321 17 29 28 23 3 54 94.5 5 40 MADISON200 1458 288 38 42 13 7 1 21 50 5 41 MANATEE3147 1638 327 15 31 27 23 4 54 96.5 5 42 MARION3164 1655 330 15 26 29 25 5 59 102 5 43 MARTIN1264 1698 339 11 23 28 30 9 66 117.5 5 44 MONROE564 1678 335 13 24 34 23 6 63 104 5 45 NASSAU746 1684 336 10 26 29 29 5 63 110 5 46 OKALOOSA2130 1730 346 7 21 28 34 10 72 126.5 5 47 OKEECHOBEE492 1614 321 19 32 25 20 4 49 89 5 48 ORANGE13197 1626 324 20 26 25 23 6 54 96 5 49 OSCEOLA3775 1560 310 27 31 24 15 2 42 73.5 5 50 PALM BEACH12810 1653 330 17 26 26 24 7 57 101 5 51 PASCO4797 1606 320 20 33 27 17 3 48 83.5 5 52 PINELLAS8172 1662 332 16 25 26 26 8 59 106.5 5 53 POLK6618 1607 320 20 30 25 20 4 50 88 5 54 PUTNAM897 1583 315 22 34 27 14 3 44 78 5 55 ST. JOHNS1969 1705 341 10 22 28 31 9 68 119 5 56 ST. LUCIE2800 1596 318 22 31 26 18 4 47 85.5 5 57 SANTA ROSA1784 1696 339 11 23 29 30 7 66 114.5 5 58 SARASOTA3254 1688 337 13 25 27 26 10 63 111.5 5 59 SEMINOLE5055 1710 342 10 23 26 31 10 67 119.5 5 60 SUMTER558 1666 332 16 22 27 30 5 62 108 5 61 SUWANNEE413 1584 315 25 30 27 17 1 46 78 5 62 TAYLOR235 1583 315 22 34 28 14 3 44 79 5 63 UNION160 1532 304 36 29 21 13 1 36 63.5 5 64 VOLUSIA4962 1650 329 16 25 28 26 6 59 104.5 5 65 WAKULLA333 1690 338 9 22 35 28 6 69 114 5 66 WALTON497 1608 320 19 36 25 17 3 45 83 5 67 WASHINGTON244 1572 313 26 34 22 15 3 40 75

PAGE 161

161 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 06 MATHEMATICSGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Develo p Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore6 0 STATEWIDE 186792 1681 312 26 21 28 17 8 53 88.5 6 1 ALACHUA1827 1697 315 28 19 23 20 11 54 94.5 6 2 BAKER364 1675 310 29 20 26 20 6 52 88 6 3 BAY2057 1697 315 24 21 30 16 8 54 88.5 6 4 BRADFORD261 1535 278 48 20 22 9 2 33 54 6 5 BREVARD5620 1785 336 14 16 31 25 14 70 117 6 6 BROWARD19451 1724 322 22 19 28 20 11 59 99.5 6 7 CALHOUN154 1726 322 21 17 37 17 8 62 95.5 6 8 CHARLOTTE1229 1718 320 21 21 31 19 8 59 95.5 6 9 CITRUS1133 1692 314 25 20 32 17 7 55 90 6 10 CLAY2584 1746 327 18 19 33 21 10 63 104.5 6 11 COLLIER2774 1684 312 26 19 28 19 7 55 89.5 6 12 COLUMBIA755 1587 290 36 26 24 10 4 38 65 6 13 MIAMI-DADE23039 1653 305 30 21 27 16 6 49 81.5 6 14 DESOTO321 1677 311 26 21 31 19 4 53 87.5 6 15 DIXIE131 1668 309 28 19 30 18 5 53 85.5 6 16 DUVAL9214 1613 296 35 24 26 12 4 41 70 6 17 ESCAMBIA3014 1627 299 32 24 27 14 4 44 75 6 18 FLAGLER844 1675 310 24 26 29 16 5 50 84 6 19 FRANKLIN97 1581 288 39 25 26 8 2 36 58.5 6 20 GADSDEN480 1523 275 49 24 19 6 1 27 45 6 21 GILCHRIST215 1720 321 20 19 31 20 10 60 100.5 6 22 GLADES88 1667 308 25 23 36 10 6 52 79.5 6 23 GULF167 1664 308 32 17 29 19 4 51 83.5 6 24 HAMILTON113 1622 298 35 21 30 7 6 43 66.5 6 25 HARDEE331 1609 295 34 21 29 11 5 46 71.5 6 26 HENDRY514 1646 303 29 25 25 18 4 46 81.5 6 27 HERNANDO1575 1679 311 24 23 32 16 5 53 85.5 6 28 HIGHLANDS858 1658 306 28 21 29 17 4 51 81.5 6 29 HILLSBOROUGH13985 1689 313 26 21 27 17 9 53 89.5 6 30 HOLMES241 1649 304 28 27 27 15 4 45 78.5

PAGE 162

162 FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 6 continued 6 31 INDIAN RIVER1162 1682 312 27 21 27 17 8 52 87.5 6 32 JACKSON538 1664 308 28 21 32 14 5 51 80.5 6 33 JEFFERSON59 1459 260 56 17 19 8 0 27 43.5 6 34 LAFAYETTE81 1580 288 40 33 17 9 1 27 53.5 6 35 LAKE2763 1682 312 25 22 29 17 7 52 88 6 36 LEE 5332 1669 309 28 21 27 18 6 52 85.5 6 37 LEON2378 1727 322 21 22 26 19 12 57 99 6 38 LEVY 487 1635 301 32 24 27 14 3 44 73 6 39 LIBERTY99 1574 287 34 36 26 3 0 29 50 6 40 MADISON147 1491 268 47 27 16 9 1 26 49.5 6 41 MANATEE2856 1659 307 27 22 29 16 5 51 82 6 42 MARION3109 1652 305 28 23 29 15 5 49 80.5 6 43 MARTIN1319 1747 327 19 17 29 24 11 65 107.5 6 44 MONROE630 1707 318 23 18 32 21 7 59 97 6 45 NASSAU758 1720 321 17 23 36 19 5 60 95.5 6 46 OKALOOSA2240 1759 330 16 22 31 21 11 63 106 6 47 OKEECHOBEE539 1668 309 25 24 30 16 5 51 84 6 48 ORANGE11860 1656 306 31 20 26 16 7 49 82 6 49 OSCEOLA3594 1598 292 37 23 24 12 4 40 67.5 6 50 PALM BEACH12298 1698 316 24 21 28 18 9 55 92.5 6 51 PASCO4264 1664 308 27 24 29 15 5 49 81 6 52 PINELLAS7562 1700 316 25 20 28 19 9 55 94 6 53 POLK6322 1606 294 36 23 24 12 4 41 67.5 6 54 PUTNAM850 1580 288 39 26 24 9 2 35 59 6 55 ST. JOHNS1929 1740 325 20 18 27 21 13 61 104 6 56 ST. LUCIE2620 1652 305 30 21 29 15 5 49 79.5 6 57 SANTA ROSA1897 1763 331 15 20 31 23 11 65 109 6 58 SARASOTA2894 1737 325 19 19 29 23 10 61 104.5 6 59 SEMINOLE5067 1760 330 18 17 30 23 12 65 108.5 6 60 SUMTER554 1725 322 20 21 27 22 9 58 99.5 6 61 SUWANNEE452 1634 301 33 22 24 16 4 44 75 6 62 TAYLOR201 1609 295 36 27 24 10 2 37 61.5 6 63 UNION156 1684 312 22 22 30 18 7 55 91 6 64 VOLUSIA4691 1671 309 26 22 30 16 6 52 85 6 65 WAKULLA367 1713 319 23 19 33 17 7 58 90.5 6 66 WALTON484 1667 308 28 22 31 14 6 51 82 6 67 WASHINGTON281 1644 303 31 21 26 16 6 47 80.5

