The Library of Congress Congressional Research Service Washington, D.C. 20540 October 21, 1977 Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education Attention: Jack Jennings Education and Public Welfare Division Supplementary Materials for the Hearing Record of The following material is submitted in response to the request of Chairman Perkins during the hearings on September 29, 1977. Ranges in Expenditures Per Pupil Among School Districts Criteria for identifying "school finance reform States" have not been well defined, but most lists prepared by various school finance research groups have included the States listed in the following table. The highest expenditure refers to highest expenditure per pupil amount among the State's local school districts and the lowest expenditure to the lowest amount among the State's school districts. All districts have been included so that the extremes may be observed. Caution should be exercised in making comparisons of expenditure levels among the States because methods of counting pupils and classifying expenditures vary significantly among the States. CRS-2 Range in 1975-76 Expenditures Per Pupil for Current Operations Source: Telephone Survey of State Educational Agencies in the indicated States. Various reasons may be advanced to explain the range in the ratios among the States, but the contributing factors will differ with each State. In some instances the reason may be related to the geographical CRS-3 and population density characteristics of the State, and in others to the prevailing political philosophy as it pertains to local decision options and State control. In the following discussion brief information is provided about this group of States. In Colorado the State school support program provides additional funds to small school districts and also allocates State funds on the basis of the level of effort being exerted in each local school district. The pattern of reward for effort also exists in Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio, and Wisconsin. Among those States the lowest ratio was 2.17-1 and the highest was 4.72-1. In the other States the base level of support had been prescribed in the legislation, with local school districts being permitted to make additional effort at their discretion. For this latter group of States the lowest ratio was 1.47-1 and the highest was 4.47-1. Illinois and Arizona both have elementary (K-8), high school (9-12), and unit (K-12) school districts, and the expenditure ranges have been provided for each type of school district. Montana has elementary and high school districts. The range in ratios for all Illinois school districts shown in another portion of these hearings was based on weighted adjustments for type of pupil and was higher than any of the ranges for each of three types; this is attributable to the fact that the highest expenditure district was a high school school district and the lowest was an elementary school district. K. Forbis Jordan Chairman PERKINS. Speaking as an expert in this field, what kind of Federal actions could help States to equalize in your judgment? What kind of legislation should we enact to help States to equalize? Mr. JORDAN. There are different kinds of options that are reasonable for the Congress to consider. It depends to one extent upon whether or not the desire is to equalize spending within or among States, which is a policy issue and I could speak to the various ramifications of it, but not necesarily make a recommendation. In view of the diversity which one finds in the current financing programs among States, there is a basic question as to whether or not it is feasible for the Congress to enact a technically-sound equalization program from this level. In essence, one of the options is to establish a set of criteria and then let the States address that criteria in view of their current state of evolution on equalization. With that set of criteria, each State could present a State plan that would help address the issue-would help them move forward in equalization. The problem with equalization is that it is a goal which is virtually never attainable because there is not a pure definition for the term. Chairman PERKINS. What criteria would you recommend, or suggest? Mr. JORDAN. One criterion would be related to the fiscal disparity which is currently in the impact aid regulations, that would be one alternative. You also have the issue, the interaction between the congressional interest and the State interest, as to what the public policy position is of the State. If the State's desire is to bring all districts up to an equalization level, the expenditure disparity issue is one that is reasonable and sound. If the State's desire is to recognize the difference in levels of aspiration and effort among States, then you move to the wealth disparity test currently in the impact aid regulations. So the mixture of those two is desired, rather than an arbitrary choice of one or the other. If we talk about the blend of congressional and State interests in addressing the issue, the arbitrary choice of one or the other will cause conflicts between those levels of government. Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead. Mr. JORDAN. I have concluded my statement, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the opportunity to testify. Mr. QUIE. I want to ask a couple of questions before we go on to the next witness. I appreciate the questions that you raised on equalization, beginning on page 4, because I notice in subsequent testimony that in my own State of Minnesota there has been an increase in the dispari ties rather than a decrease since they changed the law. I also note that one school district which has severe financial trouble, was once a "lighthouse" school district and attracted teachers because they had extremely high pay in relation to other school districts. Right now all of the teachers virtually are up at that highest level and other schools have younger teachers. I don't necessarily feel that the teacher's training is better in that one school because they have older teachers who are at the highest level on the payroll. Maybe some of the younger teachers have learned some skills that have enabled them to do well also. A number of the factors, coupled with the things that you have raised, such as the expectations that the parents might have, the type of students, if they have a high number of handicapped or those with other problems have to be considered. Have you seen any formula which can take all of those variables into consideration and come up then from that formula with the conclusion that we have equality of educational opportunity in the States? Mr. JORDAN. There have been formulas that have been identified that address two kinds of issues. One of the issues is that aspiration level which you talked about. The other issue is whether or not the State recognizes that it has a responsibility to assure an adequate level of funding for all children in the State. If you take the pure district power equalizing concept; then, in essence, the total range of decisions about level of funding will be left to the aspiration level in the community. If you blend the two together and provide for an assurance of an adequate level of funding, this is somewhat like some of the proposals that came out of California early, and a three-stage level of funding. The first level is what might be called the traditional foundation program in which there is a uniform tax rate in which everyone must participate. The second level is a guaranteed tax base type operation in the district, an equalizing or guaranteed yield approach as in Wisconsin. On top of the base, you have permission to levy a certain amount and the State participates in that effort; for every mill or every dollar the State guarantees you X amount. Then the third level in the original California proposal, a local leeway, was unequalized as a third tier. The problem with the third tier is it contributes to greater disequalization. But the second tier meets the test of fiscal neutrality in terms of the allocation of funds, which is one of the kinds of measures that can be used. The first one is where, in essence, you address the adequacy of the level in_assuring that all districts have an adequate level of funding. To digress for a moment, in the early 1970s I had an opportunity to look at data from the State of Louisiana to illustrate the adequacy problem. In the richest parish there was a funding level of $400 a child that year. On an interval, in the second richest parish there was a funding level of $1,000 per child. So the pure incidence of wealth doesn't necessarily mean people are going to provide an adequate level of funding for the children in the community. In this instance it was a peculiarity in which, in essence, there was a local and State abdication of responsiblity. Mr. QUIE. Thank you. Mr. MOTTL. Next we will hear from Dr. Alan Ginsburg, director of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health Education, and Welfare. 97-782 O 77-13 |