INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the Rim inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 3 0 0 N. Z EE B R O A D , A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O NDON WC 1R 4 E J , E N G L A N D 8013695 Ah lfeld , G a ry L ee ALTERNATIVE STATE FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR MICHIGAN PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION BASED ON COHORT-SURVIVAL PROJECTIONS OF PUPIL ENROLLMENTS Michigan Slate University University Microfilms International PH.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1979 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England Copyright 1979 by Ahlfeld, Gary Lee All Rights Reserved ALTERNATIVE STATE FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR MICHIGAN PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION BASED ON COHORT-SURVIVAL PROJECTIONS OF PUPIL ENROLLMENTS By Gary L. Ahlfeld A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements f o r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f A d m inis tratio n and Higher Education 1979 ABSTRACT ALTERNATIVE STATE FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR MICHIGAN PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION BASED ON COHORT-SURVIVAL PROJECTIONS OF PUPIL ENROLLMENTS By Gary L. Ahlfeld Purpose o f the Study Everyday in the news media appear s t o r i e s d e p i c t i n g the various s t a t e s o f education f i n a n c e . The c o u r t s o f t h i s land have a c t i v e l y engaged in making d e te r m in a tio n s r e l a t i v e to t h e methodology o f f i n a n c ­ ing e du ca tio nal s e r v i c e s w ith in s t a t e boundaries. A major o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h e r was to examine over time the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f seven d i f f e r e n t f in an c e models on various educa­ t i o n a l s u b d i v i s i o n s w i t h in the S t a t e o f Michigan. A second major o b j e c t i v e was to develop an e c l e c t i c model of s t a t e e d uca tio n f in an c e t h a t would address i s s u e s c u r r e n t l y being debated in t h e c o u rts and in the s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s : 1. equal ed u ca tio n al o p p ortun ity 2. r e d u c t io n o f p r op erty t a x a t i o n 3. add ress the dynamics o f changing school e n rollm e n ts. A t h i r d o b j e c t i v e was th e development o f a long-range planning focus f o r edu ca tion al f i n a n c e . F u r t h e r , th e attem pt was made t o a ddre ss th e i s s u e o f p o l i t i c s in education fin a n c e . Gary L. Ahlfeld A f o u r t h o b j e c t i v e was t o examine the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f c a t e g o r i ­ cal a i d s in e d ucational fin an c e planni ng. Methodology The r e s e a r c h e r s e l e c t e d a s t r a t i f i e d random sample o f K-12 pub­ l i c school d i s t r i c t s in the S t a t e o f Michigan. The sample was r e f l e c ­ t i v e o f the various s t a t e s o f changing school enro llments in th e pu b lic sc hools o f Michigan. The a c tu a l c l u s t e r s o f enro llm ents used f o r c l a s ­ s i f i c a t i o n o f in d iv id u a l school d i s t r i c t s were: 12% 6 .6 0.1 0.1 6.6 12% of to to to to or more gain o f s t u d e n t enro llment 11.99% gain of s t u d e n t enro llment 6.5% gain o f s t u d e n t enro llment 6.5% l o s s o f s t u d e n t enro llment 11.99% l o s s o f s t u d e n t enro llment more lo ss o f st u d e n t en ro llm en t F u rth e r s t r a t i f i c a t i o n developed as l a r g e and small school d i s t r i c t s were randomly s e l e c t e d to r e p r e s e n t each o f the changing e n ro llm e n t c l u s t e r s . In a d d i t i o n , D e t r o i t , the l a r g e s t school d i s t r i c t in Michigan, was a u to m a t i c a ll y included in the sample. Also, the Middle C i t i e s A s s o c ia tio n r e p r e s e n t s 16 d i s t r i c t s in Michigan which c o l l e c ­ t i v e l y r e p r e s e n t th e f i f t h l a r g e s t school d i s t r i c t in th e United S t a t e s . A Middle C i t i e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e was included in the r e s e a r c h e r ' s sample population. Enrollment p r o j e c t i o n s f o r the 14 sample d i s t r i c t s were com­ puted f o r t h e base period o f 1977/78 through 1982/83. Following th ese comput ations, the a l t e r n a t i v e fin a n c e plans were ap p lied t o each d i s ­ t r i c t over t h e l i f e o f the p r o j e c t i o n . The a l t e r n a t i v e fin a n c e plans were a l l c o u r t approved with th e exception of Sena tor Faxon's #1425. The follo w in g a l t e r n a t i v e f in a n c e plans were used in t h i s study: Gary L. A hlfeld C a l i f o r n i a , Faxon's #1425, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, New J e r s e y , and Texas. Conclusions In each o f the p l a n s , segments were a c t u a l l y capable o f p r o ­ v id in g e d u c a ti o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y , r e d u c t io n o f p r o p e r t y t a x e s , o r long range plan ning c a p a b i l i t i e s . The r e s e a r c h e r developed an e c l e c t i c model o f school f in a n c e which may hold some promise in the c o n tin u in g i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f school f i n a n c e pro cedures . The r e s e a r c h e r t i e d t o g e t h e r some o f th e segments o f the Minnesota p l a n , C a l i f o r n i a p l a n , New J e r s e y p l a y , and t h e Michigan plan t o develop a new model o r a l t e r n a t i v e s t a t e f i n a n c i n g p la n . The e c l e c t i c model in c l u d e s a weighted pupil concept with th e e l i m i n a t i o n o f c a t e g o r i c a l a i d s , a r e q u i r e d l o c a l e f f o r t f o r each d i s t r i c t with a r e c a p t u r e p r o v i s i o n f o r those d i s t r i c t s which e l e c t to remain o u t - o f ­ fo rm ula. In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e s e a r c h e r has included a c o n s t a n t reim­ bursement f o r d e c l i n i n g school d i s t r i c t s in excess o f 2%. Also, a r a p i d l y growing d i s t r i c t i s e n t i t l e d to s t a t e reimbursement f o r growth in e x c e s s o f t h e mandated l i m i t a t i o n s . The e c l e c t i c model i s p r o j e c t e d over t h e l i f e o f t h e e n ro llm e n t p r o j e c t i o n s f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f each o f t h e growth c l u s t e r s r e p r e s e n te d in t h e st u d y . DEDICATION Courage and cowardice a re a n t i t h e t i c a l . Courage i s an i n n e r r e s o l u t i o n t o go forward in s p i t e o f o b s t a c l e s and f r i g h t e n i n g s i t u a t i o n s : cowardice i s a submissive s u r r e n d e r to circ umsta nce. Courage breeds c r e a t i v e s e l f - a f f i r m a t i o n ; cowardice produces d e s t r u c t i v e s e l f - a b n e g a t i o n . Courage fa c e s f e a r and thereby masters i t ; cowardice r e p r e s s e s f e a r and i s threby mastered by i t . Courageous men never lo se the z e s t f o r l i v i n g even though t h e i r l i f e s i t u a t i o n i s z e s t l e s s ; cowardly men, overwhelmed by the u n c e r t a i n t i e s of l i f e , l o s e the w i l l to l i v e . We must c o n s t a n t l y b uild dykes o f courage t o hold back the flood o f f e a r . . . . Fear i s mastered through love.* Martin Luther King's words have sp e c ia l meaning t o me and my f a m ily . The r e a l i t y o f our family d e c isio n to leave the s e c u r i t y of a tenured p o s i t i o n which held no f u t u r e and r e t u r n to school to begin and complete the requirements f o r t h i s degree r eq u ire d a l l o f us to gamble on the f u t u r e immediately. This work i s t h e r e s u l t o f a g r e a t deal o f family s a c r i f i c e which demanded t h a t I g e t g r e a t su pport f o r my dream of personal growth. My e f f o r t s have been encouraged by the e v e r - p r e s e n t love o f my fam ily : my wife Nancy, son Steven, and daughter Amy. Without t h e i r c o n s t a n t su pp o rt and enthusiasm f o r the venture plus t h e i r always g e n t l e prodding, t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n may never have been com­ pleted. To each o f you I expre ss my s i n c e r e thanks f o r your u n y i e l d ­ ing lo ve and s up p ort. *"Antidoes to F e a r , " S tre n gth to Love. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT The completion o f a d i s s e r t a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s th e c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t s o f many i n t e r e s t e d p erso ns. This e f f o r t i s no d i f f e r e n t — w ith o ut t h e c o n s t a n t suppo rt and encouragement o f the following i n d i v i d u a l s , t h i s one would never have reached cu lm in atio n. To th e f i n e s t group o f p r o f e s s o r s I have ever been a s s o c i a t e d w ith : Drs. Stamatakos, W. Johnson, D. F e a th e r s t o n e , M. Raines, H. Hickey, R. K l e i s , A. Shaw, S. Hecker, L. Romano, D. Gardner, and J . Costar: ment. a h e a r t - f e l t thanks f o r your s h a rin g and your encourage­ To Fred Ignatovich who provided in v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e in the c o l l e c t i o n o f my sample and who provided access to s t a t e f i l e s t o help i n the d a ta c o l l e c t i o n . A s p e c i a l word about Phil Cusick, to whom I am indebted as he provided th e model o f s c h o l a r l y e f f o r t and a ch iev e ­ ment plus he became a sp e c ia l f r i e n d . Herb Rudman became a s p e cia l a d v is o r and f r i e n d as the days s l i p p e d by and the pro g ress was slow. Another group o f p r o f e s s o r s composed my committee. Without t h e i r encouragement and enthusiasm f o r th e p r o j e c t , i t would never have been a ttem p ted. To Van Johnson who r e p r e s e n te d the calm, c o o l, and reserv ed segment of t h e committee. need f o r t h i s w r i t e r . Van f i l l e d a very sp e c i a l To Keith Groty and S c o t t Vaughn; thanks f o r y o u r sup p o rt and your encouragement through the t r i a l s and t r i b u l a ­ t i o n s o f a d o c to r a l program. And then to Samuel A. Moore I I , chairman o f t h e committee, who provided numerous hours o f counse ling even p r i o r t o my e n t r y i n t o the program, who w i l l i n g l y provided s p e c i a l encourage­ ment and enthusiasm a t th ose times when ev ery th in g seemed black and d e s o l a t e , who has been more than a p r o f e s s o r , more than a chairman, and more than a f r i e n d . To you, Sam, I owe more than I can ever repay—My goal w ill be t o always do th e th in g s t h a t w i l l make you proud. A very s p e c i a l remembrance to the "Scorched Earth" p h i l o ­ so ph ical d is c u s s i o n s we h e ld . To Dr. George Garver, Su p e rin te n den t of Schools in Liv onia, Michigan: a big thank-you and I remain in your d e b t f o r t h e time you took with me, the long d is c u s s i o n s on p o s s ib l e d i s s e r t a t i o n t o p i c s , and f i n a l l y th e never-ending encouragement to do t h e t h i n g and see i t through to completion. To a l l o f the above-mentioned p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t o r s —my h e a r t ­ f e l t th a n k s . May we always be f r i e n d s and I w i l l a ttem p t to be an a d m i n i s t r a t o r who r e f l e c t s your p o s i t i v e i n p u t . During the course o f a Ph.D. program, s t u d e n ts a re exposed to many d i f f e r e n t p h ilo s o p h ie s and v a ri e d ex perien c es o f the o t h e r gradu­ a t e s t u d e n t s and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . One draws s t r e n g t h from th e s ha rin g o f t h e hig h s, lows, d e p r e s s io n , and p a ra n o ia. Lifelong f r i e n d s a re made w ith a g r e a t sh a r in g of tim e , knowledge, and humor. s p e c i a l thank-you to some of my s p e c i a l c la ss m a te s: s u f f e r e d , and we su r v iv e d . A very we sh a r ed , we To Sherry and Bob, Rosa lie and Don, Carol and Ken, Abbie and Andy, Ray, James, Marg and John, J o e , and J e f f : we s h a l l s t a y in touch so t h a t we can share a g ain . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................... xxi Chapter I. II. III. .......................................................................................... 1 Purpose .................................................................................................. Problem ................................................................................................... Importance .......................................................................................... G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y ............................................................................. Background .......................................................................................... Methodology .......................................................................................... Nominal Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e ........................................... D e f i n i t i o n s .......................................................................................... A s s u m p t i o n s .......................................................................................... 3 3 4 5 6 7 12 13 16 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................................................................. 20 H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e ................................................................ E arly P h i l o s o p h e r s ......................................................................... J u d i c i a l I n t e r v e n t i o n ..................................................................... Equal O p p o r t u n i t y ............................................................................. P r i o r i t i e s in S t a t e Finance S t r u c t u r e s .............................. Serr an o v. P r i e s t ............................................................................. Van Dursart z v. H a t f i e l d ............................................................ Rodriguez v. San Antonio ............................................................ Robinson v. C a h i l l ......................................................................... C r i t e r i a f o r School Financing Plans ....................................... Tenth Amendment C on sideratio n s ............................................... E f f e c t s o f Taxing P r a c t i c e s ........................................................ 22 32 44 45 47 50 55 56 58 59 63 64 METHODS AND PROCEDURES..................................................................... 75 I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................................................................... Focus o f the P r o b l e m ..................................................................... Sample S e l e c t i o n ............................................................................. Methodol o g y .......................................................................................... 75 76 77 82 INTRODUCTION v Chapter Page IV. COLLECTION, PRESENTATION, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA.............................................................................................. 85 Hawaii School Finance Plan ................................................... Texas School Finance P l a n ........................................................ Minnesota School Finance Plan ............................................... Faxon's Senate B i ll 1425: Proposed S t a t e Aid Formula f o r M i c h i g a n ............................................................ Michigan Pu blic School Finance Plan .................................. C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Finance Plan ............................................... New J e r s e y School Finance Plan ........................................... 87 105 166 225 353 386 406 V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 415 Summary.............................................................................................. F i n d i n g s .......................................................................................... C o n c l u s i o n s ...................................................................................... Recommendations ............................................................................. R e f l e c t i o n s ...................................................................................... 415 416 420 421 467 APPENDICES........................................................................................................... 472 A. PROFESSIONAL REGISTER-TOTAL TEACHING EXPERIENCE B. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS: MOSTLIKELY ENROLLMENTS. . . . C. COHORT-SURVIVAL PROJECTION . . . ......................................................... D. HAWAIIAN STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ................................ E. TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPENSATION PLAN 473 482 497 499 ........................... 501 F. MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION COSTACCOUNTING ............................... 503 G. FAXON'S DECLINING ENROLLMENTADJUSTMENT ............................... 505 H. FAXON'S INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP ADJUSTMENT ........................... 509 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... vi 511 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1 Chronology o f S t a t e Aid Formulas: S t a t e o f Michigan . . . 2 3.1 S e l e c te d Data f o r Michigan's 530 K-12 School D i s t r i c t s , Grouped by Membership f o r 1976-77 79 Sample C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by S t a t e Membership C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ................................................................................. 80 3.2 4.1 Hawaii School Finance Plan--Lakeshore D i s t r i c t ...................... 91 4 .2 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Homer D i s t r i c t ............................... 92 4 .3 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Central Lake D i s t r i c t 93 4.4 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Center Line D i s t r i c t .................. 94 4.5 Hawaii School Finance Plan—D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t .......................... 95 4.6 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Cherry H ill D i s t r i c t .................. 96 4 .7 Hawaii School Finance Plan—P o r t Austin D i s t r i c t .................. 97 4.8 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t 98 4.9 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Arenac Easte rn D i s t r i c t . . . . . . . .................. 99 4. 1 0 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Rudyard D i s t r i c t .......................... 4.11 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Genesee D i s t r i c t .................... 4.12 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t . . . 102 4.13 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Troy D i s t r i c t 103 4.14 Hawaii School Finance Plan—Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t 4 .1 5 4.16 100 101 .............................. . . 104 Texas School Finance Plan: Lakeshore Pro fe ssio na l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ........................................................ Ill Texas School Finance Plan: Lakeshore Maximum/Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s .......................................................................................... 112 v ii Page Texas School Finance Plan: Arenac Easte rn Pr o f e ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................... 113 Texas School Finance Plan: Arenac Easte rn Maximum/ Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ................................................................ 114 Texas School Finance Plan: Elk Rapids Pro fe ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................... 115 Texas School Finance Plan: Elk Rapids Maximum/ Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ................................................................ 116 Texas School Finance Plan: Central Lake P r o f e ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................... 117 Texas School Finance Plan: Central Lake Maximum/ Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ................................................................ 118 Texas School Finance Plan: Homer P r o f e ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................................ 119 Texas School Finance Plan: Homer Maximum/Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s .................................................................................. 120 Texas School Finance Plan: Rudyard P r o f e s s io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................................ 121 Texas School Finance Plan: Rudyard Maximum/Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ................................................................................. 122 Texas School Finance Plan: Genesee P r o f e ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................... 123 Texas School Finance Plan: Genesee Maximum/Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ................................................................................. 124 Texas School Finance Plan: Camden F r o n t i e r P r o f e ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................... 125 Texas School Finance Plan: Camden F r o n t i e r Maximum/ Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ................................................................. 126 Texas School Finance Plan: P o r t Austin Pro fe ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................... 127 Texas School Finance Plan: P o r t Austin Maximum/ Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ................................................................ 128 vi i i Table 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 Page Texas School Finance Plan: Center Line P ro fe ssio n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ........................................................ 129 Texas School Finance Plan: Center Line Maximum/Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s .......................................................................................... 130 Texas School Finance Plan: Muskegon Heights P r o f e s s io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s .......................... 131 Texas School Finance Plan: Muskegon Heights Maximum/ Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ......................................................................... 132 Texas School Finance Plan: Troy Pro fe ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s ..................................................................... 133 Texas School Finance Plan: Troy Maximum/Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s .......................................................................................... 134 Texas School Finance Plan: Cherry Hill Pro fe ss io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t io n s ........................................................ 135 Texas School Finance Plan: Cherry Hill Maximum/ Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s ............................................................... 136 Texas School Finance Plan: D e t r o i t P r o f e s s io n a l S t a f f Experience P r o j e c t i o n s . 137 Texas School Finance Plan: D e t r o i t Maximum/Minimum P r o j e c t i o n s .......................................................................................... 138 4.43 Texas School 139 4.44 Texas School Finance Plan: Determination o f Special Education Personnel and Special Education S a lary . . . . 143 Texas School Finance Plan: Determination of T r a n s p o r t a ti o n A l l o c a ti o n ............................................................ 148 Texas School Finance Plan: Determination o f S t a t e Aid A l l o c a t i o n ...................................................................................... 152 4.47 Texas School 159 4.48 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t Weighted Pupil Units ......................................................................... 169 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Homer D i s t r i c t Weighted Pupil U n i t s .......................................................................................... 170 4.42 4.45 4.46 4.49 Finance Plan: Local Share of Program Costs Finance Plan: Total S t a t e Aid A l l o c a ti o n ix . . . Page Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Central Lake D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Center Line D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . D etroit D is tric t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Cherry Hill D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Po rt Austin D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Arenac Eastern D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Rudyard D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Genesee D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Pupil Units Finance Plan Troy D i s t r i c t Weighted Minnesota Schoo Weighted Pupi Finance Plan Units . . . Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t Minnesota Schoo Finance Plan Lakeshore Computation . . . 183 Minnesota Schoo Finance Plan Homer Computation ................. 186 Minnesota Schoo Finance Plan Central Lake Computation . 189 Minnesota Schoo Finance Plan Center Line Computation . . 192 Minnesota Schoo Finance Plan D e t r o i t Computation . . . . 195 Minnesota Schoo Finance Plan Cherry H ill Computation . . 198 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 x 182 Page Minnesota School Finance Plan: Port Austin Computation . 201 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Elk Rapids Computation . . 204 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Arenac Eastern Computation .......................................................................................... 207 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Rudyard Computation .. . 210 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Genesee Computation .. . 213 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Camden F r o n t i e r Computation .......................................................................................... 216 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Troy Computation ................. 219 Minnesota School Finance Plan: Muskegon Heights Computation .......................................................................................... 222 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t ......................................................................... 227 Faxon Experien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ........................................................ 228 Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ........................................................ 229 Faxon E x perience-T raining C a lc u la t io n Table: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ........................................................ 230 Faxon E xperience-T raining C a lc u la t io n Table: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 ........................................................ 231 Faxon Experience-Training C a l c u l a t i o n Table: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 ........................................................ 232 Faxon E xperience-T raining C a l c u l a t i o n Table: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 ........................................................ 233 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t . . . . 234 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Homer D i s t r i c t ............................................................................................... 236 Faxon Experience-Training C alculation Table: Homer D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ............................................................................. 237 xi Table 4.78b Page Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Homer D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 238 Faxon E xperience-T ra ining C a lc u la t io n Table: Homer D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 239 Faxon Experience-T raining C a lc u la t io n Table: Homer D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 240 Faxon E xperience-T raining C a lc u la t io n Table: Homer D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 241 Faxon Exp erience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Homer D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 242 4.79 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Homer D i s t r i c t ............................ 243 4 .8 0 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Central Lake D i s t r i c t ................................................................................................... 245 Faxon E xperience-T ra ining C a lc u la t io n Table: Central Lake D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ..................................................................... 246 Faxon Experien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Central Lake D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ..................................................................... 247 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Central Lake D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ..................................................................... 248 Faxon E x p erien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la t io n Table: Central Lake D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 ..................................................................... 249 Faxon E xp erience-T raining C a lc u la t io n Table: Central Lake D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 ..................................................................... 250 Faxon E xperience-T raining C a l c u l a t i o n Table: Central Lake D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 ...................... .......................................... 251 4.81 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Central Lake D i s t r i c t . . . 252 4.82 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Center Line D i s t r i c t ................................................................................................... 254 Faxon E xperience-T ra ining C a lc u la t io n Table: Center Line D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ..................................................................... 255 Faxon Experience-Training Calculation Table: Center Line D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ..................................................................... 256 4.78c 4.78d 4.78e 4.78f 4.80a 4.80b 4.80c 4.80d 4.80e 4.80f 4.82a 4.82b x ii Table 4.82c Page Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Center Line D i s t r i c t , 1979-80............... ....................................................... 257 Faxon Experienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Center Line D i s t r i c t , 1980-81................ ....................................................... 258 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Center Line D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 ..................................................................... 259 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Center Line D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 ..................................................................... 260 4.83 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Center Line D i s t r i c t . . . . 261 4.84 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t .................................................................................................. 263 Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 264 Faxon E xperienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ............................................................................. 265 Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ............................................................................. 266 Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 267 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 268 Faxon Experienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 269 4.85 Computation of Faxon Formula: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t ...................... 270 4.86 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Cherry Hill D i s t r i c t ................................................... .............................................. 272 Faxon Experienc e-Training C a l c u l a t i o n Table: Cherry H ill D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ..................................................................... 273 Faxon Experience-Training C a l c u l a t i o n Table: Cherry H ill D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ..................................................................... 274 Faxon Experience-Training Calculation Table: Cherry H ill D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ..................................................................... 275 4.82d 4.82e 4.82f 4.84a 4.84b 4.84c 4.84d 4.84e 4.84f 4.86a 4.86b 4.86c x iii Table 4.86d Page Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Cherry Hill D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 ..................................................................... 276 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Cherry Hill D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 ..................................................................... 277 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Cherry Hill D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 ..................................................................... 278 4.87 Computation of Faxon Formula: Cherry Hill D i s t r i c t . . . . 279 4.88 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: P ort Austin D i s t r i c t .................................................................................................. 281 Faxon Experienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Po rt Austin D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ................................................................ 282 Faxon Experienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Port Austin D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ................................................................ 283 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Port Austin D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ................................................................ 284 Faxon E xperienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Port Austin D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 ................................................................ 285 Faxon Experien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: P o r t Austin D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 ................................................................ 286 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Po rt Austin D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 ................................................................ 287 4.89 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Po rt Austin D i s t r i c t . . . . 288 4.90 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t .................................................................................................. 290 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 291 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 292 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 293 Faxon Experience-Training Calculation Table: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 294 4.86e 4.86f 4.88a 4.88b 4.88c 4.88d 4.88e 4.88f 4.90a 4.90b 4.90c 4.90d xiv Table 4.90e Page Faxon Exp erien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 295 Faxon E xperienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 296 4.91 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t 297 4.92 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Arenac Eastern D i s t r i c t ................................................................................. 299 Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Arenac Eastern D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 300 Faxon Experien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Arenac Eas tern D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 301 Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Arenac Eastern D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 302 Faxon Experien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Arenac Easte rn D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 303 Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Arenac Eastern D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 304 Faxon Experien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Arenac Easte rn D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 305 4.90f 4.92a 4.92b 4.92c 4.92d 4.92e 4.92f . . . . 