which is still unique in State aid programs.

District wealth differences were

minimized by placing a rigid lid on the amount of leeway dollars that could be raised locally which were limited to 1.707 mills, following a series of changes in the law.

As a result of the additional funds made available for education, Florida's mean expenditures rose from $776 or 90.4 percent of the national average in 1970-71 to $1,381 or 99.4 percent of the national average in 1975-76. Interestingly enough, the State's share of the available revenues including Federal revenues for education fell slightly from 56.0 percent in 1970-71 to an estimated 54.6 percent in 1975-76. Indeed, the data indicate that the (relatively) higher level of funding was due to increased local contributions to the foundation program. In 1971-72 the locally required millage levy was 4.5 mills. Under the new program in 1975-76, this requirement had risen to 6.2931 mills. This increased chargeback required the districts to finance a larger share of the foundation program. Despite this increased local financial contribution, the State still provides more funds than the national mean State contribution. (See Table I). The State's improved equalization position probably stems from the local leeway millage rate lid currently in effect.

The growth in expenditures among districts varied inversely with district wealth which is further evidence of Florida's progress towards equalization. When comparisons are made by urban type, it becomes clear that there were no losers in the State. Expenditures grew only slightly faster in the SMSAs cities than elsewhere.

Illinois was one of the first States to enact a guaranteed yield program, known as the Resource Equalizer. However, school districts retained as an option applying for State aid under the existing foundation program. Under the foundation aid option, the guarantee level of $520 was retained. In addition, minimum aid of $60 per elementary pupil and $75 per high school pupils were guaranteed under either aid option. The new formula provides a pupil weighting of .45 for Title I eligible pupils. Under the guaranteed yield program, the State guarantees a tax bases of $42,000 for K-12 districts for levies up to 30 mills, a tax base of $64,615 with a rate limit of 19.5 mills for K-8 districts and up to 10.5 mills on a tax base of $120,000 for

9-12 districts. A phase-in feature restricts the growth in State aid to any school district to 25 percent of its prior year aid irrespective of its calculated entitlement. In effect, the State guaranteed a maximum of $1,260 per pupil while average expenditures amounted to $1,452 in 1975-76. This new Resource Equalizer program is more advantages for most districts, and nearly 900 of the over 1,200 districts utilize this approach.

The new resource equalizer program managed to reduce expenditure disparities existing in the State between 1970 and 1975. At the same time a sharp increase in State revenues for education occurred rising from 38.2 percent to 46.2 percent. This suggest that substantial property tax relief probably occurred in the low wealth districts under the resource equalizer program. The Title I weighting added substantially to State resources going to Chicago, where between the fall of 1971 and 1975 current expenditures rose from $1,240 to $1,941 per ada. This latter figure is nearly $500 above the State average expenditure of $1,452 per ada. The minimum aid guarantee along with local leeway tax options with no recapture provisions are other features which tend to perpetuate expenditure disparities under the Illinois school finance plan.

Between 1970-71 and 1975-76 per pupil expenditures as a percent of mean national expenditures declined from 109.2 percent to 104.6 percent. In current dollars, the change was from $937 to $1,452.

School resources in low wealth districts grew at a faster pace than they did for medium wealth districts. Highest wealth districts registered the lowest growth. This suggests that the lowest wealth districts benefitted the most from the new State aid program. When districts are compared by urban type, changes in expenditures where fairly consistent throughout.

Indiana adopted a school finance plan in 1975 which introduced a series of pupil weights for program cost differentials for special and vocational education and a modest weight of .2 for compensatory education. For 1975-76, the foundation aid formula guarantee was set at $690. Average current expenditures were $1,160 in that year, and required substantial local expenditures. The State sought to lessen

reliance on local property taxes by freezing the local levies to the lesser of a district's normal levy or 30 mills on the 1974-75 adjusted assessed valuation in each district.

With its new law, Indiana succeeded both in reducing somewhat expenditure disparities and providing some property tax relief as evidenced by the growth in the State share of school revenues, estimated at 32.5 percent in 1970-71 and at 40.6 percent in 1975-76. At the same time, average per pupil expenditures lagged further behind mean national expenditures. In 1970-71, these were $770 or 89.7 of the mean national average of $858; by 1975-76, the State mean expenditure of $1,160 amounted to 83.5 percent of the national average of $1,388. It appears likely than that the equalization goals and local property tax relief were achieved in part by restricting the aggregate growth in education expenditures.

