Citation
Analysis of equality of educational opportunity and taxpayer equity : through the modeling and testing of a computer based public school finance simulation for a selected state

Material Information

Title:
Analysis of equality of educational opportunity and taxpayer equity : through the modeling and testing of a computer based public school finance simulation for a selected state
Creator:
Bookman, Michael Kurt, 1946-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 249 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Finance ( jstor )
Full time students ( jstor )
Funding ( jstor )
Professional training ( jstor )
Property taxes ( jstor )
School districts ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Simulations ( jstor )
Taxes ( jstor )
Taxpaying ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF ( lcsh )
Education -- Finance -- Mathematical models ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Educational equalization -- Mathematical models -- West Virginia ( lcsh )
City of Miami ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 234-247.
General Note:
Vita.
General Note:
Typescript.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michael Kurt Bookman.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
026384917 ( ALEPH )
04165288 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











ANALYSIS OF EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY THROUGH THE MODELING AND TESTING
OF A COMPUTER BASED PUBLIC SCHOOL
FINANCE SIMULATION FOR A SELECTED STATE












By

MICHAEL KURT BOOKMAN


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



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1977

















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This study would have never been possible without

the contributions and support of many people and organi-

zations. A number of these people and organizations de-

serving special acknowledgments are

The West Virginia State Department of Education for

their cooperation in helri r) obtain the raiuired data;

Mr. William Hamilton who facilitated the transmission

of data, and helped in making essential data available to

the researcher;

Dr. John L. Jones who started the researcher on the

path;

The Institute for Educational Finance for their help,

sense of humor, and togetherness;

Dr. Linda Crocker for helping the researcher in a

time of need, and general understanding and patience;

Dr. Kern Alexander for his patience, guidance, help,

and all round guiding light;

Dr. James Hale, committee chairman, for his "fan-

tastic" help and support. Without his understanding and

judgment, many questions would have never been answered.

THANKS.











Sid Bookman for his support, help, and wisdom from

birth;

Isabel Bookman, the reason for the researcher being

in education, and an inisniration;

Finally, my wife, Kay, for her continual support,

patience, and tolerance during the preparation of this

study. Without her being there, this might not have been

accomplished.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES ... . . . . . . . . .vi

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . .. vii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . .. viii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 1

Background and Rationale . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . 7
Procedures . . . . . . . . 8
Delimitations . . . . . . .. 10
Limitations . . . . . . .. 10
Definition of Terms . . . . .. 11

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . .. 13

Equality of Educational Opportunity . 13
Litigation-Fiscal Equality of Educational
Opportunity . . . . . . .. 22
State Support Plans for Education . .. 35
Educational Finance in West Virginia. . 52
Simulations . . . . . . .. 61
Summary . . . . . . . .. 75

III ADAPTATION OF THE NEFP COMPUTER SIMULATION
MODEL . . . . . . . . . . 78

The NEFP Model . . . . . . .. 78
The West Virginia Model . . . .. 82

IV ANALYSIS OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY . . . . . .. . 104

Present School Finance in West Virginia 105
Analyses of Simulated Alternatives. . 121
Variation Between Plans . . . .. 125
Summary . . . . . . . . 142













TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER

V SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary . . . . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . .


APPENDICES

A DATA BASE CREATION PROGRAM . . .

B BASIC DATA DEFINITIONS . . . .

C CALCULATED DATA DEFINITIONS . . .

D INPUT DECISIONS
WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE
SIMULATION MODEL . . . . . .

E STATE FILE . . . . . . .

F STATE AID, 1976-77 . . . . .

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . .


. . 159

. . 162

. . 184



. . 199

. . 230

. . 235

. . 237

. . 248


Page

S. 144

* 144
* 151
* 155
















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE Page

1 Effect on Additional Allocations for
Professional Educator State Aid' Formula 58

2 Assessed Valuation of Nonutility Property
in West Virginia (1975) . . . . .. 60

3 Basic Data Code Sheet . . . . . .. 85

4 Calculated Data Code Sheet . . . . .. 93

5 Preliminary Computations Public School Support
Program Supplementary Information 1976-1977 109

6 State and Local Funds per Pupil 1976-1977 I. 111

7 Weighted Values and Revenue from Local
Property Tax 1976-1977 . . . . . . 115

8 Total Program Dollars and Total State Aid per
Pupil by Funding Pattern . . . . .. 127

9 Weighted Foundation Program Cost Figures. . 135

10 Progressivity Value . . . . . .. 139















LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE Page

1 Conceptual Framework for Simulation . . 64

2 Sample Input of the West Virginia School
Finance Computer Simulation Model Utilizing
an Unweighted Pupil Unit . . . .. 102

3 Sample Input of the West Virginia School
Finance Computer Simulation MOdel Utilizing
a Weighted Pupil Unit . . . . .. 103


vii









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

ANALYSIS OF EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY THROUGH THE MODELING AND TESTING
OF A COMPUTER BASED PUBLIC SCHOOL
FINANCE SIMULATION FOR A SELECTED STATE

By

Michael Kurt Bookman

August, 1977

Chairman: Dr. James A. Hale
Major Department: Educational Administration & Supervision

The primary objectives of this study were to (1) iden-

tify and collect data necessary to generate alternative

funding patterns for public school finance, (2) to develop

computational subroutines and decision sets in a computer

simulation model that would provide alternative funding

patterns, and (3) to simulate ana evaluate alternative

funding patterns relative to the concepts of equal educa-

tional opportunity and taxpayer equity. Tnese three objec-

tives were then applied to the state of West Virginia.

The National Education Finance Project (NEFP) ori-

ginally developed a computer simulation which was designed

to simulate the effects of decisions for a prototype state.

This simulation consisted of two main data files, which were

identified as M FILE and D FILE. TheM FILE was additionally

subdivided into aB FILE and C FILE. Basic informational

data about the school districts, such as demographic,


viii









enrollment, program, salaries, et cetera, are contained

in theD FILE; whereas, the C FILE stored results of compu-

tations for later retrieval. D FILE contained the alterna-

tive decision sets available to the user in regard to

programs, distribution, and revenue decisions. Three

additional files were created in the simulation, and are

designated as LSTATE, SSTATE, and STATE. These three

files were the key elements of the simulation in that

they enabled the interaction of the input decisions rela-

tive to the base data. For purposes of this study, the

STATE file was created, and computational subroutines

relative to both general school finance and the state of

West Virginia were written and stored in this file. Addi-

tional options included a comparisonssection between the

alternative selected and the 1976-1977 state plan, and a

Lorenz Curve and Gini Index to enable further analysis

of equity.

Although the analysis of data was place specific,

West Virginia, the procedures employed are generalizable

to any state. Analysis of data was accomplished in four

parts. First, the 1976-1977 state plan was analyzed rela-

tive to the concepts of equality of educational oppor-

tunity and taxpayer equity. The results indicated that

the 1976-1977 state aid formula showed a high correlation

between the amount of money available to a district and









the number of professional educators employed in a district.

This factor was significant considering the state alloca-

tions are based on professional educator salaries. Wealthy

districts thus tend to have more professional educators

per student, and subsequently receive more state aid than

poorer districts. Likewise, the composition of the gen-

eral fund indicated a heavy reliance on tax sources which

place a greater burden on low-income groups.

The second part of the analysis demonstrated the

convergence of foundation, percentage equalizing, and

guaranteed yield programs when one considers only dollar

allocations in regard to equity, which is referred to as

vertical equity. In part three, concern for student needs

(horizontal equity) was provided for in a weighted founda-

tion program. The level of funding utilized remained con-

stant throughout, to illustrate redistributional effects of

state aid. The results indicated that a basic program can

fulfill both the requirements of vertical and horizontal

equity, and thus meet equality of educational opportunity

criteria. Finally, the fourth part analyzed the 1975-1976

general revenue fund relative to the criteria of taxpayer

equity. Using the NEFP tax progressivity index, results

indicated a tax base which appeared to place a greater

burden on low income groups. An alternative was generated

which produced a higher progressivity measure.









A simulation provides the necessary analytical tool

which enables experimentation on a system without in-

curring the risks of direct experimentation. The examples

cited were representative of the capabilities of the

adapted simulation model, and demonstrate the potential

use by researchers, planners, and managers connected with

educational finance.















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



Background and Rationale


Equality is a concept which the United States has

expressed as one of the basic principles upon which this

country was founded. The Preamble to the Constitution is

illustrative of this point when it stated, "We hold these

truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

The idea still endures, with President Carter declaring that

one of the issues about which his administration is con-

cerned deeply is the issue of "human rights."

However noble an idea, the implementation of such an

ideal as equality has had its limitations. Throughout

history equality has been defined and applied differen-

tially, depending upon who was defining and applying the

concept to whom. Because of this problem, legislatures

(federal and state) have attempted to be more specific in

their intent, with the ultimate objective being that through

a combination of all the pieces of legislation, a more

general interpretation of the concept of equality could be

derived. However, the courts, being the main interpreters









of legislation, have encountered the same definitional

problem of equality as have legislatures.

Some have suggested that through education, equality

is an obtainable goal. This hope is due to the fact that

these same people believe that it is through expanded edu-

cational opportunities that a degree of equality will be

achieved. But, as with most general terms, the concepts

of equality and educational opportunity seemed to confound

the definitional problems already encountered. Given that

school districts provide different educational programs

and fiscally support education at various levels, the con-

troversy of what constitutes equality in education has

evolved to a point where fiscal policies seem to be the

focus of legislators, courts, and educators.

Laws, policies, and procedures for the assessment,

collection, and distribution of revenues to support public

education have been a major issue facing legislatures,

courts, educators, and citizens. The ultimate end of which

is to provide for equality of educational opportunity,

which McCarthy (1977) has characterized as being "firmly

rooted in democratic philosophy and shares an exalted

position with monogomy, brotherhood, and peace" (p. 159).

Public education exists, as the term implies, to

serve society and for the benefit of society. Thus, being

a merit want of society, it should be reflective of the









needs and goals for the society in which it exists. To

facilitate this end, adequate revenues must be provided

to finance public education and to meet the goal of equal-

ity of educational opportunity.

The concept of fiscal equality, although easy to

state, is in fact a complex and dynamic concept. McClure

(1975) suggested that educational equality means "that every

individual should be able to develop to fullest capacity,

given reasonable effort and motivation, and to continue in

ways that enable her or him to perform as effectively as

possible" (p. 102). By this and similar definitions by

others, the concept evolves as fiscal equity rather than

fiscal equality.

The delineation between the two concepts, equality

and equity, being that equality implies uniformity of sup-

port (or service), whereas equity implies differential sup-

port (or service) based upon need. Alexander (1977) ex-

panded upon the concept of equity when he defined it as

generally consisting of at least three aspects-"equality,

utility, and efficiency" (p. 453).

Simple horizontal equality is referred to by economists

as treating equals, equally. But, due to its broad inter-

pretation, equals and equality have become relative terms.

This same drawback of interpretation is also encountered

when one considers the concept of utility. If taxpayers









receive a maximum return for their investment, and they

continue to receive that maximum, then equality occurs.

But, the economic principal of marginal utility suggests

that the value placed upon those returns has differential

utility, and therefore the degree of utility applies.

Efficiency on the other hand addresses itself to a "bal-

anced and comprehensive taxing structure covering all major

forms of activity without falling exclusively on one particu-

lar aspect of the economic system" (Alexander, 1977, p. 455).

Since equality is a goal of public school finance

practice, R. L. Johns (1977) stated the general criteria for

judging achievement thereof as,

(1) The finance program should result in substan-
tial equalization throughout the state. (2) The
program should be fiscally neutral; the quality
and quantity of a child's education should not
be dependent on per capital wealth of the school
district in which he lives. (3) The program should
be financed by an equitable system of taxation.
(4) The program should promote the efficient use
of school funds. (p. 499)

Meeting the criteria as mentioned by Johns (1977)

had been the objectives of state legislatures, courts,

educators, and the lay public, but it has often been a
"patch-work" or "piece-meal" approach. The emphasis to

correct inequities within state formulas has been accom-

plished through "add-ons" to the current formula, or by

raising funding levels within the existing formula. The

result of the corrections has been general confusion on the









part of legislators, educators, and citizens as to what the

end result means to individual school districts.

Hale (1975) addressed the equity of state financial

plans for education in terms of distributional equity and

taxpayer equity. Distributional equity is concerned with

the allocation phase of school finance in regard to testing

the equity of "equal access to resources based upon need,"

whereas taxpayer equity is concerned with the revenue dimen-

sion in regard to testing the equity concept of "equal

treatment-of-equals who have the ability to pay" (Hale,

1975, p. 22). But, as Tanner and Kondwros (1977) stated,

the problems of "enormous growth in expenditures" over

revenues and the inability of local governments to generate

enough revenues have generally prevented both quality edu-

cation and equality of education.

Tanner and Kondwros (1977) stated five reasons why

current state aid formulas appear to be inadequate. They

first concluded that variations in the tax bases, assess-

ment procedures and tax rates make a heavy reliance on the

property tax which they further concluded was an inadequate

source of funding. Second, flat grant provisions within

many state formulas help in maintaining discrepancies.

Third, variations for cost-of-living and delivery systems

are seldom considered in present formulas. Fourth, equaliz-

ing formulas that are based on property wealth "frequently









do not correlate with individual income" (Tanner & Kondwros,

1977, p. 2), and this is a crucial relationship in the

ability of a school district to generate revenue.

Fifth, present formulas do not take into account high cost

programs necessary to meet the needs of various children.

To deal with equalization of educational opportunity

and taxpayer equity issues in a comprehensive study of

school finance requires the use of the most efficient tool

available to show the impact of policy decisions, and to

allow for analysis of alternatives. Through the use of a

computer simulation researchers and planners can quickly

and accurately answer questions in regard to the impact of

proposed plans on individual school districts (Johns,

1977, p. 508).

It is within the computer-based simulation that pro-

gram decisions, distributional decisions, and revenue de-

cisions can be analyzed in relationship to a state as a

whole. The simulation model provides the needed planning,

management, and research tool for school finance policy-

makers and policy-managers.

School finance specialists and researchers have sug-

gested that almost all state-local public school support

programs in use throughout the United States essentially

are the same, with the variation being within the definition

of terms used (Johns, 1968). These variations in definitions









actually determine the degree of equality of educational op-

portunity contained in the state plan. One focus of this

study was to determine the variation from equalization of

several alternative public school finance plans through

the use of a computer model adapted for that purpose.



Statement of the Problem


The focus of this study was to adapt and test a

computer-based school finance simulation model that would

provide computational subroutines to generate alternative

sets of program and fiscal decisions. The problem was to

generate alternative sets of public school finance program

and fiscal decisions and demonstrate their respective

contribution to equalization of educational opportunity

and taxpayer equity. The specific aspects of the problem

were

1. Identification of the data elements necessary

to generate alternative funding patterns for

various public school support formulae.

2. To develop calculation subroutines and decision

sets necessary to simulate various public

school funding patterns.

3. To simulate four alternative funding patterns

and to evaluate the results relative to gen-

erally accepted criteria of equalization of

educational opportunity and taxpayer equity.









Procedures


The general procedures for this study were conducted

in three phases:

1. Data were identified and collected which

enabled production of program and fiscal de-

cisions relative to alternative school finance

funding plans.

2. Calculation and decision subroutines were

developed which enabled alternative patterns of

school finance to be modeled.

3. Analysis of the alternative school funding plans

in regard to both equalization of educational

opportunity and taxpayer equity criteria.

S- Data were identified and collected which enabled pro-
duction of the program and fiscal decisions relative to
alternative school finance funding plans.

Since West Virginia school finance programs are based

on student and teacher data of the previous year, data were

available to duplicate the 1976-1977 funding plan.

Programmatically, for the purposes of this study, the

decision was made to generate alternative funding patterns

based on kindergarten, elementary, secondary, special

education (for 10 exceptionalities or maladies or 4 delivery

systems, using full time equivalency enrollment) and voca-

tional education (for eight categories, using full time

equivalency enrollment). Additional programmatic data used









included salaries of professional educators, special services

and modifying factors, and fiscal data relative to both

state and local revenue and wealth.

Data collection was limited to information that was

obtainable at the state level. The State Department of

Education, State Department of Transportation, and State

Tax Collectors Office were the prime sourcesof information

regarding local school districts.

2 Calculation and decision subroutines were developed
which enabled alternative patterns of school finance to
be modeled.

Following collection of data necessary to simulate the

alternative patterns of school finance, a decision manual

was developed to provide researchers and planners options

as to programs, allocations, and to sources of revenue.

Then by modification of the National Education Finance

Project simulation, calculational subroutines were developed

to enable execution of the desired decisions.

3 Analysis of the alternative school funding plans in
regard to both equalization of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity criteria.

Foundation plan, percentage equalization plan, and

guaranteed yield plan were decided as the basic options

that were utilized in the model for analysis. Equalization

of educational opportunity and taxpayer equity criteria

were applied to each, and served as the basis for analysis.









Delimitations


1. The study was limited to the state of West

Virginia.

2. Enrollment figures used were based on a full

time equivalency basis.

3. Analysis was limited to generalized funding

patterns (foundation plan, percentage equalizing

plan, and guaranteed yield).

4. Programmatic data and fiscal data were obtained

that reflected the 1976-1977 basis of support

for public schools. However, data for the base

year that was unavailable were substituted by

1975-1976 data.



Limitations


Through the use of computer simulations, state planners

and researchers can analyze the equalization effects of

various alternative patterns of school finance funding

strategies. Though the study was limited to the state of

West Virginia, generalizations may be inferred to other

states if similar data and structure exists.









Definition of Terms


Actual costs. Actual costs were used for the purposes

of this study to denote total expenditures incurred for

the specific category referenced.

Approved costs. Approved costs for the purposes of

this study were used to denote approved allocations by the

state for the specific category referenced.

Delivery system. Delivery system for the purposes of

this study were used to denote a specific modality of

instruction within the special education program.

Distributional decisions. Distributional decisions

for the purposes of this study were used to refer to the

total state and local support of the basic state program,

procedures for distribution and procedures for local incen-

tive, if desired.

Fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity refers to the total

resources a governmental unit has available to them to tax

and generate revenue for public purposes, which includes

education.

Fiscal equity. Fiscal equity is a concept which

states that all divisions within a state should have access

to similar revenues for public purposes, including educa-

tion.

Fiscal neutrality. Fiscal neutrality is a concept

that was established within the Serrano (1971) decision.









The court stated that a state must provide each district

with relatively equal financial capacity, regardless of

that districts spending patterns or program offerings.

Malady. Malady or exceptionality was used synony-

mously for the purposes of this study, and denoted a par-

ticular special education category. The categories that

were used in the model included: educable mentally re-

tarded, trainable mentally retarded, learning disabilities,

behavioral disorders, physically handicapped, multiple

handicapped, visually handicapped, auditorily handicapped,

communication disorders, homebound and gifted.

Professional educator. Professional educator for

the purposes of this study was defined as a teacher,

supervisor, principal, superintendent, librarian, or any

other person regularly employed for instructional purposes.

Program decisions. Program decisions for the pur-

poses of this study were used to enable determination of

programs and units of a state school program, cost differ-

entials (if appropriate) and other special modifying

factors.

Revenue decisions. Revenue decisions for the pur-

poses of this study were used to refer to tax sources of

both state and local governments to provide funds for

education, and the desired rates associated with each

revenue source.














CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE



The review of related literature is divided into five

major sections. The first reviews the concept of equality

of educational opportunity. The second section reviews the

major litigation that has occurred in regard to fiscal

equality of educational opportunity. The third section

reviews the various state support plans for education. The

fourth section reviews educational practice in West Vir-

ginia (historical and current), and the final section

reviews concepts and uses of simulation.



Equality of Educational Opportunity


Since the formation of the United States in 1776, the

concepts of equality and opportunity have been mentioned in

several major policy documents of the nation's beliefs and

goals. In addition, the concepts have been defined and

redefined by many, depending on their point of reference

or interest.

Four examples of the emphasis on equality and oppor-

tunity are as follows. First within the Declaration of

Independence is expressed,









We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pur-
suit of happiness.

Second, within the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment

reaffirmed the concept of equality when it stated,

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person .
the equal protection of laws.

Third, within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

the UNESCO Constitution, the United States again stated

its commitment to the concept of equality, and specifically

to educational opportunity when they pledged to affirm,

The concept of equality of educational opportunity
without regard to race, sex or any distinction
economic or social. (UNESCO, 1945, Article 1, b)

And, fourth, Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act, as cited

by James Coleman (1966), charged the United States Office

of Education to undertake a survey,

Concerning the lack of availability of equal edu-
cational opportunity for individuals by reason of
race, color, religion, or national origin in
public educational institutions at all levels
in the United States. (p. iii)

The previously mentioned documents and statements have

expressed a commitment by the federal government to provide

for citizen equality, especially in regard to educational

opportunity. Generally, the previous statements have been

held as the global concepts of equality of educational









opportunity. Specifically, a United States Supreme Court

decision of 1937, in regard to Social Security, provided

the precedent for interpreting the "general welfare" pro-

vision of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution in light

of equality of educational opportunity. The court stated,

Nor is the concept of general welfare static.
Needs that were (considered) narrow or parochial
a century ago may be interwoven in our day with
the well being of the Nation. What is critical
or urgent changes with the times. (Helvering v.
Davis, 1937, 301 US 619)

Justice Frankfurter in a later decision similarly expressed

the changing nature of equal protection when he stated

that, "It is not a yardstick. It .is a process" (Joint

Anti-Facist Refugee Concern v. McGrath, 1951, 341 US 123,

162). What the justice was expressing was that general

welfare, of which education could be a provision, is a

changing concept, and requires modification over time. In

regards to "equal treatment for purposes of Equal Protec-

tion Clause," the Supreme Court stated that this too "does

change" (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966,

.383 US 663, 669). This decision, although relating to

voting rights, later was relied upon by the California

Supreme Court in the Serrano case (487 P.2d 1241) regarding
"wealth" as a suspect classification.

Charles Benson (1965) provided the following statement

in regards to public education and equal protection:









The only universally accepted criterion of a
public activity is that it affords equal
treatment to equals. With respect to schooling,
this implies that any two children of the same
abilities shall receive equivalent forms of
assistance in developing those abilities, wherever
they live in a given state and whatever their
parent's circumstances are. (p. 62)

Prior to the industrial revolution the concept of

equality of educational opportunity had little or no rele-

vance. Children during this time were an integral part of

the family unit and were expected to follow in their fam-

ily's interests. The child's education was considered only

important in the aspect of acquiring necessary skills to

further the family's economic and'social unit.

The result of the industrial revolution was that the

family unit underwent a great change. Men began being em-

ployed outside the family unit and thus they no longer pro-

vided homebound vocational training for the young. Coupled

with the fact that factories required minimum skills, the

need for public education became a concern for the general

populace. But, as Coleman (1968) stated, this concern was

to the exclusion of Indians and Southern blacks and little

was done to encourage the poor. Coleman (1968) had

summarized this post-industrial revolution when he stated:

The history of education since the industrial
revolution shows a continual struggle between 2
forces: the desire by members of society to have
educational opportunity for all children, and the
desire of each family to provide the best educa-
tion it can afford for its own children. (p. vii)









With the turn of the twentieth century, education

began to be redefined. Traditional college preparatory

secondary schools began to modify their curriculum to meet

the needs of the majority of students who were not college

bound. And, the concept of "separate but equal" was re-

affirmed for black children (Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 US 537,

1896). This provision continued over the next half century

until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v.

Board of Education of Topeka (347 US 493, 1954) where it

stated in dictum:

Today, education is perhaps the most important
function of state and local .government ..
In these days, it is doubtful that any child
may reasonably expect to succeed in life if he
is denied the opportunity to an education. Such
an opportunity, where the State has undertaken
to provide it is a right which must be made
available to all on equal terms.

The Supreme Court's statement of value was similarly

stated by Thomas Jefferson (cited in Division of Surveys

and Fields, 1956) at the country's beginning when he said,

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of

civilization, it expects what will never be" (p. 1).

Adam Smith (reprint, 1905) in 1776 similarly said in The

Wealth of Nations that education is a value to all society

and the expenses of it should "be defrayed by the general

contribution of the whole society" (p. 212).

Value implies something of worth, and education pro-

vides many economic and social benefits to society which









Johns, Alexander, and Jordan (1972) example as

improvement of the environment in which production
takes place, greater flexibility and adaptability
of the labor force, and greater ability to develop
technical improvements and incorporate them into
production processes. Conversely, externalities
of a negative nature, from the lack of education.
(p. 57)

Theodore Schultz (1970, pp. 29-57) also discussed and recog-

nized the economic factors involved in education. Addi-

tionally, Alexander (1976) provided an in-depth discussion

of the economic factors involved in education in his article

"The Value of An Education." He stated that

Economic measures of educational benefits are
inadequate to capture the full value of an
educated citizenry. . Estimates of social
returns to education do not . identify the
true values to society of higher levels of edu-
cation . for its contribution is the preven-
tion of many social problems. (p. 466)

In regard to providing all citizens with the social

and economic benefits a nation may offer, the concept of

equality of educational opportunity emerged. Anderson

(1965) stated that "Parity of opportunity is the simplest

definition of equity: If a group makes up 10% of the

population, it should receive 10% of the places" (pp.

341-342). He later discussed variations of his basic

propositions which included:

(1) an equal amount of education to everyone,
(2) enough education to bring everyone to a
given standard, (3) enough education to permit
each person to reach his potential, (4) continual
education so long as gains in learning per input
of teaching matched an agreed norm. (p. 342)









The first variation Anderson discussed is one concept

of equality while variations two, three, and four more

fully express the concept of equity. And, as the Supreme

Court expressed, this is the concept toward which educa-

tional finance practices must evolve. The Court said,

The Equal Protection Clause does not require
absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.
Nor, indeed in view of the infinite variables
affecting the educational process, can any system
assure equal quality of education except in the
most relative sense. (411 US 24, 1973)

Hale (1975) explained that the theoretical concept of

equity must be assessed in terms of distributional equity

and taxpayer equity. Distributional equity concerns itself

with the allocation dimension of school finance in regard

to equal access to resources based upon fiscal and/or edu-

cational need. Whereas taxpayer equity concerns itself

with the revenue dimension of school finance in regard to
equall treatment of equals who have the ability to pay"

(Hale, 1975, p. 22).

Distributional equity is concerned with a uniform

definition of need. Fiscal need takes into account vari-

ations of district's ability to finance the educational

needs of children within the district which some may define

as enrollment accounting, either average daily membership

(ADM) or average daily attendance (ADA) or full time

equivalency (FTE). Educational need as defined by some may

be defined as programs, curriculum, teacher in-service,









et cetera. Cubberley (1906) stated that as one reduces the

variations in the index used, the more equitable the pro-

gram.

Taxpayer equity is concerned with the revenue dimen-

sion of school finance, and the relationships of local,

state, and federal support and tax bases utilized by each.

The major sources of revenue generated by the federal govern-

ment are the personal and corporate income taxes, whereas

state government's major tax bases are sales and gross re-

ceipts, personal income, and corporate income. The primary

source of local revenue for school support is the ad valorem

taxes levied on real property, which is considered an in-

equitable measure of taxpaying ability.

Alternatives suggested to replace the property tax

as an effective measure of district wealth or fiscal capacity

have included combinations of measures that currently exist.

Ahlf (1964) suggested a combination of equalized property

value, family income and effective buying income as the

most effective measure of fiscal capacity. Others, such as

James and Cronin (1969) stated that neither property nor

income individually measure wealth, but a combination of the

two is appropriate. Per capital income, median family in-

come, and income per pupil represent the most often used

measures of fiscal capacity in school finance research.









Whatever the source or the base, Due (1970) suggested

that taxpayer equity required

(a) Equal treatment of equals. Persons regarded
as being in similar circumstances are taxed
the same.

(b) Distribution of the overall tax burden on
the basis of ability to pay, as measured by
income, by wealth, by consumption.

(c) Exclusion from tax of persons in the lowest
income groups, on the grounds that they have
no taxpaying capacity.

(d) A progressive overall distribution of tax
relative to income, on the basis that tax
capacity rises more rapidly than income. (p.293)

Reflecting on Due (1970), Alexander and Jordan (1976)

concluded their analysis of equity offered that a state

school finance program must contain

(a) An adequate determination of the fiscal
ability of the local school district and
should adjust each district's allocation in
terms of its relationship to the state estab-
lished standard

(b) Adequacy of funds for a child's educational
opportunity should not be compromised by the
social citizenry's lack of educational aspira-
tions as reflected in the local tax rate or
effort

(c) Should recognize . the individual educa-
tional needs of all children throughout the
state

(d) Provisions for greater funding to those school
districts which, because of the high cost of
delivering education, cannot provide equal
services. (p. 337)









Fiscal and educational differences of school dis-

trict's must be considered if equity is to be attained.

The failure of states to recognize these differences in

their allocation dimension has caused court challenges to

most state funding patterns. An analysis of past and pend-

ing litigation follows in the next section.



Litigation-Fiscal Equality of Educational Opportunity


Litigation may be utilized by citizens for at least

four uses as stated by Gilhool (cited in Vacca, 1975, p.

120). These uses are (a) to secure substantive rights,

(b) create new environments to enforce or create rights for

citizens, (c) to make visible facts that had previously been

unknown, and (d) redress of grievances.

The first three uses of litigation discussed by

Gilhool have been evident in litigation involving financing

of public education. The substantive right being sought

was equal access to educational opportunity. The plain-

tiff sought to change the financial plans of various states,

and thus bring the inequities in the current system to the

attention of the public (Vacca, 1975, p. 120). The primary

litigation involved challenges based on the equal protec-

tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

and has been divided into three generations by Alexander

and Jordan (1972, pp. 470-508).









The first generation of cases regarded "State School

Finance Programs in the Taxation Context" where the finan-

cial programs created unconstitutional classifications or

violation of equality and uniformity in requirements for

taxation (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, pp. 472 and 481).

This period lasted approximately 60 years from the early

1910's until the late 1960's and involved taxpayers seeking

tax relief for themselves. Within these cases, the tax-

payers attempted to restrain state legislatures from enact-

ing laws dealing with equalization measures. But, "The

courts established the constitutionality of using the

equalization method" (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, p. 495).

The Supreme Court also established a "test" to determine

constitutionality of a states' tax program, which Justice

Jackson (Bell's Gap Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania,

1890) had stated as:

Equal protection does not require identity of
treatment. It only requires that classification
rest on real and not feigned differences, that
the distinction have some relevance to the purpose
for which the classification is made, and the
different treatment be not so disparate, relative
to the difference in classification, as to be
wholly arbitrary. (134 US 232)

In 1912, the Supreme Court of Maine, in Sawyer v.

Gilmore(83 A. 673, 1912) interpreted that the state's

constitutional provision for requiring only equality of

assessment and not equity of distribution to be constitu-

tional. The issue was that a property tax had been collected









statewide, but was being distributed to the exclusion of

unorganized townships. The court concluded that since the

plan was established by the legislature, and if the popu-

lace felt it was unjust, it was up to the populace to

rectify, not the courts.

This first generation of cases attacked equality of

financial public education based on the Fourteenth Amend-

ment of the U.S. Constitution and similar provision of the

constitutions of the various states. The decision in the

Sawyer case was typical of the cases litigated within this

generation. The degree of equalization afforded by the

various states was conditioned by the phrase "insofar as

it is possible" (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, p. 481)

The second generation of cases were characterized as
"educational need" cases and are classified as "pre-Serrano."

These cases challenged the concept that educational support

was a function of the district's wealth, and that indi-

vidual needs and deficiencies should be considered.

Two cases were prime examples of litigation in this

generation. They were Mclnnis v. Shapiro (293 F.Supp. 327,

1968) in Illinois, and Burruss v. Wilkerson (310 F.Supp.

572, 1969) in Virginia. In Mclnnis the plaintiffs chal-

lenged the State of Illinois financial plan as being a

violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Con-

stitution. Plaintiffs contested that as the plan existed,









there was a wide variation in per student expenditure, and

that the variation should be based only on need. The court

concluded that the plaintiffs had neither clearly stated

the fiscal equalization issue nor the educational need

issue. Since "judicially manageable standards" had not been

provided for need, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not re-

quire expenditures based on need, the Illinois plan was not

unconstitutional.

Similarly in the Burruss case, plaintiffs argued that

state allocations should be based on educational need. The

court concluded that disparities were not based upon invidi-

ous discrimination by the state, but were produced by de-

ficient taxable value in the district. In his comment,

Circuit Judge Bryan (Burruss v. Wilkerson, p. 574) ex-

pressed a "hands off" attitude when he stated

Courts have neither the knowledge, nor the
power to tailor the public moneys to fit the
varying needs of these students throughout the
state.

Florida's financial plan was challenged and ruled uncon-

stitutional by the state supreme court in that it prevented

poor counties "from providing as good an education for

their children as richer counties" (Hargrave v. Kirk, 1971,

313 F.Supp. 944, 1970; Vacated 490 US 479, at p. 945).

This decision was later vacated by a federal district court.

Although the decision might be viewed as a loss in regard

to equity, Alexander (1975) pointed out that had the









original decision stood, it would have "deterred equaliza-

tion rather than increasing it" (p. 18). The main issue

in Hargrave was that plaintiffs from wealthy districts

were trying to remove a state cap on millage. The intended

purpose was to enable poorer counties to raise more money,

but in the final analysis, so would the wealthier districts,

thus not really reducing the variations between the dis-

tricts.

The next generation of cases, which Alexander and

Jordan (1972, p. 482) classified were typified by the fact

that a "child's education cannot be a function of school

district wealth" or what is called the Serrano Era.

On August 30, 1971, the California Supreme Court

decided the Serrano v. Priest (487 P.2d 1241) case. The

plaintiff contended that the California plan for financing

education "makes the quality of education . a function

of the wealth of the children's parents and neighbors, as

measured by the tax base of the school district in which

said children reside" (Serrano v. Priest, 1971, p. 1252).

In their decision the court stated that there is a "com-

pelling state interest" involved in financing education,

since education was a "fundamental interest" (Serrano v.

Priest, 1971, p. 1258). By their interpretation of educa-

tion as a guaranteed fundamental right, the court applied

the "strict scrutiny" test, and determined that wealth was









a suspect classification, and could not be used as a con-

dition of a child's education opportunities. The strict

scrutiny test shifted dramatically the burden of proof

from the plaintiffs to the state. Infact, rarely has a

state been able to exhibit a governmental goal sufficiently

compelling to withstand strict scrutiny analysis (McCarthy,

1977, p. 160).

Within a year following the Serrano decision, 52

similar cases were filed in 31 states (Geske & Rossmiller,

1977, p. 517).

Six weeks following Serrano, the United States Dis-

trict Court in Minnesota used the' findings of Serrano in

Van Dusartz v. Hatfield (334 F.Supp. 870, 1970). Again,

as with Serrano, plaintiffs contended that the Minnesota

financial plan made spending per pupil a function of wealth,

and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment. Applying the "fiscal neutrality" concept

and "strict scrutiny" concept as defined in Serrano, Judge

Lord stated that students in public school "enjoy a right"

for a level of funding unaffected by variations in taxable

wealth in their district (at p. 872).

In not requiring uniformity of expenditures as was

the case in Serrano, the court interpreted fiscal neu-

trality as saying that

The fiscal neutrality principle not only
removes discrimination by wealth but also allows
free play to local effort and choice,and openly









permits the state to adopt one of many optional
school financing systems which do not violate
the equal protection clause. (Van Dusartz, 1971,
p. 877)

The Michigan State Supreme Court held in Milliken v. Green

(203 N.W. 389 Mich. 1, 2d 457, 1972) that the school fi-

nance provision violated the state constitution. The court

in applying the "compelling states' interest" and the test

of "rationality" concluded that there was an inherent in-

equality in the property tax bases which created unequal

support (at pp. 462-463). As with other cases, the court

did not require absolute equality in distribution. Sub-

sequently, with a change of judges in 1973 a new decision

ruled the evidence did not prove children in low wealth

districts were deprived of equal protection, and thus the

decision was vacated (390 Mich. 389, 212 N.W.2d 711,

1973).

In New Jersey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide

on the New Jersey plan of financing schools in Robinson v.

Cahill (62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273, 1973). The lower court

had determined that the plan in operation violated the

state and federal provision of equal protection, and the

state had failed to provide a "thorough and efficient

system of public schools." However, when Robinson was

appealed, the Rodriquez decision had just been handed down

by the U.S. Supreme Court and the New Jersey Supreme Court

refused to review the equal protection issue. But, the








court did affirm the lower court decision that the consti-

tutional mandate of "thorough and efficient" had not been

met. The courts concern was that the "end product" meet

the mandate, and that the process was up to the legisla-

ture to design what was necessary to fulfill the requirement.

Implicit within "thorough and efficient" the court charged

that "the Constitution's guarantee must be understood to

embrace that educational opportunity which is needed in

the contemporary setting to equip a child for his role as

a citizen and as a competitor in the labor market" (303 A.2d

295, 1973).

Lucas (1972) has suggested that the basic assumption

underlying Serrano generation cases involved

1. The equal protection clause applies, at
least as it relates to education in the
public schools, to the state as an entity.

2. Equal protection is denied to the taxpayer when
a given millage per dollar of taxable property
"buys" less education per school child in one
district than it does in another.

3. The school children in the districts with the
lower tax yield per child from a constant
millage are denied equal protection.

4. "Poor" children live in districts with low
totals of taxable property, and consequently
it is argued that the local tax system of
school financing is, de facto, a wealth classi-
fication, to be viewed with particular sus-
picion. (pp. 18-20)

This four-year period (1969-1973), characteristic of

successful challenges to state school finance provisions,









was brought to an end when the U.S. Supreme Court made

their decision in San Antonio Independent School District

v. Rodriguez (411 US 1, 1973, 337 F.Supp. 280, 93 S.Ct.1278

U.S. Supreme Court, 1973). In this now famous decision, the

U.S. Supreme Court held that financial plans that produced

differences in educational opportunities among school

districts did not violate the Constitutional provision of

equal protection.

The Court, in its conclusion, stated first that the

Constitution makes no provision for education; therefore,

it is not a fundamental right, and the strict scrutiny

test (Serrano) does not apply. Secondly, the appellees

were unable to prove that poor people lived in poor dis-

tricts and thus no class per se was being discriminated

against--since a "class of disadvantaged 'poor' cannot be

defined in customary equal protection terms" (411 US 19).

Echoing previous decisions, Justice Powell restated the

doctrine that the solution to the problem is with the law-

makers, not thecourts (San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 1973, at

1348).

Some have considered a fourth generation of equali-

zation cases to be those based on Civil Rights actions

(Lau v. Nichols, 1974, 94 S.Ct. 786) and challenges to

state constitutional provisions. The latter seems espe-

cially valid in light of the fact, most, if not all state









constitutions provide for education in addition to contain-

ing an equal protection clause. However, state courts

have returned mixed decisions on this issue.

The same opinion as Rodriguez was reaffirmed in the

Northshore School Dist #417 v. Kinnear (530 P.2d 178, 84

Wash.2d 685, 1974) when the court recognized the importance

of schools, but also restated that it was not a constitu-

tional guarantee. Chief Justice Hale echoed Justice

Powell when he stated that the legislature, not the courts

should "provide for a general and uniform system of public

schools" (at p. 196).

Stofstall v. Hollins (110 Ariz. 88, 515 P.2d 590,

1973), an Arizona case, was similarly concluded with the

statement that education was a state constitutional right,

but the financing plan did not violate the "equal protection"

clause or "general and uniform" clause of the state con-

stitution. The court, however, did not relate fiscal equal-

ity and the "general and uniform" provision of the state

constitution.

Similarly the Idaho Supreme Court (Thompson v. Engle-

king, 537 P.2d 635, 1975) held that even though the state is

constitutionally charged with "establishing and maintaining

a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free,

common schools for children," this does not require equal

amounts allocated throughout the state.









The trend in this era has not all been bleak. A

Connecticut court held that the constitutional requirement

that the legislature enact "appropriate" laws to provide

free public education was not being met by the current

financial plan (Horton v. Meskill, 1974, 31 Conn.Supp. 377,

322 A.2d 113). Final decision is pending on appeal to the

state supreme court.

A trial court in Washington (Seattle School Dist. No. 1

v. Washington, Cir. No. 53950, 1976) held the state finan-

cial plan violated the state constitutional provision for

ample funding of educating all children within its borders.

Georgia's constitutional provision of providing an adequate

education for all citizens is similarly under challenge

(Thomas v. Stewart, Docket No. 8275 (Polk County Superior

Court, 1976). The Washington decision is on appeal to the

state supreme court and the Georgia case is also expected

to reach that state's supreme court.

With all the litigation that has occurred in the past

10 years, one would have expected closure on the issue of

equality and financing the public schools. Part of the

problem that now exists is that although intending the

same thing, each state constitution uses different terms,

and thus one settlement does not apply to another state.

The fact that education is a "state's right" was elaborated

on in Horton v. Meskill (1974) when the court stated









Because educational finance systems vary from
state to state, and because the provisions of
state constitutions vary from state to state,
decisions in other states raising the issue under
a state constitution are of little value as
precedents. (31 Conn.Supp. 377, 332 A.2d 813)

West Virginia's system of financing public schools

was under litigation (Pauley v. Kelley, Civil Action 75-

1268) based on a "thorough and efficient" clause of the

state constitution (Article XII S.1). The "Lincoln County

Case," as it was called, presented a challenge similar to

the one argued in Robinson v. Cahill (62 NJ 473, 303 A.2d

273, 1973) especially in light of the similarity in wording

ofthe West Virgina and New Jersey Constitutions.

Prior to the "Lincoln County Case," the West Virginia

court had expressed its opinion of the "thorough and

efficient" clause and the importance of education when it

stated

The will of the people, through the basic law
enacted by them, that a thorough efficient system
of free schools is of paramount importance in a
free society and that neither the legislative
nor the executive branch of government may per-
form any act which would result in the eliminating
of this safeguard. (State ex rel. Brotherton v.
Blankenship, 1973, 207 S.E.2d 436, 1973)

On June 14, 1977, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

Court, Justice Smith presiding, stated that

It seems clear from the record that Lincoln
County is not providing these basics, and that
the school system in that county falls short
of that constitutional mandate. (Pauley v.
Kelley, 1977, p. 6)










By that, the judge was referencing the constitutional pro-

vision of "thorough and efficient" schools. However, when

the compelling state interest test was applied, a class

of suspect poor could not be identified (similar to

Rodriguez). In finding for the defendants, Justice Smith

stated:

Where the state is failing to meet its consti-
tutional responsibilities, it retains the
obligation to do so through other means of sup-
plemental funding. But the fact that the State
is failing to meet its total constitutional
responsibility does not render unconstitutional
the statute which established the funding
mechanism for meeting part of that responsi-
bility. (Pauley v. Kelley, 1977, p. 13)

In regards to the confusing constitutional questions

involved in this and other decisions, Justice Powell of

the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

One need only look to the decisions of this
Court--to our reversals, our recognition
of evolving concepts, and our 5 to 4 splits--
to recognize the hazard of even informed
prophecy as to what are "unquestionable con-
stitutional rights." (Wood v. Strickland,
1975, 420 US 329)

In summary, "What has now become clear is that the

courts have provided only an opportunity, not an answer;

a starting point for reform, not a solution to the unfair-

ness and irrationality of educational funding in America"

(Berke, 1974, p. x).










State Support Plans for Education


The previous two sections noted that much has

transpired in the area of equal educational opportunity.

But, as Michelson (1974) summarized, "Equality is a ri-

diculous place to end school finance, but a good place to

start" (p. 442).

In discussing state financing of education, the

reference is usually made to state-aid formula. Cope

(1969) commented that usually these formulas are generally

accepted without adequate questioning, based on apparent

validity. He continued by adding .that once accepted, they

tend to grow more rigid and detailed, and that "formulas

merely bring confusion out of chaos" (Cope, 1969, p. 30).

Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, and Kirst (1975) described how

simple formulas, over time, have had to be modified to

satisfy interest groups or correct injustices within the

formula. They concluded much the same as Cope (1969) when

they stated, "Over time these small changes make the school

finance formula a mesh of adjustments and computations"

(p. 122). Most authors in the field concur with Cope

and Pierce et al. summary of most state funding formulas.

Although cloaked by many names and different terms,

state funding programs (formulas) can generally be grouped

as either flat grant, equalization programs, or complete









state and federal support. Prior to the analysis of these

plans a brief historical perspective on state funding and

the early theorists will be discussed.

Prior to the formation of the United States, educa-

tion had been considered a colonial state function. The

Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1642 and 1647 through court

decisions and the Deluder Satan Act established that parents

must provide for the education of their children, and that

if a town consisted of 50 families or more, a teacher must

be provided. This early attempt by the colonists was later

modified into what was known as "The New England Plan."

The ideas of compulsory attendance, local control and

local support of education were encompassed within this

plan.

The Constitution of the United States is silent with

regard to education. Due to this omission, whether inten-

tional or not, education thus became a state function accord-

ing to the Tenth Amendment since any power not expressly

mentioned within the document would reside with the states.

Most states during the nineteenth century assumed

responsibility for public education by "authorizing the

levy of local school taxes for the support of the public

schools" based on a school census with little concern for

equality of educational opportunity or a minimum educational

program for all children (Johns, Alexander, & Jordan,










1972, p. 2). There existed throughout the century neither

an integrated plan nor conceptual theory of school finance.


Early Theorists


The concept of state control was now established and

accepted by most people. But, there was no real philosophy

or practice of state aid throughout the country. Then,

with the dawning of the twentieth century, several philos-

ophers emerged. These early philosophers were associated

with the major universities of the time, namely Teachers

College, Columbia University, University of Chicago, and

the University of Pennsylvania (Johns et al., 1972, p. 3).

Ellwood P. Cubberley is known for "formulating the

basic concepts of state school support" (Cohn, 1974, p. 14).

Cubberley was a student at Teachers College, Columbia Uni-

versity, and received his doctorate from there in 1905.

One year later, his revised dissertation was published

under the title School Funds and Their Apportionment.

In his book, Cubberley analyzed basic state school

financing from a historical perspective, a legal perspec-

tive, and wealth distribution effects of the Industrial

Revolution, and the evidence of unequal educational oppor-

tunities within a state (Johns et al., 1972, p. 3). Cub-

berley believed both the state and local governments shared

responsibility for school finance and that local needs,










fiscal effort,and pupil attendance should be referenced

when allocating financial aid. Cubberley applied his basic

philosophy of state responsibility when he stated:

Theoretically all the children of a state are
equally important and are entitled to have the
same advantages; practically this can never be
quite true. The duty of the state is to secure
for all as high a minimum of good instruction as
is possible, but not to reduce all to the mini-
mum; to equalize the advantages to all as nearly
as can be done with the resources at hand; to
place a premium on those local efforts which
will enable communities to use above the legal
minimum as far as possible; and to encourage
communities to extend their educational energies
to new and desirable undertakings. (p. 17)

Cubberleysuggests that a state-wide school tax might

best equalize the fiscal burden among school districts and

that the best basis for fund allocation was a combination

of a unit designation, which he called "teacher employed"

and aggregate days attendance. He further suggested cre-

ation of a "reserve fund" to supplement districts which were

at maximum legal effort, but could not generate sufficient

revenue to meet minimum state demands (pp. 250-254).

Harlan Updegraff is known "for justifying the rewards

for local effort on the basis of efficiency" through his

1921-22 analysis of New York and Pennsylvania schools

(Cohn, 1974, p. 19). Through his analysis of the financial

policies of these states he added the concept of local

effort in addition to the concepts of Cubberley, with whom

he agreed.










Updegraff's basic principles were that (a) local

support was fundamental; (b) local districts should have

enough taxable property for school purposes (without an

undue burden on property owners); (c) part of the support

should come from the state, based on certain factors (in-

versely to districts' wealth); (d) state aid should increase

efficiency of citizens in democratic government; and (e)

guarantee equal opportunity (cited in Johns et al., 1972,

p. 6).

Not only did he articulate his concepts, Updegraff

introduced two new concepts, the first of these concepts

being the idea of the teacher unit for defining a district's

need; the second was an equalization plan for distributing

state aid.

Updegraff's teacher unit was different from Cubberley's

teacher employed unit, in that within the context of the

teacher unit, a predetermined number of students per class

would compose a teacher unit. Within the context of the

equalization plan, Updegraff proposed that a scale be

established whereby increasing amounts of aid were provided

by the state for increasing amounts of local effort.

Updegraff's plan provided for helping those districts who

helped themselves. This was achieved by increased support

to those districts who were low in property value but were

at a high level of effort.









Several states now use a variation of Updegraff's

percentage equalizing plan, which will be dealt with later

in this chapter. The plan can also be modified through

addition of a recapture and redistribution clause (Coons

et al., 1970), p. 207), in what is referred to as "Power

Equalization." Updegraff's plan has been categorized,

by some, to provide incentives to local districts for

quality education (Johns et al., 1972, p. 7).

George D. Strayer and Robert M. Haig are best known

for "emphasizing the equalization of educational oppor-

tunity" (Cohn, 1974, p. 17). While associated with Colum-

bia University they analyzed New York's state plan for

financing schools, which was Cubberley's Flat Grant Plan.

They concluded that equalization of educational oppor-

tunity and reward for local effort were not complimentary,

but at variance to each other (Cohn, 1974, p. 17). They

attempted to define equalization in terms of a minimum

educational program, or what has become known as "The

Minimum Foundation Program."

Within their plan, as was explained in Financing of

Education in the State of New York (1923) they established

the necessities for a state to provide for "equalization

of educational opportunity" or "equalization of school

support" (Johns et al., 1972, p. 8). The necessities were

defined as (a) within localities, children will be offered










a prescribed minimum of equal education; (b) in relation

to the abilities of the taxpayers of the locality, revenue

for education would be raised by the state or local taxa-

tion at a uniform rate; and (c) "to provide adequately

either for the supervision and control of all the schools,

or for their direct administration by a state department

of education" (Strayer & Haig, 1923, p. 174).

The steps Strayer and Haig presented for establish-

ment of their plan consisted of (a) the state establishing

the cost needed per pupil for a satisfactory minimum pro-

gram; (b) the state computing a property tax rate necessary

to finance the established program, using the wealthiest

district as the base; (c) the tax rate established is then

levied by all districts; and (d) any difference between what

is raised and the amount necessary to finance the minimum

program is contributed by the state.

Strayer and Haig did not concur with either Cubberley

or Updegraff in their reward for local effort, although in

their plan they did allow local districts to levy above

the minimum. Therefore, as Cohn (1974, p. 18) stated, they

did not provide for equal educational opportunity, but

minimum educational opportunity. Charles Benson (cited

in Coons, Clune, & Sugarman, 1970, p. 65) critiqued the

Strayer-Haig Plan when he said,









In most states, nearly all districts, rich and
poor, do tax at a level above the minimum, so
that the foundation program is indeed but a foun-
dation upon which the districts with richer tax
bases continue to build much finer houses than
do poorer districts. Under this plan, equal
educational opportunities in terms of balancing
offerings, wealth and effort is a hoax.

Paul R. Mort was known for "developing the minimum

foundation program" (Cohn, 1974, p. 18). A student of

Strayer at Columbia University, he attempted through his

dissertation, Measurement of Educational Need (1924), to

define the satisfactory minimum program conceptualized by

Strayer and Haig. That is why many felt that more than

a theorist, Mort was a disseminator and developer (Johns

et al., 1972, p. 10).

Mort stated a minimum state program should provide

that (a) if a program existed in all or most districts

within the state, they were acceptable for the equaliza-

tion program; (b) if unusual expenses occur for meeting

minimum program outside of local control, they too were

eligible; and (c) if uncommon conditions require additional

offerings, these also may be included (Mort, 1924, pp. 6

and 7). Mort, like Cubberley, considered local leeway very

important (Cohn, 1974, p. 18). He especially encouraged

districts to go over the minimum and provide for innova-

tion and change. Additionally, the fact that classroom

costs varied from place to place, whereas other costs

remained constant in regards to number of pupils, concerned









Mort, and initiated his development of the concept of the

weighted pupil. The concept simply takes the number of

students in a school times a factor, which is based on

things such as size of school, transportation, high school,

et cetera, and yields an adjusted enrollment as an attempt

to provide for differential costs.

Henry C. Morrison is best known for "advocating that

the state should become the sole unit of taxation and ad-

ministration of public schools" (Cohn, 1974, p. 20).

Morrison expressed his ideas in his book School Revenue

(1930), which he authored while on the staff at the Uni-

versity of Chicago. Morrison maintained that because of

the fiscal discrepancies between districts, all previous

attempts had failed to meet educational need and provide

an equitable tax system. He further stated that the state

should be the taxing unit and administrator of the schools

through use of what he suggested was the most equitable

tax, income tax.

Although Hawaii is the only state to date which has

adopted full state funding, New Mexico, Kentucky, and North

Carolina rank high in percentage of state support, 87, 83,

and 81 percent, respectively, with seven additional states

providing at least 70 percent (Tron, 1976, p. 10).










Funding Plans


Although all states have what they call unique
"equalization" funding formulas or programs, all may be

classified as either flat grants, equalization grants, or

complete state and federal support (Johns & Salmon, 1971,

p. 122).

Before continuing with the analysis of each, an im-

portant concept needs to be defined since reference is

made by legislatures that in the area of school finance,

the purpose is equalization of educational opportunity.

For purposes of this study, the Johns and Salmon (1971)

definition was used:

Financial equalization is most nearly accomplished
when the following two factorsare met; (1) edu-
cational needs of the student population are taken
into consideration before the allocations are made,
and (2) the variation of the ability of the local
school districts to support education is reduced
or eliminated through the utilization of state
sources. (p. 120)

Cohn (1974, p. 27) visually illustrated the two determinants

of equalization, when he discussed the Critical Issues in

Evaluation of Equalization Effort, which are consistent

with the Johns and Salmon definition.

Flat Grant Programs as formulated by Cubberleyrepre-

sented sums of money distributed to school districts based

on a unit allocation (per student, classroom, etc.). They

can be further categorized as being uniform or variable









(Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 121), and are used in addition

to one of the other plans to be discussed.

Under "uniform flat grants," an amount is distributed

per unit, with no consideration given to either educational

need or fiscal capacity. In contrast, variable flat grants

are distributed on a rate per unit, but a weighting factor

is applied to compensate for some factor beyond the school

districts control. With either type, the ultimate disposi-

tion can be general or special.

Flat grants do provide for some degree of equaliza-

tion in that on a uniform basis, wealthy districts pay in

more than they receive. But, as Alexander and Jordan

(1976) commented, flat grants are a viable equalization

plan only to the degree school districts are at or near

fiscal capacity, or if the grants, "were large enough to

approach full state funding" (p. 355).

Equalization grants consider variations in the abil-

ity of local school districts to tax, but not all take

into consideration the needs of the pupils (Johns & Salmon,

1971, p. 122). The ultimate disposition of these grants,

as with flat grants, can be for either a general or

specific purpose.

To analyze these types of grants more productively,

they will be discussed in the context of the types as out-

lined by Johns and Salmon (1971), and by Cohn (1974).









The categories are (a) Strayer-Haig and Mort plan,

(b) percentage-equalizing or state-aid ratio, (c) district

power equalizing, and (d) guaranteed valuation program.

With the Strayer-Haig and Mort Plan, the state de-

termines a minimum satisfactory level of education per

child, a levy is then required of all districts against their

property valuation, and the difference between the amount

raised and the amount needed for the satisfactory minimum

is provided by the state (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123).

The modifications developed by Mort were the concept of

the weighted pupil and the determination of the uniform

levy. Mort utilized the weighted 'pupil in dealing with

the ideas of fiscal capacity and need, whereas he cate-

gorized the original plan as only providing for the former.

Strayer and Haig had stated that the levy was to be deter-

mined by the wealthiest district in the state levying a

rate which would provide the per pupil expenditure level

established by the state as the minimum program. Mort's

modification shifted the focus from the state's wealthiest

per pupil district (Cohn, 1974, pp. 33-34). He further

suggested that another "key district" could be identified,

e.g., the district at the 75th percentile of per pupil

wealth.

The extent to which a foundation program equalizes

is dependent on the expenditure level the state sets and









the tax rate chosen by the district. A high foundation

level enables more expenditures and less disparities be-

tween districts. However, as the districts tax above the

mandated rate, the wealth of the district becomes a key

factor, thus causing wide disparities again.

Although it has advantages over flat grants, Alexander

and Jordan (1976) summarized this plan when they stated that

"It does not provide for fiscal equalization of local lee-

way beyond a minimal level," and because of requiring a

local millage it has been found objectionable in many

states (p. 355). Likewise, the Education Commission of

the States criticized this plan as setting conservative

per pupil expenditure amounts and being "below a practical

level of support" (1975, p. 4). They concluded that:

If a child had his choice of place to be educated
in a state with a "foundation" system, he would
be well-advised to find a wealthy suburb, which
may not be subject to tax limitations imposed on
some municipalities and which has a very high
assessed valuation. He could expect to find
this suburb peopled with well-educated professional
types who do not protest spending for schools,
at least for their own children. (ECS, 1975,
p. 4)

Percentage-equalization or the state aid ratio pro-

gram (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123) is unique in that the

locality determines the level of expenditure. As Updegraff

originally proposed the plan, it was a variable-level

equalization program which attempted to reconcile equali-

zation of educational opportunity and reward for local










effort. Coons, Clune, and Sugarman (1970, p. 165) stated

that in focusing on the local budget and preserving local

incentive, the plan placed value on effort not wealth.

Under this plan, the state agrees to pay the districts

a predetermined percentage of the total expenditures, with

the ratio of district's wealth per pupil to the state's

average district wealth per pupil as the relationship.

The plan allows for state funds to be allocated in an in-

verse proportion to taxpaying ability (measured by property

value per pupil).

Without a minimum or fixed dollaramount, dollars per

pupil would be a function of local effort alone, which is

characteristic of another equalization plan called "power-

equalizing" (Alexander & Jordan, 1976, pp. 346-357).

In addition to the typical concern for equalizing

a district's property valuation per pupil, Coons, Clune,

and Sugarman's concern was on effort. The power equalizing

plan assures an equal yield for an equal effort or as

Cohn (1974) stated "calls for equal state aid to districts

based on equal tax effort" (p. 35). Coons et al. (1970)

stated the plan allows districts to establish and determine

their own levels of spending,with tax effort being the key

(p. 202). Regardless of the district's wealth, if its

effort is high it will be assured of higher expenditures.

"Moreover, if a district can raise educational funds for









a given tax effort, in excess of the stipulated amount

set by the state, the excess must be transferred back to

the state" (Cohn, 1974, p. 35). The transfer-back, or
"recapture" is considered by some an essential part of

the district power equalizing plan. An example would be

that if two districts "impose the same property tax rate,

they will have identical educational funds per pupil,"

regardless of their wealth or poverty (Cohn, 1974, p. 35).

With this recapture provision this formula truly can be

called both positive and negative in the amount of state

equalized aid to the district.

The main point emphasized under this plan is that

local boards (districts) know best what expenditures are

needed to meet their educational goals, and therefore

should control the purse strings. However, Alexander and

Jordan (1976) stated that if the state would establish no

local fiscal standard, it would abdicate its responsibility

to provide for an equal system of education (p. 357).

Coons, and his associates (1970), recognized yet another

problem concerning the average district, in that rich dis-

tricts might wind up being equalized down (p. 167). In

the final analysis, depending on the schedule established

by the state, Michelson (1974) stated, "District power

equalizing preserves a lot of the status quo, with possibly

some higher local school tax rates thrown in" (p. 104),










especially if the cost of other services in municipalities

are considered.

Another equalizing approach is known as guaranteed

valuation. The state guarantees each district a fixed

valuation or tax yield per unit (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p.

123), which may or may not be weighted. The difference

between what the tax generates and the guaranteed yield is

the state's contribution (Cohn, 1974, p. 32). The effect,

this plan seems to be equivalent and provides the same

equalizing effect as the basic foundation approach (Cohn,

1974, p. 32 and Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123). The differ-

ence between the guaranteed valuation plan and the district

power plan being that under this plan the tax rate is

state mandated.

In essence, all plans for financing public education

are based on tax effort, tax yield, and equalized property

valuation per pupil. Allocations are distributed in an

inverse proportion to wealth, which is typically measured

by property valuation per pupil. The roles of state and

local effort differentiate the basic equalization programs

by name, but in their pure form, they are mathematically

equivalent. It is through the specific implementation that

the different equalization abilities of the shared costs

formulas become apparent.









Some of the provisions which alter the financial

plans are minimums, save harmless provisions, definitions,

et cetera. A minimum is a prescribed amount a district

receives, and can be a flat grant regardless of another

equalization provision, or the amount might be stated as

a minimum each district receives (floor). Save harmless

provisions guarantee districts that new provisions of the

financial plan, or a new financial plan will not reduce

allocations to the district from prior years. Definitions,

specifically for enrollment, are essential factors in any

financial plan, and can account for wide discrepancies

in amounts received.

Total State and Federal Support is only in evidence

in the State of Hawaii. Under this plan, units of need

determine the revenue allocation, with local ability not

considered. In defense of full state funding the National

Educational Finance Project showed a positive correlation

between the proportion of state revenue and the degree of

equalization (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 137). This also

supports the opinion of many, including Johns and Salmon

(1971), that greater financial equalization is achieved

when the state assumes responsibility for funding (p. 138).

The various states are funding education as they see

fit, exercising their States-rights guarantee. But an

important comment from the President's Commission on










School Finance (1972) should bear final witness to the

success of state plans:

The financial problems of education derive largely
from the evolving inabilities of the States to
create and maintain systems that provide equal
educational opportunity and equality education
to all their children. Having made that observa-
tion, we hasten to state that we are not assigning
blame, but are rather attempting to locate the
points where reforms must be achieved. Efforts by
the States over the years to eliminate or at least
reduce disparities in the delivery of educational
resources have simply not kept pace with needs
that have grown beyond the abilities of the States
to fulfill them. (p. x)



Educational Finance in West Virginia


Historical


Due to sparsity of population, and prior control by

Virginia, when West Virginia became a state in 1863, only

3 counties had free district schools. Two years following

statehood,27 counties were servicing 16,000 students,

and five years subsequent, 1756 schools existed with 1810

teachers (Department of Education, 1973, p. 1).

The state constitution was ratified in 1863, and pro-

visions were made for a "thorough and efficient" free

school system,creation for an investment fund to finance

the free schools, provision for county school superintend-

ents, and an elected general state superintendent of free

schools. The state superintendent was subsequently made










part of the executive branch of government in 1872, and

for 37 years he was the extent of the Department of Educa-

tion. Additional duties included being adjutant general

and quarter master general from 1871-1877.

In 1872 a constitutional revision was completed with

the following two provisions specified:

Art. XII, Sec. 1 The legislative shall provide, by gen-
eral law, for a thorough and efficient system of free
schools.

Art. XII, Sec. 2 The State Superintendent of Free Schools
shall have a general supervision of free schools and per-
form such other duties in relation thereto as may be
prescribed by law.

The same year the legislature established a State Board

of School Funds composed of the Governor, State Superin-

tendent, Auditor, and State Treasurer.

The legislature also created, in 1872, a General

School Fund for supporting free schools, which included

the salary of the state superintendent and expenses of his

office, and which specified the sources of revenue. Schools

were to be financed by direct taxes on personal property

and real estate (10t per 100), monies received by fines

and forfeitures, and investment in United States bonds.

The state superintendent distributed all money until 1939

when the Board of School Finance, which now consisted of

State Superintendent, Tax Commissioner, and Director of

the Budget, assumed responsibility for disperson of funds.









By 1933, the depression had caused many districts

to close, because of declining property values and tax

incomes the legislature consolidated districts; redefin-

ing a district as a county. Prior to 1933, the General

School Fund provided 5 percent of total cost of district

schools; this amount grew to 53 percent in 1965 (Pearson &

Fuller, 1969, p. 1354), and to approximately 58 percent in

1976).

Funds for homebound (crippled) children were appropri-

ated in 1941, and categorical aid was enacted into the

code. Similarly, when the Works Progress Administration

ceased supporting the school lunch program in 1942, the

state assumed the responsibility. Finally, in 1972, $200

million was appropriated under the Better Schools Amend-

ment for all counties to provide additional classroom

facilities.


Current System


West Virginia's current system of allocating monies

is based on what is referred to as a "demand formula." It

is unique in that the legislature must fund what the

formula determines is necessary to finance education in

the state.

The first step in determination of funds in the

formula is the computation of the Foundation Allowance for










Professional Educators ( 18-9A-4). Using a minimum state

salary matrix, professional educators are provided for at

a rate not to exceed 55 educators per 1000 children.

The second step is a Foundation Allowance for Other

Personnel ( 18-9A-5) and it is allocated based on two

computations. An amount equal to 14 percent of the allo-

cation for professional educators is ascertained and dis-

tributed to the counties in proportion to the adjusted en-

rollment. Then, an amount equal to 6 percent of the alloca-

tion for professional educators is determined and distributed

to the counties in proportion to the number of full-time

bus drivers.

The third step is a Foundation Allowance for Fixed

Charges ( 18-9A-6) and it is determined by addition of the

allowances for professional educators and other personnel,

then multiplying this sum by the current social security

rate plus 2 percent. Items included for coverage are FICA,

Workman's Compensation, property insurance, and so forth.

The money is then distributed to the counties based on the

corresponding professional educators allocation to the

counties.

The fourth step is a Foundation Allowance for Trans-

portation Costs ( 18-9A-7) which is determined by a five

step process. Eighty percent of each county's actual

transportation costs are determined, excluding salaries.









That sum is then added to the total cost of insurance

premiums on buses, buildings, and equipment used in the

transportation program. Ten percent of the replacement

value of the bus fleet is then added, along with a figure

that equals 80 percent of the cost of contracted transpor-

tation services and public utility transportation services.

Finally, aid in lieu of transportation is added based on a

state average amount per pupil.

The fifth step is a Foundation Allowance for Adminis-

trative Costs ( 18-9A-8), which is calculated as being

1 percent of the allocation for professional educators.

All counties receive an equal amount.

The sixth step is a Foundation Allowance for Other

Current Expenses ( 18-9A-9), and it is computed as being

equal to 10 percent of the allocation for professional edu-

cators and other personnel. The money is distributed to

the counties in proportion to the adjusted enrollment.

The seventh, and last step is a Foundation Allowance

Toward National Average Attainment ( 18-9A-10). When the

average expenditure per pupil in West Virginia is below

the U.S. Office of Education figures for the national

average, funds which accrue from increased local share

balances in the general school fund, it is allocated back

to the districts in proportion to the adjusted enrollment.









The seven step formula comprises West Virginia financ-

ing of public schools, and is depicted in Table 1. Each

one dollar allocated to column one, results in a cost of

$1.42 when the formula is complete. Other aspects of the

state support program includes supplemental salary alloca-

tions for professional staff (outside of basic support

program), minimum salary support for service personnel

(outside of basic support program), and early childhood

aides (outside of basic support program). Being outside

the basic support program enables the legislature to allo-

cate money where it desires without affecting the whole

program by becoming part of the formula. The state also

allocates funds for Exceptional Children, Vocational Edu-

cation Funds, Safety Education, Orphanage Aid, and School

Lunches.

In addition, the State provided money for Incentive

for Improvement of Program Funds ( 18-9A-14) to encourage

counties to establish new and improved programs and to

reduce class size. Finally, monies are also provided to

counties which experience increased enrollments from one year

to the next ( 18-9A-15).

Chapter 18, Article 9-A, Section 11 of the West

Virginia Code relates to the computation of local shares

for school support and to the appraisal and assessment of

property for taxes. The tax commission is directed to make









TABLE 1

Effect on Additional Allocations
for Professional Educator State Aid Formula


Foundation Allowance @ $1.00 Distribution


(1) Professional Educator

(2) Other Personnel:

a. 14% of (1)


b. 6% of (1)

Total 20% of (1)


$1.00


.14


.06

.20


County


All Counties in propor-
tion to adjusted net
enrollment
All Counties in propor-
tion to number of full
time drivers


(3) Fixed Charges


7.85% of (1) + (2)

(4) Transportation Cost
(5) Administrative Cost
1% of (1)

(6) Other Current Expense

10% of (1) + (2)



(7) National Average
Attainment


All Counties based on
distribution of (1) & (2)


None


All Counties equally


All Counties in propor-
tion to adjusted net
enrollment ($.002 per
pupil)


None


Note: Total Cost = $1.42









and maintain nonutility property appraisals annually.

West Virginia has four classes of property for tax purposes

and is required to assess at not less than 50 percent nor

more than 100 percent of the apprai-sed value.

The classes of property as defined by the state tax

commissioners office are (Local Government Relations

Division, 1975):

Class I All tangible personal property employed
exclusively in agriculture, including
horticulture and grazing; all products
of agriculture, including livestock, while
owned by the producer; all notes, bonds,
and accounts receivable, stocks, and any
other evidences if indebtedness.

Class II- All property owned, used and occupied
exclusively for residential purposes;
all farms, including land used for horti-
culture and grazing, occupied and culti-
vated by their owners or bona fide tenants.

ClassIII- All real and personal property situated
outside of municipalities, exclusive of
Classes I & II.

Class IV- All real and personal property situated
inside of municipalities, exclusive of
Classes I & II. (p. viii)

The local share for support of schools, as defined

in Chapter 18, Article 9-A, Section II, specifies two

factors as the determinants. First, 97.5 percent of

the value for public utility property is determined, and

47.5 percent of the value for nonutility property is

determined. Applicable rates for each class of property

are then applied on the basis of 19.6 (per $100) for









Class I, 39.2 (per $100) for Class II, and 78.4 (per $100)

for Classes III and IV. The result is the local share.

Counties may, for a period of not more than five years,

adopt an additional special levy up to 100 percent of

authorized levy; however, 60 percent of the voters must

approve.

Of the money raised by the property tax, approximately

99.5 percent remains within the counties. For the tax

year 1975, see Table 2 for a breakdown of the assess valua-

tion on nonutility property in the State of West Virginia.



TABLE 2 '

Assessed Valuation of Nonutility
Property in West Virginia (1975)


Property Class Assessed Valuation


Class I $ 675,319,569

Class II 2,309,264,807

Class III 2,272,422,582

Class IV 1,767,157,366


Note: Total assessed valuation = $7,024,146,324









Simulations

The terms simulation and/or model have been around

for a long time, with people generally feeling comfortable

using either term for descriptive purpose. But, what do

they mean? When is it appropriate to use the terms?

Initial review of the literature yielded the follow-

ing definition of model by Schmatz and Sippl (1972): "A

representation in mathematical terms of a process, device,

or concept" (p. 108), and that a simulation was "Subjecting

man to a complex environment similar to one in which he may

wish to operate so that he may gain a feel of its dynamic

behavior" (p. 163). In a similar manner, the Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development (1971) defined a

model as "a theoretical description of certain aspects of

real-life process" (p. 17). Fitzpatrick (1962), likewise

defined a simulation as "a working model or represen-

tation of a system, and it is assumed that the observation

made can be transferred to the real world to make effec-

tive predictions" (pp. 9-10).

The definitions provided that models are the frame-

work or representation of a real-life environment, and that

simulations are where experiments and manipulations are

performed within the model. McLeod (1968), Manji (1972),

Cruickshank and Broadbent (1970), and Shubik and Brewer

(1972), as well as many others, appear to be in concert

with the operational definitions.









Simulations do not necessarily convey factual informa-

tion, and that may not be their purpose; they are to provide

learning experiences about situations and environments,

and it is through interacting with the simulation that learn-

ing takes place (Coombs, 1976, pp. 1-2). The learning

process may take on one or more aspects depending on the

desired result.

For purposes of this study, Armstrong and Hobson's

(1976) analysis of simulation uses was used inthat the ex-

periences could provide for education and training, deci-

sion making, research, and/or investigation (p. 88). Inbar

and Stoll (1972) and Mize and Cox (1968) concur regarding

the categorical uses.

McClosky (1972, p. 6) presented a Conceptual Frame-

work for Simulations (see Figure 1), which not only listed

similar uses as stated by Armstrong and Hobson, but also

provided a guide to development. The left side indicates

sequential steps, and the body represents concepts to be

developed within the sequence with respect to appropriate

categorical use(s).

Additionally, John Stocton (1973) expanded the uses

of simulation into the affective domain when he stated that

"One of the primary uses of a simulation is that it pro-

vides an initially imperfectly known environment and im-

poses on the participants the problem of defining a





































Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Simulation (from
"Perspectives on Simulation and Miniaturiza-
tion" by M.R. McCloskey, 1972, p. 6. Copy-
righted by the Human Resource Research
Organization, Reprinted by permission)








Definition of System
User Need-------------- Evaluation


Performance
Measurement


Training Research


Definition of System
Performance Requirements--





Determination of Simulator
Cost Effectiveness--------



Selection of System
Elements for Simulation---


Construct Simulation to
Maximize Transfer---------





Specification of Simula-
tion Outputs-------------


Systems Analysis
(Inputs Throughputs Outputs)




Analysis of Performance
Requirements and Conditions
of Performance



Specification of Critical
Knowledges and Performances


Psychological Fidelity


Physical Fidelity





Perceptual
Perceptual-Motor


Cognitive-Decisional
Procedural


Terminal Criterion Performance


Verification of Transfer--









successful behavior pattern consistent with its charac-

teristics" (p. 90).

It is difficult to segregate simulation uses from

simulation advantages. Broadly speaking, simulation allows

for experimentation on a system, or a part of a system, or

problem associated with a system, without directly dealing

with the system (Mize & Cox, 1968, p. 1).

Shubik and Brewer (1972) concluded their analysis

of simulation uses in very much the same manner as Mize

and Cox (1968), but expanded on the situations where

simulations would be most desirable when they stated:

Simulation provides the meais for gaining
experience and for making and correcting
errors without incurring the costs or risks
of actual application . they should be
used when (1) it is either impossible or
extremely costly to observe certain processes
in the real world, (2) the observed system is
too complex to be described by a set of mathe-
matical equations, (3) no straightforward analyti-
cal technique exists for solution of appropriate
mathematical equations, and (4) it is either
impossible or very costly to obtain data for
more complicated mathematical models describing
the system. (pp. 81-82)

Additional advantages cited by various authors

(Shubik, 1964; Tansey & Unwin, 1969; Cruickshank & Broad-

bent, 1970; Carter & Huzan, 1973; and Chapman & Cousins,

1974) include permitting self expression of the learner,

safe, economical, experientially based, trainee controls

results, and relevance. While minimized, some of the

disadvantages cited by these same authors include the fact









that not all real life situations fit neatly or accurately

into a prepared program, and that some users may be poorly

prepared to experiment with the model.

With the capability to store an abundance of informa-

tion on various subjects, and its ability to manipulate and

analyze a multitude of data at such rapid speeds, the

computer became a perfect medium for simulation.

H. G. Wells, over 80 years ago, in an obscure novel

(cited in Bailey, 1977, p. 157), stated,

If humanity . cannot collectively invent
devices and solve problems on a much richer scale
than it does at the present time, it cannot hope
to achieve any very much finer order or any more
general happiness than it now enjoys.

Somewhat in response to Mr. Well's challenge, computer

technology has developed and advanced knowledge further

and faster than it has ever progressed.

In essence, a computer is "a general instruction-
obeying machine" (Williamson, 1970, p. 181). Being an

analytical tool, and most simulations being analytical

techniques, Shubik and Brewer (1972) discussed computer

simulations ability to analyze events and systems over

periods of time. Expanding this idea, Cohen and Cyert

(1965) concluded their analysis with

Computer models and man-machine simulations offer
an unparalleled means by which we can: (a) formu-
late extremely detailed and highly precise
models of organizational behavior; (b) test the
empirical validity of these models; (c) experi-
mentally manipulate the models in a way which









is usually prohibitive with real-world organiza-
tions; (d) predict the future behavior of existing
or redesigned organizations; and (e) train people
to behave more effectively in an organizational
setting. (p. 158)

The major criticism of computer simulations lie with

the fact that since the machine only does what it is in-

structed to do, it cannot take assumptions for granted.

This limitation, therefore, precipitates the necessity for

more structure within the simulation, which may therefore

further remove it from the real world (Inbar & Stoll,

1972, p. 23).


Historical


The development of games and simulations has evolved

over many centuries. Anytime someone acted as though he

were someone else, he was regarded as simulating that person

or that event.

Taylor and Walford (1972) traced simulations back to

what they referred to as war games. "Wei-hai," a 5000

year-old Chinese game, which is believed to be the ancestor

of chess, is considered one of the oldest recorded simula-

tions (p. 20). Although used for amusement, the intent of

the early simulations seemed to be in the area of education

and training and decision making of junior military offi-

cers. Past campaigns were presented with the participant

making responses to conditions and observing resultant









responses and outcomes. Military use has continued through

present day.

With its success in the military, both in ancient

and present times, simulation was then introduced into the

business field through the encouragement of the American

Management Association (Taylor & Walford, 1972, p. 23).

Stressing the importance of training in this area, the

American Management Association held a special symposium

on the topic in 1961. Tansey and Unwin (1969) noted that

the main focus was initially toward training new managers,

but, being on a piecemeal basis, it lacked continuity.

Finally, the Association developed "Top Management Deci-

sion Simulation" where people were provided with experien-

tial learning, as to the role and functions of executives.

Decisions were made, and the participants saw the results

of their actions.

Through the actions of the American Management

Association and others, simulation has become a vital

element in the business environment. Tansey and Unwin

(1969) elaborated on this when they explained that because

of the influence of simulations, an international organiza-

tion was set up to, "devise new approaches to training, to

popularize management education, and to assemble informa-

tion" about management and behavior world wide (p. 8).










With management's new emphasis on behavior, simula-

tions were developed dealing with its general research use.

With this emphasis on behavior, the natural evolution into

the social sciences occurred with the development of the

"Inter-Nation Simulation," developed by the RAND Corpora-

tion. Participants in this game actually engaged in issues

concerning politics and crises (Taylor & Walford, 1972,

p. 24). Recent simulations have dealt with social issues,

both historical and current, where participants have been

confronted with examining the origins of World War I ("Alpha

Crisis"), the effects of television advertising ("Pace"), and

various contemporary social issues ("Women's Lib," "Food

and Feedback," and "Watergate").

Through the use of simulations in the physical sci-

ences, the investigative purpose of simulations was developed

to its fullest potential. Within the physical sciences all

four purposes, education and training, decision making,

research, and investigations, have been crystalized. Con-

temporary simulations within this area are reflected in

biology ("Simulation of Biological Processes"), chemistry

("Computer Modeling of Photochemical Smog Formation"),

physics ("Simulation for Introductory Physics"), and medi-

cal education ("A Simulated Mental Hospital as an Under-

graduate Teaching Device"). The list above is only repre-

sentative of many simulations listed in ERIC, developed in

these and other areas within the physical sciences.









Simulations have also been developed and used in

such disciplines as mathematics, languages, engineering,

education, etc. The field is endless, wherever man seeks

knowledge, simulations are and have been developed to

assist in gaining the desired knowledge.


Educational Uses--General


The field of education has not been void in its use

of simulations. Although business is generally given

credit for the evolution of simulations from military use,

education had been using simulations prior to the American

Management Association Symposium on Simulations.

John Dewey in the early 1920's (cited in Boocock &

Shild, 1968, p. 56) listed three advantages for the uses

of simulation in education as making activities meaningful,

relief from boredom and strain, and as a translation of edu-

cational progressivism into classroom practices. Chartier

(1973) and Braum (1975) echoed these same positions in

regards to interest and participation in simulations.

With the added dimension of computer simulations,

Mclssac and Boardman (1969) stated "simulations will lead

to a better understanding of the educational system and

that from the improved understanding will come educational

practice" (p. 3). Braum (1970) similarly stated that,

"Utilization of computer simulation offers the teacher an









opportunity to enrich significantly his students direct

learning experiences in areas that are not available other-

wise" (p. 151).