PAGE 163

163 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 07 MATHEMATICSGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Developm e Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % inFCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) Achievemen t Accountability (0-3000)Levels 3 & u p Score7 0 STATEWIDE 202303 1791 307 23 22 30 18 7 55 91 7 1 ALACHUA2148 1790 306 26 19 25 19 10 54 92.5 7 2 BAKER359 1803 310 19 22 31 21 7 59 98 7 3 BAY1957 1807 310 18 23 35 18 6 59 94.5 7 4 BRADFORD299 1709 286 35 23 31 9 1 42 62.5 7 5 BREVARD5686 1853 322 14 18 33 24 11 68 112 7 6 BROWARD20523 1837 318 18 19 30 21 11 63 103.5 7 7 CALHOUN197 1795 308 17 31 29 15 8 52 90.5 7 8 CHARLOTTE1394 1835 317 17 18 32 25 8 65 107 7 9 CITRUS1250 1797 308 21 22 32 18 7 56 93 7 10 CLAY2689 1842 319 15 22 34 20 9 63 103 7 11 COLLIER3158 1794 307 23 21 31 18 7 56 91.5 7 12 COLUMBIA777 1721 289 30 27 31 10 2 44 68.5 7 13 MIAMI-DADE27312 1752 297 29 23 28 15 5 48 79.5 7 14 DESOTO358 1785 305 22 26 32 15 5 52 85 7 15 DIXIE165 1737 293 27 25 35 10 2 47 71.5 7 16 DUVAL9512 1761 299 28 23 28 16 5 49 81.5 7 17 ESCAMBIA3283 1736 293 32 23 28 14 4 46 75.5 7 18 FLAGLER874 1764 300 25 24 32 15 4 51 82 7 19 FRANKLIN121 1750 296 31 24 30 12 2 45 70 7 20 GADSDEN517 1682 280 38 31 25 5 1 31 52.5 7 21 GILCHRIST209 1798 308 24 21 30 17 8 55 90.5 7 22 GLADES133 1713 287 31 25 32 8 5 44 70.5 7 23 GULF193 1812 312 17 24 34 22 3 59 96 7 24 HAMILTON143 1699 284 34 27 26 12 2 40 67.5 7 25 HARDEE368 1714 287 34 23 24 16 3 43 73.5 7 26 HENDRY566 1710 286 37 28 23 9 3 35 61 7 27 HERNANDO1703 1794 307 20 24 34 17 5 56 90 7 28 HIGHLANDS984 1760 299 27 25 28 16 5 48 82.5 7 29 HILLSBOROUGH14498 1804 310 22 22 30 19 8 56 95 7 30 HOLMES270 1753 297 23 26 37 11 3 51 78

PAGE 164

164 FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 7 continued INDIAN RIVER1326 1815 312 21 19 31 19 10 60 98.5 JACKSON583 1762 299 24 23 34 15 3 52 81.5 JEFFERSON82 1692 282 41 23 22 12 1 35 59.5 LAFAYETTE77 1769 301 21 27 32 18 1 52 83.5 LAKE 2864 1800 309 19 23 34 18 5 58 91.5 LEE 5696 1781 304 24 23 30 17 6 53 87.5 LEON 2365 1845 320 16 20 30 21 12 64 106 LEVY 533 1776 303 26 24 31 14 6 51 83 LIBERTY101 1764 300 23 28 34 14 2 50 80 MADISON183 1657 273 41 29 25 5 0 30 49.5 MANATEE3043 1788 306 22 22 33 17 6 56 90 MARION3207 1787 306 22 23 32 18 5 55 89.5 MARTIN1347 1877 328 13 15 32 29 12 73 121.5 MONROE692 1821 314 15 22 37 19 7 63 100 NASSAU840 1815 312 16 22 38 18 5 61 95 OKALOOSA2260 1885 330 10 18 34 27 12 73 121 OKEECHOBEE544 1770 301 21 26 36 15 3 53 85 ORANGE13546 1776 303 26 22 29 17 7 52 88 OSCEOLA3786 1719 289 33 26 28 11 3 42 69 PALM BEACH13182 1798 308 23 22 29 18 8 55 92 PASCO4848 1778 303 24 24 32 15 5 52 84 PINELLAS8257 1794 307 24 22 28 19 8 55 93 POLK 6856 1727 291 32 24 27 13 4 44 73 PUTNAM909 1742 294 28 26 31 12 3 46 74 ST. JOHNS1990 1872 327 14 17 30 25 14 69 116.5 ST. LUCIE2847 1757 298 28 25 28 15 4 47 78.5 SANTA ROSA1993 1867 325 12 17 35 25 11 70 115.5 SARASOTA3244 1829 316 20 19 30 21 11 62 103.5 SEMINOLE5215 1858 323 13 19 33 24 11 68 112.5 SUMTER585 1822 314 19 21 28 24 8 60 102.5 SUWANNEE445 1786 305 22 24 32 16 6 53 88 TAYLOR260 1741 294 29 24 35 10 2 47 71 UNION 197 1729 291 30 24 33 9 4 46 71 VOLUSIA4989 1770 301 24 25 31 15 5 51 83.5 WAKULLA377 1838 318 14 20 34 24 8 66 108 WALTON563 1775 303 24 23 33 16 5 53 86.5 WASHINGTON291 1760 299 29 18 36 16 2 54 81

