APPENDIX 4 CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL FINANCE Thank you for allowing us to examine H.B. 1138. Bearing in mind that you need a quick reaction rather than an extensive analysis, we have elected to reply to you in the format of a long letter with a number of references rather than a more formal report. If you wish to come back to us later for more commentary, please feel free to do so. We also wish you to understand that you may quote in part or in whole from this letter in support of H.B. 1138. We are transmitting a copy of this letter to Representative Paul Simon, Representative from the Twenty-fourth District of Illinois, who has worked with the Director and the Co-Director of this Center on a number of aspects of educational finance reform in Illinois. We are strongly supportive of the central purpose of this bill as indeed we have been of other proposed pieces of federal legislation which would assist the states in the equalization of educational opportunity within their boundaries.(1) As you well know, the courts of many of the states are now in the process of 97-782 O-77-27 CEF CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL FINANCE Phone 309/438-3636 Illinois State University -2 331 DeGarmo Hall. Normal, Illinois 61761 debating just how far their state funding systems must go to meet the requirements of both the equal protection clauses, and the education clauses in the various state constitutions. (2) We agree wholeheartedly with Representative Carl D. Perkins that the federal government has at least some responsibility in helping the states live up to the standards of their own constitutions. Furthermore, we have argued elsewhere that, regardless of the outcome of the current wave of school finance litigation, there are even more basic sociological, political, and economic reasons why the state governments should attempt to equalize education opportunity within their own boundaries. (3) However, while we are thus strongly supportive of the intent of the proposed legislation, we do have an obligation to try to tighten up some of the language of the proposed law or to at least point out problems which might emerge in both the administration of the law and the adjudication of the law. The balance of this letter contains criticisms directed to that end, but it should be very clearly understood these are intended only to be constructive criticisms. Most of our criticism is directed toward subsection (b) of Section #204. We find the phrase "quality of education" to be subject to many, many possible interpretations by professional CFF CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL FINANCE Illinois State University Phone 309/438-3636 -3 331 DeGarmo Hall. Normal, Illinois 61761 educators. As such it would be extremely difficult to use a criterion such as this to judge a state plan submitted to the Commissioner, or, for that matter, for the courts to use a criterion of this nature in the adjudication of the act. This phrase, like many other higher-level generalizations in education, may unfortunately be neither measureable or justiciable. We would suggest that the phrase "quality of education" be removed and the phrase, "expenditure per pupil defined in subsection (b) part (2)" be inserted in its place. To be sure, this does not remove all problems of definition. The words, "cannot be the result of," are very difficult to work into an operational definition or a mathematical formulation that could be easily used by the Commissioner, or by anyone else. We would suggest that the phrase, "cannot be a function of" is much easier to handle from a measurement or mathematical point of view. The word "function" has a specific meaning in statistics and mathematics and can be used to evaluate equity situations in the several states. For a discussion of these measurement problems as they relate to the concept of "wealth neutrality" or "fiscal neutrality" please see the studies the Center has done of school finance systems in Illinois, Michigan, Kansas, and Ohio. (4) There will also be definitional problems connected with *State of New Mexico. Department of Finance and Administration, Statistics: Public School Districts, 1973-74. Coefficient of variation. TABLE N-7 NEW MEXICO SCHOOL DISTRICTS: AVERAGE ASSESSED VALUATION 1972 PER ADM FY 1974 *State of New Mexico, Department of Finance and Administration, Statistics: Public School Districts, 1973-74. **Coefficient of variation. TABLE U-1 UTAH SCHOOL DISTRICTS: STATE AND LOCAL CURRENT REVENUES PER ADA FY 1974 ⚫State of Utah, State Board of Education, Annual Estimated Minimum School Report of Utah School Districts, 1972-73, 1973-74. **Coefficient of variation. TABLE U-2 UTAH SCHOOL DISTRICTS: STATE AND LOCAL CURRENT REVENUES PER ADA FY 1973 AND FY 1974 *State of Utah, State Board of Education, Annual Estimated Minimum School Report of Utah School Districts, 1972-73, 1973-74. Includes during 197273: Total local and state contributions, basic board and ruled programs, net of state-supported basic program transportation. Includes during 197374: Total local-state amounts, estimated basic and voted state-supported programs. **Coefficient of variation. TABLE U-3 UTAH SCHOOL DISTRICTS: STATE BASIC AID NET OF TRANSPORTATION AID PER ADA FY 1974 *State of Utah, State Board of Education, Annual Estimated Minimum School Report of Utah School Districts, 1972-73, 1973-74. **Coefficient of variation. TABLE U-4 UTAH SCHOOL DISTRICTS: STATE BASIC AID NET OF TRANSPORTATION AID PER ADA FY 1973 AND FY 1974 BY DECILE OF AVERAGE ASSESSED VALUATION 1974 PER ADA FY 1974 Total 0 to 10% 11 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 75 76 to 90 91 to 100 *State of Utah, State Board of Education, Annual Estimated Minimum School Reports of Utah School Districts, 1972-73, 1973-74. **Coefficient of variation. |