rsity M ic rofilm s. A XEROX C o m p a n y , A n n A rbor, M i c h i g a n © Neil Thornes ALL 1971 Winebrenner FIGHTS RESERVED k ■; iih !■x ix'nox•!■ a ’!i> kxtk:;t ui /■i, ■-vk^'"-!vn-:.)]-:ri iu m i c h iham '11*■!■:1>■r111<•r• . ’' - t. i t . . ■. j \ ''i ■!j1ir'111 .'1■a t *■ '!ri5 v f ■r■:’ >It. v n i i:■1 i ; I fulfill pi*■11f 'if 1.hi'? t’oq u i r*1rm ui t r> fo r‘ f h* ■ '1' p r*f">'j o f 1 'if"i 1ji'l '-V -1 ■■;i'' :w ■111 !■: m f :AT I' >11 IvIj m c a t i uij 'f A d ”!1n.l nt- rat. 1on 'ind H 1 frh<* r Kduca ion A K'.TRACT A CTURY >p T H E E Z I b T K N C E A N U E X T E N T MCI JIC I 1'A Ij 1>VER-bURRRIJ rN M I C H I G A N OF Ry ’J* ■1 1 T . W1 n- ‘b r i ' n n c r r i\>b N_*m Tpe t >iJ'T)'J.■'■:■ -O' t h 1s s t u d y '■/I '■ it <-f nun 1 r ij a 1 o vi ■r*-b u rde n n o , arj'i ) M i■■h i ,r iti .’t t•r> -f. a-t. I•.n re due In \r that in l'-ss s u p p o r t tha n In o t h e r Ct, u d l ‘*s o f iii P e n n s y l v a n i a Pennsylvania, by tion with We l f a r e . the kinds this the Pels and Education U. M, was a t otal of in at an Inordinate leavlnp mil lape rov- rate t.he schools equal or districts. the 107 have been o f the done of o u r previously University Educational Stanford largest University Research cities in Education the this to a p p l y study of and by coopera­ of H e a l t h , of Muni c- war, C . Department Intent, the non-school consume Institute by study, when r e v e n u e s , thus, phenomenon irj M i n n e s o t a he ve !op merit. C o u n c i l , of from e l ties 17 o f the cit — eve r - b u r d e n . p u r p o s e s of this Ia rpe examine* Ml o h l ^ a n 1 .-A! J A ' 1 on ■!' p r*. a •rt.y tax lai'pa1 t h a n An e f f e'* t.a of beet Ion >• f t im* ■n t a 1 f u n ':t i'a is ."chool selected 1 h" ph* 'ii' »rnerionthat, f x 1 ate, ■i< f 1n*"J us t he In 1) to **xarn 1re* the ipa I f■v •r-L a r*■-1»-n , I'ur the wit h Wf-r'1: a nd similar Hr i I ■ i• i - i ■: ■i ' [ i i ,rr. i ’ i 1 i •- • ■u ! i I 11 r - 1 i ■i r "■■ ■- M l i ' : ' . t- - m! 'i Im - d o u 1 <1U i “ ii t ‘r Mi l ' ■1 1j - *v *• T . I n Ml ■■til >rrtti w i t h ] bn i-nmpa r e d WI i i i ' l i f f ' i mi ■r* t hi n with r<1r u 1 t t h a t that .' t. n *1 i m ’ . M-d hi od :r '' ' i :i , ; ; ■’ ■1 • . ■ a n 'n * . ■i , ; i .* 1 h ■■: r ! i ■' n a n 1 ■■ i pa i f a-’ ! •, ‘ :i■ i I'/' ’ i ■■b I i r'111 •f ’ ‘ •a 1 *ip a 1 ’ a/ ■ . t -|<■r r 'i . I t n ’- r • t* a • ' ' v 1 n i ■i f • • 1t ■: 1 r i■'iirra - t a x ia by 'hr " ,'.f t.hin of <* x 1 r. t n n e o a i . t r i -; t a , fax data a i d i t. 1 o n for thin ex ir- form ula ura* l*’e 1 r> s t u d y . an a l i i I t, 1 o n a 1 or; r-* ■f n r r e <1 ' o atov" to ta l tax m unicipal 19 67 net w i t. hi ur.ed i' ! b y ’ for wan mrf r n - t li'' than of f- ’ t, r d , a formula *f fUa* t tv a -mu 1 a a I ri ■1n 1 l a n t. e d . h o t hi t he * 1. a x , t .aa F- l u' *a t i o i l f o r In 1 !11 exam ined a m i t. hm if,,, ■t: a p a r t , :m Imr, r n 1 1 r a n i t. , ’ t f x t'.t. iininr ->f > 1 11 be wo r e A*t , i-■ t . ■ r*r- ] ,. l’i ■ i >■i . - r a f i l n n - . ■i 1:: t t• \ ■t, t a x -non I -'I' t u i • •n t r 1 .a - - . f i t . - a ; w.h i e h t i a I' 'i • i ‘ ■- 1 :■ --1 ■-■i ■• a ■ 11 i•'• i 1 d i r t f h - t . r . - »h-- i 1a .-i- 11 7 ■■■; ’ h i t i -. I i t - i n r ; n ! i ! . ' ! r a 1 ■< •1. 1 tj (.n TM- ■ rnm< a i1 1:• au •h that i ' f, pl/tx d o 1 1 a ra. u r b a n :r.’hoo I by r>y a terns a r e t i1')'; 1a 1■ «■ n n I ■■-1u <' a t, Icjtia 1 o p fi o r 1.u n 1 t y a i• h -ut Mi- ail I ’■•a t.i•jn 'if a !’•.rr.u ia . M. h Mari v arm; 1 -. ■■ - i ■; ■a t •' lutMcnl ' - j iia | [.f'Ti'an ! ■ ■a ! - i a ; . ■a a - a •* not, a b l e Po r t h e i r and f or * wli i r i , tu students J u:; 1,1 f’Iab 1e s u p p o rt dl rec t. ly f‘1 ri-anr 1 a 1 a u p p o rt. f r o m urban mu a. b f or ne <>1“ f n v — a r e .u a. Prom require m ita II f the the ext. r a ur ua 1 la;-: r11a -■u r ■■■-a . Th" Pi -’b i ran .’.Mu1 " Aid t.u r d <-ri t.tnaujUi .a --■1 ian a ur] aaimi -if' Mi" •rn ! I-•ra 1r ri 1< Aft. a 1.1.o rnia r. tn 1 7 •.f the auiher that. einn 1 1h r u v e r - Act,. H o w e v e r ,It r,e:t Inn 17 lore, not a :1 d ta.t r i'•i.a. «>P t.he a.tat.e and i;" r1:1■11ri-■ t r, a d r iri i . ti■r> Mi an a ri a l t e r n a t e h -a a rms. ,f muni -‘1 pa 1 ro ve r n m e n t, c o m p e t e [• i a ■a 1 ■ i , a 1p r o o f a m a I n :' i r, a t , all la. the five fair1 la, m o r e technique cum- developed •" ‘ n . YM- ■J'■a■f t at. i'-n --■ ri-■1ud" a. w i t h ■a • ••r|] 11,• Mr ■ • : n a 1'red v •r--h u r-den t’- " malar, 11a.t r 1b u t and t h<* m o r e 1on a erne re f 1ret, 1on a, -j V tuo n e y , -aa. I.hrourh pe r var. 1 ve p r o b l e m - 1a a 1 i' Irip ed U" a 1 i->na 1 o p p o r t u n i t i e s . of IjI'.D !(' AT [ud fh i .• » h**.-. 1 i ■i<■d i o '1 1 >■ i to a 1 1 of t.hono teacher:’ *) i!>• ‘i'!11 i. •.■: ‘i'll I••ri w i1.fi 'iiii■in jr 1 h f■ y “ ' t r r , b o t h . ’ uI" r11 im ] i.■•••.! I••arw< •.[•'c- >n 1 lior.c wh< • wo rf •o i J- v ’ • •1 , !n a y •- !<-a r*11**•I a I i• a •u !••• t i• k r.(•w w< •r< • tr -i i.t,' r- ■'>r.j a r'h. 'i'ii*• w !iI ■d i bhi.-. n a t ]■ and t.h'ori, a pr< no t don 1 rind it do* v o b * d , I have •*on.’.t ant. r.on re** of a n n o y a n c e ia 11 <•r m - >up pr-ividf-d 1 d " a I In' if mp« “t.out. ha:- b o o n Knari M-joiu* o t h o r ’ t r a n p f r n ■r11, no n perron I 1i am hah ■l: ■ wh o a 1ra; J e a r n e d an d i r r i t a t i o n ho 1p o d r re.ate t h e today. dof- ,VKI;' M'l.KLMMBdJTh My f>r■■b ]>•':. , i !!;* :'•I ti■ v; i<■ irr:*1f11 ,' v h -fV" f luvi 1 ha :•< ■ rn'iny befoi’M me, :•p-i ■ ■! r*ji'• 1ri 1.11*- ■■■uirin Iat. 1on of ••an •a 1 ; ;i v;o u II f 1 1 1 m a n y 1 I• ri < f“a I 1 »d i' inr :•|•■• ; !a f • all* >wed . I ;tn pares . at iy ur ;, I I will Without ha v a w -a -1. :■!i'■:-k -■f ! !•I I ity w ho this my of hiteri- merit Ion on 1v t lv >r,e w h o wo ra w i t h o u t q u f o t l o n to Dr*. eneourapement rank:- of' t hor.e wh o a d v i s o r , and friend. and I would have prodding to rmi nat od their ■o mj ■1a t, .1on . o.raM ■fu 1 for riv* ii t .. ro •tj;/ my 1 t■ w >i . ■ :m 'IV) nf’ti1Io n all The ra f- >po , w !i hont. --omm 11 t •-a1 '-halrrnari, hi:; ''ail 1tnnl iiti"d th' 1 1m 11; my a, t a s s 1 r t a n '■'*. I"'1-! a f-j1 r’o o 1at 1.o ri inun ■'arm s !•.. li^alh, 1 s 1..o t.ha e u c o u r u r e m e n t and :;a ;><■r-1ri1,a rid a n t , hr. the I'ou^ 1as floxiM . W I* no i* * 11i.■ h< ■Ip , ■■'■rif)I'■1 Ion w o n 1 1 ne ve r h a v e h-en : I I 1■■ 1 . Tha and fh’Kao -■rr-o b'llarr-1' o f my are due -m.'-nt and ,x vote for committee, brs . B l a c k m a n , of a p preciation the pat lence to for stay their with me Itecker, quiet u n til t h <■ 'rid. 1 wish M r s . hhlrluy [-.d u <:a t 1o ri. for mo to a c k n o w l e d g e Waldron Without t,-> u r q u i r a of t h e her much Infinite Michigan help of the my It w o u l d data. ill ftatn have patience of Department been of impossible t, i ■ > n w i l I;* A n d f i n a l die' rrt.v I i f i e r i - ' ; - ;■ ['tof 'y, a l y c a t ; • * > - : r < • i any , t - ■ a m ; 1 r. t, w 1 t, h d e a l Mr:; . t.h 1 ■t . 3v o f fy 1 v i a t h a n k c a n d S w a n n o n , m jeinl rifd y a p p r e c i a f o r h e r n e v e r - e n d i n g TAhi.i-; 'jf fjojrri'Lrri’:' .1>' '’n'i :' 6 . r:n . i I 111 . ■!!■’ r;A!' M . Vi V 11 ■rip I" h' It]i r,f>i u <■t i o n ...................................... III o i u r y of Mi <‘iii p a n Attempt. to Cornponaat.o for' 1>ver-H'i r'-lon...................... Iia 1, ] •j ria I 1Ua i'1f - nr i ................................. IJoo,i ................................................ . . I'ijt•p <,';;*■ ; ; ................................... .. Th o .Vopt- ,and Dr 11rnJ 1,a t ion r, o f tho M t u d y . .lu rrmia r-y.............................................. HK7I6W H K H K A H f H .................................... i A 11 iA I^ 1 J1 It 17 t 61V ’KIMlkl .'a ir111 I1■............... 63 69 Ijf■l; i rri................. Mammary .............. 6i AKAI.Y;’.IM •>F T!ii-; 6ATA . 1j’MM A k Y , ■ iliMIMJ;' Iof.’., A r;la HKCor-iMKIJDATION.”, . . . A u n i n a r y ................................................. He <:omrnnri' 1at i M u n i c i p a l ;"/>• r - h u r leti.............................................. 77 A. A la ■ u 1 t >!' . t h< • Mat r 1 x C u n a l a t . I o n A n a l y u in V a r i a b l e :'.ct, a I’o f t a I n 1 n r t o T* a , M u n i ' 11 p a i 1 ' y e r - h a r T e n .....................................................................................7 7 1. . 1 ■ 7 “ r - h u a h ' 1r i ' A a n p u t . a t I o n : ’. ‘ . 1 Mar at ■a c a t 1 ' .A 11 . 1; a . 1 ! y • I M a t r• I b a 1 I <•n ;t ............................................................................... 8 7 ?*- M l 1 ;/ *i A l l I t i ' 1 !■]-' ! xi p a ■t ■; ; t a I i; ; ..................................................................................... 8 ? . '. t i, I a t r-1 •’ t Impact on ......................................................................... 8 ‘. f >v e r - b u a l t t n A5 <1 . . . . 86 11/ 1 * r■■ —h a f r 1#a j ...............................................................................................8 8 • - •• • a 1 ft Tax f *- r M i l l Ufa- Oo r n p a r * I n o r m f< >r- a V •*1 ■ f $ 1 1 0 0 ! 'n r Pap t 1 .................. 00 vl . u 7 -f.B 'i . J 1 •u , : y - t, 8 '1 a ■ A I : A j'i■ 'i I ! P x [ >* m K i ! P u !■*-■ P e i* Jl . , ' pit 7 - 1. 8 U. ' 1 1P (J P . B ] 'K.iY-tiH i,o ■ I . 1. ) U B Y -B 8 i f ' r r e r i P a rp 1 Mu' ] i ' i n B f h u o l Fur r ; i 1 y -a 1 ' i p e r a t O v e i ’- H u r ' i t ' i i 1•. 1 1 V, ( - P B H**V"iri" Va u f 1uat . u c a l I ct BP ........................................................................... tW* ...................................................................................... t>6 I 1'’' r P u p i I i tm . l'i;pl1 I he v e u w u ‘ . 1 iiurri :■■ ’ :. ! :■ i i-■-■■ r. : r•tirf:i..' •«1 * re- ■s t a t e p- ■r'iii'it■: ■:l‘’ i'.■■t. ■ :. . ■■ ’h■ a arai 1 a i, 1 V ■1a ;■;' ihal nr- 'r\ •■r•<-a :: i11r 1y ■-■ra* ■i ••-:•r> .•-j w M.h| !*••r ■■j,■: ia .:f I ' t.ror.r A 1t.hour.h ur'banl ;aa] , the nf'thodr. of an*. I'uub 1< ’i ■1t io c . ar 1tn" t fin I r own , and han Tin- 1 i:h, r'faa; o f middle the children mid­ ha:; b e e n for* the far t o o struggle little about reri . c i t i e s has .■Inns able t.he t o :aa‘V.l an Me.-renvr r , the schools worried cen t r a l t.o e s c a p e i been to s u b u r b i a in d i.■ao v a n 1 aiy-d r>o j-u Ja t.1■i■'■ w e ra ■ r■<■Ia - t( •i«■ -■■iu ■-a t ii1r; i-f o t h e r ’ <: Iji 1 d middle hav'1 had state arrf- "ft !-•r . ■i-’k 1rir p a 1.h - 1-1r * :•t r<*niH h <>f the 1!«•*v* I , 1 h" 11 :■ ,and / ha.'. L1 ■•a(■h '■:• [ •‘»1 y ” by r.■11!• u.a • :i’ r ’'-M'l.' and i*■t (•t■r-'1 i f r-' >t-i l;o Iv i n r J'i ■\ 11r .■-j::a■ of* t h" t .-■" . and 1' * !i*• ” !rtM' •r •>'•-r i* b a . !a ■I >i■'• h-'iv< • Ij'*'■n intensified and the n 1 1,y. tbie u r b a n by increase The crush white and tr/1n< ■ra i Lon , wh i ]e the wa 1 1 uf new p r' ■,]’ud i <:<■, d e n i a l , suburban 1ems that rival ■'■lionl:; . pay for prrd resultant decaying rates, bulldlnps, , w i t h rn 1 Ie s, o f t h- rising city -already Not tended d e n t s as, and uni Ike -.level op Pave moyed central in c ity, increasing 1a r y e farther has, fill area:;. the dramatic the sys- city suburb:', to between pir o o f o f the Millions, waste each unsafe pub I 1c school disparity c lopped that with of live In traffic and industry. year- m o r e after services urban In c o n c e n t r i c ho pe ■jp le , j {' s i m i l a r the are and become most c prosperity rushed h a v e rapidly the in the and d ar k. are Crime more Further, based upon a bar: e . to the I so streets soot from of the up a suburbs."'' s,t r e e t s the set ability to inside opportunity. has phenomenon. by Inadequate d e ,■i Ir} Irip; tax the centers this of trapped resourco:.; id vine; rise urban ef-pects. o f are humari rut wore class s, 1 urns, arid the pi'eat air- p o 1 luted lack middle painted srhools, in the The the and arid attract, tenant '■duration the areas,, oUierr, away circles. from the increased. incomes tend income this to groups from void of in the of clustered in the resi­ the unskilled pattern be older lias, city migrants downtown movement, together center with in income the central area increases. 1.James B. Coriant , P l u m s and Me (Jraw-ll i 1 1 B o o k C o m p a n y , 1 9 6 1 ) ■ Suburbs (New York: York: as, the* d i s t a n c e of The center New, the* r e s u l t i n g Because lowe st centers, , D e t r o i t ‘"Patricia C a y o Be x ton, V i k i n g Pres s , 1961 j. Education and Income (New ? T i m re ar-- very fVw area:’ in Detroit M n i' ■x} f■ri.' I v'■ apartment. bul 1-11 nrr, b e s i de 1 ni 1a r c o ik< > a iiurib' •r ■'r "u r ! i v< • •■i 'h-' r.ul ,irh' , 111 ’Iy 'if aimer, t urban xe lur.l v e 1 y M-MDtn h i rh- r in i'h* a her ■!’ •i1 D m , such an p u n bat Dei, D17] . ana by th-ao- a ■i-■-■r-•ar, Irip fa 'tors, -nay be d 11 ions.: 1 ) t 11■ • prnpori D m r* " iu ' r -■-i by n. m - s -dr ol t ■ ■1 ' w- ■ M M -■■■ r,, up- -i. i r ■ t.ate rjt’ local These 1 •t>•. d -ana tid as two basic con- pel ire and pro- c o s t s , eta' r 1ve b-'lrir p Ia red 'PhD' fire ., re s t,rbd. 1on:; p 1ac ed fa c t.o rs jr ■■ •,rhan ■-■1d - r.' . rise upon ■i-■m '111d has t,o a s 1rthe re r 1 - 1 ••corn*' mu: i1 1 f .i1 <,ve r-bu r- Jen . 1r. d-‘f ln»*das the r c/-a m a 11 --| funet Ionr. in ->f pr-ui'a'tv Mi-- r I'hir .1r wild) rapport, rate d tu iD Dc:: than i•f Ke Is. !u s t M a t - that. levied ma n i r Ipa 1 in the phenomenon i11<-rd 1na t -- proptartlon Mo- to s u p p o r t government, r e v e n u e s sanitat Imi Man 1 '■ Ipa 1 'ivr-bur'ii'-n , for mi I D m - rs i (till f i- e q u a l i s e d v a l u a t ion Cun -■1. 1 onr. s u c h 1i•v 1<•r. . I ! *d ‘ i" a P >•' M , dr-'d or 1n <• r -■a :’1n d p e r - rone ra 1 i s.od Into ,1it■a 1t I; and v Mix 111 f I ■■-iiD I •' a i/, town r 1t.y l i m i t s . Detroit, the ar i■I .' i td i<■ : i ,■,■I •, j |.■jrD 11atai re — 1 mpo s ed ;■!!' wn of f !■11 , b y a dec rear,* • In total " ■■i11 'ir- • imc can income t h e re f u r e wl t.hlri the Iu ■■11 b t: !r i:■ t -■-ai w <■'tk -■11>' d by : it ! ' ' ■ upper t h e o u t n k l rtn t.h u n one s 1 urn houe Inp. renters, h a m 1 iy I ncurrio is M ,-■ ;;u b u r b s . al ' i i 1 ,v 1n where that 1a r r e tax from an pu r p o s e s exists o f this when non- c 1 td o s c o n s u m e revenues, equal or an thus .leaving larper total In o t h e r d i s t r i c t s . >ve r-bu r d o n ti'ive b e e n M - r m s y 1van 1a ( i9 0 ^ ), and the made by K d u c a t ional n is ■.■1■'if >:!i an i la >v< ■1uj >men t. C o u n c i l 11 , t ho a j iI ; ■•■■o | .•r•-_xi I'u: C ifj 1 of In M i n n e s o t a hducation, 1.iio ii. Department >■.'■ I f 'I re ■, :;tmlii"J lii»- p h e n o m e n o n ! '1 of i’h*u-.e t hr*-" :■t u d i al which ■.v ■o ■- 1■u cd e n c u r 1 uded r’t■1'I<■ •1 ■ ! !n 4 h< ■ 'ax ■I■ a r■!v ■ s.t m u n i c i p a l that rat. Ior. a re i ohi I t,a x b 1 1 1 in c 1ud lap :’**r v i districts the iriint lrmact. of and in f ound in the largest of m u n i c i p a l e x c e s s 1 ve inevitably i axes leave ••ha ra ••le •r*1s-t i In II ic h ira n !-c■s.» a r -•h A : s.o .•ia t ion 1 he ( 1h h 7 ) w h i c h t u r j*a i f ic w- •I f a r< • s ’-rv 1 i ■•’ r-'.ii. , flint., for smaller i .,n t iac , and social -dtl es nver-burden re c opn 1 s.ed the is. tod oquaLlv available school district.;’.. riichipan school is ■b'.ar-'Sit rnun 1 r ipa 1 ove r-bu r’d e n f 'rn 1a mad* • a m a j o r ’ a t tempt, and Mi chi R a n economic Kducationa.1 an e x c e s s i v e of Mattlo tax Creek, to the to approach principle for A batdnav/. h Is,Lory of M i c h i g a n A t t e m p t s 1’u m p e n a a t e for O v e r - R u r d e n Tin- I'iUnfTpal which proportions Met.ropol i t a n inferred in the hi p;b ~ f o r m u n i c i p a l ly a study of The is services. flat'' it y .•ondu-,t ed urban!— cities b o n a 1d he u e t a 1 . f r o m f n iv with rnun i c 1pa 1 (services f r■m ij I:t’iiu 1i11fr u i ' .; : i,■11.* .’i .. s dr>ol aid ; <•i--t1 1*>fi p u r n i -Pi. .... . t :;<’:is 1o n of in Mi school servi and taxes lullin' Pi'hu'ds ■iv - r-b u r d '•!i In about, an! Is and and lobby 1st for t,h<' M 1 fdi Ipa n P t a t e tin- o v r - b u r d o n to sch o o l non-operat, Ion p u r - nlt.e treated i rrmiorir. , D e p u t y a limited for s u c h I>u 1 1ri of v a l u a t i o n for s t a t e s c h o o l aid p u r p o s e s m u s t t.