Simulations have been developed within most disciplines,

and, therefore, the educational aspects of those disciplines

have simulations. For an extensive list of simulations for

education, see The Guide to Simulation/Games for Education

and Training (Zuckerman & Horn, 1973), which lists over

600 simulations by categories.


Educational Uses--Administration


Educational administrators in the early 1960's de-

sired a way to train theircurrent and prospective leaders

through some method other than lecture and seminar. As

the American Association of School Administrators expressed

in 1960, "Administration is talked about rather than ob-

served or felt"(Wynn, 1964, p. 170).

The first breakthrough was The Jefferson Township

School District Simulation (Wynn, 1964, p. 170). This

simulation resembled business simulations from which it was

copied (Tansey & Urwin, 1969, p. 9), but it was regarded

as the breakthrough that was desired. The simulation

itself was designed as an on-the-job experience for 232

elementary school principles which confronted them with

"in-basket" items (Wynn, 1964, p. '171). In-basket refers









to situations that are presented to the participant

as though they had or were to occur, and the participant

must react to the situations through written communica-

tions.

Initially simulations were used by universities

since most of the development of these training vehicles

occurred there. But, with commercial firms and local

school districts developing simulations, simulation use

occurs within both avenues of educational administration

training (pre and post).

Within the area of educational administration, the

field of finance was in need of new tools for training,

evaluating, and forecasting future directions and trends.

The National Education Finance Project developed a com-

puterized financial simulation which was designed as "a

management information model . as a tool for better

decision making . to simulate the consequences of

alternative decisions in regard to the financing of public

elementary and secondary education" (Boardman, Jordan, &

Alexander, 1971, p. 1).

Regarded as the pioneer in its area, the NEFP model

has been used for instruction in Education Finance classes

at the University of New Mexico and the University of

Florida. The simulation has also been adapted for manage-

ment and research uses by the state of New Mexico (Huxel,









1973), and for the province of Sergipe, Brazil (de Mello,

1975). The simulation was used to a limited extent in

designing the Florida Educational Finance Program of 1973.

Other simulations have been developed in the area of

higher education finance (Gaunt & Haight, 1976; Holdberg,

1973) and many others by various states and organizations

to facilitate planning (Education Finance SURC, 1974;

Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, & Kirst, 1975; Odden & Vincent,

1976; Minicucci, 1976; and Ohio Education Review Committee,

1977).

Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, and Kirst (1975) summarized

the major justification for using'financial simulation as

A state which undertakes reform of its school
finance system faces a large and complicated
task. Not only must the present system be
analyzed to document any problems or inequities
that might exist, but predictions must also be
made of how proposed changes will affect local
districts in the state. . Given this situa-
tion, one of the most useful tools a state can
have is a simulation which gives it the capacity
to quickly and accurately establish the impact
of recommended change. (p. 122)

The benefits of computer simulations to educational

finance have been cited by many, but they can be summarized

as

1) knowing the fiscal impact of new policies,

2) knowing the impact of changes in existing
policies, and

3) ability to analyze effects and differences of
various financial plans.









Anyone concerned with educational finance, legisla-

tors, educators, business managers, school boards, parents,

among others, must be able to deal with major policy ques-

tions such as those cited by the NEFP (1971), in regards

to future planning.

1) What pupil population will be served?

2) What kinds of programs should be recognized in
the state aid program?

3) Will necessary variations in unit costs of dif-
ferent educational programs be recognized or
ignored in allocating state funds?

4) What kind of educational services will be funded
in the state plan?

5) Will the isolated small schools and the programs
of the core city be considered?

6) Will state funds be apportioned on the flat grant
basis which ignores differences in the wealth
of local school districts, or on the equalization
basis which provides more state funds per unit
of educational need to districts of less wealth
than to districts of greater wealth?

7) What proportion of school revenue will be pro-
vided by the state and what proportion will come
from local sources?

8) What will be the total cost of the basic state
program?

9) Where will we get the money to support the basic
state program?

10) To what extent will the state permit local dis-
tricts to provide services and experiences not
supported in the basic state program? (p. 2)









Finally, before adoption, four criteria have been

identified by the Academy for Educational Development

(1973) concerning usefulness of a computer simulation

model.

1) Performance. How effective is the system in
providing needed answers? How appropriate is
it to stated needs? How well does it reflect
institutional policy?

2) Utility. How useful is the system? How often
will it be used and how many people will partici-
pate in its application? Is it flexible enough
to accept major changes in organizational
structure?

3) Time. What is the time required for installation?
How much time is required for collecting base
data necessary to operate the system? What is
the time required to retrieve information?

4) Cost. Is the value of the information worth
the cost of implementation? Will it save money
in terms of time and personnel? Is a model
needed at current costs? (p. 27)



Summary

Equality of educational opportunity is a deeply

rooted American ideal. Although long advocated, until

recently it was to the exclusion of various groups in our

society. The concept now has evolved to mean equal access

to educational resources with consideration being given

to the needs of each child.

The courts have and are being called upon to judge

whether state financial plans do provide for equality of









educational opportunity. Having dismissed education as not

being a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the

Supreme Court has placed determination of equity back to

state legislatures and courts, with mixed results.

Full state support of education appears to provide

the most equitable funding pattern available. However, it

should be remembered that allocation methods will determine

the degree of equity. The basic tenent of Cubberley that

state taxes and state distributions best provide taxpayer

equity and program equalization remains true today; only

the means of achieving those desired goals remain.

West Virginia does not have full state funding,

although it does have a unique "demand" formula. Based

on inputs to the first step of the formula for the number

of professional educators, the steps that follow it are

generated to produce what the legislature must fund. How-

ever, the legislature has provided allocations outside the

basic formula to supplement programs and bypassed the "add-

on" costs of instituting additions within the present

formula.

To deal with the complexity of various funding plans

and formulas, simulation models, especially computer

simulations, facilitate researchers and planners in deci-

sion making involving educational finance. Decisions are

reflective of short- and long-range effects of alternative







77


funding patterns and are capable of being analyzed in

light of equity/equality criteria.















CHAPTER III

ADAPTATION OF THE NEFP COMPUTER
SIMULATION MODEL


The NEFP Model

The National Education Finance Project (1971) de-

veloped a computer simulation model to facilitate researchers

and planners in the area of fiscal planning for public edu-

cation. The original simulation contained information

regarding a 32 district prototype state, and through inter-

action of the various decisions involving programs, revenues

and wealth, alternative financial support models were

generated.


Data Files


The computer simulation consists of two main files,

which are designated as an M FILE and a D FILE. The M FILE

is subsequently subdivided into a B FILE and a C FILE.

Both the B FILE and the C FILE are storage files for the

data analysis. The B FILE contains the base data for the

districts, such as demographic information, enrollment

counts, et cetera, whereas the C FILE, or calculations









file, stores the results of calculations, which can then

be accessed through the command PRINT. The D FILE pro-

vides the input decisions, which are then used in the

simulation to generate alternative finance models. The

input decisions allow the user(s) to make program decisions,

distributional decisions, and revenue decisions, with a

multitude of variations. It is by the variations that

the current plan can be duplicated, or other options gen-

erated to allow researchers to examine consequences of

decisions.

The output of desired data is accomplished through

the interaction of the M FILE and the D FILE. The inter-

action of these files is achieved through the utilization

of three additional files, which are called LSTATE, SSTATE,

and STATE. Within these three files are contained the

mathematical equations that "cover all possible combina-

tions of input decisions" (de Mello, 1975, p. 71). The

LSTATE and the SSTATE are files that relate directly to

the NEFP program and represent a total and an abbreviated

version of the calculations necessary to run the model.

The STATE file on the other hand is a dummy (blank) file,

and enables the user(s) to create their own calculation

arrays. These files are accessed through the respective

commands of LCALC, SCALC, or CALC. The results of any

calculation are then subsequently stored in the C FILE









and retrieved by the command PRINT Cxxx (the appropriate

file number).


Other NEFP Capabilities


Several analytical subroutines are currently avail-

able to users of the simulation. Other subroutines may be

added by linking them to the data sets utilizing standard

IBM utilities. Descriptions of the main subroutines cur-

rently available to the user are

AVE: This procedure calculates the average of a
basic (B) or calculated (C) data array.
Initiation of this procedure is invoked by
the input "AVE" followed by one space and,
at most, one array key.

Example 1: AVE B035
Example 2: AVE'C610

CORR: This procedure correlates any of the basic
(B) or calculated (C) data arrays using the
Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Initiation
of this subroutine is invoked by the input
"CORR" which must be followed by one space
and exactly two array keys separated by a
comma.

Example 1: CORR B361,B364
Example 2: CORR B362,C615
Example 3: CORR C500,C845

GRAPH: This procedure is invoked by the key word
"GRAPH" followed by one space and up to
four basic (B) and/or calculated (C) data
codes. One of the data codes may be used
for the title which cannot exceed 20 charac-
ters in length and is separated from the
other data codes by ampersands. This routine
causes a histogram to be printed with the
decisions numbered along the horizontal axis
and the scale along the vertical axis.










Example 1: GRAPH C797,C793,C794,& PROPERTY
YIELDS &
Example 2: GRAPH B010,C770
Example 3: GRAPH C970

RANGE: This procedure calculates the range for any
Sof the basic (B) or calculated (C) data
arrays. It is invoked by the input "RANGE"
which is followed by one space and, at most,
one array key.

Example 1: RANGE B360
Example 2: RANGE C580

SUM: This procedure calculates the sum of any
basic (B) or calculated (C) data array. It
is invoked by the input "SUM" and is followed
by one space and, at most, one array key.

Example 1: SUM B006
Example 2: SUM C700

PRINT: This procedure allows the user to print by
district, a tabular listing of any basic
(B) or calculated (C) data array. Initiation
of this routine is invoked by the input
"PRINT" followed by one space and, at most,
six array keys.

Example 1: PRINT B100,B360,B361,B362,B363,B364
Example 2: PRINT B100,B360,C990,C991
Example 3: PRINT C500,C600

Other: Computations may be specified in the input
stream to create new calculated data arrays.
Placement of the equations must precede the
CALC command and be designated as calculated
(C) data C994 through C999.

Example 1: C994=B001/C500
Example 2: C997=C500*D400+C620

Additionally, the model provides for the subroutine

DECISIONS, which retrieves a list of the input decisions,

and the subroutine SCORE, which allows the user(s) "to

output an evaluation table with an overall model score









for percent of deviation from full equalization and a tax

progressivity score" (NEFP, 1971, p. 3). Both the sub-

routine DECISIONS and SCORE are invoked by use of the key

words indicated.

Within the NEFP model are two key subroutines for

purposes of use by researchers and planners, and these

routines are the "CREATE" and "UPDATE" routines. The

CREATE routine enables the user(s) to recreate either the

M FILE and/or the D FILE with new data. This is in con-

trast to the UPDATE routine which enables the user(s) to

make alterations within an array in either the M FILE or

D FILE. The UPDATE routine is especially useful in updating

base data information in the B FILE in subsequent years,

so the entire simulation need not be recreated.



The West Virginia Model

Having identified information relating to programs

and enrollments, special services and modifying factors,

receipts and expenditures, and wealth indications as the

basic data necessary to run the simulation, data relative

to these concepts were collected from the West Virginia

State Department of Education, State Department of Trans-

portation, Tax Commissioners Office and the Institute for

Educational Finance. Several changes and alterations to









each file in the simulation were required to enable alter-

natives based on West Virginia basic data to be generated.

A sample run of the CREATE routine utilized to create the

West Virginia model is included in Appendix A.


West Virginia's I FILE


Many new arrays were added to both the B and C FILE,

with some of the original arrays having their labels

(titles) changed. Likewise, some of the original arrays

were deleted due to their inappropriateness for West Vir-

ginia. Additionally, since West Virginia contains 55

districts, track size, block size, and logical record

length of the program had to be increased to enable handling

of the increased amount of data. To facilitate the changes

necessary, a new M FILE was created for West Virginia

through utilization of the CREATE subroutine.


West Virginia's B FILE


This file required extensive changes to accommodate

all necessary data. The changes occurred within all

sections of this file which included programs and enroll-

ments, special services and modifying factors, receipts

and expenditures, and wealth measures. Several additional

arrays were included to enable duplication of West Vir-

ginia's current enrollments, funding patterns, and










uniquenesses within the state system. The "B" arrays used

for West Virginia are listed in Table 3, and the defini-

tions of the arrays can be found in Appendix B. Each

B data array contains the key name (Bxxx), a title, and

55 data elements. The data elements represent values

associated with respective West Virginia school districts.

In the section of the B FILE designated to store

program and enrollment data, it was decided that to accur-

ately account for students by programs, full time equiva-

lency enrollment (FTE) counts would be used. Other enroll-

ment data were unavailable in useful form; however, enroll-

ment and average daily membership arrays are contained

within the simulation, should data become available.

Additionally, arrays for 10 special education exceptionali-

ties and 4 special education delivery systems were included

as selective options for specific accounting of students

in those programs. Eight vocational-technical categories

were also established for FTE student accounting by pro-

grams.

Arrays designated for special services and facilities

were also changed and redefined to account for items, such

as, revenue distinctions within the school food service

program and costs associated with specific aspects of the

school transportation program.










TABLE 3

Basic Data Code Sheet


S"B'
Arrays

001-128 CURRENT ALLOCATIONS

State Local
Allocation for Professional Educators 001
Allocation for Other Personnel--Part A 002
Allocationfor Other Personnel--Part B 003
Allowance for Fixed Charges 004
Allowance for Transportation 005
Allowance for Administrative Costs 006
Allowance for Other Current Expenses 007
Allowance for National Average Attainment 008
General School Fund Distribution 009
Local Share 010
Incentive for Program Improvement 011
Supplemental Early Childhood Aides 012
Supplemental Teachers' Salaries 013
Supplemental Service and Auxilliary Salaries 014
Supplemental Aid for Children's Homes 015
State Aid for Increased Enrollment 016
Special Education Allocation--Out of
Formula Grants 017
Special Education Allocation--Out of
Formula Homebound Instruction 018
Special Education Allocation--Out of
Formula Additional Grants 019
Special Education Allocation--Out of
Formula Aid to RESA 020
State Aid to RESA 021
Teacher Education Centers 022
Vocational Day School (1976) 023
Vocational Adult Education (1976) 024
Area Vocational Programs (1976) 025
Vocational Act of 1968--State (1976) 026
West Virginia Social Security Work
Incentive (1976) 027
Other State Revenue (1976) 028









TABLE 3 (continued)


"B"
Arrays


PROPERTY APPRAISED


Appraised
Appraised
Appraised
Appraised
Appraised
Appraised
Appraised


Property--Nonutility Class I
Property--Utility Class I
Property--Nonutility Class II
Property--Nonutility Class III
Property--Utility Class III
Property--Nonutility Class IV
Property--Utility Class IV


030
031
032
033
034
035
036


DISTRICT

DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION


DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL

Square Miles
Population, Total (1975)
Rate of Growth (%) (1970-1975)
Enrollment
Population

PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENTS

Current Program
Kindergarten
Grades K-12
Special Education

Basic
4 yr. old
Kindergarten
Elementary
Secondary

Special/Exceptional
Educable Mentally Retarded
Trainable Mentally Retarded
Learning Disabilities
Behavioral Disorders
Physically Handicapped
Multiple Handicapped
Visually Handicapped
Auditorily Handicapped


ENR FTE


111i
112


115
120
125
130


140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175


110




117
122
127
132


142
147
152
157
162
167
172
177


030-036


100


104-109


110-346










TABLE 3 (continued)

"B"
Arrays

ENR FTE
Communication Disorders 180 182
Homebound 185 187
Gifted 190 192

Vocational/Technical
Agriculture 196 197
Distributive Education 200 202
Health Occupations 205 207
Home Economics 210 212
Business/Office Occupations 215 217
Technical 220 222
Industrial 225 227
Other Vocational (Code 99) 230 232

Special Education Delivery
System
I Self Contained 235 237
II Resource 240 242
III Itinerant 245 247
IV Optional 250 252

Compensatory
Low Income 340 345
Low Achievement 341 346

360-373 SPECIAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
065-068
Transportation (1)
Average Daily Route Miles (1976) 360
Number of Pupils Transported (1976) 361
Sparsity Cost Variation 362
Approved Costs (1977) 363
Actual Costs (1976) 364

Transportation (2)
Average Daily Miles (1976) 065
Bus Drivers Salaries (1976) 066
Other Transportation Salaries (1976) 067
Transportation Costs--Nonsalary
(1976) 068










TABLE 3 (continued)


1 B"
Arrays


Capital Outlay and Debt Service
Approved Project Costs
Actual Project Costs
Depreciation Allowance
Debt Service


ENR
365
366
367
368


FTE


School Food Service
Participating Pupils (Total) 370
Federal Food Service Revenue 371
Total Food Service Revenue 372
Total Food Service Expenditure 373

MODIFYING FACTORS

Professional Educator Training & Experience*


Experience Level**


Training Levels***
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5


380
385
390
395
400


381
386
391
396
401


382
387
392
397
402


384
389
394
399
404


Sparsity

Grade Levels


Elementary
Secondary

Cost of Living

Achievement
Below 25th Percentile
Above 75th Percentile


Under 100


100-150 150-200


440
450

460


470
471


380-472










TABLE 3 (continued)

"B"
Arrays


475-483 RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
077-080
Receipts

Federal (1)
Title I (1976) 475
Other (1976) 476

Federal (2)
Forest Reserve (1976) 077
Federal Impact Aid PL874
(1976) 078
EHA VI-B Federal (1977) 079
Vocational Act (1976) 080

Local
Local Regular and Excess
Levies 478
Other Local 479

Expenditures (K-12)

Net Current Expenditures
(1976) 480
Social Security (1976) 481
Teacher Retirement (1976) 482
Other Retirement (1976) 483
Transportation--See
Special Services
Capital Outlay--See
Special Services
Debt Service--See Special
Services
School Food Service--See
Special Services




Full Text
47
the tax rate chosen by the district. A high foundation
level enables more expenditures and less disparities be
tween districts. However, as the districts tax above the
mandated rate, the wealth of the district becomes a key
factor, thus causing wide disparities again.
Although it has advantages over flat grants, Alexander
and Jordan (1976) summarized this plan when they stated that
"It does not provide for fiscal equalization of local lee
way beyond a minimal level," and because of requiring a
local millage it has been found objectionable in many
states (p. 355). Likewise, the Education Commission of
the States criticized this plan as setting conservative
per pupil expenditure amounts and being "below a practical
level of support" (1975, p. 4). They concluded that:
If a child had his choice of place to be educated
in a state with a "foundation" system, he would
be well-advised to find a wealthy suburb, which
may not be subject to tax limitations imposed on
some municipalities and which has a very high
assessed valuation. He could expect to find
this suburb peopled with well-educated professional
types who do not protest spending for schools,
at least for their own children. (ECS, 1975,
p. 4)
Percentage-equalization or the state aid ratio pro
gram (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123) is unique in that the
locality determines the level of expenditure. As Updegraff
originally proposed the plan, it was a variable-level
equalization program which attempted to reconcile equali
zation of educational opportunity and reward for local


62
Simulations do not necessarily convey factual informa-
tion, and that may not be their purpose; they are to provide
learning experiences about situations and environments,
and it is through interacting with the simulation that learn
ing takes place (Coombs, 1976, pp. 1-2). The learning
process may take on one or more aspectsdepending on the
desired result.
For purposes of this study, Armstrong and Hobson's
( 1 976) analysis of simulation uses was used inthat the ex
periences could provide for education and training, deci
sion making, research, and/or investigation (p. 88). Inbar
and Stoll (1972) and Mize and Cox (1968) concur regarding
the categorical uses.
McClosky (1972, p. 6) presented a Conceptual Frame
work for Simulations (see Figure 1), which not only listed
similar uses as stated by Armstrong and Hobson, but also
provided a guide to development. The left side indicates
sequential steps, and the body represents concepts to be
developed within the sequence with respect to appropriate
categorical use (s ).
Additionally, John Stocton (1973) expanded the uses
of simulation into the affective domain when he stated that
"One of the primary uses of a simulation is that it pro
vides an initially imperfectly known environment and im
poses on the participants the problem of defining a


APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
361
"Number of Pupils Trans
ported 1976"
Number of pupils trans
ported in the school
district for the school
year 1975-76.
362
"Sparsity Cost
Variation"
Linear density of
counties to be used in a
computation of trans
portation funds to be
distributed by the state.
363
"Approved Costs"
Amount of local district's
transportation costs
approved by the state for
purposes of computing
state allotment of funds.
364 *
"Actual Costs 1976"
The actual costs of trans
portation in the districts
for the 1975-76 school
year.
065-068
"TRANSPORTATION" (Part II)
065
"Average Daily Miles
1976"
Average daily miles of
buses traveling in the
school district for the
1975-76 school year.
066
"Bus Drivers' Salaries
1976"
Actual amount of money
spent for bus drivers'
salaries for the 1975-76
school year.
067
"Other Transportation
Salaries 1976"
Actual amount of money
spent for other trans
portation salaries
(excluding bus drivers)
for the 1975-76 school
year.
068
"Transportation Costs -
Non Salary 1976"
Actual amount of money
spent for transportation
costs less salaries.


84
uniquenesses within the state system. The "B" arrays used
for West Virginia are listed in Table 3, and the defini
tions of the arrays can be found in Appendix B. Each
B data array contains the key name (Bxxx), a title, and
55 data elements. The data elements represent values
associated with respective West Virgini a school districts.
In the section of the B FILE designated to store
program and enrollment data, it was decided that to accur
ately account for students by programs, full time equiva
lency enrollment (FTE) counts would be used. Other enroll
ment data were unavailable in useful form; however, enroll
ment and average daily membership arrays are contained
within the simulation, should data become available.
Additionally, arrays for 10 special education exceptionali
ties and 4 special education delivery systems were included
as selective options for specific accounting of students
in those programs. Eight vocational-technical categories
were also established for FTE student accounting by pro
grams .
Arrays designated for special services and facilities
were also changed and redefined to account for items, such
as, revenue distinctions within the school food service
program and costs associated with specific aspects of the
school transportation program.


99
g Area A
Area (A + B), where
A = the area between the sagging Lorenz curve
and the line marking the 45 degree angle,
and
B = the area below area A and above the
horizontal axis. (Johns, 1977, p. 505)
If the value of G is 0, then equality exists, since all
districts would be spending the same per pupil. However,
if the index reaches 1.0, then complete inequity exists.
Johns (1977) noted that if the index is computed using
weighted pupil, the measure becomes one of fiscal equali
zation rather than fiscal neutrality (p. 505).
West Virginia D FILE
All three areas within the D FILE were changed,
which included program decisions, distributional decisions,
and revenue decisions. The changes were implemented to
enable the simulation to be reflective of legal require
ments, program structure, and fiscal policies of the state
of West Virginia. Items are included in the decision set
where data for the decision is not available (n.a.).
These items are included to enable researchers and planners
to further modify the model. The input decisions relative
to West Virginia are included in Appendix D.
All three alternative decision areas, program unit,
special services and facilites, and modifying factors,


125
equity. The first three patterns that are analyzed are
the unweighted foundation program, the unweighted per
centage equalizing program, and the guaranteed yield pro
gram, relative to formula convergence and implications for
equality of educational opportunity. The fourth pattern
analyzed was the foundation program used in pattern one,
except that pupils were weighted by program. That analy
sis provided an evaluation of the concepts of equality of
educational opportunity and distributional equity. The
fifth and sixth patterns, using an unweighted foundation
program, were used to analyze the concept of taxpayer
equity. It should be remembered that the patterns pre
sented are used in relationship to the concepts mentioned,
and are generated to further illustrate the potential of
the simulation as a management and research tool.
Variations Between Plans
The literature has provided a basis for the belief
that all formulas, in their purest form, converge into
essentially the same formula (Johns, 1968; NEFP, 1971;
Cohn, 1974). The purpose of the first three patterns pre
sented is to demonstrate the convergence of the foundation
program, percentage equalizing program, and guaranteed
yield program, and discuss the implications of these
unweighted formulas relative to the concept of equality
of educational opportunity.


APPENDIX B
BASIC DATA DEFINITIONS


55
Professional Educators (§ 18-9A-4). Using a minimum state
salary matrix, professional educators are provided for at
a rate not to exceed 55 educators per 1000 children.
The second step is a Foundation Allowance for Other
Personnel (§ 18-9A-5) and it is allocated based on two
computations. An amount equal to 14 percent of the allo
cation for professional educators is ascertained and dis
tributed to the counties in proportion to the adjusted en
rollment. Then, an amount equal to 6 percent of the alloca
tion for professional educators is determined and distributed
to the counties in proportion to the number of full-time
bus drivers.
The third step is a Foundation Allowance for Fixed
Charges (§ 18-9A-6) and it is determined by addition of the
allowances for professional educators and other personnel,
then multiplying this sum by the current social security
rate plus 2 percent. Items included for coverage are FICA,
Workman's Compensation, property insurance, and so forth.
The money is then distributed to the counties based on the
corresponding professional educators allocation to the
counties.
The fourth step is a Foundation Allowance for Trans
portation Costs (§ 18-9A-7) which is determined by a five
step process. Eighty percent of each county's actual
transportation costs are determined, excluding salaries.


37
1972, p. 2). There existed throughout the century neither
an integrated plan nor conceptual theory of school finance.
Early Theorists
The concept of state control was now established and
accepted by most people. But, there was no real philosophy
or practice of state aid throughout the country. Then,
with the dawning of the twentieth century, several philos
ophers emerged. These early philosophers were associated
with the major universities of the time, namely Teachers
College, Columbia University, University of Chicago, and
the University of Pennsylvania (Johns et al 1 972 p. 3).
Ellwood P. Cubberleyis known for "formulating the
basic concepts of state school support" (Cohn, 1974, p. 14).
Cubberley was a student at Teachers College, Columbia Uni
versity, and received his doctorate from there in 1905.
One year later, his revised dissertation was published
under the title School Funds and Their Apportionment.
In his book, Cubberley analyzed basic state school
financing from a historical perspective, a legal perspec
tive, and wealth distribution effects of the Industrial
Revolution, and the evidence of unequal educational oppor
tunities within a state (Johns et al., 1972, p. 3). Cub
berley be 1 i eved both the state and local governments shared
responsibility for school finance and that local needs,


138
The computational formula for this measure is
T (X5 x 35) + (X6 x 15) + (X? x 14) + (Xg x 50) + (Xg x 14)
- -
T = Progressivity value of all state taxes compared
with the federal income tax
Xg = State individual and corporate income taxes
Xg = State sales and gross receipts taxes
X-j State property tax
Xg = State estate and gift tax.
Xg = Other state taxes
* Rc = Total state revenues.
The multiplier for each tax base was determined by the Tax
Foundation and appears in Table 10.
Pattern V. Under this plan the 1976-1977 general
revenue fund of the state of West Virginia was analyzed
relative to the tax progressivity measure. The values for
each tax base were
X5 = $156,936,211
X6 = $435,506,759
Xy = included in Xg
Xg = $ 7,840,904
Xg = $ 88,170,838
R5 = $688,454,712


130
DI 05 = 1
DI 10 = 1
DI 16 = 1
D 4 7 0 = 1 000
D610=47.5
D611=97. 5
D 612 = 1.96
D613=3.92
D614=7.84
Full time equivalency enrollment
Unweighted pupil counts
Special education counts by malady
State guaranteed yield per student
Uniform local tax rate to be applied
on all nonutility property
Uniform local tax rate to be applied
on all utility property
Local mills required to be levied on
Class I property
Local mills required to be levied on
Class II property
Local mills required to be levied on
Classes III and IV property
This pattern again produced a state education pro
gram that would cost over 373.9 million dollars. Since
all units were again unweighted, each district was guar
anteed a 1000 dollar yield per FTE student, and again each
district had a zero deviation from full equalization score.
The total cost of the basic state program is presented
in Table 8, along with the appropriate figures reflect
ing patterns I and II.
Patterns I, II, and III analysis. It is evident
in Table 8 that the total cost of the state's educational
program would be identical under each financing pattern.
By each resulting in the same ultimate cost, the con
vergence of each pattern, relative to their purest form,
was demonstrated. The fact that the amounts for these
plans were identical is illustrative of another
concept mentioned by Johns (1968) and Cohn (1974),
in that when a mandatory tax rate is applied under


167
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
108
"Rate of Growth (%)
(1970-1975), Enrollment"
Rate of change in school
enrollment in the school
district during the 5
year period from 1970-
1975 expressed as a
percentage.
109
"Rate of Growth {%)
(1970-1975), Popula
tion"
Rate of change of the
population of the school
district during the 5
year period of 1970-1975
expressed as a percentage
110-346
"PROGRAMS AND ENROLL
MENT"
The number of students
participating in each
phase of the school dis
trict's educational
program.
110-112
"Current"
Enrollment figures based
on third month adjusted
enrollment for the
current program.
no
"Kindergarten"
Full time equivalency of
basic kindergarten stu
dents enrolled.
111
"1 12"
Number of students in
grades 1-12 (excluding
special education).
112
"Special Education"
Number of Certified
Special Education Stu
dents enrolled.
115-132
"Basic"
Enrollment figures of
students in other than
special programs.
115
"4 Yr. Old ENR"
Number of basic 4 year
old students enrolled.
117
"4 Yr. Old FTE"
Full time equivalency of
basic 4 year old students
enrolled.
120
"Kindergarten ENR"
Number of basic kinder
garten students enrolled.


22
Fiscal and educational differences of school dis
trict's must be considered if equity is to be attained.
The failure of states to recognize these differences in
their allocation dimension has caused court challenges to
most state funding patterns. An analysis of past and pend
ing litigation follows in the next section.
Li tigation-Fisea 1 Equality of Educational Opportunity
Litigation may be utilized by citizens for at least
four uses as stated by Gilhool (cited in Vacca, 1975, p.
120). These uses are (a) to secure substantive rights,
(b) create new environments to enforce or create rights for
citizens, (c) to make visible facts that had previously been
unknown, and (d) redress of grievances.
The first three uses of litigation discussed by
Gilhool have been evident in litigation involving financing
of public education. The substantive right being sought
was equal access to educational opportunity. The plain
tiff sought to change the financial plans of various states,
and thus bring the inequities in the current system to the
attention of the public (Vacca, 1975, p. 120). The primary
litigation involved challenges based on the equal protec
tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
and has been divided into three generations by Alexander
and Jordan (1972, pp. 470-508).


35
State Support Plans for Education
The previous two sections noted that much has
transpired in the area of equal educational opportunity.
But, as Mi che Ison (1974) summarized, "Equality is a ri
diculous place to end school finance, but a good place to
start" (p. 442).
In discussing state financing of education, the
reference is usually made to state-aid formula. Cope
(1969) commented that usually these formulas are generally
accepted without adequate questioning, based on apparent
validity. He continued by adding -that once accepted, they
tend to grow more rigid and detailed, and that "formulas
merely bring confusion out of chaos" (Cope, 1969, p. 30).
Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, and Kirst (1975) described how
simple formulas, over time, have had to be modified to
satisfy interest groups or correct injustices within the
formula. They concluded much the same as Cope (1969) when
they stated, "Over time these small changes make the school
finance formula a mesh of adjustments and computations"
(p. 122). Most authors in the field concur with Cope
and Pierce et al summary of most state funding formulas.
Although cloaked by many names and different terms,
state funding programs (formulas) can generally be grouped
as either flat grant, equalization programs, or complete


CHAPTER III
ADAPTATION OF THE NEFP COMPUTER
SIMULATION MODEL
The NEFP Model
The National Education Finance Project (1971) de
veloped a computer simulation model to facilitate researchers
and planners in the area of fiscal planning for public edu
cation. The original simulation contained information
regarding a 32 district prototype state, and through inter
action of the various decisions involving programs, revenues
and wealth, alternative financial support models were
generated.
Data Files
The computer simulation consists of two main files,
which are designated as an M FILE and a D FILE. The M FILE
is subsequently subdivided into a B FILE and a C FILE.
Both the B FILE and the C FILE are storage files for the
data analysis. The B FILE contains the base data for the
districts, such as demographic information, enrollment
counts, et cetera, whereas the C FILE, or calculations
78


188
APPENDIX
C765
C768
C770
C775
C778
C780
C785
C788
C790
C Continued
Special Allotments State Dollars Per Pupil
The special allotment state dollars (C760) divided by
total pupils (C500).
Special Allotments State Dollars Per Unit
The special allotment state dollars (C760) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Local Incentive State Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from state
revenue for levying local leeway taxes. There are three
different basic incentive distribution methods possible for
computing the state dollars. These incentive distribution
methods are based on decisions D480, D485, and D490.
Local Incentive State Dollars Per Pupil
The local incentive state dollars (C770) divided by total
pupils (C500).
Local Incentive State Dollars Per Unit
The local incentive state dollars (C770) divided by total
program units (C600+C640+C650).
Total State Program State Dollars
The sum of the state dollars for the basic state program
(C740), special services and facilities (C750), special
allotments (C760), and local incentive (C770).
Total State Program State Dollars Per Pupil
The total state program state dollars (C780) divided by
the total pupils (C500).
Total State Program State Dollars Per Unit
The total state program state dollars (C780) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Basic State Program Local Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from local
revenue sources; this amount does not include local revenue
required for special services and facilities nor that from
levying local leeway taxes. The computation is the total
basic program dollars (SC01*SC02 as SC01) minus the basic
state program state dollars (C740).


211
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION III: MODIFYING FACTORS
Explanation: Modifying factors refer to those additional factors
besides the special services and facilities that you
wish to be included in the state program.
Explanation: For A through D check those modifying factors which you
wish to include in the form of an adjustment in the
state program and provide the requested information.
A. RECOGNITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE, SUPERVISORY, AND AUXILIARY SERVICES
Explanation: Additional funding units may be allocated to
recognize administrative, supervisory and auxiliary
service (ASAS). You have two alternatives from which
you may choose in determining the additional units.
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. Additional units for
administrative, super
visory and auxiliary
service based on a
percentage.
2. Additional units for
administrative, super
visory and auxiliary
service based on a ratio.
. l of units determined
200 from Section I
(Program Unit)
/I ratio of units
201 determined from
Section I (Program
Unit) per ASAS unit
Examples: 1. If you choose D200 = 3%, then the number of pupil
units used for funding will be increased to 103%
for each district. If district #1 has 1000 pupil
units (weighted or unweighted) then D200 = 3% would
increase the pupil units to be funded to 1,030.
2. If you choose D201 = 50/1, then the number of pupil
units used for funding will be increased for each
district by a ratio of one additional unit for each
50 pupil units (weighted or unweighted). If district
#1 has 1000 pupil units, then D201 = 50 would in
crease the pupil units to be funded to 1,020.


228
APPENDIX D Continued
B. LOCAL TAX LEEWAY
Explanation: If you wish to use local tax leeway to allow the
local educational agency to provide supplemental funds beyond the
basic state program, provide the requested information; otherwise,
omit this page.
Note: In Set II Section III (Incentive Distribution Method) if
you selected an incentive distribution method, you must complete
this page. Incentive distribution methods assume local leeway
taxes.
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. UNIFORM RATE for the local leeway taxes which you wish to use.
Specify rate.
BASE
PROPOSED RATE
Property (all classes)
Assessment: Percent of
Appraised Value
mills
640
Non-Uti1ity
%
610
. %
611
. 1
641
L
Utility
Personal Income
Sales & Gross Receipts
Note: If uniform
rate was chosen
on p. 25, these
percentages must
be the same.
642
VARIABLE RATE for the local leeway taxes with an amount based on a
maximum of 105% of the local educational agencies expenditures for
the previous year. Specify percentage of local leeway tax from
each base. (The actual rate will be computed and presented in an
output display.)
BASE
PERCENTAGE*
Property
Personal Income
Sales & Gross Receipts
. %
650
%
651
%
652
*Percentages must add to 100.


28
permits the state to adopt one of many optional
school financing systems which do not violate
the equal protection clause. (Van Dusartz, 1971,
p. 877)
The Michigan State Supreme Court held in Mi 11iken v. Green
(203 N.W. 389 Mich. 1, 2d 457, 1972) that the school fi
nance provision violated the state constitution. The court
in applying the "compelling states' interest" and the test
of "rationality" concluded that there was an inherent in
equality in the property tax bases which created unequal
support (at pp. 462-463). As with other cases, the court
did not require absolute equality in distribution. Sub
sequently, with a change of judges in 1973 a new decision
ruled the evidence did not prove children in low wealth
districts were deprived of equal protection, and thus the
decision was vacated (390 Mich. 389, 212 N.W.2d 711,
1973).
In New Jersey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide
on the New Jersey plan of financing schools in Robinson v.
Cahi11 (62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273, 1973). The lower court
had determined that the plan in operation violated the
state and federal provision of equal protection, and the
state had failed to provide a "thorough and efficient
system of public schools." However, when Robinson was
appealed, the Rodriquez decision had just been handed down
by the U.S. Supreme Court and the New Jersey Supreme Court
refused to review the equal protection issue. But, the


216
APPENDIX D Continued
SET II
DISTRIBUTION DECISIONS
ALTERNATIVE DECISION POINTS
SECTION I: BASIC STATE PROGRAM
SECTION II: BASIC DISTRIBUTION METHOD

SECTION III: INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION METHOD


7
actually determine the degree of equality of educational op
portunity contained in the state plan. One focus of this
study was to determine the variation from equalization of
several alternative public school finance plans through
the use of a computer model adapted for that purpose.
Statement of the Problem
The focus of this study was to adapt and test a
computer-based school finance simulation model that would
provide computational subroutines to generate alternative
sets of program and fiscal decisions. The problem was to
generate alternative sets of public school finance program
and fiscal decisions and demonstrate their respective
contribution to equalization of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity. The specific aspects of the problem
were
1. Identification of the data elements necessary
to generate alternative funding patterns for
various public school support formulae.
2. To develop calculation subroutines and decision
sets necessary to simulate various public
school funding patterns.
3. To simulate four alternative funding patterns
and to evaluate the results relative to gen
erally accepted criteria of equalization of
educational opportunity and taxpayer equity.


57
The seven step formula comprises West Virginia financ
ing of public schools, and is depicted in Table 1. Each
one dollar allocated to column one, results in a cost of
$1.42 when the formula is complete. Other aspects of the
state support program includes supplemental salary alloca
tions for professional staff (outside of basic support
program), minimum salary support for service personnel
(outside of basic support program), and early childhood
aides (outside of basic support program). Being outside
the basic support program enables the legislature to allo
cate money where it desires without affecting the whole
program by becoming part of the formula. The state also
allocates funds for Exceptional Children, Vocational Edu
cation Funds, Safety Education, Orphanage Aid, and School
Lunches.
In addition, the State provided money for Incentive
for Improvement of Program Funds (§ 18-9A-14) to encourage
counties to establish new and improved programs and to
reduce class size. Finally, monies are also provided to
c.ounti es which experi ence increased enrollments from one year
to the next (§ 18-9A-15).
Chapter 18, Article 9-A, Section 11 of the West
Virginia Code relates to the computation of local shares
for school support and to the appraisal and assessment of
property for taxes. The tax commission is directed to make


242
Local Government Relations Division. Study of property
valuations for the tax year 1975. Charleston,
West Virginia: State Tax Commission, 1975.
Lucas, J.D. Serrano and Rodrigues--An overextension of
equal protection. NOLPE School Law Journal, 1972,
2, 18-20.
Lunetta, V.N. Newton's law: A computer based simulation
for introductory physics. Iowa City, Iowa: Science
Education Center of Iowa University, 1974.
Manji, A.S. Simulation for educational facility planning:
Review and bibliography. Chicago: Center for Urban
Educational Planning, 1972 (ERIC Document Reproduc
tion Service No. ED 088 213).
McCarthy., M.M. Is the equal protection clause still a
viable tool for effecting educational reform? Journal
of Law and Education, 1 977, 6_, 1 59- 1 82.
McClosky, M. Perspectives on simulation and miniaturiza
tion (HumRRO Professional Paper #1472). Alexandria,
Virginia: Human Resources, 1972 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 107 252).
McClure, W.P. Financing equality of educational oppor
tunity --A reassessment. In K.F. Jordan & K. Alexander
(Eds.), Futures in school finance: Working toward
a common goal. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta
Kappa, 1975.
McEwen, W.J., & Leavitt, C. PACE: A simulation of the
effects of television advertising. Simulation and
Games, 1 974 5^, 73-85.
Mclssac, D., & Boardman, G.R. A computer based feedback
model for simulation exercises involving school
administration: Final report. Washington, D.C. :
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 039 799).
MeKenney, J.L. Simulation gaming for management develop
ment. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard
University, 1967.
McLeod, J. (Ed.). Simulations. New York: McGraw Hill,
1 968.


40
Several states now use a variation of Updegraff's
percentage equalizing plan, which will be dealt with later
in this chapter. The plan can also be modified through
addition of a recapture and redistribution clause (Coons
et al., 1970), p. 207), in what is referred to as "Power
Equalization." Updegraff's plan has been categorized,
by some, to provide incentives to local districts for
quality education (Johns et al. 1 972 p. 7).
George D. Strayer and Robert M. Haig are best known
for "emphasizing the equalization of educational oppor
tunity" (Cohn, 1974, p. 17). While associated with Colum
bia University they analyzed New York's state plan for
financing schools, which was Cubberley's Flat Grant Plan.
They concluded that equalization of eduacational oppor
tunity and reward for local effort were not complimentary,
but at variance to each other (Cohn, 1974, p. 17). They
attempted to define equalization in terms of a minimum
educational program, or what has become known as "The
Minimum Foundation Program."
Within their plan, as was explained in Financing of
Education in the State of New York (1923) they established
the necessities for a state to provide for "equalization
of educational opportunity" or "equalization of school
support" (Johns et al., 1972, p. 8). The necessities were
defined as (a) within localities, children will be offered


177
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
395 "E 4,
T 1"
396 "E 4,
T 2"
397 "E 4,
T 3"
398 "E 4,
T 4"
399
400 "E 5,
T 1"
401 "E 5,
T 2"
DEFINITION
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training
level of under a bachelor's
degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training
level of a bachelor's
degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training
level of a master's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training
level of a master's de
gree + 30 hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training level
of a doctorate.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of under a bachelor's
degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of a bachelor's degree.


Van Dusartz v. Hatfield, 334 F.Supp.870 (1971).
Wood v. Strickland, 420 US 308 (1975).
West Virginia Code
18-2-17 through 21
18-9-7
18-9A-4
18-9A-5
18-9A-6
18-9A-7
18-9A-8
18-9A-9
18-9A-10
18-9A-15
18-10-5 and 8
18-20-1 through 5
West Virginia
Article
Article
Article
Article
Constitution
XII, Section 1
XII, Section 2
XII, Section 4
XII, Section 6


246
Burruss v. Wilkerson, 310 F.Supp. 572 (1969).
Hargrave v. Kirk, 313 F.Supp. 944 (1970); vacated 401 US 479
(1971 ).
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 US 663 (1966).
Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937).
Horton v. Meski11 31 Conn.Supp. 377 332 A.2d 1 1 3 ( 1 974).
Joint Anti-Facist Refugee Concern v. McGrath, 341 US 123
(1951).
Lau v. Nichols, 94 S.Ct. 786 (1974).
Mclnnis v. Shapiro, 293 F.Supp. 327 (1968).
Mi11iken v. Grenn, 389 Mich. 1 203 N.W.2d 457 (1972);
vacated 390 Mich. 389 212 N.W.2d 711 (1973).
Northshore School District #417 v. Kinnear 530 P.2d 178 84
Wash.2d 685 (1974).
Pauley et al. v. Kelley et al. Civil Action No. 75-1268
( 1 975 ).
Plessey v. Fergusson, 163 US 537 (1896).
Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473 303 A.2d 273 (1973).
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 US 1 337 F.Supp.
280 93 S.Ct. 1278 (1973).
Sawyer v. Gilmore, 83 A. 673 (1912).
Seattle School District No. 1 v. Washington Cir. No. 53950
(1976).
Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971).
Stofstall v. Hollins, 110 Ariz. 88 515 P.2d 590 (1973).
Thomas v. Steward Docket No. 8275 (Polk County Superior
Court) (1976).
Thompson v. Engleking, 537 P.2d 635 (1975).


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Rationale
Equality is a concept which the United States has
expressed as one of the basic principles upon which this
country was founded. The Preamble to the Constitution is
illustrative of this point when it stated, "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
The idea still endures, with President Carter declaring that
one of the issues about which his administration is con
cerned deeply is the issue of "human rights."
However noble an idea, the implementation of such an
ideal as equality has had its limitations. Throughout
history equality has been defined and applied differen
tially, depending upon who was defining and applying the
concept to whom. Because of this problem, legislatures
(federal and state) have attempted to be more specific in
their intent, with the ultimate objective being that through
a combination of all the pieces of legislation, a more
general interpretation of the concept of equality could be
derived. However, the courts, being the main interpreters
1


19
The first variation Anderson discussed is one concept
of equality while variations two, three, and four more
fully express the concept of equity. And, as the Supreme
Court expressed, this is the concept toward which educa
tional finance practices must evolve. The Court said,
The Equal Protection Clause does not require
absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.
Nor, indeed in view of the infinite variables
affecting the educational process, can any system
assure equal quality of education except in the
most relative sense. (411 US 24, 1973)
Hale (1975) explained that the theoretical concept of
equity must be assessed in terms of distributional equity
and taxpayer equity. Distributional equity concerns itself
with the allocation dimension of school finance in regard
to equal access to resources based upon fiscal and/or edu
cational need. Whereas taxpayer equity concerns itself
with the revenue dimension of school finance in regard to
"equal treatment of equals who have the ability to pay"
(Hale, 1975, p. 22).
Distributional equity is concerned with a uniform
definition of need. Fiscal need takes into account vari
ations of district's ability to finance the educational
needs of children within the district which some may define
as enrollment accounting, either average daily membership
(ADM) or average daily attendance (ADA) or full time
equivalency (FTE). Educational need as defined by some may
be defined as programs, curriculum, teacher in-service,


213
APPENDIX D Continued
C. EDUCATIONAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
Explanation: A "yes" indicates that you wish to use the
following prototype indices in recognizing educational
training and experience of professional staff as an ad
justment in the state program.
Training Level
Experience
Level (Yrs.)
Less than
B.S.
B.S.
M.S.
M.S.+30
Doctorate
0-2
.80
.95
1.05
1.20
1.25
3-6
.80
.95
1.05
1.20
1.25
7-11
.80
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.25
12-17
.85
1.00
1.10
1.25
1.25
over 18
.85
1.00
1.15
1.25
1.25
D. COST OF LIVING
Explanation: A "yes" indicates that you wish to recognize cost
of living as an adjustment in the state program. (Below is an
illustration of a possible formula.)
Cost of Living Index Dist.
Cost of Living Index State
Adjustment Index
(n.a.)


CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter is subdivided into three parts. The
first part will summarize the attainment of the objectives
of the study. The second part will discuss some implica
tions of the study relative to public school finance issues,
and the third part will offer recommendations for further
study.
Summa ry
Model Adaptation
The first two objectives of this study related to
collection of data and adaptation of the NEFP computer
simulation model for the state of West Virginia. The
first objective involved the identification and collection
of data which would enable production of program and fiscal
decisions relative to alternative school finance funding
patterns.
144


192
APPENDIX C Continued
C855 Total Property Assessed Value State Property Base
Total assessed value of all properties (C850 and C851).
C856 Total State Property Tax Yield
The dollar yield from a state property tax (C852+C853+C854).
C860 Personal Income (AGI) Yield
The dollar yield from a state wide personal income tax (D601)
for the state general fund.
C870 Sales and Gross Receipts Yield
The dollar yield from a state wide sales and gross receipts
tax (D603) for the state general fund.
C880 Corporate Income Yield
The dollar yield from a state wide corporate income tax (D602)
for the state general fund.
C890 Estate, Gift, and Other Yield
The dollar yield from estate, gift, and other (D604) for the
state general fund.
C900 Property Local Yield
The dollar yield from local property taxes (C791+C792+C793+
C794+C796) levied for the local educational agency.
C905 Property Local Yield Per Pupil
Total yield of local property taxes (C900) divided by total
pupils (C500).
C908 Property Local Yield Per Unit
Total yield of local property taxes (C900) divided by total
program units (C600+C640+C650).
C910 Personal Income (AGI) Local Yield
The dollar yield from local personal income taxes (D621, D631,
D641, and/or D651) levied for the local educational agency.


87
TABLE 3 (continued)
"B"
Arrays
360-373
065-068
ENR FTE
Communication Disorders
180
182
Homebound
185
187
Gifted
190
192
Vocational/Technical
Agriculture
196
197
Distributive Education
200
202
Health Occupations
205
207
Home Economics
210
212
Business/Office Occupations
215
217
Technical
220
222
Industrial
225
227
Other Vocational (Code 99)
230
232
Special Education Delivery
System
I Self Contained
235
237
II Resource
240
242
III Itinerant
245
247
IV Optional
250
252
Compensatory
Low Income
340
345
Low Achievement
341
346
SPECIAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Transportation (1)
Average Daily Route Miles (1976) 360
Number of Pupils Transported (1976) 361
Sparsity Cost Variation 362
Approved Costs (1977) 363
Actual Costs (1976) 364
Transportation (2)
Average Daily Miles (1976) 065
Bus Drivers Salaries (1976) 066
Other Transportation Salaries (1976) 067
Transportation Costs--Nonsalary
(1976) 068


Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Simulation (from
"Perspectives on Simulation and Miniaturiza
tion" by M.R. McCloskey, 1972, p. 6. Copy
righted by the Human Resource Research
Organization, Reprinted by permission)


117
fact that Grant county can raise more through their basic
levy than 51 other counties can raise through their respec
tive combined regular and excess levies, reflects the
magnitude of a taxpayer equity problem. For if as the
definition implies, variations in ability among school
districts should be reduced or eliminated through use of
state sources, then the wide variation reflected in Table 7
between property richest and property poorest per pupil
amounts should be equalized by the state beyond the required
(regular) levy which is currently equalized.
Taxpayer equity also involves consideration of tax
sources utilized throughout the state to generate all
state revenue. The current education plan is funded on a
federa1/state/1 oca 1 basis, with the 1 976- 1 977 support levels
being 11.7 percent, 56.6 percent, and 31.7 percent,
respectively. Of the local share, 99.5 percent is derived
from the ad valorem property tax, which has been criticized
as an inequitable, regressive tax (Due, 1970; Alexander,
1977). Some arguments against broad uses of the property
tax have included findings that this form of taxation
provides for unequal treatment of equals, has a low cor
relation between taxable property and wealth or income, and
places a regressive burden on property relative to income
(Due, 1970, pp. 297-298).


APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY CATEGORY
DEFINITION
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
030-036
030
031
"Teacher Education
Centers"
"Vocational Day
School 1976"
"Vocational Adult
Education, 1976"
"Area Vocational
Programs, 1976"
"Vocational Act 1968 -
State, 1976"
"West Virginia Social
Security Work Incen
tive, 1976"
"Other State Revenue,
1976"
"PROPERTY APPRAISED"
"Appraised Property
Nonutility Class I"
"Appraised Property
Utility Class I"
An amount allocated to
districts with teacher
education centers.
An amount allocated to
the districts to provide
vocational programs for
the day school program.
An amount allocated to
the districts to provide
vocational programs for
the adult education pro
grams .
An amount allocated to
aid area vocational pro
grams .
The amount of state aid
to districts based on the
Vocational Act of 1968
and any additions.
An amount allocated to
provide aid for work in
centive.
Allocation of state money
from other state agencies
to the school districts.
Appraised value on all
tangible personal property
employed exclusively in
agriculture while owned
by the producer; all
notes, bonds, accounts
receivable, stocks and
other evidences of indebt
edness .
The same as Appraised
Property Nonutility
Class I (030), except
only applies to utilities.


185
APPENDIX
C560
C570
C580
C590
C600
C610
C615
C620
C Continued
Grades 1-12 Basic Units
The sum of the multiplication of the number of basic elemen
tary and secondary pupils (B125-B132) by their respective
cost differentials.
Special/Exceptional Units
The sum of the multiplication of the number of educable
mentally retarded, trainable mentally retarded, learning
disabilities, behavioral disorders, physically handicapped,
multiple handicapped, visually handicapped, auditorily handi
capped, communication disorders, homebound, and gifted
pupils (B140-B192) by their respective cost differentials.
Vocational/Technical Units
The multiplication of the number of agriculture, distributive
education, health occupations, home economics, business/office
occupations, technical industrial, and other vocational
pupils (B195-B232) by their cost differentials.
Compensatory (add-on) Units
The multiplication of the number of compensatory pupils
(B340-B346) by their cost differential.
Total All Categories Units
The sum of the early childhood (basic) units (C550), grades
1-12 (basic) units (C560), special/exceptional (C570),
vocational/technical units (C580), and compensatory units
(C590).
Transportation Required Effort
The required local dollars needed to participate in a local-
state partnership share transportation program. Computation
based on decision D164.
Transportation State Allotment
The state's share of a local-state partnership share trans
portation program. Computation based on decisions D161-D165.
Capital Outlay and Debt Service Required Effort
The required local dollars needed to participate in a local-
state partnership share capital outlay and debt service
program. Computation based on decisions D174-D177.


120
Excise taxes, which are usually confined to taxes
on cigarettes, liquor, and fuel products, accounted for
approximately 5 percent of the general fund. Due (1970)
classified these taxes as being substantially productive,
being popularly accepted, and having "minimal danger to
economic development" (p. 316). The equity of "use" taxes
is difficult to determine since, except for motor fuel,
most may be regarded as luxuries.
Since more than 65 percent of the state general
revenue fund is collected from sales and gross receipts
taxe.s, one may conclude that excessive burden is placed
on lower income groups (directly and indirectly). The
sales tax is proportional in its application but regressive
in relation to income, i.e., low-income persons pay a
larger percent of their income for sales taxes.
Summa ry
West Virginia's current system of financing education,
by providing equal amounts of money for students, con
siders all students as having the same needs, with the
exception of special education students. But the addi
tional weighting for special education students is also
allocated regardless of grade, exceptionality, or type of
delivery system. Similarly, the basic program allows for
no variation based on grade or other program involvement


82
for percent of deviation from full equalization and a tax
progressivity score" (NEFP, 1971, p. 3). Both the sub
routine DECISIONS and SCORE are invoked by use of the key
words indicated.
Within the NEFP model are two key subroutines for
purposes of use by researchers and planners, and these
routines are the "CREATE" and "UPDATE" routines. The
CREATE routine enables the user(s) to recreate either the
M FILE and/or the D FILE with new data. This is in con
trast to the UPDATE routine which enables the user(s) to
make alterations within an array in either the M FILE or
D FILE. The UPDATE routine is especially useful in updating
base data information in the B FILE in subsequent years,
so the entire simulation need not be recreated.
The West Virginia Model
Having identified information relating to programs
and enrollments, special services and modifying factors,
receipts and expenditures, and wealth indications as the
basic data necessary to run the simulation, data relative
to these concepts were collected from the West Virginia
State Department of Education, State Department of Trans
portation, Tax Commissioners Office and the Institute for
Educational Finance. Several changes and alterations to


127
TABLE 8
Total Program
Dollars by
Funding
Pattern
Total
Program Dollars
Pattern I Pattern II
Pattern III
District
tota 1
total
total
Barbour
$ 3,160,300 $
3,160,300
$ 3,160,300
Berkeley
8,552, 500
8,552,500
8,552,500
Boone
6,020,000
6,020,000
6,020,000
Braxton
2,833,800
2,833,800
2,833,800
Brooke
5,912,000
5,912,000
5,912,000
Cabel1
18,548,600
18,548,600
18,548,600
Calhoun
1 585,500
1 585,500
1,585,500
Clay
2,565,000
2,565,000
2,565,000
Doddridge
1 503,1 00
1,503,100
1,503,100
Fayette
1 1 ,830,000
1 1 ,830,000
11,830,000
Gilmer
1,500,600
1 500,600
1,500,600
Grant
1,969,500
1 969,500
1,969,500
Greenbrier
7,450,000
7,450,000
7,450,000
Hampshire
2,725,000
2,725,000
2,725,000
Hancock
8,032,000
8,032,000
8,032,000
Hardy
2,094,500
2,094,500
2,094,500
H a r r i s o n
14,420,500
14,420,500
14,420,000
Jackson
5,428,500
5,428,500
5,428,500
Jefferson
5,377,500
5,377,500
5,377,500
Kanawha
42,968,800
42,968,800
42,968,800
Lewis
3,512,000
3,512,000
3,512,000
Lincoln
5,148,000
5,148,000
5,148,000
Logan
10,954,500
10,954,500
10,954,000
Marion
11,413,600
11 ,413,600
11 ,413,600
Marshal 1
7,620,200
7,620,200
7,620,200
Mason
5,510,000
5,510,000
5,510,000
Mercer
13,608,000
13,608,000
13,608,000
Mineral
5,535,000
5,535,000
5,535,000
Mingo
8,787,800
8,787,800
8,787,800
M o n o n g a 1 i a
10,215,700
10,215,700
10,215,700


APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
187
"Homebound FTE"
Full time equivalency of
homebound students en
rolled.
190
"Gifted ENR"
Number of gifted students
enrol led.
192
"Gifted FTE"
Full time equivalency of
gifted students enrolled.
195-232
"Vocational/Technical"
Enrollment figures of
students in vocational/
technical programs by
program area within the
school district.
195 .
"Agr. ENR"
Number of agricultural
students enrolled.
197
"Agr. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
agricultural students
enrol 1ed.
200
"Dist. Ed. ENR"
Number of distributed
education students en
rolled .
202
"Dist. Ed. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
distributive education
students enrolled.
205
"Health Occ. ENR"
Number of health occupa
tion students enrolled.
207
"Health Occ. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
health occupation stu
dents enrolled.
210
"Home Ec. ENR"
Number of home economic
students enrolled.
212
"Home Ec. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
home economic students
enrolled.
215
"Bus./Of. Occ. ENR"
Number of business and
office occupation stu
dents enrolled.


INPUT DECISIONS
(Form A)
SET I: PROGRAM DECISIONS
Program decisions refer to:
(1)
the programs and the unit which are to be used in
determining the state program
(2)
the application of cost differentials, and
(3)
the special services and facilities and selected
modifying factors which are to be provided.
SET IT:
DISTRIBUTION DECISIONS
Distribution decisions refer to:
(1)
the total amount of state and local funds which
will be provided to support a basic state program,
(2)
procedures for distributing the cost of this
program, and
(3)
procedures for providing incentives based on local
tax leeway.
SET III:
REVENUE DECISIONS
Revenue decisions refer to
(1)
the major tax sources, both state and local,
which are to be used to provide funds for public
elementary education, and
(2)
the rates which are to be applied to the various
tax sources.
1 99


205
APPENDIX D Continued
Compensatory
Low Income
Note: You have two
alternatives on compen- 178
Low Achievement
satory pupils (choose
one). 179


239
Claiborn, W.L., & Lemberg, R.W. A simulated mental
hospital as an undergraduate teaching device.
Teaching of Psychology, 1 974 fj, 38-40.
Cohen, K., & Cyert, R.M. Simulation of organizational
behavior. In N.A. Fattu & S. Elam (Eds.), 4th Sym
posium on Educational Research. Indiana: Phi Delta
Kappa Inc., 1 965.
Cohn, E. Economics of state aid to education. Massa
chusetts: Lexington Books, 1974.
Coleman, J. Equity of educational opportunity. Washington,
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1966.
Coleman, J. Equality of educational opportunity. Harvard
Education Review, 1 968, 38., 7-22.
Coombs, D.H. Simulation and gaming: Best of ERIC.
. Stanford Uni versity--ERIC Clearinghouse, 1 976 (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126-891).
Coons, J.E., Clune, W.H., & Sugarman, S.D. Private wealth
and public education. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press, 1970.
Cope, R.G. Simulation models should replace formulas for
budgeting requests. College and University Business,
1969, 46, 30-34.
Cruickshank, D.R., & Broadbent, F.W. Simulation in pre
paring school personnel. Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Clearinghouse, 1970 (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 036 470).
Cubberley, E.P. School funds and their apportionment.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,
1 906.
de Mello, E. Adaptation of a computer simulation model
for planning state school finance programs in
Sergipe, Brazil. Doctoral dissertation, University
of New Mexico, 1975.
Department of Education. A brief history of West Virginia
schools. Charleston, West Virginia, 1973.


148
and the meeting of student's needs. The plan in use con
siders all basic students as the same for purposes of
funding, with the exception of kindergarten and special
education students. Kindergarten students are accounted
for on the basis of an FTE enrollment count, with special
education students receiving a triple weighting. The basic
program, in not recognizing variations in educational levels,
or other special programs (vocational education) appears to
express the philosophy that all children have the same
needs for purposes of funding. Likewise, the special
education additional funding is provided regardless of
the time spent in the program or the severity of the ex
ceptionality of the child. Although fiscally, the special
education weighting addresses need, the relationship of a
weighted program to student needs is not based upon pro
gram equity concepts.
In regard to the ability of school districts to sup
port education, property rich districts have more money
available per pupil than do property poor districts due
to the provision of special levies above the equalized re
quired levy. This fact becomes more significant when one
considers that the current state aid formula is based on a
professional educator count, which was found to be highly
correlated with district property wealth. The results
indicated that wealthy districts have more professional


77
funding patterns and are capable of being analyzed in
light of equity/equality criteria.


With the turn of the twentieth century, education
began to be redefined. Traditional college preparatory
secondary schools began to modify their curriculum to meet
the needs of the majority of students who were not college
bound. And, the concept of "separate but equal" was re
affirmed for black children (Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 US 537,
1896). This provision continued over the next half century
until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka (347 US 493, 1954) where it
stated in dictum:
Today, education is perhaps the most important
function of state and local -government ....
In these days, it is doubtful that any child
may reasonably expect to succeed in life if he
is denied the opportunity to an education. Such
an opportunity, where the State has undertaken
to provide it is a right which must be made
available to all on equal terms.
The Supreme Court's statement of value was similarly
stated by Thomas Jefferson (cited in Division of Surveys
and Fields, 1956) at the country's beginning when he said,
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of
civilization, it expects what will never be" (p. 1).
Adam Smith (reprint, 1905) in 1776 similarly said in The
Wealth of Nations that education is a value to all society
and the expenses of it should "be defrayed by the general
contribution of the whole society" (p. 212).
Value implies something of worth, and education pro
vides many economic and social benefits to society which


145
Since all financial plans utilize information rela
tive to tax effort, tax yield, and property valuation per
pupil, component parts of each were identified as appraised
and assessed property values, tax rates and millages, and
pupil data. Further analysis of the West Virginia funding
pattern, as well as the ability of the simulation to gen
erate alternative plans, indicated a need for collection
of data relative to enrollments of students by level and
program participation, teacher salary information, special
services and facility information (transportation and
capital outlay), revenue capabilities, and wealth. Once
the data were initially identified, contacts were made to
secure the desired information.
Data relative to enrollments, programs, services and
facilities, and teachers were obtained from the state
department of education. Data relative to revenue and
wealth were obtained from the state tax collector's office,
and information regarding population was obtained from
the Chamber of Commerce.
The simulation handles data through two major files
which are identified as anMFILE and aDFILE. The M FILE
is further subdivided into "B" data and "C" data. The
"B" or base data contain all data relative to district
demographic and social information, program and enrollment
information, special services and facilities information,


201
APPENDIX D Continued
PROGRAMS
WEST VIRGINIA
TARGET POPULATION*
Auditorily Handicapped
72.6
Communication Disorders
428.7
Homebound
185.2
Gifted
492.2
Vocational/Technical
Agriculture
1,353.1
Distributive
849.2
Health
317.8
Home Economics
3,430.3
Business/Office
7,092.2
Technical
312.8
Industrial
5,922.5
Other Vocational
292.7
TOTAL
388,725.6
Compensatory
Low Income
122,074.0
Low Achievement
8,126.6
*Target Populations are 1975-76 FTE (full time equivalent)
students.


222
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION III: INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
METHOD
Explanation: The following are distribution methods for
providing incentive for local educational agencies
levying leeway taxes.
If you do not wish to use a local incentive, omit
this page; otherwise, check the appropriate method
and provide the requested information. The unit
(pupil or instructional, weighted or unweighted) is
based on a decision which is made in Set I Section
I (Program Unit).
Note: Decisions in regard to the tax bases and
rates for local tax leeway are made in Set III
(Revenue Decisions). .
Explanation: Check the incentive method which you wish to use and
provide the requested information.
A. Incentive grant by matching
local leeway taxes by a flat $ allotment per unit
grant allotment. 480 for each mill (or
percent) of local
leeway tax levied.
B. Incentive grant by matching local leeway taxes in same Yes
ratio as provided in basic state program.
485
C. Incentive grant based on a state guaranteed allotment
per each mill (or percent) of the local leeway tax levied.
The general form of the computational formula is:
R (A B) = State's Allotment, where
R = rate of local leeway tax
A = state guaranteed allotment per unit (this
allotment is supplemental to the basic
state program)
B = tax yield per unit from one mill (or
percent) of the local leeway tax


121
(i e- vocational education). Additionally, since the
present state aid plan is based on professional educator
salaries, and since the ratio of professional educators
to district wealth is highly correlated, there appears
to be some questionable equity in regard to the concept of
fiscal neutrality and equality of educational opportunity.
Taxpayer equity is also questionable when one con
siders the variations of amounts raised and special levy
options of the various school districts. This fact, in
conjunction with a tax base that is highly dependent on
tax sources that place more of a burden on lower income
groups, calls for further research into alternatives and
analysis of equality of educational opportunity and taxpayer
equity relative to the state of West Virginia.
Analyses of Simulated Alternatives
There are four major methods of state-local support
plans for education currently in use among the states:
foundation, percentage equalizing, district power equaliz
ing (DPE), and guaranteed yield. Johns (1968) and others
have demonstrated that in their purest form, all of the
basic programs converge mathematically into essentially
the same equation. The differentiation of each being a
function of the definitions employed within the particular


26
original decision stood, it would have "deterred equaliza
tion rather than increasing it" (p. 18). The main issue
in Hargrave was that plaintiffs from wealthy districts
were trying to remove a state cap on millage. The intended
purpose was to enable poorer counties to raise more money,
but in the final analysis, so would the wealthier districts,
thus not really reducing the variations between the dis
tricts.
The next generation of cases, which Alexander and
Jordan (1972, p. 482) classified were typified by the fact
that a "child's education cannot be a function of school
district wealth" or what is called the Serrano Era.
On August 30, 1971, the California Supreme Court
decided the Serrano v. Priest (487 P.2d 1241) case. The
plaintiff contended that the California plan for financing
education "makes the quality of education . a function
of the wealth of the children's parents and neighbors, as
measured by the tax base of the school district in which
said children reside" (Serrano v. Priest, 1971, p. 1252).
In their decision the court stated that there is a "com
pelling state interest" involved in financing education,
since education was a "fundamental interest" (Serrano v.
Priest, 1971, p. 1 258). By their interpretation of educa
tion as a guaranteed fundamental right, the court applied
the "strict scrutiny" test, and determined that wealth was


124
(4) It is possible that it will be the districts
with the higher income families that raise their
tax rates in response to the reward offered by
the state rather than districts with income
poor families.
(5) There is a special problem of low income house
holds located in property affluent school
districts. . the wealthy district might
decide to increase their generally low tax
effort in order to obtain more state aid.
(6) Students of general local public finance have
never been especially pleased with these edu
cational local incentive grants. (They feel
the emphasis should be on other social services
such as police, fire, and health.)
(7) They might have the effect of maintaining
small inefficient school districts since
the state would be rewarding higher tax rates
resulting from diseconomies of scale. (pp. 30-31)
As Coons et al ( 1 970) expressed when they proposed
the plan, "it operates by making dollars per pupil a func
tion of effort alone" (p. 202). However, as Hickrod et al.
(1974) summarized,"the aspiration level of the citizens in
a school district should not be the primary determinants
of the level of spending" (p. 32). Alexander and Jordan
(1976) also noted concern when they stated that theoreti
cally a district could put forth no effort; therefore,
have no educational program, and thusly, "the state equalizes
nothing" (p. 357).
Two basic concepts have been discussed throughout
this study, and will be used in the analysis of the alterna
tives; equality of educational opportunity and taxpayer


151
equity, the individual student needs are taken into con
sideration in the financial plan. Most experts in the area
ofpublic school finance advocate a system which utilizes
pupil weights for allocation of funds relative to fulfill
ment of the concept of horizontal equity.
Relative to taxpayer equity, the 1975-1976 general
fund is composed of various revenue sources. However, over
60 percent of the general fund is derived from sales and
gross receipt taxes. Due (1970) and others have evaluated
this and other tax sources relative to progress ivity/
regr.es s i vi ty. Additionally, the simulation provides for
a tax progressivity index of a state's tax structure in
relation to what is considered the most equitable tax, the
individual personal income tax (federal). Alternative
measures of wealth other than purchasing power need to be
considered because of the burden this type of tax places
on low income groups. Having summarized the results of the
research project, implications will now be considered.
Implications
The implications of this research study will be gen
eralized relative to the testing and modeling of a public
school finance simulation for analysis of equality of edu
cational opportunity and taxpayer equity.


6
do not correlate with individual income" (Tanner & Kondwros,
1977, p. 2), and this is a crucial relationship in the
ability of a school district to generate revenue.
Fifth, present formulas do not take into account high cost
programs necessary to meet the needs of various children.
To deal with equalization of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity issues in a comprehensive study of
school finance requires the use of the most efficient tool
available to show the impact of policy decisions, and to
allow for analysis of alternatives. Through the use of a
computer simulation researchers and planners can quickly
and accurately answer questions in regard to the impact of
proposed plans on individual school districts (Johns,
1977, p. 508).
It is within the computer-based simulation that pro
gram decisions, distributional decisions, and revenue de
cisions can be analyzed in relationship to a state as a
whole. The simulation model provides the needed planning,
management, and research tool for school finance policy
makers and policy-managers.
School finance specialists and researchers have sug
gested that almost all state-local public school support
programs in use throughout the United States essentially
are the same, with the variation being within the definition
of terms used (Johns, 1968). These variations in definitions


226
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION II: LOCAL TAX SOURCES
Explanation: Local tax sources refers to decisions concerning bases
and rates for required local effort and local tax
leeway.
A. REQUIRED LOCAL EFFORT
Explanation: If you select a required local effort as part of the
basic state program in Set II Section II (Basic Distribution
Method), you have two alternatives from which to choose in
specifying the local tax base and rate.
Note: In Set II Section II (Basic Distribution Method) if you
select flat grant plus uniform local tax rate, complete
Alternative 1; if you select uniform state matching grant or
percentage of state and local sharing, complete Alternative 2.
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. UNIFORM RATE for the required local effort.
Explanation: Basic state program where the local effort is based
on a rate which is uniform in each district. Specify rate.
BASE PROPOSED RATE
Property
Assessment: Percent of
Appraised Value
Rates
Non-Utility
.
_Jo
~ 6To
Utility
.
_%
6Tl
Class 1
mills
6T~2 '
Class 2
_ mills
6l3~ "
Class 3 & 4
mills
614
Personal Income
Sales & Gross Receipts
622


191
APPENDIX
C838
C840
C845
C848
C850
C851
C852
C853
C854
C Continued
Basic State Program Total Dollars Per Unit
The basic state program total dollars (C830) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Total State/Local Program Total Dollars
The total fiscal allotment for local educational agencies
from state and local revenue sources (C780+C820).
Total State/Local Program Dollars Per Pupil
The total state/local program total dollars (C840) divided
by total pupi1s (C500).
Total State/Local Program Dollars Per Unit
The total state/local program total dollars (C840) divided
by total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Non-Utility Assessed Value State Property Base
The sum of the assessed valuation for Non-Utility property in
the state (B030, B032, B033, and B035) by the proposed rate
(D660).
Utility Assessed Value State Property Base
The sum of the assessed valuation for utility property in the
state (B031, B034, and B036) by the proposed rate (D661).
Class 1 Property State Yield
The sum of the assessed valuation of all Class 1 property
(B030 and B031) by the respective proposed rates (D600 and
D661), with the yield being determined by taking the sum of
the above by the desired mi 11 age (D662).
Class 2 Property State Yield
The sum of the assessed valuation of Class 2 property (B032)
by the proposed rate (D663), with the yield being determined
by taking the above by the desired millage (D664).
Classes 3 & 4 Property State Yield
The sums of the assessed valuation for all Class 3 and 4
property, Non-Utility (B033 and B035), and Utility (B034 and
B036) by the respective proposed rates (D660 and D661), with
the yield being determined by taking the sum of the above by
the desired millage (D664).


163
APPENDIX B
ARRAY
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
- Continued
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
"Allowance for Other
Current Expenses"
"Allowance for National
Average Attainment"
"General School Fund
Distribution"
"Local Share"
"Incentive for Program
Improvement"
"Supplemental Early
Childhood Aides"
An amount equal to 10%
of the sum of the allow
ances for professional
educators and other
personnel (parts a and b),
which is distributed to
the counties based in
proportion to adjusted
enrollment.
Amounts that accrue from
allocations due to in
creased total share,
balances in general school
fund, or from appropria
tions, which are distrib
uted to the counties
based in proportion to
adjusted enrollment.
Distribution of the
General School Fund Bal
ance, which is distrib
uted in proportion to the
adjusted enrollment, and
is in addition to the
allowance toward national
average attainment.
Amount required by local
counties to participate
in the state basic pro
gram.
Allocation of funds to
enable counties to em
ploy additional staff to
bring them up to state
average.
An amount allocated out
side the basic foundation
formula for the employ
ment of early childhood
aides.


APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION I: BASIC STATE PROGRAM
Explanation: The basic state program refers to the fiscal allotment
for local educational agencies from state and/or local
revenue sources; this amount does not include special
state allotments for school services and facilities,
modifying factors, or incentive programs, and also does
not include any local fiscal effort required for
participation in these latter programs.
Note: If you desire the flat grant plus uniform local
tax rate distribution method (Section II), omit this
page. Specifying the flat grant plus the uniform
local tax rate will determine the cost of the basic
state program.
Explanation: You have three alternatives from which to choose to
arrive at the cost of the basic state program. Check
the method you wish to use and provide the requested
information.
A.The cost of the basic state program should
be determined by applying a dollar cost to $ per unit
the units determined in Set I Section I 400
(Program Unit).
B. The cost of the basic state program
should be based on a proposed amount
of funds to be made available in the
basic state program.
C. The cost of the basic state program
should be based on a percentage of
the state general fund which is
determined in Set III Section I
(State Tax Sources).
Proposed Amount
402
%


2
of legislation, have encountered the same definitional
problem of equality as have legislatures.
Some have suggested that through education, equality
is an obtainable goal. This hope is due to the fact that
these same people believe that it is through expanded edu
cational opportunities that a degree of equality will be
achieved. But, as with most general terms, the concepts
of equality and educational opportunity seemed to confound
the definitional problems already encountered. Given that
school districts provide different educational programs
and fiscally support education at various levels, the con
troversy of what constitutes equality in education has
evolved to a point where fiscal policies seem to be the
focus of legislators, courts, and educators.
Laws, policies, and procedures for the assessment,
collection, and distribution of revenues to support public
education have been a major issue facing legislatures,
courts, educators, and citizens. The ultimate end of which
is to provide for equality of educational opportunity,
which McCarthy (1977) has characterized as being "firmly
rooted in democratic philosophy and shares an exalted
position with monogomy, brotherhood, and peace" (p. 159).
Public education exists, as the term implies, to
serve society and for the benefit of society. Thus, being
a merit want of society, it should be reflective of the


This chapter will initially present and analyze the
status of West Virginia public school finance in regard
to equality of opportunity and taxpayer equity. Addi
tionally, the concepts of equality of educational oppor
tunity and taxpayer equity will be demonstrated and analyzed,
respectively, utilizing alternative decisions within the
simulation model. Finally, four alternative financing
plans (district power equalizing, guaranteed yield, per
centage equalizing, and foundation) will be presented,
using West Virginia data, and analyzed in relationship
to the concepts of equality of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity.
Present School Finance in West Virginia
Within the current state system of financing educa
tion in West Virginia, professional educator salaries are
the primary determinant of legislative appropriations for
school support. On the other hand, student enrollment is
utilized extensively as the prime determinant of the state
distribution of school support. The distributional as
pects of the formula are presented first due to the con
sideration of student enrollment and are analyzed in
regard to equality of educational opportunity.
According to the definition already established as
to the concept of equality of educational opportunity and


into consideration in conjunction with resource allocation.
Program or horizontal equity is concerned with enabling
districts to financially operationalize programs for stu
dents based on needs. Additionally, cost analysis of
programs would enable determination of cost differentials
relative to a basic program. Having thus established the
basic program, all others then become a function of the
predetermined basic program. Again, the basic program as
well as other programs becomes a definitional problem
relative to variations in programs.
. Children's needs must direct legislative decisions to
consider not only resource equity but program equity.
If legislatures in their zeal and concern to provide fund
ing based on dollars fail to consider program equity,
then children's needs are relegated as a function of some
other unit. In the case of West Virginia, the legislature
allocates funds based on professional salaries. Profes
sional salaries are highly correlated with property wealth.
In reality then, funds made available to a district become
a function of wealth rather than needs.
Taxpayer Equity
Many state plans have either been challenged or
are being challenged based on equality of educational
opportunity bases or taxpayer equity issues. The Serrano


212
APPENDIX D Continued
B. SPARSITY
Explanation: Additional units for schools with less than 200
pupils.
Proposed
Pupil
Size of School Weightings
Elementary 150 200
205
100 149
206
less than 100
207
Secondary 150 200
211
100 149
212
less than 100
213


25
there was a wide variation in per student expenditure, and
that the variation should be based only on need. The court
concluded that the plaintiffs had neither clearly stated
the fiscal equalization issue nor the educational need
issue. Since "judicially manageable standards" had not been
provided for need, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not re
quire expenditures based on need, the Illinois plan was not
unconstitutional .
Similarly in the Burruss case, plaintiffs argued that
state allocations should be based on educational need. The
court concluded that disparities were not based upon invidi
ous discrimination by the state, but were produced by de
ficient taxable value in the district. In his comment,
Circuit Judge Bryan (Burruss v. Wilkerson, p. 574) ex
pressed a "hands off" attitude when he stated
Courts have neither the knowledge, nor the
power to tailor the public moneys to fit the
varying needs of these students throughout the
state.
Florida's financial plan was challenged and ruled uncon
stitutional by the state supreme court in that it prevented
poor counties "from providing as good an education for
their children as richer counties" (Hargrave v. Kirk, 1971,
313 F.Supp. 944, 1970; Vacated 490 US 479, at p. 945).
This decision was later vacated by a federal district court.
Although the decision might be viewed as a loss in regard
to equity, Alexander (1975) pointed out that had the


REFERENCES
Books and Periodicals
Academy for Educational Development. Let's end the con-
fusion about simulation models. New York: Society
for College and University Planning, 1973.
Ah1f, D.R. .Measurement of fiscal capacity of school dis
tricts in Wisconsin. Madison, Wis.: University of
Wisconsin, 1964.
Alexander, K. Judicial standards of equality: A defini
tion problem. Critical Issues in Educational
Finance, 1975, 1 1 16-47.
Alexander, K. The wealth as an alternative revenue source
for public schools. Journal of Education Finance,
1977, 2, 451-480.
Alexander, K., & Jordan, K.F. Constitutional alternatives
for state school finance. In R.L. Johns, K. Alex
ander, & K.F. Jordan (Eds.), Financing education:
Fiscal and legal alternatives. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1972.
Alexander, K., & Jordan, K.F. (Eds.). Educational need
in the public economy. Gainesville: University of
Florida Press, 1976.
American Management Association. Simulation and gaming:
A symposium. New York, 1961.
Anderson, C.A. Patterns and variability in distribution
and diffusion of schooling. In C.A. Anderson &
M.J. Bowan (Eds.), Education and economic develop
ment. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1965.
Armstrong, R.H., & Hobson, M. Introduction to gaming-
simulation techniques. In Gaming-simulation:
Rationale, design, and application. New York:
Sage Publications, 1976.
Bailey, S.K. A finer order, a mo re general happiness. In
The third century. New York: Change Magazine Pre-s,
1 977.
237


181
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
080
"Voc. Sec. Grants -
Fed. 1976"
Allocation of the Voca
tional Education Act to
the counties for second
ary instruction (includ
ing B1, B4A, B4B, B6,
and B7).
485-497
"WEALTH MEASURES"
488
"Personal Income,
Adjusted Gross Income
1975"
Total personal income
less adjustments and ex
emptions for taxpayers
in the school district, a
total taxable income for
taxpayers in the school
district (tax year 1975).
00
"Personal Income,
Income Taxes Paid
1975"
Amount of personal in
come tax paid by persons
in the school district
for the tax year 1975.
490
"Personal Income,
Returns Filed Under
$4000, 1975 Gross"
Number of persons in the
school district who filed
personal income tax re
turns which showed under
$4000 adjusted gross in
come .
491
"Personal Income,
Returns Filed $4000-
$10,000, 1975 Gross"
Number of persons in the
school district who filed
personal income tax re
turns which showed between
$4000 and $10,000 adjusted
gross income.
492
"Personal Income,
Returns Filed Over
$10,000, 1975 Gross"
Number of persons in the
school district who filed
personal income tax re
turns which showed over
$10,000 adjusted gross in
come.
494
"Sales and Gross
Receipts, 1976"
State tax revenue on
sales and gross receipts
collected in the school
district.