4.93 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Arenac Eas tern D i s t r i c t . . 306 4.94 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Rudyard D i s t r i c t .................................................................................................. 308 Faxon Exp erien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Rudyard D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ............................................................................. 309 Faxon Experien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Rudyard D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ............................................................................. 310 Faxon Exp erien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Rudyard D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ............................................................................. 311 Faxon Exp erien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Rudyard D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 312 Faxon Experience-Training Calculation Table: Rudyard D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 313 4.94a 4.94b 4.94c 4.94d 4.94e xv Table 4.94f Page Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Rudyard D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 314 4.95 Computation of Faxon Formula: Rudyard D i s t r i c t ....................... 315 4.96 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Genesee D i s t r i c t .................................................................................................. 317 Faxon E xperience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Genesee D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 318 Faxon E xperienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Genesee D istrict, 1978-79 319 Faxon E xperienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Genesee D istrict, 1979-80 320 Faxon E xperienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Genesee D istrict, 1980-81 321 Faxon Exp erien ce-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Genesee D istrict, 1981-82 322 Faxon E xperienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Genesee D istrict, 1982-83 323 4.96a 4.96b 4.96c 4.96d 4.96e 4.96f 4.97 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Genesee D i s t r i c t ........................... 324 4.98 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t ............................................................................. 326 Faxon E xperienc e-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ............................................................. 327 Faxon Experience-T raining C a lc u la t io n Table: Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ............................................................. 328 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ............................................................. 329 Faxon Exp erience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 ............................................................. 330 Faxon Exp erience-Training C a l c u l a t i o n Table: Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 ............................................................. 331 Faxon Experience-Training C alculation Table: Camden Frontier D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 ............................................................. 332 4.98a 4.98b 4.98c 4.98d 4.98e 4 .9 8 f xvi Table Page 4.99 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t 4.100 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Troy D i s t r i c t ................................................................................................. 335 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Troy D i s t r i c t , 1977-73 ................................................................................ 336 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Troy D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ................................................................................ 337 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Troy D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ................................................................................ 338 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Troy D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 ................................................................................ 339 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Troy D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 ................................................................................ 340 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Troy D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 ................................................................................ 341 4.100a 4.100b 4.100c 4.100d 4.100e 4.100f . 333 4.101 Computation o f Faxon Formula: Troy D i s t r i c t .................... 342 4.102 Faxon Weighted Pupil Units School Aid Plan: Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t ................................................................................ 344 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t , 1977-78 ............................................................... 345 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t , 1978-79 ............................................................... 346 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t , 1979-80 ............................................................... 347 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t , 1980-81 ............................................................... 348 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la t io n Table: Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t , 1981-82 ............................................................... 349 Faxon Experience-Training C a lc u la tio n Table: Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t , 1982-83 ............................................................... 350 Computation o f Faxon Formula: MuskegonHeights D i s t r i c t ................................................................................................. 351 4.102a 4.102b 4.102c 4.102d 4.102e 4.102f 4.103 x v ii Table Page 4.104 Michigan D a t a ......................................................................................... 355 4.105 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Lakeshore D i s t r i c t . . . 358 4.106 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Homer D i s t r i c t ................. 360 4.107 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Central Lake D i s t r i c t . . 362 4.108 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Center Line D i s t r i c t 364 4.109 Computation o f Michigan Formula: D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t 4.110 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Cherry H ill D i s t r i c t . . 368 4.111 Computation o f Michigan Formula: P o r t Austin D i s t r i c t . . 370 4.112 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Elk Rapids D i s t r i c t . . . 372 4.113 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Arenac Eas tern D i s t r i c t . 374 4.114 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Rudyard D i s t r i c t . . . . 376 4.115 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Genesee D i s t r i c t . . . . 378 4.116 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Camden F r o n t i e r D i s t r i c t ................................................................................................... 380 4.117 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Troy D i s t r i c t ..................... 382 4.118 Computation o f Michigan Formula: Muskegon Heights D i s t r i c t ................................................................................................... 384 4.119 C a l i f o r n i a Foundation A i d ................................................................ 389 4.120 C a l i f o r n i a Local E f f o r t Revenue Generation ............................. 394 4.121 C a l i f o r n i a Membership Revenue Generation .................................. 398 4.122 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Aid Computation ................................................... 403 4.123 New J e r s e y Formula: Michigan Guaranteed Valuatio n 409 4.124 New J e r s e y Formula: New J e r s e y Valuation .................................. 411 5.1 Pupil Weighting Formula .................................................................... 425 5.2 Sample D i s t r i c t s ' 1976-77 Mi11 age L e v i e d .................................. 426 x v iii . . . . . . . . . . 366 Table Page 5.3 A h l f e l d ' s Weighted Pupil U n its: Elk Rapids ............................... 430 5 .4 A h l f e l d ' s Computation o f School Finance: Elk Rapids . . . 431 5 .5 A h l f e l d ' s Weighted Pupil U nits: D e t r o i t .................................... 433 5 .6 A h l f e l d ' s Computation o f School Finance: D e t r o i t .................. 434 5.7 A h l f e l d ' s Weighted Pupil U n i t s : Muskegon Heights .................. 436 5.8 A h l f e l d ' s Computation o f School Finance: Muskegon H e i g h t s ................................................................................................... 437 5 .9 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t / S t a t e Aid: Hawaiian Model . . . 439 5.10 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t / S t a t e Aid: Texas Model, Minimum Experience Levels ............................................................ 440 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t / S t a t e Aid: Texas Model, Maximum Experience Levels ............................................................ 442 5.12 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t / S t a t e Aid: Minnesota Model 444 5.13 Faxon Prop os al: Minimum Experience Levels ............................. 446 5.14 Faxon Propos al: Maximum Experience Levels .............................. 448 5.15 Michigan School Finance Plan ........................................................... 450 5.16 C a l i f o r n i a School Finance Plan ....................................................... 452 5.17 New J e r s e y School Finance Plan ....................................................... 454 5.18 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t and S t a t e Aid: A h lfeld Model 5.1 9 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: Hawaii .................................................................................. 457 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: Texas/Minimum Experience ........................................... 458 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: Texas/Maximum Experience ........................................... 459 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: Minnesota .............................................................................. 460 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: Faxon/Minimum ..................................................................... 461 5.11 5.2 0 5.21 5.22 5.23 xix . . . 456 Table 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 Page Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: Faxon/Maximum ........................................................................ 462 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: Michigan ............................................................................ 463 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: C a l i f o r n i a ........................................................................ 464 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: New J e r s e y ........................................................................ 465 Comparison o f Local E f f o r t , S t a t e Aid, and Total Revenue: A h l f e l d ' s Proposed Model .......................................... 466 xx LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Page Geographic Location of Sample School D i s t r i c t s xxi ................. 10 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Developments in th e c o u r t s o f the la n d , in s t a t e l e g i s l a ­ t u r e s , and w ith in l o c a l communities have focused nation-wide a t t e n ­ t i o n on th e funding o f p u b l ic K-12 e d u c a ti o n . Few problems in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f p u b l ic scho ols engender more i n s t a n t response than the problem o f revenue production and d i s t r i b u t i o n of p u b l ic funds f o r e d u c a tio n . The beginning o f the modern study o f school fin ance began in the e a r l y 1900s. One o f the e a r l y l e a d e r s o f school f i n a n c e , Ellwood P. Cubberley, s t a t e d : T h e o r e t i c a l l y a l l th e c h i l d r e n o f th e s t a t e a r e e q u a l ly impor­ t a n t and are e n t i t l e d to have the same advantages; p r a c t i c a l l y t h i s can never be q u i t e t r u e . The duty o f th e s t a t e i s to se cure f o r a l l as high a minimum o f good i n s t r u c t i o n as i s p o s s i b l e , b u t not t o reduce a l l to t h i s minimum; to e q u a l iz e the advantages to a l l as n e a r l y as can be done with the reso urces a t hand; to pl ac e a premium on th ose lo c a l e f f o r t s which w i l l enable communities to r i s e above t h e leg a l m ini­ mum as f a r as p o s s i b l e ; and to encourage communities to extend t h e i r ed uca tio nal e n e r g i e s t o new and d e s i r a b l e under­ takings.! From t h i s e a r l y p h i lo s o p h ic a l p o s i t i o n , many v a rie d s t a t e finance plans have a r i s e n . However, r e s e a r c h has shown t h a t only in the l a s t decade has f in an c e reform o f p u b l ic sc hools become a p r e s s ­ ing problem. An examination o f th e r e c e n t h i s t o r y o f Michigan school a i d programs w i l l a t t e s t t o th e emphasis placed on school a id reform. 2 Table 1 .1 .--Chronology o f state aid form ulas: State o f Michigan. Year Formula Gross A1lowance Deductible M illage 2 Maximum P a rtic ip a tin g Valuation 1963/64 $224.00 less 3.875 $57,800 1964/65 236.00 less 4.25 55,647 1965/66 A $12,600 S.E.V. + B less than $12,700 255.00 380.00 less less 4.6 14.5 55,435 1966/67 A $12,800 + B less than $12,700 280.00 407.50 less less 5.03 15.0 55,765 1967/68 A $12,800 + B less than $12,800 294.52 497.87 less less 5.28 15.75 55,780 A B C D $21,000 + $12,737-520,999 $ 9,920-$12,736 less than $9,920 348.00 326.75 474.75 499.75 less less less less 7.0 5.86 17.48 20.0 49,714 1969/70 A $12,900 + B less than $12,900 408.00 549.50 less less 9.0 20.0 45.333 1970/71 A $15,500 + B less than $15,500 530.50 623.50 less less 14.0 20.0 37,893 1971/72 A $16,000 + B less than $16,000 559.50 661.50 less less 14.0 20.0 39,964 A $17,500 + B less than $17,500 644.00 715.00 less less 16.0 20.0 40,250 1973/74* $38,000 S.E.V. 0 22 m ills 836.00 less 22.0 1974/753 $39,000 S.E.V. @ 25 m ills 975.00 1968/69 1972/73 1975/76® 1976/77b $42,400 S.E.V. 0 20 m ills $38,250 S.E.V. 0 7 m ills $40,000 S.E.V. 9 30 m ills + $164.00 f l a t grant 38,000 less 25.0 39,000 1,115.00 less 1,364.00 less loca l e f f o r t to a maximum o f 30 27.0 42,400 loca l S.E.V. to a maximum o f $40,000 aBursley B i l l —power equalizing formula—data shown re la te formula to previous foundation grant formulas and assume d is t r ic t s are levying f u l l formula m illa g e . bCrim Formula—r e in s titu te s f l a t grant w ith power equalizing concept. 3 Purpose I t i s expected t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e f i n a n c e programs a p p lie d to c u r r e n t and p r o j e c t e d Michigan p u b lic K-12 enro llments w i l l y i e l d b e n e f i c i a l d a ta in t h e se arc h f o r a more n e a r l y e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u ­ tio n plan. With t h e impetus o f the j u d i c i a l review o f s t a t e f i n a n c ­ in g p l a n s , the equal o p p o r tu n ity p ro v isio n o f the f o u r t e e n t h amend­ ment becomes one o f the c r i t e r i a a g a i n s t which proposed fin a n c e plans must be measured. The r e s e a r c h e r w i l l attem p t t o i d e n t i f y d i s t r i b u t i o n plans which w i l l be res po n siv e to a d d i t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n a l dynamics ( i . e . , in and out m ig r a tio n and/o r d e c l i n i n g b i r t h r a t e s ) . A f u r t h e r purpose o f the r e s e a r c h e r in t h i s study w i l l be to give a lon g-rang e planning dimension t o t h e study of school a id and th e dynamics o f d i s t r i b u t i o n w ith in th e s t a t e p u b l ic school system. Problem Too l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been conducted in th e development o f a th o u g h tf u l and wise approach to changing a s t a t e a id formula in o r d e r t o c o n f r o n t the e v e r - s h i f t i n g dynamics o f the p u b l ic school environment. Normally, the process involved in making t h e s e kinds of d e c i s i o n s c a l l s f o r p o l i t i c s and compromise. However, j u s t as the c o u r t s have demanded t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e f in a n c e plans must be supported w ith f a c t s , a l t e r n a t i v e f i n a n c e prop o sals must be supported with f a c t s and t h e i m p l i c a ti o n s o f th ose proposed changes. "Provi sion should be made in f i n a n c i a l planning f o r a d a p t a t i o n s t o meet th ose changing n e ed s. Long-range ed u ca tio n al p l a n n i n g , t h e r e f o r e , 4 n e c e s s a r i l y involves r e d e f i n i t i o n from y e ar t o y e a r t o meet emerging need."^ Additional fo rces a l s o impact the p o l i t i c a l and l e g i s l a t i v e pr o c e ss . The co u rt s o f t h i s land have taken a much more a c t i v e r o l e in the d i c t a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e reform in r e fe ren c e to school aid reform. The c i t i z e n s of many s t a t e s are mounting campaigns t o change the b a s i c property tax s t r u c t u r e s which a re the main revenue pro­ ducers f o r p u b l ic education. complex p r o c e s s . However, the process o f change i s a Robert Wessel, in a r e c e n t Journal o f Educational Finance, i n d ic a t e d the complex n a tu re of changing a school finance plan: The l e g i s l a t u r e , in e n ac tin g t h i s school support system, suc­ cumbed t o many tem p tation s . I t became entangled in v a lu a tio n t e c h n i c a l i t i e s . I t a ls o t r i e d to accomplish too much, espe­ c i a l l y in the area o f s t a n d a r d s , and attempted to avoid o ffend ­ ing p o l i t i c a l l y i n f l u e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s by guaranteeing no f i n a n c i a l harm. As a r e s u l t an i r r a t i o n a l and i n e q u i t a b l e system o f school finance was c r e a t e d . 4 The p r e s e n t research study w ill attempt to provide a l t e r n a ­ t i v e funding s t r a t e g i e s with supporting data in order t o i n d i c a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i c i e n c y o f each model to adequately meet the needs o f t h i s s t a t e ' s p u b l ic school environment. Importance This study i s important f o r the following rea so ns . F irst, a review of t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s l i t t l e emphasis has been placed on th e long-range planning necessary t o e f f e c t i v e l y e v a lu a te a p a r­ t i c u l a r finan ce model. A r e c e n t s t a t e a i d formula, introduced as a l e g i s l a t i v e proposal during the week o f March 6, 1978, includes 5 res ea r ch d a ta f o r only one y e a r . F u r t h e r , t h i s proposal r e f l e c t s t he i n t e r e s t o f only a narrow spectrum o f i n t e r e s t s w i t h in t h e 530 K-12 p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan.* A second reason i s t h a t t h e r e i s an i n c r e a s i n g pu b lic ou tcry f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f p u blic school finan ce reform. A t h i r d reason f o r t h i s s t u d y ' s importance i s t h a t c o h o r t - s u r v i v a l p r o j e c t i o n tec hniq ues o f s t u d e n t enrollments w ill provide d a ta r e l a t i v e t o a l t e r n a t i v e f in a n c e plans f o r Michigan p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s over an extended pe rio d o f time ( f i v e y e a r s ) . F i n a l l y , Cubberley i n d i c a t e d the need f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n when he s t a t e d : "Any form o f s t a t e t a x a t i o n f o r schools f a i l s to accomp­ l i s h t h e ends f o r which i t was c r e a t e d unles s a wise system o f d i s ­ t r i b u t i o n i s p rov ided."^ G eneralizability I t i s worth noting t h a t the f i n d in g s o f t h i s study may have impact beyond th e l i m i t s of th e study i t s e l f . F i r s t , s i n c e the school d i s t r i c t s involved w i l l be s e l e c t e d via a s t r a t i f i e d random sampling of the 530 p u b l ic K-12 school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan, i t can be concluded t h a t th e f i n d i n g s w i l l hold t r u e f o r a l a r g e pro portio n o f th ose 530 pu b lic school d i s t r i c t s . Second, the concept o f s t a t e f in an ce reform i s a c u r r e n t l y popular problem f o r d i s c u s s i o n . The r e s e a r c h e r w i l l attem p t to provide a l t e r n a t i v e answers, a p p l i c a b l e over tim e, t o the q u e stio n o f fin a n c e reform. ♦Senator Faxon of D e t r o i t introduced Senate B ill #1425 on Monday, March 6, 1978. 6 Background "Money i s sp e n t on educa tion by p a r t i c u l a r groups in a s o c i e t y to s a t i s f y needs. How much money i s sp e nt depends on t h e i r perc ep tio n and acceptance o f e d u c a t i o n ' s fu n ctio n to s a t i s f y th es e needs, and on the n a t u r a l wealth and economic a b i l i t y o f the s o c i e t y in general."® One can review h i s t o r y and see the a ttem pts o f s o c i e t y t o extend edu­ c a t i o n beyond the a r i s t o c r a c y . S p e c i f i c edu cational needs have been i d e n t i f i e d in various a re n as : r e l i g i o u s , m i l i t a r y , economic, p o l i t i ­ c a l , and s o c i a l / The most pro du ctiv e methods o f a c q u ir in g funds f o r education have been v a rie d m ix tu r es . "These include t a x e s , f e e s , p h ila n th ro p y ( b e q u e s t s , endowments, and f o u n d a t i o n s ) , d i s p o s i t i o n o f p u b l ic w e alth , royal p a tro na g e, use o f p r o f i t s o f p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e , and customs and e x c i s e s . " Other l e s s p ro du ctiv e methods have a l s o been used. Some o f t h es e methodologies a r e : " s e r v i c e s , l o a n s , i n t e r e s t and s a v i n g s , stoc k s a l e s , l o t t e r i e s , th e e s t a b l is h m e n t o f s p e c i a l funds, appeals or s u b s c r i p t i o n s , f i n e s , l i c e n s e f e e s , su b v e n tio n s , exemp­ t i o n s , f o r e ig n government g i f t s , r e p a r a t i o n s and the use o f proceeds O from government monopolies." Yet the most widely used method of funding f o r p u b l ic K-12 education has been the pr o p e r ty t a x . Guthrie w r i t e s in School Review, "This concept o f f i s c a l n e u t r a l i t y i s l i k e l y to be th e new c r i t e r i o n by which to judge school f in a n c e reform ." The concept o f f i s c a l n e u t r a l i t y i s defined a s: " the q u a l i t y o f p u b l ic education may n o t be th e f u n c t i o n o f w e alth , g o t h e r than the wealth o f t h e s t a t e as a whole." The co u rt s o f t h i s land have taken an a c t i v e r o l e in providing t h e impetus f o r s t a t e 7 departments o f e du catio n to re-examine the d i s t r i b u t i o n and revenuep roduction systems used in su p po rt o f p u b l ic K-12 education w ith in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t a t e bounda ries. "The c e n t r a l theme o f many o f the c o u r t d e c i s i o n s i s t h a t the q u a l i t y o f a c h i l d ' s education cannot con­ s t i t u t i o n a l l y be c o n ti n g e n t upon the wealth o f the local school d i s ­ t r i c t . " 10 Furthermore, "as long as the tax r a t e v a r i e s , the questio n o f whether the source of revenue should be th e p r o p e r t y tax or an income tax i s more a tax is s u e to r e s o l v e through the p o l i t i c a l p ro­ cess than i t i s an i s s u e o f equal edu ca tion al o p p o r t u n i t y . " 11 While the i n t e n t of t h i s r e s e a r c h e r i s t o look a t the r a m i f i ­ c a t i o n s o f s e l e c t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n systems, the q u e stio n c e n t e r i n g on p r o p e r t y tax and th e n a tu r e o f i t s impact on K-12 education cannot be ig no red . During the review o f the l i t e r a t u r e , a more thorough examination o f th e p r o p e r ty tax q uestio n w i l l be undertaken. Methodology Data a re to be c o l l e c t e d from t h e p u b lic reco rds o f t h e 530 K-12 p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s in the S t a t e o f Michigan. The s t r a t i ­ f i e d random sample w i l l be drawn from c e r t i f i e d and a u d ite d data c o l l e c t e d and d i s p e r s e d by the Michigan Department o f Education. These d a t a w i l l reveal t h e various s t a t u s e s o f growth and d e c l i n e o f the school d i s t r i c t s . Hecker and Ignatovich have completed the most r e c e n t enro llment p r o j e c t i o n s f o r p u b l i c , nonpublic, and in te r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t s , 1976/77 t o 1981/82. While t h e s e da ta a re not d i s ­ aggregated by lo c a l d i s t r i c t s , they a r e grouped by i n te r m e d ia te school 8 d istricts. The breakdown r e s u l t s in s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t groups in 12 r e l a t i o n to percentage gain or l o ss o f pupil enro llm e nt. This r e s e a r c h e r w i l l use the following groups f o r c l a s s i f i ­ c a t i o n o f in d iv id u a l school d i s t r i c t s : 12% o f more gain o f s t u d e n t enrollment 6.6 t o 11,99% gain of s t u d e n t enrollment 0.1 to 6.5% gain o f st u d e n t enrollment 0.1 to 6.5% l o s s o f s t u d e n t enrol lment 6.6 to 11.99% l o ss o f s t u d e n t en ro llm en t 12% o r more l o s s o f st u d e n t enro llm e nt. These c l a s s i f i c a t i o n groupings were s e l e c t e d in o rd er t o maintain conformity with th e data a v a i l a b l e reg ard in g the p r e s e n t s t a t u s of Michigan p u blic K-12 school d i s t r i c t s . Hecker and Ignatovich have presen te d numerous da ta banks i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h i s i s t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e of the a r t . By adopting t h i s format th e r e s e a r c h e r should be a ble t o draw i n f er e n ce s from t h e i r d a ta and from the r e s u l t s o f t h i s study. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the r e s e a r c h e r w i l l randomly s e l e c t two p u b l ic K-12 school d i s t r i c t s from each of th e above r e p r e s e n t a ­ tive c la ss ific a tio n s . In o r d e r to make the study a v i a b l e s t u d y , the City o f D e t r o i t w i l l a u t o m a t i c a l l y be included in th e sample. If fin a n c e s t r u c t u r e s f o r the S t a t e o f Michigan a re t o be examined, i t would be meaningless to res e a rc h the t o p i c o f d i s c u s s i o n without examining the i m p l i c a ti o n s o f an a l t e r n a t i v e f in a n c e s t r a t e g y on the l a r g e s t school d i s t r i c t in Michigan. Likewise, the Middle C i t i e s A s so c ia tio n r e p r e s e n t s 16 c i t i e s in t h e S t a t e which c o l l e c t i v e l y 9 r e p r e s e n t t h e f i f t h l a r g e s t school d i s t r i c t in th e United S t a t e s . T h ere fo re , a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the Middle C i t i e s A sso c ia tio n w ill a l s o be included in the random s t r a t i f i e d sample f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h . F u r th e r s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i s intended as th e sample w ill inclu de a l a r g e school d i s t r i c t and a small school d i s t r i c t w ith in each of the growth or l o ss c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The de te rm ina tio n o f th e r e l a ­ t i v e growth or l o ss p a t t e r n s o f the Michigan d i s t r i c t s w i l l be by an examination o f the Michigan Department o f Education record s involving d i s t r i c t enro llments based on the f o u r t h Friday count taken each y e ar (Fourth Frida y Membership-DS-4061) . A ft e r th e 12 school d i s t r i c t s a re randomly s e l e c t e d , in a d d it i o n to D e t r o i t and a Middle C i t i e s d i s t r i c t , c o h o r t - s u r v i v a l p r o j e c t i o n s f o r a l l 14 d i s t r i c t s w ill be developed. This w ill then provide the base d a ta to which a l t e r n a t i v e f in a n c e plan s w i l l be a p p li e d . (See Figure 1.1 — graphic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f sample.) As i s suggested in t h e l i t e r a t u r e , f i n a n c e reform i s c u r ­ r e n t l y a very impo rtan t i s s u e be fore many s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s . This r e s e a r c h e r w i l l use t h e follo w in g s t a t e f i n a n c e plans in o r d e r to draw a comparison of t h e e f f e c t s o f each d i f f e r e n t plan to the e x i s t ­ ing Crim formula plan p r e s e n t l y funded in Michigan. In the S t a t e o f Minnesota, th e f i n a n c e plan i s a d e r i v a t i v e o f th e Stra yer-H a ig model using weighted pupil u n i t s in a d e te rm in a tio n o f th e s t a t e a id to d istricts. I t a l s o i n c o r p o r a te s a f a c t o r averaging d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l ­ ment l o s s e s as well as a f a c t o r f o r f a s t - g r o w th d i s t r i c t s . The S t a t e o f Hawaii i s the only s t a t e o f a l l 50 s t a t e s t h a t i s p r e s e n t l y using f u l l s t a t e funding o f school d i s t r i c t s . T h e r e fo r e , f o r the 10 G Legend: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Rudyard Central Lake Elk Rapids Muskegon Heights Lakeshore Camden F r o n t i e r Homer Cherry Hill D etroit Center Line Troy Genesee P o r t Austin Arenac E aste rn Figure 1.1 . —Geographic lo ca tio n o f sample school d i s t r i c t s . 11 i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s purpose in t h i s s t u d y , Hawaii w i l l be viewed as one large d i s t r i c t . Senato r Faxon of so u t h e a s te r n Michigan has r e c e n t l y in tr o du ced a proposal in th e Senate to r e v i s e the Michigan funding formula. The r e s e a r c h e r w i l l use t h i s Senate B i ll #1425 as one o f t h e funding formulas to be compared to the p r e s e n t funding formula. C a l i f o r n i a ' s school f i n a n c e program has been widely p u b lic iz e d because o f th e impact o f t h e S t a t e Supreme Court d e c i s i o n s in the e x te n s i v e l i t i g a t i o n of Serrano v. P r i e s t . The c u r r e n t s t a t e funding program w i l l be used as a b a s i s f o r comparison. Another fin an c e plan which has been i n v e s t i g a t e d by the U.S. Supreme Court i s t h a t of t h e S t a t e o f Texas. In Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School 13 D istrict, t h e c o u r t held t h a t " th e foun dation g r a n t th eo ry i s r esp o nsiv e to th e f o r c e s d e s i r i n g e du ca tion al o p p o r t u n it y f o r a l l c h i l d r e n and the f o r c e s demanding a l a r g e measure o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in and c o n tr o l o f each d i s t r i c t ' s schools a t th e lo c a l l e v e l . " In the S t a t e of New J e r s e y , f i n a n c e reform had to be forced upon the s t a t e by the c o u r t s . The l e g i s l a t u r e was unable to develop a proposal w ith o ut t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s . The a c t i o n o f th e c o u rt s r e s u l t e d from a d e c i s i o n in the now-famous Robinson v. Ca hill c a se . 14 The r e s u l t o f t h i s s t r u g g l e became an e d ucational system t h a t i s funded by a personal income t a x . As a c o n tr o l a g a i n s t which to make comparisons o f the impact o f t h e vario us s t a t e funding system s, the Crim Formula which was enac ted f o r the school y e a r 1976/77 w ill be used. All th e lo ca l d i s t r i c t info rmation w i l l be placed i n t o each formula over a span o f t h e f i v e - y e a r p r o j e c t i o n s o f e n ro llm e n t. After 12 a p p l i c a t i o n o f each fin an c e p l a n , comparisons o f th e r a m i f i c a t i o n s of each plan w i l l be made. Nominal Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e The h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f ed uca tio nal f in a n c e has been well developed and covered by both Zymelman and Cubberley. Certainly the demand f o r i n c r e a s e d ed uca tio nal s e r v i c e s i s c r e a t e d by a r a p i d l y increasing population. C u r r e n t l y , t h e school systems of the United S t a t e s a r e fac in g the o t h e r extreme, d e c l i n i n g e n ro llm e n ts. The r e s e a r c h e r ' s focus in t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l be on long-range planning a c t i v i t i e s which may allow i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o th e realm o f e f f i c i e n c y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a l t e r n a t i v e f inanc e models in ed ucation . The modern school o f e d u ca tio n al fin a n c e i s s a i d to have had i t s beginnings in approximately 1905 a t Teachers C o lle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , New York. Two noted s c h o l a r s o f t h e day--Ellwood P. Cubberley and George D. S t r a y e r , S r . —were s t u d e n t s and were among the f i r s t p r o f e s s o r s o f e du ca tio nal a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Cubbe rley's d i s s e r t a t i o n and subsequent monograph, School Funds and T h eir Appor­ tio n m e n t , became one o f the e a r l y p h ilo s o p h ic al p o s i t i o n s r e l a t i v e to the development o f t h e o r i e s and p r i n c i p l e s o f s t a t e suppor t f o r edu­ cation. The focus o f t h e review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e w i l l c e n t e r on the p h i lo s o p h ic a l foundations upon which a l l 50 s t a t e s have developed t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t a t e f in a n c e plans f o r revenue pro duction and d i s ­ t r i b u t i o n o f s t a t e monies to t h e p u b l ic school systems w ith in each state. More r e c e n t l y , the P r e s i d e n t ' s Commission on School Finance, 13 c r e a t e d by P r e s i d e n t Nixon, and the National Educational Finance P r o j e c t (NEFP), financed by funds provided under the Elementary and Secondary Act o f 1965, have c o n tr i b u te d a g r e a t body o f knowledge and i n s i g h t i n t o edu cational fin an ce and a l t e r n a t i v e programs f o r f i n a n c ­ ing e d u c a tio n . Johns and Alexander, d i r e c t o r s o f NEFP, have pub­ l i s h e d an e x te n s i v e amount o f l i t e r a t u r e r e s u l t i n g from t h e i r stu dy . However, t h a t res e a r c h was completed in 1971. The p r e s e n t attem pt to look a t c u r r e n t and f u t u r e im p l i c a ti o n s o f e d ucational f in an c e w ill deal with what i s o c cu rrin g now and what may occur in the f o r e s e e ­ ab le f u t u r e . Definitions The following terms a r e c o n c e p tu a ll y im portant t o the meaning and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s study. The term, f l a t g r a n t program, as used in t h i s s t u d y , i s t h a t amount o f money given to each and every pu b lic school d i s t r i c t in the state. I t i s derived from the l e g i s l a t i v e de te rm ina tion o f the t o t a l amount o f money a v a i l a b l e and then divid ed by th e t o t a l number o f s t u ­ dents each d i s t r i c t claims v ia the f o u r t h Friday membership c o u nt, in Michigan, o r the Average Daily Attendance o r th e Average Daily Mem­ bership. The term , s t a t e e q u aliz ed v a l u a t i o n , as used in t h i s st u d y , i s t h e d i s t i n c t i v e e f f o r t t o measure an in d iv i d u a l d i s t r i c t ' s a b i l i t y t o pay. F u r t h e r , i t i s an a ttem pt to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between i n d i v i d ­ ual d i s t r i c t s . 