«- r■*■d '■f‘in e d to I'l-i'opii the i rnp act o f no n — s c ho o 1 t axe,-., la*. to i Pimmuns feels, i i 1 federal I...... . - a .jf u factor that urograms In all J 1st. r-lb u t.i on municipal over-burden requiring prorrarns matching that could funds require be and indices applied could as formula. In r e l a t i o n to federal programs, he states, T h e use o f the m u n i c i p a l o v e r - b u r d e n as a f a c t o r d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r m u l a s for the E l e m e n t a r y - S e c o n d a r y ent., part in d.ottor from Dr. W i l l i a m P i m m o n s , D e p u t y S u p e r i n t e n d ­ Detroit. P u b l i c Schools,, D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , Ma y 8, 1968. (. i 1Ju ■■.1t i'<11 Aj p r e s e n t p r o g r a m s are d e l i b e r a t e l y m a d e b r o a d e n o u g h to In c l u d e d i s t r i b u t i o n to the e d u c a t i o n ­ al 1y and e c o n o m i c a l l y d e p r i v e d p u p i l , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t n local weal tli. Properly applied, this factor would I n c r e a s e the p u p i l a l l o w a n c e in the c i t i e s , o v e r an d a b o v e the a m o u n t a v a i l a b l e to o t h e r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s iri *,h" 1 ate . ■ * s i t Ac. a direct with the legislature tor was added . e,n inn (d) 1o of the result In of Dr. 1969, I’ .tate a municipal Aid t.he act., n o w llmrnons Act. an d o t h e r s 1 work over-burden hectical 17, fac­ sub- states, fd) ! 1’ the r e s u l t i n g tax r a t e for the a p p l i c a n t s c h o o l d i s t r i c t Ls 176 p e r c e n t or more o f the r e s u l t i n g tax mate for1 the b a l a n c e of the school d i s t r i c t s o f the s t a t e , the v a l u a t i o n of the a p p l i c a n t s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s h a l l be r e d u c e d by the p e r c e n t by w h i c h the r e s u l t i n g tax r a t e s on p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d w i t h i n the a p p l i c a n t s c h o o l d i s t r i c t e x c e e d s 125 p e r c e n t of the r e s u l t i n g tux r a t e s on p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d in all o t h e r s c h o o l d i s ­ tricts. of the state: P r o v i d e d , any d i s t r i c t c u r r e n t l y q u a l i f i e d for s t a t e ai d u n d e r s e c t i o n 8, s u b s e c t i o n (a), s h a l l not q u a l i f y for s t a t e aid u n d e r s e c t i o n 8, s u b ­ s e c t i o n (b) s o l e l y as a r e s u l t of th e e f f e c t of t h i s A m e n d a t o r y Act. > Under 1 1j a 1 In s') this. A m e n d a t o r y u u a I I (' 1 e i 1d (■ 5 - b t, $ 7 , received A M , 788 in $ \ Act, \ 0 , A16 1966-67, Michigan in and school 1 9 6 9 - 6 r>, districts $2 , 350 ,861 $11,191,113 in 1967- s8 . Freely mus1 first uati.'n total h A'd apply under tax .interpreted, for a th is reduction this, s u b s e c t i o n . rate mu st be 175 means of The percent its that a school state applicant or more of district equalized district's the average IL Id . ‘.’ .tats* o f M i c h i g a n . M ; l , ’ o f t ti" P u b l i c Acts, Fchool Aid o f 1 9 5 7 , as val- Act of 1967-68 , amended. 7 in.. fit'- whhdi fur balance q u .a 1 1 f i< . t hr* l int i d ct Mi>' Im ■r< ■'■n 1.app Fa r ' e f r> •5 i its example, reduced iMiool l b , I M was, that the Increased by , amount of iri'iti b*:; as, a r e s u l t eligibility t Ion 8. districts and tion of that the t riet's of districts this of 7.KV s u c h under that received The subsection the If of (b) is. n e c e s s a r y a particular school state 111ft)rma t ion could (b) financial required aid includes, by is effort, There then the for percent- The result Detroit wa s counters their (b) of allotment than full Dec- $12 ,736/ participa­ a possibility l o w e r th e qualify dis- fo r a d d i t i o n a l 8. certain in o r d e r tha t rate for a d d i t i o n a l less 17 w o u l d Its to negating Is tax This a special a 2.EV o f obtain district amount then Subsection of S e c t i o n to by district reduction have year, the state. S E V by 12b p e r - average aid .Section it the school the Its $ 1 , 7 2 5 , 4 8 2 ,787. 10 mil Is. for o p e r a t i o n . reduction the air] u n d e r that of percent, of districts, of $ 4 , 8 0 7 ,697 ,930 ar*' '-xert lrip a m i n i m u m a Id under' 2.ub s>e c t ion amount state special in from qualifying of 1967-68 39.89 2,",:'ticn 8 , dubsectiori for- p o o r e r pupil for In e x c e s s 12b p e r c e n t $9,1 19,94 9.00. possibility Is by difference o a reduction during; the r^'du-'erl Detroit, b; 2 E V $M , 0 8 2 , 2 r.tate 1s s c h o o l for rate rx',e i(lol sate- f'*r- a ; 1 o t h e r the that , ” KV was, tax a,r" of’ the Information to d e t e r m i n e will the be p r o v i d e d . following: about The H A. ih' d t a t e F q u a l i z e d V a l u a t i o n e r t y in the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . P. 'Hie n u m b e r o f p u p i l s in p u b l i c s c h o o l m e m b e r ­ s h i p on the f o u r t h F r i d a y a f t e r L a b o r Day. All s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d on or b e f o r e t h i s d a t e a r e counted. T h i s n u m b e r is l a t e r i n c r e a s e d by a c o u n t o f t he s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n p u p i l s , b o t h mentaLly and p h y s i c a l l y handicapped. This s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c o u n t t a k e s p l a c e on or b e f o r e D e c e m b e r lbth. f. Th<- v a r i o u s mi l i a s e s ( a l l o c a t e d and v o t e d for o p e r a t i o n , d e b t r e t i r e m e n t , an d b u i l d i n g a n d site) b e i n g l e v i e d in t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . In a d d i t i o n <1I;'t rlet , it to the is ner-ossary 11J1■Y -fjfa ft at'- Aid Act . above to information have This Act of an has taxabLe about prop­ th e school unders tandlnp of several which terms the rnu s t. be understood -i id due any particular A. (dross A l l o w a n c e : T h e f i n a n c i a l a m o u n t p e r m e m ­ b e r s h i p p u p i l w h i c h w i l l be a v a i l a b l e for e a c h pupil on a p a r t n e r s h i p b a s i s b e t w e e n the s t a t e and the local s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . (See p o i n t s "W" and " X ” on F i g u r e 1.1.) d. D e d u c t i b l e M l l l a g e : T h e mill age a p p l i e d to the local school d i s t r i c t ' s S t a t e K q u a l i s e d V a l u a ­ t i o n w h i c h w i l l p r o d u c e the local s c h o o l d i s ­ t r i c t ' s c h a r e of the p a r t n e r s h i p f i n a n c i a l p l a n or* g r o s s a l l o w a n c e . C. P a r t i c i p a t i n g M l l l a g e : Th e o p e r a t i o n o r g e n e r a l fund rrtillage w h i c h m u s t be l e v i e d for the l o c a l d i s t r i c t to o b t a i n e i t h e r p a r t i a l o r full p a y ­ ment o f the s t a t e s h a r e of the p a r t n e r s h i p plan. Thu ldhy-68 ' i v in o r d e r to scho o l compute the district. state dome of financial these terms : 1 "hi .hd 1 . iJO1i , :H) per- pupil or ■ mile, Act, p r o v i d e s with $^d/.8y f.nityq). a gross a deductible per pupil with For partial allowance mlllage of a deductible participation D.28 of mils mlllage in the of 9 i .1fdi . p ;> p e r pupil local district while full section must of 1967-68 the least 8.0 levy at mils p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e q u i r e s a le vy rni Is, for o p e r a t i o n . For pupiL local d i s t r i c t m u s t section, rn1 Is, for allowed in this, Fir.ure mate Formula per of "Z" multiplying by the Point. PEV that "Z" The and under a district, of state aid. levy at Act , the operation, 10.0 l e ast $^27.87 per 10.0 l east participation $136.12 aid that is per value $16,000 by up to e s t i ­ either is are legislation. established this formula of of by connect­ to p o i n t this figure the allowance gross allowance by $ 30,000 p e r p u p i l ( . 0 0 5 2 8 ), and an Valu­ the p .28 m i l s to Act Equalized aid valuation of f o r t he sub$29^*52. $1(0,000 pupil. per1 p u p i l "A" under ($29^-52) for p u r p o s e s from possible State school using of Aid known. "X" line equalised equal it State obtained the an d "A" mlllage formula makes Michigan was, d e r i v e d state with the 1967-68 be district resultant ef following to a district is, t h e r e b y ils>trict trict the n state the B — provided formula deductible tractirig pupil l d p 7-68 for 1’oin t of at in partial figure "l.rM r$ 4 2 7 . 8 7 ) the point. " X ." per of ' V ! v f‘n:;" o f th e ing This Formula pupil slope is, no for Aid section). Aid Points The ft h e r e formula. A or participation l .l illustrates t,he d t a t e ation the operation merits r'sliip State ma y plotting to the PEV will be found its S E V on formula receive for "A" any Figure line, $210.04 dis­ 1.1 e.g., per pupil $500 1127,87 m FORMULA 'A' 200 $136.12 100 GROSS ALLOVMNCE/PUPIL FORMU 16,000 20,000 24-000 28,000j $12,736.39 STATE EQUALIZED VALUATION (SEV)/PUPIL FIGURE 1 .1 -1 9 6 7 -6 8 M i c h i g a n state aid act membership formula 32,000 11 Focrnu l;i "(V undo i- s u b s e c t i o n slope fo r slope of <’f the this the (b) is tdc-sf- tw o is formula usod received equal. Point the derived mittee in with the mlllage used in Lines, under "Y" Is of Point formula the the State same The th e "A" formula d e t e r m i n e d in t h e - .00528 D E V = $427.87 - .01047 c F V = $1 3 3. 35 DEV = $1 2 , 7 3 6 . 3 9 phenomenon chapter, on re* f l e e t e d as well Educational Association by Dr. California, which as points L. the value mils of th e are manner" .01575 Concern interest In in the in a paper Finance Erick the where "B" following $;>94.52 The Fifteen point nB ,r a growing as junction "Y ," Is and Act. being Formula is Aid formula. mils. provided manner exception the 5 .28 monies F o r m u la "A" T h e re In t h i s 8 of "A," National burden additional Section tn p l a c e formula amounts for of line deductible (.0 1575) Is of studies the Lindman the municipal referred written National of the for over­ to early the Com­ Education University of out: F a i l u r e to i n c l u d e t h e s e f a c t o r s ( r i s i n g c o s t s , r e s i s t a n c e to t a x I n c r e a s e s , a n d h i g h e r n u m b e r s o f students n e e d i n g remedial i n st ru ct ion and special c o u n s e l i n g ) in s t a t e s u p p o r t f o r m u l a s is p r o b a b l y a t t r i b u t a b l e In p a r t to t h e I n h e r e n t d i f f i c u l t y In m e a s u r i n g the j u s t i f i a b l e e x t r a c o s t s . Certainly state school s u p p o r t f o r m u l a s are c o m p l e x e n o u g h w i t h ­ out a d d i n g m o r e s p e c i a l c o s t f a c t o r s . M o r e o v e r , it has a l w a y s b e e n a s s u m e d t h a t c i t i e s c a n , w i t h m o d e s t p r o p e r t y ta x r a t e I n c r e a s e s , p a y f o r t h e s e u n u s u a l c o s t s f r o m l o cal p r o p e r t y t a x s o u r c e s . The validity 1 .> of t h i s a s s u m p t i o n , in v i e w o f the i n c r e a s i n g d o u b l e b u r d e n u p o n the c i t y p r o p e r t y t a x p a y e r , s h o u l d be re—e x a m i n e d . In the p a s t , c i t y s c h o o l s y s t e m s w e r e u s u a l l y In b e t t e r p o s i t i o n s to s u p p l e m e n t t h e s t a t e f o u n d a t i o n p r o ­ g r a m t h a n w e r e s c h o o l s y s t e m s in s u b u r b a n a n d r u r a l a r e a s o f the s t a t e . City school systems could, often w i t h l i t t l e e x t r a e f f o r t , p a y b e t t e r s a l a r i e s to t e a c h ­ ers a n d m e e t t h e i r h i g h e r co s t s . Have changing c o n d i ­ tions m a t e r i a l l y a l t e r e d this s i t u a t i o n ? More s p e c i f i c a l l y , has the c h a n g i n g n a t u r e o f t h e c i t y s c h o o l p r o b l e m a n d t h e g r o w i n g d o u b l e b u r d e n u p o n t h e city p r o p e r t y t a x p a y e r m a d e it n e c e s s a r y to a d j u s t an a p p r o a c h w h i c h was s a t i s f a c t o r y In the p a s t ? “ Need It ci t i e s is such certain because as civil Larger extent of m unicipal ability Is w e a k e n e d government s ec o n d , upon to property phenomenon study: 1) amount are of state, and the unequal this study over-burden cities to required by the o f the the lev i e s . as three main In the assistance These municipal each school concern is and undertaken. education of local functions, restrictions factors and placed contribute over-burden. stimulating financial of existence public non-school larger of pr ov iding proportion legislature-imposed tax growing costs support In o u r difficulties In M i c h i g a n first, known interest financial the that of uneasiness In factors: special There the two revenues the urban the by current disorder, quality equality The the districts for e d u c a t i o n a l "durational of forces formula district behind this for d e t e r m i n i n g Is to receive JDr. K r i c k L. L l n d m a n , " S c h o o l S u p p o r t a n d M u n i c i p a l G o v e r n m e n t C o s t s , " L o n g - R a n g e P l a n n i n g in S c h o o l F i n a n c e . A r e port. ( W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.~: N a t i o n a l E d u c at i o n A s s o c i a t. i o n , 1 () 6 d ) . 13 from the state, 2) the growing concern quacies of our urban educational for recent civil disorders ised the educational schools is political students a growing and be and skill and in the provided in o r d e r To has are begin of changing. census with, legal What should support It Is 3 ) concern cities. make Equal­ In p u b l i c groups necessary of wise and th a t all understanding decisions students upon In t h e educational the values now of program? The expenditures of large these t h e m as w e l l , presently programs costs rise in e x i s t e n c e . a con­ public cost cities to state above the However, Typical Within what From what of r a i s i n g state consideration to situation quantity. come? raising sup­ constantly legislature, to When of finding the p r e s e n t and adequate itself. level p r o g r a m are support by the In a d d i t i o n , operate? Is public measuring low. with of q u a l i t y an past. the Is with throughout a basic probability structure, is connected education is s t a g g e r i n g all only for connected questions are: educational of may difficult problems government Improving large levels agreement traditional both boundaries to not and for m i n o r i t y difficulties adequate the and questions of they Consequently, The include many very an among opinion, both higher opportunities been concepts in o u r Inade­ f uture. the e q u a l i z e d port that programs, leaders. with the for all' s t u d e n t s concern educational There state. opportunity over the averages is given averages, highest it level Is but levels in anticipated equitably, quality that, the if the total education state load economy can development of first program is a necessary o u r problems, related to both will schools provide cational distributed support the support public can be an e n r i c h e d program. In s u m m a r y , tion financial of Mi chi gan . a more quality To support programs, problem is n e c e s s a r y . develop a better step support systematic new and understanding in t h e program basis more educa­ in s o l v i n g and q u a ntity An e q u i t a b l e intelligent, decisions. an e q u i t a b l e for e d u ­ equitable of the over-burden Purposes The extent and purposes of m u n i c i p a l 2 ) to e x a m i n e St a t e Aid Act The The local and study analysis of m u n i c i p a l is of this effects this Th e study school this is study over-burden, determination support limited districts, 19137-68 s c h o o l year, of Michigan 17 of the in t h e the the cities, Michigan the Michigan additional to an upon the the determination determination the to d a t a Study f o l l o w i n g ways: of in to e x a m i n e selected concerns 17 o f based 1) d i s t r i c t s ’ income. delimited and raise in Delimitations from Section to are: of S e c t i o n school derived the study over-burden the Scope This 1. on of f r o m the student state State support arbitrary but 25 of income Aid Act, required equal largest population of M i c h i g a n . le v e l . public for the 15 Thin i. study treats of e d u c a t i o n a l comprehensive *1 . The cost selected support and thus of all and of the that does not factors Intend to be needs. regarding factors opportunity the financial relation­ and educational are relationships the to be are Interpreted associational causal. Although the author political Michigan's resources Is issues opportunities," of study support educational sense not and municipal of e d u c a t i o n a l the and 5 - the conclusions ships In only aware involved this study attempt available well was to m o r e in of the socio-economic "equalizing educational limited nearly to an analysis equalize the for e d u c a t i o n . Summary Large with at their an with city been revenue their caused such as tion controls, necessary people to the etc. placed demands still cost not financially enabling them of the st a t e . programs competition at within of welfare, the able to be Their the inability cost city governments from receiving programs at the for tax and furt h e r h a m p e r e d by state level of police are all programs a competitive They the m by cope competitive of maintaining health upon to their cost and needs operate desire. thus the are support educational the protection, disallow to districts by fire restrictions systems level, suburban to s u p p o r t has inability adequate the school a level and sanita­ the legal which of support level w h i c h th e 16 111s toj'ica 1 L y , t h e r e f'luridaf Ion upon which regarding cal even for though stitution. e q u i t a b 1 1 lty Section may be m a d e . equality it Is of quantity has under have been through such legislation study Michigan will State examine In the selected the of the money Michigan State Aid Act problems facing In made the metropolitan as fis­ to thus State far, Con­ financial Subsection (d) of Act. of municipal cities, under areas. and close Michigan extent Michigan reducing come to p r o v i d e Aid provided decisions opportunity the equitable problems, not educational guaranteed for an educational Society over-burdon eff eels and a need Attempts 17 o f the This been Intelligent , quality support providing has the and Section determine 17 o f t h e educational finance CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RESEARCH Four specific municipal dealing with the p r o b l e m of over-burden for public reviewed. apparent studies There schools systems have been Is a growing concern for this problem in the frequency of its mention In the news media which has reported on various considerations, and court The earliest legislative actions, cases. studies on the subject were done by II. Thomas James of Stanford University. was .ichool 1961. legal Revenue Systems The first of these in Five S t a t e s , completed This study was not available for review; In however, the author was able to obtain a copy of the second study conducted by James completed in 1963 entitled, diture, and D e c i s i on-Makin g for E d u c a t i o n . commonly referred to as the ■•■oalth, Expenditure, Wealth, Expen­ This study is "Ten-State Study." and D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g for Education by H. Thomas James, J. Alan Thomas and Harold J. Dyck School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1 9 6 3 . Cooperative Research Project #12^1. This report the process Is the second of a series of studies of by which resources in the United States are a l l o ­ cated to the support of education. 