221
APPENDIX D Continued
F. STATE GUARANTEED YIELD from uniform taxes levied determines the
cost of the basic program.
The general form of the computational formula is:
State's Allotment = R ( A B ), where
R = mandatory rate
A = state guaranteed yield per unit
B = district property yield per unit
The decision with regard to R is made in Set III Section I.
To determine A, a decision is required with regard to a state
guaranteed yield per unit (D470), and in regard to the unit
Section I Section I (Program Unit).
guaranteed
D470 yield per
unit.


118
State-wide, the general revenue fund is created
through the collection of taxes, fees, and interest on
various items. Of the total state money collected for the
general revenue fund for fiscal year 1976, 65 percent of
the monies were collected through various types of sales
and gross receipts taxes, 23 percent of the monies were
col 1ected through income taxes (personal and corporate),
5 percent of the monies were collected as excise taxes,
1 percent of the monies were collected through inheritance
taxes, 2 percent of the monies were collected from racing
taxes, and 4 percent of the monies were collected from
other miscellaneous sources. The other sources included
such categories as department collections, Boards and Com
missions, interest on investments, and so forth. With the
first four groups accounting for approximately 93 percent
of the general revenue fund, the regress ive/progressive
characteristics of each will be considered in relation
ship to the concept of taxpayer equity.
Of the 65 percent of sales and gross receipts
taxes collected, 31 percent of that total was raised
through the consumer sales tax and use tax. The balance
of the money was raised from the Business and Occupations
Tax and Insurance Tax. The consumer sales tax and use tax
of 3 percent are imposed on all West Virignia residents
on purchases inside and outside the state, respectively.
The Business and Occupations Tax and Insurance Tax are


79
file, stores the results of calculations, which can then
be accessed through the command PRINT. The D FILE pro
vides the input decisions, which are then used in the
simulation to generate alternative finance models. The
input decisions allow the user(s) to make program decisions,
distributional decisions, and revenue decisions, with a
multitude of variations. It is by the variations that
the current plan can be duplicated, or other options gen
erated to allow researchers to examine consequences of
decisions.
The output of desired data is accomplished through
the interaction of the M FILE and the D FILE. The inter
action of these files is achieved through the utilization
of three additional files, which are called LSTATE, SSTATE,
and STATE. Within these three files are contained the
mathematical equations that "cover all possible combina
tions of input decisions" (de Mello, 1975, p. 71). The
LSTATE and the SSTATE are files that relate directly to
the NEFP program and represent a total and an abbreviated
version of the calculations necessary to run the model.
The STATE file on the other hand is a dummy (blank) file,
and enables the user(s) to create their own calculation
arrays. These files are accessed through the respective
commands of LCALC, SCALC, or CALC. The results of any
calculation are then subsequently stored in the C FILE


238
Benson, C. The cheerful prospect: A statement on the
future of education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1965.
Benson, C. Educational finance in the coming decade.
Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1975.
Berke, J. S. Answers to inequality: An analysis of the
new school finance. California: McCutchan Pub
lishing Company, 1974.
Boardman, G.R. A computer simulation for planning state
school finance-technical manual. Gainesville, Fla.:
National Education Finance Project, 1973.
Boardman, G.R., Jordan, K.F., & Alexander, K. NEFP De
cision Process. Gainesville, Fla.: National Edu
cation Finance Project, 1971.
Boocock, S.S., & Shi Id, E.O. (Eds.). Simulation games in
learning. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publish-
' ing, 1968.
Braum, L. The digital computer as a general purpose simu
lator. Journal of Educational Data Processing, 1970,
7, 151-180.
Braum, L. Learning through computer simulation. Washing
ton, D.C.: American Educational Research Association,
1975 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 104 376).
Carter, L.R., & Huzan, E. A practical approach to com
puter simulation in business. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1 973.
Chapman, K., & Cousins, J.E. Simulation/games in social
studies: A report. Colorado: Social Science
Educational Consortium, Inc., 1974 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 085 292).
Chartier, M. Simulation games as learning devices: A
summary of empirical findings and their implications
for the utilization of games in instrumentation.
California: California American Baptist Summary of
the West, 1973 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 101 384).


educators per pupil than do poorer districts, and thus
they receive more state aid. This increased state aid is
in addition to the special levy raised locally. The fact
that a district has the capabilities to double its levy
for a five-year period has significant implications for
the quality and equality of education throughout the
state.
Alternative funding patterns. Alternative funding
patterns were generated to demonstrate the effects of an
unweighted foundation program, an unweighted percentage
equalizing program, and an unweighted guaranteed yield
program. The results illustrated the convergence of these
formulas, with the same dollar amount per child being re
quired from state and local sources. Since all pupils
received the same amount, some would argue that equality of
educational opportunity was being provided for within the
formulas. However, this unidimensional consideration of
equality fails to meet generally accepted criteria of
school finance. Most experts in the field express that
in addition to vertical equity, horizontal equity needs
to be provided. When these two concepts are considered
in tandem, equality of educational opportunity is being
provided through dollar allocations and consideration of
student needs. To illustrate the concept of student needs
a weighted foundation program was simulated, which provided


APPENDIX D
INPUT DECISIONS
WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE
SIMULATION MODEL


215
APPENDIX D Continued
F. ACHIEVEMENT (n.a.)
Explanation: Special allotment for achievement.
$ per pupil below 25th percentile
260
G. INNOVATION
Explanation: Special allotment for approved cost of innovative
programs.
$ per pupi 1
270


1 52
Equality of Educational Opportunity
Through the use of a school finance simulation model,
a state can evaluate methods of distribution relative to
the concepts of resource equity and program equity.
Since the literature (Johns, 1968; NEFP, 1971, Cohn,
1974) as well as the simulation demonstrated the convergence
of all state funding formulas, then specific names of fi
nancial plans become unimportant. What is important are
the three aspects of any formulas--tax effort, tax yield,
and property valuations per pupil. However, the defini
tions of terms relative to state financial plans do cause
variations in plans. One example of the definitional con
siderations involves enrollment. Should students be ac
counted for on the basis of average daily attendance,
average daily membership,or full time equivalency basis?
Others might include time involvement, mini mums, maximum,
and so forth. These considerations are necessary when one
considers resource or vertical equity.
However, concern for resource equity fails to provide
any true meaning to definitions usually attributable to
equality of educational opportunity. Overfunding or under-
funding of programs could occur since the major considera
tion of this concept concerns equity of resources or fiscal
neutrality of a state plan. Students' needs must be taken


129
DI 05=1
DI 10=1
DI 1 6=1
D400=l000
D44 0 = 1
D445=l00
D4 54 = 1 00
D4 60=1 4.57 6
D610=47.5
D611=97. 5
D 63 0=1 00
Full time eqivalency enrollment
Unweighted pupil counts
Special education count by malady
Amount per unit for the basic state
program
Percentage state and local sharing
of the cost of the basic state
program
Percentage of the property tax to
be used in the computation
Percentage of the FTE unit to be
used in the computation
Percentage of the state basic
program to be provided by a district
of average ability
Uniform local tax rate to be applied
on all nonutility property
Uniform local tax rate to be applied
on all utility property
Percentage of variable local effort
based on property
This pattern produced a state education program
that would cost over 373.9 million dollars. Due to the
fact that all units were again unweighted, as was the
case in pattern I, each unit received a guarantee of
1000 dollars each for support. This pattern also resulted
in a zero deviation fromm full equalization score for
all districts. The total cost of the basic state program
is presented in Table 8, along with the appropriate
figures reflecting patterns I and III.
Pattern III. This pattern was used to demonstrate
the distributional effects of an unweighted guaranteed
yield program using data relative to the state of West
Virginia. The pattern consisted of the following de
cisions:


4
receive a maximum return for their investment, and they
continue to receive that maximum, then equality occurs.
But, the economic principal of marginal utility suggests
that the value placed upon those returns has differential
utility, and therefore the degree of utility applies.
Efficiency on the other hand addresses itself to a "bal
anced and comprehensive taxing structure covering all major
forms of activity without falling exclusively on one particu
lar aspect of the economic system" (Alexander, 1977, p. 455)
Since equality is a goal of public school finance
practice, R. L. Johns (1977) stated the general criteria for
judging achievement thereof as,
(1) The finance program should result in substan
tial equalization throughout the state. (2) The
program should be fiscally neutral; the quality
and quantity of a child's education should not
be dependent on per capita wealth of the school
district in which he lives. (3) The program should
be financed by an equitable system of taxation.
(4) The program should promote the efficient use
of school funds. (p. 499)
Meeting the criteria as mentioned by Johns (1977)
had been the objectives of state legislatures, courts,
educators, and the lay public, but it has often been a
"patch-work" or "piece-meal" approach. The emphasis to
correct inequities within state formulas has been accom
plished through "add-ons" to the current formula, or by
raising funding levels within the existing formula. The
result of the corrections has been general confusion on the


143
under the unweighted foundation program. Not only did this
pattern meet the criteria of equality of educational oppor
tunity through meeting children's needs, it also addressed
the concept of distributional equity by apportioning state
aid inversely to local ability, based upon a uniform local
tax effort. The third subdivision addressed the concept
of taxpayer equity through the use of the NEFP (1971)
Tax Progressivity Index. This analysis was accomplished
through two alternatives. First, the 1975-1976 general
fund revenue was analyzed relative to the tax bases, and
evaluated according to the progressivity formula. Second,
alternative applications to the various tax bases was
generated which placed more emphasis on taxes on wealth
(income tax). Both measures were found to be below
optimum established by the NEFP.


70
Simulations have also been developed and used in
such disciplines as mathematics, languages, engineering,
education, etc. The field is endless, wherever man seeks
knowledge, simulations are and have been developed to
assist in gaining the desired knowledge.
Educational Uses--Genera1
The field of education has not been void in its use
of simulations. Although business is generally given
credit for the evolution of simulations from military use,
education had been using simulations prior to the American
Management Association Symposium on Simulations.
John Dewey in the early 1920's (cited in Boocock &
Shild, 1968, p. 56) listed three advantages for the uses
of simulation in education as making activities meaningful,
relief from boredom and strain, and as a translation of edu
cational progressivism into classroom practices. Chartier
(1973) and Braum (1975) echoed these same positions in
regards to interest and participation in simulations.
With the added dimension of computer simulations,
Mclssac and Boardman (1969) stated "simulations will lead
to a better understanding of the educational system and
that from the improved understanding will come educational
practice" (p. 3). Braum (1970) similarly stated that,
"Utilization of computer simulation offers the teacher an


8
Procedures
The general procedures for this study were conducted
in three phases:
1. Data were identified and collected which
enabled production of program and fiscal de
cisions relative to alternative school finance
funding pians.
2. Calculation and decision subroutines were
developed which enabled alternative patterns of
school finance to be modeled.
3. Analysis of the alternative school funding plans
in regard to both equalization of educational
opportunity and taxpayer equity criteria.
- Data were identified and collected which enabled pro
duction of the program and fiscal decisions relative to
alternative school finance funding plans.
Since West Virginia school finance programs are based
on student and teacher data of the previous year, data were
available to duplicate the 1976-1977 funding plan.
Programmatically, for the purposes of this study, the
decision was made to generate alternative funding patterns
based on kindergarten, elementary, secondary, special
education (for 10 exceptionalities or maladies or 4 delivery
systems, using full time equivalency enrollment) and voca
tional education (for eight categories, using full time
equivalency enrollment). Additional programmatic data used


34
By that, the judge was referencing the constitutional pro
vision of "thorough and efficient" schools. However, when
the compelling state interest test was applied, a class
of suspect poor could not be identified (similar to
Rodriguez). In finding for the defendants, Justice Smith
stated:
Where the state is failing to meet its consti
tutional responsibilities, it retains the
obligation to do so through other means of sup
plemental funding. But the fact that the State
is failing to meet its total constitutional
responsibility does not render unconstitutional
the statute which established the funding
mechanism for meeting part of that responsi
bility. (Pauley v. Kelley, 1 9 7 7 p. 13)
In regards to the confusing constitutional questions
involved in this and other decisions, Justice Powell of
the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
One need only look to the decisions of this
Court--to our reversals, our recognition
of evolving concepts, and our 5 to 4 splits
to recognize the hazard of even informed
prophecy as to what are "unquestionable con
stitutional rights." (Wood v. Strickland,
1975, 420 US 329)
In summary, "What has now become clear is that the
courts have provided only an opportunity, not an answer;
a starting point for reform, not a solution to the unfair
ness and irrationality of educational funding in America"
(Berke, 1974, p. x).


90
TABLE 3 (continued)
"B"
Arrays
485-497
WEALTH MEASURES
Property--See Property Appraised
Personal Income
Adjusted Gross Income
(1975)
488
Income Taxes Paid (1975)
Returns Filed (1975)
489
Under $4,000
490
$4,000-$10,000
491
Over $10,000 ,
492
Sales Tax Paid (1976)
Corporate Income (1976 State
494
Total)
Inheritance Tax (1976 State
495
Total)
Other Taxes Paid (1976 State
496
Total)
497
Total Gross Sales (1976)
498
Total Corporate Income (1976)
499
*Full Time Equivalency Count
**Experience Levels:
1 = 0-2 years
2 = 3-6 years
3 = 7-11 years
4 = 12-17 years
5 = 18 or more years
***Training Levels:
1 = Under a Bachelor's Degree
2 = Bachelor's Degree
3 = Master's Degree
4 = Master's Degree + 30 Semester Hours
5 = Doctorate


186
APPENDIX C Continued
C625 Capital Outlay and Debt Service State Allotment
The state's.share of a local-state partnership share capital
outlay and debt service program. Computation based on
decisions D170-D177.
C635 School Food Service State Allotment
The state's share of a local-state partnership share school
food service program. Computation based on decisions D180-
D184.
C640 Administrative, Supervisory, and Auxiliary Program
Adjustment (ASAS)
Additional units for recognition of administrative, super
visory, and auxiliary service based on either a total units
percentage (D200) or a ratio of program units per ASAS unit
(D201).
C650 Sparsity Program Adjustment
Additional units for schools with less than 200 pupils
using appropriate cost differential weighting (D205-D213).
C660 Educational Training and Experience Program Adjustment
A state program adjustment factor based on the use of an
educational training and experience index for professional
staff. The adjustment factor is computed by summing the
multiplication of the indexes by the corresponding number of
professional staff and dividing by the total professional
staff (C520).
C670 Cost of Living Program Adjustment
A state program adjustment factor based on a ratio of cost
of living index for the district to that of the state (D225).
C700 Special Program A1lotment
A state dollar allotment computed by multiplying a flat
dollar amount (D250-D258) per the number of pupils in a
particular special program and summing over the special pro
grams for which these allotments are provided.
C710 Hardship Allotment
A state dollar allotment (D265) per teacher serving in
geographically remote areas.


The following represents the subroutine CREATE,
which established the West Virginia Model. Reference
lines are included to explain each step.
Card Line
//WVA JOB CARD 1
/*PASSW0RD 2
// EXEC PGM=IEFBR14 3
//A DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.DFILE1,DISP=(0LD,DELETE) 4
//B DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.MFILE1,DISP=(OLD,DELETE) 5
// EXEC PGM=CREATE 6
//STEPLIB DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.LOADLIB,DISP=SHR 7
//SYSPRINT DD SYS0UT=A 8
//DFILE DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.DFILE1,DISP=(NEW,CATLG), 9
// DCB=(RECFM=F,LRECL=40,BLKSIZE=40,DS0RG=CA, 10
// SPACE=(TRK,4),UNIT=SYSDA 11
//MFILE DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.MFILE1,DISP=(NEW,CATLG), 12
// DCB=(RECFM=F,LRECL=472,BLKSIZE=472,DS0RG=DA), 13
// SPACE=(TRK,150),UNIT=SYSDA 14
//SYSIN DD 15
'Y 4 Y' 150 55 55 16
//MCARD DD 17
//DCARD DD 18
// 19
/* 20
Line Explanation
1-2 Security language for billing and start of job
sequence.
3-5 IBM language to erase record files intended for
use. This also makes sure nothing else is there.
6-8 Program language to initiate the CREATE routine.
9-11 Creation of the DFILE itself.
12-14 Creation of the MFILE itself.
15 Computer language to begin.
16 Specifying track size, number of districts, et
cetera .


232
C780=C740+C750+C760 + C77 0
C 78 5=C 7 8 0/C 50 0
C780=C780/< CbOO +C64 0+C650)
C79O=SC0I*SC02-C740
C791=C734*0tl5/0115
C792=C735*D11 5/-D1 15
C793=C736*0J15/0115
C794=C737*0115/0115
C795=C790/C500
C796=C73P*D 11 5/D 115
C798=C790/( C60 O + C 64 0 + C65 0)
C600=C6l0+ C 62 0 + Cb 30
C05=C800/C 500
C808=C800/1C600+C640+C650)
C610=SC05
C8lS=C8 10/C500
CHI8=C810/(C600+C640+C650)
C820=C 7 9 0+C 800+C810
C82 5 C820/C 50 0
C82 8=C 82 0/( C6 O O + Cb4 0+C65 01
C8 3 0-5 CO 1 S CO 2
C835=C830/C500
C 83 8-C83 0/1C600+C64 0+C650)
C840=C780+C320
C845=Ce40/C500
C848=CP40/(C600+C640+C650)
C850=D660/1 00*(SUM B030)+SJM(B032)+SUM(B033)+SUM( 3035) )
C851 =0 661/1 00*1 SUMI BO 31 )+SUM)
C8 5 2= C 7 3 tel.) 115/0 115
C85_3=C 732*0 1 15/0115
C 854-= C 733*0 115/01 15
C85 5= C850 + C 83 1
C 05 6=C 8 52 + C 653+C854
C850-8488*0601/100
C870=34Q4*D603/100
C 830=B 4 95*0 6 02/100
C89 0=3 60 4(B497/8497)
C900=C791+C792+C793+C794+C796
C905=C900/C 500
C90B=C900/(CbOO+C640+C650>
SC07=062l+0641+0631 *C790/B488+0651*(1.05*SC03C9331/3433
C.910 = t4S8*SC07/100
C91 5 = C 9 I0/C500
C9 1 b=C 510/1 C600 + C640+C650)
SC07=0622+D642+0632*C790/B494+0652*( 1 O 5*SC 0 3-C 8 30 I /3495
C920=B494*SC07/100
C92S=C920/C 500
C928-C920/ C600+C64 0+C650J
C930=3608
C935=C93o/C500
C940 = C930+SC1 O
C94 S=C 54 C/C500
C950=C940+B3b4
C955=C950/C500
C960=C950*8 373
C96 5-=C 96 0/C 50 O
C970- C04O/(UM(CB401/3M(CbOO)*COOO)
C97 0=(C97J-11 1CO
C 90 9=C 90 0*1 4 + C910*35*C920*1 5+C790*26.42
S CO l = S UM(C053114 + SUM(C0 6 01*35 +SUM1CS 70 >*IS + SUM<::630)*35 + 5UM( 38 901*14
SC01=SCl/< SU+M C950 )+SJMlCB60i + SUMCC970)+SUMlC8 30l+SJ'<( 89 0) 1
C 96 9-= ( C969+C780*! SC 01 26.42 ) 1/C640
SC02=(C970*C970)*.5
SC02=SC02*CbCO
0940=SUMISC021/5U4I CbOO)
09 l = SUM (C90J ) 1 + +3UM1 C9 101*35 +SUM (C920)*154-SUWtC790)*26.42
0941 = 10941 + SUM 1C7 33 )* SCO11/SUM1C340)
SC01=tl001+e0 03 + 00 04+8JOb + 00 7+aOC8+R0 09 + B011+P. 012 + 301J48014+3015 + B017
SCO1=SC01+018 + B019 +5J23+B026
C 97 1 = SC0)
C9 7 2=C 9 71/C 500
C973 = C571/C 600
C 9 7 4= B O 1 O
C975=9010/C500
C976=BC1 0/C 600
C97 7=B002+3 005
C979=C977/83bl
C 97 9= 3 365
C980=B365/C500
C9 81 =C 5 71 +C 974
C982=C 981/C500
C983=C981/C600
C984 = C 5 71-C 740
C985=C984/C500


67
is usually prohibitive with real-world organiza
tions; (d) predict the future behavior of existing
or redesigned organizations; and (e) train people
to behave more effectively in an organizational
setting. (p. 158)
The major criticism of computer simulations lie with
the fact that since the machine only does what it is in
structed to do, it cannot take assumptions for granted.
This limitation, therefore, precipitates the necessity for
more structure within the simulation, which may therefore
further remove it from the real world (Inbar & Stoll,
1972, p. 23).
His tori cal
The development of games and simulations has evolved
over many centuries. Anytime someone acted as though he
were someone else, he was regarded as simulating that person
or that event.
Taylor and Halford (1972) traced simulations back to
what they referred to as war games. "Wei-hai," a 5000
year-old Chinese game, which is believed to be the ancestor
of chess, is considered one of the oldest recorded simula
tions (p. 20). Although used for amusement, the intent of
the early simulations seemed to be in the area of education
and training and decision making of junior military offi
cers. Past campaigns were presented with the participant
making responses to conditions and observing resultant


1 68
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
122
"Kindergarten FTE"
Full time equivalency of
basic kindergarten stu
dents enrolled.
125
"Elementary ENR"
Number of basic elemen
tary students enrolled.
127
"Elementary FTE"
Full time equivalency of
basic elementary students
enrolled.
130
"Secondary ENR"
Number of basic secondary
students enrolled.
132
"Secondary FTE"
Full time equivalency of
basic secondary students

enrolled.
140-192
"Special/Exceptional"
Enrollment figures of stu
dents in special/excep
tional education programs
by exceptionality within
the school districts.
140
"EMR ENR"
Number of educable
mentally retarded stu
dents enrolled.
142
"EMR FTE"
Full time equivalency of
educable mentally retarded
students enrolled.
145
"TMR ENR"
Number of trainable
mentally retarded students
enrolled.
147
"TMR FTE"
Full time equivalency of
trainable mentally retard
ed students enrolled.
150
"Learn. Dis. ENR"
Number of learning disa
bility students enrolled.
152
"Learn. Dis. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
learning disability stu
dents enrolled.


203
APPENDIX D Continued
C. WEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT
Explanation: If you wish to use a weighted pupil unit in the
computation of the state program, provide the requested information.
Note: For calculated West Virginia cost index weightings, see
cover sheet of Set I (Program Decisions-Base Data).
PROGRAMS
Early Childhood
Proposed Weighting
For Cost Index
4 yr. olds
Kindergarten
(5 yr. olds)
Note: Early childhood
pupils are included or ex
cluded in your state pro
gram dependent on your
decision in Section I
(Program Unit).
x
x
122
Basic Elementary and Secondary
Elementary .
123
Secondary
124
You must make a decision regarding Special/
Exceptional Pupil Counts (Choose one)
Count pupils by malady
Yes
Count pupils by delivery
system
Special/Exceptional (Choose FTE students or Delivery System)
126
T27
Educable Mentally Handicapped
Trainable Mentally Handicapped
Learning Disabilities
128


012 1 = 0121*0143/0101
0122=0122*0143/0142
0123=0123*0143/0143
0124=0124*0143/D144
012 6=0126*0 14J/014&
DI 27=0127*0143/0147
0128=0128*0143/0143
DI 29= 0129*0 14 3/0 1 49
0130=0130*0143/0150
131=0131*0143/0151
0132=0132*0143/0152
DI 33 = 0133*0143/0153
0134=0134*0143/0154
0135=0135*0143/D155
0136=0136*0143/0156
01 37=01,37*0 14 3/DI 57
013 8= 013 8* 0143/01 53
0139=0139*0143/0159
0140=0140*0143/0160
0173=0178*0143/0239
0179=0179*0143/0240
0186=0166*0143/0231
D137=0187*0143/0232
0188=0188*0143/0233
0189=0189*0143/0234
0190=0190*0143/0235
01 9 1 =0 19 1 *0 1 43/ 0236
0 19 2=0 19 2*D 14 3/0237
0193=0193*0143/0238
SCO 1=0101*B 1 1 S
SC02=D 102*3 120
SC03=B125+31JO
SC O 4=3 14 0 + 8 145*81 50 *0155 + 01 60 + 816 5+ B1 70 + 0175 + 91 80 *3135*8193
SCO=3103*(UI2l*3CO1+L>122*SC02)/(D115*0143)
SCO 7=0lO 3 *( D12J*8 125*0124* 11301/(01 15*0143)
SCO 3 = 0 1 O 3*( 0126*3140 + 0127*3 145 + 0123*3 150+01 29*3 1 55+0130*3150) /( 01 15*0143 1
SC O 8=S C 08+01 O3 (013 1*8163 + 01 32*3170 +01 33*8 1 7 5+Ul 34*B130)/( 01 15*0143)
SCO 8= 5 CO 8 +0 1 O 3 = (O 13 5*318 5+ O 136*U1901/(01 15*D14 31
SC 08 = 01 1-6*0 103*SC08
SCO 3=01 17*010 3* (D13 7*02 3 5 + 0138* B24 0+01 3 9*B246 + 01 4 O 0250 1/( 01 1 5*014 3)+SC08
SCO9=0 10 3* ( DI 8 6 *1' 19 5+01 8 7* 3 2 00 + 1) 1 83 *3 20 5 + 0 1 69* 3 2 1 0+ O l 90 3 2 1 5) /( 01 1 5*0 1 4 3 )
SCO 9=SCO0 + 0103*10191*8220 + 0192*0225 +0 193*82301/(0115*0143)
SC10 = 0 103*( SC01 +SC02+SC03+SCQ4+ SC 0 5)
SC01=0101*8117
SC02=0 102*B 122
SCO 3=8 127+F) 132
SC04=B142+B147+8132+8157+8162+9167+B172+B177+0182+3187+B192
SCO5=3197+3202+8207+8212+8217+8222+8227+8232
SCO6=010 5*( DI 2lSCO 1 + 012 2*SC02)/l01 15*0l43)
SCO7=0105*10123*8127+0124*31321/(0115*0143)
SC08=010 5* (0l2o*d 14 2+J127*B147f0123* 3 152 + 0129* P. lj 7+0131*01 521/(01 15*0143)
SC0 8=SC0 3+U10 5*(013 1*8167 + 0 1.32*8172+ 0133*01 77 + 0 134*3182)/( 01 15*0143)
SCO 8= SC08 + 0IOd* (O 135*81 870lJo*31 92)/(Dl 15*0143)
SCC8=D116*0 105*SC03
SCO8=0117*0105*10137*8237+0133*8242+0139*B247+OlaO3252)/(0115*Ol43)+SC08
SCO 9=01 O5*(013o*B197+ol 37*3202 + 0183*3207 + 01 8 9*821 2 + 01 90 321 7)/(3115*D143)
SCO 9=SCO 9 + 0105*10191*3222 + 0192*8227+0193*82321/(0115*0143)
SC10=SC10 + D105*(SCO 1+SC02 + 5C03 + SC04 +SC05)
C5 O 0= SC 1 O
C510 = B 38 0+833 1+E33 32 +8 33 3+83 34 + 833 5+83 86+ 63 37 + 0338 + 33 39+3390 + 3391+8 39 2
C5 1 0 = C 5 1 0+ 8 39 3+ B-3 >4 +83 95+85 96 + 83 97+ 6393+ U J9 +'-4 O 3 + 3 J O 1 + 3 4 O 2 + 34 O 3 + D404
C520=C 5 10 +84 1 O + 84 11+8412 +84 1 3+84 I 4 + U415 + U4 1 o + u'i 17 + 3 4 1 3 + 84 1 9 + 34 2 0 + B421 +0422
C520=C520+8423+8424+B425+B426+3427+B42B+B429+U430+3431+3432+3433+8434
C530=C500/C510
C 54 0 = C 50 /C 52 O
C 54 2=0 clO*( B0 30 + 8032 + B033 + 9035)
C 5 4 8= D 61 l*( 89 31+B034+8 036)
C544=C542+C5+3
SCO 4=(D640/D6+U+D 650/0650)*.001 C514/C600
C5 5 0=S C0 6
C56 0 = SC07
C57 0=SC08
cseo=sco9
C590=J17P*( ( O! 03* ¡IJ 40 1 + ( ul 05*8345 1 1 / ( 01 15*0143)
C59 0=C59 0+D 1 7* < (010 3*3 341) +(01 05*3 34 6) )/(0l 15*01 3)
SC01=. 11 76 2 5+30JJ+. 24 J7-j*8031+.2352 5*8032 + .4 75 *(8033+3033)
SCO1 = 5C01 +.9 75*(803 4+ 9036)
C61 0= (01 (.4/1000)* SC 01
C615=01t 1*9 3o 1 + O 1 5= *0 36 3+10163 / 100 + 016 5/1 I L'3e 4 + ( Jl 3 4/01 3* ) *(3334-C610)
C62 0=( (0174 *0175 + 01 76 +01 77)/1000)*5C01
C62 5=017 0*C50 0+0171 *C30J/25+(0l 72/1 00)*8365+0173*8365
230


241
Holloway, W.H. Improved school management and planning:
The promise of computer simulations. Topeka, Kansas:
Kansas State Department of Education, 1973 (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 121 634).
Hostrop, R.W. Watergate: The Waterloo of a president.
Palm Springs, California: ETC Publishers, 1975
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 121 635).
Huebert, B.J. Computer modeling of photochemical smog
format ion. Journal of Chemical Education, 1974,
51, 644-645.
Huxe1 L.L. A computer based simulation model for public
school finance in New Mexico. Doctoral dissertation,
University of New Mexico, 1973.
Inbar, M., & Stoll, C.S. (Eds.). Simulation and gaming
in social science. New York: The Free Press, 1972.
James, H.T., & Cronin, J.H. New developments and trends
in school finance: Projections and observations.
In W. E. Ganeck & J.R. Childress (Eds.), The theory
and practice of school finance. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1969.
Johns, R.L. The economics and financing of education.
In E.L. Morphet & D.L. Jesser (Eds.), Emerging
designs for education: Program, organization,
operation and finance. Denver: Eight State Project
Office, 1968.
Johns, R.L. Analytical tools in school finance reform.
Journal of Education Finance, 1977, 2, 499-508.
Johns, R.L., Alexander, K., & Jordan, K.F. (Eds.). Finan
cing education. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company, 1972.
Johns, R.L., & Morphet, E.L. The economics and financing
of education: A systems approach (3rd ed.). Eng1e-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1975.
Johns, R.L., & Salmon, R.G. The financial equalization of
public school support programs in the United States
for the school year, 1968-1969. In R.L. Johns, K.
Alexander, & D. H. Stollar (Eds.), Status and impact
of educational finance programs (VoTT 4~5^ Gaines-
ville, Fla.: National Education Finance Project, 1971.


11
Definition of Terms
Actual costs. Actual costs were used for the purposes
of this study to denote total expenditures incurred for
the specific category referenced.
Approved costs. Approved costs for the purposes of
this study were used to denote approved allocations by the
state for the specific category referenced.
Delivery system. Delivery system for the purposes of
this study were used to denote a specific modality of
instruction within the special education program.
Distributional decisions. Distributional decisions
for the purposes of this study were used to refer to the
total state and local support of the basic state program,
procedures for distribution and procedures for local incen
tive, if desired.
Fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity refers to the total
resources a governmental unit has available to them to tax
and generate revenue for public purposes, which includes
education.
Fiscal equity. Fiscal equity is a concept which
states that all divisions within a state should have access
to similar revenues for public purposes, including educa
tion.
Fiscal neutrality. Fiscal neutrality is a concept
that was established within the Serrano (1971) decision.


92
West Virginia's C FILE
This file similarly underwent substantial changes
to make it compatible with the data contained in the
B FILE and the decisions made in the D FILE. A new sec
tion was also created that enabled the user(s) to compare
dollar differences and dollar differences per unit
between the current funding level, and the proposed
funding plan. Additionally, several blank arrays were
established to enable users to create esoteric calcula
tion storage arrays. A listing of the "C" arrays is
found in Table 4 and the definitions of the arrays may
be found in Appendix C.
Deviation from full equalization is a calculation
contained within the NEFP simulation model, and was in
cluded in the West Virginia Model. The deviation is
computed on the assumption that "the same total revenue
from state and local revenues is available (to all dis
tricts) . but methods of allocation" and the "pro
portion from state and local sources are varied" (NEFP,
1971, p. 281). A computation occurs that computes a
ratio between total dollars received by a district and
the total dollars received in all districts in the state.
Simultaneously, another ratio is calculated between district
program needs and total state program needs. The relation
ship between the two ratios is the deviation of each


32
The trend in this era has not ail been bleak. A
Connecticut court held that the constitutional requirement
that the legislature enact "appropriate" laws to provide
free public education was not being met by the current
financial plan (Horton v. Meski11, 1974, 31 Conn.Supp. 377,
322 A.2d 113). Final decision is pending on appeal to the
state supreme court.
A trial court in Washington (Seattle School Dist. No. 1
v. Washington, Cir. No. 53950, 1976) held the state finan
cial plan violated the state constitutional provision for
ample funding of educating all children within its borders.
Georgia's constitutional provision of providing an adequate
education for all citizens is similarly under challenge
(Thomas v. Stewart, Docket No. 8275 (Polk County Superior
Court, 1976). The Washington decision is on appeal to the
state supreme court and the Georgia case is also expected
to reach that state's supreme court.
With all the litigation that has occurred in the past
10 years, one would have expected closure on the issue of
equality and financing the public schools. Part of the
problem that now exists is that although intending the
same thing, each state constitution uses different terms,
and thus one settlement does not apply to another state.
The fact that education is a "state's right" was elaborated
on in Horton v. Meski 1 1 ( 1 974) when the court stated


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1 Effect on Additional Allocations for
Professional Educator State Aid Formula . 58
2 Assessed Valuation of Nonutility Property
in West Virginia (1975) 60
3 BasicDataCodeSheet 85
4 Calculated Data Code Sheet 93
5 Preliminary Computations Public School Support
Program Supplementary Information 1976-1977 109
6 State and Local Funds per Pupil 1976-1977 . Ill
7 Weighted Values and Revenue from Local
Property Tax 1 976- 1 977 1 1 5
8 Total Program Dollars and Total State Aid per
Pupil by Funding Pattern 127
9 Weighted Foundation Program Cost Figures. . 135
10 Progress ivity Value 139


43
Mort, and initiated his development of the concept of the
weighted pupil. The concept simply takes the number of
students in a school times a factor, which is based on
things such as size of school, transportation, high school,
et cetera, and yields an adjusted enrollment as an attempt
to provide for differential costs.
Henry C. Morrison is best known for "advocating that
the state should become the sole unit of taxation and ad
ministration of public schools" (Cohn, 1974, p. 20).
Morrison expressed his ideas in his book School Revenue
(1930), which he authored while on the staff at the Uni
versity of Chicago. Morrison maintained that because of
the fiscal discrepancies between districts, all previous
attempts had failed to meet educational need and provide
an equitable tax system. He further stated that the state
should be the taxing unit and administrator of the schools
through use of what he suggested was the most equitable
tax, income tax.
Although Hawaii is the only state to date which has
adopted full state funding, New Mexico, Kentucky, and North
Carolina rank high in percentage of state support, 87, 83,
and 81 percent, respectively, with seven additional states
providing at least 70 percent (Tron, 1976, p. 10).


146
receipts and expenditure information, and wealth informa
tion. Additionally, several arrays were added to accommo
date West Virginia data. The additional arrays concerned
information relative to current revenues, property rates
and millages, transportation, and federal funds.
The second objective in development of ca1culationa1
and decisional subroutines to enable the generation of
alternatives was accomplished through the "C" data of the
M FILE, and through the D FILE. The "C" or calculated data
stores the results of computations made relevant to de
sired input decisions in the users manual (Appendix D) and
the base data. The results can be accessed by the command
PRINT with the desired "C" array indicated in the command
statement. This file was also altered to accommodate
changes which were unique to the state of West Virginia.
Additionally, a new section was included which enables
comparisons of the current formula to the proposed alterna
tive. Likewise, the D FILE or decisional file required
extensive changes within all three parts of the input
manual (programmatic, distributional, and revenue). To
enable analysis of alternatives, a guaranteed yield plan
was added to the decisional file, along with the ability of
the simulation to produce a Gini Index and plot a Lorenz
Curve.


136
TABLE 9 (continued)
Coun ty
State dollars
total
Monroe
Morgan
McDowel1
Nicholas
Ohio
2.304.698
1,972,788
12,278,472
5,894,639
8.694.698
Pendeton
PIeasants
Pocahontas
Pres ton
Putnam
1,453,786
1,611,240
2,017,299
6,415,259
7,344,770
Ra1eign
' Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Summers
16,052,171
5,628,250
2,120,733
3,039,420
2,803,487
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Wayne
3,264,656
1,878,468
2,324,504
4,209,629
9,754,580
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wyoming
TOTAL
2,791,425
4,761,836
1,280,197
18,971,183
8,557,091
373,906,900
TOTAL


95
TABLE 4 (continued)
"C"
Arrays
Yield/
Yield/
Yield
Pupi 1
Uni t
Local
Property
Class 1 Nonutility
791
Class 1 Utility
792
Class 2
793
Classes 3 & 4 Nonutility
794
Classes 3 & 4 Utility
796
Total Property
900
905
908
Personal Income (AGI)
910
915
918
Sales and Gross Receipts
920
925
928
Dollars/
Dollars
Pupil
Expenditures
Net Current Exp. (NCE)
NCE, Social Security, Teacher
930
935
Retirement, and Other
940
945
NCE, Social Security, Teacher
Retirement, Other, and
Transportation
950
955
Total Current Exp. (TCE)
960
965
969-970 EVALUATION
Tax Progressivity 969
Deviation from Full Equalization 970
971-993 CURRENT EQUALIZATION FORMULA AND COMPARISONS
Dollars
Dollars/
Pupil
Current Formula
Basic Instruction
Program State
971
972
Transportation
977
978 (per trans
ported pupi1)
Capital Outlay (approved)
979
980
Total State/Local Dollars
(Basic Only)
981
982


108
In analyzing monies allocated by the legislature,
professional educator salaries are used extensively as the
basis upon which the basic foundation program is computed.
Additionally, money is allocated "outside of the formula"
for in-formula salaries for professional and service and
auxiliary personnel. The rationale behind out-of-formula
allocations appears to be that in allocating monies to
specific categories outside of the basic formula, the
legislature prevents the "spin-off" effect of instituting
increases in all aspects of the basic formula. The 1976-1977
state aid formula computations for "in formal" and "out of
formula" allocations are presented in Appendix E, with
Table 5 illustrating the primary computations upon which
the state aid distribution is based.
The relationship between professional educators
i
salaries supported under the plan is limited to a ratio
of 55 professionals to 1,000 students. As is evident,
being based on a professional educator count, the ratios
between professional staff and pupils varies from a low
of 41.01 to a high of 53.96 per 1,000 students. Using
professional educators salaries, as the basic cost element,
reflects a wide variation in dollars distributed to school
districts without regard for relative needs of students.
Table 6 is presented to illustrate the amount of
state and local dollars per pupil available to the dis
tricts (with and without special levies). Table 6 is


14
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pur
suit of happiness .
Second, within the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment
reaffirmed the concept of equality when it stated,
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person . .
the equal protection of laws.
Third, within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the UNESCO Constitution, the United States again stated
its commitment to the concept of equality, and specifically
to educational opportunity when they pledged to affirm,
The concept of equality of educational opportunity
without regard to race, sex or any distinction
economic or social. (UNESCO, 1945, Article 1, b)
And, fourth, Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act, as cited
by James Coleman (1966), charged the United States Office
of Education to undertake a survey,
Concerning the lack of availability of equal edu
cational opportunity for individuals by reason of
race, color, religion, or national origin in
public educational institutions at all levels
in the United States. (p. iii)
The previously mentioned documents and statements have
expressed a commitment by the federal government to provide
for citizen equality, especially in regard to educational
opportunity. Generally, the previous statements have been
held as the global concepts of equality of educational


93
TABLE 4
Calculated Data Code Sheet
Arrays
500-549 DISTRICT INFORMATION
550-600
610-635
640-730
Total Pupils
500
Total Professional Staff (FTE)
520
Pupi1/Professional Staff Ratio
540
Assessed Value of Property
Nonutility
542
Utility
543
Total
544
PROGRAM UNITS
Early Childhood (Basic) (4 yr.+K)
550
Grades 1-12 (Basic)
560
Special/Exceptional
570
Vocational/Techni cal
580
Compensatory (add-on)
590
Total All Categories
600
SPECIAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Required
State
Effort
Al 1otment
Transportation
610
615
Capital Outlay and Debt Service
620
625
School Food Service
635
MODIFYING FACTORS
Program Adjustments
Administrative, Supervisory
and Auxiliary Service
640
Sparsity
650
Educational Training and
Experience
660
Cost of Living
670 (n.a.
)
Special Allotments
Special Programs
Innovation
Achievement
700
720
730 (n.a.)


69
With management's new emphasis on behavior, simula
tions were developed dealing with its general research use.
With this emphasis on behavior, the natural evolution into
the social sciences occurred with the development of the
"Inter-Nation Simulation," developed by the RAND Corpora
tion. Participants in this game actually engaged in issues
concerning politics and crises (Taylor & Walford, 1972,
p. 24). Recent simulations have dealt with social issues,
both historical and current, where participants have been
confronted with examining the origins of World War I ("Alpha
Crisis"), the effects of television advertising ("Pace"), and
various contemporary social issues ("Women's Lib," "Food
and Feedback," and "Watergate").
Through the use of simulations in the physical sci
ences, the investigative purpose of simulations was developed
to its fullest potential. Within the physical sciences all
four purposes, education and training, decision making,
research, and investigations, have been crystalized. Con
temporary simulations within this area are reflected in
biology ("Simulation of Biological Processes"), chemistry
("Computer Modeling of Photochemical Smog Formation"),
physics ("Simulation for Introductory Physics"), and medi
cal education ("A Simulated Mental Hospital as an Under
graduate Teaching Device"). The list above is only repre
sentative of many simulations listed in ERIC, developed in
these and other areas within the physical sciences.


APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
365-368
365
366
367

368
370-373
370
371
372
373
CATEGORY
"CAPITAL OUTLAY AND DEBT
SERVICE"
"Approved Project
Costs 1977"
"Actual Project
Costs 1977"
"Depreciation Allowance"
"Debt Service 1977"
"SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE"
"Participating Pupils
(Total)"
"Federal Food Service
Revenue"
"Total Food Service
Revenue"
"Total Food Service
Expenditures"
DEFINITION
Amount of local district'
proposed capital outlay
project for which the
state will provide funds.
Total cost of approved
capital outlay projects
in the school district.
Computed annual allowance
for depreciation of
facilities based on pro
jected costs of providing
instructional facilities
for a pupil or instruc
tional unit.
Expenditures for debt
retirement and interest
on debt for capital out
lay purposes.
The total number of
pupils participating in
the school district's
food service program.
Total amount of all
federal funds received by
the school district to
support the food service
program.
Total amount of all
federal, state and local
funds received by the
school district used to
support the food service
program.
Total amount of all ex
penditures by the school
district for the food
service program.


TABLE 6
State and Local Funds
per Pupil
1976-1977
State aid plus State aid plus
total property tax regular levy
County
dollars per pupil
dollars per p
Grant
$1,350.82
$993.52
Marshall
1,114.13
856.92
PIeasants
1 077.91
897.67
Hancock
1,077,13
845.05
Pendeton
1,065.83
974.45
Kanawha
1 ,055.90
863.13
Cabe.l 1
1,042.23
864.36
Wirt
1 ,039.56
913.52
Doddridge
1,017.96
873.96
Monongalia
1 ,013.98
832.20
Putnam
996.91
777.54
Boone
993.70
839.85
Oh i o
993.05
806.29
Jackson
971.71
805.54
Harrison
969.01
781.01
Ritchie
962.89
879.54
Lewi s
957.56
870.44
Brooke
955.88
811.47
Mercer
954.24
840.15
Jefferson
953.55
869.. 82
Hardy
953.55
869.82
Pocahontas
953.28
953.28
Mason
949.98
818.15
Morgan
941 .91
827.16
Marion
937.70
788.29
Wood
936.81
804.22
Wyoming
933.23
807.32
McDowel1
926.92
817.20
Greenbrier
924.24
853.67
Summers
919.21
814.90


119
levies against corporations doing business in the state
of West Virginia. The Business and Occupations tax
applies a uniform levy upon various classes of producers
based on the gross proceeds of production and sales, and
gross income. Similarly, the Insurance Tax imposes a tax
on all insurance companies in the state based on gross
premium receipts. These taxes have also been criticized
in regard to equity criteria since an excessive burden is
placed on low income groups and those families who spend
a high percent of their income due to family circumstances
(i.e., number of children) on taxable items. The burden
is reflected directly by the consumer sales tax, and indi
rectly by the gross receipts tax, "to the extent that they
are shifted they have distributional effects comparable to
those of sales taxes" (Due, 1970, p. 232).
Income taxes which accounted for 23 percent of the
general fund were based on 13 percent of those receipts
from corporate net income taxes (which includes Carrier
Income), and 87 percent from the personal net income tax.
Generally, due to their relationship to wealth as measured
by income, allowance for privileged adjustments (basic
exemption, interest paid, etc.), and progressive rate
application, the burden on lower income groups is reduced.
These are some of the reasons why, in comparison to other
tax bases, the income tax is considered the most equitable.


75
Finally, before adoption, four criteria have been
identified by the Academy for Educational Development
(1973) concerning usefulness of a computer simulation
model .
Performance. How effective is the system in
providing needed answers? How appropriate is
it to stated needs? How well does it reflect
institutional policy?
2) Utility. How useful is the system? How often
will it be used and how many people will partici
pate in its application? Is it flexible enough
to accept major changes in organizational
structure?
3) Time. What is the time required for installation?
How much time is required for collecting base
data necessary to operate, the system? What is
the time required to retrieve information?
4) Cost. Is the value of the information worth
the cost of implementation? Will it save money
in terms of time and personnel? Is a model
needed at current costs? (p. 27)
Summa ry
Equality of educational opportunity is a deeply
rooted American ideal. Although long advocated, until
recently it was to the exclusion of various groups in our
society. The concept now has evolved to mean equal access
to educational resources with consideration being given
to the needs of each child.
The courts have and are being called upon to judge
whether state financial plans do provide for equality of


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1 Conceptual Framework for Simulation . . 64
2 Sample Input of the West Virginia School
Finance Computer Simulation Model Utilizing
an Unweighted Pupil Unit 102
3 Sample Input of the West Virginia School
Finance Computer Simulation MOdel Utilizing
a Weighted Pupil Unit 103
v i i


analysis requires consideration of the concepts of equality
of educational opportunity and taxpayer equity. Although
this study was place specific, West Virginia was used as
an example of the potential and capabilities of a computer-
based school finance simulation model. In an age when
people "need to know," and the need to know is often time
specific, computer technology and the ability to simulate
consequences of alternative decisions are powerful
planning, management, and research capability.
Recommendations
The review of the related literature, findings, and
conclusions of this study suggest
1. Since a simulation model was adapted for use in
West Virginia, to facilitate planning, research,
and management, then it should be utilized to
evaluate and analyze funding patterns (current
and alternative).
2. Since data factors change from year to year,
data files need to be updated on a regular basis.
3. The capabilities of the simulation should be
expanded (i.e., linking of other data bases for
multi-year comparisons).


103
[ JOB CONTROL LANGUAGE ]
PASSWORD
D1 02=1
Kindergarten
D105=1
Full Time Equivalent
D116=1
County by Malady
D122 = 1 4
Kindergarten Weight
D123 = 1 0
Elementary Weight
D124=1 4
Secondary Weight
D12 6 = 1 9
Educable Mentally Handicapped
D127 = 2 .1
Trainable Mentally Handicapped
D128=3.6
Learning Disabilities
D129=2.2
Behavioral Disorders
D130=3.6
Physically Handicapped
D1 31 = 2 7
Multiple Handicapped
D132=3.0
Visually Handicapped
D133=3.0
Auditorily Handicapped
D134 = 1 .2
Communications Disorders
D135=1 4
Homebou nd
D136 = 1. 1
Gifted
D186 = 2 .1
Agriculture
D187 = 1 5
Distributive Education
D1 88=1.6
Health Occupations
D189=1 4
Home Economics
D190 = 1 .4
Business/Office Occupations
D191=2 2
Technical
D192 = 2. 2
Industrial
D193 = 1 5
Other Vocational (Code 99)
D163=80
Transportation on Fixed % of Actual Cost
D170=100
Capital Outlay Grant/Pupil
D200=5
Adjustment Admin., Superv., & Aux. Personnel
D220=l
Adjustment Professional Training & Experience
D400=865
Basic State Program Dollars/Unit
D 43 5 = 1
Uniform Tax with Variable State
D610=47.5
Nonutility, Appraised Property l
D611=97.5
Utility, Appraised Property %
D612 = 19.6
Required Effort, Property Class 1
D613=39.2
Required Effort, Property Class 2
D614=78.4
Required Effort, Property Class 3 & 4
DECISIONS
CALC
[ Specify output tables and/or analyti cal subroutines ]
Figure 3. Sample Input of the West Virginia School Finance
Computer Simulation Model Utilizing a Weighted
Pupil Unit


A simulation provides the necessary analytical tool
which enables experimentation on a system without in
curring the risks of direct experimentation. The examples
cited were representative of the capabilities of the
adapted simulation model, and demonstrate the potential
use by researchers, planners, and managers connected with
educational finance.


166
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
032
"Appraised Property
Nonutility Class II"
Appraised value on all
property, owned, used and
occupied by the owner
exclusively for residen
tial purposes; all farm
lands occupied and culti
vated by their owners or
bona fide tenants.
033
"Appraised Property
Nonutility Class III"
Appraised value on all
real and personal prop
erty situated outside of
municipalities, exlcusive
of Classes I and 11.
034
"Appraised Property
The same as Appraised
Utility Class III"
Property Nonutility
Class III (033), except
only applies to utilities
035
"Appraised Property
Nonutility Class IV"
Appraised value on all
real and personal prop
erty situated inside of
municipalities, exclusive
of Classes I and 11.
036
"Appraised Property
Utility Class IV"
The same as Appraised
Property Nonutility Class
IV (035), except only
applies to utilities.
100
"DISTRICT"
Number of the school
district.
102
"DISTRICT IDENTIFI
CATION"
Code number of the dis
trict State Department
of Education.
104-109
"DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL"
Vital statistics of the
school districts.
104
"Square Miles"
Total number of square
miles in the district.
107
"Population, Total
Population 1975"
The 1975 Department of
Commerce population esti-
mated for the state.


C500 Total Pupils
Total pupils can be based on either NET enrollment or FTE
(D103 or D105). It is also a funct ion of whether 4 year
olds and/or kindergarten is included in the program (D101
and D102). Dependent on the above decisions, each pupil to
be included in the program is given a weight of 1 and summed
to calculate total pupils (basic, educable mentally retarded,
trainable mentally retarded, learning disabilities, behav
ioral disorders, physically handicapped, multiple handicapped,
visually handicapped, auditorily handicapped, communication
disorders, homebound, gifted, agriculture, distributive edu
cation, health occupations, home economics, business/office
occupations, technical, industrial and other vocational).
Each pupil is classified into one of the above categories and
the categories are mutually exclusive.
C520 Total Professional Staff (FTE)
The sum of the professional educators from the professional
educators educational training and experience matrix (B380-
B404).
C540 Pupil/Professional Staff Ratio
Total pupils (C500) divided by total professional staff (C520).
C542 Assessed Value Property-Non-Utility
The assessed valuation of all Non-Utility property (B030+B032+
B033+B035) by the proposed assessment rate (D610).
C543 Assessed Value Property-Uti1ity
The assessed valuation of all Utility property (B031+B034+
B036) by the proposed assessment rate (D611).
C544 Assessed Value Property-Total
The assessed valuation of all property by their proposed
assessment rate (C542+C543).
C550 Early Childhood (Basic) (4 yr. + K) Units
The sum of the multiplication of the number of basic 4 year
olds and/or kindergarten pupils (B110-B122) by their respec
tive cost differentials depending on the decisions made.
184


39
Updegraff's basic principles were that (a) local
support was fundamental; (b) local districts should have
enough taxable property for school purposes (without an
undue burden on property owners); (c) part of the support
should come from the state, based on certain factors (in
versely to districts' wealth); (d) state aid should increase
efficiency of citizens in democratic government; and (e)
guarantee equal opportunity (cited in Johns et al. 1972,
p. 6).
Not only did he articulate his concepts, Updegraff
introduced two new concepts, the first of these concepts
being the idea of the teacher unit for defining a district's
need; the second was an equalization plan for distributing
state aid.
Updegraff's teacher unit was different from Cubberleys
teacher employed unit, in that within the context of the
teacher unit, a predetermined number of students per class
would compose a teacher unit. Within the context of the
equalization plan, Updegraff proposed that a scale be
established whereby increasing amounts of aid were provided
by the state for increasing amounts of local effort.
Updegraff's plan provided for helping those districts who
helped themselves. This was achieved by increased support
to those districts who were low in property value but were
at a high level of effort.


31
constitutions provide for education in addition to contain
ing an equal protection clause. However, state courts
have returned mixed decisions on this issue.
The same opinion as Rodriguez was reaffirmed in the
Northshore School Dist #417 v. Kinn ear ( 530 P.2 d 178, 84
Wash.2d 685, 1974) when the court recognized the importance
of schools, but also restated that it was not a constitu
tional guarantee. Chief Justice Hale echoed Justice
Powell when he stated that the legislature, not the courts
should "provide for a general and uniform system of public
schools" (at p. 196).
Stofstal 1 v. Hollins (110 Ariz. 88, 515 P.2d 590 ,
1973), an Arizona case, was similarly concluded with the
statement that education was a state constitutional right,
but the financing plan did not violate the "equal protection"
clause or "general and uniform" clause of the state con
stitution. The court, however, did not relate fiscal equal
ity and the "general and uniform" provision of the state
constitution.
Similarly the Idaho Supreme Court (Thompson v. Engle-
ki ng, 537 P.2d 635, 1975) held that even though the state is
constitutionally charged with "establishing and maintaining
a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free,
common schools for children," this does not require equal
amounts allocated throughout the state.


114
According to Table 7, there appears to be a wide
variation per pupil in property values throughout the
state. This fact further reflects a wide variation in
revenue generated per pupil based on the regular levy; from
a high of $420 per pupil to a low of $72 dollars per pupil.
This six-to-one relationship, when correlated to profes
sional staff ratios, showed a .4183 correlation at the
.001 significance level. Special levies correlated at
.4634 with the professional educator ratio, at the .001
significance level. When considering all levies, the
property tax production ranges from $777 per pupil to $86
per pupil, which is more than a nine-to-one relationship.
These ranges and correlations indicate that a relationship
exists between property wealth of a district, as measured by
their levies, and the number of professional educators.
Since the number of professional educators employed af
fects the amount of state aid each district receives, the
statistically significant correlations indicate that
property wealthy districts receive substantial amounts
of state aid through a small special levy due to the number
of professional educators employed and their per pupil
valuation as compared to property poor districts.
It is apparent from Table 7 that districts that do
not. take advantage of the special levy are placed at a
disadvantage over the counties that do. In addition, the


202
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION I: PROGRAM UNIT
Explanation: Program Unit refers to decisions concerning both the
programs (kindergarten, basic, etc.) and the unit
(ENR, ADM, or FTE, and pupil or instructional, un
weighted or weighted)whichare to be used in the
determination of the state program.
Do you wish to include early childhood pupils in
your computation of the state program? If "yes"
check the appropriate boxes.
Early Childhood
4 yr. olds
Kindergarten
(5 yr. olds)
(n.a.)
Explanation: Check the unit (ENR, ADM, or FTE, and pupil or
instructional, unweighted or unweighted) which you
wish to use and provide the requested information.
Yes
Yes
Yes
ENR
ADM
FTE
103 104 105
(n.a.) (n.a.)
A. UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT
Explanation: A "yes" indicates that you wish to use
the unweighted pupil unit in the computation of the
state program.
B. UNWEIGHTED INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT
Explanation: If you wish to use the unweighted in
structional unit in the computation of the state
program, fill in a proposed number of pupils per
instructional unit. (Example: instructional unit:
25 pupils.)
Proposed
Inst. Unit
pupils
115


86
TABLE 3 (continued)
"B"
Arrays
030-036
PROPERTY APPRAISED
Appraised Property--Nonuti1ity Class I
030
Appraised Property--Uti1ity Class I
031
Appraised Property--Nonuti1ity Class II
032
Appraised Property--Nonuti1ity Class III
033
Appraised Property--Uti1ity Class III
034
Appraised Property--Nonuti1ity Class IV
035
Appraised Property--Uti1ity Class IV
036
100
DISTRICT
100
102
DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION
102
104-109
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL
Square Miles
104
Population, Total (1975)
107
Rate of Growth (%) (1970-1975)
Enrollment
108
Population
109
110-346
PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENTS
ENR
FTE
Current Program
Kindergarten
110
Grades K-12
111
Special Education
112
Basic
4 yr. old
115
117
Kindergarten
120
122
El ementary
125
127
Secondary
130
132
Special/Exceptional
Educable Mentally Retarded
140
142
Trainable Mentally Retarded
145
147
Learning Disabilities
150
152
Behavioral Disorders
155
157
Physically Handicapped
160
162
Multiple Handicapped
165
167
Visually Handicapped
170
172
Auditorily Handicapped
175
177


APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
387
388
389
"E
T
"E
T
"E
T
2,
3"
2,
4"
2,
5"
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of a
master's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of a
master's degree + 30 hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of a
doctorate.
390
391
"E
T
"E
T
3,
1"
3,
2"
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of
under a bachelor's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of a
bachelor's degree.
392
"E
T
3,
3"
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of a
master's degree.
393
394
"E
T
3,
4"
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of a
master's degree + 30 hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of a
doctorate.
E 3,
T 5"


209
APPENDIX D Continued
B. CAPITAL OUTLAY AND DEBT SERVICE
Present Expenditures (1977)
Debt Service
Approved Project
Actual Project
$ 15,199,306
$ 85,502,472
$184,264,727
Alternatives (Choose one)
1.
2.
3.
4.
State allotment of a flat
Per
Pupi 1
$_
grant for depreciation
or
Unit $_
170'
allowance.
Per
Inst.
"T7T
State allotment of a fixed
percentage of approved
-
project cost.
~ T72
State allotment of approved
Yes
project cost (100%).
1 c o
n
173
Equalized grant for depre
Per
Pupi 1
$_
ciation allowance with X
or
mills local effort required.
Per
Inst.
Unit $_
171
5. Equalized grant for actual
debt service with mills
local effort required.
. mills*
174
. mills*
175
6. Equalized grant for approved
project cost with mills
local effort required.
. mills*
176
7. Equalized grant for actual
project costs with X_ mills
local effort required.
. mills*
177
*Class 1 Non-Utility 0 11.875% and Utility 0 24.375%.
Class 2 0 23.75%, Classes 3 and 4 Non-Utility @ 47.5% and Utility @
97.5%.


132
EA = ENR (1 x V ./V ) EXP where
i i s i
EA =equalized state aid to a district,
E N R1 = t h e method of pupil account-utilized,
x =a scalar between 0 and 1 which is used
to indicate the state's willingness to share
in the educational expenditures of the
district (higher value represents smaller
state share),
V. = assessed valuation per pupil in the dis
trict,
Vs = assessed valuation per pupil in the state's
average district,
EXP =1 oca 1 per pupil expenditure in the dis
trict. (p. 35)
Since all the formulas do converge and since all
unweighted pupils in the three patterns illustrated had
the -same guaranteed value, some would argue that equality
of educational opportunity was apparent under each plan.
However, referring back to the original criteria estab
lished by the NEFP (1971) causes some doubts as to whether
"the varying educational needs of the student population
are being taken into consideration" (p. 238). If "a child
is a child" for funding purposes, then the above defini
tional criterion is being unfulfilled.
Distributional Equity
Equality of educational opportunity in recent years
has evolved to be considered more of an equity issue rather
than equality issue. The former says that students should
be able to obtain the quality and kind of education to meet
their individual and social needs while the latter says


81
Example
1 :
GRAPH C797,C793,C794,& PROPERTY
YIELDS &
Example
2:
GRAPH BO 10 C 770
Examp 1e
3:
GRAPH C970
RANGE: This procedure calculates the range for any
of the basic (B) or calculated (C) data
arrays. It is invoked by the input "RANGE"
which is followed by one space and, at most,
one array key.
Example 1: RANGE B360
Example 2: RANGE C580
SUM: This procedure calculates the sum of any
basic (B) or calculated (C) data array. It
is invoked by the input "SUM" and is followed
by one space and, at most, one array key.
Example 1: SUM B006
Example 2: SUM C700
PRINT: This procedure allows the user to print by
district, a tabular listing of any basic
(B) or calculated (C) data array. Initiation
of this routine is invoked by the input
"PRINT" followed by one space and, at most,
six array keys.
Example 1: PRINT B100,B360,B361,B362,B363,B364
Example 2: PRINT B100,B360,C990,C991
Example 3: PRINT C500,C600
Other: Computations may be specified in the input
stream to create new calculated data arrays.
Placement of the equations must precede the
CALC command and be designated as calculated
(C) data C994 through C999.
Example 1: C994=B001/C500
Example 2: C997=C500*D400+C620
Additionally, the model provides for the subroutine
DECISIONS, which retrieves a list of the input decisions,
and the subroutine SCORE, which allows the user(s) "to
output an evaluation table with an overall model score


169
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
155
"Behav. Dis. ENR"
Number of behavioral dis
ordered students enrolled.
157
"Behav. Dis. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
behavioral disordered
students enrolled.
160
"Phys. HDCP ENR"
Number of physically
handicapped students en
rolled.
162
"Phys. HDCP FTE"
Full time equivalency of
physically handicapped
students enrolled.
165
If
"Mult. HDCP ENR"
Number of multiple handi
capped students enrolled.
167
"Mult. HDCP FTE"
Full time equivalency of
multiple handicapped stu
dents enrolled.
170
"Vis. HDCP ENR"
Number of visually handi
capped students enrolled.
172
"Vis. HDCP FTE"
Full time equivalency of
visually handicapped stu
dents enrolled.
175
"Aud. HDCP ENR"
Number of auditorily
handicapped students en
rolled.
177
"Aud. HDCP FTE"
Full time equivalency of
auditorily handicapped
students enrolled.
180
"Comm. Dis. ENR"
Number of communication
disordered students en
rolled.
182
"Comm. Dis. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
communication disordered
students enrolled.
185
"Homebound ENR"
Number of homebound stu
dents enrolled.


249
In 1974, Mr. Bookman was selected for an EPDA
program, in a cooperative venture by the Dade County
School System and the University of Florida. During
this time he served a management internship with the
Dade County Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, and
received an Educational Specialist degree in educational
administration and supervision from the University of
Florida in 1976.
For the past year Mr. Bookman has been a research
assistant for the Institute of Educational Finance at the
University of Florida where his activities included data
collection and analysis of cost studies in other states
relative to vocational education, a state-wide cost study
for the state of West Virginia, preparation of proposals,
and editorial assistant for the Journal of Education
Finance.
Mr. Bookman is married to Kay E. Bookman and has
a six-year-old son, Brad.


54
By 1933, the depression had caused many districts
to close, because of declining property values and tax
incomes the legislature consolidated districts; redefin
ing a district as a county. Prior to 1933, the General
School Fund provided 5 percent of total cost of district
schools; this amount grew to 53 percent in 1965 (Pearson &
Fuller, 1969, p. 1354), and to approximately 58 percent in
1976).
Funds for homebound (crippled) children were appropri
ated in 1941, and categorical aid was enacted into the
code. Similarly, when the Works Progress Administration
ceased supporting the school lunch program in 1942, the
state assumed the responsibility. Finally, in 1972, $200
million was appropriated under the Better Schools Amend
ment for all counties to provide additional classroom
facilities.
Current System
West Virginia's current system of allocating monies
is based on what is referred to as a "demand formula." It
is unique in that the legislature must fund what the
formula determines is necessary to finance education in
the state.
The first step in determination of funds in the
formula is the computation of the Foundation Allowance for


38
fiscal effort,and pupil attendance should be referenced
when allocating financial aid. Cubberley appl i ed his basic
philosophy of state responsibility when he stated:
Theoretically all the children of a state are
equally important and are entitled to have the
same advantages; pratically this can never be
quite true. The duty of the state is to secure
for all as high a minimum of good instruction as
is possible, but not to reduce all to the mini
mum; to equalize the advantages to all as nearly
as can be done with the resources at hand; to
place a premium on those local efforts which
will enable communities to use above the legal
minimum as far as possible; and to encourage
communities to extend their educational energies
to new and desirable undertakings. (p. 17)
Cubberley suggests that a state-wide school tax might
best equalize the fiscal burden among school districts and
that the best basis for fund allocation was a combination
of a unit designation, which he called "teacher employed"
and aggregate days attendance. He further suggested cre
ation of a "reserve fund" to supplement districts which were
at maximum legal effort, but could not generate sufficient
revenue to meet minimum state demands (pp. 250-254).
Harlan Updegraff is known "for justifying the rewards
for local effort on the basis of efficiency" through his
1921-22 analysis of New York and Pennsylvania schools
(Cohn, 1974, p. 19). Through his analysis of the financial
policies of these states he added the concept of local
effort in addition to the concepts of Cubberley, wi th whom
he agreed.


231
C62S = C625+(DI74/D174)*(tDl70+l)171/25)*C500-C<.20)K)175/3]75)*l3368-C6 20)
C62S=C 625+1 DI76/U76)* I 3365-062 O 1(DI 77/0177 > *(8333-062 O)
063 5=( Oleo*(O34 0+B345)> + l 0161*3 370/175)+(01 32*(372-8371) )
Ct> 3 5 = 0 63 5+1 0133*6373)
C64 0= t 0200/I00)*C oO 0+1C600/D201 )
0650=205*9442+02Oo*9441+0207*3440+0203 *044 7+0 2 O') 3445 + 3210*3445
C650=Cb5C+02l 1 04 52 +0212 *04 5I+0213*6450
0650=0650/1 01 10*0143)
0630 = 0901*103.50+B4101+0902*15331+04ll) + 0903*(B332 + 3412)
C66 0=C 66 0+0904*(B393+341 3+O905*(B3R4+5414 ) +0906*13585+3415)
C660=C6b0+D9J7 (6 38 6+6 4 1 6)+D909*(9387+3417)+o909*( 3333 + 34 1 3)
C 6 6 0=C 660 + 0910* (633 9+ 6419) +0911*16 3 90+0 420)+D'.)12*<3391+3421)
C660=C660+0913* (392+542 2) + D914 *(03 9J + Q42J > +0915* 13 394 + 8 4 2 4 )
C660 = C660+ 0916*(6395 + 3425)+0917*15396+3426) + 0913*13397+5427)
C660=C660+09l9*(B398+t4231+0920*16399+04291+0921*13400+3430)
0660=0660+0922*(B41+3431)+0923(B402+B432)+D924*(3403+3433)
C6bO = C660 + 0 92 3*(B40 4 + B43 4)
C660=C660*0220/0520
067 0=0225*9 4o O /AV21 9*60)
0700=025O*(B117+B122)+0 251*13142 + 3147) + D252*(Bl 62+ 3167 + 6172 + 3177 + 91 87)
0700=0700+0253*3157+0234*3152+3255*6182+D25fe*tB197+6202+3207+e212+B217)
07O 0=C700 + D2S61B222 *9227 +B2 321
0710=0265*8464
0720=0270*0500
0730=0260*0470+0261*0471
SCO 1 = 040 0*1 Co00 + C64 0 + C6501
SCO 9=1 9030 + 8J 32+B033 + 3035)* 4 75/10 00
SCO 9= SO09+ 1 B03 1 +303 4 + 603 6 ) *9 75/ 1 0 00
0 731 = 0 66 2/1 O JO 1Joo O*SU*l 30 30)+D66I *SUM1B031 ))
0732=0663/1 0 30 1 066 0*500(3032 ) )
0 7 33=0 6 6*+/ l OO* (OSO*(3J0lO3J) + SUM IB035) )
073 3=0 73 3+0 6o4/ 10 00 *10031*1 SUMI 8334)+SUM(&036))
SCO 2=0 731+C 732 + 07 33 +0601/100*SJM(B4 88)
SCO 2=SC02+0602/10 0* SUMI 3495)+JuOJ/100*SUM(54 94)+0534*(;30U/C500)
5002=5002*0402/100+0401*10500/0300)
5004=C600+C640*0650
scoi=scoi+SC02/SUM1seo*)*s;04
0734=0610/100*0030*UO12/1000
0735-O 61 1/1 00*3031*0612/1000
0736=0610/100*9032*0613/1000
0737=0010/100*1B033+B035)*0614/1000
0738=061 l/l 00*( 3034+90.)o)*0614/1000
SCO 4= 0734+C 733+ 07 35+C 737 + 073!)+0 621/100*34 83+ 0 62 2/10 O* 3494
SCO 1 = 5001+0425*(C600 + 0640+0 65 01 +0425/0425*3004
SC02=1 +0220*1CuO-l )+0225*t 067 0 11+0230*106 8 01 )
C740=SC01*SCJ2*(0420+0430/1001
0 74 0=0 740+10425/042 5+04351 1 SCO 1*SC02-SC04)
SCO 4=0460/1 OJ
SC O 5 = 0 445/1 00* SC09+0446/1 00 *B4-J8 + D4 47/1 00*B 494
S 00 6 = 0 45 0/1 00*9)0 7+0451/1 0C*B10o + (0452+D453 + 0454)/l 00*0500
C74 0 = C740 + L4 + 0*S001 *5 00 2 *1 1-SCO 4*SO 05/5 006* SUMISC 06)/SJM< S0051)
0 74 O=C 740 + 0 470/0470*10470*0600-10734+0735 + 0736+0737+0739))
0745 = 0740/0 500
074 8 = 0 74 0/1 CoOO + 064 0 + C5 01
0750=0615+0626+0635
0755=0750/0500
0758=0750/1C000+C640+C650)
0760=C700+C710+0720+C730
0765=0760/0500
0 76 8=0 7o0/lCo0U+C640+Co50)
5C05 = B 120 + to123 + B130 +B140+0 145+3 150 + H153 + t)lb 5+ 3173+3175+9180+31 35+8160
SC5=SC05 + B190 + B193 +B200+B2 05+B210 + B2I5 + B220 + 0225 +3230
SCO 5= SC05*0103
SCO 7= B122+B127 + B1 32+0 142+3147+3 152+01 57+ B 16 2 + 9167+3 172+3177+31S2I-B187
SC07=SC07+U192+B197+3202+8207+b212+6217+0222+B227+3232
SC0 7 = SC07*'l 105
SC05=SC05+SC7
scoa=34eo/scj5*C50o
SC I0 = B481/SC0 5*05 00+9482/SCOS*C 500+0483/SCO 5*C500
SC03=SC08+SC1 O
SCO 4= 1 0t.'4 0/0o4 O +0 65 O/Oob U)*.091 *05 *4/0600
SCO 4= 56 04 ( U-.4 1 /O64 1 + O5 l/l)o5 1 ) *.01 B40 4/C600
SC04 = SC04+(Di,4 2/oo4 2 + u652/06 62) *.01 *0494/06 00
SCO 6= 064 0/ 1 00 0 + ->4 l / 1 00 + 064 / I O O
SC0 6=5C0b + D6j0/109* (I ."15*50 03-500 2*50 01 1/0544
SCO 6= SC06+) 6sl /ICO*1 1.05 SO 03-SCO 1 SC 021/9488
SCO6=StOo+0 652/ 100*1 1 .05*3003-5001*SO 021/9494
SC0 5* O 64 0/1 00 O *0544+O-.41 / 1 U O* 9 30 J u4 2/ 1 93 U4 4
SCO 5= 5005 + 1 Dust) +UoS 1+.155 2) / 1 0 0* 1 1 O 5* SO O 3-SCO 1 SO 02 )
SCO 5 = 3C0S + U490/0490 *500= *SC04
077 0=04 0O*C oUJt SC J L? 4 35*(0740/1 SCO 1*S0U20740) )*5005
07 70 = 0 7 7 O + l. 4 90 / 490 SC Oo *1 0490 SC 0 4)
0775=0770/0500
07 7 8=0 770/1 C(.0 O+064 0 + C 55 O)


112
TABLE 6 (continued)
County
State aid plus
total property tax
dollars per pupil
State aid plus
regular levy
dollars per pupil
Preston
918.16
800.38
Fayette
902.21
787.83
Hampshire
897.03
821.75
Monroe
896.07
833.71
Raleigh
887.83
786.15
Calhoun
885.17
885.17
Logan
883.77
789.17
Mineral
880.31
774.97
Braxton
873.94
873.94
Berkeley
873.06
758.33
Wetzel
870.09
752.55
Wayne
870.04 '
779.06
Barbour
864.42
864.42
Mingo
861 73
773.31
Tyler
860.89
772.20
Webster
855.28
855.28
Nicholas
853.02
798.12
Gilmer
846.21
846.21
Lincoln
833.16
761.03
Taylor
826.30
777.61
Randolph
825.21
761 .10
Roane
820.28
820.28
Upshur
795.77
795.77
Clay
788.69
788.69
Tucker
771.50
771.50
State
959.55
819.17
Note: Counties are ranked according to State Aid Plus
Total Property Tax Dollars Per Pupil (from data
obtained from School Finance Division of the West
Virginia Department of Education).


140
The progressivity level determined was 19.83. This level,
as indicated on Table 10, is slightly above the progressiv-
ity measure for sales and gross receipts taxes. Since
this category makes up over 60 percent of the general
revenue fund, the finding was predictable. The overall
level of progressivity is below the weighted average amount
for the United States for 1968-1969, and below the 25
optimum level suggested by the NEFP (1971, p. 262).
Pattern VI. Under this alternative plan, a varia
tion in the amounts received from the income tax (corporate
and personal), sales and gross receipts taxes, and inheri
tance tax were adjusted to reflect more or less burden
on the various tax bases. The following were the values
for each tax base and the percent of the general fund
they would produce:
X5 '
$197,195,684
(28.
, 64%)
X6 *
$389,319,096
(56.
.55%)
X7 =
included in X
9
X8 '
$ 13,769.094
( 2.
, 00%)
X9
$ 88,170,838
(12.
,81%)
8 =
$688,454,712
The progressivity level determined for this hypothetical
alternative was 21.3006. Although this level remains
short of the optimum level (25), it is above the weighted
average level for 1968-1969 and reflects a more progressive


46
The categories are (a) StrayerHaig and Mort plan,
(b) percentage-equalizing or state-aid ratio, (c) district
power equalizing, and (d) guaranteed valuation program.
With the StrayerHaig and Mort Plan, the state de
termines a minimum satisfactory level of education per
child, a levy is then required of all districts against their
property valuation, and the difference between the amount
raised and the amount needed for the satisfactory minimum
is provided by the state (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123).
The modifications developed by Mort were the concept of
the weighted pupil and the determination of the uniform
levy. Mort utilized the we ighted pupi1 in dealing with
the ideas of fiscal capacity and need, whereas he cate
gorized the original plan as only providing for the former.
Strayer and Haig had stated that the levy was to be deter
mined by the wealthiest district in the state levying a
rate which would provide the per pupil expenditure level
established by the state as the minimum program. Mort's
modification shifted the focus from the state's wealthiest
per pupil district (Cohn, 1974, pp. 33-34). He further
suggested that another "key district" could be identified,
e.g., the district at the 75th percentile of per pupil
wealth.
The extent to which a foundation program equalizes
is dependent on the expenditure level the state sets and


109
TABLE 5
Preliminary Computations
Public School Support Program
Supplementary Information
1976-1977
Coun ty
1975-1976
3rd month
adjusted
enrol 1ment
1975-1976
3rd month
professional
educators
1975-1976
professional
educators
ratio/l,000 pupi1s
Barbour
3,910
187.83
48.04
Berkeley
10,930
503.70
46.08
Boone
6,966
342.50
49.1 7
Braxton
3,570
170.00
47.62
Brooke
6,798
328.85
48.37
Cabe!1
21,587
1,164.79
53.96
Calhoun
2,154
111.10
51.58
Clay
2,887
118.40
41 .01
Doddridge
1 ,950
91 75
47.05
Fayette
13,685
667.13
48.75
Gilmer
2,081
92.85
44.62
Grant
2,361
122.10
51 72
Greenbrier
7,954
395.77
49.76
Hampshire
3,445
150.83
43.78
Hancock
9,100
473.60
52.04
Hardy
2,805
137.10
48.88
Harrison
16,655
788.00
47.31
Jackson
6,504
303.75
46.70
Jefferson
6,340
320.44
50.54
Kanawha
49,671
2,577.93
51 .90
Lewis
3,920
191.00
48.72
Lincoln
6,252
273.06
43.68
Logan
11,988
571.00
47.63
Marion
12,566
607.00
48.30
Marshal 1
9,270
467.50
50.43
Mason
6,833
337.26
49.36
Mercer
15,435
775.19
50.22
Mineral
7,166
321.60
44.88
Mingo
10,121
448.50
44.31
Mononga 1 i a
12,428
611.83
49.23


for the same total distribution as the unweighted founda
tion program. The result of this alternative demonstrated
the redistributional effect of state and local aid, while
providing for pupil needs.
Taxpayer equity. In regard to taxpayer equity, the
1975-1976 general revenue fund was analyzed relative to
tax progressivity/regressivity. The NEFP Tax Prog ressivity
measure was used to evaluate the tendency of the general
fund relative to taxpayer equity. The result indicated
that a level below optimum progressivity for a tax structure
existed in West Virginia for the year evaluated. This low
score reflected the high percentage of dependence of the
general revenue fund on tax sources which places a heavier
burden on low-income groups. An alternative tax structure
was simulated which placed more emphasis on progressive tax
sources (income). That alternative produced a higher pro-
gressivity measure.
Conclusions. Two basic conclusions appeared relative
to the concepts of equality of educational opportunity and
taxpayer equity. If equality of educational opportunity
in a state financial program implies merely providing equal
amounts of money per funding unit, then only one dimension
of equality is fulfilled. Equality of educational oppor
tunity requires,in addition to vertical or resource equity,
horizontal or program equity. In providing for horizontal


189
APPENDIX
C791
C792
C793
C794
C795
C796
C798
C800
C805
C Continued
Local Property Yield Class 1 Non-Utility
The yield on Class 1 Non-Utility property (B030) based on
decisions D610 and D612.
Local Property Yield Class 1 Utility
The yield on Class 1 Utility property (B031) based on
decisions D611 and D612.
Local Property Yield Class 2 Non-Utility
The yield on Class 2 Non-Utility property (B032) based on
decisions D610 and D613.
Local Property Yield Classes 3 & 4 Non-Utility
The yield on Classes 3 and 4 Non-Utility property (B033 and
B035) based on decisions D610 and D614.
Basic State Program Local Dollars Per Pupil
The basic state program local dollars (C790) divided by
total pupils (C500).
Local Property Yield Classes 3 & 4 Utility
The yield on Classes 3 and 4 Utility property (B034 and B036)
based on decisions D611 and D614.
Basic State Program Local Dollars Per Unit
The basic state program local dollars (C790) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Special Services and Facilities Local Dollars
The sum of the local dollars for transportation (C610)
capital outlay and debt service (C620), and school food
service (C630).
Special Services and Facilities Local Dollars Per Pupil
The special services and facilities local dollars (C800)
divided by the total pupils (C500).