14 The term, r e a l p r o p e r t y , as used in t h i s s t u d y , w i l l include the follo w in g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f land: commercial, i n d u s t r i a l , and f o r e s t . residential, agricultural, Furthermore, a l l land and improve­ ments to t h a t land a re included in the term. The term, exempt p r o p e r t i e s , as used in t h i s s t u d y , s h a l l include a l l school p r o p e r t i e s , a l l s t a t e p r o p e r t i e s , a l l c i t y pro per­ t i e s , and a l l n o n p r o f i t r e l i g i o u s p r o p e r t i e s . The term , s i n g l e business t a x , as used in t h i s s t u d y , s h a l l include t h a t m a te r ia l held in in ventory by b usiness e n t e r p r i s e s . The term, e q u a l iz i n g g r a n t s , as used in t h i s s t u d y , w i l l be t h a t v a ri e d number of d o l l a r s which i s given i n v e r s e l y to t h e wealth of the lo c a l in d iv i d u a l d i s t r i c t . The term, gross allow a nce , as used in t h i s s t u d y , w i l l be the a r b i t r a r y value placed on each pupil w ith in the s t a t e . The term, r e c a p t u r e , as used in t h i s stu d y , w i l l be the amount o f money generated by lo ca l e f f o r t which exceeds th e s t a t e gu arantee o f e q u a liz e d funding. The concept c a l l s f o r payment o f a l l monies generated in excess t o be paid to the s t a t e . The term, c i r c u i t b r e a k e r , as used in t h i s s t u d y , w i l l be the p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t pro v isio n which attem pts to ease the p rop erty tax burden on s e n i o r c i t i z e n s or any c i t i z e n on a f i x e d income. The term , c a t e g o r i c a l a i d , as used in t h i s stu d y , w i l l r e f e r t o any s p e c i a l monies paid t o i n d iv id u a l d i s t r i c t s f o r e s p e c i a l l y d e sig n ated programs such a s : s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , voca­ t i o n a l e d u c a ti o n , and c a r e e r ed u ca tio n . 15 The term, added c o s t fu n d in g , as used in t h i s stu d y , w ill r e f e r to the excess c o s t to edu cate s p e c i a l c l a s s e s o f s t u d e n t s . In Michigan, th e s t a t e reimburses a percentage o f t h i s added c o s t . The term, co h o rt s u r v i v a l p r o j e c t i o n , as used in t h i s stu d y , w i l l r e f e r to the most p r e c i s e o f the techniques used f o r the p r o j e c ­ t i o n o f n a tu r a l i n c r e a s e s in p o p u la tio n . T h e c o h o r t- s u rv i v a l procedure does not d i r e c t l y measure n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e i t s e l f ; the pop ulation p r o j e c t i o n i s obtained by adding the su r v i v o r s o f th e r e s i d e n t popu­ l a t i o n , the expected n e t m ig r a t i o n , and t h e s u r v i v o r s o f the babies born t o former r e s i d e n t s and t o newcomers during the p e ri o d . This procedure shows not only the s i z e o f the p r o j e c te d po pulation but a l s o i t s expected s i z e and age d i s t r i b u t i o n . The term , municipal overburden, as used in t h i s st u d y , w ill apply to a l l c o s t s in a d d i t i o n t o th e tax r a t e l e v i e d f o r sc hools and e d u c a ti o n . T h i s , t h e n , w i l l include a d d i t i o n a l taxes f o r municipal services. The term , i n - f o r m u l a , as used in t h i s study, w i l l r e f e r to th ose d i s t r i c t s which a re in compliance with the s t a t e funding formula. The term, o u t - o f - f o r m u l a , as used in t h i s s t u d y , w i l l r e f e r t o those d i s t r i c t s which a re ab le t o ge n erate funds in excess o f the s t a t e guaranteed f i g u r e . These d i s t r i c t s would not q u a l i f y f o r s ta te aid. The term , average d a i l y atten dance or ADA, as used in t h i s s t u d y , w i l l be c a l c u l a t e d by counting those in a tten d an ce or l e g a l l y excused each day during the school y e a r and d i v id i n g by the number 16 of school days in the school y e a r . This i s a measure o f th e average number o f c h il d r e n a c t u a l l y being tau gh t. The term, average d a i l y membership or ADM, as used in t h i s s tu dy , w ill be c a l c u l a t e d by t o t a l i n g the number of c h ild r e n e n r o l l e d in school each day (whether or not the stu d e n ts a re a c t u a l l y in a tt e n d a n c e ) , and d iv id in g by the t o t a l number o f school days. ADM w ill then be higher than ADA. The term, Fourth Friday membership c o u n t, as used in t h i s stud y , i s the reported and audited stu d e n t enrollment f i g u r e s rep orted by each p u b lic school d i s t r i c t in the S t a te of Michigan. Assumptions I t was necessary f o r the r e s e a r c h e r to make some assumptions in order to c ar r y out the research as o u t lin e d in the o r i g i n a l pro­ posal . The world i s p r e s e n t l y in the th roes o f i n f l a t i o n . An i n f l a ­ t i o n f a c t o r was deemed necessary to r e f l e c t realis m in the p r o j e c ­ t i o n s o f funding over time. T h ere fo re , th e r e s e a r c h e r consulted the Michigan S t a t e U n i v e rs i ty Department of Economics in o rder t o d e t e r ­ mine an i n f l a t i o n f a c t o r f o r use in the study. Drs. Walter Adams, Mordechai Kreinin, and Stephen Martin were que ried concerning t h e i r e x p e r t opinion regarding a reasonable i n f l a t i o n f a c t o r to be used over t h e l i f e of th e study. I t was determined t h a t a c o nserv ativ e e s tim a te o f 7% was both reasonable and r e a l i s t i c . S t a t i s t i c s from the United S t a te s Office o f Education/Bureau o f the Handicapped were used in the computation o f s p e cia l education 17 en ro llm en ts in the sample d i s t r i c t s . The Bureau o f Handicapped data reveal t h a t , f o r any given p o p u l a t i o n , 12.035% o f t h a t population q u a l i f y f o r sp e c i a l education s e r v i c e s . T h e r e fo r e , in designing a n d /o r i n t e r p r e t i n g s p e c i a l education funding, t h i s f i g u r e was used. A d d i t i o n a l l y , th e 12.035% was f u r t h e r broken down t o r e f l e c t i n d i ­ vidual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f v a rio u s groupings o f s t u d e n t s . Consequently, s p e c i a l education i s f u r t h e r c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o the follo w in g groups: speech, mentally r e t a r d e d , p h y s i c a l l y handicapped, l e a r n i n g d i s ­ a b le d , emotionally d i s t u r b e d , d e a f , hard o f h e a r i n g , v i s u a l l y handi­ capped, and m u l t i p l e handicapped. Data r e l a t i v e to d e f i n i n g th e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n necessary under the Texas plan r e q u i r e d a d d i t i o n a l assumptions to be made. The Pr o f e ss io n a l R e g i s t e r o f the S t a t e o f Michigan was the primary source f o r i n t e r p o l a t i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f and experience factors. The P r o f e s s io n a l R e g i s t e r does not s t i p u l a t e nor d i s t i n g u i s h among t e a c h e r s , c o u n s e l o r s , o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The r e s e a r c h e r made the d e c i s i o n to s e l e c t the h i g h e s t degree holder in an in d iv i d u a l d i s ­ t r i c t and assig n t h a t i n d iv i d u a l t o th e p o s i t i o n o f Sup e rin te n d en t. The ne xt h i g h e s t degree holders were s e l e c t e d as A s s i s t a n t Superin­ t e n d e n t s , P r i n c i p a l s , and o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e rs o n n e l . The Pro­ f e s s i o n a l R e g is te r a l s o does not d e s i g n a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p erien c e. T h e r e fo r e , in o r d e r t o i n s u r e c o n s i s t e n c y o f a p p l i c a t i o n , a l l adminis­ t r a t i v e s a l a r y f i g u r e s were computed as i f a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel were in t h e i r f i r s t y e a r o f s e r v i c e . Consequently, over th e l i f e o f t h e st u d y , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s a l a r i e s cover one to f i v e y e a r s o f e x p e r i ­ ence (Appendix A). 18 Furthermore, the Buyer’s Guide was the primary source f o r d ete rm in in g e x a c t numbers of c e n t r a l o f f i c e and b u i ld i n g adminis­ trato rs. U n f o r tu n a te ly , the Buyer's Guide does n o t i n d i c a t e a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l s w ith in each b u i ld i n g w i t h i n each d i s t r i c t . For th e pur­ poses o f t h i s s t u d y , no a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l s nor c ounse lors were c l a s s i f i e d within t h e s a l a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . A s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l s and c ounse lors were included w ith in th e c l a s s i ­ f i c a t i o n s of t h e t ea ch ing rank s. All nondegree personnel a re c l a s s i f i e d as Nondegree C e r t i ­ f i e d under the Texas model. This placement o f such s t a f f r e s u l t e d i n p l a c in g th ese personnel on Pay Grade 5 a t 10 months. A dditionally, s p e c i a l e d uca tio n personnel a re c l a s s i f i e d a t a d i f f e r e n t rank than t e a c h e r s in the Texas model. Special education p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel a r e d e sig n a te d as employees a t Pay Grade 8. The r e s e a r c h e r attempted to determine growth c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n in Michigan. However, n e i t h e r the Michigan Department of Education nor the S t a t e A s s e s s o r ' s could provide him w i t h a s e t formula to determine the growth p o t e n t i a l f o r school d i s t r i c t s included in the sample. T h e r e f o r e , th e r e s e a r c h was c a r r i e d o u t w ith no r e f l e c t i o n o f a n t i c i p a t e d growth o f p r o p e r t y tax within t h e i n d iv i d u a l d i s t r i c t s . This procedure was followed 1n each o f the sample d i s t r i c t s in o r d e r to i n s u r e c o n s i s t e n c y o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f the v a r i o u s s t a t e funding models. I t was determined t h a t i t could not be p r e - o r d a i n e d what t a x a t i o n i n c r e a s e s i n d iv i d u a l d i s t r i c t s may p r e s e n t to the voters f o r approval. 19 Footnotes—Chapter I ^Ellwood P. Cubberley, School Funds and Their Apportionment {New York: Teachers Colle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1906), p. 16. 2 C. Robert Muth and Paul R. Stuhmer, "Chronology o f S t a t e Aid Formulas," Financing Education in Michigan: A Report, A Study Funded by the Ford Foundation Through th e Middle C i t i e s Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1977, p. 5. 3 Roe L. Johns and Edgar L. Morphet, e d s . , Problems and Issues i n Pu blic School Finance, National Conference o f P rofe ss o rs o f Educat i o n a l A d m in is tra tio n (New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univer­ s i t y , 1952), p. 2. ^Robert H. Wessel, "Why Guaranteed Yield F a ile d in Ohio," Jo urnal o f Educational Finance 3 (Winter 1978): 271. 5 Cubberley, p. 16. g Manuel Zymelman, Financing and E f f i c i e n c y in Education (Boston, Mass.: The Nimrod P r e s s , 1973), p. 7. 7 I b i d . , pp. 1-2. 8 I b i d . , p. 9. ^Serrano v. P r i e s t , 487 P. 2d 1241, 5 C a l . 3d 584, p. 603. ^ W i l l i a m R. Wilkerson and W. Monfort B a rr, "Recent Court Decisions and School Capital O u tlay ," School Finance in T r a n s i t i o n , Proceedings o f the 16th National Conference on School Finance, Sponsored by the National Educational Finance P r o j e c t and I n s t i t u t e f o r Educational Finance, G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a , 1973, p. 135. ^ M i c h i g a n , Governor's Task Force on Pro pe rty Tax Revision (Lansing , Michigan, 1976), p. 20. 12 S ta n le y Hecker and Fred erick I g n a to v ic h , 1977 P r o j e c t io n s o f Michigan Pu b lic School Enrollment (Lansing: Michigan Department o f Educa tion, 1977), p. 28. 13 Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School D i s t r i c t , March 1973, M a jority Opinion. ^ R o b in s o n v. C a h i l l , 118 N . J . , Super. 223 (Law D i v i s i o n , 1972). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The i n t e n t of the r e s e a r c h e r i s t o provide a h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e to the financ in g o f p u b l ic sc hools in th e c o n t i n t e n t a l United S t a t e s . C e r t a i n l y many o f the concepts and i d e a l s were brought along with t h e c o l o n i s t s as they l e f t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e homelands and s e t t l e d in th e e a r l y c o lo n i e s . Power w r i t e s : "The c o l o n i s t s who came to America brought t h e i r s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s with them."^ Following a h i s t o r i c a l review o f the f i n a n c in g o f sc h o o l s , th e focus o f the l i t e r a t u r e review w ill deal with th e development of th e p h i lo s o p h ic a l p o s i t i o n s reg arding th e f in a n c in g o f schools in th e l a t e n i n e t e e n t h and e a r l y t w e n ti e t h c e n t u r i e s . P a r t i c u l a r l y the c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Cubberley, Updegraff, S t r a y e r , Mort, Haig and Morrison w i l l be examined. Cubberley's work was so fundamentally impo rt an t in fo rm ula t­ ing the b a sic concepts o f s t a t e f i n a n c in g t h a t much o f h i s o r i g i n a l work w i l l form the b a s i s o f d i s c u s s i o n o f the development o f the philosophy of school f i n a n c e . His concept o f the s t a t e ' s r e s p o n s i ­ b i l i t y f o r providing educational s e r v i c e s i s i ll u m in a t e d by t h i s sta te m e nt: The s t a t e owes i t t o i t s e l f and to i t s c h i l d r e n , no t only t o permit o f th e e s t a b l is h m e n t o f sc h o o l s , but a l s o to r e q u i r e them t o be e s t a b l i s h e d —even more, to r e q u i r e t h a t 20 21 t h e s e sc h o o l s , when e s t a b l i s h e d , s h a l l be tau g h t by a q u a l i ­ f i e d t e a c h e r f o r a c e r t a i n minimum p e rio d o f time each y e a r , and t a u g h t under c o n d it i o n s and according to requirements which the s t a t e ha s, from time to tim e , seen f i t t o impose. While leavin g the way open f o r a l l to go beyond t h e s e r e q u i r e ­ ments the s t a t e must see t h a t none f a l l b e l o w . 2 The next s e c t i o n o f the review o f the l i t e r a t u r e w ill be d i r e c t e d a t one source o f a g i t a t i o n t h a t has fo rce d s t a t e s to review t h e i r f i n a n c i a l revenue production and d i s t r i b u t i o n programs—the courts. J u d i c i a l involvement in school fin an ce programs i s not a new or only r e c e n t s e r i e s o f e v e n t s . The r e s e a r c h e r w ill provide an h i s t o r i c a l and a c u r r e n t view o f j u d i c i a l involvement d e t a i l i n g the f in a n c e o f p u b l i c sc h o o l s . F i n a l l y , t h e review o f the l i t e r a t u r e w i l l deal with t h e ques­ t i o n s surrounding t h e use o f the p ro perty tax as the major revenue producer f o r the funding o f pu b lic s c h o o l s . the p r o p e r ty tax w i l l be examined. Pros and cons regarding In 1978, p r o p e r t y t a x r e v i s i o n was a very popular t o p i c o f d i s c u s s i o n . Howard J a r v i s , a r e t i r e d C a l i f o r n i a businessman, has been a d r i v i n g f o r c e to reduce pro p erty tax in th e Golden Gate S t a t e . Jarvis states: "T hirteen c o lo n ies e s t a b l i s h e d t h i s country and w e 'r e going t o r e - e s t a b l i s h some f r e e 3 dom around h e r e . " C i ti z e n involvement in p r o p e r ty tax r e v i s i o n has been id en ­ t i f i e d in C a l i f o r n i a , Oregon, Iowa, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Mass achuse tts. "Last y e a r a l o n e , 37 s t a t e s passed laws giving p r o p e r t y - t a x exemptions f o r someone—th e e l d e r l y , the poor, th e people 4 who renova te homes in b l ig h t e d a r e a s . " 22 H i s t o r i c a l P e rsp e ctiv e The people who e l e c t e d t o immigrate to th e new world g e n e r a l l y came with l i t t l e precedent f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g sc h o o l s . Small wrote: The support of schools had t o be worked o u t by the c o l o n i s t s from t h e i r own e xp erien c e. They had come from a land where t h e r e were no f r e e public sc h o o ls. Schools in England were endowed t u i t i o n sc h o o l s . Following the l i g h t they had, the c o l o n i s t s e s t a b l i s h e d the e a r l y sc hools with th e idea of su pp o rtin g them, not by general t a x a t i o n b u t by income from land g r a n t s , p r i v a t e d o na tio ns, s u b s c r i p t i o n s , t u i t i o n from t h e c h i l d r e n , and various o t h e r minor w a y s . 5 A d d i t i o n a l l y , the primary focus of the h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f schools in Colonial America w i l l c e n t e r on English immigrants. Cer­ t a i n l y the s e t t l e r s whose h e r i t a g e was Spanish, French, Dutch, o r German brought c u l t u r a l in f lu e n c e s with them as w e l l . However, i t i s t h e English i n f l u e n c e which seems to have been the prime f a c t o r in e s t a b l is h m e n t o f the e a r l y schools beginning with the Massachu­ s e t t s Bay Colony. Family and church provided education in e a r l y t im e s , and th e e a r l i e s t means o f support did not depend mainly upon a school t a x . Tax laws o r r a t e b i l l s were used t o supplement o t h e r f i n a n c i a l measures; and when the school tax became a major change, the law placed l i m i t a t i o n s on the r a t e , as i f the people were l i k e l y t o pauperize themselves. Tax l i m i t a t i o n was a c on trivanc e o f r e a l e s t a t e and o t h e r f i n a n c i a l i n t e r ­ e sts.6 The e a r l y schools were developed to continue the r e l i g i o u s f e r v o r of the P u r i t a n e t h i c . Teaford w r i t e s o f the tr a n s fo r m a tio n of Massachusetts edu­ c a t i o n duri ng the time frame o f 1670-1780 as a Renaissance model o f e d u c a ti o n . He i n d i c a t e s t h a t c l a s s i c a l l e a r n i n g played the dominant r o l e in secondary education from th e founding o f the f i r s t New England schools in th e 1630s t o t h e time o f th e American Revolu tion.^ 23 The e a r l y laws designed to encourage t h e e s t a b l is h m e n t of sch o ols had l i t t l e to say about how those schools were to be f i n a n c e d . D i f f e r e n t c o lo n i e s designed d i f f e r e n t i n d u s t r i e s and r e g u l a t e d the income. For i n s t a n c e , in 1663 the Plymouth Colony granted income from t h e f i s h i n g i n d u s t r y t o s u p p o r t the e s t a b l is h m e n t o f a school in t h e colony . The law, in p a r t , s t a t e d : All such p r o f i t s as s h a l l accrue a n n ually t o the colony from f i s h i n g with n e t s , o r s e i n e s a t Cape Cod f o r m ac kerel, bass o r h e r r i n g , to be impounded f o r and towards a f r e e school in some town in t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r the t r a i n i n g up o f youth in l i t e r a t u r e f o r the good and b e n e f i t o f p r o s p e r i t y . 8 Other c o lo n ies based t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e school laws on th e s e same p r i n c i p l e s . The Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1642 ordered t h a t e du ca tion was compulsory but a tten d a n ce was not mandatory. "The domi­ nant i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r e s t which made i t s e l f f e l t in s o c i e t y , p o l i ­ t i c s , and e d u c a ti o n , and one which could absorb almost a l l a c o l o n i s t ' s g a t t e n t i o n was r e l i g i o n . " " I t was p r e c i s e l y because t h e i r r e s p e c t e d i d e a l s demanded e d uca tio n t h a t the c o l o n i s t s o f New England showed such energy in making p ro v is io n s f o r the concept o f s c h o o l i n g . " ^ The e a r l y development of America's system o f p u b lic school f i n a n c e began in t h e colony o f Mass achuse tts. The s t a t e laws of 1634 and 1638 provided f o r th e t a x a t i o n o f a l l p r o p e r t y f o r town and colony b e n e f i t s . Furthermore, t h e c o l o n y 's law o f 1642 ordered t h a t a l l c h i l d r e n should be t a u g h t " t o read and understand the p r i n c i p l e s o f r e l i g i o n and the c a p i t a l laws o f t h e c o u n t r y . " ^ However, t h e passage of th e "Old Deluder Satan Act" o f 1647 develop ed, w itho u t English p r e c e d e n t s , t h e concept o f town sc h o o l s . 24 This famous law ordered the e s t a b l i s h m e n t and maintenance o f a school system to se rv e a l l the c h i l d r e n . . . . I t a l s o provided a p e n a lty f o r th e towns t h a t f a i l e d t o comply with the la w 's minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s . ^ The 1647 Act provided f o r in d iv i d u a l town d i f f e r e n c e s in e f f e c t i n g compliance with th e requirements of a town system. Furthermore, the Act s t i p u l a t e d allowances f o r t u i t i o n in th e grammar sc h oo ls. Some towns taxed t h e i r c i t i z e n s and used revenues f o r school s u p p o r t. Other towns used income from town lands t o help d e fr a y edu cational costs. S t i l l o t h e r s appealed t o c h a r i t y o f t h e wealthy i n h a b i t a n t s 13 and asked them t o donate funds necessary f o r school su p p o r t . I f one accepts the b e l i e f t h a t a n a t i o n ' s v i t a l problems, b e l i e f s , and i d e a l s are a c c u r a t e l y mirro red in i t s s c h o o l s , then the c o l o n i s t e f f o r t to e s t a b l i s h t a x - s u p p o r t e d , p u b l i c l y c o n t r o l l e d schools i s a pr e c io u s p a r t o f the h e r i t a g e o f a l l th e f r e e peoples 14 in th e world. Cubberley d e s c r i b e s th e e f f o r t as the b a t t l e f o r f r e e sc h oo ls: Excepting th e b a t t l e f o r th e a b o l i t i o n o f s l a v e r y perhaps no q u e stio n has e v e r been befo re th e American people f o r s e t t l e ­ ment which caused so much f e e l i n g or aroused such b i t t e r antagonisms. Old f r i e n d s and busin ess a s s o c i a t e s p a rt e d com­ pany over the q u e s t i o n , lodges were fo rced to taboo th e sub­ j e c t t o avoid d i s r u p t i o n , m i n i s t e r s and t h e i r congregations o f t e n q u a r r e l e d over th e q u e stio n o f f r e e sc h o o l s , and p o l i ­ t i c i a n s avoided t h e i s s u e . The f r i e n d s o f f r e e schools were a t f i r s t regarded as f a n a t i c s , dangerous t o the S t a t e , and the opponents o f f r e e schools were considered by them as o l d time c o n s e r v a t iv e s o r as s e l f i s h members o f s o c i e t y . 15 In o r d e r t o f u l l y comprehend t h i s s t r u g g l e the h i s t o r i c a l review must inclu de t h e e a r l y methods o f school f i n a n c e . The e a r l i ­ e s t recorded methodology o f school fin a n c e was simply asking f o r v olu nta ry c o n t r i b u t i o n s each Sunday f o r school su p p o r t. However, 25 t he u n c e r t a i n t y , shortcomings, and inadequacies led the Massachusetts colony to pass the Act o f 1647 f o r c in g compulsory education and the adoption o f the town r a t e . C e r ta in l y t h e town r a t e was never completely adequate so supplemental funds were n ecessary . tax. A common tax was the fuel o r wood This was a r eq u ir e d donation of c e r t a i n amounts o f wood to h eat the school house. The p aren ts could perform the work or pay someone e l s e to do i t f o r them. I f they did not produce, they were charged a s e t amount o f money. F ir e p la c e s and stoves a l i k e consumed enormous q u a n t i t i e s o f wood, the only fuel o f those days, and t h i s wood was very g e n e r a l l y le v i e d as a s e p a r a t e t u i t i o n on the par­ e nts o f the c h i l d r e n who attend ed the s c h o o l . 16 Another commonly used t u i t i o n charge was the r a t e b i l l . It was assess ed a g a i n s t households on a per pupil b a s i s who attended the sc h o o l . Other sources o f school funds were land endowments, a v a r i ­ e t y o f l i c e n s e t a x e s , local a p p r o p r i a t i o n s , occupational t a x e s , organized l o t t e r i e s , bank t a x e s , f i n e s and p e n a l t i e s , insurance premium tax es and s t a t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . ! ' But an old and r e l i a b l e standby fund producer was always a v a i l a b l e f o r use by th e e a r l y sc h oo ls. "In every i n s t a n c e , however, r e g a r d l e s s o f whatever o t h e r sources o f income were a v a i l a b l e f o r school su p p o r t , 18 s tu d e n ts were charged t u i t i o n , r a t e s , or o t h e r educa tional f e e s . " As the American edu cational system developed, s i g n i f i c a n t changes occurred between 1647 and th e emergence o f n a tional and s t a t e governments. requirements: The Old Deluder Act o f 1647 s e t f o r t h the following 26 When townships i n cre as ed to 50 house holders, th e township would a p p o in t someone w i t h i n t h e i r town t o tea ch a l l c h i l ­ dren who s h a l l r e p o r t to him t o l e a r n to read" and w r i t e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , when a town in cre ased to 100 f a m i l i e s or hou seh old ers, a grammar school s h a l l be e s t a b l i s h e d to i n s t r u c t youth in p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the u n i v e r s i t y . F u r t h e r , should th e town n e g l e c t t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r longer than one y e ar they s h a l l pay a f i v e pound pen­ a l t y to t h e next school u n t i l they comply with the A c t J ® The town sc hools gave way to the moving town sc hool. This change r e s u l t e d from i n d iv id u a l towns d e l i b e r a t e l y ignorin g the 1647 Act. Also, as t h e c o lo n i e s developed t h e r e was a growth p a t t e r n away from th e c i t y c e n t e r s . "Everywhere t h e r e was c o l l i s i o n between the ' o u t s k i r t s ’ and the ’c e n t e r ' r e s u l t i n g f i n a l l y in the formation of districts."^® During t h i s e v o l u t i o n a r y process o f the developing d i s t r i c t system an import ant p a t t e r n o f school financ e emerged. I t was one i n which the revenue c o l l e c t e d by t h e town from t h e general t a x a t i o n o f a l l p r o p e r t y was apportioned back t o a l l the p a r i s h e s (school d i s t r i c t s ) . Each p a r i s h rec e iv e d from t h e town t h a t amount i t had paid in t a x e s , and with t h i s money i t was to maintain i t s own s y s te m . 21 This p a t t e r n o f funding may be i n t e r p r e t e d as the b a s i c foundation of the system o f funding which l a t e r came to be known as f l a t g r a n t fundi ng. These im portant developments had profound im p l i c a ti o n s on the d e sign o f p u b l ic edu catio n in e a r l y s t a t e laws. G e o r g ia ’s C o n s t i t u ­ t i o n , f o r example, i s somewhat t y p i c a l o f e a r l y p ro v is io n s f o r educa­ t i o n by th e s t a t e . In 1777 i t s t a t e d : "Schools s h a l l be e r e c t e d in each county and supported a t th e general expense o f th e s t a t e , as the 22 le g is la tu r e shall h ereafter point out." From t h i s s t a t e m e n t , one can see t h a t p u b l ic t a x a t i o n ( p r o p e r t y o r ot herwise) was not d i s t i n c t l y 27 established. Furthermore, th e q u e stio n o f compulsory att en da nce was n o t a d d re ss e d . A f t e r the Revolutionary War, government formation c r e a t e d some problems r e l a t e d to s t a t e claims f o r western l a n d s . These prob­ lems were re s o lv e d by the Continental Congress with the passage o f t h e Northwest Ordinance in 1787. This l e g i s l a t i v e enactment d e clare d t h a t t h e s i x t e e n t h s e c t i o n of every township in the western land was t o be r e s e r v e d f o r th e maintenance of sc h o o l s . Furthermore, the f o l ­ lowing s t a te m e n t o f purpose was included as A r t i c l e I I I o f t h a t docu­ ment: " R e li g i o n , m o r a l i t y , and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness o f mankind schools and the means o f edu­ c a t i o n s h a l l be f o r e v e r encouraged." Three d i s t i n c t types o f land g r a n t s developed out o f the Northwest Ordinance. The f i r s t type was t h a t t h e s i x t e e n t h s e c t i o n , o r i t s proceeds, was "granted to the i n h a b i t a n t s o f each township, f o r t h e use o f s c h o o l s . " Later, a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t form o f g r a n t was made in t h a t the s i x t e e n t h se c ­ t i o n was "g ranted to the s t a t e , f o r the use o f th e i n h a b i t a n t s of such township, f o r the use o f s c h o o l s . " With the admission t o s t a t e ­ hood o f t h e S t a t e o f Michigan, in 1837, th e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Convention gave t h e s i x t e e n t h s e c t i o n lands t o "the s t a t e , f o r the use o f the s c h o o l s . " 23 All s t a t e s admitted u n t i l 1850 were gran ted the s i x t e e n t h s e c t i o n s f o r sc h o o l s . However, with th e s e t t l e m e n t of the boundary d i s p u t e between Oregon and Great B r i t a i n , a new type o f land g r a n t was e s t a b l i s h e d . The s i x t e e n t h and the t h i r t y - s i x t h s e c t i o n s o f each township were s e t a s i d e f o r th e b e n e f i t s o f s c h o o l s . These s e c t i o n s 28 were used in a v a r i e t y o f ways: were e r e c t e d . sold o u t r i g h t , l e a s e d , o r b u i ld i n g s This form o f ed u ca tio n al g r a n t was followed u n t i l 1896, when U ta h 's enabling a c t c r e a t e d a new g r a n t of four s e c t i o n s o f land: s e c t i o n s number two, s i x t e e n , t h i r t y - t w o , and t h i r t y - s i x f o r the use by the scho o ls. Oklahoma's admission in 1907 c r e a t e d an e n t i r e l y new concept in p ro v i s i o n f o r th e sc h o o ls. Only two s e c t i o n s o f land ( s i x t e e n and t h i r t y - s i x ) were provided but f i v e m il l i o n d o l l a r s in gold were given in l i e u o f land g r a n t s . In a d d i t i o n , the s t a t e receiv ed one s e c t i o n ( t h i r t e e n ) f o r normal sc h o o l s , a g r i c u l t u r a l c o l l e g e s , and the u n i v e r s i t y ; o n e - t h i r d s e c t i o n f o r each, as well as an a d d it i o n a l s e c t i o n ( t h i r t y - t h r e e ) f o r c h a r i t a b l e and penal i n s t i t u t i o n s and f o r 24 public buildings. The in c r e a s in g emphasis on support o f education by t h e f e d e r a l government i s c l e a r l y o u t li n e d by th ese d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s o f land g r a n t s f o r school use. A f t e r the C iv il War, or the War Between th e S t a t e s , a new and s e r i o u s qu estio n was r a i s e d concerning support f o r e d u c a ti o n . The Hoar B i l l o f 1870 proposed a system o f compulsory e d u c a ti o n , the e s t a b l i s h ­ ment o f a n a ti o n a l permanent school fund from the proceeds of n a tio n al land s a l e s , and th e d i s t r i b u t i o n of th e income t o the s t a t e s f o r edu­ c a t i o n a l purposes. Cubberley i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s attem p t a t n a t i o n a l ­ ized education r e s u l t e d from the " p r o s t r a t e c o n d it i o n o f the Southern S t a t e s and th e i l l i t e r a c y as rev e ale d by th e National Census o f 1870 and again in 1 8 8 0 . " ^ The B l a i r B i l l s o f 1884-87 supported th es e i d e a l s ; however, they suggested a id in a temporary form. Furthermore, had t h i s b i l l 29 ever succeeded in both t h e House and th e S e n a te , i t would be s a f e to assume a generous system o f n a tio n a l education would have been d e v e l ­ oped. The b i l l was withheld from a House vote because o f th e "per26 s i s t i n g b itte rn e ss of sectional s t r i f e . " When the t h i r d B l a i r B i l l was d e fe a te d in the Congress, the emphasis was s h i f t e d to th e e x te n s i v e system o f money g r a n t s t o the la n d - g r a n t c o l l e g e s founded by the f i r s t M orrill Act. The Hatch Act o f 1887 provided f o r a d i r e c t y e a r l y g r a n t o f money to each s t a t e and t e r r i t o r y in t h e form of a p p r o p r i a t i o n s from th e proceeds o f th e s a l e o f p u b l ic l a n d s . The focus o f th e Hatch Act was toward a g r i c u l t u r a l experi m entatio n and r e s e a r c h . The Purnell Act o f 1925 f u r t h e r e s c a ­ l a t e d the f e d e r a l government investment in experiment s t a t i o n r e s e a r c h . The e d uca tio n al s i g n i f i c a n c e o f th es e h i s t o r i c p iec es o f l e g i s l a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e o f f e d e r a l a id to e d u c a tio n . As Knezevich w r i t e s : " I t was f e d e r a l su p po rt o f p u b l ic education w ith o ut u n d e s i r a b l e s t r i n g s a t t a c h e d . I t e s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l suppor t 27 o f e du catio n a s a p o l i c y , o r a c t i v i t y as old as t h e n a t i o n . " Various avenues o f school su p p o rt have m irrore d the t im e s , e s p e c i a l l y th e economy and value systems o f th e given p e r i o d , and have 28 been modified c o n t i n u a l l y t o cope with emerging c h a l l e n g e s . Hence, i t becomes c l e a r t h a t the e a r l y i n t e r e s t in edu catio n was b a s i c a l l y a r e l i g i o u s and family endeavor designed t o f o s t e r g r e a t e r r e l i g i o u s involvement. Of c o u r s e , the impetus v a r i e s with the demands o f a p a r ­ t i c u l a r s o c i e t y depending on t h e geography and m o b i l i t y o f t h e c i t i ­ zens o f t h a t s o c i e t y . 30 The e a r l y h i s t o r y o f school support i n d i c a t e s the r e l i a n c e on nonmonetary sources o f a id such as th es e s e r v i c e s : fuel supply, t e a c h e r boa rding, prep a ring bu ild in g s f o r school use, o r b u ild in g r e p a i r s in l i e u o f money. L a t e r , proceeds from land endowments and r e n t s , l o t t e r i e s , g i f t s , and bequests were used to support pu b lic ed u ca tio n . The next ste p in school support was the a ttem p t to use income derived from lands received from the s t a t e and fede ral govern­ ments to o p e ra t e t h e sc h oo ls. i n new f i n a n c i a l c r i s e s . However, each of thes e methods r e s u l t e d T h ere fo re , the funding o f schools became almost e n t i r e l y supported by the prop erty t a x . The movement to funding of schools by propert y t a x a t i o n was spearheaded by Horace Mann, Thaddeus Ste vens, and o t h e r s . Mann states: I b e l i e v e in the e x is te n c e o f a g r e a t , immortal, immutable p r i n c i p l e of n a tu r a l law, o r na tu ra l e t h i c s —a p r i n c i p l e a n t e ­ cedent to a l l human i n s t i t u t i o n s and incapable o f being abro­ gated by any ordinance o f man—a p r i n c i p l e o f div in e o r i g i n , c l e a r l y l e g i b l e in t h e ways o f Providence as th ese ways are manifested i n th e Order of Nature and in the h i s t o r y o f the r a c e , which proves the a bsolu te r i g h t t o an education o f every human being t h a t comes i n t o the world; and which o f c o u rs e, proves t h e c o r r e l a t i v e duty o f every government to see t h a t the means o f t h a t education a re provided f o r a l l . . . . I s not the in f e r e n c e i r r e s i s t i b l e , then, t h a t no man, by whatever means he may have come i n t o his possession o f his p r o p e r t y , has any n a tu r a l r i g h t , any more than he has a moral one, to hold i t , or to disp ose of i t , i r r e s p e c t i v e o f the needs and claims o f those who, in the august process ions o f the gen­ e r a t i o n s , a r e to be h i s success ors on the stag e o f e x is te n c e ? Holding h is r i g h t s s u b j e c t to t h e i r r i g h t s , he i s bound not to impair the value o f t h e i r i n h e r i t a n c e e i t h e r by commission or o m is s i o n .29 Thaddeus Stevens wrote: I f t h e n , edu catio n be o f admitted importance to the people under a l l forms o f governments; and of unquestioned n e c e s s i t y when they govern themselves, i t fo llo w s, o f course, t h a t i t s 31 c u l t i v a t i o n and d i f f u s i o n i s a m atter o f public concern; and a duty which every government owes i t s people. In accordance with t h i s p r i n c i p l e , the a n c i e n t r e p u b l i c s , who were most renowned f o r t h e i r wisdom and su c c e ss , considered every c h i l d born s u b j e c t t o t h e i r c o n t r o l , as the pro perty o f the s t a t e , so f a r as educa tion was concerned; and during the proper period o f i n s t r u c t i o n , they were withdrawn from the control o f t h e i r p a r e n t s , and placed under the guardianship o f the commonwealth. There a l l were i n s t r u c t e d a t the same school; a l l were placed on p e r f e c t e q u a l i t y ; the r i c h and the poor man's sons , f o r a l l were deemed c h il d r e n o f the same common p a r e n t - - o f th e common­ w e alth . I n s t e a d , where a l l have the means o f knowledge placed w i t h in t h e i r re a c h , and meet a t common schools on equal terms, the forms o f government seem o f l e s s importance to the happi­ ness o f the people than i s g e n e r a l l y supposed; o r r a t h e r , such a people a re seldom in danger of having t h e i r r i g h t s invaded by t h e i r r u l e s . They would not long be invaded with i m p u r i t y . 