17 It is divided Into three 18 part one a rationale Tor the study of school parts. In finance Is formulated and applications of it are examined to explain state and variations and expenditures associated both with efforts with to equalize educational benefits and tax loads levels of state support. The rationale postulates three clusters of determinants for educational expenditures which Included factors of demand for educational services, factors of ability to realize the demand, and factors that add to the system of voting by which demands and abilities utilized. The analysis can be expressed Indicates conditions under which efforts towards equalizati on can be achieved and the conditions under which increases result in increased expenditures ' ' Part two reports in state revenue for education. some explorations of the Interaction of wealth and expenditures for education, developed from the general r a t i o n a l e . using three models The first model e x a m ­ ines the rationale of wealth to educational expenditure; second examines the relationship of resource cational outcomes; and the third examines the Import to e d u ­ the relationship of educational outcomes to economic growth. The general conclusion of this section is that wealth Invested in e d u ­ cation has predictable effects on the development of human talent and that the development of talent, in turn, has predictable effects on economic growth and the generation of new wealth. Part three represents an analysis of fiscal Inde­ pendence versus dependence in the relationship of local school 19 districts to other governmental agencies. The analysis is directed toward de v e l o p i n g a typology of these relationships. The analysis suggests that the fiscally dependent district can be expected to spend slightly less school for e d u c a ­ tion than the fiscally independent district under similar conditions of ability and demand for education, but that the relationships are too complex for useful generalizations that wiLl study. hold for interstate A General Rationale for the .Study of School Finance Studies over the past several years have sought to develop a general rationale The researchers formulated, for the study of school finance. feel that such a rationale, should provide not only a basis and expla ining school for de s c r i b i n g finance phenomena, but also a basis for predicting the behav i o r of communities lic education. if satisfactorily They suggest that the in financing p u b ­ formulation of such a rationale must begin with the assumption that our resources will never be adequate to satisfy all the demands that are made upon them and that the demands for public school funds are always resolved in competitive situations. Granting this, the researchers po stulate that three conditions are essential to public kind of m a r k e t - o r i e n t e d society. shared set of expectations school support in our The first condition is a for educational services s u f f i c ­ iently pervasive to generate group efforts their achievement. in support of The second condition is availability of 20 wealth from which funds can be allocated. dition Is a political system that allows ex p r e s s i o n of expectations and access to wealth. researchers sought The third con­ In this study, the to extend the rationale. The next l og­ ical step ap peared to be to treat expenditures and certain other factors and input put. Their efforts two of this study, in an attempt to relate them to o u t ­ in this direction are reported in part together with a preliminar y effort demonstrating the upward spiral of the effects tional expenditures increases which, from e d u c a ­ to educational output, r e s u lting in in wealth and increases in turn, toward in a demand for education, raise educational services to new levels. Extension of a Test for Equality and Initiative A test for equality 10 states selected on the and initiative was applied to following basis: 1. A broad dis tribution In levels of state support. 2. States with reasonably effective programs eq u a l i z i n g a s s e s s m e n t s . 3. States near or above the median Income per capita. ^. States varying little in rank on ability as compared with rank on e x p e n d i t u r e s . 5. States with local school district systems. 6. When application of the other five criteria still left a choice within half a standard deviation from the point selected, a state was selected with which the chief researcher had some experience or one that would require the least amount of travel. for 21 The states selected by these criteria were New Hampshire, Oregon, Nebraska, Massachusetts, California, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, and Washington. The tests were based on the assumption that state finance systems were purposive, port systems that governments devise school s u p ­ in order to equalize the distribution of fin­ ancial support for education and the resulting tax levies among school districts and to stimulate local initiative. The researchers proposed tests bution of local tax payments distribution of educational for equality in the d i s t r i ­ supporting education and in the services. The tests used were measures of dispersion applied in the first instance to school tax rates for current operation levied on an equalized evaluation of property and in the second instance to current expenditures not mandated by the state as a measure of init­ iative exercised locally. Throughout this study, the researchers' interest was divided between variations within the state to which they directed their hypothesis and variations among states about which no explicit hypotheses were formulated. ers sought to prove characteristics The r e s e a r c h ­ that districts of similar socio-economic g athering revenues for school with the property tax under similar rules would arrive at similar levels of expenditure, but that state interference, either by maki n g additional revenue available from other sources or by c h an g­ ing the rules, would have predictable consequences on d i s ­ trict expenditures. Following this line of reasoning, they analyzed the kinds of state action that might affect the level of e x p e n ­ diture. They included the following: 1. increased state support 2. conditional support 3. mandated programs *4. mandated 5- levy levies limitations Other types of state interference with the p o s t ulated e q u i ­ librium between the demand for educational service and resistance to rising local taxes can be found, notably in state specifications schedules of expenditures and in state salary for teachers. appear to be the most However, the five ment ioned above important ones in the states included in this study. The findings support the general notion that school finance systems are purposive, are often in conflict. but that purposes pursued They leave considerable doubt that high-support states are any more successful than low-support states in equalizing property tax burdens and perhaps equalizing educational services. apparent 'The explanations in for this failure to accomplish an often stated purpose of school finance systems must be sought in the complex behavior that results local level. from c o n f lictin g purposes at both the state and The major conflict at both levels is over increasing educational services versus redu cing taxes. the state level, At further conflict surrounds the efforts to 23 equalize benefits and burdens among districts, to shift the incentive of school taxes among alternative tax bases and to stimulate and direct the flow of specified educational services. In the resulting conflict situations, educational purposes may suffer either from state level neglect or from state level interference, but on the evidence examined, researchers conclude that they suffer more They the from neglect. further conclude that rising levels of state support will Increase expenditures for education under specified conditions, while pressures in local taxes will balance demands tures at a given level. inhibiting increases for Increased e x p e n d i ­ The introduction of state collective income sales taxes will allow expenditures to rise to a higher level because of the great elasticity of the yield of state taxes, and also because the total tax base Is b r o a d ­ ened. a point will be reached where However, further Increases In state support will be used to substitute for local taxes If state mandates are not established. more, state governments by the limitations Further­ tend to encourage this substitution Imposed on local governments to tax. Patterns of educational support were e x a mined among the 10 states to determine wheth er or not the state system had accomplished its stated purpose of e q u a lizing educational opportunity. The pattern of the relationship between e x p e n ­ ditures, measures of wealth and aspiration seems to vary significantly from state to state, not only at the level of expenditures but also In the strength of the effects of the 2U different explanatory variables. Educational expenditures are significantly related to wealth as measured by e q u a l ­ ized valuation and median family income in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin. The effects of the measures of aspirations are w e aker and less concise from state to state. Perhaps their major value is that they enable us to consider the relationship between "wealth" variables and expenditures with some other variable held constant. The differences in the level of expend itures from state to state after the effects of the measures of wealth and aspirations have been removed were striking. There were four distinct plateaus with New Hampshire and Nebraska on the lowest; Massachusetts, second; Washington, California and New Mexico on the New Jersey, Oregon and W i s consin on the third; and New York far above the rest. The effects of a district's fiscal independence and the pattern of the relationship between expenditures and Independent variables seem less significant than the similar effects in the state in w h ich the district is located. the two states in whic h eno ugh observations were measure separate districts, relationships In found to for dependent and Independent the coefficients did not seem to differ greatly or In any consistent pattern. as a separate variable, When independence was used widely di f f e r i n g coefficients were obtained, with a general tendency for independent districts to spend slightly more than dependent districts, but 25 subsequent analysis suggested that this slight difference might be attributed in part at least to economics of scale. The researchers concluded from results of the above study that expenditure levels for e d u cation are indeed related to wealth as measured by e q u a lized valuation and median family income. The researchers next took a look at the budgetary cycle and fiscal formulation policies of the school systems in an attempt to establish w h e t h e r the school district was dependent upon a municipal government o r g a n i z a t i o n or ind e ­ pendent from it. Following this phase of the study, and its corresponding statistical analysis, tendency the researchers found a for independent districts to spend more on e d u c a ­ tion than dependent districts; however, the issue was not clear cut since other factors may have influenced the results, particularl y the fact that New York's six dependent districts are also located in the six largest cities in the state. In review, the researchers specify that basic to a rationale for studying school finance are the assumptions that resources available are rarely sufficient for the support of public education to satisfy all the demands made upon them and that the determinants of public school support are almost always made in a competitive situation. The rationale they formulated postulates three major determinants of e x p e n ­ diture: 26 1. A set of shared expectations for educational services; 2. The availability of wealth from which funds for schools can be allocated, referred to as a b i l i t y ; and 3. A political system that allows the expr ession of demands, and access to the ability, r e f erred to as governmental arrangements for d e c ision making. Determinants of Educational Expenditures in Large Cities of the United States by H. Thomas James, James A. Kelly and W a l t e r I. Garms School of Education, Stanford University Stanford, California, 1966 Cooperative Research Project #2389 The most extensive study in the area of municipal over-burden was one conducted by H. Thomas James specific purposes. for two The first purpose was to refine the Inductively-derived rationale for the study of school f i n a n c e , and the other was to apply the rationale to school systems in the great cities of the United States. contains The report four major parts. 1. The historical development of the great cities in this country, tion, focusing on trends in p o p u l a ­ taxable wealth, school enrollment, and expenditures per pupil. 2. The rationale for the study of school finance and indications of how the rationale was used 27 In the study. The rationale postula tes three sets of determinant s for educational e x p e n d i ­ t u r e s — expectations for educational services, financial ability to realize these expenditures, and governmental arrangeme nts through which expectations are expressed and abilities u t i l ­ ized . 3- An examinat ion of the budget proces ses utili zed in the 14 largest city school districts, includ­ ing the events observed d u ring the budget p r o ­ cesses and the relationships bet ween the participants. 