PAGE 165

165 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 08 MATHEMATICSGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Developm e Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore8 0 STATEWIDE 200431 1872 314 20 20 33 16 11 60 97 8 1 ALACHUA2129 1865 313 26 17 26 15 16 57 96.5 8 2 BAKER347 1847 308 21 21 38 14 5 58 86.5 8 3 BAY1964 1886 318 17 19 38 16 10 64 99.5 8 4 BRADFORD261 1796 295 28 30 28 11 3 42 71 8 5 BREVARD5867 1926 328 12 16 36 22 14 72 116 8 6 BROWARD20538 1900 322 17 19 32 17 15 64 105.5 8 7 CALHOUN167 1891 319 14 17 43 18 7 68 101.5 8 8 CHARLOTTE1416 1905 323 17 16 34 19 14 67 108 8 9 CITRUS1290 1877 316 17 21 36 17 9 62 98.5 8 10 CLAY2753 1897 321 14 20 37 18 10 66 103 8 11 COLLIER3160 1878 316 19 19 32 18 11 61 99.5 8 12 COLUMBIA802 1825 303 24 23 36 13 4 53 81.5 8 13 MIAMI-DADE27199 1830 304 27 22 31 13 7 51 82 8 14 DESOTO315 1776 290 34 24 32 9 2 42 66 8 15 DIXIE154 1829 304 25 22 36 12 5 53 81 8 16 DUVAL9244 1860 311 22 20 33 16 9 58 93 8 17 ESCAMBIA3259 1813 299 28 24 31 13 5 48 79 8 18 FLAGLER871 1867 313 18 23 37 14 8 60 92.5 8 19 FRANKLIN84 1823 302 23 31 32 13 1 46 75.5 8 20 GADSDEN468 1729 278 41 32 23 4 1 28 49 8 21 GILCHRIST225 1921 327 12 16 38 18 17 73 116 8 22 GLADES84 1801 296 29 25 39 6 1 46 65.5 8 23 GULF186 1888 318 15 22 39 17 6 63 96 8 24 HAMILTON155 1720 276 47 25 17 9 2 28 51.5 8 25 HARDEE438 1826 303 27 21 30 15 6 51 82.5 8 26 HENDRY592 1802 297 28 25 33 11 3 47 73.5 8 27 HERNANDO1826 1852 309 21 23 36 14 6 56 87.5 8 28 HIGHLANDS944 1851 309 21 21 38 14 7 59 90.5 8 29 HILLSBOROUGH14374 1884 317 18 21 33 16 12 61 99.5 8 30 HOLMES257 1867 313 23 17 33 19 8 60 95.5

PAGE 166

166 FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 8 continued 8 31 INDIAN RIVER1333 1882 317 19 18 34 18 11 63 101 8 32 JACKSON598 1848 308 21 22 36 17 5 57 91 8 33 JEFFERSON67 1739 281 34 28 31 4 1 37 55 8 34 LAFAYETTE78 1820 301 27 22 35 13 4 51 80 8 35 LAKE 2896 1873 315 17 21 36 17 9 62 98.5 8 36 LEE 5549 1872 314 19 21 35 16 9 60 95.5 8 37 LEON 2251 1915 325 13 19 33 20 15 68 112.5 8 38 LEVY 484 1872 315 17 23 35 18 7 60 96.5 8 39 LIBERTY94 1844 307 22 22 40 13 2 55 81 8 40 MADISON186 1765 287 33 27 26 11 2 40 65.5 8 41 MANATEE3013 1860 311 20 23 33 16 8 57 92.5 8 42 MARION3120 1872 314 17 20 38 16 9 63 98 8 43 MARTIN1427 1925 328 13 16 32 21 18 71 118 8 44 MONROE601 1904 323 14 19 37 19 11 67 106.5 8 45 NASSAU838 1905 323 13 20 38 18 12 67 108 8 46 OKALOOSA2290 1958 336 7 15 36 23 19 78 127.5 8 47 OKEECHOBEE513 1849 309 20 25 37 12 6 56 85.5 8 48 ORANGE12610 1871 314 20 19 33 16 12 60 98.5 8 49 OSCEOLA3855 1818 301 26 23 34 12 5 51 79.5 8 50 PALM BEACH13060 1883 317 19 20 32 17 13 61 102 8 51 PASCO4770 1866 313 19 23 36 15 8 59 93.5 8 52 PINELLAS8449 1881 317 20 20 32 17 12 60 100 8 53 POLK6538 1822 302 27 23 32 13 6 50 81.5 8 54 PUTNAM861 1836 305 24 21 36 14 5 55 84.5 8 55 ST. JOHNS1964 1933 330 11 16 36 22 15 73 118 8 56 ST. LUCIE2836 1840 306 24 23 33 14 6 53 84.5 8 57 SANTA ROS A 2013 1940 332 9 17 35 23 15 73 119.5 8 58 SARASOTA3288 1905 323 16 19 32 18 15 65 107.5 8 59 SEMINOLE5233 1930 329 12 17 35 19 18 71 117.5 8 60 SUMTER575 1868 313 21 17 38 16 9 63 96.5 8 61 SUWANNEE454 1867 313 19 25 34 15 7 56 90.5 8 62 TAYLOR222 1886 318 15 20 40 14 11 65 100 8 63 UNION 180 1866 313 17 24 38 16 6 59 94 8 64 VOLUSIA5115 1865 313 19 21 36 16 8 60 94.5 8 65 WAKULLA398 1930 329 11 15 40 22 12 74 115.5 8 66 WALTON506 1897 321 15 20 36 20 9 65 104 8 67 WASHINGTON291 1866 313 23 19 31 20 8 59 96.5

PAGE 167

167 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 09 MATHEMATICSGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Develop m Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 % inFCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) Achievemen t Accountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & u p Score9 0 STATEWIDE 212359 1924 302 18 23 30 20 9 59 99.5 9 1 ALACHUA2273 1936 305 20 21 24 20 15 59 104.5 9 2 BAKER381 1901 295 22 18 37 19 4 60 92 9 3 BAY2098 1953 310 13 24 32 21 11 63 108 9 4 BRADFORD276 1867 285 27 25 34 11 3 48 74.5 9 5 BREVARD5897 1993 322 8 16 33 28 15 76 127 9 6 BROWARD21007 1945 308 16 21 30 21 12 63 106.5 9 7 CALHOUN166 1952 310 8 27 35 25 5 65 108.5 9 8 CHARLOTTE1515 1965 314 11 21 32 26 11 69 116.5 9 9 CITRUS1350 1920 301 15 26 35 19 6 59 98 9 10 CLAY2820 1962 313 10 22 33 23 11 68 112 9 11 COLLIER3565 1914 299 20 22 31 18 9 58 96 9 12 COLUMBIA851 1897 294 21 28 33 14 5 52 85 9 13 MIAMI-DADE29966 1883 290 25 26 27 15 7 49 84 9 14 DESOTO373 1875 288 27 25 31 14 4 49 79.5 9 15 DIXIE 177 1910 298 14 30 36 15 5 56 91 9 16 DUVAL10260 1907 297 21 25 29 19 8 55 95.5 9 17 ESCAMBIA3478 1880 289 24 27 29 15 5 49 82.5 9 18 FLAGLER953 1942 307 12 26 33 23 6 62 104 9 19 FRANKLIN118 1863 284 25 29 34 9 3 46 72.5 9 20 GADSDEN409 1829 274 27 39 27 6 1 34 60.5 9 21 GILCHRIST228 1957 312 14 17 29 30 10 69 117.5 9 22 GLADES 105 1834 276 30 29 31 8 2 41 65.5 9 23 GULF 179 1923 302 13 30 36 17 5 58 95 9 24 HAMILTON138 1801 266 38 35 20 7 0 27 51.5 9 25 HARDEE383 1879 289 23 25 35 14 3 52 81.5 9 26 HENDRY567 1876 288 24 28 32 14 3 49 80 9 27 HERNANDO1892 1898 294 19 29 31 17 4 52 87.5 9 28 HIGHLANDS1066 1907 297 20 25 30 19 6 55 92.5 9 29 HILLSBOROUGH13606 1945 308 15 22 30 21 11 63 105 9 30 HOLMES250 1942 307 16 18 31 28 7 66 110