30 The f e d e r a l government i s based on the C o n s t i t u t i o n , and the C o n s t i t u t i o n c l e a r l y does not mention education as one o f the fed eral responsibilities. T h ere fo re , t h a t power to operate schools was l e f t to the s t a t e s by the Tenth Amendment to the Federal C o n s t i t u ti o n as one o f the unmentioned powers reserved to the s t a t e s . Knezevich d e s c r i b e s t h e way r e l i a n c e on property taxes became the norm r a t h e r than t h e ex ce p tio n : "S tate r e g u l a t i o n s were developed to minimize the d i f f e r e n c e s in q u a l i t y o f educational programs w ith in the s t a t e . " Thus, th e r o l e o f the s t a t e has been t o e q u aliz e educational opportunity. Furthermore, the tren d has been to develop a s e t of l e g i s l a t i v e requirements f o r sc hoolin g. How did the t h e o r e t i c a l con­ s t r u c t s develop which prefaced the design o f s t a t e funding o f pu b lic sc h o ols? Johns and Morphet d e scr ib e a post ure o f p ro g res siv e nation s in r e l a t i o n to th e development o f education: One o f the b a sic p o l i c i e s o f every o r community should be t o develop, kind and q u a l i t y o f education t h a t emerging needs o f i t s c i t i z e n s , o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . 32 p ro gres siv e n a t i o n , s t a t e , p ro vide, and support th e w ill meet the e x i s t i n g and the n a t i o n , and o f modern 31 32 With t h i s charge in mind, t h i s review moves to th e e a r l y t h e o r i s t s who have c o n t r i b u t e d g r e a t l y to the c u r r e n t s t a t e o f school fin an ce in Michigan and in the United S t a t e s . E arly Philosophers Although i t i s g e n e r a l l y conceded t h a t ed u catio n was a s t a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y under th e Tenth Amendment of th e f e d e r a l Con­ s t i t u t i o n , most s t a t e s during the n i n e t e e n t h cen tu ry e x e r ­ c is e d t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , p r i m a r i l y by a u t h o r i z i n g th e levy o f l o c a l school taxes f o r the su p p ort o f the p u b l ic sc h o o l s . No i n t e g r a t e d plans o f school fin a n c e were developed during t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n tu r y . No conceptual theory o f school f i n a n c e was developed. Such s t a t e funds as were d i s t r i b u t e d were g e n e r a l l y apportioned on a school census b a s i s with l i t ­ t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n being given to e q u a l i z a t i o n o f e ducational o p p o r t u n it y o r the p r o v i s i o n o f a t l e a s t a minimum program o f e d u ca tio n f o r a l l c h i l d r e n . 33 From t h i s model, the r e s e a r c h e r w i l l attem p t to d e l i n e a t e the h i s t o r i c a l development o f th e conceptual t h e o r i e s of s t a t e su p p ort f o r p u b l ic sc h o o l s . As one might be aware, most so c i a l movements a r e c r e a t e d and developed by i n t e l l e c t u a l l e a d e r s . The e a r l y th eo ­ r i s t s o f s t a t e school fin a n c e were u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s . The major c o n t r i b u t o r s t o the development o f s t a t e school f inanc e th eory in the United S t a t e s began t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s a t Teachers C o lle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , Hew York in th e very e a r l y 1900s. Ellwood P. Cubberley f u r t h e r e d th e work o f Mann, Barnard, and Stevens as he a r t i c u l a t e d t h e development o f the theory o f s t a t e school s u p p o r t with th e p u b lis h in g o f h is r e v i s e d do c to ra l d i s s e r t a ­ tion. This monograph, School Funds and T heir Apportionment, publis hed i n 1906 as a C o n trib u tio n to Education in the Teachers College S e r i e s , b u i l t t h e f i r s t d e f i n i t i v e conceptual framework o f p u b l ic school finance. 33 Cubberley b e lie v e d t h a t s t a t e s should i n c r e a s e t h e i r r e s p e c ­ t i v e minimum requirements w itho u t regard to the f i n a n c i a l impact on the r e s p e c t i v e d i s t r i c t s . As f a s t as can be done th e minimum requirements o f the s t a t e should be i n c r e a s e d , and t h i s should be done by the s t a t e without r e f e r e n c e to whether o r not a p o r t io n o f i t s commu­ n i t i e s w ill be u n a b le , unaided, to meet th e demands. I f the s t a t e deems i t d e s i r a b l e t h a t a l l i t s c h i l d r e n should have c e r t a i n advantages i t should r e q u i r e communities t o f u r n i s h them. I t i s th e i n t e r e s t s o f the s t a t e and o f the c h il d r e n o f the s t a t e which a re to be c o n s id e r e d , and i f c e r t a i n com­ m unities a r e not a ble t o meet the new demands i t then becomes the duty of the s t a t e to r e n d e r a s s i s t a n c e . 34 He express ed the b e l i e f t h a t s t a t e government must e x e r t p r e s s u r e and be "an a c t i v e agent f o r th e improvement o f educational 35 c on d itio ns thr oughout the s t a t e . " In o rder f o r th e s t a t e to assume t h i s l e a d e r s h i p r o l e , Cubberley expressed the b e l i e f t h a t the s t a t e must encourage loca l communities to make a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t s t o suppor t p u b l ic education and f u r t h e r the s t a t e must "place a premium on the 36 e f f o r t s which communities make to help th em se lv es." This e a r l y t h e o r e t i c i a n presen te d e l a b o r a t e case h i s t o r i e s t o su p po rt h i s c o n te n ti o n t h a t i n e q u a l i t y e x i s t e d in the funding o f schools in the l a t e n i n e t e e n t h and e a r l y tw e n ti e t h c e n t u r i e s because o f densely populated a r e a s being a b le to ge n e r a te more revenue than a s p a r s e l y populated a r e a . " I t can e a s i l y be seen . . . t h a t the maintenance o f schools by lo ca l t a x a t i o n . . . i s only p o s s i b l e by o f t e n r e q u i r i n g ve ry l a r g e s a c r i f i c e s from those who have l i t t l e and 37 very small s a c r i f i c e s from those who have much. . . . " Cubberley suggested t h a t a s t a t e - w i d e school t a x a t i o n program was th e c o r r e c t way to " e q u a liz e ed uca tio nal advantages by r e l i e v i n g 34 e x ce ssiv e burdens f o r s u p p o r t , and by s t i m u l a t i n g communities to do 38 more than they would do unaid ed." He b eliev ed t h a t educational e f f o r t was e s s e n t i a l to a s t a t e - w i d e school su pport program. "This p la c in g of a premium on ed u ca tio n al e f f o r t ought to be made a promi39 n e n t f e a t u r e o f any s t a t e plan f o r apportionment o f school fu n d s." In h i s monograph, Cubberley w r i t e s o f t e n regarding the e q u a l i t y o f apportionment and the n e c e s s i t y o f guara nteein g j u s t i c e and a b e t t e r e d u ca tio n . The e a r l i e r change in th e b a s i s o f apportionment from the taxes paid by the p a re n ts to the number o f c h il d r e n to be educated was a long s t e p in advance, because i t made a change in the apportionment u n i t from t h e p a r e n t ' s d o l l a r to the p a r e n t ' s c h i l d . A f u r t h e r change in t h e u n i t o f apportionment from th e c h i l d to th e t e a c h e r r e q u i r e d to tea ch the c h i l d would seem t o be a s t i l l f u r t h e r advance in the d i r e c t i o n o f j u s t i c e and b e t ­ t e r e d u c a t i o n . 4° The charge which Cubberley makes appears to argue a g a i n s t a f l a t g r a n t p e r apportionment u n i t o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p u b lic funds. He r e p e a t e d l y compares r u r a l ve rsus c i t y schools and th e r e s u l t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s o f e d u ca tio n al program o f f e r e d to c h i l d r e n in th ese s i t u a ­ tions. By making g r e a t e r demands than can be met the s t a t e pl aces i t s e l f under o b l i g a t i o n to help i t s poorer members to com­ p ly with demands which a r e f o r the general good but which a r e beyond the power o f t h e s e poor er communities t o m e e t. 41 What was Cubberley's c o n t r i b u t i o n t o s t a t e sup p ort plans? In 1969, Johns wrote in Education in the S t a t e s : Nationwide Develop­ ment Since 1900 t h a t Cubberley had advanced the following concepts of sta te responsibility: 1. The s t a t e has th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f e s t a b l i s h i n g minimum e du ca tio nal s t a n d a r d s , but i t should no t p rev e n t any com­ munity from exceeding th ose s t a n d a r d s . 35 2. 3. 4. All o f the c h i l d r e n o f a s t a t e a re e q u a l ly im p o r t a n t , and t h e s t a t e should use i t s f i n a n c i a l reso urce s to e q u a l iz e e d u ca tio n al o p p o r t u n i t i e s thr oughout the s t a t e as n e a r ly as p r a c t i c a b l e . The s t a t e has th e duty t o se cure f o r a l l as high a mini­ mum o f good i n s t r u c t i o n as i s p o s s ib l e but not to reduce a l l t o t h i s minimum. The s t a t e should provide l e a d e r s h i p to encourage communi­ t i e s to extend t h e i r e d ucational e n e r g ie s t o new and d e s i r a b l e u n d e r t a k i n g s . 42 Out o f t h es e recommendations, Cubberley developed a method­ ology f o r d i s t r i b u t i n g s t a t e school funds. in clu d ed the followin g f a c t o r s : He c r e a t e d a model which "the e q u a l i z a t i o n o f education o p p o r t u n i t y , th e reward f o r l o c a l e f f o r t , and i n c e n t i v e s f o r innova­ tio n s."^ Burrup w r i t e s about th e id ea s and p r i n c i p l e s formulated by Cubberley which s u p p o r t th o se f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d by Johns and o t h e r s . Burrup o u t l i n e s Cubberley's t h e o r i e s a s: 1. 2. The b e l i e f t h a t edu catio n was indeed a s t a t e f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , which i t could not and should n o t ig n o re. The f i r m c o nv ic ti o n t h a t s t a t e f i n a n c i a l su p p ort was in a d d i t i o n to local e f f o r t and not intended as j u s t i f i a b l e t a x r e l i e f to local d i s t r i c t s . 3. The awareness t h a t e x i s t i n g methods o f a l l o c a t i n g s t a t e monies not on ly di d n o t e q u a l i z e t h e f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y among lo c a l d i s t r i c t s b u t may a c t u a l l y have in cre ased f i n a n c i a l i n e q u a l i t i e s among d i s t r i c t s . 4. The need to i n c r e a s e the number o f e du ca tio nal programs o f f e r e d in the sc hools with a t t e n d a n t i n c r e a s e s in the s t a t e money f o r th ose d i s t r i c t s with such e x t e n s i o n s . This was h is widely known v e rs i o n o f reward f o r e f f o r t . 5. The wisdom o f using agg reg ate days att en da nce over cen­ s u s , e n ro l l m e n t , average d a i l y a tt e n d a n c e , o r any o t h e r measure used in determining t h e amount o f s t a t e funds to l o c a l d i s t r i c t s . This would encourage th e e x te n sio n o f t h e school y e a r and would p e n a l iz e th o se d i s t r i c t s t h a t sh o r te n ed t h e t o t a l len g t h o f t h e i r school y e a r . 44 36 Harlan Updegraff b u i l t upon Cubberley's e a r l y t h e o r i z i n g and developed a f u r t h e r conceptual framework of school f i n a n c e . His w r i t i n g s a re developed in a t e x t which was w r i t t e n following a s u r ­ vey o f f i n a n c i a l suppor t o f r u r a l schools in New York S t a t e . Updegraff*s theory o f school support was an e l a b o r a t i o n upon many o f Cubberley*s b e l i e f s . He f u r t h e r proposed the following c o n s t r u c t s o f a s t a t e sup port plan f o r public education: 1. Local support i s fundamental. 2. The local u n i ts f o r the support of schools should c o n ta in , in so f a r as p r a c t i c a b l e , enough property ta x a b le f o r school purposes to r a i s e t h a t p o r t io n o f the expenses o f the school which i t i s believe d should be borne by the loca l d i s t r i c t s w itho u t an undue burden upon the owners of p r o p e r t y . 3. Some portio n of the su pport of local schools should come from the s t a t e government, th e amount being dependent upon c e r t a i n f a c t o r s , exact standards f o r which have not been s c i e n t i f i c a l l y determined, but which w ill vary in d i f f e r e n t states. 4. The a d m i n i s t r a t io n of s t a t e a id should be such as to i n cre as e the e f f i c i e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f c i t i z e n s in a democratic form o f government. 5. The purpose of s t a t e a id should be not only t o p r o t e c t the s t a t e from ignorance, to provide i n t e l l i g e n t workers in every f i e l d o f a c t i v i t y , and to educate l e a d e r s , but a ls o to guarantee to each c h i l d , i r r e s p e c t i v e to t h a t o f any o t h e r c h il d f o r the education which w ill b e s t f i t him f o r l i f e . 45 Updegraff expressed a concern f o r the e f f i c i e n c y o f any pro­ posed plan f o r support of sc hools. Therefore, he s e t f o r t h those c r i t e r i a which he deemed e s s e n t i a l f o r a scheme o f s t a t e suppor t of sc ho o ls. His c r i t e r i a f o r r e s o l u t i o n of thes e concerns a r e s e t f o r t h h e re : 1. The e f f i c i e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f c i t i z e n s in the r e s p o n s i ­ b i l i t i e s o f c i t i z e n s h i p should be promoted by making the e x t e n t o f th e s t a t e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n depend on the l e g i s l a ­ t i v e a c t io n o f the local board. 37 2. The a u t h o r i t y o f the c e n t r a l or s t a t e o f f i c e to withhold funds should be f i x e d in such a way as t o promote n e i t h e r a u t o c r a t i c c o n t r o l , on the one hand, nor supineness o f a c t i o n , upon the o t h e r . This w i l l be gained by r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e amounts t o be withheld by reason o f d e f i c i e n c i e s in th e l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s be graded and made dependent upon th e e x t e n t o f the shortcoming and the number o f p r e ­ vious d e l i n q u e n c i e s . 3. The s t a t e should encourage by g r a n ts the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new f e a t u r e s i n t o the s c h o o l s , e s p e c i a l l y th ose which would not o r d i n a r i l y o f t h e i r own v o l i t i o n be undertaken by many communities. 4. The d i s t r i c t s should r e c e i v e su pp o rt in in v e r s e p r o p o r tio n to t h e i r t r u e v a l u a t i o n s back o f each school u n i t (as a t e a c h e r and h e r school) in o r d e r t h a t the e q u a l i z a t i o n o f e d u c a tio n a l o p p o r t u n it y among a l l c h il d r e n o f t h e s t a t e can be more e a s i l y se cured. 5. E f f i c i e n c y in the conduct o f schools should be promoted by i n c r e a s i n g th e s t a t e g r a n t s whenever the t r u e t a x - r a t e i s i n c r e a s e d and by lowering i t whenever the local tax i s d e c r e a s e d , s i n c e t h es e u s u a l l y reveal i n c r e a s e d and de creased e f f i c i e n c y in the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f te a c h e r s employed, in cours es o f study t a u g h t , in s u p p l i e s and equipment f u r n ish e d and in every o t h e r f a c t o r t h a t goes to make up a good sc h oo l. 6. The plan o f s t a t e a i d should be so framed t h a t i t w i l l mea­ su r e p r e c i s e l y the elements involved and w i l l respond promptly and s u r e l y t o any change in the local d i s t r i c t s a f f e c t i n g them.4° Updegraff*s work f e l l i n t o d i s f a v o r as S t r a y e r and Mort began t h e i r work in developing new conceptual frameworks o f p u b l ic school finance. However, U p d e g r a f f 's work on h i s concept o f v a r i a b l e - l e v e l foundation programs and the t e a c h e r u n i t are s t i l l being used in some 47 modern f i n a n c e p l a n s . George D. S t r a y e r , S r . was a s t u d e n t a t Teachers C o lle g e, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y a t t h e same time as Cubberley. Cubberley went on t o Stan fo rd U n i v e r s i t y while S t r a y e r remained a t Columbia as the f i r s t 48 p r o f e s s o r o f e d u c a tio n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . 38 S t r a y e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o educational a d m i n i s t r a t io n a re many, but h i s major c o n t r i b u t i o n developed out o f h i s work with the Educational Finance Inq uiry Commission in the 1920s. S t r a y e r and Haig co-authored one volume o f the 13 volumes r e p o r t i n g t h a t Com­ m i s s i o n 's f i n d i n g s . These w r i t e r s expanded the t h e o r e t i c a l con­ s t r u c t s regarding e q u a l i z a t i o n o f educational op p o rtu n ity . The concept of e q u a l i z a t i o n o f educational opportunity which e x i s t e d a t t h a t time was described a s : There e x i s t s today and has e x i s t e d f o r many y e a r s a movement which has come to be known as the " e q u a l iz a t i o n of educational o pp o rtu nity " or the " e q u a l iz a t i o n o f school s u p p o r t . " These p hrases a re i n t e r p r e t e d in various ways. In i t s most extreme form the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s somewhat as follows: the s t a t e should i n s u r e equal educational f a c i l i t i e s t o every c h il d w ith in i t s borders a t a uniform e f f o r t throughout th e s t a t e in terms of the burden o f t a x a t i o n ; the tax burden o f educa­ t i o n should throughout the s t a t e be uniform in r e l a t i o n to taxpaying a b i l i t y , and the provisions f o r schools should be uniform in r e l a t i o n t o the educable population d e s i r i n g educa­ t i o n . Most of t h e su p po rte rs of t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n , however, would not preclude any p a r t i c u l a r community from o f f e r i n g a t i t s own expense a p a r t i c u l a r l y r i c h and c o s t l y educational program. They would i n s i s t t h a t t h e r e be an adequate minimum o f f e r e d everywhere, the expense o f which should be considered a p r i o r claim on the s t a t e ' s economic r e s o u r c e s . 48 Burrup d e s c r i b e s the work o f S t r a y e r and Haig as the o r i g i n 49 of modern school finance th e o r y . S t r a y e r and Haig t h e o r i z e d t h a t in ord er t o accomplish the e q u a l i z a t i o n o f educational o p p o rtu n ity i t would be necessary: 1. to e s t a b l i s h schools or make o t h e r arrangements s u f f i c i e n t t o f u r n i s h the c h il d r e n in every l o c a l i t y w ith in the s t a t e with equal ed u ca tio n al o p p o r t u n i t i e s up to some pres crib ed minimum; 2. to r a i s e the funds necessary f o r t h i s purpose by l ocal or s t a t e t a x a t i o n a d ju s te d in such manner as t o bear upon t h e people in a l l l o c a l i t i e s a t the same r a t e in r e l a ­ t i o n to t h e i r tax-paying a b i l i t y ; and 3. t o provide adequately 39 e i t h e r f o r the s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n tr o l o f a l l the sc h o o l s , o r f o r t h e i r d i r e c t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , by a s t a t e department o f edu­ c a t i o n . 50 To enhance t h e c r e d i t a b i l i t y o f t h e i r study and to f u r t h e r the development o f school f in an c e t h e o r y , S t r a y e r and Haig developed a conceptual framework o f school f in an c e su p po rt which embodied the t h r e e f a c t o r s they had i d e n t i f i e d . 1. A local school t a x in s u p p o r t of the s a t i s f a c t o r y minimum o f f e r i n g would be l e v i e d in each d i s t r i c t a t a r a t e which would provide the n ecessary funds f o r t h a t purpose in the richest d is tr ic t. 2. The r i c h e s t d i s t r i c t then might r a i s e a l l o f i t s school money by means o f the l o c a l t a x , assuming t h a t a s a t i s f a c ­ t o r y t a x , capable o f being l o c a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d , could be d e v is e d . 3. Every o t h e r d i s t r i c t could be pe rm itted t o levy a local tax a t the same r a t e and apply th e proceeds toward the c o s t o f s c h o o l s , but Since the r a t e i s uniform, t h i s tax would be s u f f i c i e n t to meet the c o s t s only in th e r i c h e s t d i s t r i c t s and the d e f i ­ c i e n c i e s would be made up by s t a t e s u b v e n t i o n s . 5^ 4. S t r a y e r and Haig accentu ate d the e q u a l i z a t i o n o f the tax n e ce ssa r y t o sup p o rt sc hools in a d d i t i o n to the e q u a l i z a t i o n o f edu­ catio n al opportunity. N otwithstanding, they r e f u t e d the e a r l i e r con­ c e p t s o f C ub b erle y 's reward f o r e f f o r t and i n c e n t i v e s : Any formula which a ttem p ts t o accomplish th e double purpose o f e q u a l i z i n g r e s o u r c e s and rewarding e f f o r t must conta in elements which a r e m utu ally i n c o n s i s t e n t . I t would appear t o be more r a t i o n a l t o seek to achieve local adherence to p ro p er ed uca tio nal s t a n d a r d s by methods which do not tend t o d e s t r o y th e very u n if o r m ity o f e f f o r t c a l l e d f o r by the d o c t r i n e o f e q u a l i t y o f edu ca tion al o p p o r t u n i t y . 52 The work o f S t r a y e r and Haig c r e a t e d th e f o o t i n g s upon which Paul R. Mort b u i l t a r a t i o n a l minimum program o f school su p p o r t. Like Cubberley and S t r a y e r b e fo re him, Mort was a s t u d e n t a t Teachers Col­ l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y . He a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e d in the S t r a y e r 40 and Haig Educational Finance In quiry Commission as a graduate assistant. Mort defined a s a t i s f a c t o r y e q u a l i z a t i o n program a s : • A s a t i s f a c t o r y e q u a l i z a t i o n program would demand t h a t each community have as many elementary and high school classroom o r t e a c h e r u n i t s , or t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t , as i s t y p i c a l f o r communi­ t i e s having t h e same number o f c h i l d r e n t o e d u c a te . I t would demand t h a t each of t h e s e classrooms meet c e r t a i n requirements as t o s t r u c t u r e and physical environment. I t would demand t h a t each o f t h e s e classrooms be provided with a t e a c h e r , course o f stu d y, equipment, s u p e r v i s i o n , and a u x i l i a r y a c t i v i ­ t i e s meeting c e r t a i n minimum req uirem en ts . I t would demand t h a t some communities f u r n i s h s p e c i a l f a c i l i t i e s , such as t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . 53 Mort went on to t h e o r i z e t h a t th e s t a t e could e q u a l i z e ed uca tio nal o p p o r t u n i t i e s and the tax burdens by e i t h e r o f two means. The s t a t e could f i n a n c e the e n t i r e c o s t from s t a t e t a x e s , hence the i n i t i a l thoughts o f f u l l s t a t e funding o f sc h o o l s . Or, the s t a t e could f in an c e p a r t o f the c o s t and r e q u i r e the local communities t o fin ance the remaining c o s t in p r o p o r tio n t o t h e i r taxpaying a b i l i t y . This concept lends i t s e l f to an e q u a l i z a t i o n formula which c u r r e n t l y has become 54 very p o p u lar as the ideal method of funding school programs. Mort coined t i t l e s f o r h i s t h e o r i e s of minimum program s u pp o rt. His concept o f " l a r g e fund" method was the f u l l s t a t e funding approach. The c o o p e r a t i v e l y shared concept o f s t a t e - l o c a l funding he c a l l e d the "small fund" method. He de rived t h e s e names from the v a rie d c o sts 55 r e q u i r e d by the adoption o f e i t h e r plan o f s u p p o r t. "The e q u a l i z a t i o n p r i n c i p l e demands t h a t a s a t i s f a c t o r y m in i­ mum program be made a v a i l a b l e in a l l l o c a l i t i e s w itho u t throwing more 56 burden upon one l o c a l i t y than upon any o t h e r . " Mort e la b o r a t e d and 41 defined the concept o f an adequate minimum o f school finance sup­ port. The d e f e n s i b l e minimum program f o r each s t a t e i s defined as the c o s t of the program which the people l i v i n g in the d i s ­ t r i c t s o f average wealth in the s t a t e s have found themselves ab le and w i l l i n g to s u p p o r t . 57 Local control was a very important concept in the e a r l y formulation o f finance theory and i t s t i l l remains one o f the most p res sin g i s su e s in modern fin an ce p l a n n i n g . ^ Henry C. Morrison is f r e q u e n t ly not remembered f o r h is con­ t r i b u t i o n s to school fin an c e. Rather his c o n s t r u c t s o f i n s t r u c t i o n and curriculum may be the p r i n c i p a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s f o r which he will be remembered. However, in h i s t e x t , School Revenue, he e l u c i d a t e s school fin an ce theory q u i t e c l e a r l y . Morrison observed the g r e a t i n e q u a l i t i e s o f wealth among school d i s t r i c t s which caused g r e a t i n e q u a l i t i e s in educational o p p o rtu n ity . F u r t h e r , he noted the Con­ s t i t u t i o n a l d i c t a t e t h a t education was a s t a t e fu n ctio n and local d i s 59 t r i c t s f a i l e d to provide t h a t fu n ctio n e f f i c i e n t l y or e q u i t a b l y . He answered the q uestio n concerning the n e c e s s i t y o f r a i s i n g revenue e a s i e r by the use of t a x a t i o n and wise c o l l e c t i o n procedures. "A more s c i e n t i f i c system o f t a x a t i o n may e n la rg e the revenue without en la rg in g the sou rc es , by c o l l e c t i n g from those who previously escaped."^ Morrison spoke a g a i n s t the s t a t e equaliz ed funds advo­ cated by Mort. Furthermore, he t h e o r iz e d t h a t th ese kinds o f measures would always f a i l to meet educational needs while providing an e q u i t 61 ab le system o f t a x a t i o n . As a consequence o f t h es e f i n d i n g s , Morrison was moved to suggest a plan of school finance in which a l l 42 lo ca l d i s t r i c t s would be a b o li s h e d and the s t a t e i t s e l f would become the t a x a t i o n u n i t and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t f o r p u b lic sc h o o l s . He supported h i s proposal with t h e follow ing l o g i c : Now, t h e r e a r e perhaps f o u r o u tstan d in g reasons which e x p la in the p r i n c i p l e t h a t s t a t e f u n c t i o n s a re more burdensome to the people as a whole when they a r e d i s t r i b u t e d among minor c i v i l d i v i s i o n s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s than when they a re a dm in istere d and supported by th e s t a t e d i r e c t l y . 1. The p r i n c i p l e o f dim inish ing u n i t c o s t s o f work done a p p l i e s . A given und ertakin g which i s in i t s n a tu r e s t a t e - w i d e in scope i s n e c e s s a r i l y l e s s c o s t l y when the overhead c o s t o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s reduced t o t h e requirements o f a s i n g l e d i r e c t o r a t e than when i t i s m u l t i p l i e d by the requirements o f hundreds and perhaps thousands o f d i r e c t o r a t e s , a l l engaged in the achievement o f t h e same common purpose. 2. Consolidated a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s o r d i n a r i l y more e f f i c i e n t than d i f f u s e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , though not n e c e s s a r i l y more e f f i c i e n t than any one lo c a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Most t a x supported p u b l ic e n t e r p r i s e s , and p u b l ic sc hools above a l l , make very im portant economic c o n t r i b u t i o n s when they a re e f f i c i e n t . When they a re i n e f f i c i e n t , they a r e d i s ­ couraging drags on th e economic organism. 3. The e f f e c t o f ov ertaxed communities in a body p o l i t i c and economic l i k e an American commonwealth i s not o f f s e t by t h e e f f e c t o f undertaxed o r normally taxed communities. The l a t t e r a r e h e a l th y and the former a re u nhealth y. I t i s as absurd t o argue t h a t the f i s c a l c o n d it i o n o f a s t a t e i s the a l g e b r a i c sum o f the f i s c a l c o n d it i o n s o f i t s loca l communities as t o argue t h a t b o dily h e a l t h i s the n e t con­ d i t i o n o f the p h y s i o l o g ic a l organism. The in d iv i d u a l who i s conscious o f an i n f e c t e d appendix i s not o r d i n a r i l y complacent about h i s c o n d i t i o n , in th e b e l i e f t h a t hi s b r a i n i s s t i l l c l e a r and h i s leg s unexceptionable. 4. The f i s c a l r e s o u r c e s o f a s t a t e a re n o t the aggregate o f th e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e communities. The aggregate o f i t s lo c a l communities i s n o t the same th in g as i t s people. P r a c t i c a l l y sp eak in g , t h e s t a t e may tax a l l t h a t i t s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and minor c i v i l d i v i s i o n s may t a x , and in a d d i t i o n may t a x c o r p o r a t io n s and in d iv i d u a l incomes and lay e x c i s e s . A l t o g e t h e r , th e n , from the p u rely f i s c a l s t a n d p o i n t , i t would seem t o be c l e a r l y sound p u b lic p o l i c y f o r t h e s t a t e to r e l i e v e overburdened communities, not by th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t a t e l a r g e s s , but by t h e assumption o f which in p r i n c i p l e belong to t h e s t a t e . ° 2 43 Each o f t h e s e t h e o r i s t s made s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to th e p r e s e n t - d a y concepts o f school f i n a n c e . In the 50 s t a t e s , f a c ­ t o r s o f each o f t h e s e t h e o r i e s a re in e x i s t e n c e . T h e r e fo r e , i t can be concluded t h a t t h es e men were th e p r i n c i p a l de velopers o f the th eo r y o f s t a t e school f i n a n c i n g . Johns has w r i t t e n : " I t has been s a i d t h a t we a l l sta n d on the shoul de rs o f th e g i a n t s who preceded us. That i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e o f the e a r l y t h e o r i s t s in s t a t e school f i n a n c e . " 63 From the w r i t i n g o f and the acceptance o f the Federal Con­ s t i t u t i o n i t has been acc epted t h a t th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f e d u ca tio n al programs was t o be a f u n c t i o n o f s t a t e and lo ca l government. During the middle and l a t e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s were developing p u b l ic e d u ca tion al systems t h a t were l a r g e l y administere d and fin an c ed by l o c a l government. Analogous t o t h i s movement was a t r e n d to i s o l a t e s t a t e and lo ca l tax s o u r c e s . Consequently i t became comnon f o r p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n t o be the primary source o f t a x a t i o n f o r 64 the s u p p o r t o f l o c a l government s e r v i c e s , in c l u d i n g e d u c a ti o n . Munse f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t e d on t h e development o f school su p p o r t . He s t a t e d : " P o p u l a ti o n , economy, geography, and o t h e r f a c t o r s , i n c lu d in g the i n c l i n a t i o n o f s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s to p r e f e r c e r t a i n courses o f a c t i o n , 65 help de termine th e program f o r school s u p p o r t . " T h e r e fo r e , i t became c l e a r t h a t d i v e r s e , unequal e d uca tio n al o p p o r t u n i t i e s would probably ex ist. Because o f t h e p o l i t i c a l n a tu r e o f determining s t a t e f in a n c e f o r s c h o o l s , i t becomes e a s i e r to ex pec t j u d i c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n with th e i n t e n t o f m o d if i c a t io n o f s t a t e fin an ce p l a n s . e t a l . , in Schoolmen and P o l i t i c s , s t a t e : Stephen Bailey 44 Levels o f e d uca tion al fin an c e f o r p u b l ic schools a r e not determined by t h e f i a t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l edu cato rs o r the hopes and e x p e c t a t i o n s o f p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s . S t a t e a id to local school d i s t r i c t s . . . i s th e outcome o f extended and highly complex p o l i t i c a l s t r u g g l e s which involve the i n t e r a c t i o n o f group i n t e r e s t s , p a r t i e s , b oard s, commissioners and d e p a r t ­ ments o f e d u c a ti o n , govern ors, l e g i s l a t i v e l e a d e r s and f o llo w ­ e r s , c o u r t s . . . opinion l e a d e r s in th e mass media, and a h o s t o f l e s s e r i n d i v i d u a l s and i n s t i t u t i o n s . 66 Ju d icial Intervention J u d i c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t o e d u ca tion al d e c i s i o n making i s not a r e c e n t phenomenon. The c o u r t s have been a c t i v e in i n t e r p r e t i n g s t a t e and f e d e r a l g u i d e l i n e s f o r education f o r over a c e n t u r y . w rites: Vacca "Courts o f law, throughout the h i s t o r y o f p u b l ic educa tion i n t h i s n a t i o n , have always played a major r o l e in s e t t l i n g educational c o n f l i c t ." fi7 The United S t a t e s Supreme Court has d e sc r ib e d the l i n e s o f a u t h o r i t y as f o llo w s: I t i s , o f c o u r s e , q u i t e t r u e t h a t the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r pub­ l i c e d uca tio n i s p r i m a r i l y th e concern of th e S t a t e s ; but i t i s e q u a l l y t r u e t h a t such r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s — l i k e a l l o t h e r s t a t e a c t i v i t y , must be e x e r c i s e d c o n s i s t e n t l y with f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements as they apply t o s t a t e a c t i o n . 70 One o f the major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f those persons involved in t h e p o l i t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e process i s t o gauge the impact o f proposed l e g i s l a t i o n on a l l groups of peoples a f f e c t e d by t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n . The Congress o f the United S t a t e s has attempted t o d e l i n e a t e the dimensions o f the Fourteenth Amendment requirement o f equal p r o t e c t i o n o f the law. One o f a s e r i e s o f Congressional a tt e m p t s has been t h e passage o f s e v e r a l C ivil Rights Acts. The Act o f 1871 has been disc overed to be s u f f i c i e n t l y broad to ensu re equal 45 p r o t e c t i o n to a l l . I t has been "converted i n t o a v e h ic le f o r f e d e r a l c o u r t s c r u t i n y o f many r u l e s o f school a u t h o r i t i e s p e r t a i n i n g t o s t u ­ d e n ts or t e a c h e r s . The major p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s Act a re embodied in Se c tio n 1983 o f th e United S t a t e s Code: Every person who, under c o l o r o f any s t a t u t e , o rdin an c e, regu­ l a t i o n , custom, or usage, o f any S t a t e or T e r r i t o r y , s u b j e c t s , o r causes t o be s u b j e c t e d , any c i t i z e n o f the United S t a t e s or o t h e r person w it h in t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e o f to th e d e p r i v a ­ t i o n o f any r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s , o r immunities secured by the C o n s t i t u t i o n and laws, s h a l l be l i a b l e to th e in ju r e d in an a c t i o n a t law, s u i t i n e q u i t y , o r o t h e r proper proceeding f o r r e d r e s s . 72 Equal Opportunity More r e c e n t c o u r t cases have been developed around the con­ c e p t o f equal o p p o r t u n it y f o r a l l c i t i z e n s . This i s c e r t a i n l y no t a new concept b u t i t i s widely being used in the c o u r t s today as the cause f o r l i t i g a t i o n . Horace Mann was a g r e a t b e l i e v e r in the equal o p p o r t u n it y f o r a l l people s. He s a i d : Education then beyond a l l o t h e r de v ic es o f human o r i g i n , i s the g r e a t e q u a l i z e r o f th e c o n d it i o n s o f man—the balancewheel o f the s o c i a l machinery. I do n o t here mean t h a t i t so e l e ­ v a te s the moral n a t u r e as to make men d i s d a i n and abhor the oppr es sion o f t h e i r f e l l o w men. This idea p e r t a i n s to an o th e r o f i t s a t t r i b u t e s . But I mean t h a t i t gives each man the independence and th e means by which he can r e s i s t the s e l f ­ i s h n e s s o f o t h e r men. I t does b e t t e r than to disarm th e poor o f t h e i r h o s t i l i t y towards th e r i c h : i t prev en ts being p o o r . 