4. The empirical analysis of the relationship between expenditures per pupil and measures of the three sets of determinants of educational expenditures in 107 of the largest school d i s ­ tricts in the United States in i9 6 0 . The socio-economic profile of the great cities in the United States developed in this report is traced through the growth pattern. The report mentions that large city public school systems did not exist until the mid- n i n e t e e n t h century. Therefore, the school systems studied are r e l a ­ tively new when compared to many of the other social i n sti­ tutions of the same cities. Most of the real growth in our large cities has occurred between 1890 and 1930. Since 1930 there has been comparatively little construction of either residential 28 housing or schools in our large cities. As a result, most of the buildings, w h e t h e r residential or school, are old and out-moded. In addition, have been prevalent, unless unusual maintenance efforts these buildings are not only old but In generally poor condition. The most depressed areas of our large cities tend to become the homes of the very poor. Since the houses are usually large and the rents often d i s p r o p orti onately high, families may double or triple up in order to pool enough money to pay the rent. As density increases, socially related problems, related municipal costs. so do many causing a rise in welfare and These risin g municipal costs must be paid with the same tax money that the school syste m needs to face the task of trying to educate additional numbers of students in these dense areas. the situation, And, to further complicate the d e t e r iorating condition of the property in these areas means that less and less money Is available in property t a x e s , the method used to finance school and municipal costs In most cities. A related phenomenon brought out In the study was the fact that total large city popu lation declined between the census of 1950 and the census of I9 6 0 , while at the same time the school population went up. large cities, For the 10 selected the mean total p o p u lation decreased 6 percent and the mean school-age po p u l a t i o n In c r e a s e d , 20 percent. James feels that local taxpaying ability comes through in this study as a major influence on educational policy. 29 Cities generally rely heavily on property taxes for revenue, and these taxes have not kept pace with the rising cost of education and governmental services. Between 1930 and I960 educational expenditures per pupil In the United States went up 300 percent while .the real property valuation In 11 of the 14 largest cities went down. At the same time, the ratio between assessed value and the number of pupils in eight we nt of the 11 states in which these cities are located up, however. Despite these declines, these cities still have a higher assessed value per pupil than the other districts in their states. The ability of the large city systems to s u p ­ port their educational p r o gram is weakene d by two additional factors: 1 ) the proporti on of non-school and 2 ) special fiscal requirements, legislative-imposed restrictions placed upon urban tax levies. Data collected in this study point out that the non-school governments In large cities absorb a greater proportion of the property tax revenues than do the local non-school government services of smaller cities with in the same states. The large city school systems find that the demands for services have been Increasing drastically at a time when resources are steadily dwindling, with no curtailment of the trend in sight. The city districts are forced to reduce their expenditures per pupil during a time when the remainder of the country Is increasing theirs. 30 Federal funds and the founda tion grants have relieved this p r o b l e m somewhat since I9 6 0 ; however, the hope that society, through the federal government, would continue to reverse the trend of Inferior e ducation In our cities now seems dimmer than at the point of Initiation. . . . if there Is one g e n e r alization with important policy Implications to be drawn from this study, it Is this: local t a x paying ability is the most important determinant of social policy for e d u cation in Ameri can cities. Until we find the means to reverse that e q u a ­ tion, and let social policy determine the resources to be allocated to education, we face a rising sea of trouble in our cities, (page 17) Determinants of Educational Expenditures in Large Cities of the United States by H. Thomas James, James A. Kelly, and W a lte r A. Qarms School of Education, Stanford University, 1966. This is the third study of a series devoted to b r i n g ­ ing order to the theoretical field of school finance. earlier studies expectations received some attention In for educational services have from the researchers, but have not been utilized as a major determinant of expenditures. Per­ haps this is due to the ambiguity of "expectations of e d u ­ cation ." Expectations are an "input" in the d e t e r m inatio n of educational expenditures, reflected by the varying types of programs and problems in communities which have approximately the same financial ability to support schools. Various m e m ­ bers of communities hold different expectations and these expectations are transformed into educational policy. Expectations are made up of values, attitudes, and opinions, 33- all of which are difficult to assess and measure. However, observable behavior which helps to understa nd the ch a r a c t e r ­ istics of expectations is speaking at board meetings, o r g a n ­ izing pressure groups, voting, and m a k i n g complaints to board members. These are overtly ex pressed expectations which can be conceptualized as d e m a n d s . All of the expectations relating to educa tional s e r ­ vices, to staff benefits, and to taxes must somehow be b a l ­ anced in the process by w h ich communities allocate funds to education. To the extent that the school board participates in this allocation process, it must Itself balance these sometimes competing expectations and d e m a n d s . The report suggests that the b a l a n c i n g of these expectations is a fun­ damental function, perhaps the paramount function, of boards of education. The second component of the school finance rationale is wealth and the concept of a b i l i t y . The wealth of a c o m ­ munity has generally been accorded a paramount role in s t u d ­ ies of educational expenditures, for it clearly is a prime determinant of educational expenditures schools. in local public It is reasonable to believe that, at any given moment in time, educational expenditures will be closely related to taxpaying ability. However, economists have clearly d e m o n strated that over a period of years, educational expenditures represent an investment which eventually improves the productive capacity of the labor force. oriented economy, In our mark et- the productive capacity of labor is 32 supposedly related to earnings. Thus, educational e x p e n d i ­ tures at one point in time result In Increased ability to support education at a latter point In time. The final component postu lated as essential for the support of public schools Is the existence of a political system that allows for both the exp ression of educational expectations and the access to resources necessary for their realization. The most important factor in the political system is a governmental structure that allows preferences to be exp ressed among com peting private and public demands for resources, tor, among c o m petin g demands w ith the public s e c ­ and am ong competing demands education. from different In this study, attention was levels of focused upon the structural arrangements s u r r o unding decision-making. These arrangements were analyzed with respect to evidences of how they shape results as m e a s u r e d in educational e x p e n d i ­ tures when factors of ability and demand were held constant. The results of this study indicate that more than two-thirds of the variation in educational expenditures among large school districts can be explai ned by measures of economic conditions reflecting ability to support e d u c a ­ tion and measures of social conditions re flecting e x p e c t a ­ tions for educational services. The financial resources of a community and the cha racter of Its population are major determinants of that c o m m u n i t y 's educational, p o l i c y . 33 Major Purposes and Research Hypotheses The authors have used the general rational e developed in e a r lie r studies to b e t t e r understand h ow fiscal affairs are managed In our great city school systems. The p a r t i c u ­ lar prob lem was to explain the variation In expenditures education In large cities. Specifically, for they attempted to develop further the general rationale, primarily In the area of governmental arrangements and to a lesser extent with respect to demand for educational services, and to apply this rationale in a study of the great city school systems. Particular attention was devoted to go vernmental a r r a n g e ­ ments which influence school budget decisions in large cities. However, the task of ex p l a i n i n g variations in per pupil expenditures has been viewed as instrumental with respect to the b r o ader purpose of the study, w h ich was to come to a more s ophi sticated u n d e r s t a n d i n g of how fiscal affairs in large city school systems are managed and from this unde rstanding to develop some useful guidelines for fis­ cal policy. The general hypothesis tested w a s : If factors of demand for e d u c ation and factors of financial ability to pay for e d u c at ion are held constant among school d i s t r i c t s » then variation in the organizational structure for financing educatio n will be as s o c i a t e d w i th vari ation in educational e x p e n d i t u r e s . General Procedure The sample in James' third study comprised 107 of the 119 largest school districts in the United States in 34 i9 6 0 . Tht? ntjoeasary socio-economic data for the ability and demand clusters were collected fro m census sources; the expenditures data came f r o m the U. S. Office of Education reports; the property tax data came fr o m the local school districts, the state tax commissions, and the census of governments. Of the 107 cities in the total sample, 14 are m e m ­ bers of the Research Council of the Great Cities Pro gram for School Improvement. These 14 cities served as l a b o r a ­ tories in w hich the staff, and interviews, through extensive o bservation identified a number of variables which appeared to be important tional expenditures. in d e t e r m i n i n g the level of e d u c a ­ These factors were Included in a q u e s ­ tionnaire which was submitted to the r e m ai ning 92 cities of the sample. In this manner, a type of lnduclve case study, issue-analysis approach was used to identify the governmental variables for this study. Chapter 3 of the study contains a historical p e r s p e c ­ tive of the budgetary process, the concept of the budget process, boundaries that affect budgetary decision-making, the participants in the process, ceptual approaches to budgeting, the process Itself, c o n ­ and conclusions. The following generalizations are presented to s u m ­ marize their findings and their conclusions: 1. The budget process In large city school districts is far more c o m plex than heretofore has been reported in traditional school finance literature. 35 Textbook treatments of the budget have b een oriented p r i marily towards smaller a d m i n i s t r a ­ tive units, where political realities may be different than in a large city. 2. When school budget documents of today are c o m ­ pared with those of a half-century ago, evident it is that bu d g e t i n g today is far more r e s p o n ­ sible and informative. 3. The financial resources of a community and the character of its population set "boundaries" beyond which it is unlikely that educational administrators and school boards can move r e g a r d ­ less of governmental arrangements. Decision­ maki n g about school budgets must be viewed in the context of a number of "de-facto" limitations on the decision-makers* discretion. Three major reference groups put pressure on boards of e d u c a ­ tion during the budget process: the clientele of the school and the school e m p l o y e e s — both s u p p o r t ­ ing higher expenditures, but for different p u r ­ poses, and the economy or efficiency groups r e s i sting Increases In the level of expenditures. Boards must balance these conflicting pressures pla ced upon them. Hemmed in by a body of state regulations, state mandates, limitations, salary schedules and other staff benefits, services and levy the typical board of ed ucation may 36 become practically Immobilized and attempt only relatively minor adjustments in the school b u d ­ get duri ng the brief time it is b e fore them. The basic structure of the budget decision in big city school systems has been to insure that exi sting programs will continue and to focus b u d ­ get analysis upon those changes in or additions to the existing program. This incremental approach is being challenged by the idea of p r o ­ gram b u d g e t i n g w hich is b e i n g adopted throughout the Federal Government by order of the President. It is anticipate d that the use of p r o g r a m b u d g e t ­ ing will Increase In big city school systems In the coming decade. b. To simplify the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g required by annual budget processes, cities utilize formulas to determine h ow much will be required for p a r ­ ticular budget categories and as a detailed plan for the distri bution of funds. These formulas or norms are based upon the enrollment in a school and/or the number of teachers in a school and are used to determine budget allocations w i t h respect to certified and non- c e r t l f l e d personnel. The major decision-makers are aware at a very early stage in the process of the approximate amount of money that will be available for the following fiscal year. Thus, most budget processes are 37 conducted under an umbrella of "known revenue," and much of the detailed pr ocedures Involved in filling out forms, a n a l y z i n g information, and h o l d i n g public hearings are little more than r i t ­ ual. Even decisions related to the d i s t rib ution of available revenues w i t h i n the s y stem are largely de t e r m i n e d through the w i d e - s p r e a d use of formulas. This process effectiv ely n e u t r a l ­ izes thousands of professional employees from p a r t i cipation in the budget process. 6. The influence of teachers' organizations on school expenditures Is increasing, the budget process. Demands and dominates for teacher salaries and other staff benefits are usually p r e sente d to the superintendent of schools or his budget director at an early date in the budget process so that changes in t e a c h e r s ' salaries can be c o n ­ sidered at the earliest stages of the budget p r o ­ cess. By contrast, there Is no similar channel open for formal commun ication during the p r e p a r a ­ tion stage of the budget process for community organizations which may w i s h to urge that a ddi­ tional educational services be provided. 7* The p o p u l a r dichotomy of fiscal Independence v e r ­ sus dependence bears no relationship to the level of educational expenditures and is not adequate to describe the complex governmental arrangements 38 involved in large city school districts * budget processes. The structure of g overnmental a r r a n g e ­ ments should not be the issue; little consequence their form has for school expenditures. If the public is apathetic or the schools are not responsive to inter ested citizens, no form of democratic government is likely to serve the 8. people well over an extended p e riod of As big city school budget processes have become more complex, time. the ability of the school b u r e a u ­ cracy to exercise substantial Influence over budget decision has Increased, since the school bureaucracy provides the expertise and time n e c ­ essary to collect, organize, and analyze the vast amounts of information needed to p r e pare a budget. Statistical Analysis Chapter U of the report analysis. contains the statistical In this study they selected a sample of 107 school districts with over 25,000 students In I 960 out of a total of 119 possible school districts U. s. Office of Education. listed In a p u b l i c a t i o n by the Twelve districts wer e e l i m ina ted because of the Impossibility o f o b t a i n i n g Information, or because the districts were atypical. One of the major problems faced by this study, and by many other studies of school districts that hope to use 39 census a ri e s data, Is that school districts frequently have b o u n d ­ which are not coterminous with the boundaries of any other political subdivision. The approac h for this study was to determine for each of the 107 districts in the sample whether it was coterminous with some other political s u b ­ division. Where the district boundary split a census tract, the tract was entirely included If 50 percent of the p o p u ­ lation of the tract was w i t h i n the district or otherwise that district was entirely excluded. This method p r o vided data on the po p u l a t i o n w h ich was Identical w it h that of the school districts to w i t h i n +2 percent. in their sample, Of the 107 districts 32 were clearly not coterminous with the boundaries of any other political subdivision; another 12 had very minor differences b e t ween their boundaries and those of some other political subdivision. Data were gathered on the f o l l owing factors for ability and expectatio n parameters: median family Income percentage of h o u s i n g occupied by owner median years of s c h o o l i n g by the adult pop u l a t i o n percentage of labor force unemplo yed percentage of p o p u l a t i o n non-white percentage of elementary students in p r i vat e schools total p o p u lati on For the non-cot erminous districts, dat a on these variables were also gathered for the p o p u l a t i o n center, city or county, that seemed most r epresentativ e of the district. Neither the multiple correlation coefficient nor arty,of the i n d i v i d ­ ual regression coefficients w h ich were examined were s i g n i f i ­ cantly different in either group. 