PAGE 168

168 FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 9 continued 9 31 INDIAN RIVER1500 1942 307 14 21 33 24 8 65 107.5 9 32 JACKSON550 1923 302 14 25 39 18 5 62 97.5 9 33 JEFFERSON100 1818 271 37 32 22 7 2 31 56 9 34 LAFAYETTE81 1906 297 17 35 30 14 5 48 85.5 9 35 LAKE2980 1915 300 18 24 32 20 6 58 96 9 36 LEE5816 1914 299 18 23 33 19 7 58 96.5 9 37 LEON2393 1971 316 11 20 31 25 14 69 119 9 38 LEVY533 1896 294 22 25 32 16 4 53 84.5 9 39 LIBERTY75 1981 319 9 17 25 36 12 73 129.5 9 40 MADISON236 1860 283 28 33 19 15 5 39 75.5 9 41 MANATEE3222 1912 298 19 24 31 20 6 57 95 9 42 MARION3485 1929 304 16 22 33 21 8 61 102 9 43 MARTIN1629 1960 313 13 19 30 25 13 68 115.5 9 44 MONROE735 1932 304 14 25 33 19 9 60 101.5 9 45 NASSAU945 1946 308 12 23 34 21 9 64 105.5 9 46 OKALOOSA2375 2004 326 7 17 32 28 17 77 130.5 9 47 OKEECHOBE E 521 1908 297 19 26 32 19 5 55 93 9 48 ORANGE13611 1915 299 21 22 28 21 9 57 99 9 49 OSCEOLA4290 1879 289 24 26 32 14 3 50 79 9 50 PALM BEAC H 13473 1944 308 15 21 30 22 12 64 108.5 9 51 PASCO 5485 1914 299 18 26 32 18 6 56 93 9 52 PINELLAS9873 1924 302 19 23 29 19 10 58 98.5 9 53 POLK 6822 1889 292 24 26 28 16 6 50 85 9 54 PUTNAM916 1887 291 24 27 26 19 4 49 85.5 9 55 ST. JOHNS2055 1988 321 9 16 33 27 15 75 125 9 56 ST. LUCIE2775 1904 296 20 27 30 17 6 54 89.5 9 57 SANTA ROS A 1964 1983 320 9 17 33 27 14 74 123.5 9 58 SARASOTA3322 1964 314 13 20 30 24 13 68 114 9 59 SEMINOLE5802 1974 317 12 19 30 25 15 69 119.5 9 60 SUMTER579 1908 297 21 23 29 20 7 56 94.5 9 61 SUWANNEE466 1896 294 20 27 31 17 4 52 86.5 9 62 TAYLOR229 1910 298 13 34 34 15 4 53 89 9 63 UNION155 1906 297 20 27 31 18 4 53 88.5 9 64 VOLUSIA5419 1911 298 18 24 33 18 6 58 93 9 65 WAKULLA376 1954 311 12 22 34 23 10 66 111 9 66 WALTON540 1939 306 11 22 40 21 6 67 105 9 67 WASHINGTON275 1939 307 13 24 35 23 5 63 103

PAGE 169

169 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2006 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS State Report of District Results Grade 10 MATHEMATICSGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean DevelopMean Scale S 1 2 3 4 5 % in FCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) AchievementAccountab ility (0-3000) Levels 3 & upScore10 0 STATEWIDE 184635 1987 324 15 19 26 31 8 65 113.5 10 1 ALACHUA2182 2000 327 17 18 21 29 15 65 118 10 2 BAKER308 1957 317 18 24 26 30 3 59 104 10 3 BAY1934 2008 329 11 19 27 34 8 70 120.5 10 4 BRADFORD248 1911 305 24 21 32 21 2 55 88.5 10 5 BREVARD5695 2046 338 7 14 25 39 14 78 138 10 6 BROWARD18770 1999 327 14 19 26 32 10 67 119.5 10 7 CALHOUN159 2007 329 9 21 30 29 11 69 120.5 10 8 CHARLOTTE1440 2015 331 10 18 27 37 8 72 126 10 9 CITRUS1187 1992 325 14 18 30 31 7 68 115 10 10 CLAY2570 2015 331 10 17 29 35 9 73 125.5 10 11 COLLIER3000 1982 323 17 20 26 28 10 64 112 10 12 COLUMBIA581 1955 316 18 21 27 28 6 61 105.5 10 13 MIAMI-DADE25838 1955 316 20 22 27 26 6 58 102 10 14 DESOTO263 1937 312 17 27 35 19 2 56 90.5 10 15 DIXIE145 1926 309 18 26 32 22 3 57 95 10 16 DUVAL7180 1998 327 13 18 26 35 8 69 121 10 17 ESCAMBIA2855 1951 315 19 22 27 26 6 59 102 10 18 FLAGLER834 2005 328 12 19 29 34 6 70 118.5 10 19 FRANKLIN69 1873 296 29 29 26 13 3 42 72.5 10 20 GADSDEN344 1879 298 28 36 25 10 1 36 65 10 21 GILCHRIST203 2024 333 11 10 23 49 7 79 140 10 22 GLADES47 1947 314 17 28 23 32 0 55 101 10 23 GULF192 1997 326 14 16 28 35 7 71 120 10 24 HAMILTON142 1887 300 26 39 18 15 2 35 71.5 10 25 HARDEE301 1943 313 20 19 28 28 5 61 103.5 10 26 HENDRY532 1919 307 25 26 26 19 3 49 83 10 27 HERNANDO1592 1966 319 14 23 31 27 4 62 104.5 10 28 HIGHLANDS781 1980 322 17 17 28 32 6 67 112.5 10 29 HILLSBOROUGH12436 2002 328 13 19 26 33 9 68 119.5 10 30 HOLMES252 1969 320 17 22 27 29 5 62 106