73 The bane of e d u ca tion al d e c i s i o n makers has been th e o f t quoted term "equal e d u ca tio n al o p p o r t u n i t y . " What i s t h i s ne bulous, amorphous term and what i m p l i c a t i o n s can be drawn f o r f u t u r e f i n a n ­ c i a l planning by s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s , s t a t e departments o f e d u c a t i o n , and lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s ? 46 R e c a l l , i f you w i l l , Cubberley's charge t h a t e q u a l i z a t i o n was e s s e n t i a l to th e continued growth o f the pu b lic school system in t h i s c ountry. E qu aliz a tion o f what? The concept o f equal educa­ t i o n a l o p p o r tu n ity seemingly i s hinged on a d o l l a r and cents mode. That th e expend itu re o f an equal number o f d o l l a r s per weighted u n i t s e l e c t e d w i l l i n s u r e the demands o f Section 1983 of the 1871 Civil Rights r e - e n a c t e d under the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been observed 74 to be f a l s e , and o t h e r f a c t o r s cloud the p i c t u r e . Local p a r t i c i ­ p ation has long been held to be necessary and e s s e n t i a l to the well being of our sc h o o ls. But, economists p r e s e n t a d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e which c a l l s f o r a more c e n t r a l i z e d control o f public d o l l a r s . Coleman suggests th e c o n f l i c t i n g viewpoint of s ta te w id e educational programs and local c o n tro l can be accommodated. He has w r i t t e n : The h i s t o r y o f American education s in c e the i n d u s t r i a l revo­ l u t i o n shows a c ontinual s t r u g g l e between two f o r c e s : the d e s i r e by members o f s o c i e t y to have educational o pp o rt unity f o r a l l c h i l d r e n , and the d e s i r e o f each family to provide the b e s t education i t can a ff o r d f o r i t s own c h i l d r e n . 75 Equal educational opportunity implies t h a t whatever i s done f o r a c h i l d s h a l l be done f o r a l l c h il d r e n o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r d i s ­ trict. The Supreme Court affirmed t h i s ideal in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 by s t a t i n g : Today, education i s perhaps the most important fu n ctio n of s t a t e and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the g r e a t expenditures f o r education both demon­ s t r a t e our re c o g n i ti o n o f the importance o f education to our democratic s o c i e t y . I t i s required in the performance of our most b a s i c pu b lic r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , even s e r v i c e in the armed f o r c e s . I t i s the very foundation o f good c i t i ­ zenship. Today i t i s a p r i n c i p a l instrument i n awakening the c h i l d t o c u l t u r a l v a lu e s, in preparing him f o r l a t e r pro­ f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g , and in helping him to a d j u s t normally to 47 h i s environment. In t h e s e da ys, i t i s doubtful t h a t any c h i l d may reasona bly be expected t o succeed in l i f e i f he i s denied the o p p o r t u n it y o f an e d u c a tio n . Such an o p p o r t u n it y , where the s t a t e has undertaken to provide i t , i s a r i g h t which must be made a v a i l a b l e to a l l on equal t e r m s . 76 This 1954 r u l i n g overturned a d o c t r i n e which had been in e f f e c t f o r over 50 y e a r s —t h a t o f s e p a r a t e but e q u a l . In 1896, the P lessey v. Ferguson case was decided, in which " s e p a r a t e schools could be maintained as long as equal f a c i l i t i e s were a v a i l a b l e . " ^ F u r t h e r , th e Court made the assumption t h a t equal edu ca tion al oppor­ t u n i t i e s were a v a i l a b l e in r a c i a l l y seg reg ated sc h o o l s . I t i s impor­ t a n t t o note t h a t the o r i g i n a l case in 1896 d e a l t with the i s s u e of s e p a r a t i o n o f the r a c e s in Louisiana r a i l r o a d coaches. The Supreme C ourt, although i t had i n d i r e c t l y i n f e r r e d t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e was a c c e p ta b le t h e r e , had never a pp lied i t d i r e c t l y in a p u b l ic school c a se . Not u n t i l 1954 had i t been s q u a r e l y faced with t h e q ue stio n o f i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o p u b l i c school s . 78 P r i o r i t i e s in S t a t e Finance S t r u c t u r e s From t h i s background o f equal e d ucational o p p o r t u n i t y , i t becomes im p ortan t to review the most r e c e n t a ttem p ts to gain j u d i c i a l review o f t h e v a ri o us s t a t e f i n a n c i a l s t r u c t u r e s which have c r e a t e d a new c r e s t o f i n t e r e s t in f o s t e r i n g equal ed uca tio nal o p p o r tu n ity based on t h e f i n a n c i a l production and d i s t r i b u t i o n schemes used by t he s t a t e s in provi din g f o r the educa tion o f a l l th e c h i l d r e n . Pro­ f e s s o r John Coons has w r i t t e n t h a t e d uca tors have t h r e e kinds of problems. F i r s t o f a l l , we a re concerned about p r i o r i t i e s . Secondly, t h e r e i s a problem about t h e f a i r n e s s in d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t a t e f u n d s. The t h i r d s i t u a t i o n t h a t causes us concern i s t h e problem o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between f a i r n e s s and freedo m.79 48 Coons a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t an e f f o r t to deal with the f i r s t kind o f problem began in Michigan. He w r i t e s : That e f f o r t began in Michigan. In a s e n s e , D e t r o i t i s t h e fou n tain h ea d o f t h i s problem. I t was in D e t r o i t in 1968, t h a t t h e f i r s t s u i t was f i l e d s e r i o u s l y c h alle n gin g the appa­ r a t u s by which d o l l a r s a r e assig n ed t o p u p ils around the s t a t e . That case was never t r i e d , and u l t i m a t e l y was dropped. But the complaint in t h a t case became very popular.SO* The Michigan e f f o r t encouraged s t u d e n t s in Cook County, I l l i n o i s , to f i l e s u i t . In Mclnnis v. S h a p i r o , the argument was t h a t the s t a t u t e s p e rm i tt e d "wide v a r i a t i o n s in the ex p en ditu re s per s t u ­ d e n t from d i s t r i c t to d i s t r i c t , th ereb y providing some s t u d e n ts with a good e d u ca tio n and d e p riv in g o t h e r s , who have equal or g r e a t e r 31 e d u c a ti o n a l n e ed." The impo rt an t p o i n t o f t h i s case i s the c o u r t ' s o pinion d i d not t u r n on th e mechanics o f th e I l l i n o i s f i n a n c in g scheme. R a th e r, more emphasis was placed on th e remedy sought by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . The t h r e e - j u d g e f e d e r a l c o u r t observed: While t h e complaining s t u d e n t s r e p e a t e d l y emphasize the impor­ t a n c e o f p u p i l s ' "educational n e ed s," they do not o f f e r a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h i s nebulous concept. Presumably, "educational need" i s a conclusory term, r e f l e c t i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n o f se v ­ e r a l f a c t o r s such as the q u a l i t y o f t e a c h e r s , the s t u d e n t s ' p o t e n t i a l , p r i o r e d u c a ti o n , environmental and p a r e n t a l upbr ing­ i n g , and t h e s c h o o l ' s physi cal p l a n t . Evaluation o f th ese v a r i a b l e s n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e s d e t a i l e d r e s e a r c h and s t u d y , w ith concomitant d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n so each school and pupil may be i n d i v i d u a l l y e v a l u a t e d . 82 The c o u r t reg arded th e n a t u r e o f the r e l i e f req uested as an insurmount­ a b le o b s t a c l e . T h e r e f o r e , when th e t h r e e - j u d g e f e d e r a l c o u r t r u l e d a g a i n s t th e p l a i n t i f f s , t h e d e c i s i o n was appealed d i r e c t l y t o the United S t a t e s Supreme Court, which affirm ed th e judgment. *Bd. o f Education v. Michigan, General C i v il #103342 ( C i r c u i t Court o f Michigan, Wayne County, f i l e d 2 / 2 / 6 8 ) . 49 The ne x t challe n g e to a s t a t e scheme o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f funds occurred in V i r g i n i a . In Burruss v. Wilkerson, th e p l a i n t i f f s were r e s i d e n t s and c h i l d r e n o f Bath County. were: Some o f the charges made "Educational o p p o r t u n i t i e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y equal t o those enjoyed by c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g p u b lic schools in many o t h e r d i s t r i c t s o f the 83 state," were denied th ose s t u d e n t s in Bath County. They a ll e g e d t h a t "the s t a t e f a i l e d to take i n t o account the v a r i e t y o f e d ucational 84 needs" o f th e d i f f e r e n t c i t i e s and c o u n t i e s , and t h a t the law " f a i l e d to make p r o v i s i o n f o r v a r i a t i o n s in expenses f o r p u b l ic education d i s ­ t r i c t to d i s t r i c t . " ^ This case was a l s o r e j e c t e d by the c o u r t s . The c o u r t found t h a t th e d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n g among d i s t r i c t s were not caused by the s t a t e , and t h a t c i t i e s and c o u n ti e s were r e c e i v i n g funds under a "uniform and c o n s i s t e n t p l a n . " The c o u r t went on t o say: Truth i s . . . the i n e q u a l i t i e s s u f f e r e d by t h e school c h i l ­ dren o f Bath a re due t o the i n a b i l i t y o f the county to o b t a i n , l o c a l l y , the moneys needed to be added to the S t a t e c o n t r i ­ b u tio n to r a i s e the e d uca tio nal p r o v i s i o n to the lev e l of t h a t o f some o f the o t h e r c o u n ti e s or c i t i e s . 86 The c o u r t concluded t h a t t h i s s t a t e scheme o f d i s t r i b u t i o n d id not involve d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by the s t a t e . Furthermore, they c i t e d the i n d e f i n i t e n e s s o f t h e r e l i e f sought by th e p l a i n t i f f s and r e j e c t e d the su gg e stion t h a t c o u r t s could f ashio n a remedy based on e ducational needs. The c o u r t based i t s d e c i s i o n on th e Mclnnis case and in f a c t 87 i t found th e two c ase s " s c a r c e l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . " This case a l s o was affirm ed by t h e Supreme Court o f th e United S t a t e s . In Hargrave v. McKinney, the c o u r t s were more r e c e p t i v e t o the a t t a c k on th e F l o r i d a school f inanc e system. The i s s u e in t h i s 50 case was a s t a t u t e which provided t h a t any county t h a t imposed upon i t s e l f more than a ten -m ill ad valorem p r op erty tax f o r educational purposes would not be e l i g i b l e to r e c e i v e s t a t e funds. The problem as defined was the v i o l a t i o n of the equal p r o t e c t i o n cla use because the l i m i t a t i o n was fix ed by re f e r e n c e to a c o u n ty 's wealth r a t h e r 88 than e ducational needs. The United S t a t e s Court of Appeals f o r the F i f t h C i r c u i t ruled the d i s t r i c t c o u rt had e r r e d and the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l questio n demanded the convening o f a t h r e e - ju d g e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . said: The Court "The e f f e c t of the F lorida s t a t u t e was to t e l l a county t h a t i t could not r a i s e i t s taxes t o improve education even i f t h a t was what the v o ters wanted." 89 What apparen tly i s arcane to the defendants i s l u c i d to us—t h a t the a c t prevents the poor co un ties from providing from t h e i r own taxes the same support f o r p u b l ic education which the wealthy counties a r e able to pro vide. . . . We have searched in vain f o r some l e g i t i m a t e s t a t e end f o r the d i s c r im i n a t o r y treatm ent imposed by the Act. . . . In c o n t r a s t to the i n s t a n t c a se , the p l a i n t i f f s ' argument simply s t a t e d i s t h a t the Equal P r o t e c t io n Clause fo r b id s a s t a t e from a l l o c a t i n g a u t h o r i t y to tax by r e f e r ­ ence to a formula based on wealth. Unlike th e broad r e l i e f sought in Mclnnis, the remedy here i s simple—an i n ju n c t io n a g a i n s t s t a t e o f f i c i a l s . 90 Serrano v. P r i e s t On August 30, 1970, the Supreme Court of C a l i f o r n i a decided Serrano v. P r i e s t . This case has become a landmark case in the area of school fin an ce reform. In e f f e c t , the Court s t a t e d t h a t the public schools s h a ll make a v a i l a b l e to a l l c h il d r e n the g i f t o f l e a r n i n g . The Court s a i d : 51 We a re c a l l e d upon t o determine whether t h e C a l i f o r n i a p u b l ic school f i n a n c in g system, with i t s s u b s t a n t i a l dependence on l ocal p r o p e r t y taxes and r e s u l t a n t wide d i s p a r i t i e s in school rev enue, v i o l a t e s th e equal p r o t e c t i o n c la u s e o f the Fourteenth Amendment. We have determined t h a t t h i s funding scheme i n v i d ­ i o u s l y d i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t th e poor because i t makes th e q u a l i t y o f a c h i l d ' s ed ucation a fu n c tio n o f t h e wealth o f h is p a r e n t s and n e ig hb o rs. Recognizing as we must t h a t th e r i g h t to an education in our p u b l ic schools i s a fundamental i n t e r e s t which cannot be cond itio n ed on w e a l t h , we can d i s c e r n no compelling s t a t e purpose n e c e s s i t a t i n g th e p r e s e n t method o f f i n a n c i n g . We have concluded, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t such a s y s ­ tem cannot w i t h s t a n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ch alle n ge and must f a l l b e fo re the equal p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e . 91 The i s s u e in Serrano was concerned with d i f f e r e n c e s in a b i l i t y and n o t the s i z e o f those d i f f e r e n c e s . Burrup i n d i c a t e s the q u e stio n s co n sid ere d by the C a l i f o r n i a Court: . . . q u e s t io n s r e l a t e d to th e comparative wealth o f d i s ­ t r i c t s , t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of education as a fundamental i n t e r e s t , and whether o r not th e f i n a n c in g system was neces­ s a r y to th e a tt a i n m e n t o f any compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t . 92 The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court r u le d in a 6 to 1 o p i n io n , t h a t the s t a t e ' s p u b l i c school f i n a n c in g scheme was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . The Court noted t h a t a revenue-producing system which p lac es heavy r e l i a n c e on p r o p e r ty t a x a t i o n can r e s u l t in a s i t u a t i o n where school d i s t r i c t s with a low value o f t a x a b l e p r o p e r t y per c h i l d cannot levy tax e s a t high enough r a t e s t o provide funds f o r a minimum program o f e d u c a ti o n . The Court provided the following r a t i o n a l e f o r i t s decision: The C a l i f o r n i a p u b l ic school f i n a n c in g system, as p r e s e n te d t o us by the p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint supplemented by m a t t e r s j u d i c i a l l y n o t i c e d , s i n c e i t d e a l s i n t i m a t e l y with educa­ t i o n , obviously touches upon a fundamental i n t e r e s t . For the reasons we have e xp la in e d in d e t a i l , t h i s system con­ d i t i o n s t h e f u l l e n t i t l e m e n t to such i n t e r e s t on w e a l t h , c l a s s i f i e s i t s r e c i p i e n t s on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e a f f l u e n c e and makes th e q u a l i t y of a c h i l d ' s education depend upon th e reso u rce s o f h i s school d i s t r i c t and 52 u l t i m a t e l y upon t h e pocketbook o f h i s p a r e n t s . We f i n d t h a t such f i n a n c in g system as p r e s e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d i s n o t neces­ s a r y t o the a tt a i n m e n t o f any compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t . Since i t does not w ith stan d the r e q u i s i t e " s t r i c t s c r u t i n y , " i t d e n ie s t o the p l a i n t i f f s and o t h e r s s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d the equal p r o t e c t i o n o f th e laws. . . . I f th e a l l e g a t i o n s o f the co mplaint a r e s u s t a i n e d , t h e f i n a n c i a l system must f a l l and t h e s t a t u t e s comprising i t must be found u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . 93 A f t e r the s t a t e Supreme Court r u l i n g , th e case was re tu r n e d to t h e S u p e r i o r Court o f C a l i f o r n i a f o r formal t r i a l . 1974 t h i s c o u r t s e t t l e d t h e Serrano v. P r i e s t c a s e . In April of The j u d i c i a r y recognized t h a t the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c o r r e c t i n g th e fin an c in g scheme was a l e g i s l a t i v e problem, y e t the c o u r t recommended fo ur pos­ s i b l e p lans which would meet t h e c o u r t ' s req uirem ents . Guthrie e l a b o r a t e s the a c c e p t a b l e remedies f o r Serrano a s : One i s t o a b o l i s h p u b l i c school systems. . . . A second pos­ s i b l e , but no t very f e a s i b l e remedy i s f o r a s t a t e t o r e o r ­ ga niz e so t h a t each o f i t s school d i s t r i c t s c o n ta in s an equal amount o f a s s e s s e d v a l u a t i o n (o r o t h e r form o f t a x a b le wealth) behind each s t u d e n t . . . . Yet a t h i r d p o s s i b l e remedy i s to make f a m i l i e s the d e c i s i o n making u n i t s f o r sc hools and a s s u r e each fam ily equal "wealth t o su p p o rt i t s c h i l d ' s s c h o o l in g . " . . . A f o u r t h a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a s t a t e i s to e l i m i n a t e a l l school d i s t r i c t s and o p e r a t e schools c e n t r a l l y . 9^ In Michigan, James L. Phelps and Douglas J . Smith s t u d i e d the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the Serrano d e c i s i o n upon th e funding o f Michigan public schools. These s t a f f personnel o f th e Governor o f Michigan c i t e d numerous passages from t h e a c t u a l Serrano d e c i s i o n . In Phelps and S m i t h 's words: The c o u r t l i s t e d fo u r o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s on which we s h a l l comment b r i e f l y : 1. Full S t a t e Funding—t h i s was t h e n a tu r e o f your 1972 p ro­ posal and would r e q u i r e a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment. Your Advisory Task Force on P ro pe rty Tax Revision concluded t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l goals o f your Educational Reform Com­ mission have been a chiev e d, by in l a r g e , through the equal 53 2. 3. 4. 5. y i e l d formula and the p r o p e r t y tax r e l i e f a c t , the c i r c u i t b rea k er. In a d d i t i o n , they thought t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t p u b lic sup p o rt or support w ith in the school community to accomplish a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l change. The d e c i s i o n t o move toward f u l l s t a t e funding i s not r e q u i r e d by th e Serrano p r i n c i p l e , but i t i s s o l e l y a m a t t e r o f p o l i c y . Conso lidation of school d i s t r i c t s —t h i s o p tio n would be extremely d i s r u p t i v e , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y and to s t u d e n t s , and would only have an impact on s o - c a l l e d o u t-o f-fo rm u la d i s t r i c t s because power e q u a l i z i n g i s , in e sse n c e , a mathe­ matical way to make pr o p e r ty tax v a l u a t i o n s in each d i s ­ t r i c t the same. Removal o f i n d u s t r i a l and commercial p r o p e r ty f o r local school t a x a t i o n —t h i s would r e q u i r e a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment and would only impact on o u t- o f -f o r m u la d i s t r i c t s . The same e f f e c t could be achieved by e n ac ting a r e c a p t u r e provision. Vouchers a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d by our s t a t e c o n s t i t u ­ tion. Some combination o f two or more o f the o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s i s s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y . 45 The Governor's s t a f f went on to d i s c u s s t h e Michigan r e a c t i o n to the d i c t a t e s of Serrano: School d i s t r i c t power e q u a l i z i n g , . . . which has as i t s e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t the concept t h a t school d i s t r i c t s could choose to spend a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s but f o r each level o f ex pen ditu re chosen, th e tax e f f o r t would be the same f o r each school d i s t r i c t choosing such l e v e l whether i t be a high-wealth or a low-wealth d i s t r i c t . 96 The concept o f d i s t r i c t power e q u a l i z a t i o n allows loca l con­ t r o l over the level o f t a x a t i o n and a given u n i t o f tax e f f o r t in an a re a o f low f i s c a l a b i l i t y i s equated to t h e same number o f d o l l a r s o f revenue per pupil as would r e s u l t from the same tax e f f o r t with average or above-average f i s c a l c a p a b i l i t y . T h i s , th e n , provides some loca l i n s i g h t i n t o the impact o f the Serrano d e c i s i o n in the S t a t e o f Michigan. The focus o f t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s brings the r e s e a r c h e r to the principle of "fiscal n e u tra lity ." The q u a l i t y o f a c h i l d ' s education 54 may not be "a f u n c t i o n o f th e wealth of h is p a r e n t s and neighbors" without v i o l a t i n g the equal p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e o f the Fou rteenth 97 Amendment o f the United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . However, the importance of the d e c i s i o n has been v ig o r o u sly debated. Time magazine conta in ed t h e following s t a te m e n t: "Poten­ t i a l l y , the d e c i s i o n i s th e most f a r - r e a c h i n g c o u r t r u l i n g on sc ho o l98 ing s i n c e Brown v. Board o f Education in 1954. . . . " Phelps and Smith s t a t e : We a r e f u l l y c o n f i d e n t t h a t i f the Michigan Supreme Court were t o apply th e Se rran o -ty pe p r i n c i p l e in Michigan, i t would f i n d the p r e s e n t system c o n s i s t e n t with t h e equal p r o t e c t i o n c la u se ( A r t i c l e I , Section 2) because th e equal y i e l d formula, when completely in p l a c e , w i l l make e x p en d itu re s in d ep e n d en t, not «« dependent as in C a l i f o r n i a , o f school d i s t r i c t t a x a b le w e alth . The r e a l importance o f Serrano w i l l con tinu e t o be debated by academicians f a r i n t o the f u t u r e . However, Serrano di d provide some i n s i g h t s i n t o the r e l a t i v e b a s i s o f f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Justice Sullivan w rites: . . . in cases in volv ing " su s p ec t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s " o r touching o r "fundamental i n t e r e s t s , " the c o u r t has adopted an a t t i t u d e o f a c t i v e and c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s , s u b j e c t i n g th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t o s t r i c t s c r u t i n y . Under the s t r i c t st a n d a r d ap p lied in such c a s e s , th e s t a t e bears the burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g not only t h a t i t has a compel1ing i n t e r e s t which j u s t i f i e s th e law but t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s drawn by the law a r e necessary to f u r t h e r i t s p u r p o s e . 100 The J u s t i c e went on t o c i t e Harper v. V i r g i n ia Board o f Ele c­ t i o n s , in which th e United S t a t e s Supreme Court s t a t e d : "Lines drawn on the b a s i s o f wealth or p r o p e r t y , l i k e those o f r a c e , a r e t r a d i ­ tionally d i s f a v o r e d ." ^ S u lliv a n then c l a r i f i e d the no tio n o f the measure o f a d i s t r i c t ' s wealth. 55 The only meaningful measure o f a d i s t r i c t ' s wealth in the p r e s e n t c o n te x t i s not the a b s o l u te value o f i t s p r o p e r t y , but the r a t i o o f i t s r es o u rce s to p u p i l s , because i t i s the l a t t e r f i g u r e which determines how much t h e d i s t r i c t can devote to educating each o f i t s s t u d e n t s . . . . Thus, a f f l u ­ e n t d i s t r i c t s can have t h e i r cake and e a t i t too: they can provide a high q u a l i t y education f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n while pay­ ing l o w e r . t a x e s . Poor d i s t r i c t s , by c o n t r a s t , have no cake at a ll.™ 2 Kenneth L. K a rst, w r i t i n g in C a l i f o r n i a Law Review, sa ys: In Serrano th e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t was w r i t i n g on a d o c t r i n a l page t h a t was almost blank. . . . N e v e r t h e l e s s , Serrano i s an o r i g i n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n by a s t a t e c o u r t to the development o f f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w .103 The Senate S e l e c t Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity s t a t e d : That s t a t e s could (should) assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r se eing elementary and secondary sc hools a re funded p r o p e r l y , and t h a t th e "equal o p p o r t u n it y " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y en unciated in Serrano be a c c e p t e d , th e c o u r t s , because th e Serrano p r i n ­ ciple is rig h t. ^ The r e s u l t a n t impact o f the Serrano d e c i s i o n caused governors and l e g i s l a t o r s t o begin examinations o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f i n a n c i a l s t r u c t u r e s o f p u b l ic education and to begin recommending new methods o f p r ov idin g su p p o rt f o r t h e p u b l ic s c h o o ls. Van D u rs artz v. H a t f i e l d Within a month and a h a l f a f t e r Se rran o, Minne sota's Federal D i s t r i c t Court reached i t s d e c i s i o n in Van Durs artz v. H a t f i e l d . This c o u r t affirm ed th e reasoning and r a t i o n a l e t h a t the C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t had exp ress ed in Se rrano. "The reasoning o f th e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t . . . i s completely pe rs u as iv e and t h i s c o u r t adopts i t as i t s o w n . " ^ The c o u r t e l a b o r a t e d i t s acceptance o f Serrano by s t a t i n g : P l a i n l y p u t , the r u l e i s t h a t t h e lev e l o f spending f o r a c h i l d ' s education may n o t be a fu n c t i o n o f wealth o t h e r 56 than the wealth o f t h e s t a t e as a whole. For convenience we s h a l l r e f e r to t h i s as th e p r i n c i p l e o f " f i s c a l n e u t r a l ­ i t y , " a r e f e r e n c e p re v i o u s ly adopted in S e r r a n o . 107 The Minnesota D i s t r i c t Court went on to pre pare a s ta te m e n t concerning t h e impact o f wealth d i s c r i m i n a t i o n : This does not sug gest t h a t by i t s e l f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by wealth i s n e c e s s a r i l y d e c i s i v e . No c o u r t has so h e ld . How­ e v e r , when the wealth c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a f f e c t s the d i s t r i b u ­ t i o n o f p u b l ic e d u c a ti o n , the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i s cumulative. I t cannot be argued t h a t a q u a l i t y education endows i t s r e c i p i e n t with a d i s t i n c t economic advantage over h i s l e s s educated b r e t h r e n . By t h es e s t a n d a r d s th e in ex ora ble e f f e c t o f e d u ca tio n al f i n a n c in g system such as here maintained puts the s t a t e in t h e p o s i t i o n o f making the r i c h r i c h e r and the poor p o o rer. I f added to t h i s problem i s th e problem t h a t t he p a r e n t s o f c h i l d r e n who l i v e in poor have a l s o a lower income than the p a re n ts in w e a l t h i e r d i s t r i c t s , then the d i s ­ p a r i t y gay be even more se vere than t h a t a ll e g e d by p l a i n - Rodriguez v. San Antonio Near the end o f 1971, a Texas f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t rendered a d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e Texas p u b l ic school f i n a n c e system v i o l a t e d the equal p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e o f th e Fourteenth Amendment. This d e c isio n f u r t h e r e d the growing e d u ca tion al f u r o r generated by Serrano and Van D u r s a r t z . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n was appealed and on March 21, 1973, th e United S t a t e s Supreme Court r u l e d on the c o n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l ch alle n g e p res en te d in Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent 109 School D i s t r i c t . John Cha ffe e, J r . , e d i t o r o f th e Education Com­ m is sion o f the S t a t e s ' j o u r n a l , Compact, wrote: " I t was th e most Im portant high c o u r t d e c i s i o n f o r ed u catio n s in c e Brown v. Board o f Education in 1 9 5 4 . " ^ ° 57 The m a j o r i t y opinion authored by A ssoc ia te J u s t i c e Powell focused on q u e s t io n s t h a t had p r e v i o u s ly been answered i n the s t a t e c o u r t d e c i s i o n s in M clnnis, B u r r u s s , S e r r a n o , and Van D u r s a r t z . The f i r s t concern was d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t a d e f i n a b l e c l a s s o f p erso ns. . . . But t h e r e i s no b a s i s on t h e record in t h i s case f o r assuming t h a t the p o o r e s t peop le—de fined by r e f e r e n c e to any l e v e l o f a b s o l u t e impecunity—a r e c o n c e n tr a te d in the p o o r e s t d i s t r i c t s . 111 Powell answered t h e second i s s u e t h a t lack o f personal r e s o u r c e s had n o t occasioned an a b s o l u t e d e p r i v a t i o n of th e d e s i r e d b e n e f i t . Apart from t h e u n s e t t l e d and d i s p u t e d q u e stio n whether the q u a l i t y o f education may be determined by the amount o f money expended f o r i t , a s u f f i c i e n t answer to a p p e l l e e s ' argument i s t h a t , a t l e a s t where wealth i s i n vo lve d, the Equal P r o t e c t i o n Clause does n o t r e q u i r e a b s o l u te e q u a l i t y o r p r e c i s e l y equal advantages. Nor, indeed, in view o f the i n f i n i t e v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g th e ed u ca tio n al p r o c e s s , can any system a s s u r e equal q u a l i t y o f education except in the most r e l a t i v e s e n s e . 112 Powell c i t e d J u s t i c e Harlan in Shapiro v. Thompson 113 in a r t i c u l a t i n g th e l i m i t s o f the f u n d a m e n ta l -r i g h t s r a t i o n a l e rendered i n t h e C o u r t ' s equal p r o t e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s : The Court today does not "pick o u t p a r t i c u l a r human a c t i v i ­ t i e s , c h a r a c t e r i z e them as ' f u n d a m e n t a l , 1 and give them added p r o t e c t i o n . . . . " To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e Court simply r e c o g n i z e s , as i t must, an e s t a b l i s h e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t , and gives t o t h a t r i g h t . n o l e s s p r o t e c t i o n than the C o n sti­ t u t i o n i t s e l f demands.11^ The q u e s t i o n concerning th e fundamental n a t u r e o f education was answered in t h i s way: Thus, t h e key t o d i s c o v e r i n g whether e du ca tio n i s "funda­ mental" i s not t o be found in comparisons o f th e r e l a t i v e s o c i e t a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f e d u ca tio n as opposed to s u b s i s ­ te nc e o r housing. Nor i s i t t o be found by weighing whether education i s as im p o r ta n t as t h e r i g h t t o t r a v e l . Rath er, the answer l i e s in a s s e s s i n g whether t h e r e i s a r i g h t t o 58 ed u catio n e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y guaranteed by the Consti­ t u t i o n . Education, o f c o u rs e, i s not among the r i g h t s a ffo rde d e x p l i c i t p r o t e c t i o n under our Federal C o n s t i t u t i o n . 1 The Court f u r t h e r expressed i t s b e l i e f t h a t the s t a t e and local u n i ts o f government were res p o n s i b l e f o r making revenue production and distrib ution . Powell w r i t e s : Thus, we stand on f a m i l i a r ground when we continue to acknowl­ edge t h a t the J u s t i c e s o f t h i s Court lack both the e x p e r t i s e and the f a m i l i a r i t y with lo ca l problems so necessary to the making o f wise de cision s with r e s p e c t to the r a i s i n g and d i s ­ p o s i t i o n o f p u b lic r e v e n u e s . 116 The r e s u l t of the Rodriguez d e cisio n was to s t a l l the educa­ t i o n a l f i n a n c e reform movement through the f e d e r a l c o u r t s . wrote in Compact: J u s tu s "A setb ack , but not a deadend, i s the way most l e a d ­ ing school tax reformers have c h a r a c t e r i z e d the d e c i s i o n . " ^ The Rodriguez d e c i s i o n appears to have forced the school finance reform movement t o seek redre ss through the s t a t e c o u r t s r a t h e r than the f ed ­ eral ju d ic ia ry . Levin w r i t e s : "The message was conveyed t h a t even though t h e f e d e r a l co u rts were c l o s e d , s t a t e c o u rts aff o rded an a l t e r 118 n a t i v e forum f o r school fin an c e reform l i t i g a t i o n . " Robinson v. Cahill The next major j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n which impacted school finance reform was rendered in New J e r s e y . The s t a t e c o u rt d e a l t e x te n s i v e l y with the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f per pupil e x penditu res t o the q u a l i t y of e du ca tio n. The New Je rse y s t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t a "thorough and e f f i c i e n t " education be provided f o r a l l p u p i ls on equal terms. A f in an c e system can be devised f o r New J e r s e y which a f f o r d s equal p r o t e c t i o n to a l l p u p i ls without preclu din g local con­ t r o l ove r p ub lic e d uca tio n. The in vid io us d i s p a r i t i e s cannot 59 be j u s t i f i e d by any o v e r r i d i n g s t a t e purpose. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f school r es o u rce s according t o th e chance l o c a t i o n o f p u p i l s cannot be t o l e r a t e d under the S t a t e or Federal C o n s t i t u t i o n s . The Court concluded t h a t th e New J e r s e y system o f f i n a n c i n g p u b l i c K-12 e d u ca tio n " v i o l a t e s the requirements f o r e q u a l i t y conta in ed in the 120 S t a t e and Federal C o n s t i t u t i o n s . " Once again th e Court r e f r a i n e d from d e sig n in g a f in a n c in g scheme: Nothing h e re in s h a l l be const rued as r e q u i r i n g t h e l e g i s l a ­ t u r e t o adopt a s p e c i f i c system o f f i n a n c in g o r t a x a t i o n . The L e g i s l a t u r e may approach t h e goal r e q u i r e d by th e edu­ c a t i o n Clause by any methods reaso nably c a l c u l a t e d t o accomp­ l i s h t h a t purpose c o n s i s t e n t with t h e equal p r o t e c t i o n r e q u i r e ­ ments o f l a w . 