40 Property values have always p l ayed a p r o m inent part In theoretical and p ractical discussions of school district financing. A large majority of the school districts In the United States use taxes on the value of property as the principal source of revenue. of the methods After exh austive comparisons used by the various districts, the r e s e a r c h ­ ers concluded that for the purposes of their study, the ratios p u b lish ed by the U. S. Census were more objecti ve and more comparable among states. In this study, the p r i n ­ cipal method of ev a l u a t i n g the data was mul tiple regressions using a pproximately the same variables rep r e s e n t i n g abi lity and demand factors. This gave a mul tiple correlatio n c o e f ­ ficient which would seem to Indicate that the effect of ability and demand on expenditures Is less in the smaller districts p r e d o m i n a t i n g in the Ten-State Study than in the large school districts of this study. Major findings of the study were as follows: 1. A careful effort was made, by o b t a i n i n g data at the census tract level, to get census dat a for an area coterminous w ith the area of the school district. Regres sions using these refined data were compared with regressions u s ing the data for the city or county most closely associated with the school district. The errors intr oduced by u s i ng the u n r e f i n e d data were not significant. 2. The basic ablll t y - d e m a n d rationale used In the Ten-State Study was confirmed In this study. i. A surpri sing finding is the large p ositive regression coefficient for percentag e unemployed, i n d i c a t i n g that the h i g h e r the p e r c entage of unemployed, the higher the expenditures p er Average Daily Attendance (ADA). This effect appears to be confined to large districts in I960, and may reflect the effect of governmental rigidities in the face of changing socio-economic conditions. U. The governmental variables defined and measured in this study are unimportant. It is postulat ed that these may be important for each individual district, but that the effect of a p a r t icular variable may be pos itive in one district and negat ive in another, the effects 5. so that in the aggregate tend to cancel out. There is a distinct difference In the effects of many of the variables in districts in the South compared with their effects in n o n - S o u t h e r n d i s ­ tricts. In particular, many of the governmental variables have opposite effects. Special Educatio nal and Fiscal Requirements of Urban School Districts in P e n n s y l v a n i a by Pels Institute of Local and State Government University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, 196*1. The final study for review was completed In 196*1 for the state of Pen nsylvania by the Pels Institute of Local and H2 ."tate Government. It was an inquiry into the impact of soc­ ial and economic conditions on urban e ducation and on state fiscal policy. It focused on the special educational tasks of urban school districts as well as the distincti ve fiscal factors operating in those urban centers. The research efforts sought to measure differences In educational r e q u i r e ­ ments of public school pupils in urban school districts c o m ­ pared with non-urban districts resulting from the s o c i o ­ economic characteristics of the homes and neighborhoods which the children came. from It also sought to measure the d i f ­ ferences in school financing of urban districts compared with non-urban districts resulting from high er tax burdens for non-school municipal services. The research findings In this report clearly show that substantial numbers of urban public school pupils present significantly different educational needs related to their socio-economic background and such needs require new, expanded or Intensified e d u c a ­ tional programs and services which are costly. The findings also show that the school financing capacity of urban centers is significantly reduced by the d i spropo rtionately high tax levels required to support necessary services. The researchers feel that these findings have direct relevance to educational fiscal policy at the state level as well as in the local districts. They feel that the nature and magnitude of the urban problems are such as to command immediate attention. Positive action is called for to e q u a l ­ ize educational opportunities throughout the state and to 43 produce a more equitable financing p a t tern for public e d u ­ cation in the state of Pennsylvania. The next part of this study deals with differentials In educational p r o gram requirements. Using the achievement test data for the school year 1962/ 6 3 , the study found a substantial difference in the educational requirements of urban, suburban, and rural school populations. tricts, Urban d i s ­ as defined in this study, contained 25 percent of the state's public school pupils, yet these same districts contained 66 percent of the state's pupils in school d i s ­ tricts or attendance areas with average achievement scores one-half grade or more below equated norms. Pupils in s ub­ urban districts represented 49 percent of the state's pupils and only 8 percent of pupils in low achieving districts or attendance a r e a s . 26 percent Pupils in rural districts represented of the state's pupils and a proportional 26 p e r ­ cent of the pupils in low a c h i eving districts. This represented a p r o b l e m of m a jor proportions which demanded serious concern at all levels of g o v e r n m e n t . The data indicated that in the 21 urban school districts there were an estimated 156,000 pupils who were ac h i e v i n g o n e -half grade or more below their grade level norms. A p p r o ximat ely 96,000 of these low-achieving pupils were in Philadelphia; this is 40 percent of the district's average daily m e m b e r ­ ship. Approximately 21,000 l ow-achieving pupils were in Pittsburgh--32 percent of its membership; 39»000 pupils were l4Jj in the other 19 urban d i s t r i c t s — 22 percent of t h eir total membership. The multiple correlation analysis used in this study demonstrated that differences in educational requirements as measured by achievement test performan ce were significantly correlated with the social, economic, educational, and d e m o ­ graphic characteristics of the homes and communities in which the children reside. Correlations between achievement test scores and socio-economic characteristics are most s i g n i f i ­ cant in urban school districts and least significant in nonurban districts. In Philadelphia, for example, 77 percent of the variation in achievement test scores was explained statistically by variations in socio-economic c h a r a c t e r ­ istics. In Pittsburgh, the figure was 71 percent and in the other 19 largest urban districts the figure was 59 percent. The analysis thus measured the extent to w h ich low socio-economic status in the homes and neighborhood s of urban pupils was a significant factor In p r o d u c i n g low achievement in the public schools. Based on the data examined, it is evident that grossly disproportiona te numbers of urban pupils come to the public school system with substantially different educational p r o g r a m n e e d s . The multiple correlation analysis also demonstrated that median family Income was the characteristic most closely related to achievement test scores in urban school districts and in some classes of non-urban d i s t r i c t s . Regression lines used In this study to describe statistically the family 45 lncome-achievement score relationships showed that below a median family Income of $4,800.00 to $ 5 t7°°*00 the pr e d i c t e d average achievement scores for urban school population s were always lower than comparable scores for any other classes of suburban or rural school districts r e p r e s e n t i n g the entire state. The new educational strategies and expansions of normal educational programs required to meet the special educational needs which exist In urban school districts were explored and evaluated for the study by Dr. H. Thomas James of Stanford University. ing home, A wide variety of programs involv­ school and community were stra tegically developed and applied programs were recommended. Programs proposed covered all grade levels but the primary focus was on p r e ­ school and elementary grade levels. Perhaps the single most promising strategy recommended is the ex tension of school services downward to include intensive pre-school training programs for three- and four-year old children in identified sections of urban school districts. Kindergarten should be made compulsory in these sections. Amounts paid to local school districts u n de r the Pennsylvania state subsidy system are b ased in part on the assumption that educational requirements of public school pupils throughout the Commonwealth are equivalent in terms of cost. A uniformly applied equalization level of m a x i m u m subsidy in the basic account reflects that assumption. formula of the subsidy syst e m U6 The researchers feel that the findings of this study illustrate that this as s u m p t i o n Is erroneous. Vast numbers of urban pupils require special educational programs which are significantly different and more costly that the normal program. T h eir special requirements are caused by the social and economic disadvantages w h i c h characterize large segments of urban populations. imperative, It is entirely appropriate, Indeed that these differences be taken into account In state educational policy and educational fiscal policy. The second part of this study deals wit h the d i f f e r ­ entials in school financing capacity. school districts The ability of local to finance education depends not only on the available tax-pr oducing wealth of the district, but also on the demand upon the local tax base by school, municipal and county governments. The comparative fiscal analysis based on 1962-63 revenues clearly Indicated that the total tax burden per $100 of market value of taxable real estate is significantly greater In urban districts than In the v a r ­ ious classes of suburban or rural districts repr e s e n t i n g the entire state. The tax b u r d e n for urban school districts was on the average 30 percent h i g h e r than in suburban and rural districts. In Phila delphia the total tax burd e n was on the average 72 percent h i gher than in no n - u r b a n districts; in Pittsburgh It was 52 percent higher. Analysis showed that the differences in school tax revenues related to taxable wealth among urban and the v a r ­ ious classes of n o n -urban school districts were relatively 47 small. The average school tax load for the various classes of suburban and rural school districts ranged fro m $ 1.61 to $1.84 per $100 market-value of taxable real estate compared to $ 1.52 for urban districts. Philadelphia's school tax revenue measured in the same terms was $1.31 and Pittsburgh's was $1.18. In P h i l adelphia and Pittsburgh, however, only 30 percent of total purposes. local tax revenues were used for school In urban districts as a whole, the average of the total revenue used for school purposes was 50 percent. contrast, schools in the various rural districts received, classes of suburban and on the average, cent of all local taxes collected. that school cost By 59 p e r c e n t -73 p e r ­ It should be emphasized figures used in this analysis did not reflect the cost of addi tional special e d u c ation programs required in the urban districts. The high cost of municipal much higher total tax burdens services w h ich produce in the urban districts icantly reduces the ability of urban districts comparable fiscal support signif­ to provide for ed ucational purposes. Munici­ pal revenues amounted to $ 1.65 per $100 of market value in urban districts compared to averages of $.68 to $1.10 in suburban and rural districts. The Philadelphia and P i t t s ­ burgh municipal tax burdens of $3-07 and $2.71* respectively, were far higher than the averages for other urban and nonurban d i s t r i c t s . The researchers state that the present state subsidy system does not recognize the impact of municipal tax burdens. 48 The formula implicitly assumes that the local tax base m e a s ­ ured by the market value of taxable real estate adequately and propo rtionately measures the ability of the district to finance its educational program. The highly differential impact of municipal services costs in urban school districts demonstrates that such districts do not have equal access to the local tax base and that the assumpti on reflected in the present cational formula is invalid as a second base for state e d u ­ fiscal policy. The third part of this study identified those i m p l i ­ cations for adjustments in the state educationa l subsidy system. The sheer magnitude of the problems revealed in this study and the gross cleavages and d i s p a rities measured in the educational and fiscal requirements of u rban school districts will present a p r o b l e m of major governmental tance which affects whole. i m por­ the Comm o n w e a l t h and the n a t i o n as a This p r o b l e m is concentrate d in the urban school districts but is caused by b road shifts and d islocations in the socio-economic structures of u r b a niz ed society. There is a need for a d m i n istrative and fiscal c o m m i t ­ ment on the part of the C o m m o nw ealth and the u r b an school districts to provide p r o g r e s s i v e sustained efforts to offset the blighting effect of social and economic d e p r i v a t i o n on educational development. The state bears heavy r e s p o n s i b i l ­ ity for pr o v i d i n g the n e c essary additional funds required and for assisting the urban dis tricts in d e v e l o p i n g the new and expanded educational progr ams and services that are required. 49 Adjustments should be made In the present educational subsidy system or any new subsidy system d e v e loped under p o l ­ icy guidelines which provide additional funds for special educational programs required. Initially the amount of state funds required should be equivalent to total cost of the additional educational p r o g r a m services required to meet defined needs. Additional funds should be available to those districts In which the special programs exist in amounts reflecting the additional costs of the approved programs. Adjustments 3hould be made in the present or any devised system to reflect the different ial impact of the municipal tax burden on local fiscal capacity to finance education. To recapitulate, the basic finding of this study is that urban school districts In P e n n s ylvani a are seriously disadvantaged financially u n der the present state educational subsidy system in two major respects: 1) Disproportio nately large numbers of urban public school pupils have special educational needs produced by the negative progressiv e effects of social and economic deprivation. These special needs require new and expanded educational services to enable the pupils so disadvantaged development. to achieve adequate educational The additional cost required to develop and maintain these special programs In urban school districts is not recognized in the present state educational subsidy system. 2) The municipal tax burden In pr o p o r t i o n to local tax wealth is much higher in urban school districts than in non-urban school d i s t r i c t s . These high municipal service 50 cost3 effectively reduce the capacity of urban districts to finance local educational costs. This reduced educational fiscal capacity of urban school districts is not recogniz ed In the present educational subsidy system. Municipal Ove rburden by Van D. Mueller, Ex. Secretary Educational Research and Development Council of the Twin Cities M e t r o p o l i t a n Area, Inc. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1 9 6 6 . F o l l owing the model suggested by the Fels Institute Study in Pennsylvania, Van D. Mueller conducted a brief study in Minnesota. The data collected were to dramatize the existence and extent of municipal o v e r -burden in M i n n e ­ sota In 1966. Tables were pr esented i l l u s tra ting taxable valuation, tax levy, levy exclusive of schools, levy, municipal of valuation, levy, school levy, state levy, county the total tax per $1000 levy exclusive of schools per $ 1 0 0 0 , levy for schools per $ 1 0 0 0 , and finally, the total tax levy exclusive of school levy as a percent of total tax levy. The data, according to Mueller, p r e sente d evidence as to the unequal proportions of the local tax base w h i c h are available for financing schools. The procedure ou tlined In C h a p ter III will follow the example set forth In these s t u d i e s . The present M i c h i ­ gan State Aid Act purports to provide funds to local school districts in amounts which insure equal educati onal o p p o r ­ tunity at reasonably uniform rates of local taxation. 51 However, If ove r - b u r d e n such as that reported In P e n n s y l ­ vania, Minnesota, States does, and selected large cities of the United in fact, exist In Michigan, short of m e eting Its stated goal. the Act falls far CHAPTER I II PROCEDURE Sample In e x a m i n i n g the m u n i cipal o v e r -burden p r o b l e m In Michigan, the 25 largest school districts, dent enrollments, were selected. by 1967-68 s t u ­ Two of the larger districts In the state were omitted because they did not have c o r r e s ­ ponding municipalities. They were the Taylor Township and the Waterford Township school districts. In addition to qualifying by the size of its student enrollment, it was mandatory that a selected district also exist as a m e t r o p o l ­ itan center on which tax data could be collected. These 25 school districts were examined for the e x i s ­ tence of municipal over-burden using both the formula set forth by the Michigan Department of Educati on for use with section 17 of the State Aid Act and the formula used for determining municipal ov e r - b u r d e n In Penn s y l v a n i a by the Pels Institute,1 in 107 of the largest cities In the United States Pels Institute of Local and State G o v e r n m e n t , Special E ducational and Fiscal R e q u i re me nt s of Urba n School Districts in P en ns y lv an ia (Philadelphia: University o t Pennsylvania, i 9 6 0 . 52 53 by H. Thomas James, In addition, 2 and in M i n n e s o t a by Van D. Mueller. for those cities 3 levying a city income tax, an additional calculation was made to determine the exi stence and extent of municipal o v e r - b u r d e n whe n a city Income tax was considered as a part of the overall tax profile. Neither the Michigan formula or the formula used in the other s t u d ­ ies considers city income taxes as a part of the total tax pro f i l e . Design To determine the existence of municipal o v e r —burden in the selected city school districts, mation was the following i n f o r ­ used: 196/ State Equalized V a l u ation (SEV) 1967 Total State Tax Rate and Revenue 1967 Total State Tax Rate and Revenue Opera ting Revenue less School 1967 State School O p e r a t i n g Revenue 1967 Local Tax Breakd own Schools Cities Counties Townships Villages 2 H. Thomas James, James A. Kelly, and W a l t e r I. Garins, Determinants of Edu cational Expenditures in Large Cities of the United States (California: School of E d u c a ­ tion , § t an t ord Uni vers i t y , 1 9 6 6 ). ■3 Van D. Mueller, Municipal O v e r - b u r d e n . A Revised Report to the School Districts of the Edu cation Research and Development Council of the Twin Cities M e t r o p o l i t a n Area, Inc. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, June, 1966). 54 1967 Local District S EV 1968 Local District SEV 1967 Total Local Mlllage Rate and Revenue 1967 Local School District O p e r a t i n g Rate and Revenue 1967 Total Local District Reven ue E x c l u d i n g School Operation 1967 Local District Enrollme nt Comparis on Non-Public) (Public— 1967 City Income Tax Revenue i960 Median Family Income The Fels, James and M u e l l e r studies used a simple determinant for municipal o v e r - b u r d e n — w h e never the n o n ­ school operation revenues exceed 50 percent of the total tax profile, municipal over-bur den was assumed to exist. The Michigan State Department of E d u cation uses a percentage comparison r ecognizing municipal over-burden w h e n ever the local non-school* d i s t r i c t 's percentage of operation revenues exceeds 125 percent of the balance of all other districts in the state rate for non-school ope ration purposes. Such items as debt service and b u i l d i n g and site costs are treated as If they were non-school (municipal) costs with i n the Michigan formula. The 25 selected cities * tax profiles were compared using both of these formulas. an income tax, For those cities collecting the equivalent mlllage rate and revenue for this tax was determined and added to the total tax profile established for those cities by property taxes. The same municipal over-burden comparisons were then refigur ed with 55 these new data. The inclusion of equivalent rates and revenues derived from city income taxes was done to form a more complete individual tax profile. The statistical techniques used in the study are non-parametric. of parametric This type of treatment was chosen in lieu methods because the following assumptions can not b e m e t :** 1. No guarantee exists that the po p u l a t i o n is n o r ­ mally distributed a c c o rding to the variables under investigation. 2. The condition of homo geneity of sample v a r i ­ ances has not bee n met. 3. The variables are measured on an ordinal scale. Coefficient of Concordance The Kendall the relationship among the the study. was used to measure five ma jor variables included in The Spearmen Rank Method of Correlation^ was u s e d to measure the degree of a s s o ciati on between paired variables. .05 level of significance was selected as the c r i t i c a l The region of rejection for both statistical t r e a t ­ ments . **David E. Murphy, "An In vestigation of the R e l a t i o n ­ ship Between Attitudinal Factors W h ich Influence Faculty Morale, and Faculty Perceptions of Involvement in Policy Formulation at Public Community Colleges in M ichigan" (Unpub­ lished doctoral dissertation, M i c higan State University, 1968).. 5 Sidney Siegel, N o n - p a rametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: M e 0 r a w - H I 11 Book bompany, inc., 195b), pp. 229-239. 6 I b i d ., pp. 202-213. A rank o rder correlat ion was made on the following individual school district characteristics: Percent of Local Support SEV/Pupil Revenue/Pupil I960 Median Family Income Expend!tures/Pupil All of these c haracteristics are determ inants of the effort and/or ability a district may put forth in supporting its schools. Fol lowing the d e t e r m ination of municipal over-bu rden and the rank order correlations of the various financial and pupil characteristics of each of the selected districts, hypothetical level of support was determined. chosen was above that of the highest district. a The level level in any selected Each district was then measure d against this hypothetical level to determine the effort w h ich w o uld be required by each to achieve this theoretical level of s u p ­ port. A comparison of total tax requirements to reach the same level of educational support then served to highlight the comparative differences in n o n-educatl onal over-burden. It is the intent of this comparison to further exemplify the particular municipal and school needs of these districts and the variation in the required effort to meet them. The new Michiga n State Income Tax levied for the first time durin g the last quarter of 1967 is yet another tax which adds to the individual tax payer's burden. 57 However, due to the complexities of the establishment of a tax of the proportion of this state Income tax, statistical data are not yet available, thus m a k i n g the additional sideration of this pa r t i c u l a r tax Impossible. city Income levies could be considered, con­ Thus, while the state income levy could n o t . This study, while ba sed upon the findings of these earlier studies, did not attempt to replicate the s o c i o ­ economic characteristics portion of the p r ior studies. The findings of these prior studies are accepted and their acceptance serves as a basis for this entire financial study. Consideration of these socio-economic characteristics is relevant to the philosophy upon which the present state aid system is formed, namely, to provide state fiscal support in a manner which insures equal educational opportunities for all of the children of the state at reasonably equitable levels of local effort. It is not the purpose of this study to examine minutely all of the facets of the present state aid act, nor is it the purpose to suggest a totally new or basically different system. This study is desig ned to e x a m ­ ine the present aid act in terms of its adequacy in m e e t i n g special fiscal problems of our urban school systems. The use of the Fels model for the analysis of o v e r ­ burden is appropriate and timely, since it will add to the bank of data collected relative to the larger school d i s ­ tricts in the United States as well as provide data on M i c h ­ igan schools for the first time. This study compares the b8 school operation as a percentag e of* the total municipal tax rate as did the e a rli er studies by Pels, by James, Mueller. and by In addition to m e a s u r i n g municipal over-burden in Michigan, a comparison bet ween the current Michigan :;tate Aid Act formula and that of Pels was made to determine the similarities of these two methods. Thi3 study concentrates on the larger urban school districts in Michigan. No attempt was made to compare the urban problems with those of the suburban districts the earlier studies since Identified this pa r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m — municipal o v e r - b u r d e n — as one peculiar to urban districts. 7 Federal studies such as Racial Isolation In Public S c h o o l s , g and Equality of Educational Opportunity point out the inadequacies of urban schools, plus the social pressures being brought to bear by various which necessitate changes civil rights organizatio ns In the exist i n g structure. The drastic educational change which Is d emanded will require more educational funds than ever provided previously--fun ds that will have to come from state and/or federal sources and be distributed on a basis related to need. ?U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in Public S c h o o l s . Vol. I (Washington, D. c7! Government Printing O f ^ i c e , 1967)• o James Coleman, et a l ., Equality of Educational O p p o r t u n i t y » Office of E d u c ation Survey (Washington, HTT C.: Government P r i nting Office, 1966). 59 Summary The 25 largest municipal school districts In M i c h i ­ gan were examined for the ex istence of municipal over-burden In a manner Fels set Institute forth by tax studies In P e n n s ylvania by the (University of Pennsylvania), by Van Mueller, and by H. Thomas James, in M i n n e s o t a in 107 of the n a t i o n ’s largest cities as well as the m a nner currently in use by the Michigan Department of Education. Tax d ata were collected on each of the selected districts as well as the state as a whole in an effort to determine if Michigan's urban school districts do, in fact, have a p a r t i c u l a r f in­ ancial problem. In addition to tax data, other economic factors were also compared to enable a more accurate picture of our urban p r o b l e m to be drawn, i.e., pupil, percent of local support, comparisons b e t w een revenue/ S E V (indicator of wealth), and median family income. The comparison of methods for d e t e r m i n i n g municipal over-burden measured how well Section 17 of the Mi chigan State Aid Act fits the ac cepted definition of researchers in the field of educational nitions will finance. Discrepancies in d e f i ­ lead to confusion and delay when these same urban problems are examined on a national scale by the fed­ eral legislature, not to m e n t i o n the commun ication problems that will arise among the prof e s s i o n a l s and lay citizens bent on solving educational country and the state. finance problems through the 60 Hopefully, this study will provid e the basis for change In terminology and/ o r definitions with the Michig an State Aid Act which will align It more closely w ith national terminology and definitions of terms. CHAPTER IV ANA LYSIS OF THE DATA Financial data were ob tained from the M i c higa n State Departments of Education and Treasury. Each category of data was reduced to the amount per pupil to simplify and clarify the discussion. One of the most Important factors In the present Michigan School Aid F o r mu la is the state e q u alized v a l u a ­ tion ( S E V ) . The SEV per pupil for each of the sample d i s ­ tricts was plotted on Figure 4.1 for compara tive purposes. The average SEV per pupil for the 1967-68 school year is represented by the line which transverses the graph and represents $14,459*00 of S E V per pupil. This figure illustrates the tendency of the i n d i v i d ­ ual d i s t r i c t ’s SEV to fall close to the state average. This was to be expected since these 25 sample districts represent 38.73 percent of the enrollment in the entire state. It also illustrates quite clearly those districts w h ich are in extreme positions, such as Dea rborn and Crosse Polnte at the high end, and Garden City, Roseville, Wayne Community and Lincoln Park at the low extreme. It Is int e r e s t i n g to note that 22.07 percent of this sample group's school 61 62 $ 1 4 , 4 5 9 - - STATE A V E R A G E 36 $16,341 DETROIT. 17,807 18,974 14,181 16,239 16,676 19,268 16,957 34,902 9,397 12,184 19,775 22,250 18,131 12,432 14,605 17,906 10,117 16,691 12,665 8,883 6,413 9,729 9,399 27,740 F L I N T -G R A N D RAPIDS L I V O N I A ----L A N S I N G -----WARREN C O N S O L I D A T E D PONT IA C _______________ SAG I N A W --------------DEARBORN. WAYNE COMMUNITY. ROYAL O A K ----K A L A M A Z O O ----ANN A R B O R ----BIRMJNGHAMU T I C A --BAY CITYSOUTHFIELDFARM INGTONJACKSON— PORT HURON. ROSEVILLEGARDEN CITY. EAST DETROIT. LINCOLN PARK— GROSSE POI NTH. FIGURE 4.1- -STA TE EQUALIZED VALUATION (SEV)/PUPIL X $1,000 63 population attends districts In which the SEV is below the state average. F o l l o w i n g the e x a m i n a t i o n of S EV for the various d i s t r i c t s , expenditure p er pupil was are presented indicator In Figure 4.2. of district examined. If, In fact, These data the S E V Is an wealth, then there should be a r e l a ­ tionship between t h i 3 w e a l t h and the expenditure p er pupil. The transverse line on Figure 4.2 represents the average expenditure in Michigan for the school yea r 1967-68, an amount of $597.82. Again there is a high relationship between the amount spent in the various districts and the average figure. Also, note again the extreme high p o s ition of Dearborn and Grosse Pointe when compared with the others. It is indeed revealing when we examine this figure for those districts lower than the state average to find that only four districts, the average most or 16 percent of the sample, expenditure per pupil extreme of these four, fall below in the state and that the Garden City, is only $16.33 below that average. Another of the factors of interest in this study was the median family income in these districts. This item was used to verify its relationship to indicated weal t h via SEV. Medians were most difficult to obtain, ures exist for the chosen year. since no state fig­ The i960 census figures were incomplete because of the variation between school district boundaries and census tracts. However, local p o l i t ­ ical offices were able to supply figures and these are 64 WARREN C O N S O L I D A T E D _ $507.82-- STATE A V E R A G E 800 1000 $718.34 724.47 626.72 719.10 768.82 690.34 P O N T I A C ________________ 708.29 SAGI N A W ______________ . D E A R B O R N ______________ 586.76 998,74 WAYNE C O M M U N I T Y 636.60 ROYAL OA K ______ 632.42 776.88 878.30 850.77 598.67 587.94 711.84 641.32 746.86 610.12 620.83 581.49 687.17 587.76 909.44 r 200 DETROIT FLINT _ GRAND RAPIDS LIVONIA ____ LANSING _____ F KALAMAZOO ______ ANN A R B O R ______ BIRMINGHAM UTICA _____ BAY CITY SOUTHFI ELD FARMINGTON JACKSON ___ PORT HURON ROSEVILLE GARDEN CITY EAST D E T R O I T LINCOLN PARK GROSSE POINTE. $597.82--state FIGURE 4.2--1967-68 expenditure/pupil average 6t> reported In Figure *J. 3 . The transverse line represents the median M i c h igan family Income of $6,256.00. Note that In the extreme positions are Qrosse Polnte and B i r m i n g h a m on the high end and Port Huron on the low end. With the ex ception of Qrosse Polnte, these cities have not been In extreme positions In e i t h e r S EV or expenditures. Pour of the districts ?1 fall below the state median, while are above it. The fourth category of financial data c ollected on each school district was local revenue per pupil. data are presented in Figure 4 4 . represents These The transverse line the average state level of local revenue per pupil, an amount equal to $306.9**. Note that the graph Illustrates that 19 of the 25 districts collect more than the state average p e r pupil. Dearborn and Qrosse Polnte are In the extreme high p o s i ­ tions with Qarden City, Lincoln Park, East Detroit and Pioseville in the extreme low positions. The final figure collected was the percentage r e l a ­ tionship between total local tax rates and those levied for purposes of school o p e r at ion as p r e sented in Figure **.5. This is the factor that is reported in the Fels study to be the indicator of municipal over-burden. It Is this factor which best illustrates the competitive positions In w h ich the large city schools find t h e m s e l v e s — competing w ith their own municipal g o v e r n m e n t s . study: As was point ed out In the Pels 66 $6,256--state 8000 median 10000 12000 >6,838 DETRO IT FL INT 6 ,275 GRAND RAPIDS 6,411 LIVONIA 8,243 LANSING 6,588 WARREN C O N S O L I D A T E D . 