101
Figure 2 illustrates a decision selection of the
West Virginia model utilizing an unweighted pupl concept,
whereas Figure 3 illustrates weighting of pupil enroll
ments. Both tables are presented here to illustrate
format, and are not intended for analysis.
STATE Equations
The STATE file was created by the inclusion of the
mathematical equations that enabled the interaction of the
newly created input decisions (D FILE) on the newly created
basic data (B FILE). The STATE file equations are contained
in Appendix E.
Having identified and collected the data necessary
to simulate the current system and provide alternative
patterns, an analysis of the current formula and alterna
tive plans will be discussed in regard to equality of edu
cational opportunity and taxpayer equity in the ensuing
chapter.


15
opportunity. Specifically, a United States Supreme Court
decision of 1937, in regard to Social Security, provided
the precedent for interpreting the "general welfare" pro
vision of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution in light
of equality of educational opportunity. The court stated,
Nor is the concept of general welfare static.
Needs that were (considered) narrow or parochial
a century ago may be interwoven in our day with
the well being of the Nation. What is critical
or urgent changes with the times. (Helverinq v.
Davis, 1937, 301 US 619)
Justice Frankfurter in a later decision similarly expressed
the changing nature of equal protection when he stated
that, "It is not a yardstick. It is a process" (Joint
Anti-Facist Refugee Concern v. McGrath, 1951, 341 US 123,
162). What the justice was expressing was that general
welfare, of which education could be a provision, is a
changing concept, and requires modification over time. In
regards to "equal treatment for purposes of Equal Protec
tion Clause," the Supreme Court stated that this too "does
change" (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966,
383 US 663, 669). This decision, although relating to
voting rights, later was relied upon by the California
Supreme Court in the Serrano case (487 P.2d 1241) regarding
"wealth" as a suspect classification.
Charles Benson (1965) provided the following statement
in regards to public education and equal protection:


218
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION II: BASIC DISTRIBUTION METHOD
Explanation: The basic distribution method refers only to procedures
for distributing the cost of the basic state program.
The basic funds provided by the state, together with the
local educational agency, will equal the cost of the
basic state program. The unit (pupil or instructional,
weighted or unweighted) is based on a decision which is
made in Set I Section I (Program Unit).
Note: Decisions in regard to state and local tax bases
and rates are made in Set III (Revenue Decisions).
Explanation: Choose one distribution method which you wish to use and
provide the requested inforqiation.
A. FULL STATE SUPPORT of the cost of the basic state program.
Explanation: Under this method the state provides the
full cost of the basic state program.
B. FLAT GRANT plus UNIFORM LOCAL TAX RATE to support the
cost of the basic state program.
Yes
Explanation: The method involves a flat grant per unit from
the state plus a required local effort. This effort is a
mandated tax which each local educational agency is required
to levy at a uniform rate.
The flat grant should be based on a proposed $ per unit
amount per unit. 425
C.UNIFORM STATE MATCHING GRANT plus VARIABLE LOCAL EFFORT
to support the cost of the basic state program.
Explanation: A uniform state matching grant is one in
which the state provides a fixed percentage of the cost
of the basic state program. The difference is provided
by a variable local effort. Specify state percentage.
D.UNIFORM LOCAL TAX RATE plus VARIABLE STATE GRANT to
support the cost of the basic state program.


116
TABLE 7 (continued)
Coun ty
Weighted
values
per pupil
Regular
levy
per pupil
Special
levy
per pupil
Total
1 evy
per pupil
Nicholas
57,788
125.99
54.90
180.89
Upshur
55,248
120.45
120.45
Roane
55,068
120.06
120.06
Preston
54,024
117.78
117.78
235.56
Wetzel
53,912
117.54
117.54
235.08
Calhoun
53,084
115.74
115.74
Fayette
53,022
114.38
114.38
228.76
Pendleton
52,392
114.23
91 38
205.61
Mercer
52,327
114.09
114.09
228.18
Barbour
50,705
110.55
110.55
McDowel1
50,323
109.72,
109.72
219.44
Clay
50,293
109.65
109.65
Braxton
50,074
109.17
109.17
Mineral
48,313
105.34
105.34
210.68
Randolph
48,203
105.10
64.11
169.21
Summers
47,852
104.31
104.31
208.62
Raleigh
46,637
101.68
101.68
203.36
Logan
44,752
94.49
94.49
188.98
Taylor
44,667
97.39
48.69
1 46.08
Wayne
41 ,728
90.98
90.98
181.96
Mingo
40,986
88.42
88.42
176.84
Monroe
40,822
89.00
62.36
151.36
Tyler
40,679
88.69
88.69
117.38
Tucker
39,612
86.36
86.36
Lincoln
33,082
72.13
72.13
114.26
State
Average
67,181
145.77
140.38
286.15
Note: Counties are rank ordered by weighted assessed
property values (Class 1 x 1, Class 2x2, Classes
3 & 4 x 4).


115
TABLE 7
Weighted Values and Revenue
from Local Property Tax
1976-1977
Weighted Regular Special Total
values levy levy levy
County per pupil per pupil per pupil per pupil
Grant
$192,774
$420.
. 29
$357,
.30
$777,
.59
Marshall
117,972
257.
,21
257.
.21
514.
,42
Hancock
102,318
223
.08
223,
.08
446,
.16
Putnam
100,616
219.
.37
219,
.37
438,
.74
Kanawha
89,833
192.
. 77
192,
. 77
385,
.54
Ohio
86,572
186,
. 76
186,
.76
373,
. 52
Harrison
86,230
1 88,
.00
1 88,
.00
376,
.00
Mononga1ia
83,376
181 ,
. 78 '
181 .
.78
PIeasants
82,670
1 80,
.24
180.
.24
360,
.48
Gilmer
81 ,645
178,
.01
1 78.
.01
Cabell
81,581
177,
.87
177,
.87
355,
, 74
Lewi s
79,915
174,
.24
87,
.12
261 .
. 36
Jackson
76,216
1 66,
. 1 7
166.
. 1 7
322,
,34
Boone
70,564
1 53,
.85
1 53.
, 85
307.
.70
Webster
69,763
1 44.
. 09
144.
.09
Hampshire
69,025
150.
,49
75.
.28
225.
.77
Marion
68,528
149.
41
149.
,41
298.
.82
Brooke
66,237
144.
, 41
1 44.
,41
288.
,82
Doddridge
66,046
144.
, 00
144.
, 00
288.
.00
Greenbrier
64,732
141 ,
.13
70.
,57
211 .
.70
Jefferson
62,663
1 36.
.62
119.
, 06
255.
,68
Pocahontas
62,464
136,
.19
136.
.19
Wood
61,461
1 32.
.59
132,
.59
265.
,18
Mason
60,464
131 .
.83
131 .
.83
263.
,66
Morgan
60,398
131 ,
. 68
114.
, 75
246.
.43
Berke1ey
60,382
131 ,
.65
114.
, 73
246.
,38
Ritchie
58,814
1 28.
, 23
83.
. 35
211 .
.58
Hardy
58,760
1 28.
, 1 1
83.
, 73
21 1 .
,84
Wyoming
58,366
125.
91
125.
.91
251 .
.82
Wirt
57,811
126.
.04
1 26.
,04
252.
,08


206
APPENDIX D Continued
D. WEIGHTED INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT
Explanation: If you wish to use a weighted instructional unit in
the computation of the state program, provide the requested infor
mation for either Column (1) or Column (2).
PROGRAMS
(1)
Proposed
Weighting for
Cost Index
Early Childhood
4 yr. olds
Kindergarten
(5 yr. olds)
Note: Early
childhood pupils
are included in
your state pro
gram dependent
on your decis
ion in Section
I (Program Unit).
x x x
121
722^
Basic Elementary and Secondary
Elementary
Secondary
123
124
(2)
Proposed
Instructional
Uni t
x x
141
~T42
143
744
Special/Exceptional (Choose FTE/Student or Delivery System)
Educable Mentally Handicapped
Trainable Mentally Handicapped
Learning Disabilities _
Behavioral Disabilities
126
127
128
129
Physically Handicapped
Multiple Handicapped
Visually Handicapped
Auditorily Handicapped
Communication Disorders
130
T3T
732
133
134
146
747
748
49
750
51
T52~
153
54


5
part of legislators, educators, and citizens as to what the
end result means to individual school districts.
Hale (1975) addressed the equity of state financial
plans for education in terms of distributional equity and
taxpayer equity. Distributional equity is concerned with
the allocation phase of school finance in regard to testing
the equity of "equal access to resources based upon need,"
whereas taxpayer equity is concerned with the revenue dimen
sion in regard to testing the equity concept of "equal
treatment-of-equals who have the ability to pay" (Hale,
1975, p. 22). But, as Tanner and Kondwros (1977) stated,
the problems of "enormous growth in expenditures" over
revenues and the inability of local governments to generate
enough revenues have generally prevented both quality edu
cation and equality of education.
Tanner and Kondwros (1977) stated five reasons why
current state aid formulas appear to be inadequate. They
first concluded that variations in the tax bases, assess
ment procedures and tax rates make a heavy reliance on the
property tax which they further concluded was an inadequate
source of funding. Second, flat grant provisions within
many state formulas help in maintaining discrepancies.
Third, variations for cost-of-living and delivery systems
are seldom considered in present formulas. Fourth, equaliz
ing formulas that are based on property wealth "frequently


233
C 9 8 6 C974 C790
C967=C 986/C 800
C998=C977-(C610 +C615)
C989=C988/B3ol
C990=C979-(C620+C625)
C991=C990/C800
C99 2- C 9 7 l +-C 974+C977+C979-C840
C993=C992/CS00
C994^=C992/C600


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Michael Kurt Bookman was born October 28, 1946, in
Youngstown, Ohio. Upon completion of high school in 1964,
he entered the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida,
where he received a Bachelor of Business Administration
in accounting and finance.
After graduation from college, Mr. Bookman taught
elementary level students in the Dade County School System
in Miami, Florida. During this period he attended the
University of Miami and Florida Atlantic University on a
part-time basis. This culminated in a Master of Education
degree from Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida, in educational administration and supervision
in 1972.
From 1972 to 1976 he was on the Northwest Area
Superintendents Staff in Dade County as an Area Resource
Specialist in curriculum and pupil personnel services.
During that time he helped in the development of material,
and training of personnel in his curriculum area, and has
written many guides for the school system and a publica
tion for the Florida State Department.
248


APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
242
"Sp. Ed. Resource -
FTE"
Full time equivalency of
special education stu
dents in a half time pro
gram for their respective
exceptionality.
245
"Sp. Ed. Itinerant -
ENR"
Number of special educa
tion students in a fifth
time program for their
respective exceptionality.
247
"Sp. Ed. Itinerant -
FTE"
Full time equivalency of
special education stu
dents in a fifth time
program for their respec
tive exceptionality.
250
"Sp. Ed. DS 4 ENR"
Option.
252
"Sp. Ed. DS 4 FTE"
Option.
340-346
"Compensatory"
Enrollment of pupils in
compensatory programs.
340
"Low Inc. ENR"
Number of compensatory
low income students en
rol led.
341
"Low Ach. ENR"
Number of compensatory
low achievement students
enrol led.
345
"Low Inc. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
compensatory low income
students enrolled.
346
"Low Ach. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
compensatory low achieve
ment students enrolled.
360-364
"TRANSPORTATION" (Part I)
360
"Average Daily Route
Miles 1976"
Average daily route miles
of buses traveling in the
school district for the
1975-76 school year.


Definition of
User Need
System
Evaluation
Performance
Measurement Training Research
Definition of System
Performance Requirements--
Determination of Simulator
Cost Effectiveness
Selection of System
Elements for Simulation
Construct Simulation to
Maximize Transfer
Specification of Simula
tion Outputs
Verification of Transfer--


71
opportunity to enrich significantly his students direct
learning experiences in areas that are not available other
wise" (p. 151).
Simulations have been developed within most disciplines,
and, therefore, the educational aspects of those disciplines
have simulations. For an extensive list of simulations for
education, see The Guide to Simulation/Games for Education
and Training (Zuckerman & Horn, 1973), which lists over
600 simulations by categories.
Educational Uses--Administration
Educational administrators in the early 1960's de
sired a way to trai n their current and prospective leaders
through some method other than lecture and seminar. As
the American Association of School Administrators expressed
in 1960, "Administration is talked about rather than ob
served or felt"(Wynn, 1964, p. 170).
The first breakthrough was The Jefferson Township
School District Simulation (Wynn, 1964, p. 170). This
simulation resembled business simulations from which it was
copied (Tansey & Urwin, 1969, p. 9), but it was regarded
as the breakthrough that was desired. The simulation
itself was designed as an on-the-job experience for 232
elementary school principles which confronted them with
"in-basket" items (Wynn, 1964, p. 171). In-basket refers


20
et cetera. Cubberley (1906) stated that as one reduces the
variations in the index used, the more equitable the pro
gram.
Taxpayer equity is concerned with the revenue dimen
sion of school finance, and the relationships of local,
state, and federal support and tax bases utilized by each.
The major sources of revenue generated by the federal govern
ment are the personal and corporate income taxes, whereas
state government's major tax bases are sales and gross re
ceipts, personal income, and corporate income. The primary
source of local revenue for school support is the ad valorem
taxes levied on real property, which is considered an in
equitable measure of taxpaying ability.
Alternatives suggested to replace the property tax
as an effective measure of district wealth or fiscal capacity
have included combinations of measures that currently exist.
Ahlf (1964) suggested a combination of equalized property
value, family income and effective buying income as the
most effective measure of fiscal capacity. Others, such as
James and Cronin (1969) stated that neither property nor
income individually measure wealth, but a combi nation of the
two is appropriate. Per capita income, median family in
come, and income per pupil represent the most often used
measures of fiscal capacity in school finance research.


44
Funding Plans
Although all states have what they call unique
"equalization" funding formulas or programs, all may be
classified as either flat grants, equalization grants, or
complete state and federal support (Johns & Salmon, 1971,
p. 122).
Before continuing with the analysis of each, an im
portant concept needs to be defined since reference is
made by legislatures that in the area of school finance,
the purpose is equalization of educational opportunity.
For purposes of this study, the Johns and Salmon (1971)
definition was used:
Financial equalization is most nearly accomplished
when the following two factors are met; (1) edu
cational needs of the student population are taken
into considerat ion before the allocations are made,
and (2) the variation of the ability of the local
school districts to support education is reduced
or eliminated through the utilization of state
sources. (p. 120)
Cohn (1974, p. 27) visually illustrated the two determinants
of equalization, when he discussed the Critical Issues in
Evaluation of Equalization Effort, which are consistent
with the Johns and Salmon definition.
Flat Grant Programs as formulated by Cubberley repre
sented sums of money distributed to school districts based
on a unit allocation (per student, classroom, etc.). They
can be further categorized as being uniform or variable


197
APPENDIX
C990
C991
C992
Ir
C993
C Continued
Comparisons Difference Current Capital Outlay Dollars to
Proposed Capital Outlay Dollars
The difference between the current capital outlay dollars
and the proposed capital outlay dollars, both required effort
and state allotment [C979-(C620+C625)].
Comparisons Difference Current Capital Outlay Dollars to
Proposed Capital Outlay Dollars Per Pupil
The difference between the current capital outlay dollars and
the proposed capital outlay dollars (C990) divided by total
pupils (C500).
Comparisons Difference Present State/Local/Transportation/
Capital Outlay Dollars to Proposed State/Local/Transportation/
Capital Outlay Dollars
The difference between the current state, local, transporta
tion, and capital outlay dollars and the proposed state,
local, transportation, and capital outlay dollars [(C971+
C974+C977+C979)-C840].
Comparisons Difference Present State/Local/Transportation/
Capital Outlay Dollars to Proposed State/Local/Transporta
tion/Capital Outlay Dollars Per Pupil
The difference between the current state, local, transporta
tion, and capital outlay dollars and the proposed state,
local, transportation, and capital outlay dollars (C992)
divided by total pupils (C500).


113
reflective of the variations among the district's ability
to provide for student needs, which ranged from $1,351 to
$772 when considering state aid and all property tax per
pupil, and $994 to $753 when only considering regular
levy plus state aid per pupil. These values correlated
with the professional educator staff ratio of Table 5,
as .6967 and .6321, respectively, at the .001 significance
level. These correlations indicate a strong positive
relationship between state aid for professional educators
and property levies, with the inclusion of special levies
accounting for the higher correlation value.
The correlations indicate that as the ratio of
professional educators increases, the amount of state
and local support increases. The difference between the
first and second correlations is the inclusion of the
special levy inthe first, and its omission in the second.
The special levy, which the taxpayers impose upon themselves,
allows districts to increase their tax rate up to 100
percent, for up to five years. However, to evaluate the
question of taxpayer equity, additional analysis was con
ducted to determine the relationship between professional
educators and the regular and special local levies.
Table 7 illustrates the weighted property values per
pupil, the regular levy per pupil, the special levy per
pupil, and the total levy per pupil.


58
TABLE 1
Effect on
for Professional
Additional
Educator
Allocations
State Aid Formula
Foundation Allowance
O
o
(
Distribution
(1) Professional Educator
$1.00
County
(2) Other Personnel:
a. 14% of (1)
.14
All Counties in propor
tion to adjusted net
enrollment
b. 6% of (1)
.06
All Counties in propor
tion to number of full
Total 20% of (1)
.20
time drivers
(3) Fixed Charges
7.85% of (1) + (2)
.09
All Counties based on
distribution of (1) & (2)
(4) Transportation Cost
None
(5) Administrative Cost
1% of (1)
.01
All Counties equally
(6) Other Current Expense
10% of (1) + (2)
.12
All Counties in propor
tion to adjusted net
enrollment ($.002 per
pupil)
(7) National Average
Attainment
None
Note: Total Cost = $1.42


APPENDIX F
STATE AID, 1976-77


18
Johns, Alexander, and Jordan (1972) exampled as
improvement of the environment in which production
takes place, greater flexibility and adaptability
of the labor force, ar;d greater ability to develop
technical improvements and incorporate them into
production processes. Conversely, externalities
of a negative nature, from the lack of education.
(p. 57)
Theodore Schultz (1970, pp. 29-57) also discussed and recog
nized the economic factors involved in education. Addi
tionally, Alexander (1976) provided an in-depth discussion
of the economic factors involved in education in his article
"The Value of An Education." He stated that
Economic measures of educational benefits are
inadequate to capture the full value of an
educated citizenry. . Estimates of social
returns to education do not . identify the
true values to society of higher levels of edu
cation . for its contribution is the preven
tion of many social problems. (p. 466)
In regard to providing all citizens with the social
and economic benefits a nation may offer, the concept of
equality of educational opportunity emerged. Anderson
(1965) stated that "Parity of opportunity is the simplest
definition of equity: If a group makes up 10% of the
population, it should receive 10% of the places" (pp.
341-342). He later discussed variations of his basic
propositions which included:
(1) an equal amount of education to everyone,
(2) enough education to bring everyone to a
given standard, (3) enough education to permit
each person to reach his potential, (4) continual
education so long as gains in learning per input
of teaching matched an agreed norm. (p. 342)


122
formula. An example of one type of definitional problem
encountered is the student support unit, e.g., should
students be accounted for funding purposes on the basis
of average daily attendance, average daily membership, or
full time equivalency?
For purposes of this analysis district power equaliz
ing (DPE) will be omitted from consideration. DPE will not
be analyzed since the criteria of equal educational oppor
tunity and taxpayer equity are difficult to relate to the
pure form of DPE. District power equalizing operates
under three basic assumptions: (1) that the state and
local government share in providing the money to budget a
school district, (2) that the size of the school district
budget should be determined by the school district and
not the state, and (3) that the state share of the locally
determined budget should be greater in poorer districts
(Benson, 1975). Assumptions one and three provide re
searchers no problem in regard to either equality of
educational opportunity or taxpayer equity. The problem
emerges in analyzing the second assumption. With the local
school district determining the financial support of their
school system, the quality of a child's education and the
meeting of needs are left to the discretion of the dis
trict, or become a function of its ability to support
the educational program. Being a district function results


68
responses and outcomes. Military use has continued through
present day.
With its success in the military, both in ancient
and present times, simulation was then introduced into the
business field through the encouragement of the American
Management Association (Taylor & Walford, 1972, p. 23).
Stressing the importance of training in this area, the
American Management Association held a special symposium
on the topic in 1961. Tansey and Unwin (1969) noted that
the main focus was initially toward training new managers,
but, being on a piecemeal basis, it lacked continuity.
Finally, the Association developed "Top Management Deci
sion Simulation" where people were provided with experien
tial learning, as to the role and functions of executives.
Decisions were made, and the participants saw the results
of their actions.
Through the actions of the American Management
Association and others, simulation has become a vital
element in the business environment. Tansey and Unwin
(1969) elaborated on this when they explained that because
of the influence of simulations, an international organiza
tion was set up to, "devise new approaches to training, to
popularize management education, and to assemble informa
tion" about management and behavior world wide (p. 8).


TABLE 8 (continued)
District
Total Program Dollars
Pattern I
total
Pattern II
tota 1
Pattern III
total
Monroe
2,294,000
2,294,000
2,294,000
Morgan
2,039,000
2,039,000
2,039,000
Me Dowe11
12,036,000
12,036,000
12,036,000
Nicholas
5,953,200
5,953,200
5,953,200
Ohio
8,489,000
8,489,000
8,489,000
Pendleton
1 ,439,500
1 ,439,500
1 ,439,500
PIeasants
1 ,648,000
1 ,648,000
1 ,648,000
Pocahontas
1 ,913,500
1 ,913,500
1 ,913,500
Preston
6,335,000
6,335,000
6,335,000
Putnam
7,290,000
7,290,000
7,290,000
Raleigh
16,330,200
16,330,200
16,330,200
Randolph
5,797,000
5,797,000
5,797,000
R i t c h i e
2,145,000
2,T45,000
2,145,000
Roa ne
3,052,500
3,052,500
3,052,500
Summers
2,735,200
2,735,200
2,735,200
Taylor
3,265,500
3,265,500
3,265,500
Tucker
1 700,400
1,700,400
1 ,700,400
Tyler
2,332,500
2,332,500
2,332,500
Upshur
4,289,500
4,289,500
4,289,500
Wayne
9,697,000
9,697,000
9,697,000
Webster
2,695,000
2,695,000
2,695,000
Wetzel
4,822,000
4,822,000
4,822,000
W i r t
1,283,000
1,283,000
1,283,000
Wood
19,181,400
19,181,400
19,181,400
Wyoming
8,361,000
8,361 ,000
8,361,000
TOTAL
373,906,900
373,906,900
373,906,900


APPENDIX D Continued
Special/Exceptional (Continued)
Behavioral Disorders
Physically Handicapped
Multiple Handicapped
Visually Handicapped
Auditorily Handicapped
Communication Disorders
Homebound
Gifted
h>
Delivery System Special/Educational
System 1 Self Contained
System 2 Resource
System 3 Itinerant
System 4 Option
Vocational/Technical
Agriculture
Distributive
Health
Home Economics
Business/Office
Technical
Industrial
Other Vocational (Code 99)
129
~~ T30
' T3T
~ T32
~~ 133
~ T34
~~ T35
T36
T37
138
186
W
188
159
190
T9T
192
193


CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
TAXPAYER EQUITY
Prior to presentation and analysis of equal educa
tional opportunity and taxpayer equity, the current West
Virginia public school finance plan will be presented and
analyzed in relationship to the concepts of equality of
educational opportunity and taxpayer equity. These two
concepts are achieved when
(1) the varying educational needs of the student
population are taken into consideration in the
method of allocation of funds to the expending units,
and (2) the variation of the ability among the local
school districts to support education is reduced or
eliminated through the utilization of state
resources. (NEFP, 1971, p. 238)
These definitions of the two respective concepts will be
utilized throughout the analysis as a frame of reference
for the reader. The NEFP (1971) additionally stated that
program and taxpayer equity criteria for a state's public
school funding plan are accomplished when the plan includes
all current expenditures, recognition of variations in per
pupil costs of specialized programs, recognition of factors
unique to districts (sparsity and density), a balanced and
comprehensive taxing structure, and "Utilizes objective
measures in allocating state school funds" (p. 233).


131
a guaranteed yield plan, the guaranteed yield plan is then
equivalent to a foundation level in a foundation plan.
Cohn (1974) illustrated these two formulas as
Foundation Plan
EA^=ENR (F rV.j), where
EA.=equalized state aid to a district,
ENR-the method of pupil accounting utilized,
r =mandated tax rate,
F =foundation level support,
V.=assessed valuation per pupil in the dis-
1 trict. (p. 33)
. Guaranteed Yield Plan
EA-=ENR (rV rV ), where
i g i
EA.=equalized state aid to a district,
ENR1=the method of pupil accounting utilized,
r =mandated tax rate,
w =assessed valuation per pupil that the state
g guarantees,
V.=assessed valuation per pupil in the dis
trict. (p 34)
Cohn (1971) continued his discussion of the basic formulas
by stating that if a mandated rate is required under a
guaranteed yield program, then F = rVg, and thus an equivalent
formula exists.
The percentage equializing although it converges with
the other formulas relative to overall program cost and
state-aid distributions, it does this through a percentage
sharing of the cost of the state and local portion, on a
variable local rate. Cohn (1974) illustrated this formula
as


76
educational opportunity. Having dismissed education as not
being a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the
Supreme Court has placed determination of equity back to
state legislatures and courts, with mixed results.
Full state support of education appears to provide
the most equitable funding pattern available. However, it
should be remembered that allocation methods will determine
the degree of equity. The basic tenent of Cubberley that
state taxes and state distributions best provide taxpayer
equity and program equalization remains true today; only
the means of achieving those desired goals remain.
West Virginia does not have full state funding,
although it does have a unique "demand" formula. Based
on inputs to the first step of the formula for the number
of professional educators, the steps that follow it are
generated to produce what the legislature must fund. How
ever, the legislature has provided allocations outside the
basic formula to supplement programs and bypassed the "add
on" costs of instituting additions within the present
formu1 a.
To deal with the complexity of various funding plans
and formulas, simulation models, especially computer
simulations, facilitate researchers and planners in deci
sion making involving educational finance. Decisions are
reflective of short- and long-range effects of alternative


73
1973), and for the province of Sergipe, Brazil (de Mello,
1975). The simulation was used to a limited extent in
designing the Florida Educational Finance Program of 1973.
Other simulations have been developed in the area of
higher education finance (Gaunt & Haight, 1976; Holdberg,
1973) and many others by various states and organizations
to facilitate planning (Education Finance SURC, 1974;
Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, & Kirst, 1975; Odden & Vincent,
1976; Minicucci, 1976; and Ohio Education Review Committee,
1977).
Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, and Kirst (1975) summarized
the major justification for using 'financial simulation as
A state which undertakes reform of its school
finance system faces a large and complicated
task. Not only must the present system be
analyzed to document any problems or inequities
that might exist, but predictions must also be
made of how proposed changes will affect local
districts in the state. . Given this situa
tion, one of the most useful tools a state can
have is a simulation which gives it the capacity
to quickly and accurately establish the impact
of recommended change. (p. 122)
The benefits of computer simulations to educational
finance have been cited by many, but they can be summarized
1) knowing the fiscal impact of new policies,
2) knowing the impact of changes in existing
policies, and
3) ability to analyze effects and differences of
various financial plans.


193
APPENDIX C Continued
C915 Personal Income (AGI) Local Yield Per Pupil
Total yield of local personal income taxes (C910) divided by
total pupils (C500).
C918 Personal Income (AGI) Local Yield Per Unit
Total yield of local personal income taxes (C910) divided
by total program units (C600+C640+C650).
C920 Sales and Gross Receipts Local Yield
The dollar yield from local sales and gross receipt taxes
(C622, D632, D642, and/or D652) levied for the local educa
tional agency.
C925 Sales and Gross Receipts Local Yield Per Pupil
Total yield of local sales and gross receipt taxes (C920)
divided by total pupils (C500).'
C928 Sales and Gross Receipts Local Yield Per Unit
Total yield of local sales and gross receipt taxes CC920)
divided by total program units (C600+C640+C650).
C930 Net Current Expenditure (NCE)
Sum of net current expenditures computed on the basis of the
inputted pupil decisions.
C935 Net Current Expenditure Dollars Per Pupil
Net current expenditures (C930) divided by total pupils
(C500).
C940 NCE, Social Security, Teacher Retirement and Other
Sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement, and other
expenditures computed on the basis of the inputted pupil
decisions.
C945 NCE, Social Security, Teacher Retirement, and Other -
Dollars Per Pupil
Sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement, and other
expenditure (C940) divided by total pupils (C500).


196
APPENDIX C Continued
C981
C982
C984
C985
C986
C987
C988
C989
Current Formula Total State and Local Dollars (Basic Only)
The total dollars allocated for the basic state and local
program (C971+C974).
Current Formula Total State and Local Dollars (Basic Only)
Per Pupil
The total dollars allocated for the basic state and local
program (C981) divided by total pupils (C500).
Comparisons Difference Current Basic State Dollars to
Proposed Basic State Dollars
The difference between the current basic state dollars and
proposed basic state dollars (C971-C740).
Comparisons Difference Current Basic State Dollars to
Proposed Basic State Dollars Per Pupil
The difference between the current basic state dollars and
proposed basic state dollars (C984) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Comparisons Difference Current Basic Local Dollars to
Proposed Basic Local Dollars
The difference between the current basic local dollars and
proposed basic local dollars (C974-C790).
Comparisons Difference Current Basic Local Dollars to
Proposed Basic Local Dollars Per Pupil
The difference between the current basic local dollars and
proposed basic local dollars (C986) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Comparisons Difference Current Transportation Dollars to
Proposed Transportation Dollars
The difference between the current transportation dollars
and the proposed transportation dollars, both required effort
and state allotment [C977-(C610+C615)J.
Comparisons Difference Current Transportation Dollars to
Proposed Transportation Dollars Per Transported Pupils
The difference between the current transportation dollars and
the proposed transportation dollars (C988) divided by the
number of transported pupils (B361).


123
in variations among districts in meeting children's needs.
Districts that have substantially greater wealth bases
are able to support programs to a greater extent than can
poorer districts. Because of the variations, taxpayer
equity also becomes a relative term, since wealthy dis
tricts can generate a higher level of support at lower
rates than can poor districts; likewise, poor districts
are not always able to tax themselves as heavily for
education as wealthy districts.
Former North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford (cited
in Weiss, 1969) expressed his concern for this type of
plan when he stated
It is not enough to have the finest school
system in the country if the adjoining district
has one of the worst. Ultimately the product
of the weak district will dilute the pros
perity of the more fortunate products of the
excellent system. Correcting this kind of
damaging inequity requires State action. (p. 31)
Similar concern was expressed by Hickrod, Hubbard, and Yang
(1974) when they summarized some of their objections to
this type of financial plan as:
(1) It may result in increased social stratifi
cation and geographic segregation of social
classes as the different social strata each
seek the tax rate or expenditure level they
prefer.
(2) Local decision-makers may not or cannot meet
the needs of their local districts, even if
those needs clearly exist.
(3) Reward for local effort formulas might also
stimulate local property taxation, and this
would be directly counter to a strong desire
for local property tax relief.


243
Michel son, S. What is a 'just1 system for financing
schools? And evaluation of alternative. Law
and Contemporary Problems, 1974, 38.
Minicucci C. California school finance simulation
system. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission
of the States, 1976.
Mize, J.H., & Cox, J.G. Essentials of simulation. Engle
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
Morrison, H.C. School revenue. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1930.
Mort, P.R. The measurement of educational need: A basis
for distributing state aid. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1924.
National Educational Finance Project. Alternative programs
for financing education (Vol. 5). Gainesville,
Fla.: National Educational Finance Project, 1971.
National Educational Finance Project. NEFP study:
Financing the public schools of Kentucky. Gainesville,
Fla.: National Educational Finance Project, 1973.
National Educational Finance Project. NEFP study:
Financing the public schools of South Dakota.
Gainesville, Fla.: National Education Finance
Project, 1973.
Nesbitt, W.A. The alpha crisis game: Origins of World War I.
New York: New York State Department of Education,
1 973.
Odden, A., & Vincent, P.E. Analysis of the school finance
and tax structure of Missouri. Denver, Colorado:
Education Commission of the States, 1976.
Ohio Education Review Committee. Ohio Education Review
Committee school finance computer simulation system.
Columbus, Ohio: Ohio General Assembly, 1977.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Use
of simulation models in education planning: A criti
cal evaluation of s.o.m. technical report (simulated
option model). Trance, 1971.


187
APPENDIX C Continued
C720
C730
C740
C745
C748
C750
C755
C758
C760
Innovation Allotment
A state dollar allotment (D270) allocated on a per pupil
unit basis for approved cost of innovation programs.
Achievement Allotment
A state dollar allotment (D260-D261) per pupil below the 25th
percentile and/or per pupil above the 75th percentile.
Basic State Program State Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from state
revenue sources excluding allotments for special services
and facilities, modifying factors or incentive programs.
There are five different basic distribution methods possible
for computing the state dollars. These distribution methods
are based on decisions D400-D600.
Basic State Program State Dollars Per
The basic state program state dollars
total pupils (C500).
Basic State Program State Dollars Per
The basic state program state dollars
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Special Services and Facilities State
Pupil
(C740) divided by
Uni t
(C740) divided by
Dollars
The sum of the state allotment for transportation (C615),
capital outlay and debt service (C625), and school food
service (C635).
Special Service and Facilities State Dollars Per Pupil
The special services and facilities state dollars (C750)
divided by total pupils (C500).
Special Services and Facilities State Dollars Per Unit
The special services and facilities state dollars (C750)
divided by total pupils (C600+C640+C650).
Special Allotments State Dollars
The sum of the state allotment for special programs (C700),
hardship (C710), innovation (C720), and achievement (C730).


enrollment, program, salaries, et cetera, are contained
in theDFILE; whereas, the C FILE stored results of compu
tations for later retrieval. D FILE contained the alterna
tive decision sets available to the user in regard to
programs, distribution, and revenue decisions. Three
additional files were created in the simulation, and are
designated as LSTATE, SSTATE, and STATE. These three
files were the key elements of the simulation in that
they enabled the interaction of the input decisions rela
tive to the base data. For purposes of this study, the
STATE file was created, and computational subroutines
relative to both general school finance and the state of
West Virginia were written and stored in this file. Addi
tional options included a comparisonssection between the
alternative selected and the 1976-1977 state plan, and a
Lorenz Curve and Gini Index to enable further analysis
of equity.
Although the analysis of data was place specific,
West Virginia, the procedures employed are genera 1izable
to any state. Analysis of data was accomplished in four
parts. First, the 1976-1977 state plan was analyzed rela
tive to the concepts of equality of educational oppor
tunity and taxpayer equity. The results indicated that
the 1976-1977 state aid formula showed a high correlation
between the amount of money available to a district and


94
TABLE 4 (continued)
Arrays
740-965 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE
Dollars
Dollars/
Pupil
Dollars/
Unit
Receipts
State Dollars
Basic State Program
740
745
748
Special Serv. and Fac.
750
755
758
Special Allotments
760
765
768
Local Incentive
770
775
778
Total State Program
780
785
788
Local Dollars
Basic State Program
790
795
798
Special Serv. and Fac.
800
805
808
Local Leeway
810
815
818
Total Local Program
820
825
828
Total Dollars
Basic State Program (C740+
C790)
830
835
838
Total State/Local Program
C780+C820)
840
845
848
Tax Yield by Source
State
Bases
Yield
Property
Nonutility
850
Utility Assessed Value
851
Class 1
852
Class 2
853
Class 3 & 4
854
Total Property
855
856
Personal Income (AGI)
860
Sales and Gross Receipts
870
Corporate Income
880
Estate, Gift, and Other
890


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
ANALYSIS OF EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY THROUGH THE MODELING AND TESTING
OF A COMPUTER BASED PUBLIC SCHOOL
FINANCE SIMULATION FOR A SELECTED STATE
By
Michael Kurt Bookman
August, 1977
Chairman: Dr. James A. Hale
Major Department: Educational Administration & Supervision
The primary objectives of this study were to (1) iden
tify and collect data necessary to generate alternative
funding patterns for public school finance, (2) to develop
computational subroutines and decision sets in a computer
simulation model that would provide alternative funding
patterns, and (3) to simulate ana evaluate alternative
funding patterns relative to the concepts of equal educa
tional opportunity and taxpayer equity. Tnese three objec
tives were then applied to the state of West Virginia.
The National Education Finance Project (NEFP) ori
ginally developed a computer simulation which was designed
to simulate the effects of decisions for a prototype state.
This simulation consisted of two main data files, which were
identified as M FILE and D FILE. TheM FILE was additionally
subdivided into aBFILE and C FILE. Basic informational
data about the school districts, such as demographic,
v i i i


APPENDIX A continued
17 After this card all "B" and "C" data that are to
be included in the simulation are fed in.
18 After this card, all "D" data that are to be
included in the simulation are fed in.
19-20 The closing of all files and signing off of the
computer.
The model can be run as either an interactive or re
mote job. "The basic programming language used was PL/1
and the computer system an IBM 360/Mod 65" (Boardman,
Jordan, & Alexander, 1971, p. 1). A PL/1 compiler and
a 2314 disc, 155 K memory and O.S. MVT are the basic
machine requirements. "The program is written in module
form so selected command option subroutines can be dropped
to reduce the memory requirement to 132K or less if so
desired" (Boardman et a 1., 1971, p. 1).


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study would have never been possible without
the contributions and support of many people and organi
zations. A number of these people and organizations de
serving special acknowledgments are
The West Virginia Sta^e Department cf Education for
their cooperation in helping obtain the required data;
Mr. William Hamilton who facilitated the transmission
of data, and helped in making essential data available to
the researcher;
Dr. John L. Jones who started the researcher on the
path ;
The Institute for Educational Finance for their help,
sense of humor, and togetherness;
Dr. Linda Crocker for helping the researcher in a
time of need, and general understanding and patience;
Dr. Kern Alexander for his patience, guidance, help,
and all round guiding light;
Dr. James Hale, committee chairman, for his "fan
tastic" help and support. Without his understanding and
judgment, many questions would have never been answered.
THANKS.


141
pattern than the current distribution of burden (pattern
V).
Analysis of patterns V and VI. Although not a con
clusive measure of prog ressivity, the statistic does pro
vide a good indicator of a state's relative tax burden.
Through alterations in the revenue source, a state can
more adequately provide for a relatively progressive tax
structure, and thereby address the issue of taxpayer equity.
Pattern V was used to evaluate the 1975-1976 revenue
structure of the general fund. The general revenue fund
contributes approximately 325 million dollars to public
education in the state of West Virginia. As was evident,
the tax progressivity measure was relatively low for the
state's 1975-1976 structure.
Pattern VI reflected a 1 percent increase in the
corporate income tax, which raised the rate from 6 percent
to 7 percent. The income tax was increased to contribute
25 percent to the fund. Additionally, the inheritance
tax was increased from 1.1 percent to 2 percent, and the
sales and gross receipt fund was reduced to enable the
total fund to equal the same amount. Although the sales
tax rate is only 3 percent in West Virginia, it was not
increased for purposes of analysis.


41
a prescribed minimum of equal education; (b) in relation
to the abilities of the taxpayers of the locality, revenue
for education would be raised by the state or local taxa
tion at a uniform rate; and (c) "to provide adequately
either for the supervision and control of all the schools,
or for their direct administration by a state department
of education" (Strayer & Haig, 1923, p. 174).
The steps Strayer and Haig presented for establish
ment of their plan consisted of (a) the state establishing
the cost needed per pupil for a satisfactory minimum pro
gram; (b) the state computing a property tax rate necessary
to finance the established program, using the wealthiest
district as the base; (c) the tax rate established is then
levied by all districts; and (d) any difference between what
is raised and the amount necessary to finance the minimum
program is contributed by the state.
Strayer and Haig did not concur with either Cubberley
or Updegraff in their reward for local effort, although in
their plan they did allow local districts to levy above
the minimum. Therefore, as Cohn (1974, p. 18) stated, they
did not provide for equal educational opportunity, but
minimum educational opportunity. Charles Benson (cited
in Coons, Clune, & Sugarman, 1970, p. 65) critiqued the
Strayer-Haig Plan when he said,


88
TABLE 3 (continued)
" B"
Arrays
Capital Outlay and Debt Service
Approved Project Costs 365
Actual Project Costs 366
Depreciation Allowance 367
Debt Service 368
School Food Service
Participating Pupils (Total) 370
Federal Food Service Revenue 371
Total Food Service Revenue 372
Total Food Service Expenditure 373
380-472 MODIFYING FACTORS
Professional Educator Training & Experience*
Experience Level**
Training Levels***
T-l
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
E-l
380
381
382
383
384
E-2
385
386
387
388
389
E-3
390
391
392
393
394
E-4
395
396
397
398
399
E-5
400
401
402
403
404
Sparsity
Grade Levels
Under
100
100-
150
150-
200
Elementary
440
441
442
Secondary
450
451
452
Cost of Living
460
Achievement
Below 25th Percentile
(%)
470
Above 75th Percentile
(%)
471


12
The court stated that a state must provide each district
with relatively equal financial capacity, regardless of
that districts spending patterns or program offerings.
Malady. Malady or exceptionality was used synony
mously for the purposes of this study, and denoted a par
ticular special education category. The categories that
were used in the model included: educable mentally re
tarded, trainable mentally retarded, learning disabilities,
behavioral disorders, physically handicapped, mu Itipie
handicapped, visually handicapped, auditorily handicapped,
communication disorders, homebound and gifted.
Professional educator. Professional educator for
the purposes of this study was defined as a teacher,
supervisor, principal, superintendent, librarian, or any
other person regularly employed for instructional purposes.
Program decisions. Program decisions for the pur
poses of this study were used to enable determination of
programs and units of a state school program, cost differ
entials (if appropriate) and other special modifying
factors.
Revenue decisions. Revenue decisions for the pur
poses of this study were used to refer to tax sources of
both state and local governments to provide funds for
education, and the desired rates associated with each
revenue source.


APPENDIX C
CALCULATED DATA DEFINITIONS


182
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
495
496
497
498
499
"Corporate Income Tax
(State Total) 1976"
"Inheritance Tax
(State Total) 1976"
"Other (State Total) -
1976"
"Total Gross Sales,
1976"
"Corporate Income
(State Total) 1976"
State revenue from
corporate income taxes.
State revenue from the
inheritance tax.
State revenue from state
taxes which includes
business and occupational
tax, cigarette tax,
business franchise regis
tration tax, charter tax,
use tax, carrier income
tax, beer tax, insurance
tax, property tax, racing
fees, liquor profits,
tuition and fees, insti
tutional and department
collections, Boards and
Commissions, miscellaneous
income, interest, and
medical payments.
The total amount of gross
sales in each district.
The total amount of
corporate income for the
state.


53
part of the executive branch of government in 1872, and
for 37 years he was the extent of the Department of Educa
tion. Additional duties included being adjutant general
and quarter master general from 1871-1877.
In 1872 a constitutional revision was completed with
the following two provisions specified:
Art. XII, Sec. 1 The legislative shall provide, by gen
eral law, for a thorough and efficient system of free
schools.
Art. XII, Sec. 2 The State Superintendent of Free Schools
shall have a general supervision of free schools and per
form such other duties in relation thereto as may be
prescribed by law.
The same year the legislature established a State Board
of School Funds composed of the Governor, State Superin
tendent, Auditor, and State Treasurer.
The legislature also created, in 1872, a General
School Fund for supporting free schools, which included
the salary of the state superintendent and expenses of his
office, and which specified the sources of revenue. Schools
were to be financed by direct taxes on personal property
and real estate (lOi per 100), monies received by fines
and forfeitures, and investment in United States bonds.
The state superintendent distributed all money until 1939
when the Board of School Finance, which now consisted of
State Superintendent, Tax Commissioner, and Director of
the Budget, assumed responsibility for disperson of funds.


72
to situations that are presented to the participant
as though they had or were to occur, and the participant
must react to the situations through written communica-
tions.
Initially simulations were used by universities
since most of the development of these training vehicles
occurred there. But, with commercial firms and local
school districts developing simulations, simulation use
occurs within both avenues of educational administration
training (pre and post).
Within the area of educational administration, the
field of finance was in need of new tools for training,
evaluating, and forecasting future directions and trends.
The National Education Finance Project developed a com
puterized financial simulation which was designed as "a
management information model ... as a tool for better
decision making ... t-o simulate the consequences of
alternative decisions in regard to the financing of public
elementary and secondary education" (Boardman, Jordan, &
Alexander, 1971, p. 1).
Regarded as the pioneer in its area, the NEFP model
has been used for instruction in Education Finance classes
at the University of New Mexico and the University of
Florida. The simulation has also been adapted for manage
ment and research uses by the state of New Mexico (Huxel,


96
TABLE 4 (continued)
"C"
Arrays
Comparisons
Total Difference
Difference per Pupil
Current Basic State $ to
Proposed Basic State $
974 985
Current Basic Local $ to
Proposed Basic Local $
986 987
Current Transportation $ to
Proposed Transportation $
988 989*
Current Capital Outlay $ to
Proposed Capital Outlay $
990 991
Total Present State/Local/
Transporbtion/Capital to
Total Proposed State/Local/
Transportation/Capital
992 993
*Per transported pupil


9
included salaries of professional educators, special services
and modifying factors, and fiscal data relative to both
state and local revenue and wealth.
Data collection was limited to information that was
obtainable at the state level. The State Department of
Education, State Department of Transportation, and State
Tax Collectors Office were the prime sources of information
regarding local school districts.
2 Calculation and decision subroutines were developed
which enabled alternative patterns of school finance to
be modeled.
Following collection of data necessary to simulate the
alternative patterns of school finance, a decision manual
was developed to provide researchers and planners options
as to programs, allocations, and to sources of revenue.
Then by modification of the National Education Finance
Project simulation, calculational subroutines were developed
to enable execution of the desired decisions.
3 Analysis of the alternative school funding plans in
regard to both equalization of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity criteria.
Foundation plan, percentage equalization plan, and
guaranteed yield plan were decided as the basic options
that were utilized in the model for analysis. Equalization
of educational opportunity and taxpayer equity criteria
were applied to each, and served as the basis for analysis.


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 ESZZWBPPX_GH3XTR INGEST_TIME 2014-10-07T01:06:32Z PACKAGE AA00025762_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


27
a suspect classification, and could not be used as a con
dition of a child's education opportunities. The strict
scrutiny test shifted dramatically the burden of proof
from the plaintiffs to the state. Infact, rarely has a
state been able to exhibit a governmental goal sufficiently
compelling to withstand strict scrutiny analysis (McCarthy,
1 97 7, p. 160).
Within a year following the Serrano decision, 52
similar cases were filed in 31 states (Geske & Rossmiller,
1977, p. 517).
Six weeks following Serrano, the United States Dis
trict Court in Minnesota used the findings of Serrano in
Van Dusartz v. Hatfield (334 F.Supp. 870, 1970). Again,
as with Serrano, plaintiffs contended that the Minnesota
financial plan made spending per pupil a function of wealth,
and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Four
teenth Amendment. Applying the "fiscal neutrality" concept
and "strict scrutiny" concept as defined in Serrano, Judge
Lord stated that students in public school "enjoy a right"
for a level of funding unaffected by variations in taxable
wealth in their district (at p. 872).
In not requiring uniformity of expenditures as was
the case in Serrano, the court interpreted fiscal neu
trality as saying that
The fiscal neutrality principle not only
removes discrimination by wealth but also allows
free play to local effort and choice,and openly


10
Delimitations
1. The study was limited to the state of West
Virginia.
2. Enrollment figures used were based on a full
time equivalency basis.
3. Analysis was limited to generalized funding
patterns (foundation plan, percentage equalizing
plan, and guaranteed yield).
4. Programmatic data and fiscal data were obtained
that reflected the 1976-1977 basis of support
for public schools. However, data for the base
year that was unavailable were substituted by
1975-1976 data.
L i mi ta tions
Through the use of computer simulations, state planners
and researchers can analyze the equalization effects of
various alternative patterns of school finance funding
strategies. Though the study was limited to the state of
West Virginia, generalizations may be inferred to other
states if similar data and structure exists.


227
APPENDIX D Continued
2. VARIABLE RATE for the required local effort.
Explanation: Basic state program where the local effort is based
on a rate which is variable in each district. Specify percentage
of local effort from each base. (The actual rate will be computed
and presented in an output display.)
BASE
Property
Personal Income
Sales & Gross Receipts
PERCENTAGE*
630* '
~ 631
632*
*Percentage must add to 100.


102
PASSWORD
DI 02 = 1
DI 05 = 1
DI 10 = 1
DI 63 = 80
DI 70 = 100
D200=5
D 2 2 O = 1
D 2 5 2 = 8 O
D400=865
D435=1
D610=47.5
D611=97.5
D612 = 19 6
D613=39.2
D614= 78.4
DECISIONS
CALC
[ Specify
Figure 2.
[ JOB CONTROL LANGUAGE ]
Kindergarten
Full Time Equivalent
Unweighted Pupils
Transportation Fixed % of Actual Cost
Capital Outlay Grant/Pupil
Adjustment Admin., Superv., & Aux. Personnel %
Adjustment Professional Training & Experience
Allowance for Physical Handicapped
Basic State Program Dollars/Unit
Uniform Tax with Variable State Dollars
Nonutility, Appraised Property %
Utility, Appraised Property %
Required Effort, Property Class 1
Required Effort, Property Class 2
Required Effort, Property Class 3 & 4
output tables and/or analytical subroutines ]
Sample Input of the West Virginia School Finance
Computer Simulation Model Utilizing an Unweighted
Pupil Unit


171
APPENDIX B
- Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
217
"Bus./Of. Occ. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
business and office occu
pation students enrolled.
220
"Tech. ENR"
Number of technical
students enrolled.
222
"Tech. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
technical students en
rol 1 ed.
225
"Indust. ENR"
Number of industrial
students enrolled.
227
tr
"Indust. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
industrial students en
rolled.
230
"Ot V/T 99 ENR"
Number of students en
rolled in other vocational
technical programs classed
as 99.
232
"Ot V/T 99 FTE"
Full time equivalency of
students enrolled in
other vocational tech
nical programs classed as
99.
235-252
"Special Education
Delivery Systems"
Enrollment figures of stu
dents in special education
by type of delivery system.
235
"Sp. Ed. Self
Contained ENR"
Number of special educa
tion students in an al 1
day program for their
respective exceptionality.
237
"Sp. Ed. Self
Contained FTE"
Full time equivalency of
special education students
in an all day program for
their respective excep
tionality.
240
"Sp. Ed. Resource -
ENR"
Number of special educa
tion students in a half
time program for their
respective exceptionality.


180
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
480
481
482
483
077-080
077
078
079
CATEGORY
"Exp. K-12, NCE 1976"
"Expenditures K-12
Social Security 1976"
"Expenditures K-12
Teacher Retirement -
1976"
"Expenditures K-12,
Other 1976"
"RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURES" (Part II)
"Federal Forest Reserve
Funds 1976"
"Federal Impact Aid
(PL874) 1976"
"VI-B Federal Aid -
1977"
DEFINITION
Total of all current
expenditures from public
funds in the school
district except for
transportation, food
service, capital outlay,
and debt service less
any discounts, rebates,
reimbursements or reve
nue produced by the
service or activity of
the school district
during a specified period
of time for grades K-12.
Total expenditures made
by the school district
for the employer's share
of the social security
insurance program for K-
12 employees.
Total expenditures made
by the school district
for the employer's share
of the K-12 teacher's
retirement program.
Total expenditures made
by the school district
for the employer's share
of pension payments and
public employees.
Allocation to the coun
ties of federal forest
reserve funds.
Allocation to the coun
ties of federal impact
aid.
Allocation to the coun
ties of federal VI-B EHA
aid.


ANALYSIS OF EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUN
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY THROUGH THE MODELING AND T
OF A COMPUTER BASED PUBLIC SCHOOL
FINANCE SIMULATION FOR A SELECTED STATE
ITY
ESTING
By
MICHAEL KURT BOOKMAN
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PART
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
COUNCIL OF
IAL
DEGREE OF
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1977


210
APPENDIX D Continued
C. SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
Present Data on Annual Basis
Actual Costs
Total Program $29,498,628
Per Partici
pating Pupil $117.46
Approved Costs (Revenue)
Federal
State & Local
Total
$18,676,839
12,042,743
$30,719,582
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. State allotment of a flat grant per compensatory
pupil only.
2. State allotment of a flat grant per average
participation.
3. State assumption of the approved costs of the
state and local share.
$
180
$
181
4. State allotment of a fixed percentage of
actual costs.
183


45
(Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 121), and are used in addition
to one of the other plans to be discussed.
Under "uniform flat grants," an amount is distributed
per unit, with no consideration given to either educational
need or fiscal capacity. In contrast, variable flat grants
are distributed on a rate per unit, but a weighting factor
is applied to compensate for some factor beyond the school
districts control. With either type, the ultimate disposi
tion can be general or special.
Flat grants do provide for some degree of equaliza
tion in that on a uniform basis, wealthy districts pay in
more than they receive. But, as Alexander and Jordan
(1976) commented, flat grants are a viable equalization
plan only to the degree school districts are at or near
fiscal capacity, or if the grants, "were large enough to
approach full state funding" (p. 355).
Equalization grants consider variations in the abil
ity of local school districts to tax, but not all take
into consideration the needs of the pupils (Johns & Salmon,
1971, p. 122). The ultimate disposition of these grants,
as with flat grants, can be for either a general or
specific purpose.
To analyze these types of grants more productively,
they will be discussed in the context of the types as out
lined by Johns and Salmon (1971), and by Cohn (1974).


133
they should obtain equal education. In providing for
needs based upon equality there must be objective measures
to evaluate the cost variations of programs. Mort's (1924)
concept of the weighted pupil unit appears to be the most
widely accepted and used tool in school finance plans.
Pattern IV. This pattern was used to demonstrate
the distributional effects of a weighted pupil foundation
program. Essentially the plan is identical to pattern I
with the exception being the program's cost indices. The
pattern consisted of the following decisions:
1 Full time equivalency enrollment
1 Special educatiqn count by malady
1.00 Weighting of basic elementary students
1.68 Weighting of EMR students
2.10 Weighting of TMR students
1.52 Weighting of learning disabled students
1.60 Weighting of behavior disordered students
1.51 Weighting of physically handicapped stu
dents
00 Weighting of multiply handicapped students
97 Weighting of visually handicapped students
65 Weighting of auditory handicapped students
62 Weighting of speech disordered students
50 Weighting of homebound students
14 Weighting of gifted students
Weighting of agricultural students
Weighting of distributive education
s tudents
60 Weighting of health occupation students
44 Weighting of home economics students
39 Weighting of business and office occupa
tions students
2.20 Weighting of technical students
2.20 Weighting of industrial students
2.50 Weighting of other (code 99) students
373906900 The cost of the basic program is to
be based on this amount of funds available
D610=47.5 Uniform local tax rate to be applied on
all nonutility property
D611=97.5 Uniform local tax rate to be applied on
all utility property
D1 0 5:
D1 16 =
D1 23 =
0126 =
D1 2 7 =
D1 28 =
D1 29 =
D1 30 =
D1 31 =
D1 32 =
D1 33 =
0134 =
D1 3 5 =
D1 36 =
D1 86
D 1 87
D1 88
D1 89
D1 90
D1 91 =
D1 9 2 =
D1 93 =
D 4 01 =
= 2
= 2
= 1
= 1
= 2
= 1
= 2.13
= 1 50


106
student needs, it was stated that an equitable plan con
siders student needs in the allocation of funds to
districts. West Virginia does consider students specifi
cally within the distributional aspects of the formula.
The computation of student enrollment used for the
distribution of funds involves data collected by the local
school districts in the third month of the academic year.
Each district collects and reports to the state finance
office full time equivalency enrollment in kindergarten
programs and head count enrollment figures for grades one
through twelve. The state special education department
then supplies a "Certified Special Education Student"
count for each district to the state finance office, which
in turn is doubled and then added to the kindergarten and
grades one through twelve counts received from the dis
tricts. The net effect of the adjustment is a triple
weighting for special education students, and an enroll
ment count which is designated as "Third Month Adjusted
Enrollment."
Upon initial examination, the report generated by
the local school districts for students in grades one
through twelve appears to express the philosophy that "a
child is a child" for purposes of funding although pro
viding equality of educational opportunity through alloca
tion of equal dollars, specific needs of children are
seemingly disregarded. But, further scrutiny revealed


83
each file in the simulation were required to enable alter
natives based on West Virginia basic data to be generated.
A sample run of the CREATE routine utilized to create the
West Virginia model is included in Appendix A.
West Virginia's M FILE
Many new arrays were added to both the B and C FILE,
with some of the original arrays having their labels
(titles) changed. Likewise, some of the original arrays
were deleted due to their inappropriateness for West Vir
ginia. Additionally, since West Virginia contains 55
districts, track size, block size, and logical record
length of the program had to be increased to enable handling
of the increased amount of data. To facilitate the changes
necessary, a new M FILE was created for West Virginia
through utilization of the CREATE subroutine.
West Virginia's B FILE
This file required extensive changes to accommodate
all necessary data. The changes occurred within all
sections of this file which included programs and enroll
ments, special services and modifying factors, receipts
and expenditures, and wealth measures. Several additional
arrays were included to enable duplication of West Vir
ginia's current enrollments, funding patterns, and


50
especially if the cost of other services in municipalities
are considered.
Another equalizing approach is known as guaranteed
valuation. The state guarantees each district a fixed
valuation or tax yield per unit (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p.
123), which may or may not be weighted. The difference
between what the tax generates and the guaranteed yield is
the state's contribution (Cohn, 1974, p. 32). The effect,
this plan seems to be equivalent and provides the same
equalizing effect as the basic foundation approach (Cohn,
1974, p. 32 and Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123). The differ
ence between the guaranteed valuation plan and the district
power plan being that under this plan the tax rate is
state mandated.
In essence, all plans for financing public education
are based on tax effort, tax yield, and equalized property
valuation per pupil. Allocations are distributed in an
inverse proportion to wealth, which is typically measured
by property valuation per pupil. The roles of state and
local effort differentiate the basic equalization programs
by name, but in their pure form, they are mathematically
equivalent. It is through the specific implementation that
the different equalization abilities of the shared costs
formulas become apparent.


91
Within the modifying factors, a Professional Educator
Matrix was designed with five training levels and five
experience levels. In addition, school sparsity was in
cluded for elementary and secondary facilities.
In the receipts and expenditure section, additional
arrays were created to discriminate between five specific
federal funds and the balance of the federal revenue. The
five federal arrays were for Title I, Federal Forest
Reserve Funds, Federal Impact Aid, Title VI-B Funds, and
Vocational-Educational Act Funds.
In the wealth section, total sales and corporate in
come were included as additional measures of wealth. Ef
fective buying income per household was deleted due to
unavailability of the data.
Within the B FILE two new sections were created due
to the uniqueness of West Virginia. The two new sections
were for current allocations and property valuation. To
generate the current allocations of educational funding,
28 additional arrays had to be created (B001-B028). Like
wise, since West Virginia uses several classifications of
property, assessment ratios, and tax rates, seven addi
tional arrays were created to facilitate their use in the
model (B030-B036).


APPENDICES


223
APPENDIX D Continued
C. (Continued)
The decision with regard to R is made in
Set III Section II (Local Leeway Taxes).
Values for B are fixed and are presented
on the cover sheet of Set III (Revenue
Decisions Base Data). To determine A, $
a decision is required with regard to 490
both a state guaranteed allotment and a
unit. The decision with regard to the
unit was made in Set I Section I
(Program Unit). Specify the guaranteed
allotment.
guaranteed
allotment
per unit


48
effort. Coons, Clune, and Sugarman (1970, p. 165) stated
that in focusing on the local budget and preserving local
incentive, the plan placed value on effort not wealth.
Under this plan, the state agrees to pay the districts
a predetermined percentage of the total expenditures, with
the ratio of district's wealth per pupil to the state's
average district wealth per pupil as the relationship.
The plan allows for state funds to be allocated in an in
verse proportion to taxpaying ability (measured by property
value per pupil).
Without a minimum or fixed dollaramount, dollars per
pupil would be a function of local effort alone, which is
characteristic of another equalization plan called "power-
equal i zi ng" (Alexander & Jordan, 1 976 pp. 346-357).
In addition to the typical concern for equalizing
a district's property valuation per pupil, Coons, Clune,
and Sugarman's concern was on effort. The power equalizing
plan assures an equal yield for an equal effort or as
Cohn (1974) stated "calls for equal state aid to districts
based on equal tax effort" (p. 35). Coons et al. (1970)
stated the plan allows districts to establish and determine
their own levels of spending,with tax effort being the key
(p. 202). Regardless of the district's wealth, if its
effort is high it will be assured of higher expenditures.
"Moreover, if a district can raise educational funds for


APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
402
403
404
440-452
440
441
442
450
451
452
CATEGORY
"E 5,
T 3"
"E 5,
T 4"
"E 5,
T 5"
"SPARSITY MODIFYING
FACTORS"
"Elementary,
ENR Under 100"
"Elementary,
ENR 100-149"
"Elementary,
ENR 150-200"
"Secondary,
ENR Under 100"
"Secondary,
ENR 100-149"
"Secondary,
ENR 150-200"
DEFINITION
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of a master's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of a master's degree + 30
hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of a doctorate.
Pupils in elementary
schools with enrollments
of less than 100 students.
Pupils in elementary
schools with enrollment
between 100-149 students.
Pupils in elementary
schools with enrollment
between 150-200 students.
Pupils in secondary
schools with enrollments
of less than 100 students.
Pupils in secondary
schools with enrollment
between 100-149 students.
Pupils in secondary
schools with enrollment
between 150-200 students.


139
TABLE 10
P r o g r e s s i v i ty Value
(T value)
Tax
Progressivity
Value
(T Value)
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES:
1 .
Individual income
50
2.
Corporate income
24
3.
Estate and gift
50
4.
Sales, excise, and other
16
Total Weighted Average
39.90
TOTAL STATE TAXES:
1 .
Individual and corporate income
35
2.
Sales and gross receipts
1 5
3.
Property
14
4.
Estate and gift
50
5.
All other
1 4
Total Weighted Average
20.49
LOCAL SCHOOL TAXES:
1 .
Property
14
2.
Al 1 other
14
Total Weighted Average
14.00
Note: From "Criteria for Evaluating State Financing Plans
for the Public Schools," Alternative Programs for
Financing Education, 1971, p. 262.


21
Whatever the source or the base, Due (1970) suggested
that taxpayer equity required
(a) Equal treatment of equals. Persons regarded
as being in similar circumstances are taxed
the same.
(b) Distribution of the overall tax burden on
the basis of ability to pay, as measured by
income, by wealth, by consumption.
(c) Exclusion from tax of persons in the lowest
income groups, on the grounds that they have
no taxpaying capacity.
(d) A progressive overall distribution of tax
relative to income, on the basis that tax
capacity rises more rapidly than income. (p 293 )
Reflecting on Due (1970), Alexander and Jordan (1976)
concluded their analysis of equity offered that a state
school finance program must contain
(a) An adequate determination of the fiscal
ability of the local school district and
should adjust each district's allocation in
terms of its relationship to the state estab
lished standard
(b) Adequacy of funds for a child's educational
opportunity should not be compromised by the
social citizenry's lack of educational aspira
tions as reflected in the local tax rate or
effort
(c) Should recognize . the individual educa
tional needs of all children throughout the
state
(d) Provisions for greater funding to those school
districts which, because of the high cost of
delivering education, cannot provide equal
se rvices. (p. 337 )


3
needs and goals for the society in which it exists. To
facilitate this end, adequate revenues must be provided
to finance public education and to meet the goal of equal
ity of educational opportunity.
The concept of fiscal equality, although easy to
state, is in fact a complex and dynamic concept. McClure
(1975) suggested that educational equality means "that every
individual should be able to develop to fullest capacity,
given reasonable effort and motivation, and to continue in
ways that enable her or him to perform as effectively as
possible" (p. 102). By this and similar definitions by
others, the concept evolves as fiscal equity rather than
fiscal equality.
The delineation between the two concepts, equality
and equity, being that equality implies uniformity of sup
port (or service), whereas equity implies differential sup
port (or service) based upon need. Alexander (1977) ex
panded upon the concept of equity when he defined it as
generally consisting of at least three aspects "equality,
utility, and efficiency" (p. 453).
Simple horizontal equality is referred to by economists
as treating equals, equally. But, due to its broad inter
pretation, equals and equality have become relative terms.
This same drawback of interpretation is also encountered
when one considers the concept of utility. If taxpayers


no
TABLE 5 (continued)
County
1975-1976
3rd month
adjusted
enrolIment
1975-1976
3rd month
professional
educators
1975-1976
professional
educators
ratio/1 ,000 pupil:
Monroe
2,919
129.10
44.23
Morgan
2,430
112.90
46.46
McDowe11
13,635
687.00
50.39
Nicholas
6,660
302.60
45.44
Ohio
10,551
535.50
50.75
Pendleton
1 ,846
97.20
52.65
Pleasants
2,068
108.53
52.48
Pocahontas
2,378
122.21
51 .39
Preston
7,644
350.27
45.82
Putnam
8,793
392.50
44.64
Raleigh
18,416
862.50
46.83
Randolph
6,646
300 .'20
45.17
Ritchie
2,565
127.00
49.51
Roane
3,877
176.00
45.40
Summers
3,503
168.00
47.96
Taylor
4,160
184.25
44.29
Tucker
2,242
102.50
45.72
Tyler
3,1 52
144.50
45.84
Upshur
4,991
225.50
45.18
Wayne
11,446
548.50
47.92
Webster
3,244
147.00
45.31
Wetzel
5,668
263.29
46.45
Wirt
1 ,350
65.40
48.44
Wood
21,707
1 ,074.70
49.51
Wyomin g
9,977
469.10
47.02
State
439,200
21,348.61
48.61
Note: Data obtained from School Finance Division of the
West Virginia Department of Education.


29
court did affirm the lower court decision that the consti
tutional mandate of "thorough and efficient" had not been
met. The court's concern was that the "end product" meet
the mandate, and that the process was up to the legisla
ture to design what was necessary to fulfill the requirement.
Implicit within "thorough and efficient" the court charged
that "the Constitution's guarantee must be understood to
embrace that educational opportunity which is needed in
the contemporary setting to equip a child for his role as
a citizen and as a competitor in the labor market" (303 A.2d
295, 1973).
Lucas (1972) has suggested that the basic assumption
underlying Serrano generation cases involved
1. The equal protection clause applies, at
least as it relates to education in the
public schools, to the state as an entity.
2. Equal protection is denied to the taxpayer when
a given millage per dollar of taxable property
"buys" less education per school child in one
district than it does in another.
3. The school children in the districts with the
lower tax yield per child from a constant
millage are denied equal protection.
4. "Poor" children live in districts with low
totals of taxable property, and consequently
it is argued that the local tax system of
school financing is, de facto, a wealth classi
fication, to be viewed with particular sus
picion. (pp. 18-20)
This four-year period (1969-1973), characteristic of
successful challenges to state school finance provisions,


134
D612=1.96 Local mills required to be levied on
Class I property
D613=3.92 Local mills required to be levied on
Class II property
D615=7.84 Local mills required to be levied on
Classes III and IV property
The cost of the basic program was specified in de
cision 401, and since the program was based on pattern I,
with the exception of the weights applied to pupils, the
deviation from full equalization score was also zero.
Table 9 presents the total program dollars generated by
this program.
Analysis of Pattern IV. It is evident by comparing
Tables 8 and 9 that the cost of the total state program
is the same under patterns I, II, III, and IV. Also,
there is no difference in state dollars distributed to
school districts in plans I, II, and III. Although
pattern IV also utilizes the state-local relationship of
pattern I, the difference in amount of state aid per pupil
received by the school districts illustrates a redistribu
tion of funds based on need.
The redistribution of funds accomplishes what Hale
(1975) referred to as distributional equity, where all
districts in a state "must have equal access to state and
local revenues based upon a uniform definition of need"
(p. 22). Hale (1975) continued when he stated some gen
erally agreed upon concepts of an equalization model as
being


the number of professional educators employed in a district.
This factor was significant considering the state alloca
tions are based on professional educator salaries. Wealthy
districts thus tend to have more professional educators
per student, and subsequently receive more state aid than
poorer districts. Likewise, the composition of the gen
eral fund indicated a heavy reliance on tax sources which
place a greater burden on low-income groups.
The second part of the analysis demonstrated the
convergence of foundation, percentage equalizing, and
guaranteed yield programs when one considers only dollar
allocations in regard to equity, which is referred to as
vertical equity. In part three, concern for student needs
(horizontal equity) was provided for in a weighted founda
tion program. The level of funding utilized remained con
stant throughout, to illustrate redistributional effects of
state aid. The results indicated that a basic program can
fulfill both the requirements of vertical and horizontal
equity, and thus meet equality of educational opportunity
criteria. Finally, the fourth part analyzed the 1975-1976
general revenue fund relative to the criteria of taxpayer
equity. Using the NEFP tax progressivity index, results
indicated a tax base which appeared to place a greater
burden on low income groups. An alternative was generated
which produced a higher progressivity measure.
x


1 35
TABLE 9
Weighted Foundation Program
Cost Figures
State dollars
County total
Ba rbou r
Berkeley
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
$3,204,701
8,470,804
6,050,744
2,929,559
5,890,293
Cabell
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
Fayette
18,440,577
1 591 ,057
2,548,826
1,497,922
11,705,175
Gi1mer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hamps hire
Hancock
1,524,989
1,918,308
7,502,151
2,782,813
7,974,097
Hardy
Harrison
Jackson
Jefferson
Kanawha
2,236,634
14,000,841
5,378,187
5,295,526
42,937,199
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan
Marion
Marshal 1
3,443,737
5,257,943
1 1 ,028,279
1 1 1 94,074
7,750,803
Mason
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
5,707,966
13,578,773
5,781,914
8,646,530
10,211,367


142
Summary
This chapter offered examples of the capabilities
of the West Virginia School Finance Simulation Model.
The 1976-1977 school year financial data base was utilized
for all analyses. The first part of the chapter presented
an analysis of the current public school finance plan rela
tive to the concepts of equality of educational opportunity,
distributional equity, and taxpayer equity. The second
part of the chapter provided an analysis of the simulated
a 1ternatives.
The second part of the chapter was subdivided
into three parts: equality of educational opportunity,
distributional equity, and taxpayer equity. Within the
first subdivision unweighted pupil data were used in a
foundation program, percentage equalizing program, and
guaranteed yield program. The results indicated that all
formulae converge, and by unweighting pupil counts, all
children received an equal guarantee by the state. Al
though equal amounts per pupil may be considered as
equality, most experts in school finance advocate a system
that recognizes funding variations in relationship to pupil
needs. Mort's (1924) concept of the weighted pupil was
utilized in the second subdivision. Total program cost
was controlled by using the total cost previously determined


137
(1) The plan must be based on a unit (pupil,
teacher, or other) of need,
(2) The plan should address all areas of costs
incurred by the district, and
(3) The plan should allocate state funds in
versely to a measure of district wealth.
(p. 23)
Cost indices (weights) accomplish criteria of tasks one
and two, and a foundation program accomplishes criterion
three. Under pattern I criterion number two was not met
since the known differences in program costs were not
recognized; pattern IV addresses both vertical equalization
of resources and horizontal equalization of program needs
which, combined, represent equalization of educational
opportunity.
Taxpayer Equity
Taxpayer equity is a concept related to the revenue
dimension of school finance. This concept tests whether
the "equity concept of equal-treatment-of-equals who have
the ability to pay" (Hale, 1975, p. 22) occurs in a state
financial plan. Due (1970), among others (Hale, 1975;
NEFP, 1971), has addressed this issue on several occa
sions. The two patterns discussed below analyze taxpayer
equity through the use of the NEFP tax progressivity meas
ure adapted from the Tax Foundation, Inc. (NEFP, 1971,
pp. 251-263).


42
In most states, nearly all districts, rich and
poor, do tax at a level above the minimum, so
that the foundation program is indeed but a foun
dation upon which the districts with richer tax
bases continue to build much finer houses than
do poorer districts. Under this plan, equal
educational opportunities in terms of balancing
offerings, wealth and effort is a hoax.
Paul R. Mort was known for "developing the minimum
foundation program" (Cohn, 1974, p. 18). A student of
Strayer at Columbia University, he attempted through his
dissertation, Measurement of Educational Need (1924), to
define the satisfactory minimum program conceptualized by
Strayer and Haig. That is why many felt that more than
a theorist, Mort was a disseminator and developer (Johns
et al., 1972, p. 10).
Mort stated a minimum state program should provide
that (a) if a program existed in all or most districts
within the state, they were acceptable for the equaliza
tion program; (b) if unusual expenses occur for meeting
minimum program outside of local control, they too were
eligible; and (c) if uncommon conditions require additional
offerings, these also may be included (Mort, 1924, pp. 6
and 7). Mort, like Cubberley, considered local leeway very
important (Cohn, 1974, p. 18). He especially encouraged
districts to go over the minimum and provide for innova
tion and change. Additionally, the fact that classroom
costs varied from place to place, whereas other costs
remained constant in regards to number of pupils, concerned


208
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION II: SPECIAL SERVICES & FACILITIES
Explanation: Special services and facilities refers to trans
portation capital outlay and debt service, and
school food service.
Check only those special services and facilities
which you wish to include as a part of the state
program and provide the requested information.
A. TRANSPORTATION
Present Expenditures (1976)
Allocation Drivers Salaries
Approved Costs
Actual Costs
$11,368,487
$25,005,755
$29,512,983
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. State allotment of a flat grant per
transported pupi1.
2. Local ownership and operation with
state payment of approved costs.
3. State allotment of a fixed percentage
of actual costs.
4. Equalized grant for actual costs with
mills local effort required.
5. State assumption of full program.
161
Yes

162
T63
T64
Yes

165
%
mills*
*Class 1 Non-Utility @ 11.8757% and Utility @ 24.375%.
Class 2 @ 23.75%, Classes 3 and 4 Non-Utility @ 47.5% and Utility @
97.5%.


224
APPENDIX D Continued
SET III
REVENUE DECISIONS
ALTERNATIVE DECISION POINTS
SECTION I: STATE TAX SOURCES
SECTION II: LOCAL TAX SOURCES
BASE DATA
Tax
Property
Non-Utility
Uti1ity
Personal Income Present yield
Corporate Income Present yield
Sales Tax Present yield
Present yield
Total
Dollars
135,437,348
14,151 ,218
131 ,649,473
387,215,399
Estate, Gift & Other


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER
IINTRODUCTION 1
Background and Rationale 1
Statement of the Problem 7
Procedures 8
Delimitations 10
Limitations 10
Definition of Terms 11
IIREVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 13
Equality of Educational Opportunity ... 13
Litigation-Fiscal Equality of Educational
Opportunity 22
State Support Plans for Education . . 35
Educational Finance in West Virginia. . 52
Simulations 61
Summary 75
IIIADAPTATION OF THE NEFP COMPUTER SIMULATION
MODEL 78
The NEFP Model 78
The West Virginia Model 82
IVANALYSIS OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY 104
Present School Finance in West Virginia 105
Analyses of Simulated Alternatives. . 121
Variation Between Plans 125
Summary 142


200
APPENDIX D Continued
SET I
PROGRAM DECISIONS
ALTERNATIVE DECISION POINTS
SECTION I: PROGRAM UNIT
SECTION II: SPECIAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
SECTION III: MODIFYING FACTORS
BASE DATA
*
WEST VIRGINIA
PROGRAMS
TARGET POPULATION
Basic Early Chi 1dhood
4 yr. olds
(no data)
Kindergarten
14,824.0
Basic Elementary and Secondary
Elementary
193,961.0
Secondary
146,834.7
Special/Exceptional
Educable Mentally Retarded
7,618.5
Trainable Mentally Retarded
1 ,242.1
Learning Disabilities
2,517.7
Behavioral Disorders
554.9
Physically Handicapped
186.8
Multiple Handicapped
206.4
Visually Handicapped
30.2


154
decision (1971) stated that property wealth should not be
the determinant of the educational level of a child.
Experts in the area of school finance have criticized
the equity of the property tax relative to unequal treat
ment of equals, excessive burden on homeowners regardless
of total wealth or income, and the regressive distribution
of burden. But, as Due (1970) stated,
The dominance of the property tax in local
finance is a product primarily of the limited
potential of other local tax revenues. (p. 295)
However, as the NEFP (1971) and others have observed, an
equitable plan of school finance should shift the burden
of support from local to state sources of revenue.
Most state revenue sources, including West Virginia,
place emphasis on the sales and gross receipt tax, which
in turn places a heavier burden on low-income groups.
Legislatures and citizens need to analyze and evaluate
the relative progressivity of their state's revenue generat
ing system. Measures which attach a tax to purchases should
be deemphasized with more emphasis on indicators of fiscal
ability (i.e., income). The computer simulation enables
analysis of relative progressivity of a tax structure
through use of the tax progressivity measure developed by
the Tax Foundation.
Nationally, states need to consider analysis of
their current financing structure for education. This


219
APPENDIX D Continued
D. (Continued)
Explanation: Under this method each local
educational agency is required to levy a tax
at a rate which is uniform in each district.
The difference between the cost of the basic
state program and the amount provided by the
required local levy is supplied by the state.
E. PERCENTAGE STATE AND LOCAL SHARING of the cost of
the basic state program.
Explanation: Under this method the local
educational agency's contribution to the cost
of the basic state program varies according
to its financial ability relative to the
state average.

435
Thre general form of the computational formula is:
A 1-(J3 X E) = Basic State Aid, where '
S
A = cost of basic state program
D = district's financial ability
S = state average financial ability
E = a predetermined constant based on the
percentage of the cost of the basic state
program which would be provided by a dis
trict of average financial ability.
The decision with regard to A was made in Section I (Basic State
Program). To determine D and S, a decision is required with
regard to financial ability which is defined as a tax base per
unit. Thus, select both a base and a unit. Since a combination
is possible for each, indicate the percentages you wish. If you
choose a single financial ability measure, indicate the percentage
as 100.