121 The Court did i n d i c a t e t o the L e g i s l a t u r e t h a t i t would " r e t a i n j u r i s 122 d i c t i o n f o r such m o d if i c a t io n o r f u r t h e r o r d e r as may be r e q u i r e d . " C rite ria for A f t e r review of t h e s e s i o n s can be drawn from t h e s e School Financing Plans v a rio us j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s , what c onclu­ opinions ? C e r t a i n l y one can see t h a t in both s t a t e and f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n s , the j u d i c i a r y has r e f r a i n e d from s e l e c t i n g and desig nin g p a r t i c u l a r f i n a n c e schemes f o r v a rio u s s t a t e s . The J u s t i c e s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t they have n e i t h e r t h e knowledge or e x p e r t i s e t o e f f e c t i v e l y model a s t a t e fin a n c e program. The elements o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a c c e p t a b l e school f i n a n c i n g plan have been s e t forward by the c o u r t s in th e s e various d e c i s i o n s . The c r i t e r i a which have been s e t f o r t h by t h e c o u r t s in t h e i r d e c i s i o n s have been con­ c i s e l y s e t f o r t h by Hogan. He w r i t e s : Some o f th e c r i t e r i a th e c o u r t s have s a i d could be used by l e g i s l a t u r e s and school a u t h o r i t i e s f o r a f i s c a l plan t h a t meets t|t^1mum requirements a r e summarized in th e accompanying 60 The following c r i t e r i a were e x t r a c t e d from r e c e n t c o u r t d e c i s i o n s f o r use in judging whether a school f i n a n c in g plan meets the minimum c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements of the equal p ro tectio n clause: —A l l o c a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f funds on a per educable b a s i s with an e q u a l i z a t i o n f a c t o r being a p p l i e d , does no t v i o l a t e the Federal C o n s t i t u t i o n . (LeBeauf v. S t a t e Board o f Education o f L o u i s i a n a , 244 F. Supp. 256 L1956J) —The Fourteenth Amendment does no t r e q u i r e t h a t school expen­ d i t u r e s be made only on th e b a s i s o f " p u p i l s ' e d ucational n e e d s ." (Mclnnis v. S h a p i r o , 293 F. Supp. 327 [1968]) —The lac k o f " j u d i c i a l l y manageable s t a n d a r d s " w i l l i n v a l i d a t e a school f i n a n c in g p la n , ( i b i d .) —The manner in which th e plan op e ra te s may be c r u c i a l to the d e c i s i o n o f the equal p r o t e c t i o n q u e s t i o n . (Askew v. Hargrave, 401 U.S. 476 [1970]) —The plan must be "uniform and c o n s i s t e n t . " (Burruss v. Wilkers o n , 310 F. Supp. 572 [1969]) —There i s no requirement t h a t the school system be uniform t o . . . money sp e n t p e r p u p i l ; r a t h e r , th e system must be uniform in terms o f cours es o f study o f f e r e d and e ducational p r o g r e s­ s i o n . ( Serrano v. P r i e s t , 10 C a l . App. 3d 1110 [1970]) —Even though th e plan o p e ra t e s "uniformly and c o n s i s t e n t l y , " i t may v i o l a t e the equal p r o t e c t i o n c la u s e i f i t s e f f e c t s are d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . (Hargrave v. Kirk, 313 F. Supp. 944 [1970]) —The plan must not " i n v i d i o u s l y d i s c r i m i n a t e " a g a i n s t th e poor. ( Serrano v. P r i e s t , 96 Cal. Rptr. 601 [1971]) —A plan which r e l i e s h e a v i ly upon lo ca l p r o p e r ty t ax e s causes s u b s t a n t i a l d i s p a r i t i e s among school d i s t r i c t s in th e amount o f revenue a v a i l a b l e per pupil i n v i d i o u s l y d i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t t h e poor and t h e r e f o r e v i o l a t e s the equal p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e . (Serrano v . P r i e s t , i b i d .) —The q u a l i t y o f p u b l ic education may n o t be made a f u n c t i o n o f w e a l t h , o t h e r than the wealth o f the S t a t e as a whole. ( Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School D i s t r i c t , U.S. D i s t r i c t Cour t, Western D i s t r i c t o f Texas [1971]) —The c l a s s i f y i n g f a c t o r must n o t be r a c e . (Hobsen v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 [1967]) — Lines drawn on th e b a s i s o f wealth or p r o p e r t y , l i k e th o se o f r a c e , a r e t r a d i t i o n a l l y d i s f a v o r e d . ( Harper v. V i r g i n i a S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s , 383 U.S. 663, 668 [1966]) 61 —D i s c r im in a tio n in l e g i s l a t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s on the b a s i s o f wealth i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , r e g a r d l e s s o f whether i t i s the r e s u l t o f purposeful and i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n or de f a c t o o r u n i n t e n t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . (Serrano v. P r i e s t , 96 Cal. R p tr. 602 [1971]) — " T e r r i t o r i a l u n ifo rm ity " in fin an c in g schools may be c o n s t i ­ t u t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d . (Serrano v. P r i e s t , 96 Cal. Rptr. 603, 621 [1971]) —Courts w i l l look a t th e f i s c a l system as a whole t o see how i t g e n e r a t e s revenue. (Serrano v. P r i e s t , 96 Cal. Rptr. 611 [1971]) —To w ith stan d an a t t a c k under the Fourteenth Amendment, the f i s c a l system as s t r u c t u r e d must be n e ce ssa ry to achieve a come l l i n g s t a t e purpose. (Serrano v. P r i e s t , 96 Cal. Rptr. 620 1971]) —Courts have n e i t h e r th e knowledge, means, nor power to t a i l o r p u b l i c moneys t o f i t th e varying needs o f p u p ils throughout the s t a t e . ( Burruss v. Wilkerson, 310 F. Supp. 572, 574 [1969]) E — Federal funds cannot be employed as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r perform­ ance by a s t a t e o f i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n to e q u a l iz e d i f f e r e n c e s . (Rodriquez v. San Antonio Independent School D i s t r i c t , 377 F. Supp. 280 [D.C. Texas, 19710, t r a n s c r i p t , p. 7]) —F i s c a l n e u t r a l i t y i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y re q u ir e d in school f i n a n c i n g . (Van Dusartz v. H a t f i e l d , 334 F. Supp. 870, 872, 876-77 [1971]) —By i t s e l f , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by wealth i s not n e c e s s a r i l y d e c i s i v e . "No c o u r t has so h e l d . " ( Van Dusartz v. H a t f i e l d , 334 F. Supp. 876 [1971]) —Absolute u n if o r m ity o f school e x p en ditu re s i s n o t c o n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d . (Van Dusartz v. H a t f i e l d , 334 F. Supp. 876-877 [1971]) —A f i s c a l system d i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t p r o p e r t y owners, i f they a r e taxed a t d i f f e r e n t r a t e s thr oughout the s t a t e f o r th e same purpose. ( Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 187 [1972]) —There i s no l e g i t i m a t e l e g i s l a t i v e purpose f o r giving r i c h d i s t r i c t s " s t a t e a i d , " so long as some d i s t r i c t s a r e under­ f i n a n c e d . (Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 211 [1972]) — "Minimum a id " and " s a f e harmless" a i d i s , in some c a s e s , p o l i t i c a l . ( Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 211 [1972]) — In a c e r t a i n s e n s e , "lo ca l c o n t r o l " i s i l l u s o r y ; i t i s c o n tr o l f o r the w ealthy, not th e poor. (Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 212 [1972]) —D i s t r i b u t i o n o f school r e s o u r c e s according t o the chance l o c a t i o n o f p u p i ls cannot be t o l e r a t e d . ( Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 214 [1972]) 62 — I t i s c l e a r t h a t some kind o f uniform, sta te w id e tax can be adopted by the s t a t e to finance "thorough" education without r e l y i n g on a re a l property t a x . ( Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 215 [1972]) —There i s no compelling j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r making a taxpayer in one d i s t r i c t pay a tax a t a higher r a t e than a taxpayer in another d i s t r i c t , so long as the revenue serves the common s t a t e educational purpose. (Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 216 [1972]) —Education serves too important a fun ction to leave t o the "mood" of the taxpa yer. (Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 216 [1972]) —Equalizing tax burdens can be accomplished by known means— but no purpose i s served by simply "bidding-up" the c o sts o f the same se r v i c e s without the e x p ec ta tio n of.improvements. (Robinson v. C a h i l l , 287 A. 2d 217 [1972])T24 With these items as themes, one can see t h a t cases have been decided a t a l l l e v e l s o f s t a t e and fed e r a l j u d i c i a r i e s , where the question o f equal fin ancin g o f schools has been reviewed by the judges. Yet, to d a t e , the quest io n has not been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answered. In Robinson v. C a h i l l , the Attorney General may have s t a t e d the p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n of the a r t when he expressed doubt about "the a b i l i t y o f courts to grapple with an i s s u e as l a r g e and complex as 125 the pu b lic school system." Since the time o f the Massachusetts Bay Colony to the p r e s e n t time o f 1978, the c o s t of p u b lic education has been on a c o n stant upward s p i r a l . This r e a l i t y has c re a te d numerous p r e s su r e s on the th ree l e v e l s o f government to meet a l l the demands of funding. the Thomas Report, J . A. Thomas wrote: In " I t i s assumed t h a t education should be based upon a revenue system which t r e a t s tax payers e q u i- 63 Tenth Amendment C on sid e ratio n s The h i s t o r y o f school revenue production g e n erate s numerous q u e stio n s which f i n d t h e i r o r i g i n in A r t i c l e I , Se c tio n 8 o f the Tenth Amendment o f the United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Maxwell has written: S t a t e and lo ca l governments t o g e t h e r spend more than twice as much as th e fed e r a l government t o pr ovide c i v i l i a n s e r v i c e s f o r c i t i z e n s . Education, ro a d s , w e l f a r e , p u b l i c h e a l t h , hos­ p i t a l s , p o l i c e , s a n i t a t i o n - - t h e s e a r e s t a t e and l o c a l respon­ s i b i l i t i e s , and t h e i r c o s t f a l l s mainly on s t a t e and lo ca l sourc es o f revenue. An upsurge o f s t a t e and lo ca l a c t i v i t y which began a f t e r World War II has not y e t l o s t i t s f o r c e . Rates o f s t a t e and lo ca l t ax e s have been r a i s e d , new taxes have been added, and the bases o f old ta x e s have been e n la r g e d . Most of the expansion o f s t a t e and lo ca l spending has been f o r old and w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d governmental f u n c t i o n s , r a t h e r than f o r new f u n c t i o n s . The most powerful expansion has been f o r e d u c a ti o n , a fu n c tio n in the p u b l ic s e c t o r f o r over a cen­ t u r y . The reasons f o r the sharp growth in t h i s exp en d itu re a r e p l a i n . Children a r e a l a r g e r segment o f th e p o p u l a t i o n , a g r e a t e r percentage o f c h i l d r e n goes t o school and f o r a longer p e r i o d , what i s tau g h t i s more complex, and t o tea ch ? i t r e q u i r e s more p l a n t and equipment and t r a i n e d personnel The review o f th e s t a t e and f e d e r a l j u d i c i a r y opinio ns r e v e a l s wide d i s p a r i t y in what th e i m p l i c a ti o n s f o r loca l and s t a t e govern­ ments a r e in r e l a t i o n t o tax in g procedures. Moehlman has w r i t t e n : "The most e q u i t a b l e system o f t a x a t i o n i s probably t h a t which reaches 128 everyone in p r o p o r tio n to h i s a b i l i t y to pay." The a b i l i t y - t o - p a y q ue stio n b ri n g s i n t o view the p r o p e r t i e s o f t a x a t i o n and the c a t e ­ g o r ie s to which tax plans a re s u b j e c t e d . S a l i s b u r y , in The Theory and P r a c t i c e o f School Finance, p r e s e n t s d i f f e r e n t ways to c l a s s i f y taxes. One in c l u d e s d i r e c t t a x e s , where the taxp ay er knows t h a t a tax i s a p p lie d to p r o p e r t y , income commodity o r p r i v i l e g e . A second in clu des i n d i r e c t t a x e s , which may be concealed as 64 p a r t o f t h e p r i c e o f an item purchased. . . . A t h i r d c l a s s i ­ f i c a t i o n p e r t a i n s t o t a x ba se s . The more common bases a r e value o f r e a l e s t a t e , value o f personal p r o p e r t y , n e t income, gross e a r n i n g s , commodities, p r i v i l e g e s , and a c t s . S t i l l a f o u r t h method o f c l a s s i f y i n g a tax in volv es the r a t i o o f income to amount o f tax p a id. . . . A tax i s propor­ t i o n a l i f t h e r a t i o o f tax paid to income i s c o n s t a n t f o r a l l income c l a s s e s . A tax i s p r o g r e s s i v e i f th e r a t i o o f tax paid t o income i s l a r g e r f o r high-income householders than f o r those o f low income. I t i s s a i d to be r e g r e s s i v e i f the r a t i o o f tax paid to income i s g r e a t e r in low income f a m i l i e s than f o r h i g h J 29 E f f e c t s o f Taxing P r a c t i c e s In o r d e r to gain p e r s p e c t i v e on th e e f f e c t s o f tax in g p r a c ­ t i c e s , an attem p t to judge th e j u s t i c e of tax e s must be made. Johns and Morphet have w r i t t e n : I f i t i s argued t h a t no t a x i s j u s t u nless i t i s a p r o g r e s ­ s i v e tax both in r a t e s t r u c t u r e and u l t i m a t e e f f e c t , then in o r d e r t o be j u s t , t h e tax systems o f a l l l e v e l s o f gov­ ernment would have to c o n s i s t almost e n t i r e l y o f income taxes with p r o g r e s s i v e r a t e s t r u c t u r e s J 30 Going f u r t h e r in an e f f o r t t o judge the impact o f t a x a t i o n , Johns and Morphet s t a t e : Using the l a y concept o f p r o g r e s s i v e and r e g r e s s i v e t a x e s r a t h e r than th e t e c h n ic a l one, the Federal tax in g system i s the most p r o g r e s s i v e , s t a t e systems n e x t , and th e t a x ­ ing systems o f lo ca l governments th e l e a s t p r o g r e s s i v e . ' 3 * Using th e s ta te m e n t o f Johns and Morphet t o g e n e r a l i z e about t a x a t i o n , i t would appear t h a t t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f school revenues by t h e use o f p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n i s one o f the most r e g r e s s i v e o f a l l t a x a t i o n methodologies. o f t h e l o c a l tax in g u n i t . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s an o th e r problem Ste rn wrote in Education and th e Urban Society: The p r e s e n t system of p u b l ic school f i n a n c e , f a r from h e lp ­ ing t o e q u a l i z e e du ca tio nal o p p o r t u n i t y , a c t u a l l y promotes i n e q u a l i t y by l e t t i n g w e a l t h i e r f a m i l i e s o b t a i n l a r g e amounts 65 o f money f o r th e edu catio n o f t h e i r c h il d r e n . They achieve t h i s by c l u s t e r i n g to g e th e r in more o r l e s s homogenous school d i s t r i c t s , so as to pool t h e i r w e a lth , and avoid paying f o r th e e d u ca tio n o f l e s s - a f f l u e n t c h il d r e n . R eliance upon lo ca l d i s t r i c t s to fin a n c e p u b lic schools thus e n ab les a f f l u e n t fami­ l i e s to c o n v e rt t h e i r ph y sical c a p i t a l in to human c a p i t a l f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . ' 32 Burke c o n tin u e s to d e s c rib e the e f f e c t s o f lo c a l tax in g u n i t s : The th eo ry o f e q u a l iz a t i o n in p u b lic school fin an c e re q u ir e s a measure o f f i s c a l need and f i s c a l c a p a c ity . . . . S ta te p o lic y in p u b lic school fin a n c e has come to depend i n c r e a s ­ in g ly upon th e measure o f lo c a l taxpaying a b i l i t y . 133 Many arguments o r p o in ts o f view reg a rd in g th e essence o f p ro p e rty ta x and i t s impact a re a v a i l a b l e . Johns and Morphet in d ic a t e th at: th e purposes f o r which ta x e s should be le v ie d have been a m a tte r o f much c o n tro v e rsy alm ost from the beginning o f th e United S t a t e s , and i t was a b i t t e r is s u e in o th e r n a tio n s much e a r l i e r . Should tax es be le v ie d s o l e l y to y i e l d revenue f o r th e su p p o rt o f n e cessary government s e r ­ v i c e s , o r should tax es be le v ie d f o r o t h e r purposes? The fouding f a t h e r s debated t h i s i s s u e . . . . 13^ P r e s e n t ly , in th e 1970s, th e r e i s much c o n tro v e rsy in volv in g th e use o f p ro p e rty ta x a ti o n as th e major source o f revenue p rodu ctio n f o r the p u b lic sc h o o ls . In C a l i f o r n i a , th e c i t i z e n s voted in June 1978 f o r rep eal o f p ro p e rty ta x a ti o n and to s e t a l i m i t on th e a b i l i t y o f gov­ ernment to r a i s e th e r a t e s . In Michigan, in 1978, th e v o te rs were pushing a proposal to advance th e voucher system along w ith th e rep eal o f p ro p e rty t a x a t i o n . However, as Burke has w r i t t e n : The p ro p e rty ta x i s and w ill contin ue t o be an im portant so urce o f lo ca l ta x su p p o rt f o r s c h o o ls , in s p i t e o f c e r ­ t a i n weaknesses in th e ta x due to i n e f f i c i e n t a d m in is tra ­ t i o n , e ro s io n o f th e base by exem ptions, f r a c t i o n a l a s s e s s ­ m ents, and q u e s tio n a b le e q u i t y . 1 3 *5 66 I f ; ;e continued use o f th e p ro p e rty ta x causes so much r e s e n t ­ ment, why do lo c a l governmental u n i t s p la c e so much emphasis on the proceeds o f p ro p e rty ta x a tio n ? S a lis b u r y w r ite s : Most s t a t e s in th e e a r l y 1930s had ceased using th e pro p erty tax as an im portant revenue source f o r s t a t e fun ds. This a c tio n (whether by law, by t a c i t agreem ent, o r by d e f a u l t) made the p ro p e rty ta x th e major source o f local revenue f o r school s u p p o r t . *36 The ease of a d m i n i s t r a t io n , th e s t a b i l i t y o f tax in g p r a c t i c e s , the adequacy o f y i e l d , and ease o f payment a l l se rv e as f a c t o r s t h a t w ill continu e th e use o f p ro p e rty ta x a ti o n as th e major source o f school revenues. Hawaii remains the only s t a t e to f u l l y u t i l i z e a f u l l s t a t e assumption concept o f p u b lic school fun ding. I t remains to be seen what the turm oil o f the 1970s w ill b ring in r e l a t i o n to p ro p e rty ta x a ti o n and p u b lic school revenue p ro d u ctio n . 67 Footnotes—Chapter II ^Edward J . Power, Main C urrents in th e H isto ry o f E d u cation, 2nd ed . (New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o., 1970), p. 530. 2 Ellwood P. C ubberley, School Funds and T h e ir Apportionment (New York: Teachers C o lle g e, Columbia U n iv e r s ity , 1906), p. 16. 3 Edwin Zuckerman, " C a lif o r n ia B a l l o t 's Item 13, Taxpayer B acklash," Miami H e ra ld , March 16, 1978, p. B5. 4I b id . 5 W alter H erb ert Sm all, E arly New England S c h o o ls, 2nd ed. (New York: Arno P ress and The New York Times, 1969), p. 187. C York: H. G. Good, A H isto ry o f American E ducation, 2nd ed. (New The Macmillan Co., 1962}, pp. 1, 10. ^John T e a fo rd , "The T ransform ation o f M assachusetts E ducation, 1670-1780," H isto ry o f Education Q u a rte rly 10 (F a ll 1970): 287-303. 8Sm all, p. 188. g Power, p. 538. 10I b i d . , p. 539. ^ W illia m E. Rosentengel and J e f f e r s o n N. Eastmond, School Finance, I t s Theory and P r a c t i c e (New York: The Ronald P r e s s , 1957), p. 27. 12Ib id . 13 Power, p. 544. 14 Rosentengel and Eastmond, p. 26. 15 Ellwood P. Cubberley, P ublic School A d m in is tra tio n , 3rd ed. (Boston: H oughton-M ifflin C o., 1927), p. 164. 16Sm all, p. 264. ^ R o se n te n g e l and Eastmond, p. 28. 18 Power, p . 544. 19 Records o f the Governor and Company o f M assachusetts Bay in New England, Volume I I , p. 203. 68 20Small, p. 32. 21 (Boston: Cubberley, Public School A d m in istra tio n , p. 22. 22Edgar Knight, Education in the United S ta te s o f America Ginn and Co., 1953), pp. 2-8. Cubberley, Public School A d m in istra tio n , p. 22. 24I b i d . , pp. 24-25. 28Ib id .» p. 51. 26I b i d . , p. 52. 27Stephen J . Knezevich, A dm inistration of Public E ducation, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), p. 277. 28I b i d . , p. 529. 29Lee and Shepard, 1891, Vol. IV, pp. 105-45. 30H arvard's R e g iste r o f Pennsylvania, Vol. 15, no. 18, 1835, pp. 283-87. ^ K n e z e v ic h , p. 530. 32Roe L. Johns and Edgar L. Morphet, The Economics and Financ­ ing o f Education: A Systems Approach, 3rd ed. (Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t ic e - H a l l , 1975), p. 2. 33I b i d . , p. 205. 34Cubberley, School Funds, p. 17. 35I b i d . , p. 20. 36Ib id . 37I b i d . , p. 38. 38I b i d . , p. 83. 39I b i d . , p. 93. 40I b i d . , p. 184. 4^ I b i d . , p. 17. 4 69 42 Roe L. Johns, " S ta te Financing o f Elementary and Secondary Education in the S t a t e s , " in Nationwide Development Since 1900, ed. Edgar F u l l e r and Jim B. Pearson (Washington, D.C.: National Educat io n A s so c ia tio n , 1969), p. 184. 43I b i d . , p. 185. 44Percy E. Burrup, Financing Education in a Climate o f Change, 2nd ed . (Boston, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon, I n c . , 1977), p. 126. 45 Harlan U pdegraff, Rural School Survey o f New York S ta te ( P h ila d e lp h ia , P a.: William F. Fell Co., 1922), p. 117. 46I b i d . , pp. 117-18. 47 Johns, p. 186. 48Ib id . 48 George S. S tra y e r and Robert M. Haig, The Financing of Education in the S ta te o f New York (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1923), p. 173. 49 Burrup, p. 127. 88S tra y e r and Haig, p. 174. 51 I b i d . , pp. 174-75. 52I b i d . , p. 175. CO Paul S. Mort, The Measurement o f Educational Need (New York: Teachers C olleg e, Columbia U n iv e rs ity , 1924), p. 8. D.C.: 54Paul S. Mort, S ta te Support f o r Public Education (Washington, The American Council on Education, 1933), pp. 138-39. 55I b i d . , p. 139. 56Ib id . 57I b i d . , p. 45. 58John S ila r d and B arrie G o ld ste in , "Toward A bo litio n o f Local Funding in Public E ducation," Journal o f Law and Education 3 ( J u ly 1974): 307-12. 58Henry C. Morrison, School Revenue (Chicago, 111.: U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago P re ss , 1930), pp. 71-80. 60I b i d ., p. 123. The 70 61I b i d . , pp. 207-18. 62I b i d . , pp. 230-31. 63Johns, p. 192. ^ J o s e p h A. W illiams, Harold W. Gentry, and William W. LaMorte, "The Attack on S ta te Educational Finance Programs—An Over­ view," NOLPE School Law Journal 2 (Fall 1972): 1-2. 65 A lb ert R. Munse, S ta te Programs fo r Public School Support, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, O ffice o f Education, Misc. 52 (Washington, D.C.: Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1965), p. 1. gg Stephen K. B ailey , Richard T. F r o s t, Paul E. Marsh, and Robert C. Wood, Schoolmen and P o l i t i c s (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse U n iv ersity P re ss , 1962), p. 103. g7 Richard S. Vacca, "The Courts and School Finance: A Reexamination," in Futures in School Finance: Working Toward a Common Goal, Proceedings o f the 17th National Conference on School Finance (Bloomington, In d .: Phi Delta Kappa, 1974), p. 120. go . E. Edmund R e u tte r, J r . , and Robert R. Hamilton, The Law of Public Education, 2nd ed. (M in e d a, N.Y.: The Foundation P re ss , 1976), p. 7. 69I b i d . , p. 8. 70Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401, 3 I . Ed. 3d 5 (1958). R eu tter and Hamilton, p . 9. 72United S ta te s Code, Section 1983. 7"? Horace Mann, "Report f o r 1848," L ife and Works of Horace Mann, Vol. IX (Boston: Lee and Shepard P u b lis h e rs , 1891), p. 251. 74Paul D. C arrington, "'Equal J u s ti c e Under Law* and School Finance: An A pplication o f San Antonio Independent Schools v. Rodriguez," in School Finance in T r a n s i t io n , Proceedings o f the 16th National Conference on School Finance, April 1975. 75 James Coleman, E quality o f Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1966), p. 132. 7®Brown V. Board o f Education o f Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 6 8 6 , 9 8 " ! . Ed. 8 7 3 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ' : 71 77Plesse.y v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. C t. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896). 78 R e u tte r and Hamilton, p. 622. 79 John E. Coons, "The Law o f School F inance," in Busing, Taxes and D esegregation , ed. Roger DeMont, Larry Hillman, and Gerald Mansergh (D a n v ille , 111.: I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s & P u b lis h e r s , I n c . , 1969), p. 31. 80I b i d . , p. 31. 81McInnis v. S h a p iro , 293 F. Supp. 327 (N.D. I l l i n o i s , 1968) a f f ' d . sub nom Mclnnis v. O g ilv ie , 394 U.S. 322, 22 L. Ed. 2d 308, 89 S. Ct. 1197 (1968). 82Ib id . QO Burruss v. M ilkerson, 310 F. Supp. 572 (W.D. V ir g in ia , 1969) a f f ' d . 397 U.S. 44 (1970). 84Ib id . 85I b id . 86Ib id . 87Ib id . 88 Hargrave v. McKinney, 302 F. Supp. 1381 ( D i s t r i c t Court of F lo rid a ) (1969). 89 Howard G lic k s te in and William L. Want, " In e q u a lity in School Financing: The Role o f the Law," S tanford Law Review 25(1) (1973): 353. 90 Hargrave v. Kirk, 313 F. Supp. 944 ( D i s t r i c t Court o f F lo rid a ) (1970). 91 Serrano v. P r i e s t , 5 Cal. 3d 584, 96 Cal. R ptr. 601, 487 p. 2d w r r w r n 82Burrup, p. 182. 93 Serrano v. P r i e s t . 94 James W. G u th rie, "School Finance Reform: Acceptable Remedies f o r S e rran o ," School Review, February 1974, pp. 207-208. 72 95 James L. Phelps and Douglas J . Smith, "School Funding Case in C a li f o r n ia —The Serrano D e cisio n ," Memo to Governor M illik en o f Michigan, January 14, 1977, pp. 5-6. 96T. . . e I b i d . , p. 5. 97 Serrano v. P r i e s t . 98 Time Magazine, September 13, 1971, pp. 42-47. go Phelps and Smith, p. 7. ^ S e r r a n o v. P r i e s t , p. 18. 101 Harper v. V irg in ia S ta te Board o f E le c tio n s , 383 U.S. 663, 668 (1966). 102 Serrano v. P r i e s t , pp. 22, 24-25. 103 Kenneth K a rst, "Serrano v. P r i e s t : A S ta te C o u rt's Respon­ s i b i l i t i e s and O p p o rtu n ities in th e Development of Federal C o n s titu ­ tio n a l Law," C a lif o r n ia Law Review 60(2) (1972): 740. 104 Issu es in School F inance, S e le c t Committee on Equal Educa­ tio n a l O ppo rtu nity, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: Government P r in tin g O f f ic e , 1972), p. v i . ins Van Dusartz v. H a t f i e l d , 344 F. Supp. 870 (1971). 106I b i d . , p. 877. 107I b i d . , p. 872. 108I b i d . , p. 876. 109 Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School D i s t r i c t , 337 F. Supp. 280 (W.D. Texas, 1971), r e v 'd 411 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1973). ^ 8John C haffee, J r . , " E d it o r 's Memorandum," Compact [Education Commission o f the S t a t e s ] , May/June 1973, p. 2. ^ Rodriguez v. San Antonio, p. 23. 112I b i d . , pp. 23-24. 113 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. a t 655, 661. 114 Rodriguez v. San A ntonio, p. 31. 115 I b i d . , pp. 33, 35. 73 116I b id ., p. 41. ^ H o p e J u s t u s , "Confusion Over School F inance," Compact [Education Commission o f the S t a t e s ] , May/June 1973, p. 17. 118 Betsy Levin, "New Legal Challenges in Educational Finance," Journal o f Educational Finance 3 (Summer 1977): 55. 119 Robinson v. C a h i l l , S u perior Court o f New Je rse y Law D iv isio n —Hudson County Docket Number L-18704-69, 1972, p. 69. 120I b i d . , p. 75. 121 I b i d . , p. 76. 122 I b id . 123 John C. Hogan, The Schools, the C ou rts, and the Public I n t e r e s t (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1974), p. 75. 124I b i d . , pp. 75-77. ^ R o b i n s o n v. C a h i l l . 126 J . Alan Thomas, Michigan School Finance Study (Lansing: Michigan Department o f Education, 1968), p. 175. 127 James A. Maxwell, Financing S ta te and Local Governments (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings I n s t i t u t e , 1965), p. 1. 128 A rthur B. Moehlman, Public School Finance (Chicago, 111.: Rand McNally C o., 1927), p. 187. 129 C. Jackson S a lis b u ry , "The Theory o f Taxation as Related to School F inan ce," in The Theory and P r a c tic e o f School Finance, ed. Warren E. Gauerke and Jack R. C h ild re ss (Skokie, 111.: Rand McNally and Co., 1967), p. 38. 130 Roe L. Johns and Edgar L. Morphet, The Economics and Financing o f Education: A Systems Approach (Englewood C l i f f s , N .J .: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1969), p . 145. 131ibid. 132 David S te r n , "Some S peculation s on School Finance and a More E g a l i t a r i a n S o c ie ty ," Education and Urban S o c ie ty , February 1973, p. 226. 1 Arvid J . Burke, "Measurement o f Taxpaying A b i l it y ," in P e rsp e ctiv es on the Economics o f Education, ed. Charles S. Benson (Boston: Houghton-Mi f f l i n CoT, 1963), pp. 363-64. 134 Roe L. Johns and Edgar L. Morphet, The Economics and Financing o f Education: A Systems Approach, 3rd ed. (Englewood C l i f f s , N .J .: P r e n tic e - H a ll, I n c . , 1975), p. 153. ^ A r v i d J . Burke, Financing Public Schools in the United S ta te s (New York: Harper B rothers, 1957), pp. 237-38, 254. 136S a lis b u ry , p. 59. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES In tro d u c tio n During the process o f reviewing the r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e of the f i e l d , the i n v e s t i g a t o r discovered t h a t change was a re c u rrin g theme. This theme o f change seemed to be grouped in to d i s t i n c t f o c i : (1) r e s e a r c h e rs re p o rtin g th e changes which have alre ad y o ccurred , and (2) au th o rs r e p o rtin g the new demands f o r change. Grubb and Michel son have rep o rte d the emphasis placed on e du catio nal demands as a c o n s ta n tly changing phenomenon: But th e demands placed on ed ucation change r a p i d l y . The launching o f Sputnik in 1957 r e s u l te d in a determ in atio n to "catch up" through science e d ucation . In the m id-1960's, w ith the se co n d -c lass s t a t u s o f b la c k s, prompting an e v a l ­ uatio n o f the r o l e of education in a l l e v i a t i n g both poverty and d is c r im in a tio n . The emphasis s h i f t e d development o f a tec h n o lo g ic al e l i t e to G reat Society programs f o r the eco­ nom ically and e d u c a tio n a lly poor. By th e end o f the s i x t i e s , e v a lu a tio n s o f l a r g e - s c a l e programs ra is e d doubts t h a t com­ pensatory education was compensating; and soon a controversy arose over the p o s s ib le e f f i c a c y o f such programs, a co n tro ­ versy s t i l l very much a li v e in the e a r l y 1 9 7 0 's. At p re s e n t, numerous p ropo sals f o r re o rg a n izin g p ublic schooling compete f o r a t t e n t i o n , inclu d in g community co n tro l o f sc h o o ls, " free " or a l t e r n a t i v e sc h o o ls, voucher p la n s , g r e a t e r co ntro l by high er le v e ls o f government, and no schools a t a l l . What u n ite s th e se pro posals i s only t h a t they a re a l l in one dimen­ sion o r a n o th e r , r a d i c a l —they e i t h e r promise o r th re a te n to thoroughly transform p ub lic sc h o o lin g . In l e s s than two dec­ a d e s, we have moved from s p e c i f i c g o a l-o rie n te d e l i t i s t demands on education through compensatory education to the p re s e n t sta g e o f sweeping proposals f o r s t r u c t u r a l change.1 75 76 C e r ta in ly th e need to change has been e v id e n t in th e S ta te o f Michigan. Muth and Stuhmer have r e c e n t l y re p o rte d on the r e c u r ­ rin g n a tu re o f change as r e f l e c t e d in th e s t a t e a id formulae over the ? p a s t two decades. Focus o f th e Problem This r e s e a r c h e r looked a t some o f th e im p lic a tio n s o f a l t e r ­ n a tiv e fin a n c in g schemes when they a re a p p lie d to r e c e n t and p ro je c te d en ro llm e n t d a ta o f Michigan p u b lic K-12 school d i s t r i c t s . The s e le c te d funding plans have been s u b je c te d to j u d i c i a l review with th e exception o f Senator Faxon's p ro p o s a l, which was in tro d u c ed as an a l t e r n a t i v e method of school fin a n c e . All o f th e s e l e c te d s t a t e fin an c e plans a re c u r r e n t ly being used in t h e i r r e s p e c t iv e s t a t e s f o r th e school y e ar 1977-78. A r e c e n t N ational Educational A sso c ia tio n p u b lic a tio n summar­ ized the school fin a n c e reform movement as o f 1975 a s : Since 1971, fo u rte e n s t a t e s , have s u b s t a n t i a l l y re v is e d t h e i r school fin a n c e p la n s : A rizona, C a l i f o r n i a , Colorado, F l o r i d a , I l l i n o i s , Kansas, Maine, Michigan, M innesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and W isconsin. . . . New Je rse y i s soon expected to produce a "thorough and e f f i c i e n t " school fin an c e p la n . The 14 reform s t a t e s in c re a se d t h e i r o v e ra ll sh a re o f school funding from about 43 p e r c e n t in the l a s t y e a r b e fo re reform to 51 p e r c e n t in th e f i r s t y e a r a f t e r reform . . . . The p a t t e r n o f school fin a n c e reform among th e s e s t a t e s i n d ic a t e s a tre n d away from heavy r e l i a n c e on Strayer-H aig-M ort fo undation programs toward a g r e a t e r degree o f e q u ity through power e q u a l iz a t i o n plan s combined w ith lo cal p ro p erty tax r e l i e f . Some s t a t e s t h a t have i n s t i t u t e d reforms a re e v a lu a tin g th e se reforms and r e v i s in g school fin a n c e f o r ­ mulae to provide f o r g r e a t e r e q u a l i z a t i o n . 3 In Michigan, in 1978, school d i s t r i c t s a re faced w ith two major fo rc e s which impact upon th e school fin a n c e s t r u c t u r e . Many o f 77 th e 530 K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s a re fa c in g d e c lin in g e n r o l l ­ ments in excess o f 2%. Second, th e lo c a l d i s t r i c t s a re faced w ith i n c r e a s in g tax pay er r e s i s t a n c e to in c re a se d p ro p e rty ta x a ti o n to pay f o r t h e i r sc h o o ls . From t h i s r e a l i t y , th e r e s e a r c h e r attem pted to g a th e r in fo rm a tio n which would provide some i n s i g h t i n t o th e dynamics o f a l t e r i n g th e f i n a n c i a l s t r u c t u r e which provides funding f o r th e p u b lic sch ools o f Michigan. Sample S e le c tio n The r e s e a r c h e r intended to g a th e r th e most c u r r e n t , a u d ite d d a ta on 14 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan. The Michigan D epart­ ment o f Education a n n u a lly p u b lish ed B u l le t in s 1011, 1012, and 1013 d e t a i l the Michigan p u b lic school revenues and e x p e n d itu re s plus f i n a n c i a l d a ta f o r a l l th e p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s in the S t a te o f Michigan. The i n v e s t i g a t o r computed th e percentag e o f growth and d e c lin e o f e n ro llm e n ts f o r each in d iv id u a l school d i s t r i c t in th e sample over a t h r e e - y e a r p e rio d : 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77. This info rm atio n 4 i s p u b lish ed a n n u a lly in B u l le t in 1013. These d i s t r i c t s were then s t r a t i f i e d i n t o th e follo w in g c l u s t e r s : 12% o r more gain o f e n r o l l ­ ment, 6 .6 to 11.99% gain o f e n ro llm e n t, 01. t o 6.5% gain o f e n r o l l ­ ment, 0.1 to 6.5% l o s s o f e n ro llm e n t, 6 .6 to 11.99% lo s s o f e n r o l l ­ m ent, and 12% o r more lo s s o f e n ro llm e n t. Two d i s t r i c t s from each g a in o r l o s s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were randomly s e l e c te d f o r in c lu s io n in th e s tu d y . The only d i s t r i c t in th e S ta te o f Michigan which e n r o l l s more than 50,000 s tu d e n ts i s D e t r o i t , Michigan. T h e re fo re , D e t r o i t 78 a u to m a tic a lly was included in th e sample. In Michigan, 16 c i t i e s have jo in e d to g e t h e r to form th e Middle C i t i e s A s s o c ia tio n . The combined membership o f t h i s A sso c ia tio n makes th e A s so c ia tio n th e f i f t h l a r g e s t school d i s t r i c t in th e c o u n try . In o rd e r to make the sample r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a l l f a c e t s o f th e Michigan p u b lic school sc en e , a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e Middle C i t i e s A sso c ia tio n was a ls o in cluded in th e sample s e l e c t i o n . The Michigan Department o f Education r e p o r t s d a ta on member­ sh ip o f school d i s t r i c t s as shown in Table 3 .1 . However, w ith in th e r e s e a r c h e r 's g a in -1 o ss c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , Table 3 .2 r e p r e s e n ts s e l e c te d d a ta f o r th e sample d i s t r i c t s . C o h o rt-su rv iv a l p r o j e c ti o n s f o r th e s e l e c te d d i s t r i c t s w ill be run using th e Michigan S t a te U n iv e rs ity CDC 6500 computer and the computer program designed by Hecker and Ignatovich f o r p r o j e c ti n g school e n ro llm e n ts . The p r o j e c ti o n s a re based on h i s t o r i c a l data c o l l e c t e d and on f i l e w ith in th e College o f Education a t Michigan S t a te U n iv e r s ity . The c o h o rt- s u r v iv a l p r o j e c ti o n s a re d e riv e d from b i r t h re c o rd s from w ith in the in d iv id u a l county rec o rd s and e x is ti n g h i s t o r i c a l d a ta o f e n ro llm e n ts which th e Department o f Education pub­ l i s h e s a n n u a lly . p ro jec tio n s: The r e s e a r c h e r 's base d a ta in clu d ed th r e e s e p a ra te most l i k e l y p ro je c te d e n ro llm e n t, high p ro je c te d e n r o l l ­ ment, and low p ro je c te d e n ro llm e n t. The most l i k e l y p r o je c tio n s a re d isp lay e d in Appendix B. C o h o rt-su rv iv a l p r o j e c ti o n technique i s simply one o f a h o st o f methods t h a t have been developed f o r p r o je c tin g p u b lic school enro llm en ts d i r e c t l y from base d a t a . The method i s "based p a r t i a l l y Table 3.1 . —Selected data for Michigan's 530 K-12 school d i s t r i c t s , grouped by membership for 1976-77. C la s s if ic a tio n of School D i s t r i c t s Based on S ta te Aid Membership Number of D istric ts S ta te Equalized Valuation per S ta te Aid Member Acti ve Membership Per Pupil Operating Expenses (A) 50,000 and over 1 20,842 241,998 1,502.08 17,280 (B) 20,000-49,999 9 24,492 268,553 1,535.94 16,510 (C) 10,000-19,999 23 34,015 307,751 1,592.31 16,779 (D) 5,000- 9,999 61 26,446 413,554 1,410.67 15,847 (E) 4,500- 4,999 9 27,768 42,724 1,475.77 15,776 (F) 4,000- 4,499 27 27,664 114,362 1,382.98 15,469 (G) 3,500- 3,999 24 21,291 88,746 1,291.70 14,882 (H) 3,000- 3,499 28 28,838 90,570 1,323.37 14,559 (I) 2,500- 2,999 32 25,752 88,045 1,212.12 13,750 (J) 2,000- 2,499 63 24,791 140,009 1,251.01 13,794 (K) 1,500- 1,999 72 25,039 125,592 1,218.81 13,411 (L) 1,000- 1,499 66 24,982 83,205 1,198.31 12,631 80 31,534 61,940 1,222.04 12,374 35 40,213 11,378 1,336.05 11,847 530 26,583 2,078,427 1,410.04 15,435 (M) 500- 999 (N) Below 500 Total fo r s t a t e Average Teacher's Salary Table 3.2.