6,948 PONTIAC 6,011 SAGINAW 6,147 DEARBORN 8,195 WAYNE COMMUNITY. 6, 9 2 9 ROYAL OAK 8,184 KALAMAZOO 6,365 ANN ARBOR 7,086 10,723 BIRMINGHAM. UTICA 6,985 BAY CITY, 6,179 SOUTHFI E L D 8,387 FARMINGTON. 6,915 JACKSON 6,580 PORT H U R O N 5,824 ROSEVILLE 6,925 GARDEN CITY. 7,354 EAST DETRO 11 7, 7 1 5 LINCOLN PARK 7,065 11,850 GROSSE P O I N I £ $6,256--STATE MEDIAN FIGURE 4.3— 1960 median family income 67 $306,94--s t a t e average $370.84 420.48 314.02 435.19 461.60 364.28 405.75 309.45 904.50 313.39 317.60 493.45 524.42 599.03 357.39 296.49 488.59 289.18 419.70 330.34 279.22 169.45 245,85 228.69 701.91 DE T R O I T FLINT G R A N D RAPIDS LI VON IA LANSING WARREN C O N S O L I D A T E D PONTIAC ____ SAGINAW DEARBORN W AYNE C O M M U N I T Y ROYAL OA K KALAMAZOO ANN A RBOR BIRMINGHAM UTICA BAY CITY SOUTH F I E L D FARMINGTON □ JACKSON PORT HURON ROSEVILLE G ARDEN CITY 3 EAST D E T R O I T LINCOLN PARK GROSSE POINTE 5306.94--STATE FIGURE 4.4--1967-68 AVERAGE local revenue/pupil _ 48.78%-"STATE 80 A V ER AG E 100 DE TR O IT 39.0 FLINT 58. 0 _ G R A D D RAPIDS 3 6.7 LIVONIA ---- 50. 0 LANSING ----- 4 9.7 WARREN CONSOLIDATED — 42.0 PONTIAC --------------- 38.9 SAGINAW --------------- 4 7.3 DEARBORN _____________ 4 5.5 WAYNE C O M M U N I T Y ------ 50. 0 ROYAL OAK 4 4.7 KAL A M A Z O O . 48.0 ANN ARBOR 45.0 BIRMINGHAM 4 8.3 UTICA 43.6 _____ BAY CITY 38. 3 SOUTH F I E L D 48.5 FARMINGTON 4 4.3 JACKSON -- 4 4.4 PORT HURON 46.5 ROSEVILLE 4 3.2 GARDEN CITY 41. 4 EAST D E T R O I T 44.8 LINCOLN PARK 39.1 POINTE. 43.3 GROSSE % 48.78Z--STATE AVERAGE FIGURE 4.5--1967-68 p e r c e n t a g e of l o c a l r e v e n u e for s c h o o l o p e r a t i o n 69 The analysis clsarly Indicates that It Is the cost of municipal services which produces the significantly heavi er total tax burdan in urban school districts . . . The Individual tax burdens In nearly all of the 21 urban municipalities were h e a v i e r than the average tax burdens of the n o n - ur ban groups. . . The Impact of urbanization related to the hi gh e r cost of municipal services is clearly reflected in the p a t te rn e stablished by the ratios, (local op e r a t i n g and total local) By far the highest municipal tax ratios are found In the largest urban c i t i e s . 1 The same appears to be true In Michigan, according to the data collected. Of the selected districts, 21 had a percentage of local tax support for school operation lower t h a n the average d id not have for the state. The only districts which an over-burden were Flint, Livonia, Lansing, and Wayne Community. The average percent of local taxes for school operation for all districts in the state was 48.77 percent. t axes went tions for the support of municipal government other than school operation. target the m a i n costs This means that over 50 percent of local Yet, func­ school levies are for voter op position to rising government and are a target which is highly vulnerable to voter rejection at the polls. Three municipalities in the sample group collected a city income tax during the 1967-68 school year. This additional tax should be included in the overall tax burden of the district as stated earlier. Including the Income Fels Institute of Local and State G o v e r n m e n t , Special Educational and Fiscal Requirements of Urban School districts in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1^6*0 . 70 taxes with the total taxes changes the percent of o v e r ­ burden for the three districts as Indicated In Table 4.1. TABLE 4 . 1 . — Percent o f Local Taxes for School Operation. District Excluding Income Tax Including Income Tax De t ro i t 39-00 percent 38.84 percent Flint 57-71 percent 56.26 percent Saginaw 47.28 percent 46.19 percent Following the d e t e r min ation of municipal over-burden, a hypothetical u s e d was level of support was chosen. $1,100/pupil which excee ded the highest level of any o f the districts s e l e c t e d — the support b o r n was (See Table 4.2) tricts The figure $1,058.86. level in D e a r ­ By r a i sing all d i s ­ to the same arbitrarily chosen figure, the effects of the Michigan over-burden highlighted. revenues formula, Section 17, could be The effort ne cessary to bring each district*s to this hypothetical level was then calculated. The resulting millage increase, the total effort necessary, and the o f f - s et ting effect o f Section 17 are reported in Table 4.2. Assistance to the local district through Section 17 does not depend upon any factor of local effort. Regard­ less of the local school o p e r ation millage level, Section 17 remains constant. Section 17 aid Is determined by the p e r ­ centage comparison of the local non-school operation millage and the average non-school operation millage of the balance 71 EQUIVALENT MILLAGE OP SECTION 17 26.9? 2 6 . 2a 24 .4 22.1 11.8 27.8 21.5 47.1 44 .0 24 .9 54 .7 47.7 1.9 none none •3 .2 18.6 18.4 15.8 22.9. 31.6 a 29.7 22.8 17.9 1.2 49.8 48.3 41.2 33.7 24 .1 80 .4 none none none none 1.0 22.9 65.0 40.2 36 .4 44.8 61.7 none none none none none CURRENT LOCAL OPERATION MILLAGE ALL SOURCES 6 0 4 .12 664.85 797.92 1 ,058.86 630 .03 TOTAL MILL. NECESSARY EXCLUDING SECTION 17 Warren Cons. Pontiac Caginaw Dearborn Wayne Comm. $702.45 715.30 591.00 698.39 748.38 ADDITIONAL MILLAGE NEEDED Det rolt Flint G. Rapids Livonia Lansing PRESENT REVENUE SCHOOL DISTRICT TABLE *4.2.— Local Effort Necessary to Raise Support to $1100 per Pupil. 22.7 21.9 Royal Oak Kalamazoo Ann Arbor Birmingham Utica 588 .16 768.19 752.01 832.17 625.72 21.0 30.0 25.6 42.1 17.2 15.4 14 .8 36.1 Bay City Southfield Farmington Jackson P t . Huron 576.03 725.51 596.76 727.51 649.00 18.0 24 .6 23.4 23.4 23.8 35.8 21.1 49.7 23 .4 35.6 53.8 45.7 73.1 46.8 59.4 none none none none none Roseville Garden City East Detroit Lincoln Park Grosse Polnte 627.63 5 4 0 .48 543.68 607.69 877.72 25.6* 20.5? 23.1? 2 0 . 2a 22.9 53.1 87.8 56.9 51.0 8.1 78.7 108. 3 80 .0 71.2 31.0 4.4 1.6 .1 7.4 none 23.0 a Equlvalent local m i l l a g e to equal present level of support Including aid from S e c t i o n 17* 72 of the state. There is no p r o vi sion u n der Sec t i o n 17 of the Michigan State Aid Act to even p a r t i a l l y reimburse a local district for e x tra financial effort on its part. Once determined on the basis of local n o n — school operation m i l ­ lage, the aid available remains constant; aid can vary only as the non-school o p e r a t i o n millage v a r i e s . Statistical Analysis Results of the Kendall Analysis of Concordance, Table .3, reveal a correl a t i o n value responding value o f chi square, freedom, exceeds the (W) of .55. The c o r ­ 66.0 with 24 degrees of .001 level of significance w hich ind i ­ cates that the ob t a i n e d coefficient Is sig nificantly d i f ­ ferent from zero. TABLE 4.3.— Kendall C o r r e l a t i o n Analysis of A s s o c i a t i o n Among Five Factors Related to Municipal Over-Burden. w X2 d.f. Level of Significance .55 66.0 24 .001 These findings provide evidence that a significant relationship does exist among the variables 3tudy, i.e., SEV/Pupll, Revenue/Pupil, Included in the Percent of Local Sup­ port, Expendltures/Pupll and Family Income. F u r ther a n a l y ­ sis to determine those factors which account for this rela­ tionship Is Indicated. 1 73 Results of the Spearman Rank Analysis, Table M .4, reveal correlation values r a n g i n g f rom .01 to .85. Obtained values for the variable sets of SEV/Pupil - R e v e n u e / P u p i l , SKV/Pupil - E x p e n d i t ures/Pupil, tures/Pupil were the and R e v e nue/Pupil - E x p e n d i ­ found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant at .01 level of confidence. able sets of Revenue/Pupil Obt a i n e d values for the v a r i ­ - Percent of Local Support and Percent of Local Support - E x p enditure s/Pupil were exceed the .05 level o f significance. found to Obt ained values for all other variable sets failed to equal or exceed the .05 level of significance. .— Results of the Matrix Correla tion Analysis for Ten Variable Sets Pertain ing to M u n i c i ­ pal Over-Burden. TABLE * CM 00 Revenue/Pup11 • REV E N U E /PUPIL 1 1 1 BEV/Pupl1 SEV/ PUPIL PERCENT O F LOCAL SUPPORT -- - Percent of Local Support .71® .01 .^b .85® .27 ---- -Hlb .17 ---- .33 Income Degrees o f fre e d o m - 23 aS lgnlfloant at .01 level. S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 level. I960 FAMILY INCOME .10 Expenditures/ Pupil Family EXPENDI­ TURES/ PUPIL 74 The findings reported in Table 4.4 Indicate that following variables related to school finance In M i c h i ­ the gan tend to vary together: 1. SEV/Pupil and Revenue/Pupil 2. SEV/Pupil a nd E x p e n d i t u r e s / P u p 11 3. R e venue/Pupil and Expenditures/Pupil 4. Percent of Local Support and Expen ditures/Pupil 5* R evenue/P upil and Percent of Local Support Slight r e l ationships do exist for the r e m aining v a r ­ iable sets. Thus, it is However, these r elationships are not significant. concluded that the significant degree of a s s o c i ­ ation discovered a m o n g the five variables (Table 4.1) is accounted for by 1) the tendency for school districts w ith various SEV/Pupil levels to be characteri zed by c o r r e s p o n d ­ ing levels of Revenue/Pupil and Expenditures/Pupil, ?) tendency for schools with var ying percentages of the local support to be characterized by corresp onding levels of School Expenditures/Pup il and Revenue/Pupil. All things defined the and considered, in p r e c e d i n g sections, mu nicipal over-burden, does exist in a number of selected Michig an school districts. of over-burden, as percent of local support, The basic element Is significantly correlated with revenue p e r pupil and expenditure p e r p u p i l — two commonly and related tions are used terms In M i c h i g a n school aid determ ination financial discussion. Conclusions and r e c o m m e n d a ­ reviewed in the next chapter. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M END ATIONS Summary The competition In our society today for tax d o l ­ lars by all arms of government Is so keen that urban school systems will not be able to provide equal educational o p p o r ­ tunity for their many students without the application of a logical and thoroughly Ju s t i f i a b l e support formula. Urban school systems operate In a p e c u l i a r kind of environment, an environment which contains many socio-economic ills. Treatment of these Ills demands certain forms of municipal government, some forms supportive and others restrictive. These forms, or functions, o f municipal governments are in direct competition w i t h the educational p r o gram for f i nan­ cial support from the voters. The Mic higan State A i d Act does attempt to consider over-burden, although it Is not referred to specifically by that name, through Section 17 of the Act. However, It Is the conclusion of this author that S e c t i o n 17 does not give fair consider ation to all districts of the state and is more cumbersome to administer than the technique pre sented herein. For Illustration, during the school year 1967-68, 29 school districts qualified under Section 17 for additional 75 76 it was necessary that a school district make a p p l i c a ­ aid. tion Tor this additional aid which opened the possibility that through oversight on the part of a district's a d m i n i ­ strators the children of that district Would not receive this aid even though they were entitled to it. districts which did receive additional Of the 29 financial aid, only nine were Included in the saisple used in this study as being large city school systems. large Perhaps districts other than urban ones have financial difficulties, and perhaps economic need is not the exclusive property of large city schools, but surely districts which rank among the state's wealthier districts can hardly be consi dered worthy of special legislative financial aid. However, certain of these districts did receive financial aid under Section 17 for the school year reported. While 21 o f the 25 districts in this sample would h a v e qualified for financial aid und er the technique a c c r e d ­ ited by extensive studies throughout the country, only nine received aid from the M i c h i g a n legislature under Section 17. The 20 other districts w h i c h did receive aid under this received $3 ,057 t71*1*.64 . money This M a n s Act that 21 percent of the allocated under S ec t i o n 17 was used by school d i s ­ tricts which could not qua l i f y as large urban school systems. Summary of Findings 1. Municipal o v e r - burden does exist to a c o n s i d e r ­ able extent in the state of Michigan. 77 2. To a degree this p r o b l e m has been recognized and attempts have been made to rectify It through Section 17 of the State Aid Act. 3. S ection 17 haa not b e e n structured tightly enough n o r has the p r o b l e m been identified clearly e no u g h to eliminate the u n d e s erving and to provide for all that are in genuine need. 4. Slightly less than 40 percent of the students attending public schools in Michigan during the school year o f 1967-68 were enrolled in the 25 largest districts In the state. 5. Just over 22 per c e n t of the sample group's s t u ­ dent p o p u l a t i o n a t t e n d schools with an SEV which is less than the state average. 6. Only four of the s e l e c t e d districts spent less per pupil d u r i n g 1967-68 than the average e x p e n ­ diture p er pupil In the state. 7* Only four of the selected districts had a median family income less than the state average. 8. Nineteen of the sel e c t e d districts collect more dollars p e r p u pil than the state average. * 9. Twenty-one o f the selected districts had a m u n i c ­ ipal o ver-b u r d e n as d e f i n e d by the Pels formula of percent o f local taxes for school operation. 10. In the state of Michigan durin g 1967-68, 51.22 percent of the local taxes were collected for municipal services other than school operation. A significant relationship does exist between the variables s t u d i e d — SEV/Pupil; Percent of Local Support; Revenue/Pupil; Expenditures/Pupil; and M e d i a n Fami l y Income. No significant relati o n s h i p was found between SEV/Pupil and Percent o f Local Support; Pupil and M e d i a n Family Income; and Median Family Income; port and Med i a n Family Revenue/Pupil Percent of Local S u p ­ Income; and finally, E x penditures/Pupil and M e dian Family SEV, SEV/ Income. the p r e s e n t Indicator of district wealth, was not si g n ificantly related to the Percent of Local Tax Support or Median Family Income. M e d i a n Family Income was not significantly related to any of the factors utilized in finan­ cial comparisons of districts, Revenue/Pupil, i.e., SEV, Percent of Local Support, and Expendltures/Pupll. The local mil l a g e rates that would be necessary to raise all o f the selected districts to the h y pothetical level of $1100 per pupil w o uld be unrealistic to expect of any district. They only serve to Illustrate the inequity o f f i nan­ cial support u n der the present State Aid Act. Re cossnendat Ions The State Aid Act should be modified to a c c o m ­ plish the following: 79 a. Clearly identify the p r o b l e m for what it I s . Certain districts find t h e m selves In a less favorable p o s i t i o n In regard to financial support t h a n do o t h e r d i s tricts in the state due to m u n i c i p a l o v e r-burden, and c o m p e t i ­ tion w i t h o t h e r m u n icipal services within their own districts. b. Clearly state the intent of special consid­ eration. The State o f M i c h i g a n shall p r o v i d e additional state financial assistance for those districts In the state who have a demonst rated m u n i c i ­ pal over-burden. Municipal over-burden Is h e rein d e f i n e d as non-s chool operation lev­ ies w i t h i n the district e x c e e d i n g the average non-school o p e r a t i o n levy within the state. c. Utilise a formula whi ch contains the m u n i c i ­ pal o v e r -b u r d e n I dentific ation technique as described h e r e i n . d. Develop w i t h i n the State Aid formula the r elati o n s h i p b e t w e e n municipal over-bur den and the amount o f financial assistance to be m l y e n . W ithout c o mplete di s r e g a r d for the thought and study that the present State Aid formula c o n t a i n s , a m u n icipal o v e r - b u r d e n factor m y be a p p l i e d f o l lowing aid determination. 