220
APPENDIX D Continued
BASE
PERCENTAGE*
UNIT
PERCENTAGE*
Per Capita
450 ~
**Property
445
ENR
X X X X
452
Personal
Income
446 ~
ADM
X X X X
453
Sales &
Gross
447
FTE
454 ~
*Be sure the percentages add to 100 if you elect to use a combination
measure.
**Based on current assessment ratios of 47.5% and 97.5% for respective
classes.
To determine E (the predetermined constant), a percentage
is required. Specify E.
. _%
460


74
Anyone concerned with educational finance, legisla
tors, educators, business managers, school boards, parents,
among others, must be able to deal with major policy ques
tions such as those cited by the NEFP (1971), in regards
to future planning.
1) What pupil population will be served?
2) What kinds of programs should be recognized in
the state aid program?
3) Will necessary variations in unit costs of dif
ferent educational programs be recognized or
ignored in allocating state funds?
4) What kind of educational services will be funded
in the state plan?
5) Will the isolated small schools and the programs
of the core city be considered?
6) Will state funds be apportioned on the flat grant
basis which ignores differences in the wealth
of local school districts, or on the equalization
basis which provides more state funds per unit
of educational need to districts of less wealth
than to districts of greater wealth?
7) What proportion of school revenue will be pro
vided by the state and what proportion will come
from local sources?
8) What will be the total cost of the basic state
program?
9) Where will we get the money to support the basic
state program?
10)To what extent will the state permit local dis
tricts to provide services and experiences not
supported in the basic state program? (p. 2)


1 56
4. Cost studies need to be initiated to ascertain
the costs of programs, transportation, capital
outlay, et cetera.
5. A more thorough and efficient system of pupil
accounting procedures needs to be developed to
enable further analysis relative to levels
and program involvement.
6. A more thorough and efficient cost accounting
system needs to be established relative to
pupil accounting procedures.


80
and retrieved by the command PRINT Cxxx (the appropriate
file number).
Other NEFP Capabilities
Several analytical subroutines are currently avail
able to users of the simulation. Other subroutines may be
added by linking them to the data sets utilizing standard
IBM utilities. Descriptions of the main subroutines cur
rently available to the user are
AVE: This procedure calculates the average of a
basic (B) or calculated (C) data array.
Initiation of this procedure is invoked by
the input "AVE" followed by one space and,
at most, one array key.
Example 1: AVE B035
Example 2: AVE C610
CORR: This procedure correlates any of the basic
(B) or calculated (C) data arrays using the
Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Initiation
of this subroutine is invoked by the input
"CORR" which must be followed by one space
and exactly two array keys separated by a
comma.
Example 1: CORR B361 ,B364
Example 2: CORR B362 C61 5
Example 3: CORR C500,C845
GRAPH: This procedure is invoked by the key word
"GRAPH" followed by one space and up to
four basic (B) and/or calculated (C) data
codes. One of the data codes may be used
for the title which cannot exceed 20 charac
ters in length and is separated from the
other data codes by ampersands. This routine
causes a histogram to be printed with the
decisions numbered along the horizontal axis
and the scale along the vertical axis.


245
Superintendent of Documents. Food and feedback: Coming
to gripes with the global systems. MOSAIC, 1975,
6, 2-8.
Tanner, C.K., & Kandwros, J.M. Cost of delivering educa
tion: A planning model. San Antonio, Texas:
American Education Finance, 1977.
Tansey, P.J., & Unwin, D. Simulation and gaming in educa
tion. London: Methuen Education LTD, 1969.
Taylor, J L. & Walford, R. Simulation in the classroom.
Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972.
Tron, E.O. (Ed.). Public school finance programs 1975-76.
Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Education,
1 976.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi
zation. Constitution. 1945.
Vacca, R.S. The courts and school finance: A reexamina
tion. In K.F. Jordan & K. Alexander (Eds.), Futures
in school finance: Working toward a common goal.
Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Del ta Kappa, .1975.
Weiss, S. J. Existing disparities in public school finance
and proposal s for reform. Boston, Mass.: Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston, 1969.
Williamson, J. A computer based economical game for social
studies instruction: International balance of pay
ments. Journal of Educational Data Processing, 1970,
7, 181-192.
Wynn, R. Simulation: Terrible reality in the preparation
of school administrators. Phi Delta Kappan, 1964,
XLVI, 171-175.
Zuckerman, D.W., & Horn, R.E. The guide to simulations/
gamesfor education and training. Lexington,
Massachusetts: Information Resources, Inc., 1973.
Court Cases
Bell's Gap Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania, 134 US 232
(1890).
Brown v. Board of Education, 374 US 483 (1954).


23
The first generation of cases regarded "State School
Finance Programs in the Taxation Context" where the finan
cial programs created unconstitutional classifications or
violation of equality and uniformity in requirements for
taxation (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, pp. 472 and 481).
This period lasted approximately 60 years from the early
1910's until the late 1960's and involved taxpayers seeking
tax relief for themselves. Within these cases, the tax
payers attempted to restrain state legislatures from enact
ing laws dealing with equalization measures. But, "The
courts established the constitutionality of using the
equalization method" (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, p. 495).
The Supreme Court also established a "test" to determine
constitutionality of a states' tax program, which Justice
Jackson (Bell's Gap Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania,
1890) had stated as:
Equal protection does not require identity of
treatment. It only requires that classification
rest on real and not feigned differences, that
the distinction have some relevance to the purpose
for which the classification is made, and the
different treatment be not so disparate, relative
to the difference in classification, as to be
wholly arbitrary. (134 US 232)
In 1912, the Supreme Court of Maine, in Sawyer v.
Gi 1 more (83 A. 673, 1912) interpreted that the state's
constitutional provision for requiring only equality of
assessment and not equity of distribution to be constitu
tional. The issue was that a property tax had been collected


236
APPENDIX F Continued
Foundation
State Aid
Supplements Outside
Of Formula*
Total (1)
+ (2)
err
T3T
36
Nicholas
556.41
Hancock
113.96
Fayette
673.45
37
Upshur
556.22
MeDowel 1
113.62
Nicholas
672.33
38
Lewis
555.11
Cabell
113.20
Wood
671 .63
39
Wood
551.40
Marion
111.29
Hampshire
671.26
40
Brooke
550.51
Summers
110.93
Kanawha
670.36
41
Taylor
547.05
Marshall
110.42
Mineral
669.63
42
Hampshire
545.33
Lincoln
109.51
Gilmer
668.20
43
Kanawha
544.02
Mineral
108.78
Brooke
667.06
44
Gilmer
538.35
Wyoming
107.59
Randolph
656.00
45
Jackson
532.46
Ohio
106.92
Monongalia
650.42
46
Wetzel
528.64
Jackson
106.91
Jackson
639.37
47
Marion
527.59
Fayette
106.43
Marion
638.88
48
Monongalia
524.68
Wetzel
106.37
Wetzel
635.01
49
Berkeley
524.00
Raleigh
105.52
Hancock
630.97
50
Hancock
517.01
Wayne
103.01
Berkeley
626.68
51
Ohio
512.61
Berkeley
102.68
Ohio
619.53
52
Harrison
490.87
Harrison
102.14
Marshall
599.71
53
Marshall
489.29
Logan
100.13
Harrison
593.01
54
Putnam
466.54
Randolph
99.45
Grant
573.23
55
Grant
379.90
Putnam
91.63
Putnam
558.17
$556.40
$117.00
$673.40
Note. *Ear1y Childhood Aides, $1,200 teacher salary, service personnel
$11,500,000 (April), $9,373,008 (duly).


207
APPENDIX D Continued
Special/Exceptional (Continued)
Homebound
Gifted
Delivery System Special/Exceptional
System 1 Self Contained
System 2 Resource
System 3 Itinerant
System 4 Option
Vocational /Technical
Agriculture
Distributive
Health
Home Economics
Business/Office
Technical
Industrial
Other Vocational (Code 99)
Compensatory
Low Income
Low Achievement
Note: You have
two alterna
tives on com
pensatory
pupils (choose
one).
135
136
155
156
137
D157
138
D158
139
D159
140
D160
186
231
187
232
188
233
189
234
190
235
191
236
192
237
193
238
178
239
179
240


APPENDIX A
DATA BASE CREATION PROGRAM


APPENDIX E
STATE FILE


98
were then proportionately assigned scores relative to
income taxes. It is the relationship of these measures
in the similation that computes the progressivity score
for the input decisions regarding the simulated state
structure.
The Lorenz Curve and Gini Coefficient are economic
measures that have been adapted and used in public school
finance, and are included within the West Virginia Model.
These measures have received notoriety since they have
been characterized as being able to operationalize the
concept of fiscal neutrality.
The common example used illustrates the Lorenz
Curve by plotting data for cumulative porportion of pupils
in districts and the cumulative proportion of expenditures
for districts on coordinate axes. The horizontal axis
reflects pupils, and the vertical axis reflects expendi
tures. The districts are then sorted in ascending order
by wealth per pupil. If all districts were the same, then
a straight line would be plotted. However, if a sagging
curve developed, then lesser amounts spent in poorer
districts would be indicated. The measure of the latter
inequality is called the Gini Coefficient (or Gini Index
or Index of Concentration). The general formula for
the Gini Coefficient being


49
a given tax effort, in excess of the stipulated amount
set by the state, the excess must be transferred back to
the state" (Cohn, 1974, p. 35). The transfer-back, or
"recapture" is considered by some an essential part of
the district power equalizing plan. An example would be
that if two districts "impose the same property tax rate,
they will have identical educational funds per pupil,"
regardless of their wealth or poverty (Cohn, 1974, p. 35).
With this recapture provision this formula truly can be
called both positive and negative in the amount of state
equalized, aid to the district.
The main point emphasized under this plan is that
local boards (districts) know best what expenditures are
needed to meet their educational goals, and therefore
should control the purse strings. However, Alexander and
Jordan (1976) stated that if the state would establish no
local fiscal standard, it would abdicate its responsibility
to provide for an equal system of education (p. 357).
Coons, and his associates (1970), recognized yet another
problem concerning the average district, in that rich dis
tricts might wind up being equalized down (p. 167). In
the final analysis, depending on the schedule established
by the state, Michelson (1974) stated, "District power
equalizing preserves a lot of the status quo, with possibly
some higher local school tax rates thrown in" (p. 104),


24
statewide, but was being distributed to the exclusion of
unorganized townships. The court concluded that since the
plan was established by the legislature, and if the popu
lace felt it was unjust, it was up to the populace to
rectify, not the courts.
This first generation of cases attacked equality of
financial public education based on the Fourteenth Amend
ment of the U.S. Constitution and similar provision of the
constitutions of the various states. The decision in the
Sawyer case was typical of the cases litigated within this
generation. The degree of equalization afforded by the
various states was conditioned by the phrase "insofar as
it is possible" (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, p. 481)
The second generation of cases were characterized as
"educational need" cases and are classified as "pre-Serrano."
These cases challenged the concept that educational support
was a function of the district's wealth, and that indi
vidual needs and deficiencies should be considered.
Two cases were prime examples of litigation in this
generation. They were Mclnnis v. Shapiro (293 F.Supp. 327,
1968) in Illinois, and Burruss v. Wilkerson (310 F.Supp.
572, 1969) in Virginia. In Mclnnis the plaintiffs chal
lenged the State of Illinois financial plan as being a
violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Con
stitution. Plaintiffs contested that as the plan existed,


164
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
013
014
015
016 -
017
018
019
020
021
"Supplemental Teachers'
Salaries"
"Supplemental Service
and Auxiliary Services
"Supplemental Aid for
Children's Homes"
"State Aid for
Increased Enrollment"
"Special Education
Allocation Out of
Formula Grants"
"Special Education
Allocation Out of
Formula Homebound
Instruction"
"Special Education
Allocation Out of
Formula Additional
Grants"
"Special Education
Allocation Out of
Formula RESA"
"State Aid to RESA"
An amount allocated out
side the basic foundation
formula for supplemental
teacher's salary raises.
An amount allocated out
side the basic foundation
formula for supplemental
service and auxiliary
salary raises.
An allocation for dis
tricts in which
children's homes are
located.
An amount allocated to
counties which experi
ence an increase in net
enrollment.
An allocation for out of
formula distribution of
special education grants
to cover salaries and
supportive costs.
Allocation of special
education aid to counties
out of the basic formula
for special education
homebound instruction.
Additional allocation of
special education aid to
counties for workshops
and hospital instruction
program.
An allocation of special
education aid to RESA
centers.
An allocation of state
aid to RESA Centers
based on a basic alloca
tion plus an additional
per pupil in adjusted en
rollment allocation.


33
Because educational finance systems vary from
state to state, and because the provisions of
state constitutions vary from state to state,
decisions in other states raising the issue under
a state constitution are of little value as
precedents. (31 Conn.Supp. 377, 332 A.2d 813)
West Virginia's system of financing public schools
was under litigation (Pauley v. Kelley, Civil Action 75-
1268) based on a "thorough and efficient" clause of the
state constitution (Article XII S.l). The "Lincoln County
Case," as it was called, presented a challenge similar to
the one argued in Robinson v. Cahi11 (62 NJ 473, 303 A.2d
273, 1973) especially in light of the similarity in wording
of the West Virgina and New Jersey Constitutions.
Prior to the "Lincoln County Case," the West Virginia
court had expressed its opinion of the "thorough and
efficient" clause and the importance of education when it
stated
The will of the people, through the basic law
enacted by them, that a thorough efficient system
of free schools is of paramount importance in a
free society and that neither the legislative
nor the executive branch of government may per
form any act which would result in the eliminating
of this safeguard. (State ex rel. Brotherton v.
Blankenship, 1973, 207 S.E.2d 436, 1973)
On June 14, 1977, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Court, Justice Smith presiding, stated that
It seems clear from the record that Lincoln
County is not providing these basics, and that
the school system in that county falls short
of that constitutional mandate. (Pauley v.
Kelley, 1977, p. 6)


60
Class I, 39.2 (per $100) for Class II, and 78.4 (per $100)
for Classes III and IV. The result is the local share.
Counties may, for a period of not more than five years,
adopt an additional special levy up to 100 percent of
authorized levy; however, 60 percent of the voters must
approve.
Of the money raised by the property tax, approximately
99.5 percent remains within the counties. For the tax
year 1975, see Table 2 for a breakdown of the assess valua
tion on nonutility property in the State of West Virginia.
TABLE 2 '
Assessed Valuation of Nonutility
Property in West Virginia (1975)
Property Class
Assessed Valuation
Class I
$ 675,319,569
Class II
2,309,264,807
Class III
2,272,422,582
Class IV
1,767,157,366
Note: Total assessed valuation = $7,024,146,324


59
and maintain nonutility property appraisals annually.
West Virginia has four classes of property for tax purposes
and is required to assess at not less than 50 percent nor
more than 100 percent of the apprai-sed value.
The classes of property as defined by the state tax
commissioners office are (Local Government Relations
Division, 1975):
Class I All tangible personal property employed
exclusively in agriculture, including
horticulture and grazing; all products
of agriculture, including livestock, while
owned by the producer; all notes, bonds,
and accounts receivable, stocks, and any
other evidences if indebtedness.
Class II- All property owned, used and occupied
exclusively for residential purposes;
all farms, including land used for horti
culture and grazing, occupied and culti
vated by their owners or bona fide tenants.
Class III- All real and personal property situated
outside of municipalities, exclusive of
Classes I & II.
Class IV- All real and personal property situated
inside of municipalities, exclusive of
Classes I & II. (p. viii)
The local share for support of schools, as defined
in Chapter 18, Article 9-A, Section II, specifies two
factors as the determinants. First, 97.5 percent of
the value for public utility property is determined, and
47.5 percent of the value for nonutility property is
determined. Applicable rates for each class of property
are then applied on the basis of 19.6 (per $100) for


147
The key elements of the simulation are three addi
tional files called LSTATE, SSTATE, and STATE. LSTATE
and SSTATE are the original calculation arrays for the
NEFP model and are accessed through the commands LCALC
and SCALC, respectively. The STATE file in the NEFP
model was blank to enable researchers and planners to
create their own calculations relative to need. The
blank STATE file was created for use in the West Virginia
model. Calculations were written and stored in this file
to enable the interaction of the other West Virginia
files. The file is accessed through the command CALC.
Analysis of Equality of Educational
Opportunity and Taxpayer Equity
The third objective stated that an analysis of al
ternative school funding patterns would be generated and
evaluated in regard to equality of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity criteria. This part of the study was
divided into three sections: (1) analysis of the 1976-1977
school financial plan, (b) generation of alternative fund
ing patterns relative to the concept of equality of educa
tional opportunity, and (3) analysis of alternatives rela
tive to the concept of taxpayer equity.
West Virginia finance plan (1976-1977). The 1976-
1977 West Virginia public school financial plan raises
some issues concerning equality of educational opportunity


TABLF OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER Page
V SUMMARY, INDICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 144
Summary 144
Implications 151
Recommendations 155
APPENDICES
A DATA BASE CREATION PROGRAM 159
B BASIC DATA DEFINITIONS 162
C CALCULATED DATA DEFINITIONS 184
D INPUT DECISIONS
WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE
SIMULATION MODEL 199
E STATE FILE 230
F STATE AID, 1 976- 77 235
REFERENCES 237
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 248
v


ANALYSIS OF EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUN
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY THROUGH THE MODELING AND T
OF A COMPUTER BASED PUBLIC SCHOOL
FINANCE SIMULATION FOR A SELECTED STATE
ITY
ESTING
By
MICHAEL KURT BOOKMAN
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PART
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
COUNCIL OF
IAL
DEGREE OF
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1977

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study would have never been possible without
the contributions and support of many people and organi
zations. A number of these people and organizations de
serving special acknowledgments are
The West Virginia Sta^e Department cf Education for
their cooperation in helping obtain the required data;
Mr. William Hamilton who facilitated the transmission
of data, and helped in making essential data available to
the researcher;
Dr. John L. Jones who started the researcher on the
path ;
The Institute for Educational Finance for their help,
sense of humor, and togetherness;
Dr. Linda Crocker for helping the researcher in a
time of need, and general understanding and patience;
Dr. Kern Alexander for his patience, guidance, help,
and all round guiding light;
Dr. James Hale, committee chairman, for his "fan
tastic" help and support. Without his understanding and
judgment, many questions would have never been answered.
THANKS.

Sid Bookman for his support, help, and wisdom from
birth;
Isabel Bookman, the reason for the researcher being
in education, and an inspiration;
Finally, my wife, Kay, for her continual support,
patience, and tolerance during the preparation of this
study. Without her being there, this might not have been
accomplished.
i i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER
IINTRODUCTION 1
Background and Rationale 1
Statement of the Problem 7
Procedures 8
Delimitations 10
Limitations 10
Definition of Terms 11
IIREVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 13
Equality of Educational Opportunity ... 13
Litigation-Fiscal Equality of Educational
Opportunity 22
State Support Plans for Education . . 35
Educational Finance in West Virginia. . 52
Simulations 61
Summary 75
IIIADAPTATION OF THE NEFP COMPUTER SIMULATION
MODEL 78
The NEFP Model 78
The West Virginia Model 82
IVANALYSIS OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY 104
Present School Finance in West Virginia 105
Analyses of Simulated Alternatives. . 121
Variation Between Plans 125
Summary 142

TABLF OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER Page
V SUMMARY, INDICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 144
Summary 144
Implications 151
Recommendations 155
APPENDICES
A DATA BASE CREATION PROGRAM 159
B BASIC DATA DEFINITIONS 162
C CALCULATED DATA DEFINITIONS 184
D INPUT DECISIONS
WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE
SIMULATION MODEL 199
E STATE FILE 230
F STATE AID, 1 976- 77 235
REFERENCES 237
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 248
v

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1 Effect on Additional Allocations for
Professional Educator State Aid Formula . 58
2 Assessed Valuation of Nonutility Property
in West Virginia (1975) 60
3 BasicDataCodeSheet 85
4 Calculated Data Code Sheet 93
5 Preliminary Computations Public School Support
Program Supplementary Information 1976-1977 109
6 State and Local Funds per Pupil 1976-1977 . Ill
7 Weighted Values and Revenue from Local
Property Tax 1 976- 1 977 1 1 5
8 Total Program Dollars and Total State Aid per
Pupil by Funding Pattern 127
9 Weighted Foundation Program Cost Figures. . 135
10 Progress ivity Value 139

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1 Conceptual Framework for Simulation . . 64
2 Sample Input of the West Virginia School
Finance Computer Simulation Model Utilizing
an Unweighted Pupil Unit 102
3 Sample Input of the West Virginia School
Finance Computer Simulation MOdel Utilizing
a Weighted Pupil Unit 103
v i i

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
ANALYSIS OF EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
AND TAXPAYER EQUITY THROUGH THE MODELING AND TESTING
OF A COMPUTER BASED PUBLIC SCHOOL
FINANCE SIMULATION FOR A SELECTED STATE
By
Michael Kurt Bookman
August, 1977
Chairman: Dr. James A. Hale
Major Department: Educational Administration & Supervision
The primary objectives of this study were to (1) iden
tify and collect data necessary to generate alternative
funding patterns for public school finance, (2) to develop
computational subroutines and decision sets in a computer
simulation model that would provide alternative funding
patterns, and (3) to simulate ana evaluate alternative
funding patterns relative to the concepts of equal educa
tional opportunity and taxpayer equity. Tnese three objec
tives were then applied to the state of West Virginia.
The National Education Finance Project (NEFP) ori
ginally developed a computer simulation which was designed
to simulate the effects of decisions for a prototype state.
This simulation consisted of two main data files, which were
identified as M FILE and D FILE. TheM FILE was additionally
subdivided into aBFILE and C FILE. Basic informational
data about the school districts, such as demographic,
v i i i

enrollment, program, salaries, et cetera, are contained
in theDFILE; whereas, the C FILE stored results of compu
tations for later retrieval. D FILE contained the alterna
tive decision sets available to the user in regard to
programs, distribution, and revenue decisions. Three
additional files were created in the simulation, and are
designated as LSTATE, SSTATE, and STATE. These three
files were the key elements of the simulation in that
they enabled the interaction of the input decisions rela
tive to the base data. For purposes of this study, the
STATE file was created, and computational subroutines
relative to both general school finance and the state of
West Virginia were written and stored in this file. Addi
tional options included a comparisonssection between the
alternative selected and the 1976-1977 state plan, and a
Lorenz Curve and Gini Index to enable further analysis
of equity.
Although the analysis of data was place specific,
West Virginia, the procedures employed are genera 1izable
to any state. Analysis of data was accomplished in four
parts. First, the 1976-1977 state plan was analyzed rela
tive to the concepts of equality of educational oppor
tunity and taxpayer equity. The results indicated that
the 1976-1977 state aid formula showed a high correlation
between the amount of money available to a district and

the number of professional educators employed in a district.
This factor was significant considering the state alloca
tions are based on professional educator salaries. Wealthy
districts thus tend to have more professional educators
per student, and subsequently receive more state aid than
poorer districts. Likewise, the composition of the gen
eral fund indicated a heavy reliance on tax sources which
place a greater burden on low-income groups.
The second part of the analysis demonstrated the
convergence of foundation, percentage equalizing, and
guaranteed yield programs when one considers only dollar
allocations in regard to equity, which is referred to as
vertical equity. In part three, concern for student needs
(horizontal equity) was provided for in a weighted founda
tion program. The level of funding utilized remained con
stant throughout, to illustrate redistributional effects of
state aid. The results indicated that a basic program can
fulfill both the requirements of vertical and horizontal
equity, and thus meet equality of educational opportunity
criteria. Finally, the fourth part analyzed the 1975-1976
general revenue fund relative to the criteria of taxpayer
equity. Using the NEFP tax progressivity index, results
indicated a tax base which appeared to place a greater
burden on low income groups. An alternative was generated
which produced a higher progressivity measure.
x

A simulation provides the necessary analytical tool
which enables experimentation on a system without in
curring the risks of direct experimentation. The examples
cited were representative of the capabilities of the
adapted simulation model, and demonstrate the potential
use by researchers, planners, and managers connected with
educational finance.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Rationale
Equality is a concept which the United States has
expressed as one of the basic principles upon which this
country was founded. The Preamble to the Constitution is
illustrative of this point when it stated, "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
The idea still endures, with President Carter declaring that
one of the issues about which his administration is con
cerned deeply is the issue of "human rights."
However noble an idea, the implementation of such an
ideal as equality has had its limitations. Throughout
history equality has been defined and applied differen
tially, depending upon who was defining and applying the
concept to whom. Because of this problem, legislatures
(federal and state) have attempted to be more specific in
their intent, with the ultimate objective being that through
a combination of all the pieces of legislation, a more
general interpretation of the concept of equality could be
derived. However, the courts, being the main interpreters
1

2
of legislation, have encountered the same definitional
problem of equality as have legislatures.
Some have suggested that through education, equality
is an obtainable goal. This hope is due to the fact that
these same people believe that it is through expanded edu
cational opportunities that a degree of equality will be
achieved. But, as with most general terms, the concepts
of equality and educational opportunity seemed to confound
the definitional problems already encountered. Given that
school districts provide different educational programs
and fiscally support education at various levels, the con
troversy of what constitutes equality in education has
evolved to a point where fiscal policies seem to be the
focus of legislators, courts, and educators.
Laws, policies, and procedures for the assessment,
collection, and distribution of revenues to support public
education have been a major issue facing legislatures,
courts, educators, and citizens. The ultimate end of which
is to provide for equality of educational opportunity,
which McCarthy (1977) has characterized as being "firmly
rooted in democratic philosophy and shares an exalted
position with monogomy, brotherhood, and peace" (p. 159).
Public education exists, as the term implies, to
serve society and for the benefit of society. Thus, being
a merit want of society, it should be reflective of the

3
needs and goals for the society in which it exists. To
facilitate this end, adequate revenues must be provided
to finance public education and to meet the goal of equal
ity of educational opportunity.
The concept of fiscal equality, although easy to
state, is in fact a complex and dynamic concept. McClure
(1975) suggested that educational equality means "that every
individual should be able to develop to fullest capacity,
given reasonable effort and motivation, and to continue in
ways that enable her or him to perform as effectively as
possible" (p. 102). By this and similar definitions by
others, the concept evolves as fiscal equity rather than
fiscal equality.
The delineation between the two concepts, equality
and equity, being that equality implies uniformity of sup
port (or service), whereas equity implies differential sup
port (or service) based upon need. Alexander (1977) ex
panded upon the concept of equity when he defined it as
generally consisting of at least three aspects "equality,
utility, and efficiency" (p. 453).
Simple horizontal equality is referred to by economists
as treating equals, equally. But, due to its broad inter
pretation, equals and equality have become relative terms.
This same drawback of interpretation is also encountered
when one considers the concept of utility. If taxpayers

4
receive a maximum return for their investment, and they
continue to receive that maximum, then equality occurs.
But, the economic principal of marginal utility suggests
that the value placed upon those returns has differential
utility, and therefore the degree of utility applies.
Efficiency on the other hand addresses itself to a "bal
anced and comprehensive taxing structure covering all major
forms of activity without falling exclusively on one particu
lar aspect of the economic system" (Alexander, 1977, p. 455)
Since equality is a goal of public school finance
practice, R. L. Johns (1977) stated the general criteria for
judging achievement thereof as,
(1) The finance program should result in substan
tial equalization throughout the state. (2) The
program should be fiscally neutral; the quality
and quantity of a child's education should not
be dependent on per capita wealth of the school
district in which he lives. (3) The program should
be financed by an equitable system of taxation.
(4) The program should promote the efficient use
of school funds. (p. 499)
Meeting the criteria as mentioned by Johns (1977)
had been the objectives of state legislatures, courts,
educators, and the lay public, but it has often been a
"patch-work" or "piece-meal" approach. The emphasis to
correct inequities within state formulas has been accom
plished through "add-ons" to the current formula, or by
raising funding levels within the existing formula. The
result of the corrections has been general confusion on the

5
part of legislators, educators, and citizens as to what the
end result means to individual school districts.
Hale (1975) addressed the equity of state financial
plans for education in terms of distributional equity and
taxpayer equity. Distributional equity is concerned with
the allocation phase of school finance in regard to testing
the equity of "equal access to resources based upon need,"
whereas taxpayer equity is concerned with the revenue dimen
sion in regard to testing the equity concept of "equal
treatment-of-equals who have the ability to pay" (Hale,
1975, p. 22). But, as Tanner and Kondwros (1977) stated,
the problems of "enormous growth in expenditures" over
revenues and the inability of local governments to generate
enough revenues have generally prevented both quality edu
cation and equality of education.
Tanner and Kondwros (1977) stated five reasons why
current state aid formulas appear to be inadequate. They
first concluded that variations in the tax bases, assess
ment procedures and tax rates make a heavy reliance on the
property tax which they further concluded was an inadequate
source of funding. Second, flat grant provisions within
many state formulas help in maintaining discrepancies.
Third, variations for cost-of-living and delivery systems
are seldom considered in present formulas. Fourth, equaliz
ing formulas that are based on property wealth "frequently

6
do not correlate with individual income" (Tanner & Kondwros,
1977, p. 2), and this is a crucial relationship in the
ability of a school district to generate revenue.
Fifth, present formulas do not take into account high cost
programs necessary to meet the needs of various children.
To deal with equalization of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity issues in a comprehensive study of
school finance requires the use of the most efficient tool
available to show the impact of policy decisions, and to
allow for analysis of alternatives. Through the use of a
computer simulation researchers and planners can quickly
and accurately answer questions in regard to the impact of
proposed plans on individual school districts (Johns,
1977, p. 508).
It is within the computer-based simulation that pro
gram decisions, distributional decisions, and revenue de
cisions can be analyzed in relationship to a state as a
whole. The simulation model provides the needed planning,
management, and research tool for school finance policy
makers and policy-managers.
School finance specialists and researchers have sug
gested that almost all state-local public school support
programs in use throughout the United States essentially
are the same, with the variation being within the definition
of terms used (Johns, 1968). These variations in definitions

7
actually determine the degree of equality of educational op
portunity contained in the state plan. One focus of this
study was to determine the variation from equalization of
several alternative public school finance plans through
the use of a computer model adapted for that purpose.
Statement of the Problem
The focus of this study was to adapt and test a
computer-based school finance simulation model that would
provide computational subroutines to generate alternative
sets of program and fiscal decisions. The problem was to
generate alternative sets of public school finance program
and fiscal decisions and demonstrate their respective
contribution to equalization of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity. The specific aspects of the problem
were
1. Identification of the data elements necessary
to generate alternative funding patterns for
various public school support formulae.
2. To develop calculation subroutines and decision
sets necessary to simulate various public
school funding patterns.
3. To simulate four alternative funding patterns
and to evaluate the results relative to gen
erally accepted criteria of equalization of
educational opportunity and taxpayer equity.

8
Procedures
The general procedures for this study were conducted
in three phases:
1. Data were identified and collected which
enabled production of program and fiscal de
cisions relative to alternative school finance
funding pians.
2. Calculation and decision subroutines were
developed which enabled alternative patterns of
school finance to be modeled.
3. Analysis of the alternative school funding plans
in regard to both equalization of educational
opportunity and taxpayer equity criteria.
- Data were identified and collected which enabled pro
duction of the program and fiscal decisions relative to
alternative school finance funding plans.
Since West Virginia school finance programs are based
on student and teacher data of the previous year, data were
available to duplicate the 1976-1977 funding plan.
Programmatically, for the purposes of this study, the
decision was made to generate alternative funding patterns
based on kindergarten, elementary, secondary, special
education (for 10 exceptionalities or maladies or 4 delivery
systems, using full time equivalency enrollment) and voca
tional education (for eight categories, using full time
equivalency enrollment). Additional programmatic data used

9
included salaries of professional educators, special services
and modifying factors, and fiscal data relative to both
state and local revenue and wealth.
Data collection was limited to information that was
obtainable at the state level. The State Department of
Education, State Department of Transportation, and State
Tax Collectors Office were the prime sources of information
regarding local school districts.
2 Calculation and decision subroutines were developed
which enabled alternative patterns of school finance to
be modeled.
Following collection of data necessary to simulate the
alternative patterns of school finance, a decision manual
was developed to provide researchers and planners options
as to programs, allocations, and to sources of revenue.
Then by modification of the National Education Finance
Project simulation, calculational subroutines were developed
to enable execution of the desired decisions.
3 Analysis of the alternative school funding plans in
regard to both equalization of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity criteria.
Foundation plan, percentage equalization plan, and
guaranteed yield plan were decided as the basic options
that were utilized in the model for analysis. Equalization
of educational opportunity and taxpayer equity criteria
were applied to each, and served as the basis for analysis.

10
Delimitations
1. The study was limited to the state of West
Virginia.
2. Enrollment figures used were based on a full
time equivalency basis.
3. Analysis was limited to generalized funding
patterns (foundation plan, percentage equalizing
plan, and guaranteed yield).
4. Programmatic data and fiscal data were obtained
that reflected the 1976-1977 basis of support
for public schools. However, data for the base
year that was unavailable were substituted by
1975-1976 data.
L i mi ta tions
Through the use of computer simulations, state planners
and researchers can analyze the equalization effects of
various alternative patterns of school finance funding
strategies. Though the study was limited to the state of
West Virginia, generalizations may be inferred to other
states if similar data and structure exists.

11
Definition of Terms
Actual costs. Actual costs were used for the purposes
of this study to denote total expenditures incurred for
the specific category referenced.
Approved costs. Approved costs for the purposes of
this study were used to denote approved allocations by the
state for the specific category referenced.
Delivery system. Delivery system for the purposes of
this study were used to denote a specific modality of
instruction within the special education program.
Distributional decisions. Distributional decisions
for the purposes of this study were used to refer to the
total state and local support of the basic state program,
procedures for distribution and procedures for local incen
tive, if desired.
Fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity refers to the total
resources a governmental unit has available to them to tax
and generate revenue for public purposes, which includes
education.
Fiscal equity. Fiscal equity is a concept which
states that all divisions within a state should have access
to similar revenues for public purposes, including educa
tion.
Fiscal neutrality. Fiscal neutrality is a concept
that was established within the Serrano (1971) decision.

12
The court stated that a state must provide each district
with relatively equal financial capacity, regardless of
that districts spending patterns or program offerings.
Malady. Malady or exceptionality was used synony
mously for the purposes of this study, and denoted a par
ticular special education category. The categories that
were used in the model included: educable mentally re
tarded, trainable mentally retarded, learning disabilities,
behavioral disorders, physically handicapped, mu Itipie
handicapped, visually handicapped, auditorily handicapped,
communication disorders, homebound and gifted.
Professional educator. Professional educator for
the purposes of this study was defined as a teacher,
supervisor, principal, superintendent, librarian, or any
other person regularly employed for instructional purposes.
Program decisions. Program decisions for the pur
poses of this study were used to enable determination of
programs and units of a state school program, cost differ
entials (if appropriate) and other special modifying
factors.
Revenue decisions. Revenue decisions for the pur
poses of this study were used to refer to tax sources of
both state and local governments to provide funds for
education, and the desired rates associated with each
revenue source.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The review of related literature is divided into five
major sections. The first reviews the concept of equality
of educational opportunity. The second section reviews the
major litigation that has occurred in regard to fiscal
equality of educational opportunity. The third section
reviews the various state support plans for education. The
fourth section reviews educational practice in West Vir
ginia (historical and current), and the final section
reviews concepts and uses of simulation.
Equality of Educational Opportunity
Since the formation of the United States in 1776, the
concepts of equality and opportunity have been mentioned in
several major policy documents of the nation's beliefs and
goals. In addition, the concepts have been defined and
redefined by many, depending on their point of reference
or interest.
Four examples of the emphasis on equality and oppor
tunity are as follows. First within the Declaration of
Independence is expressed,

14
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pur
suit of happiness .
Second, within the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment
reaffirmed the concept of equality when it stated,
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person . .
the equal protection of laws.
Third, within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the UNESCO Constitution, the United States again stated
its commitment to the concept of equality, and specifically
to educational opportunity when they pledged to affirm,
The concept of equality of educational opportunity
without regard to race, sex or any distinction
economic or social. (UNESCO, 1945, Article 1, b)
And, fourth, Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act, as cited
by James Coleman (1966), charged the United States Office
of Education to undertake a survey,
Concerning the lack of availability of equal edu
cational opportunity for individuals by reason of
race, color, religion, or national origin in
public educational institutions at all levels
in the United States. (p. iii)
The previously mentioned documents and statements have
expressed a commitment by the federal government to provide
for citizen equality, especially in regard to educational
opportunity. Generally, the previous statements have been
held as the global concepts of equality of educational

15
opportunity. Specifically, a United States Supreme Court
decision of 1937, in regard to Social Security, provided
the precedent for interpreting the "general welfare" pro
vision of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution in light
of equality of educational opportunity. The court stated,
Nor is the concept of general welfare static.
Needs that were (considered) narrow or parochial
a century ago may be interwoven in our day with
the well being of the Nation. What is critical
or urgent changes with the times. (Helverinq v.
Davis, 1937, 301 US 619)
Justice Frankfurter in a later decision similarly expressed
the changing nature of equal protection when he stated
that, "It is not a yardstick. It is a process" (Joint
Anti-Facist Refugee Concern v. McGrath, 1951, 341 US 123,
162). What the justice was expressing was that general
welfare, of which education could be a provision, is a
changing concept, and requires modification over time. In
regards to "equal treatment for purposes of Equal Protec
tion Clause," the Supreme Court stated that this too "does
change" (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966,
383 US 663, 669). This decision, although relating to
voting rights, later was relied upon by the California
Supreme Court in the Serrano case (487 P.2d 1241) regarding
"wealth" as a suspect classification.
Charles Benson (1965) provided the following statement
in regards to public education and equal protection:

16
The only universally accepted criterion of a
public activity is that it affords equal
treatment to equals. With respect to schooling,
this implies that any two children of the same
abilities shall receive equivalent forms of
assistance in developing those abilities, wherever
they live in a given state and whatever their
parent's circumstances are. (p. 62)
Prior to the industrial revolution the concept of
equality of educational opportunity had little or no rele
vance. Children during this time were an integral part of
the family unit and were expected to follow in their fam
ily's interests. The child's education was considered only
important in the aspect of acquiring necessary skills to
further the family's economic and- social unit.
The result of the industrial revolution was that the
family unit underwent a great change. Men began being em
ployed outside the family unit and thus they no longer pro
vided homebound vocational training for the young. Coupled
with the fact that factories required minimum skills, the
need for public education became a concern for the general
populace. But, as Coleman (1968) stated, this concern was
to the exclusion of Indians and Southern blacks and little
was done to encourage the poor. Coleman (1968) had
summarized this post-industri a 1 revolution when he stated:
The history of education since the industrial
revolution shows a continual struggle between 2
forces: the desire by members of society to have
educational opportunity for all children, and the
desire of each family to provide the best educa
tion it can afford for its own children. (p. vii)

With the turn of the twentieth century, education
began to be redefined. Traditional college preparatory
secondary schools began to modify their curriculum to meet
the needs of the majority of students who were not college
bound. And, the concept of "separate but equal" was re
affirmed for black children (Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 US 537,
1896). This provision continued over the next half century
until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka (347 US 493, 1954) where it
stated in dictum:
Today, education is perhaps the most important
function of state and local -government ....
In these days, it is doubtful that any child
may reasonably expect to succeed in life if he
is denied the opportunity to an education. Such
an opportunity, where the State has undertaken
to provide it is a right which must be made
available to all on equal terms.
The Supreme Court's statement of value was similarly
stated by Thomas Jefferson (cited in Division of Surveys
and Fields, 1956) at the country's beginning when he said,
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of
civilization, it expects what will never be" (p. 1).
Adam Smith (reprint, 1905) in 1776 similarly said in The
Wealth of Nations that education is a value to all society
and the expenses of it should "be defrayed by the general
contribution of the whole society" (p. 212).
Value implies something of worth, and education pro
vides many economic and social benefits to society which

18
Johns, Alexander, and Jordan (1972) exampled as
improvement of the environment in which production
takes place, greater flexibility and adaptability
of the labor force, ar;d greater ability to develop
technical improvements and incorporate them into
production processes. Conversely, externalities
of a negative nature, from the lack of education.
(p. 57)
Theodore Schultz (1970, pp. 29-57) also discussed and recog
nized the economic factors involved in education. Addi
tionally, Alexander (1976) provided an in-depth discussion
of the economic factors involved in education in his article
"The Value of An Education." He stated that
Economic measures of educational benefits are
inadequate to capture the full value of an
educated citizenry. . Estimates of social
returns to education do not . identify the
true values to society of higher levels of edu
cation . for its contribution is the preven
tion of many social problems. (p. 466)
In regard to providing all citizens with the social
and economic benefits a nation may offer, the concept of
equality of educational opportunity emerged. Anderson
(1965) stated that "Parity of opportunity is the simplest
definition of equity: If a group makes up 10% of the
population, it should receive 10% of the places" (pp.
341-342). He later discussed variations of his basic
propositions which included:
(1) an equal amount of education to everyone,
(2) enough education to bring everyone to a
given standard, (3) enough education to permit
each person to reach his potential, (4) continual
education so long as gains in learning per input
of teaching matched an agreed norm. (p. 342)

19
The first variation Anderson discussed is one concept
of equality while variations two, three, and four more
fully express the concept of equity. And, as the Supreme
Court expressed, this is the concept toward which educa
tional finance practices must evolve. The Court said,
The Equal Protection Clause does not require
absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.
Nor, indeed in view of the infinite variables
affecting the educational process, can any system
assure equal quality of education except in the
most relative sense. (411 US 24, 1973)
Hale (1975) explained that the theoretical concept of
equity must be assessed in terms of distributional equity
and taxpayer equity. Distributional equity concerns itself
with the allocation dimension of school finance in regard
to equal access to resources based upon fiscal and/or edu
cational need. Whereas taxpayer equity concerns itself
with the revenue dimension of school finance in regard to
"equal treatment of equals who have the ability to pay"
(Hale, 1975, p. 22).
Distributional equity is concerned with a uniform
definition of need. Fiscal need takes into account vari
ations of district's ability to finance the educational
needs of children within the district which some may define
as enrollment accounting, either average daily membership
(ADM) or average daily attendance (ADA) or full time
equivalency (FTE). Educational need as defined by some may
be defined as programs, curriculum, teacher in-service,

20
et cetera. Cubberley (1906) stated that as one reduces the
variations in the index used, the more equitable the pro
gram.
Taxpayer equity is concerned with the revenue dimen
sion of school finance, and the relationships of local,
state, and federal support and tax bases utilized by each.
The major sources of revenue generated by the federal govern
ment are the personal and corporate income taxes, whereas
state government's major tax bases are sales and gross re
ceipts, personal income, and corporate income. The primary
source of local revenue for school support is the ad valorem
taxes levied on real property, which is considered an in
equitable measure of taxpaying ability.
Alternatives suggested to replace the property tax
as an effective measure of district wealth or fiscal capacity
have included combinations of measures that currently exist.
Ahlf (1964) suggested a combination of equalized property
value, family income and effective buying income as the
most effective measure of fiscal capacity. Others, such as
James and Cronin (1969) stated that neither property nor
income individually measure wealth, but a combi nation of the
two is appropriate. Per capita income, median family in
come, and income per pupil represent the most often used
measures of fiscal capacity in school finance research.

21
Whatever the source or the base, Due (1970) suggested
that taxpayer equity required
(a) Equal treatment of equals. Persons regarded
as being in similar circumstances are taxed
the same.
(b) Distribution of the overall tax burden on
the basis of ability to pay, as measured by
income, by wealth, by consumption.
(c) Exclusion from tax of persons in the lowest
income groups, on the grounds that they have
no taxpaying capacity.
(d) A progressive overall distribution of tax
relative to income, on the basis that tax
capacity rises more rapidly than income. (p 293 )
Reflecting on Due (1970), Alexander and Jordan (1976)
concluded their analysis of equity offered that a state
school finance program must contain
(a) An adequate determination of the fiscal
ability of the local school district and
should adjust each district's allocation in
terms of its relationship to the state estab
lished standard
(b) Adequacy of funds for a child's educational
opportunity should not be compromised by the
social citizenry's lack of educational aspira
tions as reflected in the local tax rate or
effort
(c) Should recognize . the individual educa
tional needs of all children throughout the
state
(d) Provisions for greater funding to those school
districts which, because of the high cost of
delivering education, cannot provide equal
se rvices. (p. 337 )

22
Fiscal and educational differences of school dis
trict's must be considered if equity is to be attained.
The failure of states to recognize these differences in
their allocation dimension has caused court challenges to
most state funding patterns. An analysis of past and pend
ing litigation follows in the next section.
Li tigation-Fisea 1 Equality of Educational Opportunity
Litigation may be utilized by citizens for at least
four uses as stated by Gilhool (cited in Vacca, 1975, p.
120). These uses are (a) to secure substantive rights,
(b) create new environments to enforce or create rights for
citizens, (c) to make visible facts that had previously been
unknown, and (d) redress of grievances.
The first three uses of litigation discussed by
Gilhool have been evident in litigation involving financing
of public education. The substantive right being sought
was equal access to educational opportunity. The plain
tiff sought to change the financial plans of various states,
and thus bring the inequities in the current system to the
attention of the public (Vacca, 1975, p. 120). The primary
litigation involved challenges based on the equal protec
tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
and has been divided into three generations by Alexander
and Jordan (1972, pp. 470-508).

23
The first generation of cases regarded "State School
Finance Programs in the Taxation Context" where the finan
cial programs created unconstitutional classifications or
violation of equality and uniformity in requirements for
taxation (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, pp. 472 and 481).
This period lasted approximately 60 years from the early
1910's until the late 1960's and involved taxpayers seeking
tax relief for themselves. Within these cases, the tax
payers attempted to restrain state legislatures from enact
ing laws dealing with equalization measures. But, "The
courts established the constitutionality of using the
equalization method" (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, p. 495).
The Supreme Court also established a "test" to determine
constitutionality of a states' tax program, which Justice
Jackson (Bell's Gap Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania,
1890) had stated as:
Equal protection does not require identity of
treatment. It only requires that classification
rest on real and not feigned differences, that
the distinction have some relevance to the purpose
for which the classification is made, and the
different treatment be not so disparate, relative
to the difference in classification, as to be
wholly arbitrary. (134 US 232)
In 1912, the Supreme Court of Maine, in Sawyer v.
Gi 1 more (83 A. 673, 1912) interpreted that the state's
constitutional provision for requiring only equality of
assessment and not equity of distribution to be constitu
tional. The issue was that a property tax had been collected

24
statewide, but was being distributed to the exclusion of
unorganized townships. The court concluded that since the
plan was established by the legislature, and if the popu
lace felt it was unjust, it was up to the populace to
rectify, not the courts.
This first generation of cases attacked equality of
financial public education based on the Fourteenth Amend
ment of the U.S. Constitution and similar provision of the
constitutions of the various states. The decision in the
Sawyer case was typical of the cases litigated within this
generation. The degree of equalization afforded by the
various states was conditioned by the phrase "insofar as
it is possible" (Alexander & Jordan, 1972, p. 481)
The second generation of cases were characterized as
"educational need" cases and are classified as "pre-Serrano."
These cases challenged the concept that educational support
was a function of the district's wealth, and that indi
vidual needs and deficiencies should be considered.
Two cases were prime examples of litigation in this
generation. They were Mclnnis v. Shapiro (293 F.Supp. 327,
1968) in Illinois, and Burruss v. Wilkerson (310 F.Supp.
572, 1969) in Virginia. In Mclnnis the plaintiffs chal
lenged the State of Illinois financial plan as being a
violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Con
stitution. Plaintiffs contested that as the plan existed,

25
there was a wide variation in per student expenditure, and
that the variation should be based only on need. The court
concluded that the plaintiffs had neither clearly stated
the fiscal equalization issue nor the educational need
issue. Since "judicially manageable standards" had not been
provided for need, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not re
quire expenditures based on need, the Illinois plan was not
unconstitutional .
Similarly in the Burruss case, plaintiffs argued that
state allocations should be based on educational need. The
court concluded that disparities were not based upon invidi
ous discrimination by the state, but were produced by de
ficient taxable value in the district. In his comment,
Circuit Judge Bryan (Burruss v. Wilkerson, p. 574) ex
pressed a "hands off" attitude when he stated
Courts have neither the knowledge, nor the
power to tailor the public moneys to fit the
varying needs of these students throughout the
state.
Florida's financial plan was challenged and ruled uncon
stitutional by the state supreme court in that it prevented
poor counties "from providing as good an education for
their children as richer counties" (Hargrave v. Kirk, 1971,
313 F.Supp. 944, 1970; Vacated 490 US 479, at p. 945).
This decision was later vacated by a federal district court.
Although the decision might be viewed as a loss in regard
to equity, Alexander (1975) pointed out that had the

26
original decision stood, it would have "deterred equaliza
tion rather than increasing it" (p. 18). The main issue
in Hargrave was that plaintiffs from wealthy districts
were trying to remove a state cap on millage. The intended
purpose was to enable poorer counties to raise more money,
but in the final analysis, so would the wealthier districts,
thus not really reducing the variations between the dis
tricts.
The next generation of cases, which Alexander and
Jordan (1972, p. 482) classified were typified by the fact
that a "child's education cannot be a function of school
district wealth" or what is called the Serrano Era.
On August 30, 1971, the California Supreme Court
decided the Serrano v. Priest (487 P.2d 1241) case. The
plaintiff contended that the California plan for financing
education "makes the quality of education . a function
of the wealth of the children's parents and neighbors, as
measured by the tax base of the school district in which
said children reside" (Serrano v. Priest, 1971, p. 1252).
In their decision the court stated that there is a "com
pelling state interest" involved in financing education,
since education was a "fundamental interest" (Serrano v.
Priest, 1971, p. 1 258). By their interpretation of educa
tion as a guaranteed fundamental right, the court applied
the "strict scrutiny" test, and determined that wealth was

27
a suspect classification, and could not be used as a con
dition of a child's education opportunities. The strict
scrutiny test shifted dramatically the burden of proof
from the plaintiffs to the state. Infact, rarely has a
state been able to exhibit a governmental goal sufficiently
compelling to withstand strict scrutiny analysis (McCarthy,
1 97 7, p. 160).
Within a year following the Serrano decision, 52
similar cases were filed in 31 states (Geske & Rossmiller,
1977, p. 517).
Six weeks following Serrano, the United States Dis
trict Court in Minnesota used the findings of Serrano in
Van Dusartz v. Hatfield (334 F.Supp. 870, 1970). Again,
as with Serrano, plaintiffs contended that the Minnesota
financial plan made spending per pupil a function of wealth,
and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Four
teenth Amendment. Applying the "fiscal neutrality" concept
and "strict scrutiny" concept as defined in Serrano, Judge
Lord stated that students in public school "enjoy a right"
for a level of funding unaffected by variations in taxable
wealth in their district (at p. 872).
In not requiring uniformity of expenditures as was
the case in Serrano, the court interpreted fiscal neu
trality as saying that
The fiscal neutrality principle not only
removes discrimination by wealth but also allows
free play to local effort and choice,and openly

28
permits the state to adopt one of many optional
school financing systems which do not violate
the equal protection clause. (Van Dusartz, 1971,
p. 877)
The Michigan State Supreme Court held in Mi 11iken v. Green
(203 N.W. 389 Mich. 1, 2d 457, 1972) that the school fi
nance provision violated the state constitution. The court
in applying the "compelling states' interest" and the test
of "rationality" concluded that there was an inherent in
equality in the property tax bases which created unequal
support (at pp. 462-463). As with other cases, the court
did not require absolute equality in distribution. Sub
sequently, with a change of judges in 1973 a new decision
ruled the evidence did not prove children in low wealth
districts were deprived of equal protection, and thus the
decision was vacated (390 Mich. 389, 212 N.W.2d 711,
1973).
In New Jersey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide
on the New Jersey plan of financing schools in Robinson v.
Cahi11 (62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273, 1973). The lower court
had determined that the plan in operation violated the
state and federal provision of equal protection, and the
state had failed to provide a "thorough and efficient
system of public schools." However, when Robinson was
appealed, the Rodriquez decision had just been handed down
by the U.S. Supreme Court and the New Jersey Supreme Court
refused to review the equal protection issue. But, the

29
court did affirm the lower court decision that the consti
tutional mandate of "thorough and efficient" had not been
met. The court's concern was that the "end product" meet
the mandate, and that the process was up to the legisla
ture to design what was necessary to fulfill the requirement.
Implicit within "thorough and efficient" the court charged
that "the Constitution's guarantee must be understood to
embrace that educational opportunity which is needed in
the contemporary setting to equip a child for his role as
a citizen and as a competitor in the labor market" (303 A.2d
295, 1973).
Lucas (1972) has suggested that the basic assumption
underlying Serrano generation cases involved
1. The equal protection clause applies, at
least as it relates to education in the
public schools, to the state as an entity.
2. Equal protection is denied to the taxpayer when
a given millage per dollar of taxable property
"buys" less education per school child in one
district than it does in another.
3. The school children in the districts with the
lower tax yield per child from a constant
millage are denied equal protection.
4. "Poor" children live in districts with low
totals of taxable property, and consequently
it is argued that the local tax system of
school financing is, de facto, a wealth classi
fication, to be viewed with particular sus
picion. (pp. 18-20)
This four-year period (1969-1973), characteristic of
successful challenges to state school finance provisions,

30
was brought to an end when the U.S. Supreme Court made
their decision in San Antonio Independent School District
v. Rodriquez (411 US 1, 1973, 337 F.Supp. 280, 93 S.Ct.1278
U.S. Supreme Court, 1973). In this now famous decision, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that financial plans that produced
differences in educational opportunities among school
districts did not violate the Constitutional provision of
equal protection.
The Court, in its conclusion, stated first that the
Constitution makes no provision for education; therefore,
it is not a fundamental right, and the strict scrutiny
test (Serrano) does not apply. Secondly, the appellees
were unable to prove that poor people lived in poor dis
tricts and thus no class per se was being discriminated
against--since a "class of disadvantaged 'poor' cannot be
defined in customary equal protection terms" (411 US 19).
Echoing previous decisions, Justice Powell restated the
doctrine that the solution to the problem is with the law
makers, not the courts (San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 1 973, at
1348).
Some have considered a fourth generation of equali
zation cases to be those based on Civil Rights actions
(Lau v. Nichols, 1974, 94 S.Ct. 786) and challenges to
state constitutional provisions. The latter seems espe
cially valid in light of the fact, most, if not all state

31
constitutions provide for education in addition to contain
ing an equal protection clause. However, state courts
have returned mixed decisions on this issue.
The same opinion as Rodriguez was reaffirmed in the
Northshore School Dist #417 v. Kinn ear ( 530 P.2 d 178, 84
Wash.2d 685, 1974) when the court recognized the importance
of schools, but also restated that it was not a constitu
tional guarantee. Chief Justice Hale echoed Justice
Powell when he stated that the legislature, not the courts
should "provide for a general and uniform system of public
schools" (at p. 196).
Stofstal 1 v. Hollins (110 Ariz. 88, 515 P.2d 590 ,
1973), an Arizona case, was similarly concluded with the
statement that education was a state constitutional right,
but the financing plan did not violate the "equal protection"
clause or "general and uniform" clause of the state con
stitution. The court, however, did not relate fiscal equal
ity and the "general and uniform" provision of the state
constitution.
Similarly the Idaho Supreme Court (Thompson v. Engle-
ki ng, 537 P.2d 635, 1975) held that even though the state is
constitutionally charged with "establishing and maintaining
a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free,
common schools for children," this does not require equal
amounts allocated throughout the state.

32
The trend in this era has not ail been bleak. A
Connecticut court held that the constitutional requirement
that the legislature enact "appropriate" laws to provide
free public education was not being met by the current
financial plan (Horton v. Meski11, 1974, 31 Conn.Supp. 377,
322 A.2d 113). Final decision is pending on appeal to the
state supreme court.
A trial court in Washington (Seattle School Dist. No. 1
v. Washington, Cir. No. 53950, 1976) held the state finan
cial plan violated the state constitutional provision for
ample funding of educating all children within its borders.
Georgia's constitutional provision of providing an adequate
education for all citizens is similarly under challenge
(Thomas v. Stewart, Docket No. 8275 (Polk County Superior
Court, 1976). The Washington decision is on appeal to the
state supreme court and the Georgia case is also expected
to reach that state's supreme court.
With all the litigation that has occurred in the past
10 years, one would have expected closure on the issue of
equality and financing the public schools. Part of the
problem that now exists is that although intending the
same thing, each state constitution uses different terms,
and thus one settlement does not apply to another state.
The fact that education is a "state's right" was elaborated
on in Horton v. Meski 1 1 ( 1 974) when the court stated

33
Because educational finance systems vary from
state to state, and because the provisions of
state constitutions vary from state to state,
decisions in other states raising the issue under
a state constitution are of little value as
precedents. (31 Conn.Supp. 377, 332 A.2d 813)
West Virginia's system of financing public schools
was under litigation (Pauley v. Kelley, Civil Action 75-
1268) based on a "thorough and efficient" clause of the
state constitution (Article XII S.l). The "Lincoln County
Case," as it was called, presented a challenge similar to
the one argued in Robinson v. Cahi11 (62 NJ 473, 303 A.2d
273, 1973) especially in light of the similarity in wording
of the West Virgina and New Jersey Constitutions.
Prior to the "Lincoln County Case," the West Virginia
court had expressed its opinion of the "thorough and
efficient" clause and the importance of education when it
stated
The will of the people, through the basic law
enacted by them, that a thorough efficient system
of free schools is of paramount importance in a
free society and that neither the legislative
nor the executive branch of government may per
form any act which would result in the eliminating
of this safeguard. (State ex rel. Brotherton v.
Blankenship, 1973, 207 S.E.2d 436, 1973)
On June 14, 1977, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Court, Justice Smith presiding, stated that
It seems clear from the record that Lincoln
County is not providing these basics, and that
the school system in that county falls short
of that constitutional mandate. (Pauley v.
Kelley, 1977, p. 6)

34
By that, the judge was referencing the constitutional pro
vision of "thorough and efficient" schools. However, when
the compelling state interest test was applied, a class
of suspect poor could not be identified (similar to
Rodriguez). In finding for the defendants, Justice Smith
stated:
Where the state is failing to meet its consti
tutional responsibilities, it retains the
obligation to do so through other means of sup
plemental funding. But the fact that the State
is failing to meet its total constitutional
responsibility does not render unconstitutional
the statute which established the funding
mechanism for meeting part of that responsi
bility. (Pauley v. Kelley, 1 9 7 7 p. 13)
In regards to the confusing constitutional questions
involved in this and other decisions, Justice Powell of
the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
One need only look to the decisions of this
Court--to our reversals, our recognition
of evolving concepts, and our 5 to 4 splits
to recognize the hazard of even informed
prophecy as to what are "unquestionable con
stitutional rights." (Wood v. Strickland,
1975, 420 US 329)
In summary, "What has now become clear is that the
courts have provided only an opportunity, not an answer;
a starting point for reform, not a solution to the unfair
ness and irrationality of educational funding in America"
(Berke, 1974, p. x).

35
State Support Plans for Education
The previous two sections noted that much has
transpired in the area of equal educational opportunity.
But, as Mi che Ison (1974) summarized, "Equality is a ri
diculous place to end school finance, but a good place to
start" (p. 442).
In discussing state financing of education, the
reference is usually made to state-aid formula. Cope
(1969) commented that usually these formulas are generally
accepted without adequate questioning, based on apparent
validity. He continued by adding -that once accepted, they
tend to grow more rigid and detailed, and that "formulas
merely bring confusion out of chaos" (Cope, 1969, p. 30).
Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, and Kirst (1975) described how
simple formulas, over time, have had to be modified to
satisfy interest groups or correct injustices within the
formula. They concluded much the same as Cope (1969) when
they stated, "Over time these small changes make the school
finance formula a mesh of adjustments and computations"
(p. 122). Most authors in the field concur with Cope
and Pierce et al summary of most state funding formulas.
Although cloaked by many names and different terms,
state funding programs (formulas) can generally be grouped
as either flat grant, equalization programs, or complete

36
state and federal support. Prior to the analysis of these
plans a brief historical perspective on state funding and
the early theorists will be discussed.
Prior to the formation of the United States, educa
tion had been considered a colonial state function. The
Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1642 and 1647 through court
decisions and the Deluder Satan Act established that parents
must provide for the education of their children, and that
if a town consisted of 50 families or more, a teacher must
be provided. This early attempt by the colonists was later
modified into what was known as "The New England Plan."
The ideas of compulsory attendance, local control and
local support of education were encompassed within this
plan.
The Constitution of the United States is silent with
regard to education. Due to this omission, whether inten
tional or not, education thus became a state function accord
ing to the Tenth Amendment since any power not expressly
mentioned within the document would reside with the states.
Most states during the nineteenth century assumed
res pons ibi 1ity for public education by "authorizing the
levy of local school taxes for the support of the public
schools" based on a school census with little concern for
equality of educational opportunity or a minimum educational
program for all children (Johns, Alexander, & Jordan,

37
1972, p. 2). There existed throughout the century neither
an integrated plan nor conceptual theory of school finance.
Early Theorists
The concept of state control was now established and
accepted by most people. But, there was no real philosophy
or practice of state aid throughout the country. Then,
with the dawning of the twentieth century, several philos
ophers emerged. These early philosophers were associated
with the major universities of the time, namely Teachers
College, Columbia University, University of Chicago, and
the University of Pennsylvania (Johns et al 1 972 p. 3).
Ellwood P. Cubberleyis known for "formulating the
basic concepts of state school support" (Cohn, 1974, p. 14).
Cubberley was a student at Teachers College, Columbia Uni
versity, and received his doctorate from there in 1905.
One year later, his revised dissertation was published
under the title School Funds and Their Apportionment.
In his book, Cubberley analyzed basic state school
financing from a historical perspective, a legal perspec
tive, and wealth distribution effects of the Industrial
Revolution, and the evidence of unequal educational oppor
tunities within a state (Johns et al., 1972, p. 3). Cub
berley be 1 i eved both the state and local governments shared
responsibility for school finance and that local needs,

38
fiscal effort,and pupil attendance should be referenced
when allocating financial aid. Cubberley appl i ed his basic
philosophy of state responsibility when he stated:
Theoretically all the children of a state are
equally important and are entitled to have the
same advantages; pratically this can never be
quite true. The duty of the state is to secure
for all as high a minimum of good instruction as
is possible, but not to reduce all to the mini
mum; to equalize the advantages to all as nearly
as can be done with the resources at hand; to
place a premium on those local efforts which
will enable communities to use above the legal
minimum as far as possible; and to encourage
communities to extend their educational energies
to new and desirable undertakings. (p. 17)
Cubberley suggests that a state-wide school tax might
best equalize the fiscal burden among school districts and
that the best basis for fund allocation was a combination
of a unit designation, which he called "teacher employed"
and aggregate days attendance. He further suggested cre
ation of a "reserve fund" to supplement districts which were
at maximum legal effort, but could not generate sufficient
revenue to meet minimum state demands (pp. 250-254).
Harlan Updegraff is known "for justifying the rewards
for local effort on the basis of efficiency" through his
1921-22 analysis of New York and Pennsylvania schools
(Cohn, 1974, p. 19). Through his analysis of the financial
policies of these states he added the concept of local
effort in addition to the concepts of Cubberley, wi th whom
he agreed.

39
Updegraff's basic principles were that (a) local
support was fundamental; (b) local districts should have
enough taxable property for school purposes (without an
undue burden on property owners); (c) part of the support
should come from the state, based on certain factors (in
versely to districts' wealth); (d) state aid should increase
efficiency of citizens in democratic government; and (e)
guarantee equal opportunity (cited in Johns et al. 1972,
p. 6).
Not only did he articulate his concepts, Updegraff
introduced two new concepts, the first of these concepts
being the idea of the teacher unit for defining a district's
need; the second was an equalization plan for distributing
state aid.
Updegraff's teacher unit was different from Cubberleys
teacher employed unit, in that within the context of the
teacher unit, a predetermined number of students per class
would compose a teacher unit. Within the context of the
equalization plan, Updegraff proposed that a scale be
established whereby increasing amounts of aid were provided
by the state for increasing amounts of local effort.
Updegraff's plan provided for helping those districts who
helped themselves. This was achieved by increased support
to those districts who were low in property value but were
at a high level of effort.

40
Several states now use a variation of Updegraff's
percentage equalizing plan, which will be dealt with later
in this chapter. The plan can also be modified through
addition of a recapture and redistribution clause (Coons
et al., 1970), p. 207), in what is referred to as "Power
Equalization." Updegraff's plan has been categorized,
by some, to provide incentives to local districts for
quality education (Johns et al. 1 972 p. 7).
George D. Strayer and Robert M. Haig are best known
for "emphasizing the equalization of educational oppor
tunity" (Cohn, 1974, p. 17). While associated with Colum
bia University they analyzed New York's state plan for
financing schools, which was Cubberley's Flat Grant Plan.
They concluded that equalization of eduacational oppor
tunity and reward for local effort were not complimentary,
but at variance to each other (Cohn, 1974, p. 17). They
attempted to define equalization in terms of a minimum
educational program, or what has become known as "The
Minimum Foundation Program."
Within their plan, as was explained in Financing of
Education in the State of New York (1923) they established
the necessities for a state to provide for "equalization
of educational opportunity" or "equalization of school
support" (Johns et al., 1972, p. 8). The necessities were
defined as (a) within localities, children will be offered

41
a prescribed minimum of equal education; (b) in relation
to the abilities of the taxpayers of the locality, revenue
for education would be raised by the state or local taxa
tion at a uniform rate; and (c) "to provide adequately
either for the supervision and control of all the schools,
or for their direct administration by a state department
of education" (Strayer & Haig, 1923, p. 174).
The steps Strayer and Haig presented for establish
ment of their plan consisted of (a) the state establishing
the cost needed per pupil for a satisfactory minimum pro
gram; (b) the state computing a property tax rate necessary
to finance the established program, using the wealthiest
district as the base; (c) the tax rate established is then
levied by all districts; and (d) any difference between what
is raised and the amount necessary to finance the minimum
program is contributed by the state.
Strayer and Haig did not concur with either Cubberley
or Updegraff in their reward for local effort, although in
their plan they did allow local districts to levy above
the minimum. Therefore, as Cohn (1974, p. 18) stated, they
did not provide for equal educational opportunity, but
minimum educational opportunity. Charles Benson (cited
in Coons, Clune, & Sugarman, 1970, p. 65) critiqued the
Strayer-Haig Plan when he said,

42
In most states, nearly all districts, rich and
poor, do tax at a level above the minimum, so
that the foundation program is indeed but a foun
dation upon which the districts with richer tax
bases continue to build much finer houses than
do poorer districts. Under this plan, equal
educational opportunities in terms of balancing
offerings, wealth and effort is a hoax.
Paul R. Mort was known for "developing the minimum
foundation program" (Cohn, 1974, p. 18). A student of
Strayer at Columbia University, he attempted through his
dissertation, Measurement of Educational Need (1924), to
define the satisfactory minimum program conceptualized by
Strayer and Haig. That is why many felt that more than
a theorist, Mort was a disseminator and developer (Johns
et al., 1972, p. 10).
Mort stated a minimum state program should provide
that (a) if a program existed in all or most districts
within the state, they were acceptable for the equaliza
tion program; (b) if unusual expenses occur for meeting
minimum program outside of local control, they too were
eligible; and (c) if uncommon conditions require additional
offerings, these also may be included (Mort, 1924, pp. 6
and 7). Mort, like Cubberley, considered local leeway very
important (Cohn, 1974, p. 18). He especially encouraged
districts to go over the minimum and provide for innova
tion and change. Additionally, the fact that classroom
costs varied from place to place, whereas other costs
remained constant in regards to number of pupils, concerned

43
Mort, and initiated his development of the concept of the
weighted pupil. The concept simply takes the number of
students in a school times a factor, which is based on
things such as size of school, transportation, high school,
et cetera, and yields an adjusted enrollment as an attempt
to provide for differential costs.
Henry C. Morrison is best known for "advocating that
the state should become the sole unit of taxation and ad
ministration of public schools" (Cohn, 1974, p. 20).
Morrison expressed his ideas in his book School Revenue
(1930), which he authored while on the staff at the Uni
versity of Chicago. Morrison maintained that because of
the fiscal discrepancies between districts, all previous
attempts had failed to meet educational need and provide
an equitable tax system. He further stated that the state
should be the taxing unit and administrator of the schools
through use of what he suggested was the most equitable
tax, income tax.
Although Hawaii is the only state to date which has
adopted full state funding, New Mexico, Kentucky, and North
Carolina rank high in percentage of state support, 87, 83,
and 81 percent, respectively, with seven additional states
providing at least 70 percent (Tron, 1976, p. 10).

44
Funding Plans
Although all states have what they call unique
"equalization" funding formulas or programs, all may be
classified as either flat grants, equalization grants, or
complete state and federal support (Johns & Salmon, 1971,
p. 122).
Before continuing with the analysis of each, an im
portant concept needs to be defined since reference is
made by legislatures that in the area of school finance,
the purpose is equalization of educational opportunity.
For purposes of this study, the Johns and Salmon (1971)
definition was used:
Financial equalization is most nearly accomplished
when the following two factors are met; (1) edu
cational needs of the student population are taken
into considerat ion before the allocations are made,
and (2) the variation of the ability of the local
school districts to support education is reduced
or eliminated through the utilization of state
sources. (p. 120)
Cohn (1974, p. 27) visually illustrated the two determinants
of equalization, when he discussed the Critical Issues in
Evaluation of Equalization Effort, which are consistent
with the Johns and Salmon definition.
Flat Grant Programs as formulated by Cubberley repre
sented sums of money distributed to school districts based
on a unit allocation (per student, classroom, etc.). They
can be further categorized as being uniform or variable

45
(Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 121), and are used in addition
to one of the other plans to be discussed.
Under "uniform flat grants," an amount is distributed
per unit, with no consideration given to either educational
need or fiscal capacity. In contrast, variable flat grants
are distributed on a rate per unit, but a weighting factor
is applied to compensate for some factor beyond the school
districts control. With either type, the ultimate disposi
tion can be general or special.
Flat grants do provide for some degree of equaliza
tion in that on a uniform basis, wealthy districts pay in
more than they receive. But, as Alexander and Jordan
(1976) commented, flat grants are a viable equalization
plan only to the degree school districts are at or near
fiscal capacity, or if the grants, "were large enough to
approach full state funding" (p. 355).
Equalization grants consider variations in the abil
ity of local school districts to tax, but not all take
into consideration the needs of the pupils (Johns & Salmon,
1971, p. 122). The ultimate disposition of these grants,
as with flat grants, can be for either a general or
specific purpose.
To analyze these types of grants more productively,
they will be discussed in the context of the types as out
lined by Johns and Salmon (1971), and by Cohn (1974).

46
The categories are (a) StrayerHaig and Mort plan,
(b) percentage-equalizing or state-aid ratio, (c) district
power equalizing, and (d) guaranteed valuation program.
With the StrayerHaig and Mort Plan, the state de
termines a minimum satisfactory level of education per
child, a levy is then required of all districts against their
property valuation, and the difference between the amount
raised and the amount needed for the satisfactory minimum
is provided by the state (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123).
The modifications developed by Mort were the concept of
the weighted pupil and the determination of the uniform
levy. Mort utilized the we ighted pupi1 in dealing with
the ideas of fiscal capacity and need, whereas he cate
gorized the original plan as only providing for the former.
Strayer and Haig had stated that the levy was to be deter
mined by the wealthiest district in the state levying a
rate which would provide the per pupil expenditure level
established by the state as the minimum program. Mort's
modification shifted the focus from the state's wealthiest
per pupil district (Cohn, 1974, pp. 33-34). He further
suggested that another "key district" could be identified,
e.g., the district at the 75th percentile of per pupil
wealth.
The extent to which a foundation program equalizes
is dependent on the expenditure level the state sets and

47
the tax rate chosen by the district. A high foundation
level enables more expenditures and less disparities be
tween districts. However, as the districts tax above the
mandated rate, the wealth of the district becomes a key
factor, thus causing wide disparities again.
Although it has advantages over flat grants, Alexander
and Jordan (1976) summarized this plan when they stated that
"It does not provide for fiscal equalization of local lee
way beyond a minimal level," and because of requiring a
local millage it has been found objectionable in many
states (p. 355). Likewise, the Education Commission of
the States criticized this plan as setting conservative
per pupil expenditure amounts and being "below a practical
level of support" (1975, p. 4). They concluded that:
If a child had his choice of place to be educated
in a state with a "foundation" system, he would
be well-advised to find a wealthy suburb, which
may not be subject to tax limitations imposed on
some municipalities and which has a very high
assessed valuation. He could expect to find
this suburb peopled with well-educated professional
types who do not protest spending for schools,
at least for their own children. (ECS, 1975,
p. 4)
Percentage-equalization or the state aid ratio pro
gram (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123) is unique in that the
locality determines the level of expenditure. As Updegraff
originally proposed the plan, it was a variable-level
equalization program which attempted to reconcile equali
zation of educational opportunity and reward for local

48
effort. Coons, Clune, and Sugarman (1970, p. 165) stated
that in focusing on the local budget and preserving local
incentive, the plan placed value on effort not wealth.
Under this plan, the state agrees to pay the districts
a predetermined percentage of the total expenditures, with
the ratio of district's wealth per pupil to the state's
average district wealth per pupil as the relationship.
The plan allows for state funds to be allocated in an in
verse proportion to taxpaying ability (measured by property
value per pupil).
Without a minimum or fixed dollaramount, dollars per
pupil would be a function of local effort alone, which is
characteristic of another equalization plan called "power-
equal i zi ng" (Alexander & Jordan, 1 976 pp. 346-357).
In addition to the typical concern for equalizing
a district's property valuation per pupil, Coons, Clune,
and Sugarman's concern was on effort. The power equalizing
plan assures an equal yield for an equal effort or as
Cohn (1974) stated "calls for equal state aid to districts
based on equal tax effort" (p. 35). Coons et al. (1970)
stated the plan allows districts to establish and determine
their own levels of spending,with tax effort being the key
(p. 202). Regardless of the district's wealth, if its
effort is high it will be assured of higher expenditures.
"Moreover, if a district can raise educational funds for

49
a given tax effort, in excess of the stipulated amount
set by the state, the excess must be transferred back to
the state" (Cohn, 1974, p. 35). The transfer-back, or
"recapture" is considered by some an essential part of
the district power equalizing plan. An example would be
that if two districts "impose the same property tax rate,
they will have identical educational funds per pupil,"
regardless of their wealth or poverty (Cohn, 1974, p. 35).
With this recapture provision this formula truly can be
called both positive and negative in the amount of state
equalized, aid to the district.
The main point emphasized under this plan is that
local boards (districts) know best what expenditures are
needed to meet their educational goals, and therefore
should control the purse strings. However, Alexander and
Jordan (1976) stated that if the state would establish no
local fiscal standard, it would abdicate its responsibility
to provide for an equal system of education (p. 357).
Coons, and his associates (1970), recognized yet another
problem concerning the average district, in that rich dis
tricts might wind up being equalized down (p. 167). In
the final analysis, depending on the schedule established
by the state, Michelson (1974) stated, "District power
equalizing preserves a lot of the status quo, with possibly
some higher local school tax rates thrown in" (p. 104),

50
especially if the cost of other services in municipalities
are considered.
Another equalizing approach is known as guaranteed
valuation. The state guarantees each district a fixed
valuation or tax yield per unit (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p.
123), which may or may not be weighted. The difference
between what the tax generates and the guaranteed yield is
the state's contribution (Cohn, 1974, p. 32). The effect,
this plan seems to be equivalent and provides the same
equalizing effect as the basic foundation approach (Cohn,
1974, p. 32 and Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 123). The differ
ence between the guaranteed valuation plan and the district
power plan being that under this plan the tax rate is
state mandated.
In essence, all plans for financing public education
are based on tax effort, tax yield, and equalized property
valuation per pupil. Allocations are distributed in an
inverse proportion to wealth, which is typically measured
by property valuation per pupil. The roles of state and
local effort differentiate the basic equalization programs
by name, but in their pure form, they are mathematically
equivalent. It is through the specific implementation that
the different equalization abilities of the shared costs
formulas become apparent.

51
Some of the provisions which alter the financial
plans are minimums, save harmless provisions, definitions,
et cetera. A minimum is a prescribed amount a district
receives, and can be a flat grant regardless of another
equalization provision, or the amount might be stated as
a minimum each district receives (floor). Save harmless
provisions guarantee districts that new provisions of the
financial plan, or a new financial plan will not reduce
allocations to the district from prior years. Definitions,
specifically for enrollment, are essential factors in any
financial plan, and can account for wide discrepancies
in amounts received.
Total State and Federal Support is only in evidence
in the State of Hawaii. Under this plan, units of need
determine the revenue allocation, with local ability not
considered. In defense of full state funding the National
Educational Finance Project showed a positive correlation
between the proportion of state revenue and the degree of
equalization (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 137). This also
supports the opinion of many, including Johns and Salmon
(1971), that greater financial equalization is achieved
when the state assumes responsibility for funding (p. 138).
The various states are funding education as they see
fit, exercising their States-rights guarantee. But an
important comment from the President's Commission on

52
School Finance (1972) should bear final witness to the
success of state plans:
The financial problems of education derive largely
from the evolving inabilities of the States to
create and maintain systems that provide equal
educational opportunity and equality education
to all their children. Having made that observa
tion, we hasten to state that we are not assigning
blame, but are rather attempting to locate the
points where reforms must be achieved. Efforts by
the States over the years to eliminate or at least
reduce disparities in the delivery of educational
resources have simply not kept pace with needs
that have grown beyond the abilities of the States
to fulfi 11 them. (p. x )
Educational Finance in West Virginia
Historical
Due to sparsity of population, and prior control by
Virginia, when West Virginia became a state in 1863, only
3 counties had free district schools. Two years following
statehood,27 counties were servicing 16,000 students,
and five years subsequent, 1756 schools existed with 1810
teachers (Department of Education, 1973, p. 1).
The state constitution was ratified in 1863, and pro
visions were made for a "thorough and efficient" free
school systern,creation for an investment fund to finance
the free schools, provision for county school superintend
ents, and an elected general state superintendent of free
schools. The state superintendent was subsequently made

53
part of the executive branch of government in 1872, and
for 37 years he was the extent of the Department of Educa
tion. Additional duties included being adjutant general
and quarter master general from 1871-1877.
In 1872 a constitutional revision was completed with
the following two provisions specified:
Art. XII, Sec. 1 The legislative shall provide, by gen
eral law, for a thorough and efficient system of free
schools.
Art. XII, Sec. 2 The State Superintendent of Free Schools
shall have a general supervision of free schools and per
form such other duties in relation thereto as may be
prescribed by law.
The same year the legislature established a State Board
of School Funds composed of the Governor, State Superin
tendent, Auditor, and State Treasurer.
The legislature also created, in 1872, a General
School Fund for supporting free schools, which included
the salary of the state superintendent and expenses of his
office, and which specified the sources of revenue. Schools
were to be financed by direct taxes on personal property
and real estate (lOi per 100), monies received by fines
and forfeitures, and investment in United States bonds.
The state superintendent distributed all money until 1939
when the Board of School Finance, which now consisted of
State Superintendent, Tax Commissioner, and Director of
the Budget, assumed responsibility for disperson of funds.