—Sample characteristics by state membership classifications. C la s s ifi­ cations o f D is tric ts by Membership Total # D is tric ts in This Class. 12% or more gain in enrollment 11 6.6 to 11.99% gain in enrollment 21 0.1 to 6.5% gain in enrollment 180 0.1 to 6.5% loss o f enrollment 230 6.6 to 11.99% loss o f enrollment 69 12% o r more loss o f enrollment 19 Per Pupil Revenues A ll Schools in This Class. Total Per Pupil Expenditures County of D is tr ic t Average Teacher Salary in This D is tr ic t Active Student Membership Troy 1,854.13 1,921.69 Oakland 16,755 10,748 Camden Frontier 1,532.97 1,605.00 H illsd a le 13,382 816 Rudyard 1,481.44 1,490.45 Chippewa 14,951 2,331 Genesse 1,532.97 1,605.00 Genesse 12,925 859 Muskegon Heights 1,510.22 1,617.63 Muskegon 13,489 3,627 Elk Rapids 1,443.47 1,460.08 Antrim 12,985 1,101 Arenac Eastern 1,532.97 1,605.00 Arenac 13,087 668 Homer 1,443.47 1,460.08 Calhoun 12,602 1,361 Lakeshore 1,605.78 1,698.78 Berrien 13,706 4,094 Central Lake 1,532.97 1,605.00 Alpena 12,414 599 Center Line 1,635.51 1,733.57 Macomb 17,606 5,299 D e tro it 1,688.07 1,819.93 Wayne 17,280 241,998 Port Austin 1,731.28 1,584.73 Huron 13,475 348 Cherryhi11 1,510.22 1,617.63 Wayne 17,317 3,730 D is tr ic t With State C la s s ific a tio n 81 upon h i s t o r i c a l a n a ly s is o f p a s t d a ta , but does modify such inform at i o n as b i r t h s in the l i g h t o f ap p aren t new t r e n d s ." 5 The procedure tends t o lump to g e th e r most f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g f u tu r e e n ro llm e n ts, e x c e p t b i r t h r a t e s , which a re t r e a t e d in d ep en d en tly . The c o h o rt- s u r v iv a l method begins by comparing b i r t h d ata from a given y e a r w ith p u b lic school en ro llm e n ts in k in d erg a rte n o r grade one some f i v e o r s i x y e a rs l a t e r . The n ex t s te p i s t o compare numbers o f p u p ils in one grade w ith those in the next h ig h e s t grade one y e a r l a t e r . With b i r t h d a ta a lre a d y a v a ila b le f o r groups who w i l l e n t e r th e p u b lic sc ho ols f o r th e n ext f i v e o r s i x y e a r s , f i r s t grade e n ro llm e n ts a re p r o je c te d by applying th e average r a t i o obtained from th e h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s . Average s u rv iv a l r a t i o s from f i r s t to second grade a re then a p p lie d to e x i s t i n g and p ro je c te d d a ta to determ ine f u tu r e second grade e n ro llm e n ts . The procedure i s then re p e a te d u n t i l e s tim a te s f o r a l l grades a re computed. The c o h o rt- s u rv iv a l p r o j e c ti o n technique i s w idely used and i s one o f the b e s t o f th e sim p ler m ethods.6 O ften , the a n a ly s is of f a c t o r s o t h e r than b i r t h w ill su g g e st t h a t th e c o h o rt- s u r v iv a l r a t e should be a d ju s te d to tak e i n t o account s p e c i f i c tre n d s e a s i l y d i s ­ c e r n i b l e by such in d iv id u a l a n a l y s i s . (See Appendix C.) L e t t e r s o f r e q u e s t f o r in d iv id u a l s t a t e fin a n c e systems and su p p o rtin g d a ta were s e n t t o th e c h i e f school o f f i c e r s o f each s t a t e which was s e l e c te d to be included in the s tu d y . fin a n c e models a re used in t h i s stu d y : M innesota, New J e r s e y , and Texas. The follow ing s t a t e C a l i f o r n i a , Hawaii, Michigan, In a d d it i o n , th e Faxon P ro p o sal, 82 which was subm itted to th e Michigan Senate in March o f 1978, i s a ls o included i n th e re s e a r c h . Methodology Each in d iv id u a l fin a n c e system was a p p lie d to h i s t o r i c a l and p r o je c te d en ro llm e n t d a ta o f p u b lic K-12 school d i s t r i c t s included in the s t r a t i f i e d random sample. A fte r a p p li c a t io n o f each funding scheme over the f i v e y e a rs o f e n ro llm e n t p r o j e c t i o n , the i n v e s t i g a t o r attem pted to analyze the impact and th e im p lic a tio n s o f each funding plan with reg ard to p o s s ib le use in meeting the p a r t i c u l a r demands o f the dynamics o f th e p r e s e n t s t a t e s i t u a t i o n in Michigan. C urrent p r a c t i c e appears to su g g e st t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e a ttem p ts to design new fin a n c e models do n o t use a lon g-range view o f th e im p lic a tio n s of a p a r t i c u l a r model. G e n e ra lly , d a ta p resen te d f o r sup p o rt o f a fin an c e model c o n s i s t o f a y e a r study o f th e im p lic a tio n s and furtherm ore the plan g e n e r a lly r e p r e s e n ts only one geographic a re a o f th e s t a t e . I t i s th e i n t e n t o f th e r e s e a r c h e r to examine the r e s u l t s of t h i s study in l i g h t o f th e c u r r e n t demands on th e funding model used in Michigan during the p a s t se v e ra l y e a r s . School d i s t r i c t s a re i n d i ­ c a tin g t h a t d e c lin e o f en ro llm e n t i s something t h a t must be considered in th e funding form ula. Furtherm ore, concern f o r the demands o f munici pal overburden and th e r e s u l t a n t r e s i s t a n c e to in c re a s e d p ro p erty ta x a ­ t i o n because o f the expenses involved in p roviding o th e r s e r v ic e s to th e r e s i d e n t s o f la rg e m e tro p o lita n a r e a s . The c o u rts have e n te r ta i n e d th e q u e stio n o f e q u a l i t y o f o p p o rtu n ity which i s provided by th e r e s p e c tiv e s t a t e funding programs. This q u e stio n o f e q u a l i t y o f edu­ c a tio n a l o p p o rtu n ity w ill be addressed by t h i s r e s e a r c h e r . 83 The i n v e s t i g a t o r in te n d s to e v a lu a te each funding model in regard to th e is s u e s which a re being p r e s e n tly expressed as concerns by in d iv id u a l school d i s t r i c t s in th e S t a te o f Michigan. 84 Footnotes—Chapter III 1W. Norton Grubb and Stephen M ichelson, S ta te s and Schools (L exington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and C o., 1974), p. 1. 2C. Robert Muth and Paul R. Stuhmer, "Chronology o f S t a te Aid Form ulas," Financing Education in Michigan: A R e p o rt, A Study Funded by th e Ford Foundation through th e Middle C i t i e s A s s o c ia tio n , 1977, p. 5. ^F in a n cial S ta tu s o f the P u b lic Schools (Washington, D.C.: N ational Education A s s o c ia tio n , 1975), p. 40. ^Ranking o f Michigan P u b lic High School D i s t r i c t s by S e lec te d Fin an cial D ata, 1976-77, B u l le t in 1 0 1 2 (Lansing! Michigan Department o f E ducation, 1977), p. 5. ^Guide f o r Planning E ducational F a c i l i t i e s (Columbus, Ohio: Council o f Educational F a c i l i t y P la n n e rs , I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1976), p. C-6. ®Basil C a s t a l d i , Educational F a c i l i t i e s : P lann ing, Remodeling, and Management (Boston, M ass.: Allyn and Bacon, I n c . , 1977), p. 100. CHAPTER IV COLLECTION, PRESENTATION, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA The i n v e s ti g a t o r examined a l t e r n a t i v e fin an ce plans fo r public K-12 education in Michigan. Each s e le c te d plan v a rie d in in d iv id u a l a s p e c ts o f th e approach taken to the funding o f sc h o o ls. Hawaii i s the only s t a t e o f the 50 s t a t e s in which statew id e income, s a le s and e x c ise tax es produce th e m a jo rity o f p u b lic school fu n d s. All o f the o th e r s t a t e fin an c e plans used in t h i s study depend on p ro p erty ta x as th e p rin c ip a l sup port o f p u b lic sc h o o ls. M innesota's system o f p u b lic school fin an c e in tro d u c es a pupil w eighting system which allows th e s t a t e to spend d i f f e r e n t amounts due to sp e c ia l needs. In a d d it i o n , the s t a t e s e ts a founda­ t io n l i m i t and a req u ire d lo ca l t a x a tio n e f f o r t f o r each in div id u al d istric t. The s t a t e a ls o determ ines t h a t each d i s t r i c t levy one m ill f o r t r a n s p o r t a ti o n c o s t s . The c o u rt case a s s o c ia te d with Minnesota school fin an c e i s Van Dusartz v. H a t f i e l d J New J e r s e y 's school fin a n c e reform r e s u l te d in a s tru g g le between the c o u rts and the s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e . The c o n s t it u t io n a l pro­ v is io n o f a "thorough and e f f i c i e n t " system o f education provided a c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n which r e s u l te d in the Robinson v. C ahill S t a te 2 Supreme Court c a s e . The r e s u l t i n g fin an c e reform i s funded v ia s t a t e Income and pro p erty t a x e s . The s t a t e determ ines a d i s t r i c t ' s local 85 86 sh a re o f th e school funding by gu aran teein g a s t a t e v a lu a tio n div id ed I by th e lo c a l d i s t r i c t v a lu a tio n per p u p i l. The dividend i s then sub­ t r a c t e d from 1 and a f a c t o r o f s t a t e su p p o rt i s e s t a b l i s h e d . The plan c a l l s f o r s h o r t - and long-range planning to determ ine school f in a n c e s . C a lif o r n ia school fin a n c e reform has been implemented via 3 the r e s u l t i n g c o u rt d e c is io n s in Serrano v. P r i e s t . The fin an c e plan uses b a s ic a id o f $120 per pupil as well as e q u a l iz a t i o n a id . The s t a t e has a ls o b u i l t in an inducement o f e x tr a funding f o r those d i s t r i c t s t h a t u n ify —in r e a l i t y a c o n s o lid a tio n e f f o r t f o r small K-12 d i s t r i c t s o r K-8 and 9-12 d i s t r i c t s . The hodgepodge o f funding segments o f the C a li f o r n ia plan can be a t t r i b u t e d to th e vario u s d e c i­ sio n s d e liv e r e d in d i f f e r e n t Serrano c ase s reached by th e S t a te Supreme Court during v a rio u s ap p eals e n te r e d from 1966 to 1977. Texas school fin a n c in g was v in d ic a te d in Rodriguez v. San Antonio by th e United S t a te s Supreme C ourt. 4 The Texas plan determ ines s ta te - w id e s a l a r y schedules f o r a l l p ro fe s s io n a l p e rs o n n e l, a c tu a l number o f personnel employed, c l a s s s i z e , and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n funding based on th e c a p a c ity o f the bus used in th e d i s t r i c t . This plan evidences th e absence o f c o l l e c t i v e b a rg a in in g f o r school p e r­ sonnel in Texas. The Commissioner o f Education i s given much d i s ­ c r e t i o n in e s t a b l i s h i n g personnel u n i t l i m i t s and v a rio u s placem ents o f employees in th e s a l a r y schedule. M ichigan's school fin an c e plan i s a pow er-equalizing plan which in c o rp o r a te s added c o s t funding f o r v a rio u s c a te g o r ic a l programs. B a s i c a ll y , th e s t a t e combines a f l a t g r a n t a l l o c a t i o n p lu s a fou ndation 87 award based on a s e t mi 11age and a s t a t e e q u aliz ed v a lu a tio n l i m i t a ­ tio n . The lo ca l d i s t r i c t ' s sh a re o f the funding formula i s d e t e r ­ mined by th e lo c a l m illag e le v ie d tim es the lo cal d i s t r i c t ' s e q u a l­ ized v a lu a tio n per p u p il. The f l a t g r a n t plu s foundation a l l o c a t i o n minus th e lo ca l sh are produces s t a t e a id f o r the d i s t r i c t . Senator Faxon's Senate B ill #1425 i s a proposed school fund­ ing formula which in tro d u c e s a weighted pupil formula s i m il a r to the funding formulas in use in Minnesota and F l o r i d a . A lso, th e Faxon plan in tro d u c e s a 60-40-20 p h a se-o u t f o r responding to the c u r r e n t im p lic a tio n s o f d e c lin in g enro llm en ts in numerous Michigan p u b lic sc h o o ls . A fast-g ro w in g d i s t r i c t i s a ls o e l i g i b l e f o r a d d itio n a l funding to o f f s e t growing p a in s . The Faxon sugg estio n e s t a b l i s h e s a b a s ic gross allowance from which th e lo c a l d i s t r i c t ' s SEV times 29 m il l s i s s u b tra c te d to produce s t a t e a id . The r e s e a r c h e r a p p lie d th e in d iv id u a l s t a t e fin a n c e plans to p r o je c te d en ro llm e n t d a ta o f the sample d i s t r i c t s in Michigan through 1982-83. The follow ing d a ta a re p resen te d to show the im p li­ c a tio n s o f each o f th e se fin an c e plans t o s e l e c te d Michigan d a ta . Hawaii School Finance Plan H aw aii's system o f e d u c a tio n a l fin a n c e is one unique from i t s s is te r sta te s. The Hawaiian p u b lic e d u c a tio n a l system i s f u l l y funded and ad m in istere d by th e s t a t e government. (See Appendix D.) The d i f ­ fe re n c e between s t a t e - r u n and d i s t r i c t - r u n e d u ca tio n systems i s what gives Hawaii i t s unique sta n d in g with th e mainland systems o f p u b lic e d u c a tio n . The fin a n c in g o f Hawaiian schools i s accomplished w ith 88 funds received d i r e c t l y from gross income t a x , personal income ta x , and co rp o rate income ta x . No pro p erty tax i s used to fin an ce the pu b lic schools o f Hawaii. The re a l pro p erty tax i s the p rin c ip a l source of fin an c in g county o p e ra tio n s . T h erefo re, the county govern­ ments have no r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r th e o p e ra tio n of th e schoo ls. The o rg a n iz a tio n o f a p u b lic educational system in th e Isla n d s was an outgrowth o f American P r o te s ta n t m issionary a c t i v i t i e s . Three major f a c t o r s influenced the development of governmental edu catio n . " F i r s t , the P r o te s ta n t m ission founders did not have the funds to c a rry on the educational a c t i v i t i e s they had promoted," because o f a withdrawal o f funds o f the m issionary program follow ing the depression o f 1837. cism. "Second, th e re was g r e a t concern over th e spread of C a th o li­ T h ird, the development o f the C o n stitu tio n a l government and u n iv ersal land ownership brought about an educational program o f f a r g r e a te r scope than the m is sio n a rie s could have ever hoped to p ro v id e ." The pu blic education system i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t from o th e r systems under th e American f l a g . Hawaii i s c h a r a c te riz e d by a t r i - p a r t i t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y s h a r ­ ing fo r p ublic e d u ca tio n . The Board of Education has s i g n i f i ­ cant legal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; the Governor views the program o f the school system as an im portant element o f h is t o t a l program; and the l e g i s l a t u r e fin an c es the program o f th e school system d i r e c t l y , oversees p ro g re s s , and develops l e g i s l a t i o n enabling the school system to make f u r t h e r p r o g r e s s .6 The 215 schools in Hawaii re c e iv e funds d i r e c t l y from the s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e in two se p a ra te a p p ro p ria tio n s : c a p i ta l improvements. o p e ra tio n s and The o p e ra tio n s a p p ro p ria tio n i s derived from s t a t e - l e v i e d tax es such as gross income t a x , personal income t a x , and co rp o ra te income ta x . The c a p i t a l improvement a p p ro p ria tio n i s 5 89 provided by th e s a le o f general o b lig a tio n bonds and su rp lu s cash from th e s t a t e general fund. The s h o rt-ra n g e and long-range planning f o r f in a n c ia l con­ s i d e r a t io n s o f the school d i s t r i c t s a re impacted by a v a r i e ty o f v a r i a b le s : —f l u c t u a t i o n o f stu d e n t enrollm ents in th e sc h o o ls, —in fla tio n , - - i n c r e a s i n g c o s t o f teaching s t a f f , --improvements in the q u a l i t y o f p u b lic i n s t r u c t i o n , —educational technology. The d ata c o lle c te d r e l a t i v e to Hawaii school finance provided a b a s is uponwhich the re s e a rc h e r p ro je c te d funding onthe s e le c te d the impact o f f u l l s t a t e sample d i s t r i c t s o f the S ta te o f Michigan. The Education Commission o f the S ta te s provided base data which allowed the i n v e s t i g a t o r to p r o j e c t the per pupil e x p en d itu re s over the length o f the en rollm en t p r o j e c ti o n s . 1976-77 were $1689. The average per pupil exp en ditures in The re s e a rc h e r then ap p lied a 7% i n f l a t i o n f a c t o r to th e se per pupil e xp enditures to a r r i v e a t a p ro je c te d t o t a l expen­ d i t u r e f ig u r e . Furthermore, teaching p o s itio n s f o r r e g u la r education c la s s e s a re a llo c a te d to th e d i s t r i c t s and schools on the "b asis o f a schoolb y -sch ool, grade-by-grade enrollm ent p r o je c tio n f o r the school y e a r . The follow ing p u p il- te a c h e r r a t i o s f o r th e d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e ls are used: Grades K-3: 26 to 1 Grades 4-6: 27 to 1 Grades 7-12: 28 to 1."^ 90 The s u p p lie s and equipment budget r e p r e s e n ts 7% o f th e t o t a l classroom reso u rce a l l o c a t i o n e x p e n d itu re . Special e d u ca tio n te a c h ­ ing p o s i t io n s a re a ll o c a t e d to d i s t r i c t s on th e b a s is o f a d i s t r i c t b y - d i s t r i c t survey o f th e a c tu a l needs f o r s p e c ia l education c l a s s e s . I f th e United S t a te s O ffic e o f Education/Bureau o f Handicapped f ig u r e s a r e used, 12.035% o f th e t o t a l d i s t r i c t enro llm en t would q u a li f y f o r s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n . Table 4 . 1 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Lakeshore d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ Enrollment p rojection 1,807 1978-79 $ 1,933 1979-80 $ 2,069 1980-81 $ 2,214 1981-82 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 3,801 3,725 3,608 3,490 3,375 3,327 Total expenditure $6,868,407 $7,202,250 $7,464,339 $7,725,631 $7,993,991 $8,431,916 Equipment and supplies $ $ $ $ $ $ S taff a llo ­ catio n by grade groups Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff K-3 1122/43 1074/41 1040/40 4-6 790/29 793/29 7-12 1889/67 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n Total expenditures 480,788 504,158 522,504 540,794 559,579 590,234 Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff 1002/39 950/37 963/37 808/30 806/30 789/29 751/28 1858/66 1760/63 1682/60 1636/58 1613/58 3801/139 3725/136 3608/133 3490/129 3375/124 3327/123 $7,349,195 $7,706,408 $7,986,843 $8,826,425 $8,553,570 $9,022,150 Table 4 . 2 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Homer d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ Enrollment p rojection 1,807 1979-80 1978-79 $ 1,933 $ 2,069 1981-82 1980-81 $ 2,214 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 1,298 1,267 1,205 1,160 1,108 1,084 Total expenditure $2,345,486 $2,449,732 $2,492,940 $2,567,822 $2,624,398 $2,747,279 Equipment and supplies $ $ $ $ $ $ S ta f f a l l o ­ c atio n by grade groups Students/ sta ff 164,184 171,481 Students/ sta ff 174,506 Students/ sta ff 179,748 Students/ sta ff 183,708 Students/ sta ff 192,310 Students/ S ta f f K-3 391/15 379/15 360/14 335/13 316/12 317/12 4-6 293/11 288/11 269/10 275/10 275/10 262/10 7-12 614/22 600/21 576/21 550/20 517/18 505/18 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 1298/58 1267/47 1205/45 1160/43 1108/40 1084/40 Total expenditures $2,509,670 $2,621,213 $2,667,446 $2,747,570 $2,808,106 $2,939,589 Table 4 . 3 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Central Lake d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ 1,807 Enrollment p rojectio n 1978-79 $ 1,933 1980-81 1979-80 $ 2,069 $ 2,214 1982-83 1981-82 $ 2,369 $ 2,534 587 584 586 586 599 607 Total expenditure $1,060,790 $1,129,158 $1,212,334 $1,297,193 $1,418,785 $1,538,375 Equipment and supplies $ $ $ $ $ $ S taff a llo ­ c atio n by grade groups Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff K-3 160/6 168/6 172/7 174/7 182/7 188/7 4-6 136/5 130/5 125/5 126/5 130/5 134/5 7-12 291/10 286/10 289/10 286/10 287/10 285/10 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 587/21 584/21 586/22 586/22 599/22 607/22 Total expendi tu res $1,135,045 $1,208,199 $1,297,197 $1,387,997 $1,518,100 $1,646,061 74,255 79,041 84,863 90,804 99,315 107,686 Table 4 . 4 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Center Line d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ 1,807 Enrollment pro jectio n 1978-79 $ 1,933 1980-81 1979-80 $ 2,069 $ 2,214 1982-83 1981-82 $ 2,369 $ 2,534 4,416 4,077 3,737 3,422 3,167 2,956 Total expenditure $7,979,712 $7,882,839 $7,731,218 $7,575,076 $7,501,325 $7,491,657 Equipment and supplies $ $ $ 541,185 $ $ $ S ta f f a l l o ­ catio n by grade groups Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff Students/ sta ff 558,580 551,799 Students/ sta ff 530,255 525,093 524,416 K-3 1023/39 952/37 854/33 812/31 803/31 807/31 4-6 900/33 814/30 769/28 700/26 630/23 543/20 7-12 2493/89 2311/83 2114/76 1910/68 1734/62 1606/57 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 4416/161 4077/150 3737/137 3422/125 3167/116 2956/108 Total expenditures $8,538,282 $8,434,638 $8,272,403 $8,105,331 $8,026,418 $8,016,073 Table 4 . 5 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Detroit d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil Enrollment p ro jec tio n $ 1,807 1979-80 1978-79 $ 1,933 $ 2,069 1981-82 1980-81 $ 2,214 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 219,763 210,199 199,836 190,814 180,470 172,062 Total expenditure $397,111,741 $406,417,665 $413,426,712 $422,393,503 $427,459,437 $436,072,212 Equipment and supplies $ 27,797,822 $ 28,449,237 $ 28,939,870 $ 29,567,545 $ 29,922,161 $ 30,525,055 S ta ff a llo ­ catio n by grade groups S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff K-3 76,923/2959 73,419/2824 67,592/2600 61,847/2379 57,596/2215 54,622/2101 4-6 51,223/1897 48,657/1802 48,400/1793 48,537/1798 46,396/1718 43,191/1600 7-12 91,617/3272 88,123/3147 83,844/2994 80,430/2873 76,478/2731 74,249/2652 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 219,763/8128 210,199/7773 199,836/7387 190,814/7050 180,470/6664 172,062/6353 Total expenditures $424,909,563 $434,866,402 $442,366,582 $451,961,048 $457,381,598 $466,597,267 Table 4 . 6 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Cherry Hill d i s t r i c t . 1978-79 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ Enrollment p ro jec tio n 1,807 $ 1,933 1979-80 $ 2,069 1930-81 $ 2,214 1982-83 1981-82 $ 2,369 $ 2,534 3,350 3,168 2,987 2,804 2,645 2,513 Total expendi tu re $6,053,450 $6,125,296 $6,179,595 $6,207,047 $6,266,005 $6,368,922 Equipment and su p plies $ $ $ $ 434,493 $ 438,620 $ S ta f f a ll o ­ c a tio n by grade groups S tudents/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff 423,742 428,771 432,572 S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff 445,825 K-3 944/36 885/34 810/31 784/30 736/28 719/28 4-6 686/25 642/24 646/24 626/23 587/22 535/20 7-12 1720/61 1641/59 1531/55 1394/50 1322/47 1259/45 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 3350/122 3168/117 2987/110 2804/103 2645/97 2513/93 Total expendi tu re s $6,477,192 $6,552,067 $6,612,617 $6,641,540 $6,704,625 $6,814,747 Table 4 . 7 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Port Austin d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil Enrollment p ro jec tio n $ 1,807 1978-79 $ 1,933 1980-81 1979-80 $ 2,069 $ 2,214 1981-82 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 322 319 305 297 283 285 Total expenditure $581,854 $616,627 $631,045 $657,558 $670,427 $722,190 Equipment and su p p lies $ 40,730 $ 43,164 $ 44,173 $ 46,029 $ 46,930 $ 50,533 S ta f f a ll o ­ c a tio n by grade groups S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff K-3 78/3 80/3 78/3 76/3 76/3 79/3 4-6 42/2 47/2 55/2 61/2 59/2 57/2 7-12 202/7 192/7 172/6 160/6 148/5 149/5 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 322/12 319/12 305/11 297/11 283/10 285/10 $622,584 $659,791 $675,218 $703,587 $717,357 $772,723 Total expenditures Table 4 . 8 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Elk Rapids d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ Enrollment p ro jec tio n 1,807 1978-79 $ 1,933 1980-81 1979-80 $ 2,069 $ 2,214 1981-82 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 1,118 1,160 1,189 1,230 1,269 1,314 Total expenditure $2,020,226 $2,242,280 $2,460,041 $2,723,220 $3,006,261 $3,329,676 Equipment and su p p lies $ $ $ $ $ $ S ta f f a ll o ­ c a tio n by grade groups Students/ s ta ff 141,416 156,960 S tudents/ s ta ff 172,203 190,625 210,438 233,077 K-3 320/12 334/13 350/13 S tudents/ sta ff t 344/13 4-6 237/9 262/10 266/10 290/11 196/11 316/12 7-12 561/20 564/20 573/20 596/21 611/22 623/22 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 1118/41 1160/43 1189/43 1230/45 1269/47 1314/48 Total expenditures $2,161,416 $2,399,240 $2,632,244 $2,922,845 $3,216,699 $3,562,753 S tudents/ s ta ff S tu d ents/ s ta ff S tu d ents/ sta ff 362/14 375/14 Table 4 . 9 . —Hawaii school finance plan—Arenac Eastern d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ 1,807 Enrollment p ro jec tio n 1978-79 $ 1,933 1979-80 $ 2,069 1981-82 1980-81 $ 2,214 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 630 627 619 598 577 573 Total expendi tu re $1,138,410 $1,211,991 $1,280,711 $1,323,972 $1,366,913 $1,451,982 Equipment and su pplies $ $ $ $ $ $ S ta f f a l l o ­ c atio n by grade groups S tudents/ sta ff S tudents/ sta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff K-3 163/6 158/6 141/5 133/5 141/5 142/5 4-6 154/6 150/6 155/6 149/6 132/5 117/4 7-12 313/11 319/11 323/12 316/11 304/11 314/11 T otal s t a f f a llo c a tio n 630/23 627/23 619/23 598/22 577/21 573/20 Total expenditures $1,218,099 $1,296,830 $1,370,361 $1,416,650 $1,462,597 $1,553,621 79,689 84,839 89,650 92,678 95,684 101,639 Table 4 .1 0 .—Hawaii school finance plan—Rudyard d i s t r i c t . 1978-79 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ 1,807 Enrollment p ro jec tio n $ 1,933 1979-80 $ 2,069 1981-82 1980-81 $ 2,214 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 855 781 719 673 633 614 Total expenditure $1,544,985 $1,509,673 $1,487,611 $1,490,022 $1,499,577 $1,555,876 Equipment and su p p lies $ $ $ $ $ $ S ta f f a llo ­ catio n by grade groups S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ sta ff K-3 239/9 235/9 237/9 229/9 232/9 236/9 4-6 171/6 156/6 157/6 154/6 149/6 149/6 7-12 445/16 390/14 352/12 290/10 252/9 229/8 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 855/31 781/29 719/27 673/25 633/24 614/23 Total expenditures $1,653,134 $1,615,350 $1,591,744 $1,594,324 $1,604,547 $1,664,787 108,149 105,677 104,133 104,302 104,970 108,876 Table 4 .1 1 .—Hawaii school finance plan—Genesee d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ 1,807 Enrollment p ro jec tio n 1978-79 $ 1,933 1980-81 1979-80 $ 2,069 $ 2,214 1981-82 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 844 882 913 939 958 967 Total expenditure $1,525,108 $1,704,906 $1,888,997 $2,078,946 $2,269,502 $2,450,378 Equipment and su p plies $ $ $ $ $ $ S ta f f a ll o ­ c atio n by grade groups S tu d en ts/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff K-3 275/11 293/11 297/11 275/11 260/10 158/10 4-6 188/7 189/7 208/8 244/9 271/10 278/10 7-12 381/14 400/14 408/15 420/15 427/15 431/15 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 844/32 882/32 913/34 939/35 958/35 967/35 Total expenditures $1,631,758 $1,824,249 $2,021,227 $2,224,472 $2,428,367 $2,621,904 106,758 119,343 132,230 145,526 158,865 171,526 S tu d en ts/ s ta ff Table 4 .1 2 .—Hawaii school finance plan—Camden Frontier d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil $ 1,807 Enrollment p ro jec tio n 1978-79 $ 1,933 1980-81 1979-80 $ 2,069 $ 2,214 1982-83 1981-82 $ 2,369 $ 2,534 738 693 673 642 621 597 Total expendi tu re $1,333,566 $1,339,569 $1,392,437 $1,421,388 $1,471,149 $1,512,798 Equipment and su p plies $ $ $ $ $ $ S ta f f a llo ­ catio n by grade groups S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff Students/ s ta ff S tu d ents/ s ta ff S tu d ents/ s ta ff 183/7 172/7 174/7 159/6 152/6 155/6 K-3 93,350 93,770 97,471 99,497 102,980 105,896 4-6 152/6 144/5 138/5 142/5 141/5 143/5 7-12 403/14 377/13 361/13 341/12 328/12 299/11 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 738/27 693/25 673/25 642/23 621/23 597/22 $1,426,916 $1,433,339 $1,489,908 $1,520,885 $1,574,129 $1,618,694 Total expenditures Table 4 .1 3 .—Hawaii school finance plan—Troy d i s t r i c t . 1978-79 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil Enrollment p ro je c tio n $ 1,807 $ 1,933 $ 2,069 1981-82 1980-81 1979-80 $ 2,214 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 11,080 11,816 12,490 13,149 13,803 14,498 Total expenditure $20,021,560 $22,840,328 $25,841,810 $29,111,886 $32,699,307 $36,737,932 Equipment and su p p lies $ 1,401,509 $ 1,598,823 $ 1,808,927 $ 2,037,832 $ 2,288,951 $ 2,571,655 S ta f f a ll o ­ c a tio n by grade groups S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff S tu d en ts/ s ta ff K-3 3726/144 3806/146 3721/143 3650/140 3615/139 3629/140 4-6 2614/97 2914/108 3284/122 3509/130 3571/132 3479/129 7-12 4730/169 5096/182 5485/196 5990/214 6617/236 7390/264 Total s t a f f a llo c a tio n 11,080/410 11,816/436 12,490/461 13,149/484 13,803/507 14,498/533 Total expendi tu re s $21,423,069 $24,439,151 $27,650,737 $31,149,718 $34,988,258 $39,309,587 Table 4 .1 4 .—Hawaii school finance plan—Muskegon Heights d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 Expenditure per pupil Enrollment p ro je c tio n $ 1,807 1978-79 $ 1,933 1979-80 $ 2,069 1980-81 $ 2,214 1981-82 $ 2,369 1982-83 $ 2,534 3,200 3,080 2,967 2,865 2,781 2,705 Total expenditure $5,782,400 $5,953,640 $6,138,723 $6,343,110 $6,588,189 $6,854,470 Equipment and su p p lies $ 404,768 $ $ 429,711 $ $ $ S ta ff a ll o ­ catio n by grade groups S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff S tudents/ s ta ff K-3 1128/43 1087/42 1057/41 981/38 964/37 983/38 4-6 681/25 673/25 658/24 685/25 664/25 644/24 7-12 1391/50 1320/47 1252/45 1199/43 1153/41 1078/39 T otal s t a f f a llo c a tio n 3200/118 3080/114 2967/110 2865/106 2781/103 2705/101 Total expenditures $6,187,168 $6,370,395 $6,568,434 $6,787,128 $7,049,362 $7,334,283 416,755 444,018 461,173 S tu d en ts/ s ta ff 479,813 S tu d en ts/ s ta ff 105 Texas School Finance Plan The Texas Education Code was amended follow ing th e United S ta te s Supreme Court d e c isio n in Rodriguez v. San A ntonio. The pub­ l i c school educatio n p ro v isio n s a re amended in Texas Senate B ill Number 1. The S ta te p o lic y i s c u rre n tly exp ressed : I t i s th e p o lic y o f th e S ta te o f Texas t h a t th e p ro v isio n o f p u b lic ed u catio n is a s t a t e r e s p o n s ib ility and th a t a thorough and e f f i c i e n t system be provided and s u b s ta n tia lly financed through s t a t e revenue sources so t h a t each c h ild s h a ll have th e o p p o rtu n ity to develop to h is /h e r f u l l p o t e n t i a l . I t is f u r t h e r th e p o lic y o f t h i s s t a te t h a t th e v alue assigned to each school d i s t r i c t f o r the purpose o f determ ining th e d i s ­ t r i c t ' s lo c a l share o f i t s guaranteed e n title m e n t under th e Foundation School Program s h a ll be e q u ita b ly determ ined n o t­ w ith stan d in g the various types of w ealth w ith in each d i s t r i c t , so th a t no c la s s o f p ro p erty i s u n f a ir ly t r e a t e d . 8 The com plete c e n tr a liz a tio n o f numerous a sp e c ts o f th e Texas plan r e f l e c t s th e lack o f c o lle c tiv e b arg ain in g f o r school personnel in th e S ta te o f Texas. The Code s p e c if ie s se v era l f a c to r s which would n o t be ad ap tab le in s t a te s where c o lle c tiv e b arg ain in g i s a re a lity . The Code d e t a i l s a s a la ry index by ste p s under which a l l p ro fe s sio n a l and p a ra -p ro fe s sio n a l personnel a re su b je c te d f o r s a la ry d e te rm in a tio n . (See Appendix E .) The Code s t a t e s : A school d i s t r i c t must pay each employee who i s q u a lif ie d f o r and employed in a p o s itio n c l a s s i f i e d under th e Texas P ublic Education Compensation Plan . . . n o t le s s than th e minimum monthly base s a la r y , p lu s increm ents f o r teach in g e x p e rie n c e , s p e c ifie d f o r t h a t p o s i t io n .8 Furtherm ore, th e monetary valu es o f each c e ll in th e s a la r y index a re s p e c ifie d w ith in th e t e x t o f Senate B ill 1: "The v alue o f each c e ll in th e s a la r y index s h a ll be determ ined by m u ltip ly in g th e index f o r th e c e ll by $940 f o r th e 1977-78 school y e a r and by $949 f o r each school y e a r t h e r e a f t e r ." ^ 0 106 For th e purposes o f t h i s re s e a rc h , any te a c h e r employed by a school d i s t r i c t who may not have a degree from an a c c re d ite d i n s t i t u ­ tio n has been placed on th e s a la ry index a t le v e l 5. All p ro fe ssio n a l personnel who hold a B.A. or a B.S. degree a re placed on th e s a la ry index a t le v e l 7. All p ro fe ssio n a l personnel who hold a M.A. or a M.S. degree a re placed on th e s a la r y schedule a t ste p 8. The P ro fe s­ sio n a l Personnel R e g iste r o f th e S ta te o f Michigan was th e d a ta base upon which a l l p ro je c tio n s o f experience were based. The most c u r­ r e n t and a u d ite d d ata a v a ila b le were f o r th e school y e a r 1976-77. The re s e a rc h e r then p ro je c te d th e ex perience increm ents forward through th e p ro je c tio n o f 1982-83. The in v e s tig a to r was re q u ire d to make sev eral assum ptions r e l a t i v e to th e use o f th e P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel R e g is te r. The com­ p u te r p r in t- o u t o f th e sample d i s t r i c t s d isp lay ed th e d a ta in tw o-year i n te r v a ls : le s s than one y e a r, one to two y e a rs , th re e to fo u r y e a r s , fo u r to f iv e y e a r s , f iv e to s ix y e a r s , s ix to seven y e a r s , seven to e ig h t y e a r s , e ig h t to nine y e a r s , nine to ten y e a r s , and eleven p lu s y e a rs. T h e re fo re , th e in v e s tig a to r has p ro je c te d a minimum e x p e ri­ ence and a maximum ex perience p ro je c tio n f o r each o f th e sample d i s ­ tric ts . In a d d itio n , th e P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel R e g iste r does no t d is tin g u is h te a c h e rs , c o u n se lo rs, o r a d m in is tra to rs in th e re c o rd . T h e re fo re , th e re s e a rc h e r made th e assum ption t h a t th e a d m in istra tio n o f each sample d i s t r i c t held th e h ig h e s t degrees recorded f o r each d is tric t. The Michigan Education D ire c to ry and Buver*s Guide, 1977-78 provided th e info rm atio n which allow ed th e in v e s tig a to r to e x tra p o la te th e number o f a d m in is tra to rs w ith in each d i s t r i c t . 107 However, t h i s d ir e c to r y l i s t s th e a d m in is tra tiv e personnel as su p er­ in te n d e n t, c e n tra l o f f ic e p e rso n n e l, p r in c ip a ls o f se n io r h ig h , ju n io r h ig h , and elem entary sc h o o ls. The a s s i s t a n t p rin c ip a ls a re not l i s t e d . For th e b a sis o f t h is re s e a rc h , a s s i s t a n t p r in c ip a ls and counselors a re included w ith in th e ranks o f the p ro fe ssio n a l s t a f f and t h e i r s a l a r i e s a re fig u re d on t h a t b a s is . The a d m in is tra tiv e s a l a r i e s a re fig u re d in t h i s way. Super­ in te n d e n ts a re placed on th e s a la ry schedule by th e number o f e n ro lle d stu d e n ts in t h e i r re s p e c tiv e d i s t r i c t s . The s a l a r i e s o f c e n tra l o f f ic e personnel a re a ls o determ ined by th e number o f stu d e n ts e n ro lle d in t h e i r re s p e c tiv e d i s t r i c t s . The p rin c ip a ls a re paid acco rding to th e number o f te a c h e rs over which they have a u th o r ity . The Personnel R e g iste r has an a d d itio n a l shortcom ing. in d ic a te a d m in is tra tiv e ex p erien c e. I t does not For th e purposes o f t h i s re s e a rc h , a l l a d m in is tra tiv e s a l a r i e s a re computed as i f 1977-78 i s th e f i r s t y e a r o f a d m in is tra tiv e ex perience on the jo b . This i s held c o n sta n t a cro ss a l l 14 sample d i s t r i c t s . Education Program Personnel i s a ls o determ ined a t th e l e g i s ­ la tu re . Senate B ill Number 1 s t a t e s : Each school d i s t r i c t s h a ll be a l l o t t e d personnel u n its on th e b a s is o f th e d i s t r i c t 's average d a ily a tten d an ce in education programs as fo llo w s: 1. one personnel u n it f o r each 18.5 stu d e n ts in average d a ily a tten d an ce in k in d erg a rte n and grades 1 through 3; 2 . one personnel u n it f o r atten d an ce in grades 4 each 21 stu d e n ts in through 6; average d a ily 3 . one personnel u n it f o r a tten d an ce in grades 7 each 20 stu d e n ts in through 9; and average d a ily 4 . one personnel u n it f o r each 18 stu d e n ts in atten d an ce in grades 10 through 12.11 average d a ily 108 Furthermore, the Texas Education Program for personnel deter­ mination provides for d i s t r i c t s in unusual circumstances. The personnel u n it a llo tm e n t f o r a school d i s t r i c t which c o n ta in s le s s than 300 square m iles and has not more than 1,000 stu d e n ts in average d a ily a tten d an ce in i t s education program s h a ll be a d ju ste d according to th e follow ing form ula: 1 + (1000-ADA)(.0003) x P.U. = APU where PU i s th e d i s t r i c t 's personnel u n its determ ined in accordance w ith th e normal procedure; and APU is th e d i s t r i c t 's a d ju ste d personnel u n i ts . F ra c tio n a l personnel u n its in excess o f o n e -h a lf s h a ll be counted as whole u n i t s . ! 