PAGE 170

170 FCAT 2006 Mathematics Grade 10 continued 10 31 INDIAN RIVER1224 2012 330 11 18 26 36 8 71 123 10 32 JACKSON519 1988 324 15 16 29 35 5 68 117 10 33 JEFFERSON71 1901 303 25 32 23 20 0 42 79 10 34 LAFAYETTE80 1954 316 18 28 29 25 1 55 95 10 35 LAKE 2801 1954 316 19 20 28 28 5 61 104 10 36 LEE 5077 1981 323 15 19 29 30 7 66 112.5 10 37 LEON 2129 2032 335 7 18 27 36 13 75 134 10 38 LEVY 366 1974 321 17 17 29 30 6 66 109.5 10 39 LIBERTY 76 1964 318 13 24 29 34 0 63 109 10 40 MADISON189 1889 300 33 26 17 20 4 40 78 10 41 MANATEE2766 1973 320 17 19 28 29 7 64 109.5 10 42 MARION2886 1990 325 14 20 27 33 7 66 117 10 43 MARTIN1381 2036 336 8 14 24 42 11 77 137 10 44 MONROE594 2003 328 12 15 30 39 5 73 125.5 10 45 NASSAU737 2017 331 11 16 29 36 8 74 125 10 46 OKALOOSA2289 2041 337 9 14 25 40 12 77 136 10 47 OKEECHOBE E 465 1944 314 19 24 25 28 4 57 101 10 48 ORANGE12100 1968 319 19 21 23 28 8 60 105.5 10 49 OSCEOLA3658 1946 314 21 22 27 25 5 56 98 10 50 PALM BEAC H 12719 2001 327 14 18 25 32 11 68 120 10 51 PASCO3798 1992 325 13 20 29 32 6 67 115 10 52 PINELLAS8119 1997 326 14 18 26 32 9 67 117 10 53 POLK5944 1934 311 23 23 24 25 5 54 95.5 10 54 PUTNAM759 1960 317 18 23 26 29 4 59 103.5 10 55 ST. JOHNS1941 2045 338 7 14 26 38 15 79 139 10 56 ST. LUCIE2526 1954 316 20 23 28 24 5 57 97.5 10 57 SANTA ROS A 1946 2030 335 8 15 27 39 11 77 134.5 10 58 SARASOTA3190 2019 332 12 15 26 34 13 73 127.5 10 59 SEMINOLE4872 2047 339 8 13 24 40 14 78 138.5 10 60 SUMTER504 1994 326 15 19 23 36 7 65 118.5 10 61 SUWANNEE405 1976 321 14 25 26 29 6 61 108.5 10 62 TAYLOR173 1968 319 20 17 28 30 5 62 106.5 10 63 UNION 130 1957 317 17 25 28 28 2 58 100.5 10 64 VOLUSIA4662 1977 322 15 21 29 29 6 64 109.5 10 65 WAKULLA315 2013 330 10 19 28 35 8 70 123.5 10 66 WALTON473 1995 326 10 25 29 32 5 66 115.5 10 67 WASHINGTON263 2015 331 9 19 29 37 7 72 126.5

PAGE 171

171 APPENDIX C FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSE SSMENT TEST READING DATA 2005 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS Grade Report of District Results Grade 3 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Develo p Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Percent inFCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500)Achievemen t Accountability (0-3000) level 3 & upScore3 0 STATEWID E 202975 1333 305 20 13 33 28 6 67 107.5 3 1 ALACHUA2101 1371 312 17 13 31 29 9 69 113.5 3 2 BAKER369 1369 311 14 16 35 31 5 70 115 3 3 BAY1996 1411 318 13 11 36 32 9 77 123.5 3 4 BRADFORD294 1329 305 19 13 33 29 6 67 109.5 3 5 BREVARD5113 1431 322 13 9 32 36 9 78 126.5 3 6 BROWARD21039 1334 306 20 13 32 28 7 67 108.5 3 7 CALHOUN144 1446 324 10 8 33 38 10 81 133 3 8 CHARLOTT E 1210 1411 318 15 9 32 35 8 76 122.5 3 9 CITRUS1108 1433 322 12 11 35 33 9 78 124.5 3 10 CLAY2389 1421 320 12 10 35 36 7 78 126 3 11 COLLIER3347 1307 301 21 15 33 26 5 64 102.5 3 12 COLUMBIA749 1346 308 17 14 37 26 7 69 110 3 13 MIAMI DADE29885 1262 294 25 14 33 23 4 61 94 3 14 DESOTO389 1196 283 30 17 33 17 2 52 79.5 3 15 DIXIE132 1274 296 26 8 37 26 3 66 99 3 16 DUVAL10202 1334 306 20 13 34 27 6 67 106.5 3 17 ESCAMBIA3207 1298 300 23 12 32 27 6 64 104 3 18 FLAGLER732 1394 315 14 11 37 32 6 76 118.5 3 19 FRANKLIN90 1306 301 19 12 39 23 7 69 105 3 20 GADSDEN499 1198 283 30 19 33 17 1 52 78.5 3 21 GILCHRIST227 1336 306 16 12 35 34 3 72 115 3 22 GLADES104 1296 299 19 17 42 17 4 63 92.5 3 23 GULF135 1431 322 16 8 31 35 10 76 125 3 24 HAMILTON165 1212 285 30 18 28 23 2 53 87 3 25 HARDEE442 1250 292 25 14 36 22 3 61 93 3 26 HENDRY514 1228 288 25 16 36 20 3 58 90 3 27 HERNANDO1588 1357 309 17 13 37 28 6 71 111.5 3 28 HIGHLANDS917 1301 300 21 12 36 27 4 67 104 3 29 HILLSBORO U 14703 1330 305 21 13 31 27 7 66 105.5 3 30 HOLMES263 1278 296 20 18 37 22 3 62 96

PAGE 172

172 FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 3 continued 3 31 INDIAN RIVER1224 1405 317 14 10 32 35 8 75 123 3 32 JACKSON537 1376 312 17 12 30 34 7 71 118 3 33 JEFFERSON89 1236 290 25 22 35 17 1 53 82 3 34 LAFAYETTE93 1257 293 26 16 31 25 2 58 93 3 35 LAKE2760 1350 308 19 12 33 30 7 69 113 3 36 LEE 5598 1355 309 17 13 35 28 7 70 111.5 3 37 LEON 2433 1419 320 15 12 31 32 11 73 123 3 38 LEVY 483 1285 297 20 14 36 26 3 65 101 3 39 LIBERTY81 1372 312 16 16 31 32 5 68 113 3 40 MADISON179 1331 305 16 18 35 28 3 66 106 3 41 MANATEE3149 1308 301 21 15 35 24 6 65 102.5 3 42 MARION3073 1298 300 21 14 35 26 4 65 102 3 43 MARTIN1236 1434 322 11 10 36 35 9 80 129 3 44 MONROE611 1416 319 14 10 32 36 9 76 127 3 45 NASSAU780 1439 323 11 10 32 39 7 79 129 3 46 OKALOOSA2168 1465 327 10 10 33 38 10 81 134 3 47 OKEECHOBE E 563 1254 292 25 15 38 19 4 61 91.5 3 48 ORANGE13713 1304 301 22 13 34 25 6 65 102.5 3 49 OSCEOLA3672 1254 292 24 15 35 22 4 61 94.5 3 50 PALM BEACH13375 1325 304 20 13 33 27 6 67 105.5 3 51 PASCO4935 1305 301 21 14 35 26 5 66 104 3 52 PINELLAS8308 1346 308 19 13 32 29 7 68 110.5 3 53 POLK6771 1296 299 22 15 34 25 5 64 101.5 3 54 PUTNAM919 1301 300 20 17 33 25 5 63 101.5 3 55 ST. JOHNS1867 1463 327 12 10 29 37 12 79 132 3 56 ST. LUCIE2621 1332 305 20 14 33 27 6 66 106 3 57 SANTA ROSA1713 1505 334 8 8 30 41 12 84 140 3 58 SARASOTA3227 1405 317 15 11 31 33 9 74 120.5 3 59 SEMINOLE5009 1452 325 12 9 32 36 11 79 130.5 3 60 SUMTER543 1326 304 20 13 32 29 5 66 106.5 3 61 SUWANNEE376 1303 300 20 12 37 26 5 68 105 3 62 TAYLOR252 1325 304 22 9 35 29 5 69 107.5 3 63 UNION166 1391 315 16 10 36 34 5 75 119 3 64 VOLUSIA4875 1368 311 16 12 36 30 7 72 116 3 65 WAKULLA354 1443 324 13 8 34 36 10 79 130 3 66 WALTON494 1402 317 13 12 36 30 9 75 120 3 67 WASHINGTON258 1395 316 14 11 36 31 7 75 117.5