54
By 1933, the depression had caused many districts
to close, because of declining property values and tax
incomes the legislature consolidated districts; redefin
ing a district as a county. Prior to 1933, the General
School Fund provided 5 percent of total cost of district
schools; this amount grew to 53 percent in 1965 (Pearson &
Fuller, 1969, p. 1354), and to approximately 58 percent in
1976).
Funds for homebound (crippled) children were appropri
ated in 1941, and categorical aid was enacted into the
code. Similarly, when the Works Progress Administration
ceased supporting the school lunch program in 1942, the
state assumed the responsibility. Finally, in 1972, $200
million was appropriated under the Better Schools Amend
ment for all counties to provide additional classroom
facilities.
Current System
West Virginia's current system of allocating monies
is based on what is referred to as a "demand formula." It
is unique in that the legislature must fund what the
formula determines is necessary to finance education in
the state.
The first step in determination of funds in the
formula is the computation of the Foundation Allowance for

55
Professional Educators (§ 18-9A-4). Using a minimum state
salary matrix, professional educators are provided for at
a rate not to exceed 55 educators per 1000 children.
The second step is a Foundation Allowance for Other
Personnel (§ 18-9A-5) and it is allocated based on two
computations. An amount equal to 14 percent of the allo
cation for professional educators is ascertained and dis
tributed to the counties in proportion to the adjusted en
rollment. Then, an amount equal to 6 percent of the alloca
tion for professional educators is determined and distributed
to the counties in proportion to the number of full-time
bus drivers.
The third step is a Foundation Allowance for Fixed
Charges (§ 18-9A-6) and it is determined by addition of the
allowances for professional educators and other personnel,
then multiplying this sum by the current social security
rate plus 2 percent. Items included for coverage are FICA,
Workman's Compensation, property insurance, and so forth.
The money is then distributed to the counties based on the
corresponding professional educators allocation to the
counties.
The fourth step is a Foundation Allowance for Trans
portation Costs (§ 18-9A-7) which is determined by a five
step process. Eighty percent of each county's actual
transportation costs are determined, excluding salaries.

56
That sum is then added to the total cost of insurance
premiums on buses, buildings, and equipment used in the
transportation program. Ten percent of the replacement
value of the bus fleet is then added, along with a figure
that equals 80 percent of the cost of contracted transpor
tation services and public utility transportation services
Finally, aid in lieu of transportation is added based on a
state average amount per pupil.
The fifth step is a Foundation Allowance for Adminis
trative Costs ( § 18-9A-8) which is calculated as being
1 percent of the allocation for professional educators.
All counties receive an equal amount.
The sixth step is a Foundation Allowance for Other
Current Expenses (§ 18-9A-9), and it is computed as being
equal to 10 percent of the allocation for professional edu
cators and other personnel. The money is distributed to
the counties in proportion to the adjusted enrollment.
The seventh, and last step is a Foundation Allowance
Toward National Average Attainment (§ 18-9A-10). When the
average expenditure per pupil in West Virginia is below
the U.S. Office of Education figures for the national
average, funds which accrue from increased local share
balances in the general school fund, it is allocated back
to the districts in proportion to the adjusted enrollment.

57
The seven step formula comprises West Virginia financ
ing of public schools, and is depicted in Table 1. Each
one dollar allocated to column one, results in a cost of
$1.42 when the formula is complete. Other aspects of the
state support program includes supplemental salary alloca
tions for professional staff (outside of basic support
program), minimum salary support for service personnel
(outside of basic support program), and early childhood
aides (outside of basic support program). Being outside
the basic support program enables the legislature to allo
cate money where it desires without affecting the whole
program by becoming part of the formula. The state also
allocates funds for Exceptional Children, Vocational Edu
cation Funds, Safety Education, Orphanage Aid, and School
Lunches.
In addition, the State provided money for Incentive
for Improvement of Program Funds (§ 18-9A-14) to encourage
counties to establish new and improved programs and to
reduce class size. Finally, monies are also provided to
c.ounti es which experi ence increased enrollments from one year
to the next (§ 18-9A-15).
Chapter 18, Article 9-A, Section 11 of the West
Virginia Code relates to the computation of local shares
for school support and to the appraisal and assessment of
property for taxes. The tax commission is directed to make

58
TABLE 1
Effect on
for Professional
Additional
Educator
Allocations
State Aid Formula
Foundation Allowance
O
o
(
Distribution
(1) Professional Educator
$1.00
County
(2) Other Personnel:
a. 14% of (1)
.14
All Counties in propor
tion to adjusted net
enrollment
b. 6% of (1)
.06
All Counties in propor
tion to number of full
Total 20% of (1)
.20
time drivers
(3) Fixed Charges
7.85% of (1) + (2)
.09
All Counties based on
distribution of (1) & (2)
(4) Transportation Cost
None
(5) Administrative Cost
1% of (1)
.01
All Counties equally
(6) Other Current Expense
10% of (1) + (2)
.12
All Counties in propor
tion to adjusted net
enrollment ($.002 per
pupil)
(7) National Average
Attainment
None
Note: Total Cost = $1.42

59
and maintain nonutility property appraisals annually.
West Virginia has four classes of property for tax purposes
and is required to assess at not less than 50 percent nor
more than 100 percent of the apprai-sed value.
The classes of property as defined by the state tax
commissioners office are (Local Government Relations
Division, 1975):
Class I All tangible personal property employed
exclusively in agriculture, including
horticulture and grazing; all products
of agriculture, including livestock, while
owned by the producer; all notes, bonds,
and accounts receivable, stocks, and any
other evidences if indebtedness.
Class II- All property owned, used and occupied
exclusively for residential purposes;
all farms, including land used for horti
culture and grazing, occupied and culti
vated by their owners or bona fide tenants.
Class III- All real and personal property situated
outside of municipalities, exclusive of
Classes I & II.
Class IV- All real and personal property situated
inside of municipalities, exclusive of
Classes I & II. (p. viii)
The local share for support of schools, as defined
in Chapter 18, Article 9-A, Section II, specifies two
factors as the determinants. First, 97.5 percent of
the value for public utility property is determined, and
47.5 percent of the value for nonutility property is
determined. Applicable rates for each class of property
are then applied on the basis of 19.6 (per $100) for

60
Class I, 39.2 (per $100) for Class II, and 78.4 (per $100)
for Classes III and IV. The result is the local share.
Counties may, for a period of not more than five years,
adopt an additional special levy up to 100 percent of
authorized levy; however, 60 percent of the voters must
approve.
Of the money raised by the property tax, approximately
99.5 percent remains within the counties. For the tax
year 1975, see Table 2 for a breakdown of the assess valua
tion on nonutility property in the State of West Virginia.
TABLE 2 '
Assessed Valuation of Nonutility
Property in West Virginia (1975)
Property Class
Assessed Valuation
Class I
$ 675,319,569
Class II
2,309,264,807
Class III
2,272,422,582
Class IV
1,767,157,366
Note: Total assessed valuation = $7,024,146,324

61
Simulations
The terms simulation and/or model have been around
for a long time, with people generally feeling comfortable
using either term for descriptive purpose. But, what do
they mean? When is it appropriate to use the terms?
Initial review of the literature yielded the follow
ing definition of model by Schmatz and Sippl (1972): "A
representation in mathematical terms of a process, device,
or concept" (p. 108), and that a simulation was "Subjecting
man to a complex environment similar to one in which he may
wish to operate so that he may gain a feel of its dynamic
behavior" (p. 163). In a similar manner, the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (1971) defined a
model as "a theoretical description of certain aspects of
real-life process" (p. 17). Fitzpatrick (1962), likewise
defined a simulation as "a working model or represen
tation of a system, and it is assumed that the observation
made can be transferred to the real world to make effec
tive predictions" (pp. 9-10).
The definitions provided that models are the frame
work or representation of a real-life environment, and that
simulations are where experiments and manipulations are
performed within the model. McLeod (1968), Manji (1972),
Cruickshank and Broadbent (1970), and Shubik and Brewer
(1972), as well as many others, appear to be in concert
with the operational definitions.

62
Simulations do not necessarily convey factual informa-
tion, and that may not be their purpose; they are to provide
learning experiences about situations and environments,
and it is through interacting with the simulation that learn
ing takes place (Coombs, 1976, pp. 1-2). The learning
process may take on one or more aspectsdepending on the
desired result.
For purposes of this study, Armstrong and Hobson's
( 1 976) analysis of simulation uses was used inthat the ex
periences could provide for education and training, deci
sion making, research, and/or investigation (p. 88). Inbar
and Stoll (1972) and Mize and Cox (1968) concur regarding
the categorical uses.
McClosky (1972, p. 6) presented a Conceptual Frame
work for Simulations (see Figure 1), which not only listed
similar uses as stated by Armstrong and Hobson, but also
provided a guide to development. The left side indicates
sequential steps, and the body represents concepts to be
developed within the sequence with respect to appropriate
categorical use (s ).
Additionally, John Stocton (1973) expanded the uses
of simulation into the affective domain when he stated that
"One of the primary uses of a simulation is that it pro
vides an initially imperfectly known environment and im
poses on the participants the problem of defining a

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Simulation (from
"Perspectives on Simulation and Miniaturiza
tion" by M.R. McCloskey, 1972, p. 6. Copy
righted by the Human Resource Research
Organization, Reprinted by permission)

Definition of
User Need
System
Evaluation
Performance
Measurement Training Research
Definition of System
Performance Requirements--
Determination of Simulator
Cost Effectiveness
Selection of System
Elements for Simulation
Construct Simulation to
Maximize Transfer
Specification of Simula
tion Outputs
Verification of Transfer--

65
successful behavior pattern consistent with its charac
teristics" (p. 90).
It is difficult to segregate simulation uses from
simulation advantages. Broadly speaking, simulation allows
for experimentation on a system, or a part of a system, or
problem associated with a system, without directly dealing
with the system (Mize & Cox, 1968, p. 1).
Shubik and Brewer (1972) concluded their analysis
of simulation uses in very much the same manner as Mize
and Cox (1968), but expanded on the situations where
simulations would be most desirable when they stated:
Simulation provides the means for gaining
experience and for making and correcting
errors without incurring the costs or risks
of actual application . they should be
used when (1) it is either impossible or
extremely costly to observe certain processes
in the real world, (2) the observed system is
too complex to be described by a set of mathe
matical equations, (3) no straightforward analyti
cal technique exists for solution of appropriate
mathematical equations, and (4) it is either
impossible or very costly to obtain data for
more complicated mathematical models describing
the system. (pp. 81-82)
Additional advantages cited by various authors
(Shubik, 1964; Tansey & Unwin, 1969; Cruickshank & Broad-
bent, 1970; Carter & Huzan, 1973; and Chapman & Cousins,
1974) include permitting self expression of the learner,
safe, economical, experientially based, trainee controls
results, and relevance. While minimized, some of the
disadvantages cited by these same authors include the fact

66
that not all real life situations fit neatly or accurately
into a prepared program, and that some users may be poorly
prepared to experiment with the model.
With the capability to store an abundance of informa
tion on various subjects, and its ability to manipulate and
analyze a multitude of data at such rapid speeds, the
computer became a perfect medium for simulation.
H. G. Wells, over 80 years ago, in an obscure novel
(cited in Bailey, 1977, p. 157), stated,
If humanity . cannot collectively invent
devices and solve problems on a much richer scale
than it does at the present time, it cannot hope
to achieve any very much finer order or any more
general happiness than it now enjoys.
Somewhat in response to Mr. Well's challenge, computer
technology has developed and advanced knowledge further
and faster than it has ever progressed.
In essence, a computer is "a general instruction-
obeying machine" (Williamson, 1970, p. 181). Being an
analytical tool, and most simulations being analytical
techniques, Shubik and Brewer (1972) discussed computer
simulations ability to analyze events and systems over
periods of time. Expanding this idea, Cohen and Cyert
(1965) concluded their analysis with
Computer models and man-machine simulations offer
an unparalleled means by which we can: (a) formu
late extremely detailed and highly precise
models of organizational behavior; (b) test the
empirical validity of these models; (c) experi
mentally manipulate the models in a way which

67
is usually prohibitive with real-world organiza
tions; (d) predict the future behavior of existing
or redesigned organizations; and (e) train people
to behave more effectively in an organizational
setting. (p. 158)
The major criticism of computer simulations lie with
the fact that since the machine only does what it is in
structed to do, it cannot take assumptions for granted.
This limitation, therefore, precipitates the necessity for
more structure within the simulation, which may therefore
further remove it from the real world (Inbar & Stoll,
1972, p. 23).
His tori cal
The development of games and simulations has evolved
over many centuries. Anytime someone acted as though he
were someone else, he was regarded as simulating that person
or that event.
Taylor and Halford (1972) traced simulations back to
what they referred to as war games. "Wei-hai," a 5000
year-old Chinese game, which is believed to be the ancestor
of chess, is considered one of the oldest recorded simula
tions (p. 20). Although used for amusement, the intent of
the early simulations seemed to be in the area of education
and training and decision making of junior military offi
cers. Past campaigns were presented with the participant
making responses to conditions and observing resultant

68
responses and outcomes. Military use has continued through
present day.
With its success in the military, both in ancient
and present times, simulation was then introduced into the
business field through the encouragement of the American
Management Association (Taylor & Walford, 1972, p. 23).
Stressing the importance of training in this area, the
American Management Association held a special symposium
on the topic in 1961. Tansey and Unwin (1969) noted that
the main focus was initially toward training new managers,
but, being on a piecemeal basis, it lacked continuity.
Finally, the Association developed "Top Management Deci
sion Simulation" where people were provided with experien
tial learning, as to the role and functions of executives.
Decisions were made, and the participants saw the results
of their actions.
Through the actions of the American Management
Association and others, simulation has become a vital
element in the business environment. Tansey and Unwin
(1969) elaborated on this when they explained that because
of the influence of simulations, an international organiza
tion was set up to, "devise new approaches to training, to
popularize management education, and to assemble informa
tion" about management and behavior world wide (p. 8).

69
With management's new emphasis on behavior, simula
tions were developed dealing with its general research use.
With this emphasis on behavior, the natural evolution into
the social sciences occurred with the development of the
"Inter-Nation Simulation," developed by the RAND Corpora
tion. Participants in this game actually engaged in issues
concerning politics and crises (Taylor & Walford, 1972,
p. 24). Recent simulations have dealt with social issues,
both historical and current, where participants have been
confronted with examining the origins of World War I ("Alpha
Crisis"), the effects of television advertising ("Pace"), and
various contemporary social issues ("Women's Lib," "Food
and Feedback," and "Watergate").
Through the use of simulations in the physical sci
ences, the investigative purpose of simulations was developed
to its fullest potential. Within the physical sciences all
four purposes, education and training, decision making,
research, and investigations, have been crystalized. Con
temporary simulations within this area are reflected in
biology ("Simulation of Biological Processes"), chemistry
("Computer Modeling of Photochemical Smog Formation"),
physics ("Simulation for Introductory Physics"), and medi
cal education ("A Simulated Mental Hospital as an Under
graduate Teaching Device"). The list above is only repre
sentative of many simulations listed in ERIC, developed in
these and other areas within the physical sciences.

70
Simulations have also been developed and used in
such disciplines as mathematics, languages, engineering,
education, etc. The field is endless, wherever man seeks
knowledge, simulations are and have been developed to
assist in gaining the desired knowledge.
Educational Uses--Genera1
The field of education has not been void in its use
of simulations. Although business is generally given
credit for the evolution of simulations from military use,
education had been using simulations prior to the American
Management Association Symposium on Simulations.
John Dewey in the early 1920's (cited in Boocock &
Shild, 1968, p. 56) listed three advantages for the uses
of simulation in education as making activities meaningful,
relief from boredom and strain, and as a translation of edu
cational progressivism into classroom practices. Chartier
(1973) and Braum (1975) echoed these same positions in
regards to interest and participation in simulations.
With the added dimension of computer simulations,
Mclssac and Boardman (1969) stated "simulations will lead
to a better understanding of the educational system and
that from the improved understanding will come educational
practice" (p. 3). Braum (1970) similarly stated that,
"Utilization of computer simulation offers the teacher an

71
opportunity to enrich significantly his students direct
learning experiences in areas that are not available other
wise" (p. 151).
Simulations have been developed within most disciplines,
and, therefore, the educational aspects of those disciplines
have simulations. For an extensive list of simulations for
education, see The Guide to Simulation/Games for Education
and Training (Zuckerman & Horn, 1973), which lists over
600 simulations by categories.
Educational Uses--Administration
Educational administrators in the early 1960's de
sired a way to trai n their current and prospective leaders
through some method other than lecture and seminar. As
the American Association of School Administrators expressed
in 1960, "Administration is talked about rather than ob
served or felt"(Wynn, 1964, p. 170).
The first breakthrough was The Jefferson Township
School District Simulation (Wynn, 1964, p. 170). This
simulation resembled business simulations from which it was
copied (Tansey & Urwin, 1969, p. 9), but it was regarded
as the breakthrough that was desired. The simulation
itself was designed as an on-the-job experience for 232
elementary school principles which confronted them with
"in-basket" items (Wynn, 1964, p. 171). In-basket refers

72
to situations that are presented to the participant
as though they had or were to occur, and the participant
must react to the situations through written communica-
tions.
Initially simulations were used by universities
since most of the development of these training vehicles
occurred there. But, with commercial firms and local
school districts developing simulations, simulation use
occurs within both avenues of educational administration
training (pre and post).
Within the area of educational administration, the
field of finance was in need of new tools for training,
evaluating, and forecasting future directions and trends.
The National Education Finance Project developed a com
puterized financial simulation which was designed as "a
management information model ... as a tool for better
decision making ... t-o simulate the consequences of
alternative decisions in regard to the financing of public
elementary and secondary education" (Boardman, Jordan, &
Alexander, 1971, p. 1).
Regarded as the pioneer in its area, the NEFP model
has been used for instruction in Education Finance classes
at the University of New Mexico and the University of
Florida. The simulation has also been adapted for manage
ment and research uses by the state of New Mexico (Huxel,

73
1973), and for the province of Sergipe, Brazil (de Mello,
1975). The simulation was used to a limited extent in
designing the Florida Educational Finance Program of 1973.
Other simulations have been developed in the area of
higher education finance (Gaunt & Haight, 1976; Holdberg,
1973) and many others by various states and organizations
to facilitate planning (Education Finance SURC, 1974;
Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, & Kirst, 1975; Odden & Vincent,
1976; Minicucci, 1976; and Ohio Education Review Committee,
1977).
Pierce, Garmes, Guthrie, and Kirst (1975) summarized
the major justification for using 'financial simulation as
A state which undertakes reform of its school
finance system faces a large and complicated
task. Not only must the present system be
analyzed to document any problems or inequities
that might exist, but predictions must also be
made of how proposed changes will affect local
districts in the state. . Given this situa
tion, one of the most useful tools a state can
have is a simulation which gives it the capacity
to quickly and accurately establish the impact
of recommended change. (p. 122)
The benefits of computer simulations to educational
finance have been cited by many, but they can be summarized
1) knowing the fiscal impact of new policies,
2) knowing the impact of changes in existing
policies, and
3) ability to analyze effects and differences of
various financial plans.

74
Anyone concerned with educational finance, legisla
tors, educators, business managers, school boards, parents,
among others, must be able to deal with major policy ques
tions such as those cited by the NEFP (1971), in regards
to future planning.
1) What pupil population will be served?
2) What kinds of programs should be recognized in
the state aid program?
3) Will necessary variations in unit costs of dif
ferent educational programs be recognized or
ignored in allocating state funds?
4) What kind of educational services will be funded
in the state plan?
5) Will the isolated small schools and the programs
of the core city be considered?
6) Will state funds be apportioned on the flat grant
basis which ignores differences in the wealth
of local school districts, or on the equalization
basis which provides more state funds per unit
of educational need to districts of less wealth
than to districts of greater wealth?
7) What proportion of school revenue will be pro
vided by the state and what proportion will come
from local sources?
8) What will be the total cost of the basic state
program?
9) Where will we get the money to support the basic
state program?
10)To what extent will the state permit local dis
tricts to provide services and experiences not
supported in the basic state program? (p. 2)

75
Finally, before adoption, four criteria have been
identified by the Academy for Educational Development
(1973) concerning usefulness of a computer simulation
model .
Performance. How effective is the system in
providing needed answers? How appropriate is
it to stated needs? How well does it reflect
institutional policy?
2) Utility. How useful is the system? How often
will it be used and how many people will partici
pate in its application? Is it flexible enough
to accept major changes in organizational
structure?
3) Time. What is the time required for installation?
How much time is required for collecting base
data necessary to operate, the system? What is
the time required to retrieve information?
4) Cost. Is the value of the information worth
the cost of implementation? Will it save money
in terms of time and personnel? Is a model
needed at current costs? (p. 27)
Summa ry
Equality of educational opportunity is a deeply
rooted American ideal. Although long advocated, until
recently it was to the exclusion of various groups in our
society. The concept now has evolved to mean equal access
to educational resources with consideration being given
to the needs of each child.
The courts have and are being called upon to judge
whether state financial plans do provide for equality of

76
educational opportunity. Having dismissed education as not
being a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the
Supreme Court has placed determination of equity back to
state legislatures and courts, with mixed results.
Full state support of education appears to provide
the most equitable funding pattern available. However, it
should be remembered that allocation methods will determine
the degree of equity. The basic tenent of Cubberley that
state taxes and state distributions best provide taxpayer
equity and program equalization remains true today; only
the means of achieving those desired goals remain.
West Virginia does not have full state funding,
although it does have a unique "demand" formula. Based
on inputs to the first step of the formula for the number
of professional educators, the steps that follow it are
generated to produce what the legislature must fund. How
ever, the legislature has provided allocations outside the
basic formula to supplement programs and bypassed the "add
on" costs of instituting additions within the present
formu1 a.
To deal with the complexity of various funding plans
and formulas, simulation models, especially computer
simulations, facilitate researchers and planners in deci
sion making involving educational finance. Decisions are
reflective of short- and long-range effects of alternative

77
funding patterns and are capable of being analyzed in
light of equity/equality criteria.

CHAPTER III
ADAPTATION OF THE NEFP COMPUTER
SIMULATION MODEL
The NEFP Model
The National Education Finance Project (1971) de
veloped a computer simulation model to facilitate researchers
and planners in the area of fiscal planning for public edu
cation. The original simulation contained information
regarding a 32 district prototype state, and through inter
action of the various decisions involving programs, revenues
and wealth, alternative financial support models were
generated.
Data Files
The computer simulation consists of two main files,
which are designated as an M FILE and a D FILE. The M FILE
is subsequently subdivided into a B FILE and a C FILE.
Both the B FILE and the C FILE are storage files for the
data analysis. The B FILE contains the base data for the
districts, such as demographic information, enrollment
counts, et cetera, whereas the C FILE, or calculations
78

79
file, stores the results of calculations, which can then
be accessed through the command PRINT. The D FILE pro
vides the input decisions, which are then used in the
simulation to generate alternative finance models. The
input decisions allow the user(s) to make program decisions,
distributional decisions, and revenue decisions, with a
multitude of variations. It is by the variations that
the current plan can be duplicated, or other options gen
erated to allow researchers to examine consequences of
decisions.
The output of desired data is accomplished through
the interaction of the M FILE and the D FILE. The inter
action of these files is achieved through the utilization
of three additional files, which are called LSTATE, SSTATE,
and STATE. Within these three files are contained the
mathematical equations that "cover all possible combina
tions of input decisions" (de Mello, 1975, p. 71). The
LSTATE and the SSTATE are files that relate directly to
the NEFP program and represent a total and an abbreviated
version of the calculations necessary to run the model.
The STATE file on the other hand is a dummy (blank) file,
and enables the user(s) to create their own calculation
arrays. These files are accessed through the respective
commands of LCALC, SCALC, or CALC. The results of any
calculation are then subsequently stored in the C FILE

80
and retrieved by the command PRINT Cxxx (the appropriate
file number).
Other NEFP Capabilities
Several analytical subroutines are currently avail
able to users of the simulation. Other subroutines may be
added by linking them to the data sets utilizing standard
IBM utilities. Descriptions of the main subroutines cur
rently available to the user are
AVE: This procedure calculates the average of a
basic (B) or calculated (C) data array.
Initiation of this procedure is invoked by
the input "AVE" followed by one space and,
at most, one array key.
Example 1: AVE B035
Example 2: AVE C610
CORR: This procedure correlates any of the basic
(B) or calculated (C) data arrays using the
Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Initiation
of this subroutine is invoked by the input
"CORR" which must be followed by one space
and exactly two array keys separated by a
comma.
Example 1: CORR B361 ,B364
Example 2: CORR B362 C61 5
Example 3: CORR C500,C845
GRAPH: This procedure is invoked by the key word
"GRAPH" followed by one space and up to
four basic (B) and/or calculated (C) data
codes. One of the data codes may be used
for the title which cannot exceed 20 charac
ters in length and is separated from the
other data codes by ampersands. This routine
causes a histogram to be printed with the
decisions numbered along the horizontal axis
and the scale along the vertical axis.

81
Example
1 :
GRAPH C797,C793,C794,& PROPERTY
YIELDS &
Example
2:
GRAPH BO 10 C 770
Examp 1e
3:
GRAPH C970
RANGE: This procedure calculates the range for any
of the basic (B) or calculated (C) data
arrays. It is invoked by the input "RANGE"
which is followed by one space and, at most,
one array key.
Example 1: RANGE B360
Example 2: RANGE C580
SUM: This procedure calculates the sum of any
basic (B) or calculated (C) data array. It
is invoked by the input "SUM" and is followed
by one space and, at most, one array key.
Example 1: SUM B006
Example 2: SUM C700
PRINT: This procedure allows the user to print by
district, a tabular listing of any basic
(B) or calculated (C) data array. Initiation
of this routine is invoked by the input
"PRINT" followed by one space and, at most,
six array keys.
Example 1: PRINT B100,B360,B361,B362,B363,B364
Example 2: PRINT B100,B360,C990,C991
Example 3: PRINT C500,C600
Other: Computations may be specified in the input
stream to create new calculated data arrays.
Placement of the equations must precede the
CALC command and be designated as calculated
(C) data C994 through C999.
Example 1: C994=B001/C500
Example 2: C997=C500*D400+C620
Additionally, the model provides for the subroutine
DECISIONS, which retrieves a list of the input decisions,
and the subroutine SCORE, which allows the user(s) "to
output an evaluation table with an overall model score

82
for percent of deviation from full equalization and a tax
progressivity score" (NEFP, 1971, p. 3). Both the sub
routine DECISIONS and SCORE are invoked by use of the key
words indicated.
Within the NEFP model are two key subroutines for
purposes of use by researchers and planners, and these
routines are the "CREATE" and "UPDATE" routines. The
CREATE routine enables the user(s) to recreate either the
M FILE and/or the D FILE with new data. This is in con
trast to the UPDATE routine which enables the user(s) to
make alterations within an array in either the M FILE or
D FILE. The UPDATE routine is especially useful in updating
base data information in the B FILE in subsequent years,
so the entire simulation need not be recreated.
The West Virginia Model
Having identified information relating to programs
and enrollments, special services and modifying factors,
receipts and expenditures, and wealth indications as the
basic data necessary to run the simulation, data relative
to these concepts were collected from the West Virginia
State Department of Education, State Department of Trans
portation, Tax Commissioners Office and the Institute for
Educational Finance. Several changes and alterations to

83
each file in the simulation were required to enable alter
natives based on West Virginia basic data to be generated.
A sample run of the CREATE routine utilized to create the
West Virginia model is included in Appendix A.
West Virginia's M FILE
Many new arrays were added to both the B and C FILE,
with some of the original arrays having their labels
(titles) changed. Likewise, some of the original arrays
were deleted due to their inappropriateness for West Vir
ginia. Additionally, since West Virginia contains 55
districts, track size, block size, and logical record
length of the program had to be increased to enable handling
of the increased amount of data. To facilitate the changes
necessary, a new M FILE was created for West Virginia
through utilization of the CREATE subroutine.
West Virginia's B FILE
This file required extensive changes to accommodate
all necessary data. The changes occurred within all
sections of this file which included programs and enroll
ments, special services and modifying factors, receipts
and expenditures, and wealth measures. Several additional
arrays were included to enable duplication of West Vir
ginia's current enrollments, funding patterns, and

84
uniquenesses within the state system. The "B" arrays used
for West Virginia are listed in Table 3, and the defini
tions of the arrays can be found in Appendix B. Each
B data array contains the key name (Bxxx), a title, and
55 data elements. The data elements represent values
associated with respective West Virgini a school districts.
In the section of the B FILE designated to store
program and enrollment data, it was decided that to accur
ately account for students by programs, full time equiva
lency enrollment (FTE) counts would be used. Other enroll
ment data were unavailable in useful form; however, enroll
ment and average daily membership arrays are contained
within the simulation, should data become available.
Additionally, arrays for 10 special education exceptionali
ties and 4 special education delivery systems were included
as selective options for specific accounting of students
in those programs. Eight vocational-technical categories
were also established for FTE student accounting by pro
grams .
Arrays designated for special services and facilities
were also changed and redefined to account for items, such
as, revenue distinctions within the school food service
program and costs associated with specific aspects of the
school transportation program.

85
TABLE 3
Basic Data Code Sheet
"B"
Arrays
001-128 CURRENT ALLOCATIONS
State Local
Allocation for Professional Educators 001
Allocation for Other Personnel--Part A 002
A1locationfor Other Personnel--Part B 003
Allowance for Fixed Charges 004
Allowance for Transportation 005
Allowance for Administrative Costs 006
Allowance for Other Current Expenses 007
Allowance for National Average Attainment 008
General School Fund Distribution 009
Local Share 010
Incentive for Program Improvement Oil
Supplemental Early Childhood Aides 012
Supplemental Teachers' Salaries 013
Supplemental Service and Auxilliary Salaries 014
Supplemental Aid for Children's Homes 015
State Aid for Increased Enrollment 016
Special Education Allocation--0ut of
Formula Grants 017
Special Education Allocation--0ut of
Formula Homebound Instruction 018
Special Education A1location--0ut of
Formula Additional Grants 019
Special Education Allocation--0ut of
Formula Aid to RESA 020
State Aid to RESA 021
Teacher Education Centers 022
Vocational Day School (1976) 023
Vocational Adult Education (1976) 024
Area Vocational Programs (1976) 025
Vocational Act of 1968--State (1976) 026
West Virginia Social Security Work
Incentive (1976) 027
Other State Revenue (1976) 028

86
TABLE 3 (continued)
"B"
Arrays
030-036
PROPERTY APPRAISED
Appraised Property--Nonuti1ity Class I
030
Appraised Property--Uti1ity Class I
031
Appraised Property--Nonuti1ity Class II
032
Appraised Property--Nonuti1ity Class III
033
Appraised Property--Uti1ity Class III
034
Appraised Property--Nonuti1ity Class IV
035
Appraised Property--Uti1ity Class IV
036
100
DISTRICT
100
102
DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION
102
104-109
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL
Square Miles
104
Population, Total (1975)
107
Rate of Growth (%) (1970-1975)
Enrollment
108
Population
109
110-346
PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENTS
ENR
FTE
Current Program
Kindergarten
110
Grades K-12
111
Special Education
112
Basic
4 yr. old
115
117
Kindergarten
120
122
El ementary
125
127
Secondary
130
132
Special/Exceptional
Educable Mentally Retarded
140
142
Trainable Mentally Retarded
145
147
Learning Disabilities
150
152
Behavioral Disorders
155
157
Physically Handicapped
160
162
Multiple Handicapped
165
167
Visually Handicapped
170
172
Auditorily Handicapped
175
177

87
TABLE 3 (continued)
"B"
Arrays
360-373
065-068
ENR FTE
Communication Disorders
180
182
Homebound
185
187
Gifted
190
192
Vocational/Technical
Agriculture
196
197
Distributive Education
200
202
Health Occupations
205
207
Home Economics
210
212
Business/Office Occupations
215
217
Technical
220
222
Industrial
225
227
Other Vocational (Code 99)
230
232
Special Education Delivery
System
I Self Contained
235
237
II Resource
240
242
III Itinerant
245
247
IV Optional
250
252
Compensatory
Low Income
340
345
Low Achievement
341
346
SPECIAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Transportation (1)
Average Daily Route Miles (1976) 360
Number of Pupils Transported (1976) 361
Sparsity Cost Variation 362
Approved Costs (1977) 363
Actual Costs (1976) 364
Transportation (2)
Average Daily Miles (1976) 065
Bus Drivers Salaries (1976) 066
Other Transportation Salaries (1976) 067
Transportation Costs--Nonsalary
(1976) 068

88
TABLE 3 (continued)
" B"
Arrays
Capital Outlay and Debt Service
Approved Project Costs 365
Actual Project Costs 366
Depreciation Allowance 367
Debt Service 368
School Food Service
Participating Pupils (Total) 370
Federal Food Service Revenue 371
Total Food Service Revenue 372
Total Food Service Expenditure 373
380-472 MODIFYING FACTORS
Professional Educator Training & Experience*
Experience Level**
Training Levels***
T-l
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
E-l
380
381
382
383
384
E-2
385
386
387
388
389
E-3
390
391
392
393
394
E-4
395
396
397
398
399
E-5
400
401
402
403
404
Sparsity
Grade Levels
Under
100
100-
150
150-
200
Elementary
440
441
442
Secondary
450
451
452
Cost of Living
460
Achievement
Below 25th Percentile
(%)
470
Above 75th Percentile
(%)
471

89
TABLE 3 (continued)
"B"
Arrays
475-483
077-080
RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
Receipts
Federal (1)
Title I (1976) 475
Other (1976) 476
Federal (2)
Forest Reserve (1976) 077
Federal Impact Aid PL874
(1976) 078
EHA VI-B Federal (1977) 079
Vocational Act (1976) 080
Local
Local Regular and Excess
Levies 478
Other Local 479
Expenditures (K-12)
Net Current Expenditures
(1976) 480
Social Security (1976) 481
Teacher Retirement (1976) 482
Other Retirement (1976) 483
Transportation--See
Special Services
Capital Outlay--See
Special Services
Debt Service--See Special
Services
School Food Service--See
Special Services

90
TABLE 3 (continued)
"B"
Arrays
485-497
WEALTH MEASURES
Property--See Property Appraised
Personal Income
Adjusted Gross Income
(1975)
488
Income Taxes Paid (1975)
Returns Filed (1975)
489
Under $4,000
490
$4,000-$10,000
491
Over $10,000 ,
492
Sales Tax Paid (1976)
Corporate Income (1976 State
494
Total)
Inheritance Tax (1976 State
495
Total)
Other Taxes Paid (1976 State
496
Total)
497
Total Gross Sales (1976)
498
Total Corporate Income (1976)
499
*Full Time Equivalency Count
**Experience Levels:
1 = 0-2 years
2 = 3-6 years
3 = 7-11 years
4 = 12-17 years
5 = 18 or more years
***Training Levels:
1 = Under a Bachelor's Degree
2 = Bachelor's Degree
3 = Master's Degree
4 = Master's Degree + 30 Semester Hours
5 = Doctorate

91
Within the modifying factors, a Professional Educator
Matrix was designed with five training levels and five
experience levels. In addition, school sparsity was in
cluded for elementary and secondary facilities.
In the receipts and expenditure section, additional
arrays were created to discriminate between five specific
federal funds and the balance of the federal revenue. The
five federal arrays were for Title I, Federal Forest
Reserve Funds, Federal Impact Aid, Title VI-B Funds, and
Vocational-Educational Act Funds.
In the wealth section, total sales and corporate in
come were included as additional measures of wealth. Ef
fective buying income per household was deleted due to
unavailability of the data.
Within the B FILE two new sections were created due
to the uniqueness of West Virginia. The two new sections
were for current allocations and property valuation. To
generate the current allocations of educational funding,
28 additional arrays had to be created (B001-B028). Like
wise, since West Virginia uses several classifications of
property, assessment ratios, and tax rates, seven addi
tional arrays were created to facilitate their use in the
model (B030-B036).

92
West Virginia's C FILE
This file similarly underwent substantial changes
to make it compatible with the data contained in the
B FILE and the decisions made in the D FILE. A new sec
tion was also created that enabled the user(s) to compare
dollar differences and dollar differences per unit
between the current funding level, and the proposed
funding plan. Additionally, several blank arrays were
established to enable users to create esoteric calcula
tion storage arrays. A listing of the "C" arrays is
found in Table 4 and the definitions of the arrays may
be found in Appendix C.
Deviation from full equalization is a calculation
contained within the NEFP simulation model, and was in
cluded in the West Virginia Model. The deviation is
computed on the assumption that "the same total revenue
from state and local revenues is available (to all dis
tricts) . but methods of allocation" and the "pro
portion from state and local sources are varied" (NEFP,
1971, p. 281). A computation occurs that computes a
ratio between total dollars received by a district and
the total dollars received in all districts in the state.
Simultaneously, another ratio is calculated between district
program needs and total state program needs. The relation
ship between the two ratios is the deviation of each

93
TABLE 4
Calculated Data Code Sheet
Arrays
500-549 DISTRICT INFORMATION
550-600
610-635
640-730
Total Pupils
500
Total Professional Staff (FTE)
520
Pupi1/Professional Staff Ratio
540
Assessed Value of Property
Nonutility
542
Utility
543
Total
544
PROGRAM UNITS
Early Childhood (Basic) (4 yr.+K)
550
Grades 1-12 (Basic)
560
Special/Exceptional
570
Vocational/Techni cal
580
Compensatory (add-on)
590
Total All Categories
600
SPECIAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Required
State
Effort
Al 1otment
Transportation
610
615
Capital Outlay and Debt Service
620
625
School Food Service
635
MODIFYING FACTORS
Program Adjustments
Administrative, Supervisory
and Auxiliary Service
640
Sparsity
650
Educational Training and
Experience
660
Cost of Living
670 (n.a.
)
Special Allotments
Special Programs
Innovation
Achievement
700
720
730 (n.a.)

94
TABLE 4 (continued)
Arrays
740-965 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE
Dollars
Dollars/
Pupil
Dollars/
Unit
Receipts
State Dollars
Basic State Program
740
745
748
Special Serv. and Fac.
750
755
758
Special Allotments
760
765
768
Local Incentive
770
775
778
Total State Program
780
785
788
Local Dollars
Basic State Program
790
795
798
Special Serv. and Fac.
800
805
808
Local Leeway
810
815
818
Total Local Program
820
825
828
Total Dollars
Basic State Program (C740+
C790)
830
835
838
Total State/Local Program
C780+C820)
840
845
848
Tax Yield by Source
State
Bases
Yield
Property
Nonutility
850
Utility Assessed Value
851
Class 1
852
Class 2
853
Class 3 & 4
854
Total Property
855
856
Personal Income (AGI)
860
Sales and Gross Receipts
870
Corporate Income
880
Estate, Gift, and Other
890

95
TABLE 4 (continued)
"C"
Arrays
Yield/
Yield/
Yield
Pupi 1
Uni t
Local
Property
Class 1 Nonutility
791
Class 1 Utility
792
Class 2
793
Classes 3 & 4 Nonutility
794
Classes 3 & 4 Utility
796
Total Property
900
905
908
Personal Income (AGI)
910
915
918
Sales and Gross Receipts
920
925
928
Dollars/
Dollars
Pupil
Expenditures
Net Current Exp. (NCE)
NCE, Social Security, Teacher
930
935
Retirement, and Other
940
945
NCE, Social Security, Teacher
Retirement, Other, and
Transportation
950
955
Total Current Exp. (TCE)
960
965
969-970 EVALUATION
Tax Progressivity 969
Deviation from Full Equalization 970
971-993 CURRENT EQUALIZATION FORMULA AND COMPARISONS
Dollars
Dollars/
Pupil
Current Formula
Basic Instruction
Program State
971
972
Transportation
977
978 (per trans
ported pupi1)
Capital Outlay (approved)
979
980
Total State/Local Dollars
(Basic Only)
981
982

96
TABLE 4 (continued)
"C"
Arrays
Comparisons
Total Difference
Difference per Pupil
Current Basic State $ to
Proposed Basic State $
974 985
Current Basic Local $ to
Proposed Basic Local $
986 987
Current Transportation $ to
Proposed Transportation $
988 989*
Current Capital Outlay $ to
Proposed Capital Outlay $
990 991
Total Present State/Local/
Transporbtion/Capital to
Total Proposed State/Local/
Transportation/Capital
992 993
*Per transported pupil

97
district from complete equalization. If a district
receives more funds than its full fair share under the
simulated distribution, the district will receive a posi
tive percent of deviation score. The reverse is the case
when less than the districts fair share is received.
Tax progressivity is a calculation contained within
the NEFP simulation model that is also contained in the
West Virginia model. The progressivity measure is based
on two assumptions: (1) the most progressive tax is the
income tax, and (2) all taxes should be compared to the
income tax to measure their progressive or regressive
nature (NEFP, 1971, p. 254).
The progressivity measure was developed by The Tax
Foundation, Inc., and was based on a division of all
families in the United States whose incomes were less
than $5000 a year and those families whose incomes were
more than $5000 a year. A table was then prepared which
compared "the percent of income paid by the lower half
of families for each tax with the percent of income paid
for that tax by the upper half of families" (NEFP, 1971,
p. 255). Ratios were then developed which indicated
individual and corporate income taxes as the "only pro
gressive tax" (NEFP, 1971, p. 266). By arbitrarily as
signing a score of 50 to income taxes, all other taxes

98
were then proportionately assigned scores relative to
income taxes. It is the relationship of these measures
in the similation that computes the progressivity score
for the input decisions regarding the simulated state
structure.
The Lorenz Curve and Gini Coefficient are economic
measures that have been adapted and used in public school
finance, and are included within the West Virginia Model.
These measures have received notoriety since they have
been characterized as being able to operationalize the
concept of fiscal neutrality.
The common example used illustrates the Lorenz
Curve by plotting data for cumulative porportion of pupils
in districts and the cumulative proportion of expenditures
for districts on coordinate axes. The horizontal axis
reflects pupils, and the vertical axis reflects expendi
tures. The districts are then sorted in ascending order
by wealth per pupil. If all districts were the same, then
a straight line would be plotted. However, if a sagging
curve developed, then lesser amounts spent in poorer
districts would be indicated. The measure of the latter
inequality is called the Gini Coefficient (or Gini Index
or Index of Concentration). The general formula for
the Gini Coefficient being

99
g Area A
Area (A + B), where
A = the area between the sagging Lorenz curve
and the line marking the 45 degree angle,
and
B = the area below area A and above the
horizontal axis. (Johns, 1977, p. 505)
If the value of G is 0, then equality exists, since all
districts would be spending the same per pupil. However,
if the index reaches 1.0, then complete inequity exists.
Johns (1977) noted that if the index is computed using
weighted pupil, the measure becomes one of fiscal equali
zation rather than fiscal neutrality (p. 505).
West Virginia D FILE
All three areas within the D FILE were changed,
which included program decisions, distributional decisions,
and revenue decisions. The changes were implemented to
enable the simulation to be reflective of legal require
ments, program structure, and fiscal policies of the state
of West Virginia. Items are included in the decision set
where data for the decision is not available (n.a.).
These items are included to enable researchers and planners
to further modify the model. The input decisions relative
to West Virginia are included in Appendix D.
All three alternative decision areas, program unit,
special services and facilites, and modifying factors,

100
were adapted within the program decisions section. Within
the program unit area, decisions relative to early child
hood are only designated as including kindergarten, since
that is the current program offered within the state.
Full time equivalency (FTE) is the only enrollment figure
available within the simulation since other enrollment
measures were unavailable in unduplicated counts. The divi
sion of grade-levels was also amended to differentiate
between elementary and secondary only, and decisions rela
tive to program weight for special education and vocational
technical were increased to accommodate the increased
number of options.
Special services and facilities were also modified
to allow for the various classes of property, assessment
rates, and appropriate millages that affect options within
the transportation section and the capital outlay/debt
service section. Consideration of school sparsity was
limited to elementary and secondary classifications
utilized by the NEFP enrollment groups.
Within the distributional decision section, modifi
cation was necessary to again account for the various
classes of property, assessment rates, and appropriate
millages. Similarly, the revenue decision section was
modified for the various classes of property, assessment
rates, and appropriate millages.

101
Figure 2 illustrates a decision selection of the
West Virginia model utilizing an unweighted pupl concept,
whereas Figure 3 illustrates weighting of pupil enroll
ments. Both tables are presented here to illustrate
format, and are not intended for analysis.
STATE Equations
The STATE file was created by the inclusion of the
mathematical equations that enabled the interaction of the
newly created input decisions (D FILE) on the newly created
basic data (B FILE). The STATE file equations are contained
in Appendix E.
Having identified and collected the data necessary
to simulate the current system and provide alternative
patterns, an analysis of the current formula and alterna
tive plans will be discussed in regard to equality of edu
cational opportunity and taxpayer equity in the ensuing
chapter.

102
PASSWORD
DI 02 = 1
DI 05 = 1
DI 10 = 1
DI 63 = 80
DI 70 = 100
D200=5
D 2 2 O = 1
D 2 5 2 = 8 O
D400=865
D435=1
D610=47.5
D611=97.5
D612 = 19 6
D613=39.2
D614= 78.4
DECISIONS
CALC
[ Specify
Figure 2.
[ JOB CONTROL LANGUAGE ]
Kindergarten
Full Time Equivalent
Unweighted Pupils
Transportation Fixed % of Actual Cost
Capital Outlay Grant/Pupil
Adjustment Admin., Superv., & Aux. Personnel %
Adjustment Professional Training & Experience
Allowance for Physical Handicapped
Basic State Program Dollars/Unit
Uniform Tax with Variable State Dollars
Nonutility, Appraised Property %
Utility, Appraised Property %
Required Effort, Property Class 1
Required Effort, Property Class 2
Required Effort, Property Class 3 & 4
output tables and/or analytical subroutines ]
Sample Input of the West Virginia School Finance
Computer Simulation Model Utilizing an Unweighted
Pupil Unit

103
[ JOB CONTROL LANGUAGE ]
PASSWORD
D1 02=1
Kindergarten
D105=1
Full Time Equivalent
D116=1
County by Malady
D122 = 1 4
Kindergarten Weight
D123 = 1 0
Elementary Weight
D124=1 4
Secondary Weight
D12 6 = 1 9
Educable Mentally Handicapped
D127 = 2 .1
Trainable Mentally Handicapped
D128=3.6
Learning Disabilities
D129=2.2
Behavioral Disorders
D130=3.6
Physically Handicapped
D1 31 = 2 7
Multiple Handicapped
D132=3.0
Visually Handicapped
D133=3.0
Auditorily Handicapped
D134 = 1 .2
Communications Disorders
D135=1 4
Homebou nd
D136 = 1. 1
Gifted
D186 = 2 .1
Agriculture
D187 = 1 5
Distributive Education
D1 88=1.6
Health Occupations
D189=1 4
Home Economics
D190 = 1 .4
Business/Office Occupations
D191=2 2
Technical
D192 = 2. 2
Industrial
D193 = 1 5
Other Vocational (Code 99)
D163=80
Transportation on Fixed % of Actual Cost
D170=100
Capital Outlay Grant/Pupil
D200=5
Adjustment Admin., Superv., & Aux. Personnel
D220=l
Adjustment Professional Training & Experience
D400=865
Basic State Program Dollars/Unit
D 43 5 = 1
Uniform Tax with Variable State
D610=47.5
Nonutility, Appraised Property l
D611=97.5
Utility, Appraised Property %
D612 = 19.6
Required Effort, Property Class 1
D613=39.2
Required Effort, Property Class 2
D614=78.4
Required Effort, Property Class 3 & 4
DECISIONS
CALC
[ Specify output tables and/or analyti cal subroutines ]
Figure 3. Sample Input of the West Virginia School Finance
Computer Simulation Model Utilizing a Weighted
Pupil Unit

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
TAXPAYER EQUITY
Prior to presentation and analysis of equal educa
tional opportunity and taxpayer equity, the current West
Virginia public school finance plan will be presented and
analyzed in relationship to the concepts of equality of
educational opportunity and taxpayer equity. These two
concepts are achieved when
(1) the varying educational needs of the student
population are taken into consideration in the
method of allocation of funds to the expending units,
and (2) the variation of the ability among the local
school districts to support education is reduced or
eliminated through the utilization of state
resources. (NEFP, 1971, p. 238)
These definitions of the two respective concepts will be
utilized throughout the analysis as a frame of reference
for the reader. The NEFP (1971) additionally stated that
program and taxpayer equity criteria for a state's public
school funding plan are accomplished when the plan includes
all current expenditures, recognition of variations in per
pupil costs of specialized programs, recognition of factors
unique to districts (sparsity and density), a balanced and
comprehensive taxing structure, and "Utilizes objective
measures in allocating state school funds" (p. 233).

This chapter will initially present and analyze the
status of West Virginia public school finance in regard
to equality of opportunity and taxpayer equity. Addi
tionally, the concepts of equality of educational oppor
tunity and taxpayer equity will be demonstrated and analyzed,
respectively, utilizing alternative decisions within the
simulation model. Finally, four alternative financing
plans (district power equalizing, guaranteed yield, per
centage equalizing, and foundation) will be presented,
using West Virginia data, and analyzed in relationship
to the concepts of equality of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity.
Present School Finance in West Virginia
Within the current state system of financing educa
tion in West Virginia, professional educator salaries are
the primary determinant of legislative appropriations for
school support. On the other hand, student enrollment is
utilized extensively as the prime determinant of the state
distribution of school support. The distributional as
pects of the formula are presented first due to the con
sideration of student enrollment and are analyzed in
regard to equality of educational opportunity.
According to the definition already established as
to the concept of equality of educational opportunity and

106
student needs, it was stated that an equitable plan con
siders student needs in the allocation of funds to
districts. West Virginia does consider students specifi
cally within the distributional aspects of the formula.
The computation of student enrollment used for the
distribution of funds involves data collected by the local
school districts in the third month of the academic year.
Each district collects and reports to the state finance
office full time equivalency enrollment in kindergarten
programs and head count enrollment figures for grades one
through twelve. The state special education department
then supplies a "Certified Special Education Student"
count for each district to the state finance office, which
in turn is doubled and then added to the kindergarten and
grades one through twelve counts received from the dis
tricts. The net effect of the adjustment is a triple
weighting for special education students, and an enroll
ment count which is designated as "Third Month Adjusted
Enrollment."
Upon initial examination, the report generated by
the local school districts for students in grades one
through twelve appears to express the philosophy that "a
child is a child" for purposes of funding although pro
viding equality of educational opportunity through alloca
tion of equal dollars, specific needs of children are
seemingly disregarded. But, further scrutiny revealed

107
an FTE count for kindergarten and the weighted special
education count, which illustrates a concern for the
unique needs of special education students and part-time
kindergarten programs.
The triple weighting for special education has a more
substantial impact when considering that special education
students receive the triple weighting whether they are in
volved in a program for one hour a day, or the entire day.
Additionally, higher cost special education programs re
ceive the same triple weighting for their students as do
substantially lower cost special education programs. Many
studies have been conducted which have analyzed the costs
of special education programs (Rossmiller, Hale, and
Frohreich, 1970), as well as total program costs (NEFP
Kentucky, 1973; NEFP South Dakota, 1973). The conclusions
of the researchers indicate that different programs cost
different amounts to provide for the needs of the students
in those programs. In the current West Virginia plan, stu
dent needs are considered only with regard to special
education, and then on an equal basis within the program
area. Variations for exceptionalities within special edu
cation programs, kindergarten, vocational programs, or
other subdivisions are absent within the basic state foun
dation program and raise concern as to meeting "the
varying educational needs of the student population"
(NEFP, 1971, p. 238).

108
In analyzing monies allocated by the legislature,
professional educator salaries are used extensively as the
basis upon which the basic foundation program is computed.
Additionally, money is allocated "outside of the formula"
for in-formula salaries for professional and service and
auxiliary personnel. The rationale behind out-of-formula
allocations appears to be that in allocating monies to
specific categories outside of the basic formula, the
legislature prevents the "spin-off" effect of instituting
increases in all aspects of the basic formula. The 1976-1977
state aid formula computations for "in formal" and "out of
formula" allocations are presented in Appendix E, with
Table 5 illustrating the primary computations upon which
the state aid distribution is based.
The relationship between professional educators
i
salaries supported under the plan is limited to a ratio
of 55 professionals to 1,000 students. As is evident,
being based on a professional educator count, the ratios
between professional staff and pupils varies from a low
of 41.01 to a high of 53.96 per 1,000 students. Using
professional educators salaries, as the basic cost element,
reflects a wide variation in dollars distributed to school
districts without regard for relative needs of students.
Table 6 is presented to illustrate the amount of
state and local dollars per pupil available to the dis
tricts (with and without special levies). Table 6 is

109
TABLE 5
Preliminary Computations
Public School Support Program
Supplementary Information
1976-1977
Coun ty
1975-1976
3rd month
adjusted
enrol 1ment
1975-1976
3rd month
professional
educators
1975-1976
professional
educators
ratio/l,000 pupi1s
Barbour
3,910
187.83
48.04
Berkeley
10,930
503.70
46.08
Boone
6,966
342.50
49.1 7
Braxton
3,570
170.00
47.62
Brooke
6,798
328.85
48.37
Cabe!1
21,587
1,164.79
53.96
Calhoun
2,154
111.10
51.58
Clay
2,887
118.40
41 .01
Doddridge
1 ,950
91 75
47.05
Fayette
13,685
667.13
48.75
Gilmer
2,081
92.85
44.62
Grant
2,361
122.10
51 72
Greenbrier
7,954
395.77
49.76
Hampshire
3,445
150.83
43.78
Hancock
9,100
473.60
52.04
Hardy
2,805
137.10
48.88
Harrison
16,655
788.00
47.31
Jackson
6,504
303.75
46.70
Jefferson
6,340
320.44
50.54
Kanawha
49,671
2,577.93
51 .90
Lewis
3,920
191.00
48.72
Lincoln
6,252
273.06
43.68
Logan
11,988
571.00
47.63
Marion
12,566
607.00
48.30
Marshal 1
9,270
467.50
50.43
Mason
6,833
337.26
49.36
Mercer
15,435
775.19
50.22
Mineral
7,166
321.60
44.88
Mingo
10,121
448.50
44.31
Mononga 1 i a
12,428
611.83
49.23

no
TABLE 5 (continued)
County
1975-1976
3rd month
adjusted
enrolIment
1975-1976
3rd month
professional
educators
1975-1976
professional
educators
ratio/1 ,000 pupil:
Monroe
2,919
129.10
44.23
Morgan
2,430
112.90
46.46
McDowe11
13,635
687.00
50.39
Nicholas
6,660
302.60
45.44
Ohio
10,551
535.50
50.75
Pendleton
1 ,846
97.20
52.65
Pleasants
2,068
108.53
52.48
Pocahontas
2,378
122.21
51 .39
Preston
7,644
350.27
45.82
Putnam
8,793
392.50
44.64
Raleigh
18,416
862.50
46.83
Randolph
6,646
300 .'20
45.17
Ritchie
2,565
127.00
49.51
Roane
3,877
176.00
45.40
Summers
3,503
168.00
47.96
Taylor
4,160
184.25
44.29
Tucker
2,242
102.50
45.72
Tyler
3,1 52
144.50
45.84
Upshur
4,991
225.50
45.18
Wayne
11,446
548.50
47.92
Webster
3,244
147.00
45.31
Wetzel
5,668
263.29
46.45
Wirt
1 ,350
65.40
48.44
Wood
21,707
1 ,074.70
49.51
Wyomin g
9,977
469.10
47.02
State
439,200
21,348.61
48.61
Note: Data obtained from School Finance Division of the
West Virginia Department of Education.

TABLE 6
State and Local Funds
per Pupil
1976-1977
State aid plus State aid plus
total property tax regular levy
County
dollars per pupil
dollars per p
Grant
$1,350.82
$993.52
Marshall
1,114.13
856.92
PIeasants
1 077.91
897.67
Hancock
1,077,13
845.05
Pendeton
1,065.83
974.45
Kanawha
1 ,055.90
863.13
Cabe.l 1
1,042.23
864.36
Wirt
1 ,039.56
913.52
Doddridge
1,017.96
873.96
Monongalia
1 ,013.98
832.20
Putnam
996.91
777.54
Boone
993.70
839.85
Oh i o
993.05
806.29
Jackson
971.71
805.54
Harrison
969.01
781.01
Ritchie
962.89
879.54
Lewi s
957.56
870.44
Brooke
955.88
811.47
Mercer
954.24
840.15
Jefferson
953.55
869.. 82
Hardy
953.55
869.82
Pocahontas
953.28
953.28
Mason
949.98
818.15
Morgan
941 .91
827.16
Marion
937.70
788.29
Wood
936.81
804.22
Wyoming
933.23
807.32
McDowel1
926.92
817.20
Greenbrier
924.24
853.67
Summers
919.21
814.90

112
TABLE 6 (continued)
County
State aid plus
total property tax
dollars per pupil
State aid plus
regular levy
dollars per pupil
Preston
918.16
800.38
Fayette
902.21
787.83
Hampshire
897.03
821.75
Monroe
896.07
833.71
Raleigh
887.83
786.15
Calhoun
885.17
885.17
Logan
883.77
789.17
Mineral
880.31
774.97
Braxton
873.94
873.94
Berkeley
873.06
758.33
Wetzel
870.09
752.55
Wayne
870.04 '
779.06
Barbour
864.42
864.42
Mingo
861 73
773.31
Tyler
860.89
772.20
Webster
855.28
855.28
Nicholas
853.02
798.12
Gilmer
846.21
846.21
Lincoln
833.16
761.03
Taylor
826.30
777.61
Randolph
825.21
761 .10
Roane
820.28
820.28
Upshur
795.77
795.77
Clay
788.69
788.69
Tucker
771.50
771.50
State
959.55
819.17
Note: Counties are ranked according to State Aid Plus
Total Property Tax Dollars Per Pupil (from data
obtained from School Finance Division of the West
Virginia Department of Education).

113
reflective of the variations among the district's ability
to provide for student needs, which ranged from $1,351 to
$772 when considering state aid and all property tax per
pupil, and $994 to $753 when only considering regular
levy plus state aid per pupil. These values correlated
with the professional educator staff ratio of Table 5,
as .6967 and .6321, respectively, at the .001 significance
level. These correlations indicate a strong positive
relationship between state aid for professional educators
and property levies, with the inclusion of special levies
accounting for the higher correlation value.
The correlations indicate that as the ratio of
professional educators increases, the amount of state
and local support increases. The difference between the
first and second correlations is the inclusion of the
special levy inthe first, and its omission in the second.
The special levy, which the taxpayers impose upon themselves,
allows districts to increase their tax rate up to 100
percent, for up to five years. However, to evaluate the
question of taxpayer equity, additional analysis was con
ducted to determine the relationship between professional
educators and the regular and special local levies.
Table 7 illustrates the weighted property values per
pupil, the regular levy per pupil, the special levy per
pupil, and the total levy per pupil.

114
According to Table 7, there appears to be a wide
variation per pupil in property values throughout the
state. This fact further reflects a wide variation in
revenue generated per pupil based on the regular levy; from
a high of $420 per pupil to a low of $72 dollars per pupil.
This six-to-one relationship, when correlated to profes
sional staff ratios, showed a .4183 correlation at the
.001 significance level. Special levies correlated at
.4634 with the professional educator ratio, at the .001
significance level. When considering all levies, the
property tax production ranges from $777 per pupil to $86
per pupil, which is more than a nine-to-one relationship.
These ranges and correlations indicate that a relationship
exists between property wealth of a district, as measured by
their levies, and the number of professional educators.
Since the number of professional educators employed af
fects the amount of state aid each district receives, the
statistically significant correlations indicate that
property wealthy districts receive substantial amounts
of state aid through a small special levy due to the number
of professional educators employed and their per pupil
valuation as compared to property poor districts.
It is apparent from Table 7 that districts that do
not. take advantage of the special levy are placed at a
disadvantage over the counties that do. In addition, the

115
TABLE 7
Weighted Values and Revenue
from Local Property Tax
1976-1977
Weighted Regular Special Total
values levy levy levy
County per pupil per pupil per pupil per pupil
Grant
$192,774
$420.
. 29
$357,
.30
$777,
.59
Marshall
117,972
257.
,21
257.
.21
514.
,42
Hancock
102,318
223
.08
223,
.08
446,
.16
Putnam
100,616
219.
.37
219,
.37
438,
.74
Kanawha
89,833
192.
. 77
192,
. 77
385,
.54
Ohio
86,572
186,
. 76
186,
.76
373,
. 52
Harrison
86,230
1 88,
.00
1 88,
.00
376,
.00
Mononga1ia
83,376
181 ,
. 78 '
181 .
.78
PIeasants
82,670
1 80,
.24
180.
.24
360,
.48
Gilmer
81 ,645
178,
.01
1 78.
.01
Cabell
81,581
177,
.87
177,
.87
355,
, 74
Lewi s
79,915
174,
.24
87,
.12
261 .
. 36
Jackson
76,216
1 66,
. 1 7
166.
. 1 7
322,
,34
Boone
70,564
1 53,
.85
1 53.
, 85
307.
.70
Webster
69,763
1 44.
. 09
144.
.09
Hampshire
69,025
150.
,49
75.
.28
225.
.77
Marion
68,528
149.
41
149.
,41
298.
.82
Brooke
66,237
144.
, 41
1 44.
,41
288.
,82
Doddridge
66,046
144.
, 00
144.
, 00
288.
.00
Greenbrier
64,732
141 ,
.13
70.
,57
211 .
.70
Jefferson
62,663
1 36.
.62
119.
, 06
255.
,68
Pocahontas
62,464
136,
.19
136.
.19
Wood
61,461
1 32.
.59
132,
.59
265.
,18
Mason
60,464
131 .
.83
131 .
.83
263.
,66
Morgan
60,398
131 ,
. 68
114.
, 75
246.
.43
Berke1ey
60,382
131 ,
.65
114.
, 73
246.
,38
Ritchie
58,814
1 28.
, 23
83.
. 35
211 .
.58
Hardy
58,760
1 28.
, 1 1
83.
, 73
21 1 .
,84
Wyoming
58,366
125.
91
125.
.91
251 .
.82
Wirt
57,811
126.
.04
1 26.
,04
252.
,08

116
TABLE 7 (continued)
Coun ty
Weighted
values
per pupil
Regular
levy
per pupil
Special
levy
per pupil
Total
1 evy
per pupil
Nicholas
57,788
125.99
54.90
180.89
Upshur
55,248
120.45
120.45
Roane
55,068
120.06
120.06
Preston
54,024
117.78
117.78
235.56
Wetzel
53,912
117.54
117.54
235.08
Calhoun
53,084
115.74
115.74
Fayette
53,022
114.38
114.38
228.76
Pendleton
52,392
114.23
91 38
205.61
Mercer
52,327
114.09
114.09
228.18
Barbour
50,705
110.55
110.55
McDowel1
50,323
109.72,
109.72
219.44
Clay
50,293
109.65
109.65
Braxton
50,074
109.17
109.17
Mineral
48,313
105.34
105.34
210.68
Randolph
48,203
105.10
64.11
169.21
Summers
47,852
104.31
104.31
208.62
Raleigh
46,637
101.68
101.68
203.36
Logan
44,752
94.49
94.49
188.98
Taylor
44,667
97.39
48.69
1 46.08
Wayne
41 ,728
90.98
90.98
181.96
Mingo
40,986
88.42
88.42
176.84
Monroe
40,822
89.00
62.36
151.36
Tyler
40,679
88.69
88.69
117.38
Tucker
39,612
86.36
86.36
Lincoln
33,082
72.13
72.13
114.26
State
Average
67,181
145.77
140.38
286.15
Note: Counties are rank ordered by weighted assessed
property values (Class 1 x 1, Class 2x2, Classes
3 & 4 x 4).

117
fact that Grant county can raise more through their basic
levy than 51 other counties can raise through their respec
tive combined regular and excess levies, reflects the
magnitude of a taxpayer equity problem. For if as the
definition implies, variations in ability among school
districts should be reduced or eliminated through use of
state sources, then the wide variation reflected in Table 7
between property richest and property poorest per pupil
amounts should be equalized by the state beyond the required
(regular) levy which is currently equalized.
Taxpayer equity also involves consideration of tax
sources utilized throughout the state to generate all
state revenue. The current education plan is funded on a
federa1/state/1 oca 1 basis, with the 1 976- 1 977 support levels
being 11.7 percent, 56.6 percent, and 31.7 percent,
respectively. Of the local share, 99.5 percent is derived
from the ad valorem property tax, which has been criticized
as an inequitable, regressive tax (Due, 1970; Alexander,
1977). Some arguments against broad uses of the property
tax have included findings that this form of taxation
provides for unequal treatment of equals, has a low cor
relation between taxable property and wealth or income, and
places a regressive burden on property relative to income
(Due, 1970, pp. 297-298).

118
State-wide, the general revenue fund is created
through the collection of taxes, fees, and interest on
various items. Of the total state money collected for the
general revenue fund for fiscal year 1976, 65 percent of
the monies were collected through various types of sales
and gross receipts taxes, 23 percent of the monies were
col 1ected through income taxes (personal and corporate),
5 percent of the monies were collected as excise taxes,
1 percent of the monies were collected through inheritance
taxes, 2 percent of the monies were collected from racing
taxes, and 4 percent of the monies were collected from
other miscellaneous sources. The other sources included
such categories as department collections, Boards and Com
missions, interest on investments, and so forth. With the
first four groups accounting for approximately 93 percent
of the general revenue fund, the regress ive/progressive
characteristics of each will be considered in relation
ship to the concept of taxpayer equity.
Of the 65 percent of sales and gross receipts
taxes collected, 31 percent of that total was raised
through the consumer sales tax and use tax. The balance
of the money was raised from the Business and Occupations
Tax and Insurance Tax. The consumer sales tax and use tax
of 3 percent are imposed on all West Virignia residents
on purchases inside and outside the state, respectively.
The Business and Occupations Tax and Insurance Tax are

119
levies against corporations doing business in the state
of West Virginia. The Business and Occupations tax
applies a uniform levy upon various classes of producers
based on the gross proceeds of production and sales, and
gross income. Similarly, the Insurance Tax imposes a tax
on all insurance companies in the state based on gross
premium receipts. These taxes have also been criticized
in regard to equity criteria since an excessive burden is
placed on low income groups and those families who spend
a high percent of their income due to family circumstances
(i.e., number of children) on taxable items. The burden
is reflected directly by the consumer sales tax, and indi
rectly by the gross receipts tax, "to the extent that they
are shifted they have distributional effects comparable to
those of sales taxes" (Due, 1970, p. 232).
Income taxes which accounted for 23 percent of the
general fund were based on 13 percent of those receipts
from corporate net income taxes (which includes Carrier
Income), and 87 percent from the personal net income tax.
Generally, due to their relationship to wealth as measured
by income, allowance for privileged adjustments (basic
exemption, interest paid, etc.), and progressive rate
application, the burden on lower income groups is reduced.
These are some of the reasons why, in comparison to other
tax bases, the income tax is considered the most equitable.

120
Excise taxes, which are usually confined to taxes
on cigarettes, liquor, and fuel products, accounted for
approximately 5 percent of the general fund. Due (1970)
classified these taxes as being substantially productive,
being popularly accepted, and having "minimal danger to
economic development" (p. 316). The equity of "use" taxes
is difficult to determine since, except for motor fuel,
most may be regarded as luxuries.
Since more than 65 percent of the state general
revenue fund is collected from sales and gross receipts
taxe.s, one may conclude that excessive burden is placed
on lower income groups (directly and indirectly). The
sales tax is proportional in its application but regressive
in relation to income, i.e., low-income persons pay a
larger percent of their income for sales taxes.
Summa ry
West Virginia's current system of financing education,
by providing equal amounts of money for students, con
siders all students as having the same needs, with the
exception of special education students. But the addi
tional weighting for special education students is also
allocated regardless of grade, exceptionality, or type of
delivery system. Similarly, the basic program allows for
no variation based on grade or other program involvement

121
(i e- vocational education). Additionally, since the
present state aid plan is based on professional educator
salaries, and since the ratio of professional educators
to district wealth is highly correlated, there appears
to be some questionable equity in regard to the concept of
fiscal neutrality and equality of educational opportunity.
Taxpayer equity is also questionable when one con
siders the variations of amounts raised and special levy
options of the various school districts. This fact, in
conjunction with a tax base that is highly dependent on
tax sources that place more of a burden on lower income
groups, calls for further research into alternatives and
analysis of equality of educational opportunity and taxpayer
equity relative to the state of West Virginia.
Analyses of Simulated Alternatives
There are four major methods of state-local support
plans for education currently in use among the states:
foundation, percentage equalizing, district power equaliz
ing (DPE), and guaranteed yield. Johns (1968) and others
have demonstrated that in their purest form, all of the
basic programs converge mathematically into essentially
the same equation. The differentiation of each being a
function of the definitions employed within the particular

122
formula. An example of one type of definitional problem
encountered is the student support unit, e.g., should
students be accounted for funding purposes on the basis
of average daily attendance, average daily membership, or
full time equivalency?
For purposes of this analysis district power equaliz
ing (DPE) will be omitted from consideration. DPE will not
be analyzed since the criteria of equal educational oppor
tunity and taxpayer equity are difficult to relate to the
pure form of DPE. District power equalizing operates
under three basic assumptions: (1) that the state and
local government share in providing the money to budget a
school district, (2) that the size of the school district
budget should be determined by the school district and
not the state, and (3) that the state share of the locally
determined budget should be greater in poorer districts
(Benson, 1975). Assumptions one and three provide re
searchers no problem in regard to either equality of
educational opportunity or taxpayer equity. The problem
emerges in analyzing the second assumption. With the local
school district determining the financial support of their
school system, the quality of a child's education and the
meeting of needs are left to the discretion of the dis
trict, or become a function of its ability to support
the educational program. Being a district function results

123
in variations among districts in meeting children's needs.
Districts that have substantially greater wealth bases
are able to support programs to a greater extent than can
poorer districts. Because of the variations, taxpayer
equity also becomes a relative term, since wealthy dis
tricts can generate a higher level of support at lower
rates than can poor districts; likewise, poor districts
are not always able to tax themselves as heavily for
education as wealthy districts.
Former North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford (cited
in Weiss, 1969) expressed his concern for this type of
plan when he stated
It is not enough to have the finest school
system in the country if the adjoining district
has one of the worst. Ultimately the product
of the weak district will dilute the pros
perity of the more fortunate products of the
excellent system. Correcting this kind of
damaging inequity requires State action. (p. 31)
Similar concern was expressed by Hickrod, Hubbard, and Yang
(1974) when they summarized some of their objections to
this type of financial plan as:
(1) It may result in increased social stratifi
cation and geographic segregation of social
classes as the different social strata each
seek the tax rate or expenditure level they
prefer.
(2) Local decision-makers may not or cannot meet
the needs of their local districts, even if
those needs clearly exist.
(3) Reward for local effort formulas might also
stimulate local property taxation, and this
would be directly counter to a strong desire
for local property tax relief.

124
(4) It is possible that it will be the districts
with the higher income families that raise their
tax rates in response to the reward offered by
the state rather than districts with income
poor families.
(5) There is a special problem of low income house
holds located in property affluent school
districts. . the wealthy district might
decide to increase their generally low tax
effort in order to obtain more state aid.
(6) Students of general local public finance have
never been especially pleased with these edu
cational local incentive grants. (They feel
the emphasis should be on other social services
such as police, fire, and health.)
(7) They might have the effect of maintaining
small inefficient school districts since
the state would be rewarding higher tax rates
resulting from diseconomies of scale. (pp. 30-31)
As Coons et al ( 1 970) expressed when they proposed
the plan, "it operates by making dollars per pupil a func
tion of effort alone" (p. 202). However, as Hickrod et al.
(1974) summarized,"the aspiration level of the citizens in
a school district should not be the primary determinants
of the level of spending" (p. 32). Alexander and Jordan
(1976) also noted concern when they stated that theoreti
cally a district could put forth no effort; therefore,
have no educational program, and thusly, "the state equalizes
nothing" (p. 357).
Two basic concepts have been discussed throughout
this study, and will be used in the analysis of the alterna
tives; equality of educational opportunity and taxpayer

125
equity. The first three patterns that are analyzed are
the unweighted foundation program, the unweighted per
centage equalizing program, and the guaranteed yield pro
gram, relative to formula convergence and implications for
equality of educational opportunity. The fourth pattern
analyzed was the foundation program used in pattern one,
except that pupils were weighted by program. That analy
sis provided an evaluation of the concepts of equality of
educational opportunity and distributional equity. The
fifth and sixth patterns, using an unweighted foundation
program, were used to analyze the concept of taxpayer
equity. It should be remembered that the patterns pre
sented are used in relationship to the concepts mentioned,
and are generated to further illustrate the potential of
the simulation as a management and research tool.
Variations Between Plans
The literature has provided a basis for the belief
that all formulas, in their purest form, converge into
essentially the same formula (Johns, 1968; NEFP, 1971;
Cohn, 1974). The purpose of the first three patterns pre
sented is to demonstrate the convergence of the foundation
program, percentage equalizing program, and guaranteed
yield program, and discuss the implications of these
unweighted formulas relative to the concept of equality
of educational opportunity.