80 This aid determin ation would be as in the present m a n n e r with the exception of Section 17, which Is herein replaced by the m u n i c i ­ pal o v e r - bu rden factor w h i c h Is Illustrated In Figure 5.1. For example, after State Aid was determined for the Detroit School D i s ­ trict , the Percent of Local Support w o u l d be compared to the Average Percent of Local S u p ­ port in the State. F o l l o w i n g this d e t e r m i n a ­ tion, the amount of State Aid normally received is multiplied by the perc entage factor and additional aid is distribut ed accordingly. For the ye a r of this study, Detroit would have received $15,8 84,288.00 in special state aid. This would compare with the $9,110,549.00 they did receive, or an additional $22.89 p e r pupil in state aid. The computations for the sample districts are shown in Table 5.1. If the pro po s e d for­ mula were to have been used d u r i n g the 196768 school year, state monies w o uld have been distributed as indicated in Column 2, rather than as actually d i s t r ibuted as indicated in Column 3 of Table 5-2. From Table 5.2 it is plain to see that more aid would have been distributed to the various districts from state sources under FIGURE 5.1.--Over-Burden Formula. 100 -rSchool District Operational Millage ^ ' Total Local Millage Average State School Operational Millage\ Average Total State Millage a Percentage of Over-Burden / TABLE 5-1.— Over-Burden Computations. oc Pt, s o o h -t W J h O 853 X U J DISTRICT OUH COOK Detroit Flint Orand Rapids Livonia Lansing 20.76 21.85 26.20 Warren Cons. Pontiac Saginaw Dearborn Wayne Conun. 18.35 15 .80 22.90 30.60 13-10 26.90 18.61 bJ o 8 3C WO3 UOO. Cl. tO O 53.2337.86 36.70 53.60 52.84 39.00 57.71 35.69 50.19 49.58 20.05 none 26.83 none none $267.73 $257.20 $274.38 $251.97 $268.89 $53.68 none $73.62 none none 44 .37 46.94 33-42 50.31 61.32 41.94 39.09 47.28 45.52 49.90 14.02 19.86 3.08 6.68 none $234.62 $242.96 $253.22 $151.18 $307.20 $32.89 $48.25 $ 7.80 $10.10 none 51 .20 48.01 46.67 62 .10 58.83 44 .63 47.91 45.00 48. 31 43.53 8.51 1.78 7.75 .96 10.76 $268.12 $262.81 $207.00 $230.55 $260.93 $22.82 $ $.68 $16.0$ $ 2.21 $28.08 38.26 21.57 .74 9.43 8.90 4.53 $278.12 $233.95 $306.48 $307.81 $312.80 $59.99 $ 1.73 $28.90 $27.80 $14.17 11.62 15.25 8.20 19-72 10.25 $309.30 $356.52 $297.1$ $304.73 $173.00 $35.9$ $54.37 $24.37 $60.09 $17.73 Royal Oak Kalamazoo Ann Arbor Birmingham Utica 30.00 25.61 Bay City Southfield Farmington Jackson Port Huron 18.00 24 .60 23.40 23-42 23.75 52.97 52.70 51-00 48.42 44 .18 44.44 46.57 Roseville Oarden City E. Detroit Lincoln Park Orosse Polnte 25.61 20.50 23.13 20.17 22.90 59-41 49.59 51.65 51.51 52.31 43.11 41.34 44.78 39-16 43.78 Average: 21.03 43.11 48.78 22 .85 23 .00 21.00 o-t t ■< OJ o E-t * -* SB J E-* O O K K X U 47.05 50.81 aSt* Figure 5.1 on preceding page. • 83 20 .05 none 26 .83 none none $321.41 $257.20 $348.00 $251.97 $268.69 $298.52 $257.20 $ 2 7 4 .38 $ 256.56 $271.69 yes no yes no no Warren C o n s . Pontiac Saginaw Dearborn Wayne Comm. 14 .02 19.86 3.08 6.68 none $267.51 $291.21 $261.02 $161.28 $307.20 $234.62 $242.96 $253.22 $151.18 $316.57 yes yes yes yes no Royal Oak Kalamazoo Ann A r bor Birmingham Utica 8.51 1.78 7.75 .96 10 .76 $290.94 $267.49 $223.04 $232.76 $289.01 $268.12 $262.81 $207.00 $230.55 $260.93 yes yes yes yes yes Bay City Southfield Farmington Jackson Port Huron 21.57 .74 9.43 8.90 4.53 $338.11 $235.66 $335.38 $335.21 $326.97 $278.12 $233.95 $306.48 $307.81 $312.80 yes yes yes yes yes Roseville Garden City E. Detroit Lincoln Park Qrosse Polnte 11.62 15.25 8.20 19.72 10.25 $345.24 $410.89 $3*1.51 $364.82 $190.73 $348.41 $366.83 $297.83 $376.43 $173.00 no yes yes no yes -State O v e r - B u r d e n Average: 48.78 INCREASED STATE AID COLUMN 2 PROPOSED SYSTEM Detroit Flint 0. Rapids Livonia Lansing COLUMN 3 PRESENT SYSTEM DISTRICT PERCENT OF STATE OVER-BURDEN TABLE 5 . 2 . — Comparative Distribution 84 the over-burden proposal. For the 1967-68 school year, the 19 districts which qualified for over-burden aid would have received $16,357,703.00 more than they actually did receive. Over-burden aid for the 19 districts which qualify from the sample group would have amounted to $27,77 3 ,323-00 as compared to Section 17 aid of $11,191,113.00 to the same group of districts. The amount of aid an Individual district w o uld have received U3lng the o ver-burden formula is Illustrated In Table 5-3A n u m b e r of changes occ u r In special aid when s w i t c h i n g from Section 17 to the o ver­ burden formula. Mainly, these changes are in the form of Increased state aid. However, three d i s t r i c t s — Livonia, Lansing, and Wayne C o m m u n i t y — which presently receive Section 17 aid would not receive aid when the o ver-burden formula Is used. In addition, Roseville and Lincoln Park would receive less aid u s i n g the o v e r - burden formula. It Is of Interest to note that Flint does not qualify for addi­ tional aid under either Section 17 or the over-burden formula. When city income taxes were considered as a part of the total municipal tax profile 85 TABLE 5 • i .--Over-Burden Aid Per District. DISTRICT Detroit Flint 0. Rapids Li vonia Lansing MONEY F ROM SECTION 17 MONEY F R O M OVER-BURDEN FORMULA DIFFERENCE TO DISTRICT $ 9,110 ,549 ----$ 155,771 $ 90,135 $15 ,884,288 $ 3 ,523,969 none none +$ 6,773,739 none +$ 3,523,969 -$ 155,771 -$ 90,135 _ __ --—— --189,288 814,981 $ $ 1 ,160,654 $ 182,777 225,240 $ none 814,981 +$ +$ 1,160,654 +$ 182,777 225,240 +$ 189,286 -$ Royal Oak Kalamazoo Ann A r bor Birmingham Utica --— —— ----— —— $ $ $ $ $ 460,987 90,717 291,351 39,168 468,824 +$ +$ +$ ♦$ +$ 460,987 90,717 291,351 39,168 468,824 Bay City Southfield Farmington Jackson Port Huron ___ ------___ $ $ $ $ $ 949,942 26,770 441,159 408,534 206,825 +$ ♦$ +$ +$ +$ 949,942 26,770 441,159 408,534 206,825 55**,821 143,731 9,102 937,716 --- $ $ $ $ $ 509,881 757,972 319,905 785,857 223,522 -$ +$ +$ -$ +$ 44,940 614,241 310,603 151,859 223,522 Warren C o n s . Pontiac Saginaw Dearborn Wayne Comm. Roseville Garden City E. Detroit Lincoln Park Grosse Polnte Totals $ $ $ $ $ $11,191,113 ---- $27 ,773,323 + $ 16,582,210 86 as recommended herein, additional o v e r ­ burden aid w o ul d result as reported in Table 5 .4. Detroit would have received an additional $4.39 pe r pupil whe n the Income tax was figured into the total tax profile. Flint, once again, did not qualify for any additional aid. Saginaw, however, received $5.65 more per pupil. Income tax Is a f a c ­ tor of total taxes paid In a district, the Impact of which Is herein Illustrated as it relates to the o v e r - b u r d e n formula. TABLE 5-4 . — City Income Tax Impact on O v e r -B urden Aid CITY Detroit without Income tax: Detroit with Income tax: O V ER - B U R D E N AID ALL A I D /PUPIL INCREASE OVER S ECTION 17 $15,884,288 $321.41 $6,773,739 $17,183,319 $325.80 $8,072,771 none $257.20 none none $257.20 none Flint without Income t a x : Flint wi t h Income tax: Saginaw without Income tax: Saginaw with income tax: $ 182,777 $261.02 $ 182,777 $ 315,174 $266.67 $ 315,174 87 The proposed o v e r -burden formula effect on equalization of educational opportu nity as depicted by the financial support is i l l u s ­ trated in Table 5.5 and Figure 5.2. Table 5.6 reports the local effort needed to reach the hypothetical support level of $1100 per pupil, the o f f - s e t t i n g effect of Section 17 aid, and the o f f - s e t t i n g effect of the ove r - b u r d e n formula. Previously the o f f - s e t t i n g effect of Section 17 to reach this h y p o t hetical level was reported and discussed In Chapter 4. (See Table 4.2) Municipal o v e r - burde n as a required factor In the d e t e r m ination of state aid shall be Included In the calculations for aid for all districts; hence Initiative shall no longer rest with the Individual districts. 2. F u r ther e xtensive ln-depth research Is necessary to separate those factors wh ich account for the vast differences In aid which still exist for districts such as Saginaw, Dearborn, Birmingham, Oarden City, East Detroit, L i n coln Park and Qrosse Polnte. Res earch should be direct ed toward a s c e r t a i n i n g those factors w h i c h account for an Individual district's level of revenue. O f those districts mingham, listed above, Dearborn, B i r ­ and Qrosse Polnte pro bably do not need additional aid, whil e there are others in this 88 TABLE 5.5 . — Impact of Over-Burden. DISTRICT Detroit Flint G. R a p i d s I.ivonia Lansing 1967/68 TOTAL REVENUE/PUPIL OVER- BURDEN AID 7 0 2 . 06 a 689-94 53.68 5 9 1 -1 7 a 73.62 6 9 8 .39s 7 4 8 .38 ---------- TOTAL 72**.95 689.9** 665.56 693.80 7*15.58 604 .12 664 .85 570.76 1 ,0 5 8 .86 630.03 32 .89 **8.25 7 .80 10.10 Royal Oak Kalamazoo Ann Arbor Birmingham Utica 588.16 768.19 73** .01 832.17 625.72 22.82 **.68 16.0** 2 .21 28 .08 610.98 772 .87 750.05 83**.38 653.80 bay City Southfield Farmington Jackson Port Huron 576.03 725.51 596.23 728.27 649.00 59.99 1.73 28 .90 27 .**0 1** .17 636.02 727 .2** 625.13 755.67 663.17 Roseville Oarden City E. Detroit Lincoln Park Qrosse Polnte 627.63? 5*10.48s 543.68s 607.69s 877.72 35.9** 5**.37 2** .37 60.09 17.73 62*1.**6 605.16 567.36 596.08 895.45 Warren Cons . Pontiac Saginaw Dearborn Wayne Comm. ---- 637 .01 713.10 578.56 1,068.96 620 .66 s Includea Section 17 aid which would be discontinued. WITH 1000 1100 DETROI T FLINT GRAND RAPIDS LIVONIA LANSING WARREN C O N S O L I D A T E D — PONTIAC EXISTING 67-68 AID SAGINAW DEARBORN WAYNE COMMUNITY 67-68 A ID WITH OVER-BURDEN ROYAL OAK KALAMAZOO ANN ARBOR BIRMINGHAM UTICA BAY CITY SOUTHFI ELD FARMINGTON JACKSON PORT HURON ROSEVILLE GARDEN CITY EAST DETROIT LINCOLN PARK GROSSE PO INTE, F I G U P E 5 .2 --revenue/pupil including ov er -b u r d e n 67/08 OVER -B URD EN $702.06 $724.95 689.94 689.94 591.17 665.56 693.80 698.59 745.58 748.38 637.01 604.12 664.85 713.10 570.76 578.56 1058.86 1068.96 630.03 620.66 588.16 610.98 768.19 772.87 734.01 750.05 832.17 834.33 . 625.72 653.80 . 576.03 636.02 . 725.51 727.24 . 596.23 625.13 . 728.27 755.67 . 649.00 663.17 . 627.63 624.46 . 540.48 605.16 . 543.68 567.36 . 607.69 596.08 . 877.72 895.45 90 TABLE 5 . 6 . — Comparisons of Total Local Millage for a Support Level of $1100 Per Pupil DISTRICT EXCLUDING SECTION 17 INCLUDING SECTION 17 WITH O V E R -BURDEN Detroit Flint G. Rapids Livonia Lansing 47.1 44 .0 24 .9 54 .7 47.7 45.2 no change no change 54 .4 47.5 42 .0 no change 22 .9 54 .7 47.7 Warren C o n s . Pontlac Saginaw Dearborn Wayne Comm. 48.3 41.2 33.7 24 .1 80 .4 no change no change no change no change 79.4 46 .3 38.5 no change 25.1 80 .4 Royal Oak Kalamazoo Ann Arbor Birmingham Utica 65 .0 50 .2 36 .4 44.8 61.7 no no no no no change change change change change 63 .0 no change 35.9 no change 61.5 Bay City SouthfieId Farmington J ackson Port Huron 53*8 45.7 73.1 46 .8 59-4 no no no no no change change change change change 49.8 no change 70. 3 44.1 58.3 R o s e v i 1 le Garden City K. Detroit Lincoln Park Grosse Pointe 78 .7 108. 3 80 .0 71.2 31.0 74 .3 106 .7 79.0 63.8 no change 74 .8 99.3 77.8 66 .2 30.3 91 H a t i n g which probably need still further aid. Consideration of o v e r -burden In the state aid formula will aid In eq u a l i z i n g revenues. How­ ever, neither Section 17 nor the over-burden formula can completely equalize the problem. Perhaps nothing short of a 100 percent state support plan will be successful ing this g o a l . In a c c o m p l i s h ­ EPILOGUE Author*B Reflections The educational programs in urban schools must be specialized so that children in these areas can enter school with a ba ckground of knowledge and experience similar to that of children in suburban areas, as well as remedial assistance to maintain the same level throughout their years in school. To do this requires e x tra programs, extra t e a c h ­ ers, extra classes, all of which require extra financial support which must come from outside the usual resources. This extra support local tax can come from the state l e g ­ islature through the use of municipal over-burden factors in its State Aid Act. Equalized educational opportunity for all children of the state must mean exactly that — an "equal o p p o r t u n i t y . ” ourely no child deserves to have his educational o p p o r t u n i ­ ties shortchanged solely for the reason that the p a r t icu lar area In which he lives has an over-abundance of s o c i o ­ economic problems. Perhaps, Just because of those s o c i o ­ economic problems, the ohlld should receive an educational program which Is more costly than the p r o g r a m of a child in an affluent area where children receive a wider variety of experiences and opportunities. 92 93 This study was limited to the attempts in Michigan to equalize the d i s t r i b u t i o n of money in the school d i s ­ tricts throughout the state. The study did not touch upon those factors other than financial w h i c h contribute to unequal educational needs and o p p o r t u n i t i e s . does not guarantee equal opportunity. Money alone Equal educational opportunity may well necessitate unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n of money. Special programs, special equipment, staffing pa tterns may very well be needed, and special all of which are more costly than the more t raditional programs, methods, and staffing patterns now pr a c t i c e d in many of our schools. As pointed out in the Fels study, the very cities w h i ch already had an excessive tax burd e n also had the greatest need for special programs, etc. Cons ideration of o v e r ­ burden may well provide a first step toward e q u a l i z a t i o n of opportunities through a different pattern of financial aid. However, more research is needed to identify clearly those other c o n t r ibut ing factors which will need to be supported, perhaps at the state level, educational opportunity will through w h i ch true equality of finally be achieved. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIO G RA PH Y Public Documents State of Michigan. School Aid Act of 1 9 6 7 - 6 8 . of the Public Acts of 1957, as amended. Act #312 Books C o l e m a n , James, et a l . Equality of Educational O p p o r t u n i t y . Office of Education Survey. Washington, D. CV: Government Printing Office, 1966. C o n a n t , James B. Slums and Suburbs. Hill Book Co., 1961. New York: McGraw- James, H. Thomas, et a l . Determinants of Educational Expenditures In Large Cities of the United S t a t e s . S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford University, School of Education, 1966. James, H. Thomas, et a l . School Revenue Systems In Five S t a t e s . Stanford, California: Stanford Univ ersity Press, 1961. James, H. Thomas, et a l . Wealth. Expenditures and D e c i s i o n M a king for Education. Cooperative Research P r o g r a m . Washington, D. C .: United States Office of E d u c a ­ tion, Department of HEW, 1963* Leu, Donald J., et a l . A Look at Michigan S c h o o l s . M e t r o ­ politan Educational Research Association. East Lansing: College of Education, Mic higan State University, August, 1 9 6 3 . Sexton, Patricia Cayo. E d u cation and I n c o m e . Viki n g Press, 1961'. New York: Siegel, Sidney. Won-Parametr ic Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences . flew Y o r k : McGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc.. T & E Z ----- Special Education and Fiscal Requirements of Urban School Districts In Pennsylvania"! Fels Institute of Local and State G o v e r n m e n t . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 196*1. 95 96 4 U. .s. Commission on Civil Rights. Racial Isolation in Public S c h o o l s . V o l . I . W a s h i n g t o n : Government Pri nting Office, 1967. Reports Letter from W i l l i a m Simmons, Deputy Superintendent, Detroit Public Schools, Detroit, Michigan, May 8, 1968. Mueller, Van D. Municipal O v e r b u r d e n . Educational Research and Development Council of the Twin Cities M e t r o ­ politan Area, Inc. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, June, 1966. National Education Association. A report from Long-Range Planning in School Finance given by Dr. Erick l 7 Lindman, titled "School Support and Municipal Government Costs." Washington, D. C., 1963* Unpublished Murphy, David E. "An Investigation of the Relationship Between Attitudinal Factors which Influence Faculty Morale, and Faculty Perceptions of Involvement In Michigan." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, Department of A d m i n i stration and Higher Education, Michigan State University, 1968 .