PAGE 173

173 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS Grade Report of District Results Grade 4 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber o f Mean DevelopMean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Percent inFCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500)Achievemen t Accountability (0-3000) level 3 & upScore4 0 STATEWIDE 195678 1575 319 15 13 35 29 8 71 115.5 4 1 ALACHUA1996 1585 320 18 14 29 29 10 68 114 4 2 BAKER358 1575 318 15 17 34 28 7 68 112.5 4 3 BAY1826 1622 327 12 11 35 33 9 77 124.5 4 4 BRADFORD251 1522 309 20 14 40 22 4 66 99 4 5 BREVARD5345 1659 333 10 9 33 36 12 81 133.5 4 6 BROWARD21307 1561 316 17 14 35 27 7 69 110 4 7 CALHOUN161 1610 325 14 6 39 31 10 80 124 4 8 CHARLOTTE1152 1600 323 13 13 35 33 6 74 119.5 4 9 CITRUS1106 1622 327 11 11 37 32 8 78 122.5 4 10 CLAY2204 1657 332 8 12 34 36 10 80 132 4 11 COLLIER3219 1566 317 17 14 33 29 8 69 114 4 12 COLUMBIA737 1559 316 14 14 38 30 4 72 113 4 13 MIAMI-DADE26741 1547 314 17 14 35 27 6 69 108 4 14 DESOTO367 1561 316 14 14 36 31 4 71 113 4 15 DIXIE 159 1542 313 19 12 42 19 8 69 102 4 16 DUVAL9461 1583 320 14 15 35 29 8 71 116.5 4 17 ESCAMBIA3382 1527 310 19 16 34 25 5 65 102 4 18 FLAGLER735 1600 323 14 12 34 33 7 75 120 4 19 FRANKLIN88 1542 313 16 13 49 18 5 72 101.5 4 20 GADSDEN434 1447 297 27 18 38 15 2 55 81 4 21 GILCHRIST186 1618 326 10 10 34 39 6 80 129 4 22 GLADES104 1485 303 15 27 37 17 4 58 92.5 4 23 GULF 146 1536 312 18 10 42 24 6 72 107 4 24 HAMILTON136 1457 298 26 15 35 18 4 58 86.5 4 25 HARDEE391 1488 304 21 17 39 19 4 62 93.5 4 26 HENDRY576 1509 307 20 16 36 23 5 64 100 4 27 HERNANDO1496 1576 319 13 13 39 28 6 73 113.5 4 28 HIGHLANDS882 1548 314 16 13 39 26 5 71 107.5 4 29 HILLSBOROUGH14204 1559 316 17 15 34 27 8 68 111.5 4 30 HOLMES250 1552 315 14 16 34 31 5 70 114

PAGE 174

174 FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 4 continued 4 31 INDIAN RIVER1262 1629 328 11 11 34 34 10 78 127.5 4 32 JACKSON486 1615 325 12 12 35 34 8 76 125 4 33 JEFFERSON90 1372 284 38 18 30 13 1 44 67 4 34 LAFAYETTE76 1623 327 8 12 41 28 12 80 127 4 35 LAKE2771 1570 318 15 13 37 31 5 73 115.5 4 36 LEE5296 1578 319 15 14 36 28 7 71 113 4 37 LEON2244 1646 331 11 11 34 32 12 78 127.5 4 38 LEVY291 1529 311 16 14 40 26 3 70 105 4 39 LIBERTY83 1582 320 10 10 47 27 7 81 120 4 40 MADISON212 1432 294 28 17 38 14 2 54 78.5 4 41 MANATEE3189 1563 316 15 14 38 26 6 71 109 4 42 MARION3096 1563 316 15 14 38 27 6 71 111 4 43 MARTIN1258 1668 334 9 10 33 36 13 82 136 4 44 MONROE580 1621 326 12 12 34 33 9 76 124 4 45 NASSAU772 1628 328 11 9 38 34 9 80 128.5 4 46 OKALOOSA2168 1682 337 7 10 33 37 13 83 138 4 47 OKEECHOBE E 495 1527 310 19 15 35 27 5 66 106.5 4 48 ORANGE12902 1555 315 16 14 36 27 7 70 111 4 49 OSCEOLA3568 1513 308 19 15 36 25 5 65 103.5 4 50 PALM BEAC H 13013 1572 318 16 13 34 28 8 71 112.5 4 51 PASCO4634 1566 317 15 14 38 27 6 71 111 4 52 PINELLAS8303 1587 321 15 13 34 30 9 73 118.5 4 53 POLK 6444 1525 310 19 15 36 25 5 66 103.5 4 54 PUTNAM920 1540 313 16 17 39 25 4 67 105.5 4 55 ST. JOHNS1838 1687 338 9 8 30 39 14 83 140 4 56 ST. LUCIE2698 1560 316 16 15 36 27 6 69 109.5 4 57 SANTA ROS A 1718 1705 341 6 6 33 41 14 88 146 4 58 SARASOTA3137 1641 330 11 10 33 34 11 78 128 4 59 SEMINOLE5004 1649 331 10 9 35 36 10 81 131.5 4 60 SUMTER568 1586 320 15 11 36 29 8 74 115.5 4 61 SUWANNEE411 1550 314 18 15 35 26 6 67 106.5 4 62 TAYLOR229 1587 321 13 15 41 25 7 72 112.5 4 63 UNION157 1570 318 15 14 32 36 3 71 117 4 64 VOLUSIA4902 1595 322 12 12 37 32 7 76 121 4 65 WAKULLA315 1652 332 7 9 37 37 9 84 133.5 4 66 WALTON484 1630 328 11 10 37 34 9 80 128 4 67 WASHINGTON243 1557 315 15 16 30 33 6 69 116