126
Pattern I. This pattern was used to demonstrate the
distributional effects of an unweighted foundation program
using data relative to the state of West Virginia. The
pattern consisted of the following decisions:
D105=1
D110=1
D116=1
D 4 0 0 = 1 000
D 4 3 5 = 1
D610=47.5
D611=97.5
. D612=1.96
D613=3.92
D614 = 7.84
Full time equivalency enrollment
Unweighted pupil counts
Special education county by malady
Amount per unit for the basic state
program
Uniform local tax rate plus variable
state grant to support state basic
p ro gram
Uniform local tax rate to be applied on
all nonutility property
Uniform local tax rate to be applied on
al 1 uti1ity property
Local mills required to be levied on
Class I property
Local mills required to be levied on
Class II property
Local mills required to be levied on
Classes III and IV property
This pattern produced a state education program that
would cost over 373.9 million dollars. Due to the fact
that all units (FTE students) were unweighted, each unit
received 1000 dollars each, thus having a zero deviation
from full equalization score for all districts. The total
cost of the state program is presented in Table 8, along
with the appropriate figures reflecting patterns II and
III.
Pattern II. This pattern was used to demonstrate
the distributional effects of an unweighted percentage
equalizing program using data relative to the state of West
Virginia. The pattern consisted of the following decisions

127
TABLE 8
Total Program
Dollars by
Funding
Pattern
Total
Program Dollars
Pattern I Pattern II
Pattern III
District
tota 1
total
total
Barbour
$ 3,160,300 $
3,160,300
$ 3,160,300
Berkeley
8,552, 500
8,552,500
8,552,500
Boone
6,020,000
6,020,000
6,020,000
Braxton
2,833,800
2,833,800
2,833,800
Brooke
5,912,000
5,912,000
5,912,000
Cabel1
18,548,600
18,548,600
18,548,600
Calhoun
1 585,500
1 585,500
1,585,500
Clay
2,565,000
2,565,000
2,565,000
Doddridge
1 503,1 00
1,503,100
1,503,100
Fayette
1 1 ,830,000
1 1 ,830,000
11,830,000
Gilmer
1,500,600
1 500,600
1,500,600
Grant
1,969,500
1 969,500
1,969,500
Greenbrier
7,450,000
7,450,000
7,450,000
Hampshire
2,725,000
2,725,000
2,725,000
Hancock
8,032,000
8,032,000
8,032,000
Hardy
2,094,500
2,094,500
2,094,500
H a r r i s o n
14,420,500
14,420,500
14,420,000
Jackson
5,428,500
5,428,500
5,428,500
Jefferson
5,377,500
5,377,500
5,377,500
Kanawha
42,968,800
42,968,800
42,968,800
Lewis
3,512,000
3,512,000
3,512,000
Lincoln
5,148,000
5,148,000
5,148,000
Logan
10,954,500
10,954,500
10,954,000
Marion
11,413,600
11 ,413,600
11 ,413,600
Marshal 1
7,620,200
7,620,200
7,620,200
Mason
5,510,000
5,510,000
5,510,000
Mercer
13,608,000
13,608,000
13,608,000
Mineral
5,535,000
5,535,000
5,535,000
Mingo
8,787,800
8,787,800
8,787,800
M o n o n g a 1 i a
10,215,700
10,215,700
10,215,700

TABLE 8 (continued)
District
Total Program Dollars
Pattern I
total
Pattern II
tota 1
Pattern III
total
Monroe
2,294,000
2,294,000
2,294,000
Morgan
2,039,000
2,039,000
2,039,000
Me Dowe11
12,036,000
12,036,000
12,036,000
Nicholas
5,953,200
5,953,200
5,953,200
Ohio
8,489,000
8,489,000
8,489,000
Pendleton
1 ,439,500
1 ,439,500
1 ,439,500
PIeasants
1 ,648,000
1 ,648,000
1 ,648,000
Pocahontas
1 ,913,500
1 ,913,500
1 ,913,500
Preston
6,335,000
6,335,000
6,335,000
Putnam
7,290,000
7,290,000
7,290,000
Raleigh
16,330,200
16,330,200
16,330,200
Randolph
5,797,000
5,797,000
5,797,000
R i t c h i e
2,145,000
2,T45,000
2,145,000
Roa ne
3,052,500
3,052,500
3,052,500
Summers
2,735,200
2,735,200
2,735,200
Taylor
3,265,500
3,265,500
3,265,500
Tucker
1 700,400
1,700,400
1 ,700,400
Tyler
2,332,500
2,332,500
2,332,500
Upshur
4,289,500
4,289,500
4,289,500
Wayne
9,697,000
9,697,000
9,697,000
Webster
2,695,000
2,695,000
2,695,000
Wetzel
4,822,000
4,822,000
4,822,000
W i r t
1,283,000
1,283,000
1,283,000
Wood
19,181,400
19,181,400
19,181,400
Wyoming
8,361,000
8,361 ,000
8,361,000
TOTAL
373,906,900
373,906,900
373,906,900

129
DI 05=1
DI 10=1
DI 1 6=1
D400=l000
D44 0 = 1
D445=l00
D4 54 = 1 00
D4 60=1 4.57 6
D610=47.5
D611=97. 5
D 63 0=1 00
Full time eqivalency enrollment
Unweighted pupil counts
Special education count by malady
Amount per unit for the basic state
program
Percentage state and local sharing
of the cost of the basic state
program
Percentage of the property tax to
be used in the computation
Percentage of the FTE unit to be
used in the computation
Percentage of the state basic
program to be provided by a district
of average ability
Uniform local tax rate to be applied
on all nonutility property
Uniform local tax rate to be applied
on all utility property
Percentage of variable local effort
based on property
This pattern produced a state education program
that would cost over 373.9 million dollars. Due to the
fact that all units were again unweighted, as was the
case in pattern I, each unit received a guarantee of
1000 dollars each for support. This pattern also resulted
in a zero deviation fromm full equalization score for
all districts. The total cost of the basic state program
is presented in Table 8, along with the appropriate
figures reflecting patterns I and III.
Pattern III. This pattern was used to demonstrate
the distributional effects of an unweighted guaranteed
yield program using data relative to the state of West
Virginia. The pattern consisted of the following de
cisions:

130
DI 05 = 1
DI 10 = 1
DI 16 = 1
D 4 7 0 = 1 000
D610=47.5
D611=97. 5
D 612 = 1.96
D613=3.92
D614=7.84
Full time equivalency enrollment
Unweighted pupil counts
Special education counts by malady
State guaranteed yield per student
Uniform local tax rate to be applied
on all nonutility property
Uniform local tax rate to be applied
on all utility property
Local mills required to be levied on
Class I property
Local mills required to be levied on
Class II property
Local mills required to be levied on
Classes III and IV property
This pattern again produced a state education pro
gram that would cost over 373.9 million dollars. Since
all units were again unweighted, each district was guar
anteed a 1000 dollar yield per FTE student, and again each
district had a zero deviation from full equalization score.
The total cost of the basic state program is presented
in Table 8, along with the appropriate figures reflect
ing patterns I and II.
Patterns I, II, and III analysis. It is evident
in Table 8 that the total cost of the state's educational
program would be identical under each financing pattern.
By each resulting in the same ultimate cost, the con
vergence of each pattern, relative to their purest form,
was demonstrated. The fact that the amounts for these
plans were identical is illustrative of another
concept mentioned by Johns (1968) and Cohn (1974),
in that when a mandatory tax rate is applied under

131
a guaranteed yield plan, the guaranteed yield plan is then
equivalent to a foundation level in a foundation plan.
Cohn (1974) illustrated these two formulas as
Foundation Plan
EA^=ENR (F rV.j), where
EA.=equalized state aid to a district,
ENR-the method of pupil accounting utilized,
r =mandated tax rate,
F =foundation level support,
V.=assessed valuation per pupil in the dis-
1 trict. (p. 33)
. Guaranteed Yield Plan
EA-=ENR (rV rV ), where
i g i
EA.=equalized state aid to a district,
ENR1=the method of pupil accounting utilized,
r =mandated tax rate,
w =assessed valuation per pupil that the state
g guarantees,
V.=assessed valuation per pupil in the dis
trict. (p 34)
Cohn (1971) continued his discussion of the basic formulas
by stating that if a mandated rate is required under a
guaranteed yield program, then F = rVg, and thus an equivalent
formula exists.
The percentage equializing although it converges with
the other formulas relative to overall program cost and
state-aid distributions, it does this through a percentage
sharing of the cost of the state and local portion, on a
variable local rate. Cohn (1974) illustrated this formula
as

132
EA = ENR (1 x V ./V ) EXP where
i i s i
EA =equalized state aid to a district,
E N R1 = t h e method of pupil account-utilized,
x =a scalar between 0 and 1 which is used
to indicate the state's willingness to share
in the educational expenditures of the
district (higher value represents smaller
state share),
V. = assessed valuation per pupil in the dis
trict,
Vs = assessed valuation per pupil in the state's
average district,
EXP =1 oca 1 per pupil expenditure in the dis
trict. (p. 35)
Since all the formulas do converge and since all
unweighted pupils in the three patterns illustrated had
the -same guaranteed value, some would argue that equality
of educational opportunity was apparent under each plan.
However, referring back to the original criteria estab
lished by the NEFP (1971) causes some doubts as to whether
"the varying educational needs of the student population
are being taken into consideration" (p. 238). If "a child
is a child" for funding purposes, then the above defini
tional criterion is being unfulfilled.
Distributional Equity
Equality of educational opportunity in recent years
has evolved to be considered more of an equity issue rather
than equality issue. The former says that students should
be able to obtain the quality and kind of education to meet
their individual and social needs while the latter says

133
they should obtain equal education. In providing for
needs based upon equality there must be objective measures
to evaluate the cost variations of programs. Mort's (1924)
concept of the weighted pupil unit appears to be the most
widely accepted and used tool in school finance plans.
Pattern IV. This pattern was used to demonstrate
the distributional effects of a weighted pupil foundation
program. Essentially the plan is identical to pattern I
with the exception being the program's cost indices. The
pattern consisted of the following decisions:
1 Full time equivalency enrollment
1 Special educatiqn count by malady
1.00 Weighting of basic elementary students
1.68 Weighting of EMR students
2.10 Weighting of TMR students
1.52 Weighting of learning disabled students
1.60 Weighting of behavior disordered students
1.51 Weighting of physically handicapped stu
dents
00 Weighting of multiply handicapped students
97 Weighting of visually handicapped students
65 Weighting of auditory handicapped students
62 Weighting of speech disordered students
50 Weighting of homebound students
14 Weighting of gifted students
Weighting of agricultural students
Weighting of distributive education
s tudents
60 Weighting of health occupation students
44 Weighting of home economics students
39 Weighting of business and office occupa
tions students
2.20 Weighting of technical students
2.20 Weighting of industrial students
2.50 Weighting of other (code 99) students
373906900 The cost of the basic program is to
be based on this amount of funds available
D610=47.5 Uniform local tax rate to be applied on
all nonutility property
D611=97.5 Uniform local tax rate to be applied on
all utility property
D1 0 5:
D1 16 =
D1 23 =
0126 =
D1 2 7 =
D1 28 =
D1 29 =
D1 30 =
D1 31 =
D1 32 =
D1 33 =
0134 =
D1 3 5 =
D1 36 =
D1 86
D 1 87
D1 88
D1 89
D1 90
D1 91 =
D1 9 2 =
D1 93 =
D 4 01 =
= 2
= 2
= 1
= 1
= 2
= 1
= 2.13
= 1 50

134
D612=1.96 Local mills required to be levied on
Class I property
D613=3.92 Local mills required to be levied on
Class II property
D615=7.84 Local mills required to be levied on
Classes III and IV property
The cost of the basic program was specified in de
cision 401, and since the program was based on pattern I,
with the exception of the weights applied to pupils, the
deviation from full equalization score was also zero.
Table 9 presents the total program dollars generated by
this program.
Analysis of Pattern IV. It is evident by comparing
Tables 8 and 9 that the cost of the total state program
is the same under patterns I, II, III, and IV. Also,
there is no difference in state dollars distributed to
school districts in plans I, II, and III. Although
pattern IV also utilizes the state-local relationship of
pattern I, the difference in amount of state aid per pupil
received by the school districts illustrates a redistribu
tion of funds based on need.
The redistribution of funds accomplishes what Hale
(1975) referred to as distributional equity, where all
districts in a state "must have equal access to state and
local revenues based upon a uniform definition of need"
(p. 22). Hale (1975) continued when he stated some gen
erally agreed upon concepts of an equalization model as
being

1 35
TABLE 9
Weighted Foundation Program
Cost Figures
State dollars
County total
Ba rbou r
Berkeley
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
$3,204,701
8,470,804
6,050,744
2,929,559
5,890,293
Cabell
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
Fayette
18,440,577
1 591 ,057
2,548,826
1,497,922
11,705,175
Gi1mer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hamps hire
Hancock
1,524,989
1,918,308
7,502,151
2,782,813
7,974,097
Hardy
Harrison
Jackson
Jefferson
Kanawha
2,236,634
14,000,841
5,378,187
5,295,526
42,937,199
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan
Marion
Marshal 1
3,443,737
5,257,943
1 1 ,028,279
1 1 1 94,074
7,750,803
Mason
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
5,707,966
13,578,773
5,781,914
8,646,530
10,211,367

136
TABLE 9 (continued)
Coun ty
State dollars
total
Monroe
Morgan
McDowel1
Nicholas
Ohio
2.304.698
1,972,788
12,278,472
5,894,639
8.694.698
Pendeton
PIeasants
Pocahontas
Pres ton
Putnam
1,453,786
1,611,240
2,017,299
6,415,259
7,344,770
Ra1eign
' Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Summers
16,052,171
5,628,250
2,120,733
3,039,420
2,803,487
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Wayne
3,264,656
1,878,468
2,324,504
4,209,629
9,754,580
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wyoming
TOTAL
2,791,425
4,761,836
1,280,197
18,971,183
8,557,091
373,906,900
TOTAL

137
(1) The plan must be based on a unit (pupil,
teacher, or other) of need,
(2) The plan should address all areas of costs
incurred by the district, and
(3) The plan should allocate state funds in
versely to a measure of district wealth.
(p. 23)
Cost indices (weights) accomplish criteria of tasks one
and two, and a foundation program accomplishes criterion
three. Under pattern I criterion number two was not met
since the known differences in program costs were not
recognized; pattern IV addresses both vertical equalization
of resources and horizontal equalization of program needs
which, combined, represent equalization of educational
opportunity.
Taxpayer Equity
Taxpayer equity is a concept related to the revenue
dimension of school finance. This concept tests whether
the "equity concept of equal-treatment-of-equals who have
the ability to pay" (Hale, 1975, p. 22) occurs in a state
financial plan. Due (1970), among others (Hale, 1975;
NEFP, 1971), has addressed this issue on several occa
sions. The two patterns discussed below analyze taxpayer
equity through the use of the NEFP tax progressivity meas
ure adapted from the Tax Foundation, Inc. (NEFP, 1971,
pp. 251-263).

138
The computational formula for this measure is
T (X5 x 35) + (X6 x 15) + (X? x 14) + (Xg x 50) + (Xg x 14)
- -
T = Progressivity value of all state taxes compared
with the federal income tax
Xg = State individual and corporate income taxes
Xg = State sales and gross receipts taxes
X-j State property tax
Xg = State estate and gift tax.
Xg = Other state taxes
* Rc = Total state revenues.
The multiplier for each tax base was determined by the Tax
Foundation and appears in Table 10.
Pattern V. Under this plan the 1976-1977 general
revenue fund of the state of West Virginia was analyzed
relative to the tax progressivity measure. The values for
each tax base were
X5 = $156,936,211
X6 = $435,506,759
Xy = included in Xg
Xg = $ 7,840,904
Xg = $ 88,170,838
R5 = $688,454,712

139
TABLE 10
P r o g r e s s i v i ty Value
(T value)
Tax
Progressivity
Value
(T Value)
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES:
1 .
Individual income
50
2.
Corporate income
24
3.
Estate and gift
50
4.
Sales, excise, and other
16
Total Weighted Average
39.90
TOTAL STATE TAXES:
1 .
Individual and corporate income
35
2.
Sales and gross receipts
1 5
3.
Property
14
4.
Estate and gift
50
5.
All other
1 4
Total Weighted Average
20.49
LOCAL SCHOOL TAXES:
1 .
Property
14
2.
Al 1 other
14
Total Weighted Average
14.00
Note: From "Criteria for Evaluating State Financing Plans
for the Public Schools," Alternative Programs for
Financing Education, 1971, p. 262.

140
The progressivity level determined was 19.83. This level,
as indicated on Table 10, is slightly above the progressiv-
ity measure for sales and gross receipts taxes. Since
this category makes up over 60 percent of the general
revenue fund, the finding was predictable. The overall
level of progressivity is below the weighted average amount
for the United States for 1968-1969, and below the 25
optimum level suggested by the NEFP (1971, p. 262).
Pattern VI. Under this alternative plan, a varia
tion in the amounts received from the income tax (corporate
and personal), sales and gross receipts taxes, and inheri
tance tax were adjusted to reflect more or less burden
on the various tax bases. The following were the values
for each tax base and the percent of the general fund
they would produce:
X5 '
$197,195,684
(28.
, 64%)
X6 *
$389,319,096
(56.
.55%)
X7 =
included in X
9
X8 '
$ 13,769.094
( 2.
, 00%)
X9
$ 88,170,838
(12.
,81%)
8 =
$688,454,712
The progressivity level determined for this hypothetical
alternative was 21.3006. Although this level remains
short of the optimum level (25), it is above the weighted
average level for 1968-1969 and reflects a more progressive

141
pattern than the current distribution of burden (pattern
V).
Analysis of patterns V and VI. Although not a con
clusive measure of prog ressivity, the statistic does pro
vide a good indicator of a state's relative tax burden.
Through alterations in the revenue source, a state can
more adequately provide for a relatively progressive tax
structure, and thereby address the issue of taxpayer equity.
Pattern V was used to evaluate the 1975-1976 revenue
structure of the general fund. The general revenue fund
contributes approximately 325 million dollars to public
education in the state of West Virginia. As was evident,
the tax progressivity measure was relatively low for the
state's 1975-1976 structure.
Pattern VI reflected a 1 percent increase in the
corporate income tax, which raised the rate from 6 percent
to 7 percent. The income tax was increased to contribute
25 percent to the fund. Additionally, the inheritance
tax was increased from 1.1 percent to 2 percent, and the
sales and gross receipt fund was reduced to enable the
total fund to equal the same amount. Although the sales
tax rate is only 3 percent in West Virginia, it was not
increased for purposes of analysis.

142
Summary
This chapter offered examples of the capabilities
of the West Virginia School Finance Simulation Model.
The 1976-1977 school year financial data base was utilized
for all analyses. The first part of the chapter presented
an analysis of the current public school finance plan rela
tive to the concepts of equality of educational opportunity,
distributional equity, and taxpayer equity. The second
part of the chapter provided an analysis of the simulated
a 1ternatives.
The second part of the chapter was subdivided
into three parts: equality of educational opportunity,
distributional equity, and taxpayer equity. Within the
first subdivision unweighted pupil data were used in a
foundation program, percentage equalizing program, and
guaranteed yield program. The results indicated that all
formulae converge, and by unweighting pupil counts, all
children received an equal guarantee by the state. Al
though equal amounts per pupil may be considered as
equality, most experts in school finance advocate a system
that recognizes funding variations in relationship to pupil
needs. Mort's (1924) concept of the weighted pupil was
utilized in the second subdivision. Total program cost
was controlled by using the total cost previously determined

143
under the unweighted foundation program. Not only did this
pattern meet the criteria of equality of educational oppor
tunity through meeting children's needs, it also addressed
the concept of distributional equity by apportioning state
aid inversely to local ability, based upon a uniform local
tax effort. The third subdivision addressed the concept
of taxpayer equity through the use of the NEFP (1971)
Tax Progressivity Index. This analysis was accomplished
through two alternatives. First, the 1975-1976 general
fund revenue was analyzed relative to the tax bases, and
evaluated according to the progressivity formula. Second,
alternative applications to the various tax bases was
generated which placed more emphasis on taxes on wealth
(income tax). Both measures were found to be below
optimum established by the NEFP.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter is subdivided into three parts. The
first part will summarize the attainment of the objectives
of the study. The second part will discuss some implica
tions of the study relative to public school finance issues,
and the third part will offer recommendations for further
study.
Summa ry
Model Adaptation
The first two objectives of this study related to
collection of data and adaptation of the NEFP computer
simulation model for the state of West Virginia. The
first objective involved the identification and collection
of data which would enable production of program and fiscal
decisions relative to alternative school finance funding
patterns.
144

145
Since all financial plans utilize information rela
tive to tax effort, tax yield, and property valuation per
pupil, component parts of each were identified as appraised
and assessed property values, tax rates and millages, and
pupil data. Further analysis of the West Virginia funding
pattern, as well as the ability of the simulation to gen
erate alternative plans, indicated a need for collection
of data relative to enrollments of students by level and
program participation, teacher salary information, special
services and facility information (transportation and
capital outlay), revenue capabilities, and wealth. Once
the data were initially identified, contacts were made to
secure the desired information.
Data relative to enrollments, programs, services and
facilities, and teachers were obtained from the state
department of education. Data relative to revenue and
wealth were obtained from the state tax collector's office,
and information regarding population was obtained from
the Chamber of Commerce.
The simulation handles data through two major files
which are identified as anMFILE and aDFILE. The M FILE
is further subdivided into "B" data and "C" data. The
"B" or base data contain all data relative to district
demographic and social information, program and enrollment
information, special services and facilities information,

146
receipts and expenditure information, and wealth informa
tion. Additionally, several arrays were added to accommo
date West Virginia data. The additional arrays concerned
information relative to current revenues, property rates
and millages, transportation, and federal funds.
The second objective in development of ca1culationa1
and decisional subroutines to enable the generation of
alternatives was accomplished through the "C" data of the
M FILE, and through the D FILE. The "C" or calculated data
stores the results of computations made relevant to de
sired input decisions in the users manual (Appendix D) and
the base data. The results can be accessed by the command
PRINT with the desired "C" array indicated in the command
statement. This file was also altered to accommodate
changes which were unique to the state of West Virginia.
Additionally, a new section was included which enables
comparisons of the current formula to the proposed alterna
tive. Likewise, the D FILE or decisional file required
extensive changes within all three parts of the input
manual (programmatic, distributional, and revenue). To
enable analysis of alternatives, a guaranteed yield plan
was added to the decisional file, along with the ability of
the simulation to produce a Gini Index and plot a Lorenz
Curve.

147
The key elements of the simulation are three addi
tional files called LSTATE, SSTATE, and STATE. LSTATE
and SSTATE are the original calculation arrays for the
NEFP model and are accessed through the commands LCALC
and SCALC, respectively. The STATE file in the NEFP
model was blank to enable researchers and planners to
create their own calculations relative to need. The
blank STATE file was created for use in the West Virginia
model. Calculations were written and stored in this file
to enable the interaction of the other West Virginia
files. The file is accessed through the command CALC.
Analysis of Equality of Educational
Opportunity and Taxpayer Equity
The third objective stated that an analysis of al
ternative school funding patterns would be generated and
evaluated in regard to equality of educational opportunity
and taxpayer equity criteria. This part of the study was
divided into three sections: (1) analysis of the 1976-1977
school financial plan, (b) generation of alternative fund
ing patterns relative to the concept of equality of educa
tional opportunity, and (3) analysis of alternatives rela
tive to the concept of taxpayer equity.
West Virginia finance plan (1976-1977). The 1976-
1977 West Virginia public school financial plan raises
some issues concerning equality of educational opportunity

148
and the meeting of student's needs. The plan in use con
siders all basic students as the same for purposes of
funding, with the exception of kindergarten and special
education students. Kindergarten students are accounted
for on the basis of an FTE enrollment count, with special
education students receiving a triple weighting. The basic
program, in not recognizing variations in educational levels,
or other special programs (vocational education) appears to
express the philosophy that all children have the same
needs for purposes of funding. Likewise, the special
education additional funding is provided regardless of
the time spent in the program or the severity of the ex
ceptionality of the child. Although fiscally, the special
education weighting addresses need, the relationship of a
weighted program to student needs is not based upon pro
gram equity concepts.
In regard to the ability of school districts to sup
port education, property rich districts have more money
available per pupil than do property poor districts due
to the provision of special levies above the equalized re
quired levy. This fact becomes more significant when one
considers that the current state aid formula is based on a
professional educator count, which was found to be highly
correlated with district property wealth. The results
indicated that wealthy districts have more professional

educators per pupil than do poorer districts, and thus
they receive more state aid. This increased state aid is
in addition to the special levy raised locally. The fact
that a district has the capabilities to double its levy
for a five-year period has significant implications for
the quality and equality of education throughout the
state.
Alternative funding patterns. Alternative funding
patterns were generated to demonstrate the effects of an
unweighted foundation program, an unweighted percentage
equalizing program, and an unweighted guaranteed yield
program. The results illustrated the convergence of these
formulas, with the same dollar amount per child being re
quired from state and local sources. Since all pupils
received the same amount, some would argue that equality of
educational opportunity was being provided for within the
formulas. However, this unidimensional consideration of
equality fails to meet generally accepted criteria of
school finance. Most experts in the field express that
in addition to vertical equity, horizontal equity needs
to be provided. When these two concepts are considered
in tandem, equality of educational opportunity is being
provided through dollar allocations and consideration of
student needs. To illustrate the concept of student needs
a weighted foundation program was simulated, which provided

for the same total distribution as the unweighted founda
tion program. The result of this alternative demonstrated
the redistributional effect of state and local aid, while
providing for pupil needs.
Taxpayer equity. In regard to taxpayer equity, the
1975-1976 general revenue fund was analyzed relative to
tax progressivity/regressivity. The NEFP Tax Prog ressivity
measure was used to evaluate the tendency of the general
fund relative to taxpayer equity. The result indicated
that a level below optimum progressivity for a tax structure
existed in West Virginia for the year evaluated. This low
score reflected the high percentage of dependence of the
general revenue fund on tax sources which places a heavier
burden on low-income groups. An alternative tax structure
was simulated which placed more emphasis on progressive tax
sources (income). That alternative produced a higher pro-
gressivity measure.
Conclusions. Two basic conclusions appeared relative
to the concepts of equality of educational opportunity and
taxpayer equity. If equality of educational opportunity
in a state financial program implies merely providing equal
amounts of money per funding unit, then only one dimension
of equality is fulfilled. Equality of educational oppor
tunity requires,in addition to vertical or resource equity,
horizontal or program equity. In providing for horizontal

151
equity, the individual student needs are taken into con
sideration in the financial plan. Most experts in the area
ofpublic school finance advocate a system which utilizes
pupil weights for allocation of funds relative to fulfill
ment of the concept of horizontal equity.
Relative to taxpayer equity, the 1975-1976 general
fund is composed of various revenue sources. However, over
60 percent of the general fund is derived from sales and
gross receipt taxes. Due (1970) and others have evaluated
this and other tax sources relative to progress ivity/
regr.es s i vi ty. Additionally, the simulation provides for
a tax progressivity index of a state's tax structure in
relation to what is considered the most equitable tax, the
individual personal income tax (federal). Alternative
measures of wealth other than purchasing power need to be
considered because of the burden this type of tax places
on low income groups. Having summarized the results of the
research project, implications will now be considered.
Implications
The implications of this research study will be gen
eralized relative to the testing and modeling of a public
school finance simulation for analysis of equality of edu
cational opportunity and taxpayer equity.

1 52
Equality of Educational Opportunity
Through the use of a school finance simulation model,
a state can evaluate methods of distribution relative to
the concepts of resource equity and program equity.
Since the literature (Johns, 1968; NEFP, 1971, Cohn,
1974) as well as the simulation demonstrated the convergence
of all state funding formulas, then specific names of fi
nancial plans become unimportant. What is important are
the three aspects of any formulas--tax effort, tax yield,
and property valuations per pupil. However, the defini
tions of terms relative to state financial plans do cause
variations in plans. One example of the definitional con
siderations involves enrollment. Should students be ac
counted for on the basis of average daily attendance,
average daily membership,or full time equivalency basis?
Others might include time involvement, mini mums, maximum,
and so forth. These considerations are necessary when one
considers resource or vertical equity.
However, concern for resource equity fails to provide
any true meaning to definitions usually attributable to
equality of educational opportunity. Overfunding or under-
funding of programs could occur since the major considera
tion of this concept concerns equity of resources or fiscal
neutrality of a state plan. Students' needs must be taken

into consideration in conjunction with resource allocation.
Program or horizontal equity is concerned with enabling
districts to financially operationalize programs for stu
dents based on needs. Additionally, cost analysis of
programs would enable determination of cost differentials
relative to a basic program. Having thus established the
basic program, all others then become a function of the
predetermined basic program. Again, the basic program as
well as other programs becomes a definitional problem
relative to variations in programs.
. Children's needs must direct legislative decisions to
consider not only resource equity but program equity.
If legislatures in their zeal and concern to provide fund
ing based on dollars fail to consider program equity,
then children's needs are relegated as a function of some
other unit. In the case of West Virginia, the legislature
allocates funds based on professional salaries. Profes
sional salaries are highly correlated with property wealth.
In reality then, funds made available to a district become
a function of wealth rather than needs.
Taxpayer Equity
Many state plans have either been challenged or
are being challenged based on equality of educational
opportunity bases or taxpayer equity issues. The Serrano

154
decision (1971) stated that property wealth should not be
the determinant of the educational level of a child.
Experts in the area of school finance have criticized
the equity of the property tax relative to unequal treat
ment of equals, excessive burden on homeowners regardless
of total wealth or income, and the regressive distribution
of burden. But, as Due (1970) stated,
The dominance of the property tax in local
finance is a product primarily of the limited
potential of other local tax revenues. (p. 295)
However, as the NEFP (1971) and others have observed, an
equitable plan of school finance should shift the burden
of support from local to state sources of revenue.
Most state revenue sources, including West Virginia,
place emphasis on the sales and gross receipt tax, which
in turn places a heavier burden on low-income groups.
Legislatures and citizens need to analyze and evaluate
the relative progressivity of their state's revenue generat
ing system. Measures which attach a tax to purchases should
be deemphasized with more emphasis on indicators of fiscal
ability (i.e., income). The computer simulation enables
analysis of relative progressivity of a tax structure
through use of the tax progressivity measure developed by
the Tax Foundation.
Nationally, states need to consider analysis of
their current financing structure for education. This

analysis requires consideration of the concepts of equality
of educational opportunity and taxpayer equity. Although
this study was place specific, West Virginia was used as
an example of the potential and capabilities of a computer-
based school finance simulation model. In an age when
people "need to know," and the need to know is often time
specific, computer technology and the ability to simulate
consequences of alternative decisions are powerful
planning, management, and research capability.
Recommendations
The review of the related literature, findings, and
conclusions of this study suggest
1. Since a simulation model was adapted for use in
West Virginia, to facilitate planning, research,
and management, then it should be utilized to
evaluate and analyze funding patterns (current
and alternative).
2. Since data factors change from year to year,
data files need to be updated on a regular basis.
3. The capabilities of the simulation should be
expanded (i.e., linking of other data bases for
multi-year comparisons).

1 56
4. Cost studies need to be initiated to ascertain
the costs of programs, transportation, capital
outlay, et cetera.
5. A more thorough and efficient system of pupil
accounting procedures needs to be developed to
enable further analysis relative to levels
and program involvement.
6. A more thorough and efficient cost accounting
system needs to be established relative to
pupil accounting procedures.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
DATA BASE CREATION PROGRAM

The following represents the subroutine CREATE,
which established the West Virginia Model. Reference
lines are included to explain each step.
Card Line
//WVA JOB CARD 1
/*PASSW0RD 2
// EXEC PGM=IEFBR14 3
//A DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.DFILE1,DISP=(0LD,DELETE) 4
//B DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.MFILE1,DISP=(OLD,DELETE) 5
// EXEC PGM=CREATE 6
//STEPLIB DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.LOADLIB,DISP=SHR 7
//SYSPRINT DD SYS0UT=A 8
//DFILE DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.DFILE1,DISP=(NEW,CATLG), 9
// DCB=(RECFM=F,LRECL=40,BLKSIZE=40,DS0RG=CA, 10
// SPACE=(TRK,4),UNIT=SYSDA 11
//MFILE DD DSN=B0050009.WVA.MFILE1,DISP=(NEW,CATLG), 12
// DCB=(RECFM=F,LRECL=472,BLKSIZE=472,DS0RG=DA), 13
// SPACE=(TRK,150),UNIT=SYSDA 14
//SYSIN DD 15
'Y 4 Y' 150 55 55 16
//MCARD DD 17
//DCARD DD 18
// 19
/* 20
Line Explanation
1-2 Security language for billing and start of job
sequence.
3-5 IBM language to erase record files intended for
use. This also makes sure nothing else is there.
6-8 Program language to initiate the CREATE routine.
9-11 Creation of the DFILE itself.
12-14 Creation of the MFILE itself.
15 Computer language to begin.
16 Specifying track size, number of districts, et
cetera .

APPENDIX A continued
17 After this card all "B" and "C" data that are to
be included in the simulation are fed in.
18 After this card, all "D" data that are to be
included in the simulation are fed in.
19-20 The closing of all files and signing off of the
computer.
The model can be run as either an interactive or re
mote job. "The basic programming language used was PL/1
and the computer system an IBM 360/Mod 65" (Boardman,
Jordan, & Alexander, 1971, p. 1). A PL/1 compiler and
a 2314 disc, 155 K memory and O.S. MVT are the basic
machine requirements. "The program is written in module
form so selected command option subroutines can be dropped
to reduce the memory requirement to 132K or less if so
desired" (Boardman et a 1., 1971, p. 1).

APPENDIX B
BASIC DATA DEFINITIONS

ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
001-028
001
002
003
004
005
006
"CURRENT ALLOCATIONS"
"Allocation for
Professional Educators"
"Allowance for Other
Personnel Part A"
"Allowance for Other
Personnel Part B"
"Allowance for Fixed
Charges"
"Allowance for
Transportation"
"Allowance for Admin
istrative Costs"
Represents current
allocations by the state.
Amount of money required
to pay state minimum
salaries for profes
sional educators.
An amount equal to 6% of
the allowance for profes
sional educators to be
distributed based on the
number of full time bus
drivers.
An amount equal to 14% of
the allowance for profes
sional educators to be
distributed to the
counties in proportion to
adjusted enrollment.
An amount determined by
adding the present Social
Security rate to 2%, then
multiplying this by the
allowances for profes
sional salaries, other
personnel (parts a and b).
An amount determined by
adding 80% of non-salary
expenses, total cost of
insurance of transporta
tion items, 10% of
current replacement value
of the bus fleet, 80% of
contracted transportation
services, and aid pro
vided in lieu of trans
portation.
An amount equal to 1% of
the allowance for profes
sional educators, to be
distributed to the
counties on an equal
basis.
162

163
APPENDIX B
ARRAY
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
- Continued
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
"Allowance for Other
Current Expenses"
"Allowance for National
Average Attainment"
"General School Fund
Distribution"
"Local Share"
"Incentive for Program
Improvement"
"Supplemental Early
Childhood Aides"
An amount equal to 10%
of the sum of the allow
ances for professional
educators and other
personnel (parts a and b),
which is distributed to
the counties based in
proportion to adjusted
enrollment.
Amounts that accrue from
allocations due to in
creased total share,
balances in general school
fund, or from appropria
tions, which are distrib
uted to the counties
based in proportion to
adjusted enrollment.
Distribution of the
General School Fund Bal
ance, which is distrib
uted in proportion to the
adjusted enrollment, and
is in addition to the
allowance toward national
average attainment.
Amount required by local
counties to participate
in the state basic pro
gram.
Allocation of funds to
enable counties to em
ploy additional staff to
bring them up to state
average.
An amount allocated out
side the basic foundation
formula for the employ
ment of early childhood
aides.

164
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
013
014
015
016 -
017
018
019
020
021
"Supplemental Teachers'
Salaries"
"Supplemental Service
and Auxiliary Services
"Supplemental Aid for
Children's Homes"
"State Aid for
Increased Enrollment"
"Special Education
Allocation Out of
Formula Grants"
"Special Education
Allocation Out of
Formula Homebound
Instruction"
"Special Education
Allocation Out of
Formula Additional
Grants"
"Special Education
Allocation Out of
Formula RESA"
"State Aid to RESA"
An amount allocated out
side the basic foundation
formula for supplemental
teacher's salary raises.
An amount allocated out
side the basic foundation
formula for supplemental
service and auxiliary
salary raises.
An allocation for dis
tricts in which
children's homes are
located.
An amount allocated to
counties which experi
ence an increase in net
enrollment.
An allocation for out of
formula distribution of
special education grants
to cover salaries and
supportive costs.
Allocation of special
education aid to counties
out of the basic formula
for special education
homebound instruction.
Additional allocation of
special education aid to
counties for workshops
and hospital instruction
program.
An allocation of special
education aid to RESA
centers.
An allocation of state
aid to RESA Centers
based on a basic alloca
tion plus an additional
per pupil in adjusted en
rollment allocation.

APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY CATEGORY
DEFINITION
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
030-036
030
031
"Teacher Education
Centers"
"Vocational Day
School 1976"
"Vocational Adult
Education, 1976"
"Area Vocational
Programs, 1976"
"Vocational Act 1968 -
State, 1976"
"West Virginia Social
Security Work Incen
tive, 1976"
"Other State Revenue,
1976"
"PROPERTY APPRAISED"
"Appraised Property
Nonutility Class I"
"Appraised Property
Utility Class I"
An amount allocated to
districts with teacher
education centers.
An amount allocated to
the districts to provide
vocational programs for
the day school program.
An amount allocated to
the districts to provide
vocational programs for
the adult education pro
grams .
An amount allocated to
aid area vocational pro
grams .
The amount of state aid
to districts based on the
Vocational Act of 1968
and any additions.
An amount allocated to
provide aid for work in
centive.
Allocation of state money
from other state agencies
to the school districts.
Appraised value on all
tangible personal property
employed exclusively in
agriculture while owned
by the producer; all
notes, bonds, accounts
receivable, stocks and
other evidences of indebt
edness .
The same as Appraised
Property Nonutility
Class I (030), except
only applies to utilities.

166
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
032
"Appraised Property
Nonutility Class II"
Appraised value on all
property, owned, used and
occupied by the owner
exclusively for residen
tial purposes; all farm
lands occupied and culti
vated by their owners or
bona fide tenants.
033
"Appraised Property
Nonutility Class III"
Appraised value on all
real and personal prop
erty situated outside of
municipalities, exlcusive
of Classes I and 11.
034
"Appraised Property
The same as Appraised
Utility Class III"
Property Nonutility
Class III (033), except
only applies to utilities
035
"Appraised Property
Nonutility Class IV"
Appraised value on all
real and personal prop
erty situated inside of
municipalities, exclusive
of Classes I and 11.
036
"Appraised Property
Utility Class IV"
The same as Appraised
Property Nonutility Class
IV (035), except only
applies to utilities.
100
"DISTRICT"
Number of the school
district.
102
"DISTRICT IDENTIFI
CATION"
Code number of the dis
trict State Department
of Education.
104-109
"DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL"
Vital statistics of the
school districts.
104
"Square Miles"
Total number of square
miles in the district.
107
"Population, Total
Population 1975"
The 1975 Department of
Commerce population esti-
mated for the state.

167
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
108
"Rate of Growth (%)
(1970-1975), Enrollment"
Rate of change in school
enrollment in the school
district during the 5
year period from 1970-
1975 expressed as a
percentage.
109
"Rate of Growth {%)
(1970-1975), Popula
tion"
Rate of change of the
population of the school
district during the 5
year period of 1970-1975
expressed as a percentage
110-346
"PROGRAMS AND ENROLL
MENT"
The number of students
participating in each
phase of the school dis
trict's educational
program.
110-112
"Current"
Enrollment figures based
on third month adjusted
enrollment for the
current program.
no
"Kindergarten"
Full time equivalency of
basic kindergarten stu
dents enrolled.
111
"1 12"
Number of students in
grades 1-12 (excluding
special education).
112
"Special Education"
Number of Certified
Special Education Stu
dents enrolled.
115-132
"Basic"
Enrollment figures of
students in other than
special programs.
115
"4 Yr. Old ENR"
Number of basic 4 year
old students enrolled.
117
"4 Yr. Old FTE"
Full time equivalency of
basic 4 year old students
enrolled.
120
"Kindergarten ENR"
Number of basic kinder
garten students enrolled.

1 68
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
122
"Kindergarten FTE"
Full time equivalency of
basic kindergarten stu
dents enrolled.
125
"Elementary ENR"
Number of basic elemen
tary students enrolled.
127
"Elementary FTE"
Full time equivalency of
basic elementary students
enrolled.
130
"Secondary ENR"
Number of basic secondary
students enrolled.
132
"Secondary FTE"
Full time equivalency of
basic secondary students

enrolled.
140-192
"Special/Exceptional"
Enrollment figures of stu
dents in special/excep
tional education programs
by exceptionality within
the school districts.
140
"EMR ENR"
Number of educable
mentally retarded stu
dents enrolled.
142
"EMR FTE"
Full time equivalency of
educable mentally retarded
students enrolled.
145
"TMR ENR"
Number of trainable
mentally retarded students
enrolled.
147
"TMR FTE"
Full time equivalency of
trainable mentally retard
ed students enrolled.
150
"Learn. Dis. ENR"
Number of learning disa
bility students enrolled.
152
"Learn. Dis. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
learning disability stu
dents enrolled.

169
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
155
"Behav. Dis. ENR"
Number of behavioral dis
ordered students enrolled.
157
"Behav. Dis. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
behavioral disordered
students enrolled.
160
"Phys. HDCP ENR"
Number of physically
handicapped students en
rolled.
162
"Phys. HDCP FTE"
Full time equivalency of
physically handicapped
students enrolled.
165
If
"Mult. HDCP ENR"
Number of multiple handi
capped students enrolled.
167
"Mult. HDCP FTE"
Full time equivalency of
multiple handicapped stu
dents enrolled.
170
"Vis. HDCP ENR"
Number of visually handi
capped students enrolled.
172
"Vis. HDCP FTE"
Full time equivalency of
visually handicapped stu
dents enrolled.
175
"Aud. HDCP ENR"
Number of auditorily
handicapped students en
rolled.
177
"Aud. HDCP FTE"
Full time equivalency of
auditorily handicapped
students enrolled.
180
"Comm. Dis. ENR"
Number of communication
disordered students en
rolled.
182
"Comm. Dis. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
communication disordered
students enrolled.
185
"Homebound ENR"
Number of homebound stu
dents enrolled.

APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
187
"Homebound FTE"
Full time equivalency of
homebound students en
rolled.
190
"Gifted ENR"
Number of gifted students
enrol led.
192
"Gifted FTE"
Full time equivalency of
gifted students enrolled.
195-232
"Vocational/Technical"
Enrollment figures of
students in vocational/
technical programs by
program area within the
school district.
195 .
"Agr. ENR"
Number of agricultural
students enrolled.
197
"Agr. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
agricultural students
enrol 1ed.
200
"Dist. Ed. ENR"
Number of distributed
education students en
rolled .
202
"Dist. Ed. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
distributive education
students enrolled.
205
"Health Occ. ENR"
Number of health occupa
tion students enrolled.
207
"Health Occ. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
health occupation stu
dents enrolled.
210
"Home Ec. ENR"
Number of home economic
students enrolled.
212
"Home Ec. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
home economic students
enrolled.
215
"Bus./Of. Occ. ENR"
Number of business and
office occupation stu
dents enrolled.

171
APPENDIX B
- Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
217
"Bus./Of. Occ. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
business and office occu
pation students enrolled.
220
"Tech. ENR"
Number of technical
students enrolled.
222
"Tech. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
technical students en
rol 1 ed.
225
"Indust. ENR"
Number of industrial
students enrolled.
227
tr
"Indust. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
industrial students en
rolled.
230
"Ot V/T 99 ENR"
Number of students en
rolled in other vocational
technical programs classed
as 99.
232
"Ot V/T 99 FTE"
Full time equivalency of
students enrolled in
other vocational tech
nical programs classed as
99.
235-252
"Special Education
Delivery Systems"
Enrollment figures of stu
dents in special education
by type of delivery system.
235
"Sp. Ed. Self
Contained ENR"
Number of special educa
tion students in an al 1
day program for their
respective exceptionality.
237
"Sp. Ed. Self
Contained FTE"
Full time equivalency of
special education students
in an all day program for
their respective excep
tionality.
240
"Sp. Ed. Resource -
ENR"
Number of special educa
tion students in a half
time program for their
respective exceptionality.

APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
242
"Sp. Ed. Resource -
FTE"
Full time equivalency of
special education stu
dents in a half time pro
gram for their respective
exceptionality.
245
"Sp. Ed. Itinerant -
ENR"
Number of special educa
tion students in a fifth
time program for their
respective exceptionality.
247
"Sp. Ed. Itinerant -
FTE"
Full time equivalency of
special education stu
dents in a fifth time
program for their respec
tive exceptionality.
250
"Sp. Ed. DS 4 ENR"
Option.
252
"Sp. Ed. DS 4 FTE"
Option.
340-346
"Compensatory"
Enrollment of pupils in
compensatory programs.
340
"Low Inc. ENR"
Number of compensatory
low income students en
rol led.
341
"Low Ach. ENR"
Number of compensatory
low achievement students
enrol led.
345
"Low Inc. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
compensatory low income
students enrolled.
346
"Low Ach. FTE"
Full time equivalency of
compensatory low achieve
ment students enrolled.
360-364
"TRANSPORTATION" (Part I)
360
"Average Daily Route
Miles 1976"
Average daily route miles
of buses traveling in the
school district for the
1975-76 school year.

APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
361
"Number of Pupils Trans
ported 1976"
Number of pupils trans
ported in the school
district for the school
year 1975-76.
362
"Sparsity Cost
Variation"
Linear density of
counties to be used in a
computation of trans
portation funds to be
distributed by the state.
363
"Approved Costs"
Amount of local district's
transportation costs
approved by the state for
purposes of computing
state allotment of funds.
364 *
"Actual Costs 1976"
The actual costs of trans
portation in the districts
for the 1975-76 school
year.
065-068
"TRANSPORTATION" (Part II)
065
"Average Daily Miles
1976"
Average daily miles of
buses traveling in the
school district for the
1975-76 school year.
066
"Bus Drivers' Salaries
1976"
Actual amount of money
spent for bus drivers'
salaries for the 1975-76
school year.
067
"Other Transportation
Salaries 1976"
Actual amount of money
spent for other trans
portation salaries
(excluding bus drivers)
for the 1975-76 school
year.
068
"Transportation Costs -
Non Salary 1976"
Actual amount of money
spent for transportation
costs less salaries.

APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
365-368
365
366
367

368
370-373
370
371
372
373
CATEGORY
"CAPITAL OUTLAY AND DEBT
SERVICE"
"Approved Project
Costs 1977"
"Actual Project
Costs 1977"
"Depreciation Allowance"
"Debt Service 1977"
"SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE"
"Participating Pupils
(Total)"
"Federal Food Service
Revenue"
"Total Food Service
Revenue"
"Total Food Service
Expenditures"
DEFINITION
Amount of local district'
proposed capital outlay
project for which the
state will provide funds.
Total cost of approved
capital outlay projects
in the school district.
Computed annual allowance
for depreciation of
facilities based on pro
jected costs of providing
instructional facilities
for a pupil or instruc
tional unit.
Expenditures for debt
retirement and interest
on debt for capital out
lay purposes.
The total number of
pupils participating in
the school district's
food service program.
Total amount of all
federal funds received by
the school district to
support the food service
program.
Total amount of all
federal, state and local
funds received by the
school district used to
support the food service
program.
Total amount of all ex
penditures by the school
district for the food
service program.

175
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY CATEGORY DEFINITION
380-404 "PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE"
380 "E 1,
T 1"
381 "E 1,
T 2"
382 "E 1,
T 3"
383 "E 1,
T 4"
384 "E 1 ,
T 5"
385 "E 2,
T 1"
386 "E 2,
T 2"
FTE count of professional
educators with an ex
perience level of 0 2
years and a training
level of under a bachelor's
degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 0 2 years
and a training level of a
bachelor's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 0 2 years
and a training level of a
master's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 0 2 years
and a training level of a
master's degree + 30 hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 0 2 years
and a training level of a
doctorate.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of
under a bachelor's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of a
bachelor's degree.

APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
387
388
389
"E
T
"E
T
"E
T
2,
3"
2,
4"
2,
5"
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of a
master's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of a
master's degree + 30 hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of a
doctorate.
390
391
"E
T
"E
T
3,
1"
3,
2"
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of
under a bachelor's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of a
bachelor's degree.
392
"E
T
3,
3"
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of a
master's degree.
393
394
"E
T
3,
4"
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of a
master's degree + 30 hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 7 11 years
and a training level of a
doctorate.
E 3,
T 5"

177
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
395 "E 4,
T 1"
396 "E 4,
T 2"
397 "E 4,
T 3"
398 "E 4,
T 4"
399
400 "E 5,
T 1"
401 "E 5,
T 2"
DEFINITION
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training
level of under a bachelor's
degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training
level of a bachelor's
degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training
level of a master's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training
level of a master's de
gree + 30 hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 12 17
years and a training level
of a doctorate.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of under a bachelor's
degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of a bachelor's degree.

APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
402
403
404
440-452
440
441
442
450
451
452
CATEGORY
"E 5,
T 3"
"E 5,
T 4"
"E 5,
T 5"
"SPARSITY MODIFYING
FACTORS"
"Elementary,
ENR Under 100"
"Elementary,
ENR 100-149"
"Elementary,
ENR 150-200"
"Secondary,
ENR Under 100"
"Secondary,
ENR 100-149"
"Secondary,
ENR 150-200"
DEFINITION
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of a master's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of a master's degree + 30
hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 18 or more
years and a training level
of a doctorate.
Pupils in elementary
schools with enrollments
of less than 100 students.
Pupils in elementary
schools with enrollment
between 100-149 students.
Pupils in elementary
schools with enrollment
between 150-200 students.
Pupils in secondary
schools with enrollments
of less than 100 students.
Pupils in secondary
schools with enrollment
between 100-149 students.
Pupils in secondary
schools with enrollment
between 150-200 students.

APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
460-471
"ADDITIONAL MODIFYING
FACTORS"
460
"Cost of Living"
Total expenditures re
quired to provide the
necessities of life for a
family in the school
district.
470
"Achievement below
25 Percentile"
Number of pupils in the
school district that
score below the 25th
percentile on achieve
ment tests.
475-483
"RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURES" (Part I)
475
"Receipts, Fed. Title 1
1976"
Total amount of Title 1
funds received by the
school district from the
federal government.
476
"Receipts, Fed. Other
1976"
Total amount of funds,
except Title I, federal
forest reserve, impact
aid, and Vocational Act
of 1968 (Bl, B4A, B4B,
B6, and B7) received by
the school district from
the federal government.
478
"Receipts, Local REG
& EXCESS"
Total amount of funds
received from the local
tax sources by the
school district.
479
"Receipts, Other Local"
Total amount of funds
from other local sources,
except local tax receipts
received by the school
district.

180
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
480
481
482
483
077-080
077
078
079
CATEGORY
"Exp. K-12, NCE 1976"
"Expenditures K-12
Social Security 1976"
"Expenditures K-12
Teacher Retirement -
1976"
"Expenditures K-12,
Other 1976"
"RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURES" (Part II)
"Federal Forest Reserve
Funds 1976"
"Federal Impact Aid
(PL874) 1976"
"VI-B Federal Aid -
1977"
DEFINITION
Total of all current
expenditures from public
funds in the school
district except for
transportation, food
service, capital outlay,
and debt service less
any discounts, rebates,
reimbursements or reve
nue produced by the
service or activity of
the school district
during a specified period
of time for grades K-12.
Total expenditures made
by the school district
for the employer's share
of the social security
insurance program for K-
12 employees.
Total expenditures made
by the school district
for the employer's share
of the K-12 teacher's
retirement program.
Total expenditures made
by the school district
for the employer's share
of pension payments and
public employees.
Allocation to the coun
ties of federal forest
reserve funds.
Allocation to the coun
ties of federal impact
aid.
Allocation to the coun
ties of federal VI-B EHA
aid.

181
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
080
"Voc. Sec. Grants -
Fed. 1976"
Allocation of the Voca
tional Education Act to
the counties for second
ary instruction (includ
ing B1, B4A, B4B, B6,
and B7).
485-497
"WEALTH MEASURES"
488
"Personal Income,
Adjusted Gross Income
1975"
Total personal income
less adjustments and ex
emptions for taxpayers
in the school district, a
total taxable income for
taxpayers in the school
district (tax year 1975).
00
"Personal Income,
Income Taxes Paid
1975"
Amount of personal in
come tax paid by persons
in the school district
for the tax year 1975.
490
"Personal Income,
Returns Filed Under
$4000, 1975 Gross"
Number of persons in the
school district who filed
personal income tax re
turns which showed under
$4000 adjusted gross in
come .
491
"Personal Income,
Returns Filed $4000-
$10,000, 1975 Gross"
Number of persons in the
school district who filed
personal income tax re
turns which showed between
$4000 and $10,000 adjusted
gross income.
492
"Personal Income,
Returns Filed Over
$10,000, 1975 Gross"
Number of persons in the
school district who filed
personal income tax re
turns which showed over
$10,000 adjusted gross in
come.
494
"Sales and Gross
Receipts, 1976"
State tax revenue on
sales and gross receipts
collected in the school
district.

182
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
495
496
497
498
499
"Corporate Income Tax
(State Total) 1976"
"Inheritance Tax
(State Total) 1976"
"Other (State Total) -
1976"
"Total Gross Sales,
1976"
"Corporate Income
(State Total) 1976"
State revenue from
corporate income taxes.
State revenue from the
inheritance tax.
State revenue from state
taxes which includes
business and occupational
tax, cigarette tax,
business franchise regis
tration tax, charter tax,
use tax, carrier income
tax, beer tax, insurance
tax, property tax, racing
fees, liquor profits,
tuition and fees, insti
tutional and department
collections, Boards and
Commissions, miscellaneous
income, interest, and
medical payments.
The total amount of gross
sales in each district.
The total amount of
corporate income for the
state.

APPENDIX C
CALCULATED DATA DEFINITIONS

C500 Total Pupils
Total pupils can be based on either NET enrollment or FTE
(D103 or D105). It is also a funct ion of whether 4 year
olds and/or kindergarten is included in the program (D101
and D102). Dependent on the above decisions, each pupil to
be included in the program is given a weight of 1 and summed
to calculate total pupils (basic, educable mentally retarded,
trainable mentally retarded, learning disabilities, behav
ioral disorders, physically handicapped, multiple handicapped,
visually handicapped, auditorily handicapped, communication
disorders, homebound, gifted, agriculture, distributive edu
cation, health occupations, home economics, business/office
occupations, technical, industrial and other vocational).
Each pupil is classified into one of the above categories and
the categories are mutually exclusive.
C520 Total Professional Staff (FTE)
The sum of the professional educators from the professional
educators educational training and experience matrix (B380-
B404).
C540 Pupil/Professional Staff Ratio
Total pupils (C500) divided by total professional staff (C520).
C542 Assessed Value Property-Non-Utility
The assessed valuation of all Non-Utility property (B030+B032+
B033+B035) by the proposed assessment rate (D610).
C543 Assessed Value Property-Uti1ity
The assessed valuation of all Utility property (B031+B034+
B036) by the proposed assessment rate (D611).
C544 Assessed Value Property-Total
The assessed valuation of all property by their proposed
assessment rate (C542+C543).
C550 Early Childhood (Basic) (4 yr. + K) Units
The sum of the multiplication of the number of basic 4 year
olds and/or kindergarten pupils (B110-B122) by their respec
tive cost differentials depending on the decisions made.
184

185
APPENDIX
C560
C570
C580
C590
C600
C610
C615
C620
C Continued
Grades 1-12 Basic Units
The sum of the multiplication of the number of basic elemen
tary and secondary pupils (B125-B132) by their respective
cost differentials.
Special/Exceptional Units
The sum of the multiplication of the number of educable
mentally retarded, trainable mentally retarded, learning
disabilities, behavioral disorders, physically handicapped,
multiple handicapped, visually handicapped, auditorily handi
capped, communication disorders, homebound, and gifted
pupils (B140-B192) by their respective cost differentials.
Vocational/Technical Units
The multiplication of the number of agriculture, distributive
education, health occupations, home economics, business/office
occupations, technical industrial, and other vocational
pupils (B195-B232) by their cost differentials.
Compensatory (add-on) Units
The multiplication of the number of compensatory pupils
(B340-B346) by their cost differential.
Total All Categories Units
The sum of the early childhood (basic) units (C550), grades
1-12 (basic) units (C560), special/exceptional (C570),
vocational/technical units (C580), and compensatory units
(C590).
Transportation Required Effort
The required local dollars needed to participate in a local-
state partnership share transportation program. Computation
based on decision D164.
Transportation State Allotment
The state's share of a local-state partnership share trans
portation program. Computation based on decisions D161-D165.
Capital Outlay and Debt Service Required Effort
The required local dollars needed to participate in a local-
state partnership share capital outlay and debt service
program. Computation based on decisions D174-D177.

186
APPENDIX C Continued
C625 Capital Outlay and Debt Service State Allotment
The state's.share of a local-state partnership share capital
outlay and debt service program. Computation based on
decisions D170-D177.
C635 School Food Service State Allotment
The state's share of a local-state partnership share school
food service program. Computation based on decisions D180-
D184.
C640 Administrative, Supervisory, and Auxiliary Program
Adjustment (ASAS)
Additional units for recognition of administrative, super
visory, and auxiliary service based on either a total units
percentage (D200) or a ratio of program units per ASAS unit
(D201).
C650 Sparsity Program Adjustment
Additional units for schools with less than 200 pupils
using appropriate cost differential weighting (D205-D213).
C660 Educational Training and Experience Program Adjustment
A state program adjustment factor based on the use of an
educational training and experience index for professional
staff. The adjustment factor is computed by summing the
multiplication of the indexes by the corresponding number of
professional staff and dividing by the total professional
staff (C520).
C670 Cost of Living Program Adjustment
A state program adjustment factor based on a ratio of cost
of living index for the district to that of the state (D225).
C700 Special Program A1lotment
A state dollar allotment computed by multiplying a flat
dollar amount (D250-D258) per the number of pupils in a
particular special program and summing over the special pro
grams for which these allotments are provided.
C710 Hardship Allotment
A state dollar allotment (D265) per teacher serving in
geographically remote areas.

187
APPENDIX C Continued
C720
C730
C740
C745
C748
C750
C755
C758
C760
Innovation Allotment
A state dollar allotment (D270) allocated on a per pupil
unit basis for approved cost of innovation programs.
Achievement Allotment
A state dollar allotment (D260-D261) per pupil below the 25th
percentile and/or per pupil above the 75th percentile.
Basic State Program State Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from state
revenue sources excluding allotments for special services
and facilities, modifying factors or incentive programs.
There are five different basic distribution methods possible
for computing the state dollars. These distribution methods
are based on decisions D400-D600.
Basic State Program State Dollars Per
The basic state program state dollars
total pupils (C500).
Basic State Program State Dollars Per
The basic state program state dollars
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Special Services and Facilities State
Pupil
(C740) divided by
Uni t
(C740) divided by
Dollars
The sum of the state allotment for transportation (C615),
capital outlay and debt service (C625), and school food
service (C635).
Special Service and Facilities State Dollars Per Pupil
The special services and facilities state dollars (C750)
divided by total pupils (C500).
Special Services and Facilities State Dollars Per Unit
The special services and facilities state dollars (C750)
divided by total pupils (C600+C640+C650).
Special Allotments State Dollars
The sum of the state allotment for special programs (C700),
hardship (C710), innovation (C720), and achievement (C730).

188
APPENDIX
C765
C768
C770
C775
C778
C780
C785
C788
C790
C Continued
Special Allotments State Dollars Per Pupil
The special allotment state dollars (C760) divided by
total pupils (C500).
Special Allotments State Dollars Per Unit
The special allotment state dollars (C760) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Local Incentive State Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from state
revenue for levying local leeway taxes. There are three
different basic incentive distribution methods possible for
computing the state dollars. These incentive distribution
methods are based on decisions D480, D485, and D490.
Local Incentive State Dollars Per Pupil
The local incentive state dollars (C770) divided by total
pupils (C500).
Local Incentive State Dollars Per Unit
The local incentive state dollars (C770) divided by total
program units (C600+C640+C650).
Total State Program State Dollars
The sum of the state dollars for the basic state program
(C740), special services and facilities (C750), special
allotments (C760), and local incentive (C770).
Total State Program State Dollars Per Pupil
The total state program state dollars (C780) divided by
the total pupils (C500).
Total State Program State Dollars Per Unit
The total state program state dollars (C780) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Basic State Program Local Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from local
revenue sources; this amount does not include local revenue
required for special services and facilities nor that from
levying local leeway taxes. The computation is the total
basic program dollars (SC01*SC02 as SC01) minus the basic
state program state dollars (C740).

189
APPENDIX
C791
C792
C793
C794
C795
C796
C798
C800
C805
C Continued
Local Property Yield Class 1 Non-Utility
The yield on Class 1 Non-Utility property (B030) based on
decisions D610 and D612.
Local Property Yield Class 1 Utility
The yield on Class 1 Utility property (B031) based on
decisions D611 and D612.
Local Property Yield Class 2 Non-Utility
The yield on Class 2 Non-Utility property (B032) based on
decisions D610 and D613.
Local Property Yield Classes 3 & 4 Non-Utility
The yield on Classes 3 and 4 Non-Utility property (B033 and
B035) based on decisions D610 and D614.
Basic State Program Local Dollars Per Pupil
The basic state program local dollars (C790) divided by
total pupils (C500).
Local Property Yield Classes 3 & 4 Utility
The yield on Classes 3 and 4 Utility property (B034 and B036)
based on decisions D611 and D614.
Basic State Program Local Dollars Per Unit
The basic state program local dollars (C790) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Special Services and Facilities Local Dollars
The sum of the local dollars for transportation (C610)
capital outlay and debt service (C620), and school food
service (C630).
Special Services and Facilities Local Dollars Per Pupil
The special services and facilities local dollars (C800)
divided by the total pupils (C500).

190
APPENDIX
C808
C810
C815
C818
C820
C825
C828
C830
C835
C Continued
Special Services and Facilities Local Dollars Per Unit
The special services and facilities local dollars (C800)
divided by total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Local Leeway Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from
levying local leeway taxes. The options for the distribution
methods involving the leeway taxes are computed in SC05 and
C860 (AGI).
Local Leeway Dollars Per Pupil
The local leeway dollars (C810) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Local Leeway Dollars Per Unit
The local leeway dollars (C810)'divided by total program
units (C600+C640+C650).
Total Local Program Local Dollars
The sum of the local dollars for the basic state program
(C790), special services and facilities (C800), and local
leeway (C820).
Total Local Program Local Dollars Per Pupil
The total local program local dollars (C820) divided by
total pupils (C500).
Total Local Program Local Dollars Per Unit
The total local program local dollars (C820) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Basic State Program Total Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from state
and local revenue sources excluding allotments for special
services and facilities', modifying factors or incentive
programs (C740+C790).
Basic State Program Total Dollars Per Pupil
The basic state program total dollars (C830) divided by
total pupils (C500).

191
APPENDIX
C838
C840
C845
C848
C850
C851
C852
C853
C854
C Continued
Basic State Program Total Dollars Per Unit
The basic state program total dollars (C830) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Total State/Local Program Total Dollars
The total fiscal allotment for local educational agencies
from state and local revenue sources (C780+C820).
Total State/Local Program Dollars Per Pupil
The total state/local program total dollars (C840) divided
by total pupi1s (C500).
Total State/Local Program Dollars Per Unit
The total state/local program total dollars (C840) divided
by total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Non-Utility Assessed Value State Property Base
The sum of the assessed valuation for Non-Utility property in
the state (B030, B032, B033, and B035) by the proposed rate
(D660).
Utility Assessed Value State Property Base
The sum of the assessed valuation for utility property in the
state (B031, B034, and B036) by the proposed rate (D661).
Class 1 Property State Yield
The sum of the assessed valuation of all Class 1 property
(B030 and B031) by the respective proposed rates (D600 and
D661), with the yield being determined by taking the sum of
the above by the desired mi 11 age (D662).
Class 2 Property State Yield
The sum of the assessed valuation of Class 2 property (B032)
by the proposed rate (D663), with the yield being determined
by taking the above by the desired millage (D664).
Classes 3 & 4 Property State Yield
The sums of the assessed valuation for all Class 3 and 4
property, Non-Utility (B033 and B035), and Utility (B034 and
B036) by the respective proposed rates (D660 and D661), with
the yield being determined by taking the sum of the above by
the desired millage (D664).

192
APPENDIX C Continued
C855 Total Property Assessed Value State Property Base
Total assessed value of all properties (C850 and C851).
C856 Total State Property Tax Yield
The dollar yield from a state property tax (C852+C853+C854).
C860 Personal Income (AGI) Yield
The dollar yield from a state wide personal income tax (D601)
for the state general fund.
C870 Sales and Gross Receipts Yield
The dollar yield from a state wide sales and gross receipts
tax (D603) for the state general fund.
C880 Corporate Income Yield
The dollar yield from a state wide corporate income tax (D602)
for the state general fund.
C890 Estate, Gift, and Other Yield
The dollar yield from estate, gift, and other (D604) for the
state general fund.
C900 Property Local Yield
The dollar yield from local property taxes (C791+C792+C793+
C794+C796) levied for the local educational agency.
C905 Property Local Yield Per Pupil
Total yield of local property taxes (C900) divided by total
pupils (C500).
C908 Property Local Yield Per Unit
Total yield of local property taxes (C900) divided by total
program units (C600+C640+C650).
C910 Personal Income (AGI) Local Yield
The dollar yield from local personal income taxes (D621, D631,
D641, and/or D651) levied for the local educational agency.

193
APPENDIX C Continued
C915 Personal Income (AGI) Local Yield Per Pupil
Total yield of local personal income taxes (C910) divided by
total pupils (C500).
C918 Personal Income (AGI) Local Yield Per Unit
Total yield of local personal income taxes (C910) divided
by total program units (C600+C640+C650).
C920 Sales and Gross Receipts Local Yield
The dollar yield from local sales and gross receipt taxes
(C622, D632, D642, and/or D652) levied for the local educa
tional agency.
C925 Sales and Gross Receipts Local Yield Per Pupil
Total yield of local sales and gross receipt taxes (C920)
divided by total pupils (C500).'
C928 Sales and Gross Receipts Local Yield Per Unit
Total yield of local sales and gross receipt taxes CC920)
divided by total program units (C600+C640+C650).
C930 Net Current Expenditure (NCE)
Sum of net current expenditures computed on the basis of the
inputted pupil decisions.
C935 Net Current Expenditure Dollars Per Pupil
Net current expenditures (C930) divided by total pupils
(C500).
C940 NCE, Social Security, Teacher Retirement and Other
Sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement, and other
expenditures computed on the basis of the inputted pupil
decisions.
C945 NCE, Social Security, Teacher Retirement, and Other -
Dollars Per Pupil
Sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement, and other
expenditure (C940) divided by total pupils (C500).

194
APPENDIX
C950
C955
C960
C965
C967
C970
C971
C Continued
NEC, Social Security, Teacher Retirement, Other, and
Transportation
The sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement expendi
tures, other (C940), and transportation actual costs (B364).
NCE, Social Security, Teacher Retirement, Other, and
Transportation Dollars Per Pupil
Sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement, other, and
transportation expenditures (C950) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Total Current Expenditure (TCE)
The sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement, other,
and transportation expenditures (C950) and school food
service actual costs (C373).
Total Current Expenditures Dollars Per Pupil
Total current expenditures (C960) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Tax Progressivity
A score computed by weighting the dollar yield of each of the
local and state taxes by its corresponding progressivity
weight to arrive at a progressivity score reflecting the
district's tax progressivity under the inputted revenue
source decisions. (For further detail, see Volume 5, Chapter
9, of the NEFP project findings.)
Deviation From FulV Equalization
A percent deviation showing a comparison of the district's
total state program (C840) under the inputted formula to a
program where the total state and local, dollars (sum C840)
are allocated on a flat allocation program unit basis (C600).
Thus if the percent deviation is positive, this indicates the
district would do better under the inputted formula than if
all dollars were allocated on the flat allocation per program
unit basis (C600).
Current Formula Basic Program State Dollars
Total state dollars allocated to the districts which includes
Allocation For Professional Educators (B001), Allowance For
Other Personnel Part B (B003), Allowance For Fixed Charges

195
APPENDIX C Continued
C972
C974
C975
C977
C978
C979
C980
(B004), Allowance For Administrative Costs (B006), Allowance
For Other Current Expenses (B008), General School Fund
Distribution (B009), Incentive For Program Improvement (B011),
Supplemental Early Childhood Aides (BO 12), Supplemental
Teacher's Salaries (B013), Supplemental Service and Auxiliary
Service Salaries (B014), State Aid For Increased Enrollment
(B016), Special Education Out Of Formula Grants (BO17),
Special Education Out Of Formula Allocation For Homebound
Instruction (B018), Additional Special Education Out Of
Formula Grants (B019), Vocational Day School (B023), and
Vocational Act Of 1968 State Allocations (B026).
Current Formula Basic
The basic state dollars
divided by total pupils
Current Formula Basic
The basic local dollars
(B010).
Program State Dollars Per Pupil
under the current formula (C971)
(C500).
Program Local Dollars
required under the current formula
Current Formula Basic Program Local Dollars Per Pupil
The basic local dollars required under the current formula
(B010) divided by total pupils (C500).
Current Formula Transportation Dollars
The basic state dollars under the current formula for trans
portation (B002-B005).
Current Formula Transportation Dollars Per Transported
Pupil
The basic state dollars under the current formula for trans
portation (C977) divided by number of transported students
(B361).
Current Formula Capital Outlay Dollars (Approved)
The basic state dollars approved for capital outlay expendi
tures (B365).
Current Formula Capital Outlay Dollars (Approved) Per Pupil
The basic state dollars approved for capital outlay expendi
tures (B365) divided by total pupils (C500).

196
APPENDIX C Continued
C981
C982
C984
C985
C986
C987
C988
C989
Current Formula Total State and Local Dollars (Basic Only)
The total dollars allocated for the basic state and local
program (C971+C974).
Current Formula Total State and Local Dollars (Basic Only)
Per Pupil
The total dollars allocated for the basic state and local
program (C981) divided by total pupils (C500).
Comparisons Difference Current Basic State Dollars to
Proposed Basic State Dollars
The difference between the current basic state dollars and
proposed basic state dollars (C971-C740).
Comparisons Difference Current Basic State Dollars to
Proposed Basic State Dollars Per Pupil
The difference between the current basic state dollars and
proposed basic state dollars (C984) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Comparisons Difference Current Basic Local Dollars to
Proposed Basic Local Dollars
The difference between the current basic local dollars and
proposed basic local dollars (C974-C790).
Comparisons Difference Current Basic Local Dollars to
Proposed Basic Local Dollars Per Pupil
The difference between the current basic local dollars and
proposed basic local dollars (C986) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Comparisons Difference Current Transportation Dollars to
Proposed Transportation Dollars
The difference between the current transportation dollars
and the proposed transportation dollars, both required effort
and state allotment [C977-(C610+C615)J.
Comparisons Difference Current Transportation Dollars to
Proposed Transportation Dollars Per Transported Pupils
The difference between the current transportation dollars and
the proposed transportation dollars (C988) divided by the
number of transported pupils (B361).

197
APPENDIX
C990
C991
C992
Ir
C993
C Continued
Comparisons Difference Current Capital Outlay Dollars to
Proposed Capital Outlay Dollars
The difference between the current capital outlay dollars
and the proposed capital outlay dollars, both required effort
and state allotment [C979-(C620+C625)].
Comparisons Difference Current Capital Outlay Dollars to
Proposed Capital Outlay Dollars Per Pupil
The difference between the current capital outlay dollars and
the proposed capital outlay dollars (C990) divided by total
pupils (C500).
Comparisons Difference Present State/Local/Transportation/
Capital Outlay Dollars to Proposed State/Local/Transportation/
Capital Outlay Dollars
The difference between the current state, local, transporta
tion, and capital outlay dollars and the proposed state,
local, transportation, and capital outlay dollars [(C971+
C974+C977+C979)-C840].
Comparisons Difference Present State/Local/Transportation/
Capital Outlay Dollars to Proposed State/Local/Transporta
tion/Capital Outlay Dollars Per Pupil
The difference between the current state, local, transporta
tion, and capital outlay dollars and the proposed state,
local, transportation, and capital outlay dollars (C992)
divided by total pupils (C500).

APPENDIX D
INPUT DECISIONS
WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE
SIMULATION MODEL

INPUT DECISIONS
(Form A)
SET I: PROGRAM DECISIONS
Program decisions refer to:
(1)
the programs and the unit which are to be used in
determining the state program
(2)
the application of cost differentials, and
(3)
the special services and facilities and selected
modifying factors which are to be provided.
SET IT:
DISTRIBUTION DECISIONS
Distribution decisions refer to:
(1)
the total amount of state and local funds which
will be provided to support a basic state program,
(2)
procedures for distributing the cost of this
program, and
(3)
procedures for providing incentives based on local
tax leeway.
SET III:
REVENUE DECISIONS
Revenue decisions refer to
(1)
the major tax sources, both state and local,
which are to be used to provide funds for public
elementary education, and
(2)
the rates which are to be applied to the various
tax sources.
1 99

200
APPENDIX D Continued
SET I
PROGRAM DECISIONS
ALTERNATIVE DECISION POINTS
SECTION I: PROGRAM UNIT
SECTION II: SPECIAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES
SECTION III: MODIFYING FACTORS
BASE DATA
*
WEST VIRGINIA
PROGRAMS
TARGET POPULATION
Basic Early Chi 1dhood
4 yr. olds
(no data)
Kindergarten
14,824.0
Basic Elementary and Secondary
Elementary
193,961.0
Secondary
146,834.7
Special/Exceptional
Educable Mentally Retarded
7,618.5
Trainable Mentally Retarded
1 ,242.1
Learning Disabilities
2,517.7
Behavioral Disorders
554.9
Physically Handicapped
186.8
Multiple Handicapped
206.4
Visually Handicapped
30.2

201
APPENDIX D Continued
PROGRAMS
WEST VIRGINIA
TARGET POPULATION*
Auditorily Handicapped
72.6
Communication Disorders
428.7
Homebound
185.2
Gifted
492.2
Vocational/Technical
Agriculture
1,353.1
Distributive
849.2
Health
317.8
Home Economics
3,430.3
Business/Office
7,092.2
Technical
312.8
Industrial
5,922.5
Other Vocational
292.7
TOTAL
388,725.6
Compensatory
Low Income
122,074.0
Low Achievement
8,126.6
*Target Populations are 1975-76 FTE (full time equivalent)
students.

202
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION I: PROGRAM UNIT
Explanation: Program Unit refers to decisions concerning both the
programs (kindergarten, basic, etc.) and the unit
(ENR, ADM, or FTE, and pupil or instructional, un
weighted or weighted)whichare to be used in the
determination of the state program.
Do you wish to include early childhood pupils in
your computation of the state program? If "yes"
check the appropriate boxes.
Early Childhood
4 yr. olds
Kindergarten
(5 yr. olds)
(n.a.)
Explanation: Check the unit (ENR, ADM, or FTE, and pupil or
instructional, unweighted or unweighted) which you
wish to use and provide the requested information.
Yes
Yes
Yes
ENR
ADM
FTE
103 104 105
(n.a.) (n.a.)
A. UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT
Explanation: A "yes" indicates that you wish to use
the unweighted pupil unit in the computation of the
state program.
B. UNWEIGHTED INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT
Explanation: If you wish to use the unweighted in
structional unit in the computation of the state
program, fill in a proposed number of pupils per
instructional unit. (Example: instructional unit:
25 pupils.)
Proposed
Inst. Unit
pupils
115

203
APPENDIX D Continued
C. WEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT
Explanation: If you wish to use a weighted pupil unit in the
computation of the state program, provide the requested information.
Note: For calculated West Virginia cost index weightings, see
cover sheet of Set I (Program Decisions-Base Data).
PROGRAMS
Early Childhood
Proposed Weighting
For Cost Index
4 yr. olds
Kindergarten
(5 yr. olds)
Note: Early childhood
pupils are included or ex
cluded in your state pro
gram dependent on your
decision in Section I
(Program Unit).
x
x
122
Basic Elementary and Secondary
Elementary .
123
Secondary
124
You must make a decision regarding Special/
Exceptional Pupil Counts (Choose one)
Count pupils by malady
Yes
Count pupils by delivery
system
Special/Exceptional (Choose FTE students or Delivery System)
126
T27
Educable Mentally Handicapped
Trainable Mentally Handicapped
Learning Disabilities
128

APPENDIX D Continued
Special/Exceptional (Continued)
Behavioral Disorders
Physically Handicapped
Multiple Handicapped
Visually Handicapped
Auditorily Handicapped
Communication Disorders
Homebound
Gifted
h>
Delivery System Special/Educational
System 1 Self Contained
System 2 Resource
System 3 Itinerant
System 4 Option
Vocational/Technical
Agriculture
Distributive
Health
Home Economics
Business/Office
Technical
Industrial
Other Vocational (Code 99)
129
~~ T30
' T3T
~ T32
~~ 133
~ T34
~~ T35
T36
T37
138
186
W
188
159
190
T9T
192
193

205
APPENDIX D Continued
Compensatory
Low Income
Note: You have two
alternatives on compen- 178
Low Achievement
satory pupils (choose
one). 179

206
APPENDIX D Continued
D. WEIGHTED INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT
Explanation: If you wish to use a weighted instructional unit in
the computation of the state program, provide the requested infor
mation for either Column (1) or Column (2).
PROGRAMS
(1)
Proposed
Weighting for
Cost Index
Early Childhood
4 yr. olds
Kindergarten
(5 yr. olds)
Note: Early
childhood pupils
are included in
your state pro
gram dependent
on your decis
ion in Section
I (Program Unit).
x x x
121
722^
Basic Elementary and Secondary
Elementary
Secondary
123
124
(2)
Proposed
Instructional
Uni t
x x
141
~T42
143
744
Special/Exceptional (Choose FTE/Student or Delivery System)
Educable Mentally Handicapped
Trainable Mentally Handicapped
Learning Disabilities _
Behavioral Disabilities
126
127
128
129
Physically Handicapped
Multiple Handicapped
Visually Handicapped
Auditorily Handicapped
Communication Disorders
130
T3T
732
133
134
146
747
748
49
750
51
T52~
153
54

207
APPENDIX D Continued
Special/Exceptional (Continued)
Homebound
Gifted
Delivery System Special/Exceptional
System 1 Self Contained
System 2 Resource
System 3 Itinerant
System 4 Option
Vocational /Technical
Agriculture
Distributive
Health
Home Economics
Business/Office
Technical
Industrial
Other Vocational (Code 99)
Compensatory
Low Income
Low Achievement
Note: You have
two alterna
tives on com
pensatory
pupils (choose
one).
135
136
155
156
137
D157
138
D158
139
D159
140
D160
186
231
187
232
188
233
189
234
190
235
191
236
192
237
193
238
178
239
179
240

208
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION II: SPECIAL SERVICES & FACILITIES
Explanation: Special services and facilities refers to trans
portation capital outlay and debt service, and
school food service.
Check only those special services and facilities
which you wish to include as a part of the state
program and provide the requested information.
A. TRANSPORTATION
Present Expenditures (1976)
Allocation Drivers Salaries
Approved Costs
Actual Costs
$11,368,487
$25,005,755
$29,512,983
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. State allotment of a flat grant per
transported pupi1.
2. Local ownership and operation with
state payment of approved costs.
3. State allotment of a fixed percentage
of actual costs.
4. Equalized grant for actual costs with
mills local effort required.
5. State assumption of full program.
161
Yes

162
T63
T64
Yes

165
%
mills*
*Class 1 Non-Utility @ 11.8757% and Utility @ 24.375%.
Class 2 @ 23.75%, Classes 3 and 4 Non-Utility @ 47.5% and Utility @
97.5%.

209
APPENDIX D Continued
B. CAPITAL OUTLAY AND DEBT SERVICE
Present Expenditures (1977)
Debt Service
Approved Project
Actual Project
$ 15,199,306
$ 85,502,472
$184,264,727
Alternatives (Choose one)
1.
2.
3.
4.
State allotment of a flat
Per
Pupi 1
$_
grant for depreciation
or
Unit $_
170'
allowance.
Per
Inst.
"T7T
State allotment of a fixed
percentage of approved
-
project cost.
~ T72
State allotment of approved
Yes
project cost (100%).
1 c o
n
173
Equalized grant for depre
Per
Pupi 1
$_
ciation allowance with X
or
mills local effort required.
Per
Inst.
Unit $_
171
5. Equalized grant for actual
debt service with mills
local effort required.
. mills*
174
. mills*
175
6. Equalized grant for approved
project cost with mills
local effort required.
. mills*
176
7. Equalized grant for actual
project costs with X_ mills
local effort required.
. mills*
177
*Class 1 Non-Utility 0 11.875% and Utility 0 24.375%.
Class 2 0 23.75%, Classes 3 and 4 Non-Utility @ 47.5% and Utility @
97.5%.

210
APPENDIX D Continued
C. SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
Present Data on Annual Basis
Actual Costs
Total Program $29,498,628
Per Partici
pating Pupil $117.46
Approved Costs (Revenue)
Federal
State & Local
Total
$18,676,839
12,042,743
$30,719,582
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. State allotment of a flat grant per compensatory
pupil only.
2. State allotment of a flat grant per average
participation.
3. State assumption of the approved costs of the
state and local share.
$
180
$
181
4. State allotment of a fixed percentage of
actual costs.
183

211
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION III: MODIFYING FACTORS
Explanation: Modifying factors refer to those additional factors
besides the special services and facilities that you
wish to be included in the state program.
Explanation: For A through D check those modifying factors which you
wish to include in the form of an adjustment in the
state program and provide the requested information.
A. RECOGNITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE, SUPERVISORY, AND AUXILIARY SERVICES
Explanation: Additional funding units may be allocated to
recognize administrative, supervisory and auxiliary
service (ASAS). You have two alternatives from which
you may choose in determining the additional units.
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. Additional units for
administrative, super
visory and auxiliary
service based on a
percentage.
2. Additional units for
administrative, super
visory and auxiliary
service based on a ratio.
. l of units determined
200 from Section I
(Program Unit)
/I ratio of units
201 determined from
Section I (Program
Unit) per ASAS unit
Examples: 1. If you choose D200 = 3%, then the number of pupil
units used for funding will be increased to 103%
for each district. If district #1 has 1000 pupil
units (weighted or unweighted) then D200 = 3% would
increase the pupil units to be funded to 1,030.
2. If you choose D201 = 50/1, then the number of pupil
units used for funding will be increased for each
district by a ratio of one additional unit for each
50 pupil units (weighted or unweighted). If district
#1 has 1000 pupil units, then D201 = 50 would in
crease the pupil units to be funded to 1,020.

212
APPENDIX D Continued
B. SPARSITY
Explanation: Additional units for schools with less than 200
pupils.
Proposed
Pupil
Size of School Weightings
Elementary 150 200
205
100 149
206
less than 100
207
Secondary 150 200
211
100 149
212
less than 100
213

213
APPENDIX D Continued
C. EDUCATIONAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
Explanation: A "yes" indicates that you wish to use the
following prototype indices in recognizing educational
training and experience of professional staff as an ad
justment in the state program.
Training Level
Experience
Level (Yrs.)
Less than
B.S.
B.S.
M.S.
M.S.+30
Doctorate
0-2
.80
.95
1.05
1.20
1.25
3-6
.80
.95
1.05
1.20
1.25
7-11
.80
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.25
12-17
.85
1.00
1.10
1.25
1.25
over 18
.85
1.00
1.15
1.25
1.25
D. COST OF LIVING
Explanation: A "yes" indicates that you wish to recognize cost
of living as an adjustment in the state program. (Below is an
illustration of a possible formula.)
Cost of Living Index Dist.
Cost of Living Index State
Adjustment Index
(n.a.)

214
APPENDIX D Continued
Explanation: For E through H check those modifying factors which you
wish to include in the form of a special allotment as
a part of the state program and provide the requested
information.
E. SPECIAL PROGRAM ALLOTMENTS
Explanation: Select those programs for which you wish to provide
special allotments and provide the requested information. (All
pupil units are expressed as FTEful 1 time equivalents.)
Note: If you used a weighted unit in Section I (Program Unit)
for a particular program, then do not complete that corresponds
section here.
1. Early Chi 1dhood
$ per pupil in early childhood program (4 yr. olds
250 and K)
2. Special and/or Exceptional
$ per mentally handicapped pupil (EMR & TMR)
251
$ per physically handicapped pupil (Phy., Mult.,
252 Visual, Auditory, Homebound)
$ per behavioral disorder pupil
253
$ per special learning disabilities pupil
254
$ per communications disorders pupil
255
3. Vocational-Technical
$ per pupil in vocational-technical education
256
4. Compensatory
$ per pupil from family with low income
257
$ per low achievement pupil
258

215
APPENDIX D Continued
F. ACHIEVEMENT (n.a.)
Explanation: Special allotment for achievement.
$ per pupil below 25th percentile
260
G. INNOVATION
Explanation: Special allotment for approved cost of innovative
programs.
$ per pupi 1
270

216
APPENDIX D Continued
SET II
DISTRIBUTION DECISIONS
ALTERNATIVE DECISION POINTS
SECTION I: BASIC STATE PROGRAM
SECTION II: BASIC DISTRIBUTION METHOD

SECTION III: INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION METHOD

APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION I: BASIC STATE PROGRAM
Explanation: The basic state program refers to the fiscal allotment
for local educational agencies from state and/or local
revenue sources; this amount does not include special
state allotments for school services and facilities,
modifying factors, or incentive programs, and also does
not include any local fiscal effort required for
participation in these latter programs.
Note: If you desire the flat grant plus uniform local
tax rate distribution method (Section II), omit this
page. Specifying the flat grant plus the uniform
local tax rate will determine the cost of the basic
state program.
Explanation: You have three alternatives from which to choose to
arrive at the cost of the basic state program. Check
the method you wish to use and provide the requested
information.
A.The cost of the basic state program should
be determined by applying a dollar cost to $ per unit
the units determined in Set I Section I 400
(Program Unit).
B. The cost of the basic state program
should be based on a proposed amount
of funds to be made available in the
basic state program.
C. The cost of the basic state program
should be based on a percentage of
the state general fund which is
determined in Set III Section I
(State Tax Sources).
Proposed Amount
402
%

218
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION II: BASIC DISTRIBUTION METHOD
Explanation: The basic distribution method refers only to procedures
for distributing the cost of the basic state program.
The basic funds provided by the state, together with the
local educational agency, will equal the cost of the
basic state program. The unit (pupil or instructional,
weighted or unweighted) is based on a decision which is
made in Set I Section I (Program Unit).
Note: Decisions in regard to state and local tax bases
and rates are made in Set III (Revenue Decisions).
Explanation: Choose one distribution method which you wish to use and
provide the requested inforqiation.
A. FULL STATE SUPPORT of the cost of the basic state program.
Explanation: Under this method the state provides the
full cost of the basic state program.
B. FLAT GRANT plus UNIFORM LOCAL TAX RATE to support the
cost of the basic state program.
Yes
Explanation: The method involves a flat grant per unit from
the state plus a required local effort. This effort is a
mandated tax which each local educational agency is required
to levy at a uniform rate.
The flat grant should be based on a proposed $ per unit
amount per unit. 425
C.UNIFORM STATE MATCHING GRANT plus VARIABLE LOCAL EFFORT
to support the cost of the basic state program.
Explanation: A uniform state matching grant is one in
which the state provides a fixed percentage of the cost
of the basic state program. The difference is provided
by a variable local effort. Specify state percentage.
D.UNIFORM LOCAL TAX RATE plus VARIABLE STATE GRANT to
support the cost of the basic state program.