The relative change in resources lagged only for medium wealth districts, when the change in resources are compared among school districts. High wealth districts maintained a slight edge. The rigid levy controls may have worked to the disadvantage of medium wealth school districts whose levies were probably frozen at lower levels than high wealth districts. When districts are classified by urban types, the relative change in revenues were not pronounced.

Iowa is engaged in a long-term restructuring of the financing of its public schools aimed at achieving State participation equal to 80 percent of the Statewide average cost by 1982. In 1975-76, the State foundation aid guarantee was set at $857 which equalled 73 percent of the State cost per pupil of $1,174. The State foundation guarantee rises each year by one percent of the State average cost as determined by the State comptroller. Each district's allowable annual budget growth is restricted to a percentage increase specified by the State. (For districts spending below the State average cost, the allowable growth is subject to further limitations). A minimum State aid level guarantees to each district $200 per pupil.

Iowa improved its equalization position by annually raising its foundation dollar guarantee thereby enabling those low-spending districts which are poor to both increase their expenditures and to rely more heavily on State resources. A budget

lid, equal to 5 percent of the State's average cost per pupil in 1975-76 placed an upper limit to big spending districts. This lid was restrictive enough to curb the growth in expenditures, for Iowa's per pupil expenditures have declined from 110.0 percent of the mean national average, in 1970-71 to 104.8 percent in 1975-76. The resulting growth in State participation is apparent by figures revealing percentage growth in State revenues for education from 29.2 percent to 38.0 percent between 1970-71 and 1975-76. This relative growth in State revenues suggests that substantial property relief has occurred.

The relative growth in resources of low wealth districts lagged behind other districts and may be due to a provision in the program which restricts historically low spending districts to a smaller percentage growth in expenditures. (This assumes that the low-wealth districts were also the small spenders). Center SMSA cities also experienced a lesser growth in expenditures than did other districts.

Kansas enacted a new school finance program in 1973 in response to the State court ruling in Caldwell v. Kansas declaring the existing program unconstitutional. The new program guarantees a budget for each district which is based on the district's enrollment size, its current budget and its local tax effort. A budget limit is in effect which limits a district budget growth to 10 percent of the median budget for its enrollment category. Districts spending below the median may increase their budget as much as 15 percent over the prior year up to the median budget expenditure. As a result, each district has a distinct guaranteed budget level and the State share of this budget varies by district wealth and the local tax effort. Kansas is one of the few States which includes income in calculating local wealth.

Kansas managed to reduce expenditure disparities under this program and assume a greater burden of the cost of education. The State share of school revenues rose from 31.2 percent in 1970-71 to 43.8 percent in 1975-76. This sharp rise in State revenues provided tax relief for low wealth districts. Equally dramatic was the growth in average per pupil expenditures which went from $771 to $1,475 during this same period, or from 89.8 percent of the mean national average to 106.2 percent in the later year.

During this period, the changes in resources in the high wealth districts lagged behind all others and may be attributed primarily to the provison limiting district budget growth which is more restrictive for big spending districts. Expenditures grew fastest in SMSA cities when districts were compared by urban type.

Maine enacted legislation which was designed primarily to lessen reliance on local property taxes by increasing the State's share for financing public schools. The law explicitly alters the mix of taxes for public school support, ie. local property taxes and State sales and income taxes. In 1971-72, the State was committed to paying one third of the school costs; under the new law State revenues were to cover 50 percent of costs in 1975-76. A statewide property tax was enacted which provides the balance of taxes due. Maine is one of three States which have statewide property taxes for education. School property taxes which were previously retained by the districts are now transferred to the State. In turn, the State forwarded to each district its entitlement of $694 for elementary pupils and $1,078 for high school pupils under the 1975-76 guarantee level. Additional allocations were paid to districts the amount of which varied with the amount spent by districts in the 1973-74 base year.

A 2% mill lid on optional local leeway dollars guaranteed $125 per pupil. In addition, districts spending below the State average are allowed to raise additional local dollars up to the State average.

Maine did not enhance its equalization measures with its new program. The intricate hold harmless guarantees undoubtedly help perpetuate disparities. By increasing the State share of the cost less reliance was placed on property taxes resulting in some property tax relief. At the same time, Maine's average per pupil expenditures slipped from 88.9 percent of national average, $763 in 1970-71 to 86.2 percent in 1975-76 when they stood at $1,197 and the national mean was $1,388. Meanwhile, the State share of education revenues rose from 31.9 percent to 44.6 percent.

In the five-year period, school resources grew the most in low wealth districts and the least in high wealth districts. Additional equalized State revenues as well as