PAGE 175

175 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS Grade Report of District Results Grade5 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber o f Mean Develo p Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Percent inFCAT Number StudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500) Achievemen t Accountability (0-3000) level 3 & u p Score5 0 STATEWID E 181651 1611 303 18 16 34 25 7 66 106 5 1 ALACHUA1813 1651 310 19 14 29 27 11 67 112 5 2 BAKER328 1568 295 22 17 31 23 6 61 97.5 5 3 BAY1970 1660 312 13 14 35 30 8 72 118 5 4 BRADFORD236 1546 292 24 20 30 20 6 56 92 5 5 BREVARD5571 1707 320 11 12 33 32 12 77 127 5 6 BROWARD19389 1604 302 19 17 34 24 7 65 104.5 5 7 CALHOUN155 1689 317 11 13 37 28 11 76 121.5 5 8 CHARLOTTE1113 1657 311 15 13 33 30 8 72 115.5 5 9 CITRUS1098 1652 310 14 16 35 27 8 70 113 5 10 CLAY2351 1669 314 14 14 35 28 9 73 116 5 11 COLLIER2648 1623 305 18 15 33 25 9 67 108.5 5 12 COLUMBIA690 1579 297 20 17 37 22 5 63 99.5 5 13 MIAMI-DADE22608 1578 297 20 16 35 23 6 64 101 5 14 DESOTO333 1543 291 21 19 38 19 3 60 91.5 5 15 DIXIE114 1584 298 15 24 38 19 4 61 96 5 16 DUVAL9018 1590 299 19 17 35 23 6 64 101.5 5 17 ESCAMBIA3001 1587 299 20 19 32 23 6 61 99.5 5 18 FLAGLER719 1630 307 15 15 36 29 5 70 111.5 5 19 FRANKLIN84 1560 294 21 20 35 20 4 58 93 5 20 GADSDEN462 1404 266 33 32 27 7 1 35 59 5 21 GILCHRIST209 1622 305 17 11 39 29 5 73 112.5 5 22 GLADES94 1499 283 31 14 35 16 4 55 82 5 23 GULF151 1590 299 21 15 35 24 5 64 100.5 5 24 HAMILTON115 1497 283 32 19 24 23 2 49 83.5 5 25 HARDEE338 1501 283 29 19 32 15 5 52 81.5 5 26 HENDRY512 1523 287 26 20 29 19 6 54 89 5 27 HERNANDO1428 1610 303 17 16 38 24 6 67 106 5 28 HIGHLANDS844 1574 297 20 16 36 23 5 64 100 5 29 HILLSBOROUG H 13741 1585 298 21 18 32 23 7 61 101 5 30 HOLMES233 1598 301 21 16 30 27 6 63 104

PAGE 176

176 FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 5 continued 5 31 INDIAN RIVER1125 1653 311 13 17 34 26 10 70 114.5 5 32 JACKSON469 1633 307 15 16 35 28 6 69 111 5 33 JEFFERSON78 1443 273 29 26 31 13 1 45 72 5 34 LAFAYETT E 75 1538 290 24 17 37 19 3 59 89.5 5 35 LAKE2604 1615 304 17 17 35 24 8 66 107.5 5 36 LEE 4914 1615 304 16 17 35 25 7 67 107.5 5 37 LEON2349 1689 317 13 15 32 27 12 71 117.5 5 38 LEVY 263 1571 296 22 14 40 20 4 64 95 5 39 LIBERTY88 1605 302 18 13 35 27 7 69 109.5 5 40 MADISON170 1480 280 29 23 29 16 3 48 78.5 5 41 MANATEE2902 1587 299 19 18 34 24 6 63 103 5 42 MARION2889 1600 301 18 17 34 25 6 65 104.5 5 43 MARTIN1288 1711 321 12 12 31 33 11 75 125 5 44 MONROE624 1634 307 14 19 32 27 8 67 111.5 5 45 NASSAU731 1668 313 11 16 37 27 9 73 117 5 46 OKALOOSA2215 1737 326 9 12 33 33 13 79 131 5 47 OKEECHOBEE545 1532 289 23 21 34 17 5 56 88.5 5 48 ORANGE11947 1584 298 20 17 34 22 7 63 100.5 5 49 OSCEOLA3330 1524 288 25 19 32 19 5 56 89.5 5 50 PALM BEA C 12001 1609 303 19 16 33 24 8 65 105 5 51 PASCO3997 1618 304 16 15 37 25 7 69 108.5 5 52 PINELLAS7569 1634 307 16 15 33 27 8 68 110.5 5 53 POLK6068 1544 291 24 17 33 20 6 59 93.5 5 54 PUTNAM847 1565 295 20 18 35 22 5 62 98 5 55 ST. JOHNS1798 1695 318 13 13 33 30 12 75 123.5 5 56 ST. LUCIE2404 1600 301 19 17 34 25 6 65 104.5 5 57 SANTA ROSA1790 1743 327 9 11 32 34 13 79 131.5 5 58 SARASOTA2954 1692 318 13 12 33 31 10 75 121 5 59 SEMINOLE4844 1694 318 12 12 34 31 11 76 124 5 60 SUMTER518 1678 315 14 13 33 31 9 73 119.5 5 61 SUWANNEE401 1597 301 17 19 36 23 4 64 99.5 5 62 TAYLOR221 1556 293 21 21 33 20 5 58 93.5 5 63 UNION156 1573 296 24 14 29 23 9 62 100 5 64 VOLUSIA4633 1646 309 14 15 37 27 8 71 114.5 5 65 WAKULLA338 1681 316 16 11 31 31 12 74 122.5 5 66 WALTON456 1676 315 12 14 33 32 9 74 122 5 67 WASHINGTON252 1563 295 22 17 34 22 5 61 96.5

PAGE 177

177 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS Grade Report of District Results Grade6 READINGGradeDistrict District NameNumber of Mean Develo p Mean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Percent inFCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500)AchievementAccountability (0-3000) level 3 & upScore6 0 STATEWIDE 201609 1644 299 25 20 31 19 5 56 89 6 1 ALACHUA2132 1662 302 25 19 29 20 7 56 92.5 6 2 BAKER361 1659 302 22 22 30 20 6 56 93 6 3 BAY1985 1708 311 18 18 36 22 6 64 101 6 4 BRADFORD294 1586 289 29 24 28 17 2 47 78 6 5 BREVARD5508 1788 325 11 15 34 30 10 74 121.5 6 6 BROWARD20962 1659 302 23 20 32 19 6 57 92 6 7 CALHOUN194 1666 303 21 19 34 20 6 60 95.5 6 8 CHARLOTT E 1343 1688 307 19 18 35 22 6 63 100 6 9 CITRUS1174 1676 305 19 19 35 23 4 62 98.5 6 10 CLAY2626 1739 316 13 18 37 25 7 69 110 6 11 COLLIER3116 1628 296 26 20 29 19 5 53 87 6 12 COLUMBIA808 1608 293 25 25 30 16 4 50 82.5 6 13 MIAMI-DADE27137 1548 282 35 21 27 14 3 44 71.5 6 14 DESOTO352 1597 291 27 23 29 18 3 50 82.5 6 15 DIXIE165 1546 282 38 21 25 15 2 41 69.5 6 16 DUVAL10239 1636 298 26 21 31 18 5 53 87.5 6 17 ESCAMBIA3388 1594 290 30 20 29 17 4 50 81 6 18 FLAGLER779 1660 302 20 20 35 20 5 60 95 6 19 FRANKLIN127 1678 305 21 22 31 20 6 57 94 6 20 GADSDEN512 1496 272 39 26 28 7 0 35 55 6 21 GILCHRIST195 1700 309 21 18 30 24 7 61 101 6 22 GLADES110 1540 280 32 23 29 15 1 45 72.5 6 23 GULF172 1707 311 19 18 31 27 6 63 106 6 24 HAMILTON145 1565 285 32 23 30 12 4 46 73.5 6 25 HARDEE385 1542 281 33 22 31 12 2 45 70 6 26 HENDRY574 1535 280 36 22 27 12 3 42 68 6 27 HERNANDO1638 1641 299 25 20 31 19 5 55 89 6 28 HIGHLANDS927 1614 294 27 21 31 18 4 52 85.5 6 29 HILLSBOROUGH14432 1639 298 26 20 29 19 6 54 89 6 30 HOLMES264 1643 299 26 18 32 20 3 56 87