219
APPENDIX D Continued
D. (Continued)
Explanation: Under this method each local
educational agency is required to levy a tax
at a rate which is uniform in each district.
The difference between the cost of the basic
state program and the amount provided by the
required local levy is supplied by the state.
E. PERCENTAGE STATE AND LOCAL SHARING of the cost of
the basic state program.
Explanation: Under this method the local
educational agency's contribution to the cost
of the basic state program varies according
to its financial ability relative to the
state average.

435
Thre general form of the computational formula is:
A 1-(J3 X E) = Basic State Aid, where '
S
A = cost of basic state program
D = district's financial ability
S = state average financial ability
E = a predetermined constant based on the
percentage of the cost of the basic state
program which would be provided by a dis
trict of average financial ability.
The decision with regard to A was made in Section I (Basic State
Program). To determine D and S, a decision is required with
regard to financial ability which is defined as a tax base per
unit. Thus, select both a base and a unit. Since a combination
is possible for each, indicate the percentages you wish. If you
choose a single financial ability measure, indicate the percentage
as 100.

220
APPENDIX D Continued
BASE
PERCENTAGE*
UNIT
PERCENTAGE*
Per Capita
450 ~
**Property
445
ENR
X X X X
452
Personal
Income
446 ~
ADM
X X X X
453
Sales &
Gross
447
FTE
454 ~
*Be sure the percentages add to 100 if you elect to use a combination
measure.
**Based on current assessment ratios of 47.5% and 97.5% for respective
classes.
To determine E (the predetermined constant), a percentage
is required. Specify E.
. _%
460

221
APPENDIX D Continued
F. STATE GUARANTEED YIELD from uniform taxes levied determines the
cost of the basic program.
The general form of the computational formula is:
State's Allotment = R ( A B ), where
R = mandatory rate
A = state guaranteed yield per unit
B = district property yield per unit
The decision with regard to R is made in Set III Section I.
To determine A, a decision is required with regard to a state
guaranteed yield per unit (D470), and in regard to the unit
Section I Section I (Program Unit).
guaranteed
D470 yield per
unit.

222
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION III: INCENTIVE DISTRIBUTION
METHOD
Explanation: The following are distribution methods for
providing incentive for local educational agencies
levying leeway taxes.
If you do not wish to use a local incentive, omit
this page; otherwise, check the appropriate method
and provide the requested information. The unit
(pupil or instructional, weighted or unweighted) is
based on a decision which is made in Set I Section
I (Program Unit).
Note: Decisions in regard to the tax bases and
rates for local tax leeway are made in Set III
(Revenue Decisions). .
Explanation: Check the incentive method which you wish to use and
provide the requested information.
A. Incentive grant by matching
local leeway taxes by a flat $ allotment per unit
grant allotment. 480 for each mill (or
percent) of local
leeway tax levied.
B. Incentive grant by matching local leeway taxes in same Yes
ratio as provided in basic state program.
485
C. Incentive grant based on a state guaranteed allotment
per each mill (or percent) of the local leeway tax levied.
The general form of the computational formula is:
R (A B) = State's Allotment, where
R = rate of local leeway tax
A = state guaranteed allotment per unit (this
allotment is supplemental to the basic
state program)
B = tax yield per unit from one mill (or
percent) of the local leeway tax

223
APPENDIX D Continued
C. (Continued)
The decision with regard to R is made in
Set III Section II (Local Leeway Taxes).
Values for B are fixed and are presented
on the cover sheet of Set III (Revenue
Decisions Base Data). To determine A, $
a decision is required with regard to 490
both a state guaranteed allotment and a
unit. The decision with regard to the
unit was made in Set I Section I
(Program Unit). Specify the guaranteed
allotment.
guaranteed
allotment
per unit

224
APPENDIX D Continued
SET III
REVENUE DECISIONS
ALTERNATIVE DECISION POINTS
SECTION I: STATE TAX SOURCES
SECTION II: LOCAL TAX SOURCES
BASE DATA
Tax
Property
Non-Utility
Uti1ity
Personal Income Present yield
Corporate Income Present yield
Sales Tax Present yield
Present yield
Total
Dollars
135,437,348
14,151 ,218
131 ,649,473
387,215,399
Estate, Gift & Other

225
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION I: STATE TAX SOURCES FOR
EDUCATION FUND
(Not now available)
Explanation: Stajte tax sources refers to decisions concerning
bases and rates for major tax sources for the state
general fund. Select the source you wish to use
and give a proposed tax rate. (If you select the
Estate, Gift and Other tax source, give a proposed
dollar yield.)
Based on the major tax sources currently being used
in the state, the state general fund is $668,453,438
(1975-76).
Note: In Set II Section I (Basic State Program)
if you select alternative C (Percentage of state
general fund), you must complete this page. The
percentage is based on the amount of the state
general fund determined in this Section.
PRESENT
PROPOSED
BASE
RATE
RATE
Property
Assessment: Percent of
Appraised Value
Non-Utility
. 1
%
660
Uti1ity
. %
%
Rates
661
Class 1
mills
662
Class 2
mills
663
Class 3 & 4
mills
664
Personal Income
%
601
Corporate Income
%
602
Sales & Gross Receipts
%
603
Estate, Gift & Other
$
604

226
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION II: LOCAL TAX SOURCES
Explanation: Local tax sources refers to decisions concerning bases
and rates for required local effort and local tax
leeway.
A. REQUIRED LOCAL EFFORT
Explanation: If you select a required local effort as part of the
basic state program in Set II Section II (Basic Distribution
Method), you have two alternatives from which to choose in
specifying the local tax base and rate.
Note: In Set II Section II (Basic Distribution Method) if you
select flat grant plus uniform local tax rate, complete
Alternative 1; if you select uniform state matching grant or
percentage of state and local sharing, complete Alternative 2.
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. UNIFORM RATE for the required local effort.
Explanation: Basic state program where the local effort is based
on a rate which is uniform in each district. Specify rate.
BASE PROPOSED RATE
Property
Assessment: Percent of
Appraised Value
Rates
Non-Utility
.
_Jo
~ 6To
Utility
.
_%
6Tl
Class 1
mills
6T~2 '
Class 2
_ mills
6l3~ "
Class 3 & 4
mills
614
Personal Income
Sales & Gross Receipts
622

227
APPENDIX D Continued
2. VARIABLE RATE for the required local effort.
Explanation: Basic state program where the local effort is based
on a rate which is variable in each district. Specify percentage
of local effort from each base. (The actual rate will be computed
and presented in an output display.)
BASE
Property
Personal Income
Sales & Gross Receipts
PERCENTAGE*
630* '
~ 631
632*
*Percentage must add to 100.

228
APPENDIX D Continued
B. LOCAL TAX LEEWAY
Explanation: If you wish to use local tax leeway to allow the
local educational agency to provide supplemental funds beyond the
basic state program, provide the requested information; otherwise,
omit this page.
Note: In Set II Section III (Incentive Distribution Method) if
you selected an incentive distribution method, you must complete
this page. Incentive distribution methods assume local leeway
taxes.
Alternatives (Choose one)
1. UNIFORM RATE for the local leeway taxes which you wish to use.
Specify rate.
BASE
PROPOSED RATE
Property (all classes)
Assessment: Percent of
Appraised Value
mills
640
Non-Uti1ity
%
610
. %
611
. 1
641
L
Utility
Personal Income
Sales & Gross Receipts
Note: If uniform
rate was chosen
on p. 25, these
percentages must
be the same.
642
VARIABLE RATE for the local leeway taxes with an amount based on a
maximum of 105% of the local educational agencies expenditures for
the previous year. Specify percentage of local leeway tax from
each base. (The actual rate will be computed and presented in an
output display.)
BASE
PERCENTAGE*
Property
Personal Income
Sales & Gross Receipts
. %
650
%
651
%
652
*Percentages must add to 100.

APPENDIX E
STATE FILE

012 1 = 0121*0143/0101
0122=0122*0143/0142
0123=0123*0143/0143
0124=0124*0143/D144
012 6=0126*0 14J/014&
DI 27=0127*0143/0147
0128=0128*0143/0143
DI 29= 0129*0 14 3/0 1 49
0130=0130*0143/0150
131=0131*0143/0151
0132=0132*0143/0152
DI 33 = 0133*0143/0153
0134=0134*0143/0154
0135=0135*0143/D155
0136=0136*0143/0156
01 37=01,37*0 14 3/DI 57
013 8= 013 8* 0143/01 53
0139=0139*0143/0159
0140=0140*0143/0160
0173=0178*0143/0239
0179=0179*0143/0240
0186=0166*0143/0231
D137=0187*0143/0232
0188=0188*0143/0233
0189=0189*0143/0234
0190=0190*0143/0235
01 9 1 =0 19 1 *0 1 43/ 0236
0 19 2=0 19 2*D 14 3/0237
0193=0193*0143/0238
SCO 1=0101*B 1 1 S
SC02=D 102*3 120
SC03=B125+31JO
SC O 4=3 14 0 + 8 145*81 50 *0155 + 01 60 + 816 5+ B1 70 + 0175 + 91 80 *3135*8193
SCO=3103*(UI2l*3CO1+L>122*SC02)/(D115*0143)
SCO 7=0lO 3 *( D12J*8 125*0124* 11301/(01 15*0143)
SCO 3 = 0 1 O 3*( 0126*3140 + 0127*3 145 + 0123*3 150+01 29*3 1 55+0130*3150) /( 01 15*0143 1
SC O 8=S C 08+01 O3 (013 1*8163 + 01 32*3170 +01 33*8 1 7 5+Ul 34*B130)/( 01 15*0143)
SCO 8= 5 CO 8 +0 1 O 3 = (O 13 5*318 5+ O 136*U1901/(01 15*D14 31
SC 08 = 01 1-6*0 103*SC08
SCO 3=01 17*010 3* (D13 7*02 3 5 + 0138* B24 0+01 3 9*B246 + 01 4 O 0250 1/( 01 1 5*014 3)+SC08
SCO9=0 10 3* ( DI 8 6 *1' 19 5+01 8 7* 3 2 00 + 1) 1 83 *3 20 5 + 0 1 69* 3 2 1 0+ O l 90 3 2 1 5) /( 01 1 5*0 1 4 3 )
SCO 9=SCO0 + 0103*10191*8220 + 0192*0225 +0 193*82301/(0115*0143)
SC10 = 0 103*( SC01 +SC02+SC03+SCQ4+ SC 0 5)
SC01=0101*8117
SC02=0 102*B 122
SCO 3=8 127+F) 132
SC04=B142+B147+8132+8157+8162+9167+B172+B177+0182+3187+B192
SCO5=3197+3202+8207+8212+8217+8222+8227+8232
SCO6=010 5*( DI 2lSCO 1 + 012 2*SC02)/l01 15*0l43)
SCO7=0105*10123*8127+0124*31321/(0115*0143)
SC08=010 5* (0l2o*d 14 2+J127*B147f0123* 3 152 + 0129* P. lj 7+0131*01 521/(01 15*0143)
SC0 8=SC0 3+U10 5*(013 1*8167 + 0 1.32*8172+ 0133*01 77 + 0 134*3182)/( 01 15*0143)
SCO 8= SC08 + 0IOd* (O 135*81 870lJo*31 92)/(Dl 15*0143)
SCC8=D116*0 105*SC03
SCO8=0117*0105*10137*8237+0133*8242+0139*B247+OlaO3252)/(0115*Ol43)+SC08
SCO 9=01 O5*(013o*B197+ol 37*3202 + 0183*3207 + 01 8 9*821 2 + 01 90 321 7)/(3115*D143)
SCO 9=SCO 9 + 0105*10191*3222 + 0192*8227+0193*82321/(0115*0143)
SC10=SC10 + D105*(SCO 1+SC02 + 5C03 + SC04 +SC05)
C5 O 0= SC 1 O
C510 = B 38 0+833 1+E33 32 +8 33 3+83 34 + 833 5+83 86+ 63 37 + 0338 + 33 39+3390 + 3391+8 39 2
C5 1 0 = C 5 1 0+ 8 39 3+ B-3 >4 +83 95+85 96 + 83 97+ 6393+ U J9 +'-4 O 3 + 3 J O 1 + 3 4 O 2 + 34 O 3 + D404
C520=C 5 10 +84 1 O + 84 11+8412 +84 1 3+84 I 4 + U415 + U4 1 o + u'i 17 + 3 4 1 3 + 84 1 9 + 34 2 0 + B421 +0422
C520=C520+8423+8424+B425+B426+3427+B42B+B429+U430+3431+3432+3433+8434
C530=C500/C510
C 54 0 = C 50 /C 52 O
C 54 2=0 clO*( B0 30 + 8032 + B033 + 9035)
C 5 4 8= D 61 l*( 89 31+B034+8 036)
C544=C542+C5+3
SCO 4=(D640/D6+U+D 650/0650)*.001 C514/C600
C5 5 0=S C0 6
C56 0 = SC07
C57 0=SC08
cseo=sco9
C590=J17P*( ( O! 03* ¡IJ 40 1 + ( ul 05*8345 1 1 / ( 01 15*0143)
C59 0=C59 0+D 1 7* < (010 3*3 341) +(01 05*3 34 6) )/(0l 15*01 3)
SC01=. 11 76 2 5+30JJ+. 24 J7-j*8031+.2352 5*8032 + .4 75 *(8033+3033)
SCO1 = 5C01 +.9 75*(803 4+ 9036)
C61 0= (01 (.4/1000)* SC 01
C615=01t 1*9 3o 1 + O 1 5= *0 36 3+10163 / 100 + 016 5/1 I L'3e 4 + ( Jl 3 4/01 3* ) *(3334-C610)
C62 0=( (0174 *0175 + 01 76 +01 77)/1000)*5C01
C62 5=017 0*C50 0+0171 *C30J/25+(0l 72/1 00)*8365+0173*8365
230

231
C62S = C625+(DI74/D174)*(tDl70+l)171/25)*C500-C<.20)K)175/3]75)*l3368-C6 20)
C62S=C 625+1 DI76/U76)* I 3365-062 O 1(DI 77/0177 > *(8333-062 O)
063 5=( Oleo*(O34 0+B345)> + l 0161*3 370/175)+(01 32*(372-8371) )
Ct> 3 5 = 0 63 5+1 0133*6373)
C64 0= t 0200/I00)*C oO 0+1C600/D201 )
0650=205*9442+02Oo*9441+0207*3440+0203 *044 7+0 2 O') 3445 + 3210*3445
C650=Cb5C+02l 1 04 52 +0212 *04 5I+0213*6450
0650=0650/1 01 10*0143)
0630 = 0901*103.50+B4101+0902*15331+04ll) + 0903*(B332 + 3412)
C66 0=C 66 0+0904*(B393+341 3+O905*(B3R4+5414 ) +0906*13585+3415)
C660=C6b0+D9J7 (6 38 6+6 4 1 6)+D909*(9387+3417)+o909*( 3333 + 34 1 3)
C 6 6 0=C 660 + 0910* (633 9+ 6419) +0911*16 3 90+0 420)+D'.)12*<3391+3421)
C660=C660+0913* (392+542 2) + D914 *(03 9J + Q42J > +0915* 13 394 + 8 4 2 4 )
C660 = C660+ 0916*(6395 + 3425)+0917*15396+3426) + 0913*13397+5427)
C660=C660+09l9*(B398+t4231+0920*16399+04291+0921*13400+3430)
0660=0660+0922*(B41+3431)+0923(B402+B432)+D924*(3403+3433)
C6bO = C660 + 0 92 3*(B40 4 + B43 4)
C660=C660*0220/0520
067 0=0225*9 4o O /AV21 9*60)
0700=025O*(B117+B122)+0 251*13142 + 3147) + D252*(Bl 62+ 3167 + 6172 + 3177 + 91 87)
0700=0700+0253*3157+0234*3152+3255*6182+D25fe*tB197+6202+3207+e212+B217)
07O 0=C700 + D2S61B222 *9227 +B2 321
0710=0265*8464
0720=0270*0500
0730=0260*0470+0261*0471
SCO 1 = 040 0*1 Co00 + C64 0 + C6501
SCO 9=1 9030 + 8J 32+B033 + 3035)* 4 75/10 00
SCO 9= SO09+ 1 B03 1 +303 4 + 603 6 ) *9 75/ 1 0 00
0 731 = 0 66 2/1 O JO 1Joo O*SU*l 30 30)+D66I *SUM1B031 ))
0732=0663/1 0 30 1 066 0*500(3032 ) )
0 7 33=0 6 6*+/ l OO* (OSO*(3J0lO3J) + SUM IB035) )
073 3=0 73 3+0 6o4/ 10 00 *10031*1 SUMI 8334)+SUM(&036))
SCO 2=0 731+C 732 + 07 33 +0601/100*SJM(B4 88)
SCO 2=SC02+0602/10 0* SUMI 3495)+JuOJ/100*SUM(54 94)+0534*(;30U/C500)
5002=5002*0402/100+0401*10500/0300)
5004=C600+C640*0650
scoi=scoi+SC02/SUM1seo*)*s;04
0734=0610/100*0030*UO12/1000
0735-O 61 1/1 00*3031*0612/1000
0736=0610/100*9032*0613/1000
0737=0010/100*1B033+B035)*0614/1000
0738=061 l/l 00*( 3034+90.)o)*0614/1000
SCO 4= 0734+C 733+ 07 35+C 737 + 073!)+0 621/100*34 83+ 0 62 2/10 O* 3494
SCO 1 = 5001+0425*(C600 + 0640+0 65 01 +0425/0425*3004
SC02=1 +0220*1CuO-l )+0225*t 067 0 11+0230*106 8 01 )
C740=SC01*SCJ2*(0420+0430/1001
0 74 0=0 740+10425/042 5+04351 1 SCO 1*SC02-SC04)
SCO 4=0460/1 OJ
SC O 5 = 0 445/1 00* SC09+0446/1 00 *B4-J8 + D4 47/1 00*B 494
S 00 6 = 0 45 0/1 00*9)0 7+0451/1 0C*B10o + (0452+D453 + 0454)/l 00*0500
C74 0 = C740 + L4 + 0*S001 *5 00 2 *1 1-SCO 4*SO 05/5 006* SUMISC 06)/SJM< S0051)
0 74 O=C 740 + 0 470/0470*10470*0600-10734+0735 + 0736+0737+0739))
0745 = 0740/0 500
074 8 = 0 74 0/1 CoOO + 064 0 + C5 01
0750=0615+0626+0635
0755=0750/0500
0758=0750/1C000+C640+C650)
0760=C700+C710+0720+C730
0765=0760/0500
0 76 8=0 7o0/lCo0U+C640+Co50)
5C05 = B 120 + to123 + B130 +B140+0 145+3 150 + H153 + t)lb 5+ 3173+3175+9180+31 35+8160
SC5=SC05 + B190 + B193 +B200+B2 05+B210 + B2I5 + B220 + 0225 +3230
SCO 5= SC05*0103
SCO 7= B122+B127 + B1 32+0 142+3147+3 152+01 57+ B 16 2 + 9167+3 172+3177+31S2I-B187
SC07=SC07+U192+B197+3202+8207+b212+6217+0222+B227+3232
SC0 7 = SC07*'l 105
SC05=SC05+SC7
scoa=34eo/scj5*C50o
SC I0 = B481/SC0 5*05 00+9482/SCOS*C 500+0483/SCO 5*C500
SC03=SC08+SC1 O
SCO 4= 1 0t.'4 0/0o4 O +0 65 O/Oob U)*.091 *05 *4/0600
SCO 4= 56 04 ( U-.4 1 /O64 1 + O5 l/l)o5 1 ) *.01 B40 4/C600
SC04 = SC04+(Di,4 2/oo4 2 + u652/06 62) *.01 *0494/06 00
SCO 6= 064 0/ 1 00 0 + ->4 l / 1 00 + 064 / I O O
SC0 6=5C0b + D6j0/109* (I ."15*50 03-500 2*50 01 1/0544
SCO 6= SC06+) 6sl /ICO*1 1.05 SO 03-SCO 1 SC 021/9488
SCO6=StOo+0 652/ 100*1 1 .05*3003-5001*SO 021/9494
SC0 5* O 64 0/1 00 O *0544+O-.41 / 1 U O* 9 30 J u4 2/ 1 93 U4 4
SCO 5= 5005 + 1 Dust) +UoS 1+.155 2) / 1 0 0* 1 1 O 5* SO O 3-SCO 1 SO 02 )
SCO 5 = 3C0S + U490/0490 *500= *SC04
077 0=04 0O*C oUJt SC J L? 4 35*(0740/1 SCO 1*S0U20740) )*5005
07 70 = 0 7 7 O + l. 4 90 / 490 SC Oo *1 0490 SC 0 4)
0775=0770/0500
07 7 8=0 770/1 C(.0 O+064 0 + C 55 O)

232
C780=C740+C750+C760 + C77 0
C 78 5=C 7 8 0/C 50 0
C780=C780/< CbOO +C64 0+C650)
C79O=SC0I*SC02-C740
C791=C734*0tl5/0115
C792=C735*D11 5/-D1 15
C793=C736*0J15/0115
C794=C737*0115/0115
C795=C790/C500
C796=C73P*D 11 5/D 115
C798=C790/( C60 O + C 64 0 + C65 0)
C600=C6l0+ C 62 0 + Cb 30
C05=C800/C 500
C808=C800/1C600+C640+C650)
C610=SC05
C8lS=C8 10/C500
CHI8=C810/(C600+C640+C650)
C820=C 7 9 0+C 800+C810
C82 5 C820/C 50 0
C82 8=C 82 0/( C6 O O + Cb4 0+C65 01
C8 3 0-5 CO 1 S CO 2
C835=C830/C500
C 83 8-C83 0/1C600+C64 0+C650)
C840=C780+C320
C845=Ce40/C500
C848=CP40/(C600+C640+C650)
C850=D660/1 00*(SUM B030)+SJM(B032)+SUM(B033)+SUM( 3035) )
C851 =0 661/1 00*1 SUMI BO 31 )+SUM)
C8 5 2= C 7 3 tel.) 115/0 115
C85_3=C 732*0 1 15/0115
C 854-= C 733*0 115/01 15
C85 5= C850 + C 83 1
C 05 6=C 8 52 + C 653+C854
C850-8488*0601/100
C870=34Q4*D603/100
C 830=B 4 95*0 6 02/100
C89 0=3 60 4(B497/8497)
C900=C791+C792+C793+C794+C796
C905=C900/C 500
C90B=C900/(CbOO+C640+C650>
SC07=062l+0641+0631 *C790/B488+0651*(1.05*SC03C9331/3433
C.910 = t4S8*SC07/100
C91 5 = C 9 I0/C500
C9 1 b=C 510/1 C600 + C640+C650)
SC07=0622+D642+0632*C790/B494+0652*( 1 O 5*SC 0 3-C 8 30 I /3495
C920=B494*SC07/100
C92S=C920/C 500
C928-C920/ C600+C64 0+C650J
C930=3608
C935=C93o/C500
C940 = C930+SC1 O
C94 S=C 54 C/C500
C950=C940+B3b4
C955=C950/C500
C960=C950*8 373
C96 5-=C 96 0/C 50 O
C970- C04O/(UM(CB401/3M(CbOO)*COOO)
C97 0=(C97J-11 1CO
C 90 9=C 90 0*1 4 + C910*35*C920*1 5+C790*26.42
S CO l = S UM(C053114 + SUM(C0 6 01*35 +SUM1CS 70 >*IS + SUM<::630)*35 + 5UM( 38 901*14
SC01=SCl/< SU+M C950 )+SJMlCB60i + SUMCC970)+SUMlC8 30l+SJ'<( 89 0) 1
C 96 9-= ( C969+C780*! SC 01 26.42 ) 1/C640
SC02=(C970*C970)*.5
SC02=SC02*CbCO
0940=SUMISC021/5U4I CbOO)
09 l = SUM (C90J ) 1 + +3UM1 C9 101*35 +SUM (C920)*154-SUWtC790)*26.42
0941 = 10941 + SUM 1C7 33 )* SCO11/SUM1C340)
SC01=tl001+e0 03 + 00 04+8JOb + 00 7+aOC8+R0 09 + B011+P. 012 + 301J48014+3015 + B017
SCO1=SC01+018 + B019 +5J23+B026
C 97 1 = SC0)
C9 7 2=C 9 71/C 500
C973 = C571/C 600
C 9 7 4= B O 1 O
C975=9010/C500
C976=BC1 0/C 600
C97 7=B002+3 005
C979=C977/83bl
C 97 9= 3 365
C980=B365/C500
C9 81 =C 5 71 +C 974
C982=C 981/C500
C983=C981/C600
C984 = C 5 71-C 740
C985=C984/C500

233
C 9 8 6 C974 C790
C967=C 986/C 800
C998=C977-(C610 +C615)
C989=C988/B3ol
C990=C979-(C620+C625)
C991=C990/C800
C99 2- C 9 7 l +-C 974+C977+C979-C840
C993=C992/CS00
C994^=C992/C600

APPENDIX F
STATE AID, 1976-77

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
STATE AID, 1976-77
$ PER PUPIL IN ADJUSTED ENROLLMENT
COUNTIES RANKED
Foundation State Aid
Supplements Outside
Of Formula*
Total (1)
+ (2)
7
(27
~W
Pendleton
$697.62
Grant
$193.33
Pendeton
$860.22
Wi rt
648.55
Pocahontas
173.24
Pocahontas
817.09
Pocahontas
643.85
Pendleton
162.60
Wi rt
787.48
Calhoun
643.71
Braxton
160.89
Calhoun
769.43
Monroe
613.09
Barbour
153.05
Braxton
764.77
Ritchie
611.88
Doddridge
146.93
Barbour
753.87
Hardy
605.30
Lewis
141.09
Ritchie
751.31
'Braxton
603.88
Ritchie
139.43
Monroe
744.71
Mercer
602.26
Wi rt
138.93
Hardy
741.71
Barbour
600.82
Hardy
136.41
Doddridge
729.96
Summers
599.66
Taylor
133.17
Mercer
726.06
Logan
594.55
Monroe
131.62
Pleasants
717.43
MeDowel 1
593.86
Greenbrier
131.19
Greenbrier
712.54
Pleasants
588.33
Gilmer
129.85
Webster
711.19
Webster
587.91
Morgan
129.38
Summers
710.59
Wayne
585.07
Pleasants
129.10
McDowel1
707.48
Doddridge
583.03
Roane
128.15
Roane
700.22
Greenbrier
581.35
Kanawha
126.34
Jefferson
697.89
Lincoln
579.39
Hampshire
125.93
Lewis
696.20
Raleigh
578.95
Monongalia
125.74
Morgan
695.48
Jefferson
577.61
Calhoun
125.72
Logan
694.68
Wyoming
573.82
Mercer
123.80
Lincoln
688.90
Cabell
573.29
Webster
123.28
Wayne
688.08
Roane
572.07
Tucker
120.46
Cabell
686.49
Mason
570.64
Jefferson
120.28
Mason
686.32
Tyler
567.33
Wood
120.23
Boone
686.00
Mi ngo
567.12
Boone
120.04
Tucker
685.14
Fayette
567.02
Upshur
119.10
Mi ngo
684.89
Morgan
566.10
Mi ngo
117.77
Raleigh
684.47
Boone
565.96
Preston
117.60
Tyl er
683.51
Preston
565.00
Brooke
116.55
Preston
682.60
T ucker
564.68
Tyler
116.18
Wyoming
681.41
Clay
563.33
Nicholas
115.92
Taylor
680.22
Mineral
560.85
Clay
115.71
Clay
679.04
Randolph
556.55
Mason
115.68
Upshur
675.32
235

236
APPENDIX F Continued
Foundation
State Aid
Supplements Outside
Of Formula*
Total (1)
+ (2)
err
T3T
36
Nicholas
556.41
Hancock
113.96
Fayette
673.45
37
Upshur
556.22
MeDowel 1
113.62
Nicholas
672.33
38
Lewis
555.11
Cabell
113.20
Wood
671 .63
39
Wood
551.40
Marion
111.29
Hampshire
671.26
40
Brooke
550.51
Summers
110.93
Kanawha
670.36
41
Taylor
547.05
Marshall
110.42
Mineral
669.63
42
Hampshire
545.33
Lincoln
109.51
Gilmer
668.20
43
Kanawha
544.02
Mineral
108.78
Brooke
667.06
44
Gilmer
538.35
Wyoming
107.59
Randolph
656.00
45
Jackson
532.46
Ohio
106.92
Monongalia
650.42
46
Wetzel
528.64
Jackson
106.91
Jackson
639.37
47
Marion
527.59
Fayette
106.43
Marion
638.88
48
Monongalia
524.68
Wetzel
106.37
Wetzel
635.01
49
Berkeley
524.00
Raleigh
105.52
Hancock
630.97
50
Hancock
517.01
Wayne
103.01
Berkeley
626.68
51
Ohio
512.61
Berkeley
102.68
Ohio
619.53
52
Harrison
490.87
Harrison
102.14
Marshall
599.71
53
Marshall
489.29
Logan
100.13
Harrison
593.01
54
Putnam
466.54
Randolph
99.45
Grant
573.23
55
Grant
379.90
Putnam
91.63
Putnam
558.17
$556.40
$117.00
$673.40
Note. *Ear1y Childhood Aides, $1,200 teacher salary, service personnel
$11,500,000 (April), $9,373,008 (duly).

REFERENCES
Books and Periodicals
Academy for Educational Development. Let's end the con-
fusion about simulation models. New York: Society
for College and University Planning, 1973.
Ah1f, D.R. .Measurement of fiscal capacity of school dis
tricts in Wisconsin. Madison, Wis.: University of
Wisconsin, 1964.
Alexander, K. Judicial standards of equality: A defini
tion problem. Critical Issues in Educational
Finance, 1975, 1 1 16-47.
Alexander, K. The wealth as an alternative revenue source
for public schools. Journal of Education Finance,
1977, 2, 451-480.
Alexander, K., & Jordan, K.F. Constitutional alternatives
for state school finance. In R.L. Johns, K. Alex
ander, & K.F. Jordan (Eds.), Financing education:
Fiscal and legal alternatives. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1972.
Alexander, K., & Jordan, K.F. (Eds.). Educational need
in the public economy. Gainesville: University of
Florida Press, 1976.
American Management Association. Simulation and gaming:
A symposium. New York, 1961.
Anderson, C.A. Patterns and variability in distribution
and diffusion of schooling. In C.A. Anderson &
M.J. Bowan (Eds.), Education and economic develop
ment. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1965.
Armstrong, R.H., & Hobson, M. Introduction to gaming-
simulation techniques. In Gaming-simulation:
Rationale, design, and application. New York:
Sage Publications, 1976.
Bailey, S.K. A finer order, a mo re general happiness. In
The third century. New York: Change Magazine Pre-s,
1 977.
237

238
Benson, C. The cheerful prospect: A statement on the
future of education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1965.
Benson, C. Educational finance in the coming decade.
Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1975.
Berke, J. S. Answers to inequality: An analysis of the
new school finance. California: McCutchan Pub
lishing Company, 1974.
Boardman, G.R. A computer simulation for planning state
school finance-technical manual. Gainesville, Fla.:
National Education Finance Project, 1973.
Boardman, G.R., Jordan, K.F., & Alexander, K. NEFP De
cision Process. Gainesville, Fla.: National Edu
cation Finance Project, 1971.
Boocock, S.S., & Shi Id, E.O. (Eds.). Simulation games in
learning. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publish-
' ing, 1968.
Braum, L. The digital computer as a general purpose simu
lator. Journal of Educational Data Processing, 1970,
7, 151-180.
Braum, L. Learning through computer simulation. Washing
ton, D.C.: American Educational Research Association,
1975 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 104 376).
Carter, L.R., & Huzan, E. A practical approach to com
puter simulation in business. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1 973.
Chapman, K., & Cousins, J.E. Simulation/games in social
studies: A report. Colorado: Social Science
Educational Consortium, Inc., 1974 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 085 292).
Chartier, M. Simulation games as learning devices: A
summary of empirical findings and their implications
for the utilization of games in instrumentation.
California: California American Baptist Summary of
the West, 1973 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 101 384).

239
Claiborn, W.L., & Lemberg, R.W. A simulated mental
hospital as an undergraduate teaching device.
Teaching of Psychology, 1 974 fj, 38-40.
Cohen, K., & Cyert, R.M. Simulation of organizational
behavior. In N.A. Fattu & S. Elam (Eds.), 4th Sym
posium on Educational Research. Indiana: Phi Delta
Kappa Inc., 1 965.
Cohn, E. Economics of state aid to education. Massa
chusetts: Lexington Books, 1974.
Coleman, J. Equity of educational opportunity. Washington,
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1966.
Coleman, J. Equality of educational opportunity. Harvard
Education Review, 1 968, 38., 7-22.
Coombs, D.H. Simulation and gaming: Best of ERIC.
. Stanford Uni versity--ERIC Clearinghouse, 1 976 (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126-891).
Coons, J.E., Clune, W.H., & Sugarman, S.D. Private wealth
and public education. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press, 1970.
Cope, R.G. Simulation models should replace formulas for
budgeting requests. College and University Business,
1969, 46, 30-34.
Cruickshank, D.R., & Broadbent, F.W. Simulation in pre
paring school personnel. Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Clearinghouse, 1970 (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 036 470).
Cubberley, E.P. School funds and their apportionment.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,
1 906.
de Mello, E. Adaptation of a computer simulation model
for planning state school finance programs in
Sergipe, Brazil. Doctoral dissertation, University
of New Mexico, 1975.
Department of Education. A brief history of West Virginia
schools. Charleston, West Virginia, 1973.

240
Division of Surveys and Field Services. Time for action--
West Virginia public schools. Tennessee: George
Peabody College, 1956.
Due, J.F. Alternative tax sources for education. In
R.L. Johns, I.J. Goffman, K. Alexander, & D.H.
Stollar (Eds.), Economic factors affecting the
financing of education (Vo 1. 2^ GaTesvi 1 1 e, Fla.:
National Education Finance Project, 1970.
Education Commission of the States. From Serrano to Serrano.
Denver, Colorado, 1975.
Education Finance and Governance Center SURC. A data
capability for school aid simulation. Syracuse,
1 974.
Fitzpatrick, R. Toward a theory of simulation. Santa
Monica, California: System Development Corporation,
. 1962.
Gaunt, R.N., & Haight, M.J. Planning models in higher
education administration. Journal of Education
Finance, 1 976 2^, 305-323.
Geske, T., & Rossmiller, R.A. The politics of school
fiscal reform in Wisconsin. Journal of Education
Finance, 1977, 2, 513-532.
Greenblat, C.S. Women's lib: Game of women's rights.
Massachusetts: Urban Systems, Inc.
Hale, J. A. School finance reform in New Mexico 1 974/75:
Analysis and critique. Paper presented to the United
States Office of Education, Fall, 1975.
Harrison, W.A. Ohio education review committee school
finance computer simulation system. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Education Finance
Conference, San Antonio, 1977.
Hickrod, G.A., Hubbard, B.C., & Yang, T.W. The 1973 reform
of the Illinois general purpose education grand-in
aid. In Selected papers in school finance--1974.
Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Edu
cation of Education, 1974.
Holdberg, R.D. The Dresch-Goldberg vtl simulation model.
New York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Inc., 1973
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 093 246).

241
Holloway, W.H. Improved school management and planning:
The promise of computer simulations. Topeka, Kansas:
Kansas State Department of Education, 1973 (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 121 634).
Hostrop, R.W. Watergate: The Waterloo of a president.
Palm Springs, California: ETC Publishers, 1975
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 121 635).
Huebert, B.J. Computer modeling of photochemical smog
format ion. Journal of Chemical Education, 1974,
51, 644-645.
Huxe1 L.L. A computer based simulation model for public
school finance in New Mexico. Doctoral dissertation,
University of New Mexico, 1973.
Inbar, M., & Stoll, C.S. (Eds.). Simulation and gaming
in social science. New York: The Free Press, 1972.
James, H.T., & Cronin, J.H. New developments and trends
in school finance: Projections and observations.
In W. E. Ganeck & J.R. Childress (Eds.), The theory
and practice of school finance. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1969.
Johns, R.L. The economics and financing of education.
In E.L. Morphet & D.L. Jesser (Eds.), Emerging
designs for education: Program, organization,
operation and finance. Denver: Eight State Project
Office, 1968.
Johns, R.L. Analytical tools in school finance reform.
Journal of Education Finance, 1977, 2, 499-508.
Johns, R.L., Alexander, K., & Jordan, K.F. (Eds.). Finan
cing education. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company, 1972.
Johns, R.L., & Morphet, E.L. The economics and financing
of education: A systems approach (3rd ed.). Eng1e-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1975.
Johns, R.L., & Salmon, R.G. The financial equalization of
public school support programs in the United States
for the school year, 1968-1969. In R.L. Johns, K.
Alexander, & D. H. Stollar (Eds.), Status and impact
of educational finance programs (VoTT 4~5^ Gaines-
ville, Fla.: National Education Finance Project, 1971.

242
Local Government Relations Division. Study of property
valuations for the tax year 1975. Charleston,
West Virginia: State Tax Commission, 1975.
Lucas, J.D. Serrano and Rodrigues--An overextension of
equal protection. NOLPE School Law Journal, 1972,
2, 18-20.
Lunetta, V.N. Newton's law: A computer based simulation
for introductory physics. Iowa City, Iowa: Science
Education Center of Iowa University, 1974.
Manji, A.S. Simulation for educational facility planning:
Review and bibliography. Chicago: Center for Urban
Educational Planning, 1972 (ERIC Document Reproduc
tion Service No. ED 088 213).
McCarthy., M.M. Is the equal protection clause still a
viable tool for effecting educational reform? Journal
of Law and Education, 1 977, 6_, 1 59- 1 82.
McClosky, M. Perspectives on simulation and miniaturiza
tion (HumRRO Professional Paper #1472). Alexandria,
Virginia: Human Resources, 1972 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 107 252).
McClure, W.P. Financing equality of educational oppor
tunity --A reassessment. In K.F. Jordan & K. Alexander
(Eds.), Futures in school finance: Working toward
a common goal. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta
Kappa, 1975.
McEwen, W.J., & Leavitt, C. PACE: A simulation of the
effects of television advertising. Simulation and
Games, 1 974 5^, 73-85.
Mclssac, D., & Boardman, G.R. A computer based feedback
model for simulation exercises involving school
administration: Final report. Washington, D.C. :
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 039 799).
MeKenney, J.L. Simulation gaming for management develop
ment. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard
University, 1967.
McLeod, J. (Ed.). Simulations. New York: McGraw Hill,
1 968.

243
Michel son, S. What is a 'just1 system for financing
schools? And evaluation of alternative. Law
and Contemporary Problems, 1974, 38.
Minicucci C. California school finance simulation
system. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission
of the States, 1976.
Mize, J.H., & Cox, J.G. Essentials of simulation. Engle
wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
Morrison, H.C. School revenue. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1930.
Mort, P.R. The measurement of educational need: A basis
for distributing state aid. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1924.
National Educational Finance Project. Alternative programs
for financing education (Vol. 5). Gainesville,
Fla.: National Educational Finance Project, 1971.
National Educational Finance Project. NEFP study:
Financing the public schools of Kentucky. Gainesville,
Fla.: National Educational Finance Project, 1973.
National Educational Finance Project. NEFP study:
Financing the public schools of South Dakota.
Gainesville, Fla.: National Education Finance
Project, 1973.
Nesbitt, W.A. The alpha crisis game: Origins of World War I.
New York: New York State Department of Education,
1 973.
Odden, A., & Vincent, P.E. Analysis of the school finance
and tax structure of Missouri. Denver, Colorado:
Education Commission of the States, 1976.
Ohio Education Review Committee. Ohio Education Review
Committee school finance computer simulation system.
Columbus, Ohio: Ohio General Assembly, 1977.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Use
of simulation models in education planning: A criti
cal evaluation of s.o.m. technical report (simulated
option model). Trance, 1971.

244
Pearson, J.B., & Fuller, E. (Eds.)- Education in the
states: Historical development and outlook. Wash
ington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969.
Pierce, L., Garmes, W., Guthrie, J., & Kirst, M.W. State
school finance alternatives. Eugene, Oregon: Center
for Education and Management, 1975.
Presidents Commission on School Finance. Schools, people,
and money: The need for educational reform. Washing
ton, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office,
1 972.
Reagan, D. Simulation of biological processes. American
Biology Teacher, 1 9 74 _36 554- 556.
Rossmiller, R.A., Hale, J.A., & Frohreich, L.E. Educa
tional programs for exceptional children. Madison,
Wise.: University of Wisconsin, 1970.

Schmatz, L.C., & Sippl, C.J. Computer glossary for stu-
dents and teachers. New York: Funk and Wagnalls,
1 972.
Schultz, T.W. The human capital approach to education.
In R.L. Johns, I.J. Goffman, K.Alexander, & D.H.
Stollar (Eds.), Economic factors affecting the financ
ing of education (Vol. 2Gainesville, Fla.:
National Education Finance Project, 1970.
Shubi k, M. Game theory, and related approaches to social
behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
Shubik, M., & Brewer, G. Models, simulation and games:
A survey. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corpora
tion, 1972 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 073 687).
Smith, A. The wealth of nations. New York: P.F. Collier
and Sons, 1905.
Stocton, J.R. Simulation training for small business
executive development. Austin, Texas: University
of Texas Bureau of Business Research, 1973.
Strayer, G.D., & Haig, R.M. The financing of education
in the state of New York. New York: Macmillan
Company, 1923.

245
Superintendent of Documents. Food and feedback: Coming
to gripes with the global systems. MOSAIC, 1975,
6, 2-8.
Tanner, C.K., & Kandwros, J.M. Cost of delivering educa
tion: A planning model. San Antonio, Texas:
American Education Finance, 1977.
Tansey, P.J., & Unwin, D. Simulation and gaming in educa
tion. London: Methuen Education LTD, 1969.
Taylor, J L. & Walford, R. Simulation in the classroom.
Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972.
Tron, E.O. (Ed.). Public school finance programs 1975-76.
Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Education,
1 976.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi
zation. Constitution. 1945.
Vacca, R.S. The courts and school finance: A reexamina
tion. In K.F. Jordan & K. Alexander (Eds.), Futures
in school finance: Working toward a common goal.
Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Del ta Kappa, .1975.
Weiss, S. J. Existing disparities in public school finance
and proposal s for reform. Boston, Mass.: Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston, 1969.
Williamson, J. A computer based economical game for social
studies instruction: International balance of pay
ments. Journal of Educational Data Processing, 1970,
7, 181-192.
Wynn, R. Simulation: Terrible reality in the preparation
of school administrators. Phi Delta Kappan, 1964,
XLVI, 171-175.
Zuckerman, D.W., & Horn, R.E. The guide to simulations/
gamesfor education and training. Lexington,
Massachusetts: Information Resources, Inc., 1973.
Court Cases
Bell's Gap Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania, 134 US 232
(1890).
Brown v. Board of Education, 374 US 483 (1954).

246
Burruss v. Wilkerson, 310 F.Supp. 572 (1969).
Hargrave v. Kirk, 313 F.Supp. 944 (1970); vacated 401 US 479
(1971 ).
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 US 663 (1966).
Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937).
Horton v. Meski11 31 Conn.Supp. 377 332 A.2d 1 1 3 ( 1 974).
Joint Anti-Facist Refugee Concern v. McGrath, 341 US 123
(1951).
Lau v. Nichols, 94 S.Ct. 786 (1974).
Mclnnis v. Shapiro, 293 F.Supp. 327 (1968).
Mi11iken v. Grenn, 389 Mich. 1 203 N.W.2d 457 (1972);
vacated 390 Mich. 389 212 N.W.2d 711 (1973).
Northshore School District #417 v. Kinnear 530 P.2d 178 84
Wash.2d 685 (1974).
Pauley et al. v. Kelley et al. Civil Action No. 75-1268
( 1 975 ).
Plessey v. Fergusson, 163 US 537 (1896).
Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473 303 A.2d 273 (1973).
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 US 1 337 F.Supp.
280 93 S.Ct. 1278 (1973).
Sawyer v. Gilmore, 83 A. 673 (1912).
Seattle School District No. 1 v. Washington Cir. No. 53950
(1976).
Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971).
Stofstall v. Hollins, 110 Ariz. 88 515 P.2d 590 (1973).
Thomas v. Steward Docket No. 8275 (Polk County Superior
Court) (1976).
Thompson v. Engleking, 537 P.2d 635 (1975).

Van Dusartz v. Hatfield, 334 F.Supp.870 (1971).
Wood v. Strickland, 420 US 308 (1975).
West Virginia Code
18-2-17 through 21
18-9-7
18-9A-4
18-9A-5
18-9A-6
18-9A-7
18-9A-8
18-9A-9
18-9A-10
18-9A-15
18-10-5 and 8
18-20-1 through 5
West Virginia
Article
Article
Article
Article
Constitution
XII, Section 1
XII, Section 2
XII, Section 4
XII, Section 6

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Michael Kurt Bookman was born October 28, 1946, in
Youngstown, Ohio. Upon completion of high school in 1964,
he entered the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida,
where he received a Bachelor of Business Administration
in accounting and finance.
After graduation from college, Mr. Bookman taught
elementary level students in the Dade County School System
in Miami, Florida. During this period he attended the
University of Miami and Florida Atlantic University on a
part-time basis. This culminated in a Master of Education
degree from Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida, in educational administration and supervision
in 1972.
From 1972 to 1976 he was on the Northwest Area
Superintendents Staff in Dade County as an Area Resource
Specialist in curriculum and pupil personnel services.
During that time he helped in the development of material,
and training of personnel in his curriculum area, and has
written many guides for the school system and a publica
tion for the Florida State Department.
248

249
In 1974, Mr. Bookman was selected for an EPDA
program, in a cooperative venture by the Dade County
School System and the University of Florida. During
this time he served a management internship with the
Dade County Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, and
received an Educational Specialist degree in educational
administration and supervision from the University of
Florida in 1976.
For the past year Mr. Bookman has been a research
assistant for the Institute of Educational Finance at the
University of Florida where his activities included data
collection and analysis of cost studies in other states
relative to vocational education, a state-wide cost study
for the state of West Virginia, preparation of proposals,
and editorial assistant for the Journal of Education
Finance.
Mr. Bookman is married to Kay E. Bookman and has
a six-year-old son, Brad.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
CL /J-t 'James A. Hale, Chairman
'-^Hjrs-sociate Professor of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
'ern Alexander
Professor of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
vtida Crocker
Assistant Professor of Education
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Educational Administration and Super
vision in the College of Education and to the Graduate
Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August' 1977
Dean, Graduate School



56
That sum is then added to the total cost of insurance
premiums on buses, buildings, and equipment used in the
transportation program. Ten percent of the replacement
value of the bus fleet is then added, along with a figure
that equals 80 percent of the cost of contracted transpor
tation services and public utility transportation services
Finally, aid in lieu of transportation is added based on a
state average amount per pupil.
The fifth step is a Foundation Allowance for Adminis
trative Costs ( § 18-9A-8) which is calculated as being
1 percent of the allocation for professional educators.
All counties receive an equal amount.
The sixth step is a Foundation Allowance for Other
Current Expenses (§ 18-9A-9), and it is computed as being
equal to 10 percent of the allocation for professional edu
cators and other personnel. The money is distributed to
the counties in proportion to the adjusted enrollment.
The seventh, and last step is a Foundation Allowance
Toward National Average Attainment (§ 18-9A-10). When the
average expenditure per pupil in West Virginia is below
the U.S. Office of Education figures for the national
average, funds which accrue from increased local share
balances in the general school fund, it is allocated back
to the districts in proportion to the adjusted enrollment.


214
APPENDIX D Continued
Explanation: For E through H check those modifying factors which you
wish to include in the form of a special allotment as
a part of the state program and provide the requested
information.
E. SPECIAL PROGRAM ALLOTMENTS
Explanation: Select those programs for which you wish to provide
special allotments and provide the requested information. (All
pupil units are expressed as FTEful 1 time equivalents.)
Note: If you used a weighted unit in Section I (Program Unit)
for a particular program, then do not complete that corresponds
section here.
1. Early Chi 1dhood
$ per pupil in early childhood program (4 yr. olds
250 and K)
2. Special and/or Exceptional
$ per mentally handicapped pupil (EMR & TMR)
251
$ per physically handicapped pupil (Phy., Mult.,
252 Visual, Auditory, Homebound)
$ per behavioral disorder pupil
253
$ per special learning disabilities pupil
254
$ per communications disorders pupil
255
3. Vocational-Technical
$ per pupil in vocational-technical education
256
4. Compensatory
$ per pupil from family with low income
257
$ per low achievement pupil
258


175
APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY CATEGORY DEFINITION
380-404 "PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE"
380 "E 1,
T 1"
381 "E 1,
T 2"
382 "E 1,
T 3"
383 "E 1,
T 4"
384 "E 1 ,
T 5"
385 "E 2,
T 1"
386 "E 2,
T 2"
FTE count of professional
educators with an ex
perience level of 0 2
years and a training
level of under a bachelor's
degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 0 2 years
and a training level of a
bachelor's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 0 2 years
and a training level of a
master's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 0 2 years
and a training level of a
master's degree + 30 hrs.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 0 2 years
and a training level of a
doctorate.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of
under a bachelor's degree.
FTE count of professional
educators with an experi
ence level of 3 6 years
and a training level of a
bachelor's degree.


66
that not all real life situations fit neatly or accurately
into a prepared program, and that some users may be poorly
prepared to experiment with the model.
With the capability to store an abundance of informa
tion on various subjects, and its ability to manipulate and
analyze a multitude of data at such rapid speeds, the
computer became a perfect medium for simulation.
H. G. Wells, over 80 years ago, in an obscure novel
(cited in Bailey, 1977, p. 157), stated,
If humanity . cannot collectively invent
devices and solve problems on a much richer scale
than it does at the present time, it cannot hope
to achieve any very much finer order or any more
general happiness than it now enjoys.
Somewhat in response to Mr. Well's challenge, computer
technology has developed and advanced knowledge further
and faster than it has ever progressed.
In essence, a computer is "a general instruction-
obeying machine" (Williamson, 1970, p. 181). Being an
analytical tool, and most simulations being analytical
techniques, Shubik and Brewer (1972) discussed computer
simulations ability to analyze events and systems over
periods of time. Expanding this idea, Cohen and Cyert
(1965) concluded their analysis with
Computer models and man-machine simulations offer
an unparalleled means by which we can: (a) formu
late extremely detailed and highly precise
models of organizational behavior; (b) test the
empirical validity of these models; (c) experi
mentally manipulate the models in a way which


240
Division of Surveys and Field Services. Time for action--
West Virginia public schools. Tennessee: George
Peabody College, 1956.
Due, J.F. Alternative tax sources for education. In
R.L. Johns, I.J. Goffman, K. Alexander, & D.H.
Stollar (Eds.), Economic factors affecting the
financing of education (Vo 1. 2^ GaTesvi 1 1 e, Fla.:
National Education Finance Project, 1970.
Education Commission of the States. From Serrano to Serrano.
Denver, Colorado, 1975.
Education Finance and Governance Center SURC. A data
capability for school aid simulation. Syracuse,
1 974.
Fitzpatrick, R. Toward a theory of simulation. Santa
Monica, California: System Development Corporation,
. 1962.
Gaunt, R.N., & Haight, M.J. Planning models in higher
education administration. Journal of Education
Finance, 1 976 2^, 305-323.
Geske, T., & Rossmiller, R.A. The politics of school
fiscal reform in Wisconsin. Journal of Education
Finance, 1977, 2, 513-532.
Greenblat, C.S. Women's lib: Game of women's rights.
Massachusetts: Urban Systems, Inc.
Hale, J. A. School finance reform in New Mexico 1 974/75:
Analysis and critique. Paper presented to the United
States Office of Education, Fall, 1975.
Harrison, W.A. Ohio education review committee school
finance computer simulation system. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Education Finance
Conference, San Antonio, 1977.
Hickrod, G.A., Hubbard, B.C., & Yang, T.W. The 1973 reform
of the Illinois general purpose education grand-in
aid. In Selected papers in school finance--1974.
Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Edu
cation of Education, 1974.
Holdberg, R.D. The Dresch-Goldberg vtl simulation model.
New York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Inc., 1973
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 093 246).


107
an FTE count for kindergarten and the weighted special
education count, which illustrates a concern for the
unique needs of special education students and part-time
kindergarten programs.
The triple weighting for special education has a more
substantial impact when considering that special education
students receive the triple weighting whether they are in
volved in a program for one hour a day, or the entire day.
Additionally, higher cost special education programs re
ceive the same triple weighting for their students as do
substantially lower cost special education programs. Many
studies have been conducted which have analyzed the costs
of special education programs (Rossmiller, Hale, and
Frohreich, 1970), as well as total program costs (NEFP
Kentucky, 1973; NEFP South Dakota, 1973). The conclusions
of the researchers indicate that different programs cost
different amounts to provide for the needs of the students
in those programs. In the current West Virginia plan, stu
dent needs are considered only with regard to special
education, and then on an equal basis within the program
area. Variations for exceptionalities within special edu
cation programs, kindergarten, vocational programs, or
other subdivisions are absent within the basic state foun
dation program and raise concern as to meeting "the
varying educational needs of the student population"
(NEFP, 1971, p. 238).


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
STATE AID, 1976-77
$ PER PUPIL IN ADJUSTED ENROLLMENT
COUNTIES RANKED
Foundation State Aid
Supplements Outside
Of Formula*
Total (1)
+ (2)
7
(27
~W
Pendleton
$697.62
Grant
$193.33
Pendeton
$860.22
Wi rt
648.55
Pocahontas
173.24
Pocahontas
817.09
Pocahontas
643.85
Pendleton
162.60
Wi rt
787.48
Calhoun
643.71
Braxton
160.89
Calhoun
769.43
Monroe
613.09
Barbour
153.05
Braxton
764.77
Ritchie
611.88
Doddridge
146.93
Barbour
753.87
Hardy
605.30
Lewis
141.09
Ritchie
751.31
'Braxton
603.88
Ritchie
139.43
Monroe
744.71
Mercer
602.26
Wi rt
138.93
Hardy
741.71
Barbour
600.82
Hardy
136.41
Doddridge
729.96
Summers
599.66
Taylor
133.17
Mercer
726.06
Logan
594.55
Monroe
131.62
Pleasants
717.43
MeDowel 1
593.86
Greenbrier
131.19
Greenbrier
712.54
Pleasants
588.33
Gilmer
129.85
Webster
711.19
Webster
587.91
Morgan
129.38
Summers
710.59
Wayne
585.07
Pleasants
129.10
McDowel1
707.48
Doddridge
583.03
Roane
128.15
Roane
700.22
Greenbrier
581.35
Kanawha
126.34
Jefferson
697.89
Lincoln
579.39
Hampshire
125.93
Lewis
696.20
Raleigh
578.95
Monongalia
125.74
Morgan
695.48
Jefferson
577.61
Calhoun
125.72
Logan
694.68
Wyoming
573.82
Mercer
123.80
Lincoln
688.90
Cabell
573.29
Webster
123.28
Wayne
688.08
Roane
572.07
Tucker
120.46
Cabell
686.49
Mason
570.64
Jefferson
120.28
Mason
686.32
Tyler
567.33
Wood
120.23
Boone
686.00
Mi ngo
567.12
Boone
120.04
Tucker
685.14
Fayette
567.02
Upshur
119.10
Mi ngo
684.89
Morgan
566.10
Mi ngo
117.77
Raleigh
684.47
Boone
565.96
Preston
117.60
Tyl er
683.51
Preston
565.00
Brooke
116.55
Preston
682.60
T ucker
564.68
Tyler
116.18
Wyoming
681.41
Clay
563.33
Nicholas
115.92
Taylor
680.22
Mineral
560.85
Clay
115.71
Clay
679.04
Randolph
556.55
Mason
115.68
Upshur
675.32
235


61
Simulations
The terms simulation and/or model have been around
for a long time, with people generally feeling comfortable
using either term for descriptive purpose. But, what do
they mean? When is it appropriate to use the terms?
Initial review of the literature yielded the follow
ing definition of model by Schmatz and Sippl (1972): "A
representation in mathematical terms of a process, device,
or concept" (p. 108), and that a simulation was "Subjecting
man to a complex environment similar to one in which he may
wish to operate so that he may gain a feel of its dynamic
behavior" (p. 163). In a similar manner, the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (1971) defined a
model as "a theoretical description of certain aspects of
real-life process" (p. 17). Fitzpatrick (1962), likewise
defined a simulation as "a working model or represen
tation of a system, and it is assumed that the observation
made can be transferred to the real world to make effec
tive predictions" (pp. 9-10).
The definitions provided that models are the frame
work or representation of a real-life environment, and that
simulations are where experiments and manipulations are
performed within the model. McLeod (1968), Manji (1972),
Cruickshank and Broadbent (1970), and Shubik and Brewer
(1972), as well as many others, appear to be in concert
with the operational definitions.


89
TABLE 3 (continued)
"B"
Arrays
475-483
077-080
RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
Receipts
Federal (1)
Title I (1976) 475
Other (1976) 476
Federal (2)
Forest Reserve (1976) 077
Federal Impact Aid PL874
(1976) 078
EHA VI-B Federal (1977) 079
Vocational Act (1976) 080
Local
Local Regular and Excess
Levies 478
Other Local 479
Expenditures (K-12)
Net Current Expenditures
(1976) 480
Social Security (1976) 481
Teacher Retirement (1976) 482
Other Retirement (1976) 483
Transportation--See
Special Services
Capital Outlay--See
Special Services
Debt Service--See Special
Services
School Food Service--See
Special Services


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The review of related literature is divided into five
major sections. The first reviews the concept of equality
of educational opportunity. The second section reviews the
major litigation that has occurred in regard to fiscal
equality of educational opportunity. The third section
reviews the various state support plans for education. The
fourth section reviews educational practice in West Vir
ginia (historical and current), and the final section
reviews concepts and uses of simulation.
Equality of Educational Opportunity
Since the formation of the United States in 1776, the
concepts of equality and opportunity have been mentioned in
several major policy documents of the nation's beliefs and
goals. In addition, the concepts have been defined and
redefined by many, depending on their point of reference
or interest.
Four examples of the emphasis on equality and oppor
tunity are as follows. First within the Declaration of
Independence is expressed,


65
successful behavior pattern consistent with its charac
teristics" (p. 90).
It is difficult to segregate simulation uses from
simulation advantages. Broadly speaking, simulation allows
for experimentation on a system, or a part of a system, or
problem associated with a system, without directly dealing
with the system (Mize & Cox, 1968, p. 1).
Shubik and Brewer (1972) concluded their analysis
of simulation uses in very much the same manner as Mize
and Cox (1968), but expanded on the situations where
simulations would be most desirable when they stated:
Simulation provides the means for gaining
experience and for making and correcting
errors without incurring the costs or risks
of actual application . they should be
used when (1) it is either impossible or
extremely costly to observe certain processes
in the real world, (2) the observed system is
too complex to be described by a set of mathe
matical equations, (3) no straightforward analyti
cal technique exists for solution of appropriate
mathematical equations, and (4) it is either
impossible or very costly to obtain data for
more complicated mathematical models describing
the system. (pp. 81-82)
Additional advantages cited by various authors
(Shubik, 1964; Tansey & Unwin, 1969; Cruickshank & Broad-
bent, 1970; Carter & Huzan, 1973; and Chapman & Cousins,
1974) include permitting self expression of the learner,
safe, economical, experientially based, trainee controls
results, and relevance. While minimized, some of the
disadvantages cited by these same authors include the fact


97
district from complete equalization. If a district
receives more funds than its full fair share under the
simulated distribution, the district will receive a posi
tive percent of deviation score. The reverse is the case
when less than the districts fair share is received.
Tax progressivity is a calculation contained within
the NEFP simulation model that is also contained in the
West Virginia model. The progressivity measure is based
on two assumptions: (1) the most progressive tax is the
income tax, and (2) all taxes should be compared to the
income tax to measure their progressive or regressive
nature (NEFP, 1971, p. 254).
The progressivity measure was developed by The Tax
Foundation, Inc., and was based on a division of all
families in the United States whose incomes were less
than $5000 a year and those families whose incomes were
more than $5000 a year. A table was then prepared which
compared "the percent of income paid by the lower half
of families for each tax with the percent of income paid
for that tax by the upper half of families" (NEFP, 1971,
p. 255). Ratios were then developed which indicated
individual and corporate income taxes as the "only pro
gressive tax" (NEFP, 1971, p. 266). By arbitrarily as
signing a score of 50 to income taxes, all other taxes


ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
001-028
001
002
003
004
005
006
"CURRENT ALLOCATIONS"
"Allocation for
Professional Educators"
"Allowance for Other
Personnel Part A"
"Allowance for Other
Personnel Part B"
"Allowance for Fixed
Charges"
"Allowance for
Transportation"
"Allowance for Admin
istrative Costs"
Represents current
allocations by the state.
Amount of money required
to pay state minimum
salaries for profes
sional educators.
An amount equal to 6% of
the allowance for profes
sional educators to be
distributed based on the
number of full time bus
drivers.
An amount equal to 14% of
the allowance for profes
sional educators to be
distributed to the
counties in proportion to
adjusted enrollment.
An amount determined by
adding the present Social
Security rate to 2%, then
multiplying this by the
allowances for profes
sional salaries, other
personnel (parts a and b).
An amount determined by
adding 80% of non-salary
expenses, total cost of
insurance of transporta
tion items, 10% of
current replacement value
of the bus fleet, 80% of
contracted transportation
services, and aid pro
vided in lieu of trans
portation.
An amount equal to 1% of
the allowance for profes
sional educators, to be
distributed to the
counties on an equal
basis.
162


126
Pattern I. This pattern was used to demonstrate the
distributional effects of an unweighted foundation program
using data relative to the state of West Virginia. The
pattern consisted of the following decisions:
D105=1
D110=1
D116=1
D 4 0 0 = 1 000
D 4 3 5 = 1
D610=47.5
D611=97.5
. D612=1.96
D613=3.92
D614 = 7.84
Full time equivalency enrollment
Unweighted pupil counts
Special education county by malady
Amount per unit for the basic state
program
Uniform local tax rate plus variable
state grant to support state basic
p ro gram
Uniform local tax rate to be applied on
all nonutility property
Uniform local tax rate to be applied on
al 1 uti1ity property
Local mills required to be levied on
Class I property
Local mills required to be levied on
Class II property
Local mills required to be levied on
Classes III and IV property
This pattern produced a state education program that
would cost over 373.9 million dollars. Due to the fact
that all units (FTE students) were unweighted, each unit
received 1000 dollars each, thus having a zero deviation
from full equalization score for all districts. The total
cost of the state program is presented in Table 8, along
with the appropriate figures reflecting patterns II and
III.
Pattern II. This pattern was used to demonstrate
the distributional effects of an unweighted percentage
equalizing program using data relative to the state of West
Virginia. The pattern consisted of the following decisions


Sid Bookman for his support, help, and wisdom from
birth;
Isabel Bookman, the reason for the researcher being
in education, and an inspiration;
Finally, my wife, Kay, for her continual support,
patience, and tolerance during the preparation of this
study. Without her being there, this might not have been
accomplished.
i i i


100
were adapted within the program decisions section. Within
the program unit area, decisions relative to early child
hood are only designated as including kindergarten, since
that is the current program offered within the state.
Full time equivalency (FTE) is the only enrollment figure
available within the simulation since other enrollment
measures were unavailable in unduplicated counts. The divi
sion of grade-levels was also amended to differentiate
between elementary and secondary only, and decisions rela
tive to program weight for special education and vocational
technical were increased to accommodate the increased
number of options.
Special services and facilities were also modified
to allow for the various classes of property, assessment
rates, and appropriate millages that affect options within
the transportation section and the capital outlay/debt
service section. Consideration of school sparsity was
limited to elementary and secondary classifications
utilized by the NEFP enrollment groups.
Within the distributional decision section, modifi
cation was necessary to again account for the various
classes of property, assessment rates, and appropriate
millages. Similarly, the revenue decision section was
modified for the various classes of property, assessment
rates, and appropriate millages.


16
The only universally accepted criterion of a
public activity is that it affords equal
treatment to equals. With respect to schooling,
this implies that any two children of the same
abilities shall receive equivalent forms of
assistance in developing those abilities, wherever
they live in a given state and whatever their
parent's circumstances are. (p. 62)
Prior to the industrial revolution the concept of
equality of educational opportunity had little or no rele
vance. Children during this time were an integral part of
the family unit and were expected to follow in their fam
ily's interests. The child's education was considered only
important in the aspect of acquiring necessary skills to
further the family's economic and- social unit.
The result of the industrial revolution was that the
family unit underwent a great change. Men began being em
ployed outside the family unit and thus they no longer pro
vided homebound vocational training for the young. Coupled
with the fact that factories required minimum skills, the
need for public education became a concern for the general
populace. But, as Coleman (1968) stated, this concern was
to the exclusion of Indians and Southern blacks and little
was done to encourage the poor. Coleman (1968) had
summarized this post-industri a 1 revolution when he stated:
The history of education since the industrial
revolution shows a continual struggle between 2
forces: the desire by members of society to have
educational opportunity for all children, and the
desire of each family to provide the best educa
tion it can afford for its own children. (p. vii)


225
APPENDIX D Continued
SECTION I: STATE TAX SOURCES FOR
EDUCATION FUND
(Not now available)
Explanation: Stajte tax sources refers to decisions concerning
bases and rates for major tax sources for the state
general fund. Select the source you wish to use
and give a proposed tax rate. (If you select the
Estate, Gift and Other tax source, give a proposed
dollar yield.)
Based on the major tax sources currently being used
in the state, the state general fund is $668,453,438
(1975-76).
Note: In Set II Section I (Basic State Program)
if you select alternative C (Percentage of state
general fund), you must complete this page. The
percentage is based on the amount of the state
general fund determined in this Section.
PRESENT
PROPOSED
BASE
RATE
RATE
Property
Assessment: Percent of
Appraised Value
Non-Utility
. 1
%
660
Uti1ity
. %
%
Rates
661
Class 1
mills
662
Class 2
mills
663
Class 3 & 4
mills
664
Personal Income
%
601
Corporate Income
%
602
Sales & Gross Receipts
%
603
Estate, Gift & Other
$
604


APPENDIX B Continued
ARRAY
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
460-471
"ADDITIONAL MODIFYING
FACTORS"
460
"Cost of Living"
Total expenditures re
quired to provide the
necessities of life for a
family in the school
district.
470
"Achievement below
25 Percentile"
Number of pupils in the
school district that
score below the 25th
percentile on achieve
ment tests.
475-483
"RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURES" (Part I)
475
"Receipts, Fed. Title 1
1976"
Total amount of Title 1
funds received by the
school district from the
federal government.
476
"Receipts, Fed. Other
1976"
Total amount of funds,
except Title I, federal
forest reserve, impact
aid, and Vocational Act
of 1968 (Bl, B4A, B4B,
B6, and B7) received by
the school district from
the federal government.
478
"Receipts, Local REG
& EXCESS"
Total amount of funds
received from the local
tax sources by the
school district.
479
"Receipts, Other Local"
Total amount of funds
from other local sources,
except local tax receipts
received by the school
district.


194
APPENDIX
C950
C955
C960
C965
C967
C970
C971
C Continued
NEC, Social Security, Teacher Retirement, Other, and
Transportation
The sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement expendi
tures, other (C940), and transportation actual costs (B364).
NCE, Social Security, Teacher Retirement, Other, and
Transportation Dollars Per Pupil
Sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement, other, and
transportation expenditures (C950) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Total Current Expenditure (TCE)
The sum of NCE, social security, teacher retirement, other,
and transportation expenditures (C950) and school food
service actual costs (C373).
Total Current Expenditures Dollars Per Pupil
Total current expenditures (C960) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Tax Progressivity
A score computed by weighting the dollar yield of each of the
local and state taxes by its corresponding progressivity
weight to arrive at a progressivity score reflecting the
district's tax progressivity under the inputted revenue
source decisions. (For further detail, see Volume 5, Chapter
9, of the NEFP project findings.)
Deviation From FulV Equalization
A percent deviation showing a comparison of the district's
total state program (C840) under the inputted formula to a
program where the total state and local, dollars (sum C840)
are allocated on a flat allocation program unit basis (C600).
Thus if the percent deviation is positive, this indicates the
district would do better under the inputted formula than if
all dollars were allocated on the flat allocation per program
unit basis (C600).
Current Formula Basic Program State Dollars
Total state dollars allocated to the districts which includes
Allocation For Professional Educators (B001), Allowance For
Other Personnel Part B (B003), Allowance For Fixed Charges


30
was brought to an end when the U.S. Supreme Court made
their decision in San Antonio Independent School District
v. Rodriquez (411 US 1, 1973, 337 F.Supp. 280, 93 S.Ct.1278
U.S. Supreme Court, 1973). In this now famous decision, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that financial plans that produced
differences in educational opportunities among school
districts did not violate the Constitutional provision of
equal protection.
The Court, in its conclusion, stated first that the
Constitution makes no provision for education; therefore,
it is not a fundamental right, and the strict scrutiny
test (Serrano) does not apply. Secondly, the appellees
were unable to prove that poor people lived in poor dis
tricts and thus no class per se was being discriminated
against--since a "class of disadvantaged 'poor' cannot be
defined in customary equal protection terms" (411 US 19).
Echoing previous decisions, Justice Powell restated the
doctrine that the solution to the problem is with the law
makers, not the courts (San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 1 973, at
1348).
Some have considered a fourth generation of equali
zation cases to be those based on Civil Rights actions
(Lau v. Nichols, 1974, 94 S.Ct. 786) and challenges to
state constitutional provisions. The latter seems espe
cially valid in light of the fact, most, if not all state


195
APPENDIX C Continued
C972
C974
C975
C977
C978
C979
C980
(B004), Allowance For Administrative Costs (B006), Allowance
For Other Current Expenses (B008), General School Fund
Distribution (B009), Incentive For Program Improvement (B011),
Supplemental Early Childhood Aides (BO 12), Supplemental
Teacher's Salaries (B013), Supplemental Service and Auxiliary
Service Salaries (B014), State Aid For Increased Enrollment
(B016), Special Education Out Of Formula Grants (BO17),
Special Education Out Of Formula Allocation For Homebound
Instruction (B018), Additional Special Education Out Of
Formula Grants (B019), Vocational Day School (B023), and
Vocational Act Of 1968 State Allocations (B026).
Current Formula Basic
The basic state dollars
divided by total pupils
Current Formula Basic
The basic local dollars
(B010).
Program State Dollars Per Pupil
under the current formula (C971)
(C500).
Program Local Dollars
required under the current formula
Current Formula Basic Program Local Dollars Per Pupil
The basic local dollars required under the current formula
(B010) divided by total pupils (C500).
Current Formula Transportation Dollars
The basic state dollars under the current formula for trans
portation (B002-B005).
Current Formula Transportation Dollars Per Transported
Pupil
The basic state dollars under the current formula for trans
portation (C977) divided by number of transported students
(B361).
Current Formula Capital Outlay Dollars (Approved)
The basic state dollars approved for capital outlay expendi
tures (B365).
Current Formula Capital Outlay Dollars (Approved) Per Pupil
The basic state dollars approved for capital outlay expendi
tures (B365) divided by total pupils (C500).


36
state and federal support. Prior to the analysis of these
plans a brief historical perspective on state funding and
the early theorists will be discussed.
Prior to the formation of the United States, educa
tion had been considered a colonial state function. The
Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1642 and 1647 through court
decisions and the Deluder Satan Act established that parents
must provide for the education of their children, and that
if a town consisted of 50 families or more, a teacher must
be provided. This early attempt by the colonists was later
modified into what was known as "The New England Plan."
The ideas of compulsory attendance, local control and
local support of education were encompassed within this
plan.
The Constitution of the United States is silent with
regard to education. Due to this omission, whether inten
tional or not, education thus became a state function accord
ing to the Tenth Amendment since any power not expressly
mentioned within the document would reside with the states.
Most states during the nineteenth century assumed
res pons ibi 1ity for public education by "authorizing the
levy of local school taxes for the support of the public
schools" based on a school census with little concern for
equality of educational opportunity or a minimum educational
program for all children (Johns, Alexander, & Jordan,


51
Some of the provisions which alter the financial
plans are minimums, save harmless provisions, definitions,
et cetera. A minimum is a prescribed amount a district
receives, and can be a flat grant regardless of another
equalization provision, or the amount might be stated as
a minimum each district receives (floor). Save harmless
provisions guarantee districts that new provisions of the
financial plan, or a new financial plan will not reduce
allocations to the district from prior years. Definitions,
specifically for enrollment, are essential factors in any
financial plan, and can account for wide discrepancies
in amounts received.
Total State and Federal Support is only in evidence
in the State of Hawaii. Under this plan, units of need
determine the revenue allocation, with local ability not
considered. In defense of full state funding the National
Educational Finance Project showed a positive correlation
between the proportion of state revenue and the degree of
equalization (Johns & Salmon, 1971, p. 137). This also
supports the opinion of many, including Johns and Salmon
(1971), that greater financial equalization is achieved
when the state assumes responsibility for funding (p. 138).
The various states are funding education as they see
fit, exercising their States-rights guarantee. But an
important comment from the President's Commission on


244
Pearson, J.B., & Fuller, E. (Eds.)- Education in the
states: Historical development and outlook. Wash
ington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969.
Pierce, L., Garmes, W., Guthrie, J., & Kirst, M.W. State
school finance alternatives. Eugene, Oregon: Center
for Education and Management, 1975.
Presidents Commission on School Finance. Schools, people,
and money: The need for educational reform. Washing
ton, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office,
1 972.
Reagan, D. Simulation of biological processes. American
Biology Teacher, 1 9 74 _36 554- 556.
Rossmiller, R.A., Hale, J.A., & Frohreich, L.E. Educa
tional programs for exceptional children. Madison,
Wise.: University of Wisconsin, 1970.

Schmatz, L.C., & Sippl, C.J. Computer glossary for stu-
dents and teachers. New York: Funk and Wagnalls,
1 972.
Schultz, T.W. The human capital approach to education.
In R.L. Johns, I.J. Goffman, K.Alexander, & D.H.
Stollar (Eds.), Economic factors affecting the financ
ing of education (Vol. 2Gainesville, Fla.:
National Education Finance Project, 1970.
Shubi k, M. Game theory, and related approaches to social
behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
Shubik, M., & Brewer, G. Models, simulation and games:
A survey. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corpora
tion, 1972 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 073 687).
Smith, A. The wealth of nations. New York: P.F. Collier
and Sons, 1905.
Stocton, J.R. Simulation training for small business
executive development. Austin, Texas: University
of Texas Bureau of Business Research, 1973.
Strayer, G.D., & Haig, R.M. The financing of education
in the state of New York. New York: Macmillan
Company, 1923.


190
APPENDIX
C808
C810
C815
C818
C820
C825
C828
C830
C835
C Continued
Special Services and Facilities Local Dollars Per Unit
The special services and facilities local dollars (C800)
divided by total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Local Leeway Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from
levying local leeway taxes. The options for the distribution
methods involving the leeway taxes are computed in SC05 and
C860 (AGI).
Local Leeway Dollars Per Pupil
The local leeway dollars (C810) divided by total pupils
(C500).
Local Leeway Dollars Per Unit
The local leeway dollars (C810)'divided by total program
units (C600+C640+C650).
Total Local Program Local Dollars
The sum of the local dollars for the basic state program
(C790), special services and facilities (C800), and local
leeway (C820).
Total Local Program Local Dollars Per Pupil
The total local program local dollars (C820) divided by
total pupils (C500).
Total Local Program Local Dollars Per Unit
The total local program local dollars (C820) divided by
total program units (C600+C640+C650).
Basic State Program Total Dollars
A fiscal allotment for local educational agencies from state
and local revenue sources excluding allotments for special
services and facilities', modifying factors or incentive
programs (C740+C790).
Basic State Program Total Dollars Per Pupil
The basic state program total dollars (C830) divided by
total pupils (C500).


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
CL /J-t 'James A. Hale, Chairman
'-^Hjrs-sociate Professor of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
'ern Alexander
Professor of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
vtida Crocker
Assistant Professor of Education
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Educational Administration and Super
vision in the College of Education and to the Graduate
Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August' 1977
Dean, Graduate School


85
TABLE 3
Basic Data Code Sheet
"B"
Arrays
001-128 CURRENT ALLOCATIONS
State Local
Allocation for Professional Educators 001
Allocation for Other Personnel--Part A 002
A1locationfor Other Personnel--Part B 003
Allowance for Fixed Charges 004
Allowance for Transportation 005
Allowance for Administrative Costs 006
Allowance for Other Current Expenses 007
Allowance for National Average Attainment 008
General School Fund Distribution 009
Local Share 010
Incentive for Program Improvement Oil
Supplemental Early Childhood Aides 012
Supplemental Teachers' Salaries 013
Supplemental Service and Auxilliary Salaries 014
Supplemental Aid for Children's Homes 015
State Aid for Increased Enrollment 016
Special Education Allocation--0ut of
Formula Grants 017
Special Education Allocation--0ut of
Formula Homebound Instruction 018
Special Education A1location--0ut of
Formula Additional Grants 019
Special Education Allocation--0ut of
Formula Aid to RESA 020
State Aid to RESA 021
Teacher Education Centers 022
Vocational Day School (1976) 023
Vocational Adult Education (1976) 024
Area Vocational Programs (1976) 025
Vocational Act of 1968--State (1976) 026
West Virginia Social Security Work
Incentive (1976) 027
Other State Revenue (1976) 028


52
School Finance (1972) should bear final witness to the
success of state plans:
The financial problems of education derive largely
from the evolving inabilities of the States to
create and maintain systems that provide equal
educational opportunity and equality education
to all their children. Having made that observa
tion, we hasten to state that we are not assigning
blame, but are rather attempting to locate the
points where reforms must be achieved. Efforts by
the States over the years to eliminate or at least
reduce disparities in the delivery of educational
resources have simply not kept pace with needs
that have grown beyond the abilities of the States
to fulfi 11 them. (p. x )
Educational Finance in West Virginia
Historical
Due to sparsity of population, and prior control by
Virginia, when West Virginia became a state in 1863, only
3 counties had free district schools. Two years following
statehood,27 counties were servicing 16,000 students,
and five years subsequent, 1756 schools existed with 1810
teachers (Department of Education, 1973, p. 1).
The state constitution was ratified in 1863, and pro
visions were made for a "thorough and efficient" free
school systern,creation for an investment fund to finance
the free schools, provision for county school superintend
ents, and an elected general state superintendent of free
schools. The state superintendent was subsequently made