PAGE 178

178 FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 6 continued 6 31 INDIAN RIVER1262 1678 305 22 18 33 21 7 60 98 6 32 JACKSON586 1627 296 27 20 31 18 5 53 87 6 33 JEFFERSON84 1473 268 43 27 23 7 0 30 50.5 6 34 LAFAYETTE77 1632 297 25 17 38 18 3 58 88.5 6 35 LAKE2763 1671 304 21 19 35 20 5 60 94.5 6 36 LEE 5466 1641 299 25 19 32 19 5 56 89.5 6 37 LEON 2468 1732 315 16 19 34 23 9 66 107.5 6 38 LEVY 547 1581 288 32 20 29 17 3 49 79 6 39 LIBERTY105 1679 306 22 19 23 30 7 59 106.5 6 40 MADISON178 1537 280 35 22 26 13 3 43 69 6 41 MANATEE3061 1651 300 22 22 32 19 5 56 91 6 42 MARION3130 1625 296 25 22 31 18 4 53 86 6 43 MARTIN1333 1752 319 15 15 33 27 10 70 114.5 6 44 MONROE679 1694 308 19 18 32 24 6 63 101 6 45 NASSAU819 1713 312 15 18 38 25 4 68 105 6 46 OKALOOSA2343 1778 323 12 15 36 28 10 73 119.5 6 47 OKEECHOBEE567 1607 293 27 22 32 16 3 51 81 6 48 ORANGE13473 1629 296 26 21 31 18 5 54 87.5 6 49 OSCEOLA3604 1580 288 31 22 29 15 3 47 76 6 50 PALM BEACH13263 1645 299 25 20 31 19 6 55 91 6 51 PASCO4659 1654 301 22 20 34 20 4 58 92 6 52 PINELLAS8312 1674 305 22 18 32 20 7 59 95 6 53 POLK6638 1591 290 30 21 29 15 4 48 77.5 6 54 PUTNAM978 1588 289 30 25 28 13 4 45 74.5 6 55 ST. JOHNS1929 1767 321 14 14 33 28 10 72 116 6 56 ST. LUCIE2747 1631 297 26 20 32 18 4 54 86 6 57 SANTA ROSA1970 1773 323 13 14 35 28 10 74 118 6 58 SARASOTA3231 1687 307 22 17 31 22 8 61 99.5 6 59 SEMINOLE5173 1736 316 15 17 34 25 8 68 108.5 6 60 SUMTER580 1669 304 22 20 31 21 7 58 97 6 61 SUWANNEE441 1635 298 27 18 33 18 5 55 88 6 62 TAYLOR266 1714 312 15 17 41 20 6 67 101.5 6 63 UNION170 1624 296 26 21 28 20 5 52 88.5 6 64 VOLUSIA4891 1674 305 20 19 35 20 6 60 96.5 6 65 WAKULLA388 1731 315 15 19 35 25 6 66 106.5 6 66 WALTON549 1637 298 22 22 32 20 3 55 89 6 67 WASHINGTON258 1665 303 22 17 33 25 2 61 95.5

PAGE 179

179 FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (FCAT) 2005 SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS Grade Report of District Results Grade 7 READINGGradeDistric t District NameNumber of Mean DevelopMean Scale 1 2 3 4 5 Percent inFCAT NumberStudentsScale ScoreScore (0-500)AchievementAccountability (0-3000) level 3 & upScore7 0 STATEWIDE 202520 1712 299 27 21 30 17 5 53 84.5 7 1 ALACHUA2105 1725 301 27 19 28 19 7 54 89.5 7 2 BAKER379 1674 291 30 21 27 18 3 49 79.5 7 3 BAY2049 1769 310 20 20 35 20 6 60 97 7 4 BRADFORD283 1637 284 37 24 22 14 3 39 68 7 5 BREVARD5885 1814 318 15 17 35 25 8 68 109.5 7 6 BROWARD21160 1742 304 24 21 31 19 6 56 91.5 7 7 CALHOUN178 1721 300 23 25 31 15 6 52 85.5 7 8 CHARLOTTE1393 1758 308 22 20 31 20 7 59 95 7 9 CITRUS1299 1720 300 24 21 35 16 4 56 85.5 7 10 CLAY2630 1755 307 19 23 33 20 5 58 94.5 7 11 COLLIER3146 1704 297 28 20 30 17 5 53 84 7 12 COLUMBIA837 1696 296 25 24 32 14 5 51 82 7 13 MIAMI-DADE27796 1629 283 37 21 26 13 4 43 70.5 7 14 DESOTO311 1644 286 33 19 34 12 2 48 71.5 7 15 DIXIE153 1645 286 35 22 25 15 4 44 74 7 16 DUVAL9766 1711 298 26 22 32 16 4 52 83 7 17 ESCAMBIA3563 1654 288 33 23 27 13 4 44 72.5 7 18 FLAGLER793 1725 301 24 21 33 17 5 55 87.5 7 19 FRANKLIN97 1628 283 36 20 32 7 5 44 66 7 20 GADSDEN503 1530 264 46 27 22 4 1 26 45.5 7 21 GILCHRIST223 1729 302 20 24 34 18 4 57 90 7 22 GLADES104 1593 276 44 16 27 8 5 39 61 7 23 GULF178 1775 311 19 23 29 23 7 58 100.5 7 24 HAMILTON163 1522 262 53 15 21 10 1 32 50.5 7 25 HARDEE429 1581 274 42 23 24 10 2 35 59.5 7 26 HENDRY604 1617 281 36 22 29 11 2 42 66 7 27 HERNANDO1714 1685 294 29 20 32 14 5 50 80 7 28 HIGHLANDS923 1688 294 26 26 31 13 4 48 78 7 29 HILLSBOROUGH14355 1698 296 29 21 29 17 5 50 83.5 7 30 HOLMES265 1692 295 30 19 30 15 5 51 79.5

PAGE 180

180 FCAT 2005 Reading Grade 7 c