2 Special education programs a re a llo c a te d a d d itio n a l personnel u n its in th e follow ing manner: . . . A school d i s t r i c t is a llo c a te d 30 sp e c ia l education p e r­ sonnel u n its f o r th e f i r s t 3,000 stu d e n ts in average d a ily a tten d an ce and 4.25 a d d itio n a l sp e c ia l education personnel u n its fo r each a d d itio n a l 500 stu d e n ts in average d a ily a tte n d ­ a n c e .^ S pecial education equipment and m a te ria ls a re provided under a sp e c ia l p ro v isio n f o r th e se purposes. Each school d i s t r i c t i s e n t i t l e d to an a llo tm e n t f o r sp e c ia l m a te ria ls and c o n s u lta n t and a p p ra isa l s e rv ic e s o f no t le s s than $500 f o r each sp e c ia l education te a c h e r employed to f i l l a personnel u n it a llo c a te d to th e d i s t r i c t under th e sp e c ia l education p r o v is io n s .! 4 The Texas School Code provides f o r an o p e ra tin g c o s t a llo tm e n t p er s tu d e n t. Each d en t year each school d i s t r i c t s h a ll be a llo c a te d $110 f o r each s t u ­ in average d a ily atten d a n ce during th e 1977-78 school and $115 f o r each s tu d e n t in average d a ily atten d an ce school y e a r t h e r e a f t e r . 15 T ra n sp o rta tio n is provided on th e b a s is o f t o ta l base c o sts o f m aintenance, o p e ra tio n , s a l a r i e s , and d e p re c ia tio n f o r each school bu s, based on th e c a p a c ity o f th e bus used. 109 72 c a p a c ity bus 60-71 c a p a c ity bus 49-59 c a p a c ity bus 42-48 c a p a c ity bus 30-41 c a p a c ity bus 20-29 c a p a c ity bus 15-19 c a p a c ity bus 1-14 c a p a c ity bus $5,701 5,492 5,283 5,074 4,866 4,657 3,821 161 per per per per per per per per y e ar y e ar y e ar y e ar y e ar y e ar y e ar pupil per y e a r. For th e 1978-79 school y e a r and t h e r e a f t e r , a b le t o ta l base c o sts o f m aintenance o p e ra tio n , d e p re c ia tio n fo r each school bus s h a ll be 105.2 m u ltip lie d by th e allow able t o ta l base c o s t f o r during th e 1977-78 school y e a r. th e allow ­ sa la rie s , p er cen t each bus T ra n sp o rta tio n base c o s t d ata were deriv ed from Texas Senate B ill #1. The Michigan d a ta f o r the 14 sample d i s t r i c t s were c o l­ le c te d from th e Michigan Department o f E d u ca tio n 's O ffice of S a fety and T r a f f ic Programs. The d a ta provided were au d ited and c e r t i f i e d by th e Michigan Department o f Education f o r th e f i s c a l y e a r 1975-76. (See Appendix F .) I t is im portant to note th a t Michigan does not u t i l i z e 72 c a p a c ity b u ses. The O ffice o f S a fety and T r a f f ic Programs in d ic a te d t h a t 84% o f a l l school buses in use by th e Michigan p u b lic school d i s ­ t r i c t s a re 66 c a p a c ity buses. The in v e s tig a to r , a f t e r c o n s u lta tio n w ith s a f e ty s p e c i a l i s t s in th e pupil tr a n s p o r ta tio n s e c tio n o f th e S afety and T r a f f ic Program, has made th e assum ption t h a t th e rem ain­ ing 16% o f a l l d i s t r i c t buses a re 15-19 c a p a c ity buses. The lo c a l sh are o f program c o s t f o r th e 1977-78 school y e ar and each y e a r th e r e a f t e r w ill be: Each school d i s t r i c t 's sh are o f i t s guaranteed e n title m e n t under th e Foundation School Program s h a ll be an amount equal to th e product o f an index o f .0018 m u ltip lie d by th e f u l l m arket value o f p ro p e rty in th e d i s t r i c t . . . . The Commis­ s io n e r o f E ducation s h a ll u t i l i z e th e o f f i c i a l b ie n n ia l r e p o rt 110 o f th e School Tax Assessm ent P ra c tic e s Board e s tim a te s o f th e m arket value and index v alue in each school d i s t r i c t f o r d e te r ­ mining th e lo c a l fund a s s ig n m e n t.*7 The a c tu a l funding o f th e s t a t e ed u catio n program i s spe­ c i f i c a l l y s p e lle d ou t in Senate B ill #1. The program s h a ll be fin an ced by 1. ad valorem tax revenue g en erated by an eq u aliz ed lo c a l school d i s t r i c t e f f o r t ; 2. s t a t e a v a ila b le school funds d is tr ib u te d in accordance w ith law; and 3. s t a t e funds a p p ro p ria te d f o r th e purposes o f p u b lic school ed u catio n and a llo c a te d to each d i s t r i c t in an amount s u f ­ f i c i e n t to fin a n c e th e c o s t o f each d i s t r i c t 's Foundation School P ro g ra m J8 Ill Table 4 .1 5 .--Texas school finance plan: Lakeshore p rofessional s t a f f experience p r o je c tio n s . Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79-JO 30-81 81-82 82 -8 3 Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 .78 .82 .86 .90 .94 .98 1.03 1.08 1. 13 1. 18 1.23 1.23 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) B.A. or B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 .90 .93 .96 1 . 00 1. 04 1.08 1 . 13 1 . 18 1 . 23 1. 29 1.35 1.41 1.47 1 .5 3 5 ( 5) 28 (28) 17 (17) 13 (13) 7 (7) 7 (7) 25 (25) 5 ( 5) 28 (28) 17 (17) 13 (13) 7 (7) 7 (7) 25(25) 5(5) 28 (28) 17 (17) 13 (13) 7 (7) 7 25 (32) 5( 5) 28 (28) 17 (17) 13 (13) 7 (7) 32( 32) 5( 5) 28 (28) 17 (17) 13 (13) 7 32(39) 5( 5) 28 (28) 17 (17) 13 (13) 3 9( 39) 1( 1) 1 (1) 5 (5) 17 (17) 17 (17) 60 (60) 1( 1) 1 (1) 5 (5) 17 (17) 17 60(77) 1 (1 ) 1 (1) 5 (5) 17 (17) 7 7( 77 ) M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Note: .96 . 99 1 . 03 1.08 1. 13 1. 18 1 . 23 1. 29 1 . 35 1.41 1 . 47 1 . 53 1 . 59 1 . 65 1(1) 1 (1) 5 (5) 17 (17) 17 (17) 14 (14) 46 (46) KD 1 (1) 5 (5) 17 (17) 17 (17) 14 (14) 4 6 ( 46 ) 1(1) 1 (1) 5 (5) 17 (17) 17 (17) 14 46 (6 0) The P r o f e s s i o n a l R e g i s t e r data were pr es e nt e d 1n a two - ye ar I n t e r v a l format. Th e re f or e , 1 t was n e c e s s a r y t o compute a minimum e x p e r i e n c e s t e p and a maximum experience step. In order t o accommodate t h e d a t a , t h e p l a i n numbers r e p r e s e n t the minimum e x p e r i e n c e s t e p . The bracket ed numbers r e p r e s e n t t h e maximum experience step. 112 Table 4 . 1 6 . —Texas school finance plan: Lakeshore maximum/minimum p r o jec tio n s. Minimum Maximum 1977-78 $2,280,564 $2,709,568 2,742,450 2,805,843 2,813,455 2,878,553 2,886,295 2,952,968 2,961,021 3,021,182 3,037,682 3,090,971 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 113 Table 4 .1 7 .--Texas school finance plan: Arenac Eastern professional s t a f f experience p r o je c tio n s . Years of Exper. Index 77-78 73-79 79-80 80-81 31-82 82- 83 Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 .78 .82 . 86 .90 . 94 . 98 1 . 03 1. 08 1. 13 1.18 1. 23 1.28 B.A. or B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .90 .93 .96 1 . 00 1.04 1.08 1. 13 1 .1 8 1 . 23 1. 29 1.35 1.41 1. 47 1.53 5 (5 ) 13 (13) 4 (4) 1 (1) 2 (2) 2 (2) 5 (5 ) 13 (13) 4 (4) 1 (1) 2 (2) 2 ( 2) 5( 5) 13 (13) 4 (4) 1 (1) 2 (2) 2(2) 5 ( 5) 13 (13) 4 (4) 1 (1) 2 (2) 2 ( 2) 5( 5) 13 (13) 4 (4) 1 (1) 2 2(4) 5(5) 13 (13) 4 (4) 1 (1) 4(4) 1 (1) KD 1 1( 2) 2(2) M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .96 .99 1 . 03 1.08 1.13 1.18 1 . 23 1 . 29 1 . 35 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.59 1.65 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 114 Table 4 . 1 8 . —Texas school finance plan: Arenac Eastern maximum/ minimum p r o jec tio n s. Minimum Maximum $327,893 $338,099 344,487 354,072 357,751 367,378 371,003 381,347 384,973 395,696 397,955 409,247 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 115 Table 4 . 1 9 . —Texas school f i n a n c e plan: Elk Rapids p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f e x pe r i e n c e projections. Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79- 80 80-81 81- 82 82- 83 2( 2) 1 (1) 12 (12) 7 (7.) 8 (8) 16(16) 2(2) 1 (1) 12 (12) 7 (7) 8 16(24) 2(2) 1 (1) 12 (12) 7 (7) 2 4 ( 24) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (D 11(11) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 11(12) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 2( 12 ) Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 . 78 .82 . 86 . 90 .94 . 98 1 .03 1.08 1 . 13 1. 13 1.23 1 . 28 12 B.A. or B.S. 0 1 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .90 .93 .96 1.00 1.04 1 . 08 1 . 13 1.18 1 . 23 1 . 29 1 . 35 1.41 1 . 47 1 . 53 2 ( 2) 1 (1) 12 (12) 7 (7) 8 (8) 3 13(3) (13) 2 ( 2) 1 (1) 12 (12) 7 (7) 8 (8) 3 (3) (13) 2(2) 1 (1) 12 (12) 7 (7) 8 (8) 3 13(16) M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .96 .99 1. 03 1.08 1.13 1.18 1.23 1. 29 1.35 1.41 1. 47 1. 53 1. 59 1. 65 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 9 (9) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 9(9) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 9 (1 1) 116 Table 4 .2 0 .—Texas school finance plan: Elk Rapids maximum/minimum p r o jec tio n s. Minimum Maximum $782,607 $812,057 823,391 849,868 852,876 884,857 875,623 892,611 895,829 913,953 917,691 930,693 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 117 Table 4 .2 1 .—Texas school finance plan: Central Lake professional s t a f f experience p ro je c tio n s . Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79-81) 80-81 81-82 82-83 Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 .78 .82 .86 .90 .94 . 98 1. 03 1.08 1.13 1 . 18 1.23 1 . 28 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) B.A. or M.A. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .90 .93 .96 1 . 00 1. 04 1 . 08 1 . 13 1. 17 1. 23 1. 29 1 . 35 1.41 1. 47 1. 53 2( 2) 4 (4) 4 (4) 5 (5) 2 (2 ) 4 (4) 4 (4) 5 (5) 2 ( 2) 4 (4) 4 (4) 5 (5) 2 ( 2) 4 (4) 4 (4) 5 (5) 2 ( 2) 4 (4) 4 (4) 5 (5) 2( 2) 4 (4) 4 (4) 5 (5) M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 96 . 99 1. 03 1.08 1. 13 1.18 1.23 1 .2 9 1 . 35 1.41 1.47 1 .5 3 1 . 59 1 .6 5 (3) 3 (3) 3 (3) 3 3 (3) 3 (3) 3(3) 3 (3) 3(3) 3 (3) 3(3) 118 Table 4 . 2 2 .—Texas school finance plan: Central Lake maximum/ minimum projections. Minimum Maximum 1977-78 $269,103 $278,221 281,474 291,059 293,163 305,224 307,800 316,531 319,018 328,127 331,239 340,445 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 119 Table 4 .2 3 .—Texas school finance plan: Homer professional s t a f f experience pro je c tio n s. Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 2( 2) 12 (12) 4 (4) 7 (7) 6 (6) 21(21) 2( 2) 12 (12) 4 (4) 7 (7) 6 21(27) 2( 2) 12 (12) 4 (4) 7 (7) 27(27) Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 .78 .82 .86 . 90 .94 .98 1.03 1. 08 1.13 1.18 1 . 23 1 . 28 B.A. or B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .90 .93 .96 1.00 1 . 04 1 . 08 1.13 1. 18 1.23 1.29 1. 35 1.41 1. 47 1.63 2( 2) 12 (12) 4 (4) 7 (7) 6 (6) 5 (5) 16 (16) 2(2) 12 (12) 4 (4) 7 (7) 6 (6) 5 (5) 16(16) 2 ( 2) 12 (12) 4 (4) 7 (7) 6 (6) 5 16(21) M.A. o r M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .96 .99 1. 03 1 . 08 1.13 1 . 18 1. 23 1 . 29 1 . 35 1.41 1.47 1. 53 1 . 59 1. 65 1 (1) 4 (4) 2 (2) 7 (7) 1 (1) 4 (4) 2 (2) 7(7) 1 (1) 4 (4) 2 7 ( 9) 1 (1) 4 (4) 9 (9 ) 1 (1) 4 9 (1 3) 1 (1) 13(13) 120 Table 4 .2 4 .—Texas school finance plan: Homer maximum/minimum p r o jectio n s. Minimum Maximum $840,896 $873,326 870,405 900,544 902,968 928,227 931,235 949,076 952,294 970,514 974,372 986,779 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 121 Table 4 .2 5 .—Texas school finance plan: Rudyard professional s t a f f experience p ro je c tio n s . Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 KD 1( 1) 1(1) 7(7) 7 (7) 10 (10) 12 (12) 14 (14) 24(24) 7 ( 7) 7 (7) 10 (10) 12 (12) 14 24(38) 7( 7) 7 (7) 10 (10) 12 (12) 38(38) Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 . 78 .82 .86 . 90 .94 .98 1. 03 1 .0 8 1 .1 3 1. 18 1. 23 1 .2 8 1 (1) 1 KD (1) B.A. or B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .90 .93 .96 1.00 1. 04 1 . 08 1.13 1 . 18 1. 23 1 . 29 1 . 35 1.41 1.47 1. 53 7( 7} 7 (7) 10 (10) 12 (12) 14 (14) 9 (9) 15 (15) 7(7) 7 (7) 10 (10) 12 (12) 14 (14) 9 (9) 15(15) 7( 7) 7 (7) 10 (10) 12 (12) 14 (14) 9 15(24) M.A. o r M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .96 .99 1.03 1. 08 1. 13 1. 18 1.23 1 .2 9 1. 35 1.41 1. 47 1. 53 1 . 59 1. 65 1 ( 1) KD 1( 1) 2 (2) 1 (1) 5 (5) 4 (4) 30 (30) Kl ) 2 (2) 1 (1) 5 (5) 4 (4) 30(30) 1(1) 2 (2) 1 (1) 5 (5) 4 30(34) 2 (2) 1 ( 1) 5 (5) 3 4( 34 ) 2 (2) 1 (1) 5 3 4( 39) 2 (2) 1 (1) 39(39) 122 Table 4 . 2 6 . —Texas school finance plan: Rudyard maximum/minimum p r o jec tio n s. Minimum Maximum 1977-78 $1,493,077 $1,550,431 1,538,709 1,570,596 1,608,663 1,642,833 1,646,648 1,674,073 1,678,933 1,707,307 1,713,269 1,730,826 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 123 4 .2 7 .--Texas school finance plan: Genesee professional s t a f f experience p ro je c tio n s . Index 77-73 78-79 79 - 8 0 80-81 81-82 82-83 5 (5) 6 (6) 5 (5) 4 5(9) 5 (5) 6 (6) 5 (5) 9(9) Nondegree .72 .75 .78 .82 .36 .90 .94 . 98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18 1.23 1.28 B.A. or B.S. .90 .93 .96 1.00 1.04 1.08 1. 13 1 . 18 1 . 23 1 . 29 1. 35 1.41 1.47 1.53 1 5 (5) 6 (6) 5 (5) 4 (4) 1 (1) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 5 (5) 4 (4) 1 (1) 4(4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 5 (5) 4 (4) 1 4(5) 5 (6) 8 (6) 5 (5) 4 (4) 5(5) M.A. or M.S. . 96 .9 9 1.03 1.08 1 . 13 1 . 18 1.23 1.29 1.35 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.59 1.65 3(3) 3( 3) 3(3) 3( 3) 3(3) 4 (4) 6 ( 6) (6 ) 3 (3 ) 4 (4) 6 6 4 (4) (4) (6) 4 4 6 (4) (6 ) 6 (6) 4 (4) 6 (6) 124 Table 4 .2 8 .—Texas school finance plan: Genesee maximum/minimum projections. Minimum Maximum $463,066 $479,268 486,722 502,382 500,455 525,084 524,817 540,855 542,687 559,294 564,305 577,218 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 125 4 .2 9 .--Texas school finance plan: Camden F ro n tie r professional s t a f f experience p ro je c tio n s . Index 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 3 (3) 7 (7) 4 (4) 2 (2) 10(10) 3 (3) 7 (7) 4 (4) 2 10(12) 3 (3) 7 (7) 4 (4) 12(12) Nondegree .72 .75 .78 .82 .86 .90 .94 .98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18 1 .23 1.28 B.A. or B.S. .90 .93 .96 1. 00 1.04 1.08 1.13 1. 18 1.23 1 . 29 1 . 35 1.41 1 . 47 1 . 53 3 (3) 7 (7) 4 (4) 2 (2) 1 (1) 9 (9) 3 (3) 7 (7) 4 (4) 2 (2) 1 (1) 9( 9) 3 (3) 7 (7) 4 (4) 2 (2) 1 9(10) M.A. or M.S. .96 .99 1. 03 1.08 1 . 13 1 . 18 1. 23 1. 29 1 . 35 1.41 1 . 47 1 . 53 1.59 1.65 1 (1) 3 (3) 3 (3) 3 (3) 1 (1) 3 (3) 3 (3) 3 ( 3) 1 (1) 3 (3) 3 3(6) 1 (1) 3 (3) 6 ( 6) 1 (1) 3 6(9) 126 Table 4 . 3 0 . —Texas school finance plan: Camden Frontier maximum/ minimum p r o jectio n s. Minimum Maximum $427,876 $490,830 496,018 507,976 511,512 576,993 525,005 535,350 537,182 562,170 550,450 568,706 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 127 Table 4 .3 1 .--Texas school finance plan: Port Austin professional s t a f f experience p ro je c tio n s . Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79- 80 80-81 81-82 82- 83 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 2 (2) 6(6) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 2 6( 8) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 8(8) Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 .78 .82 .86 . 90 .94 .98 1 . 03 1.08 1 . 13 1.18 1.23 1 . 28 B.A. or B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .90 .93 .96 1. 00 1 . 04 1.08 1. 13 1.18 1.23 1 . 29 1.35 1.41 1. 47 1 . 53 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 2 (2) 6 (6) 1 (D 2 (2) 3 (3) 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 2 (2) 6 ( 6) 6(6) M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .96 .99 1.03 1.08 1 . 13 1.18 1.23 1 . 29 1.35 1.41 1.47 1.53 1 . 59 1 . 65 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1( 1) 1 (1) 1 ( 1) 1 (1) 1(1) 1 (1) 1(1) 1 (1) 1(1) 128 Table 4 .3 2 .—Texas school finance plan: Port Austin maximum/ minimum projections. Minimum Maximum $230,788 $238,966 242,868 247,329 249,056 253,800 255,438 270,279 262,006 267,036 268,971 272,861 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 129 Table 4 .3 3 .--Texas school finance plan: Center Line p ro fe ssio n a l s t a f f experience p ro je c tio n s . Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79- 80 80-81 81-82 82- 83 Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 .78 .82 .86 . 90 .94 .98 1 . 03 1 . 08 1 . 13 1 . 18 1.23 1.28 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) B.A. o r B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 90 .93 . 96 1.00 1.04 1 . 08 1. 13 1 . 18 1.23 1 .2 9 1. 35 1.41 1. 47 1 .5 3 4(4) 11 (11) 19 (19) 13 (13) 18 (18) 9 (9) 32 (32) 4(4) 11 (11) 19 (19) 13 (13) 18 (18) 9 (9) 32(32) 4(4) 11 (11) 19 (19) 13 (13) 18 (18) 9 32(41) 4(4) 11 19 (19) 13 (13) 18 (18) 4 1( 41 ) 4(4) 11 (11) 19 (19) 13 (13) 18 4 1( 59) 4 (4 ) 11 (11) 19 (19) 13 (13) 59(59) 1 (1) 3 (3) 14 (14) 17 (17) 114(114) 1 (1) 3 (3) 14 (14) 17 114(131) 1 (1) 3 (3) 14 (14) 131(131) (ID M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 96 .99 1. 03 1 .0 8 1 .1 3 1.18 1. 23 1 .2 9 1.35 1.41 1. 47 1.53 1 .5 9 1. 65 1 (1) 3 (3) 14 (14) 17 (17) 21 (21) 93 (93) 1 (1) 3 (3) 14 (14) 17 (17) 21 (21) 93( 93) 1 (1) 3 (3) 14 (14) 17 (17) 21 93(114) 130 Table 4 . 3 4 . —Texas school finance plan: Center Line maximum/ minimum p r o jec tio n s. Minimum Maximum 1977-78 $3,519,264 $3,656,448 3,700,826 3,767,446 3,777,296 3,845,433 3,855,283 3,907,480 3,917,549 3,971,601 3,983,693 4,017,898 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 131 Table 4 .3 5 .—Texas school finance plan: Muskegon Heights professional s t a f f experience p ro je c tio n s. Years of Exper. Index 77-78 73-79 79-00 80-81 81-82 82-83 Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 .78 .82 .86 .90 .94 .98 1. 03 1 . 08 1. 13 1. 18 1. 23 1.28 1 (1) (1) 1 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (1) 2(2) 1 2( 3) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 3(3) 3( 3) 3(3) 8( 8) 26 (26) 27 (27) 13 (18) 14 (14) 55(55) 8(8) 26 (26) 27 (27) 18 (18) 14 55(69) 8 (8 ) 26 (26) 27 (27) 18 (18) 69(69) 4 (4) 1 (1) 5 (5) 28(23) 4 (4) 1 ( 1) 5 28(33) 4 (4) 1 (1) 33(33) B.A. or B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 90 .93 . 96 1 . 00 1.04 1.08 1.13 1.18 1. 23 1.29 1.35 1.41 1.47 1.53 8 (8 ) 26 (26) 27 (27) 18 (18) 14 (14) 10 (10) 45 (45) 8(8) 26 (26) 27 (27) 18 (18) 14 (14) 10 (10) 45(45) 8 ( 8) 26 (26) 27 (27) 18 (18) 14 (14) 10 45(55) M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .96 .99 1. 03 1.08 1 . 13 1.18 1 . 23 1. 29 1 . 35 1.41 1. 07 1.53 1. 59 1 . 65 4 (4) 1 (1) 5 (5) 4 (4) 24 (24) 4 (4) 1 (1) 5 (5) 4 (4) 24(24) 4 (4) 1 (1) 5 (5) 4 24(28) 132 Table 4 .3 6 .—Texas school finance plan: Muskegon Heights maximum/ minimum p rojection s. Minimum Maximum 1977-78 $2,418,939 $2,507,675 2,542,875 2,595,736 2,607,788 2,662,733 2,674,787 2,724,325 2,773,141 2,825,241 2,836,343 2,877,624 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 133 4 .3 7 .--Texas school finance plan: Troy professional s t a f f experience p r o je c tio n s . Index. 77- 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 Nondegree .72 .75 .78 .82 .86 .90 .94 . 98 1.03 1.08 1. 13 1.18 1 . 23 1.28 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) . 1 (1) 1 (1) 1( 1) B.A. or B. S. .90 .93 .96 1 . 00 1.04 1.08 1.13 1.18 1 . 23 1.29 1. 35 1.41 1.47 1 .5 3 24(24) 46 (46) 84 (84) 66 (66) 48 (48) 27 (27) 78 (78) 24(24) 46 (46) 84 (84) 66 (66) 48 (48) 27 (27) 78(78) 24(24) 46 (46) 84 (84) 66 (66) 48 (48) 27 78(105) 24(24) 46 (46) 84 (84) 66 (66) 48 (48) 105(105) 24(24) 46 (46) 84 (84) 66 (66) 48 105(153) 24(24) 46 (46) 84 (04) 66 (66) 153(153) 4(4) 10 (10) 21 (21) 20 (20) 22 (22) 70(70) 4(4) 10 (10) 21 (21) 20 (20) 22 70 (9 2) 4(4) 10 (10) 21 (21) 20 (20) 9 2 ( 92 ) M.A. or M.S. .96 .99 1.03 1.08 1 . 13 1.18 1 . 23 1. 29 1 .3 5 1.41 1 . 47 1 .5 3 1 . 59 1 . 65 4( 4) 10 (10) 21 (21) 20 (20) 22 (22) 20 (20) 50 (50) 4(4) 10 (10) 21 (21) 20 (20) 22 (22) 20 (20) 50(50) 4(4) 10 (10) 21 (21) 20 (20) 22 (22) 20 50(70) 134 Table 4 . 3 8 . —Texas school finance plan: Troy maximum/minimum p r o jec tio n s. Minimum Maximum $6,404,821 $6,649,221 6,737,218 6,849,048 6,876,245 7,184,917 7,163,526 7,331,215 7,359,573 7,939,320 7,545,593 7,681,870 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 135 Table 4 .3 9 .—Texas school finance plan: Cherryhill professional s t a f f experience p ro je c tio n s . Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 .72 .75 . 78 .82 .86 .9 0 .94 .98 1.03 1.08 1 . 13 1.18 1 . 23 1 .2 8 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) B.A. or B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 90 .93 .96 1 .0 0 1 .0 4 1 .0 8 1. 13 1. 18 1.23 1 .2 9 1.35 1.41 1.47 1. 53 3 (3 ) 8 (8) 7 (7) 6 (6) 9 (9) 4 (4) 15 (15) 3( 3) 8 (8) 7 (7) 6 (6) 9 (9) 4 (4) 15(15) 3 (3 ) 8 (8) 7 (7) 6 (6) 9 (9) 4 15(19) 3 (3 ) G (8) 7 (7) 6 (6) 9 (9) 19(19) 3(3) 8 (3) 7 (7) 6 (6) 9 19(28) 3( 3) 8 (8) 7 (7) 6 (6) 28(28) 3 (3) 3 (3) 11 (11) 23 (23) 8 5 ( 85 ) 3 (3) 3 (3) 11 (11) 23 85(108) 3 (3) 3 (3) 11 (11) 108(108) M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .96 .99 1.03 1 . 08 1.13 1.18 1.23 1 . 29 1 . 35 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.59 1 . 65 3 (3) 3 (3) 11 (11) 23 (23) 29 (29) 56 (56) 3 (3) 3 (3) 11 (11) 23 (23) 29 (29) 56(56) 3 (3) 3 (3) 11 ( ID 23 (23) 29 56(85) 136 Table 4 . 4 0 .—Texas school finance plan: Cherryhill maximum/minimum p r o jec tio n s. Minimum Maximum 1977-78 $2,456,388 $2,550,956 2,582,211 2,637,197 2,645,035 2,701,595 2,708,713 2,747,243 2,754,558 2,794,057 2,806,746 2,828,099 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 137 Table 4 .4 1 .—Texas school finance plan: D e tro it professional s t a f f experience p r o je c tio n s . Years of Exper. Index 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 10(10) 14 (14) 2 (2) 8 (8) 7 (7) 4 7( 47) 10(10) 14 (14) 2 (2) 8 (8) 7 4 7( 54) 10(10) 14 (14) 2 (2) 8 (8) 54(54) 184(184) 599 (599) 335 (335) 226 (226) 360 (360) 2597(2597) 184(184) 599 (599) 335 (335) 226 (226) 360 2597(2957) 184(184) 599 (599) 335 (335) 226 (226) 2957(2957) (102) 102(102) 259 (259) 142 (142) 165 (165) 386 (386) 5464(5464) 102(102) 259 (259) 142 (142) 165 (165) 386 5464(5850) 102(102) 259 (259) 142 (142) 165 (165) 5850(5850) Nondegree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 72 . 75 . 78 .82 .86 . 90 .94 . 98 1.03 1 .0 8 1. 13 1.18 1 .2 3 1.28 10(10) 14 (14) 2 (2) 8 (8) 7 (7) 9 (9) 38 (38) 10(10) 14 (14) 2 (2) 8 (8) 7 (7) 9 (9) 38(38) 10(10) 14 (14) 2 (2) 8 (8) 7 (7) 9 38(47) B.A. or B.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .90 .93 .96 1 . 00 1. 04 1.08 1 .1 3 1.18 1 . 23 1 .2 9 1. 35 1.41 1 .4 7 1 . 53 184(184) 599 (599) 335 (335) 226 (226) 360 (360) 402 (402) 2195 (2195) 184(184) 599 (599) 335 (335) 226 (226) 360 (360) 402 (402) 2195(2195) 184(184) 599 (599) 335 (335) 226 (226) 360 (360) 402 2195(2597) M.A. or M.S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 96 . 99 1. 03 1.08 1. 13 1.18 1. 23 1. 29 1. 35 1.41 1.47 1.53 1 .5 9 1 .6 5 102(102) 259 (259) 142 (142) 165 (165) 386 (386) 460 (460) 5004 (5004) 102(102) 259 (259) 142 (142) 165 (165) 386 (386) 460 (460) 5004(5004) 102 259 (259) 142 (142) 165 (165) 386 (386) 460 5004(5464) 138 Table 4 . 4 2 . —Texas school finance plan: D etroit maximum/minimum p r o jec tio n s. Minimum Maximum 1977-78 $150,162,668 $155,903,154 157,656,176 159,367,034 159,660,520 161,463,299 161,713,051 162,980,773 163,299,628 164,696,722 165,207,103 166,144,431 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 139 Table 4 . 4 3 . —Texas school finance plan: local share o f program c o s ts . Lakeshore 1976-77: $182,718,158 x .0018 = $328,893 1977-78 & 1978-79 $186,074,416 x .0018 = $334,934 1979-80 & 1980-81 $202,756,788 x .0018 = $364,962 1981-82 & 1982 -83: $236,400,242 x .0018 = $425,520 1976-77 $44,456,766 x .0018 = $ 80,022 Homer » • 1977-78 & 1978--79: $45,273,370 x .0018 = $ 81,492 1979-80 & 1980--81: $49,332,322 x .0018 = $ 88,748 1981-82 & 1982--83: $57,518,039 x .0018 = $103,534 C en tral Lake 1976-77- $54,671,768 x .0018 = $ 98,409 1977-78 & 1978-■79: $55,676,006 x .0018 = $100,216 1979-80 & 1980-■81: $60,667,699 x .0018 = $109,202 1981-82 & 1982-■83: $70,734,180 x .0018 = $127,322 C enter Line 1976-77: $409,845,358 x .0018 = $737,722 1977-78 & 1978-■79: $417,373,602 x .0018 = $751,272 1979-80 & 1980- 81: $454,792,940 x .0018 = $818,627 1981-82 & 1982-•83: $530,256,778 x .0018 = $954,462 140 Table 4 .4 3 .—Continued. D e tro it 1976-77: $10,087,599,324 x .0018 = $18,157,679 1977-78 & 1978-79: $10,272,893,392 x .0018 = $18,491,208 1979-80 & 1980-81: $11,193,902,458 x .0018 = $20,149,024 1981-82 & 1982-83: $13,051,307,812 x .0018 = $23,492,354 Cherry H ill 1976-77: $129,271,242 x .0018 = $232,688 1977-78 & 1978-79: $131,645,760 x .0018 = $236,962 1979-80 & 1980-81: $143,448,368 x .0018 = $258,207 1981-82 & 1982-83: $167,250,770 x .0018 = $301,051 P o rt A ustin 1976-77: $37,289,670 x .0018 = $67,121 1977-78 & 1978-79: $37,974,625 x .0018 = $68,354 1979-80 & 1980-81: $41,379,213 x .0018 = $74,483 1981-82 & 1982-83: $48,245,279 x .0018 = $86,841 Elk Rapids 1976-77 $137,424,678 x .0018 = $247,364 1977-78 & 1978-79 $139,948,963 x .0018 = $251,908 1979-80 & 1980-81 $152,995,989 x .0018 = $274,493 1981-82 & 1982-83 $177,799,664 x .0018 = $320,039 141 Table 4 , 4 3 .—Continued. Arenac E astern 1976-77: $24,463,924 X .0018 = $44,035 1977-78 & 1978-79: $24,913,289 X .0018 = $44,844 1979-80 & 1980-81: $27,146,873 X .0018 = $48,864 1981-82 & 1982-83: $31,651,356 X .0018 = $56,972 Rudyard 1976-77: $28,848,346 x .0018 = $51,927 1977-78 & 1978-79: $29,378,246 x .0018 = $52,881 1979-80 & 1980-81: $32,012,133 x .0018 = $57,622 1981-82 & 1982-83: $37,323,909 x .0018 = $67,183 Genesee 1976-77: $26,324,898 X .0018 = $47,385 1977-78 & 1978-79: $26,808,446 X .0018 = $48,255 1979-80 & 1980-81: $29,211,939 X .0018 = $52,581 1981-82 & 1982-83: $34,059,079 X .0018 = $61,306 142 Table 4 . 4 3 . —Continued. Camden F ro n tie r 1976-77: 1977-78 & 1978-79: $37,841,903 x .0018 = $68,115 1979-80 & 1980-81: $41,234,592 x .0018 = $74,222 1981-82 & 1982-83: $48,076,562 x .0018 = $86,538 1977--77 t $909,047,366 x .0018 = $1 ,636,285 1977-■78 & 1978--79: $925,847,039 x .0018 = $1 ,666,525 1979-■80 & 1980-•81: $1,008,853,207 x .0018 = $1 ,815,936 1981-■82 & 1982-■83: $1,176,252,320 x .0018 = $2 ,117,254 » Muskegon H eights 1976-77: $94,659,904 x .0018 = $170,388 1977-78 & 1978-79: $96,398,664 x .0018 = $173,518 1979-80 & 1980-81: $105,041,219 x .0018 = $189,074 1981-82 & 1982-83: $122,470,719 x .0018 = $220,447 143 Table 4 .4 4 .—Texas school fin a n c e p la n : d e te rm in a tio n o f sp e c ia l e ducation personnel and sp e c ia l ed u catio n s a la r y . D is tric t u ls tric l: E nrollm ent tn ro i iment S pecial Ed. Personnel S a la ry / Spec. Ed. Lakeshore 1977-78 3,801 36 $324,864 1978-79 3,725 36 338,224 1979-80 3,608 35 351,889 1980-81 1981-82 3,490 3,375 34 33 348,473 353,882 1982-83 3,327 33 369,541 1977-78 1,298 13 117,312 1978-79 1979-80 1,267 1,205 13 12 122,136 117,296 1980-81 1981-82 1,160 1,108 12 11 122,990 117,961 1982-83 1,084 11 123,180 1977-78 587 6 54,144 1978-79 584 6 56,371 1979-80 586 6 58,648 1980-81 586 6 61,495 1981-82 599 6 64,342 1982-83 607 6 67,189 Homer C en tral Lake 144 Table 4 .4 4 .—Continued. D is tric t Enrollm ent Special Ed. Personnel S a la ry / Spec. Ed. C enter Line 1977-78 4,416 40 360,960 1978-79 4,077 366,409 1979-80 1980-81 3,737 3,422 39 36 348,473 1981-82 1982-83 3,167 2,956 34 31 30 332,438 335,946 1977-78 219,763 1,872 16,892,928 1978-79 210,199 1,791 16,826,624 1979-80 1980-81 199,836 1,703 16,646,314 190,814 16,665,199 1981-82 180,470 172,062 1,626 1,538 1,467 16,427,759 306.816 291,248 293,241 286,978 351,889 D etroi t 1982-83 16,493,051 C h e rry h ill 1977-78 3,350 1978-79 3,168 34 31 1979-80 2,987 30 1980-81 1981-82 2,804 28 26 1982-83 2,645 2,513 25 278.816 279,955 145 Table 4 .4 4 . —Continued. D is tric t U ls tn c t E nrollm ent E nrollm ent S pecial Ed. Personnel S a la ry / Spec. Ed. P o rt A ustin 1977-78 322 3 $ 27,072 1978-79 319 3 28,185 1979-80 1980-81 305 297 3 3 29,324 30,748 1981-82 283 3 32,171 1982-83 285 3 33,595 1977-78 1,118 11 99,264 1978-79 1,160 12 112,457 1979-80 1980-81 1,189 1,230 12 12 116,917 122,516 1981-82 1982-83 1,269 1,314 13 13 137,320 142,825 1977-78 630 6 54,144 1978-79 627 6 56,371 1979-80 619 6 58,648 1980-81 598 6 61,495 1981-82 577 6 64,342 1982-83 573 6 67,189 Elk Rapids Arenac E astern 146 Table 4 .4 4 .—Continued. D is tric t u is tn c t Enrollm ent tn ro i iment Special Ed. Personnel S a la ry / Spec. Ed. Rudyard 1977-78 885 9 $81,216 1978-79 781 8 75,161 1979-80 719 7 68,423 1980-81 1981-82 673 633 7 6 71,744 64,342 1982-83 614 6 67,189 1977-78 844 8 72,192 1978-79 882 9 84,272 1979-80 913 9 87,593 1980-81 939 9 91,768 1981-82 958 10 108,945 1982-83 967 10 109,704 1977-78 738 7 63,168 1978-79 693 7 65,766 1979-80 1980-81 673 642 7 6 68,423 61,495 1981-82 621 6 64,342 1982-83 597 6 67,189 Genesee Camden F ro n tie r 147 Table 4 . 4 4 . —Continued. S p ecial Ed. Personnel S a la ry / Spec. Ed. D is tric t Enrollm ent 1977-78 11,080 99 1978-79 11,816 105 939,225 1979-80 12,490 111 1,078,728 1980-81 13,149 116 1,128,266 1981-82 13,803 122 1,283,428 1982-83 14,498 128 1,345,492 1977-78 3,200 32 288,768 1978-79 3,080 31 291,248 1979-80 2,967 30 293,241 1980-81 2,867 29 297,227 1981-82 2,781 28 300,264 1982-83 2,705 27 302,351 Troy $ 893,376 Muskegon H eights 148 Table 4 . 4 5 . —Texas school finance plan: determination o f transportation a llo c a t io n . D ls tn c t C apacity C apacity T otal $109,840 115,552 115,552 115,552 115,552 115,552 687,600 $15,284 16,079 16,079 16,079 16,079 16,079 95,679 $125,124 131,631 131,631 131,631 131,631 131,631 783,279 65,904 69,331 69,331 69,331 69,331 69,331 412,559 7,642 8,039 8,039 8,039 8,039 8,039 47,837 73,546 77,370 77,370 77,370 77,370 77,370 460,396 32,952 34,666 34,666 34,666 34,666 34,666 206,282 3,821 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 23,921 36,773 38,686 38,686 38,686 38,686 38,686 230,203 38,444 40,443 40,443 40,443 40,443 40,443 240,659 3,821 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 23,921 42,265 44,463 44,463 44,463 44,463 44.463 264,580 Lakeshore 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal Homer 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal C en tral Lake 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal C enter Line 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal 149 Table 4 . 4 5 . —Continued. D ls tric t C apacity C apacity T otal $1,070,440 1.126.629 1.126.629 1.126.629 1.126.629 1.126.629 6,704,085 $141,377 148.729 148.729 148.729 148.729 148.729 885,022 $1,212,317 1.275.358 1.275.358 1.275.358 1.275.358 1.275.358 7,589,107 21,968 23.110 23.110 23.110 23.110 23.110 137,518 3,821 4.020 4.020 4.020 4.020 4.020 23,921 25,789 27.130 27.130 27.130 27.130 27.130 161,439 71,396 75.109 75.109 75.109 75.109 75.109 446,941 7,642 8.039 8.039 8.039 8.039 8.039 47,837 79,038 83.148 83.148 83.148 83.148 83.148 494,778 D e tro it 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal Cherr.yhi 11 No B u se s P o rt A ustin 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal Elk Rapids 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal 150 Table 4 . 4 5 .—Continued. D is tric t 66 C apacity 15-19 C apacity T otal Arenac E astern 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal $ 43,936 46,221 46,221 46,221 46,221 46,221 275,041 $ 7,642 8,039 8,039 8,039 8,039 8,039 47,837 $ 51,578 54,250 54,250 54,250 54,250 54,250 322,878 115,332 121,329 121,329 121,329 121,329 121,329 721,977 15,284 16,079 16,079 16,079 16,079 16,079 95,679 130,616 137,408 137,408 137,408 137,408 137,408 817,656 27,460 28,888 28,888 28,888 28,888 28,888 171,900 3,821 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 23,921 31,281 32,908 32,908 32,908 32,908 32,908 195,821 Rudyard 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal Genesee 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal 151 Table 4 . 4 5 .—Continued. D is t,,ic t C apacity d p a iity 71,396 75.109 75.109 75.109 75.109 75.109 446,941 $ 11,463 12.059 12.059 12.059 12.059 12.059 71,758 230,664 242.659 242.659 242.659 242.659 242.659 1,443,959 30,568 32.158 32.158 32.158 32.158 32.158 191,358 T o ta 1 Camden F ro n tie r 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Total 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal $ $ 82,859 87.168 87.168 87.168 87.168 87.168 518,699 261,232 274.817 274.817 274.817 274.817 274.817 1,635,317 Muskegon H eights 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T otal 16,476 17.333 17.333 17.333 17.333 17.333 103,141 16,476 17.333 17.333 17.333 17.333 17.333 103,141 Table 4 .4 6 .—Texas school finance plan: determination o f sta te aid a llo catio n . Personnel Budget* Operating Cost A ll. Personnel U nits Personnel U nits Local E ffo rt State Aid Allocation* 1977-78 $2,280,564 2,709,568 $401,390 190 190 $334,934 $2,347,020 2,776,024 1978-79 2,742,450 2,805,843 412,620 187 187 334,934 2,820,136 2,883,529 1979-80 2,813,455 2,878,553 398,820 180 180 364.962 2,847,313 2,912,411 1980-81 2,886,295 2,952,968 386,170 174 174 364.962 2,907,503 2,974,176 1981-82 2,961,021 3,021,182 373,980 169 169 425.520 2,909,481 2,969,642 1982-83 3,037,682 3,090,971 366,275 167 167 425.520 2,978,437 3,031,726 1977-78 840,896 873,326 137,500 65 65 81.492 896,904 929,334 1978-79 870,405 900,544 140,760 64 64 81.492 929,673 959,812 1979-80 902,968 928,227 133,860 60 60 88.798 948,030 973,289 1980-81 931,235 949,076 128,915 58 58 88.798 971,352 989,193 1981-82 952,294 970,514 122,935 56 56 103.532 971,697 989,917 1982-83 974,372 986,779 119,830 54 54 103.532 990,670 1,003,077 D istr ic t Adjusted P ers. Un. Lakeshore Homer in l\> Table 4 .4 6 .--Continued. n.-.t „ 4 r i. m si Personnel Budget* Operating Cost A ll. Personnel U nits Adjusted P ers. Un. Personnel Units Local E ffo rt State Aid Allocation* C entral Lake 1977-78 $ 278!221 $ 6 2 ,4 8 0 30 4 34 $100,217 J 231,366 240,484 281| 474 64,745 29 4 33 100,217 246,002 255,587 1979-80 305!224 6 4 ,9 7 5 29 4 33 109.202 248.936 260,997 198° - 81 316:531 64-860 30 4 34 109.202 263,458 272,189 1981-82 328!127 6 6 ,2 4 0 30 4 34 127.322 267.936 267,045 1982-83 33’ $ 66,930 30 4 34 127.322 270,847 280,053 224 751.272 3,241,102 3,378,286 207 751.272 3,404,609 3,471,229 189 818.627 3,374,969 3,443,106 171 818.627 3,417,536 3,469,733 159 954.462 3,314,642 3,368,694 149 954.462 3,355,371 3,389,576 Center Line 9 : 1977‘ 78 3 656’,448 1978- 79 I:???:!!! 1979- 8 ° 1980-81 4 5 5 >°55 4 i 6 - 3° ° i:lof:IIS 1 9 8 1 -8 2 1982-83 4 7 3 ’ 110 38o'88° 351 >555 M 1M 98 3 2 6 ■1 4 0 224 207 189 171 159 149 153 1978-?9 Table 4 .4 6 .—Continued. u is tric t Personnel Budget* Operating Cost A ll. Personnel Units Adjusted P ers. Un. State Aid Allocation* Personnel U nits Local E ffo rt 1 0 >888 10,888 $18,491,208 $154,842,190 160,582,676 23 179.055 10,424 10,424 18,491,208 162,335,023 164,045,881 D e tro it 1977-78 55 *903 *154 $ 2 3 *1 7 0 ’ 730 . 1978-79 1979-80 1611463*299 2 2 »0 9 4 »030 9 »926 9,926 20.149.024 161,605,526 163,408,305 1980-81 162l980l773 2 1 »0 9 0 ’ 195 9 ’ 455 9,455 20.149.024 162,654,222 163,921,944 1981-82 164^696*722 1 9 »9 6 3 *425 8 »950 8,905 23.492.354 159,770,699 161,167,793 23.492.354 160,699,064 161,636,392 I66ll44l431 1 8 >9 8 4 *315 8 »614 8,614 1977- 78 I fs o .lll 355,190 168 168 236.962 2,574,616 2,669,184 1978-79 1*6371197 351,44° 160 160 236.962 2,696,689 2,751,675 l ®7 9 ' 8 0 z;70i:595 331,545 150 150 258.207 2,718,373 2,774,933 310,845 141 141 258.207 2,761,351 2,799,881 1982-83 Cherry H ill 1980-81 1 9 8 ' - 82 l:n J :§ S 281,865 133 133 301.051 2,735,402 2,744,871 1982-83 2182M 99 2 7 7 »388 124 124 301.051 2,783,075 2,804,428 CJ1 4* Table 4 .4 6 .--Continued. Personnel Budget* Operating Cost A ll. 1977-78 $230,788 238,966 * 04 inn * 1978-79 wlaa 35'190 17 253^800 3 3 *465 15 32’660 31 -050 D is tr ic t Personnel Units Adjusted P ers. Un. Personnel U nits Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid A llocation* P ort Austin 1979-80 1980-81 270 1981-82 “ 1982-83 $! ilfils i 3 20 $ 68,354 $196,534 204,712 3 20 68,354 209,704 214,165 3 18 74,483 204,038 212,782 15 3 18 74,483 213,615 228,456 15 3 18 86,842 206,214 211,244 3 17 86,842 213,494 217,184 56 251,908 649,939 679,389 ^7 i/ 3 1 - 165 14 , 1 9 ’ 240 56 Elk Rapids 1977-78 T O 1978-79 mill 122’705 58 58 251,908 694,188 720,665 1979-80 852,676 884,857 132,365 61 61 274,493 710,548 742,729 1980-81 875,623 892,611 136,735 62 62 274,493 737,865 754,853 1981-82 845,829 913,953 141,105 63 63 320,039 716,895 735,019 H u m 1 4 5 ’8 2 0 66 66 320,039 743,472 756,474 1982-83 Table 4 .4 6 .—Continued. D istr ic t Personnel Budget* Operating Cost A ll. Personnel U nits Adjusted P ers. Un. Personnel Units Local Effort State Aid Allocation* Arenac Eastern 5 350,699 327,893 338,099 $67,650 31 3 34 $44,844 1978-79 344,487 354,072 69,920 32 4 36 44,844 369,563 379,148 1979-80 357,751 367,378 69.115 31 4 35 48.864 378,002 387,629 1980-81 371,003 381,347 66,700 30 4 34 48.864 388,839 399,183 1981-82 384,973 395,696 64,285 29 4 33 56.972 392,286 403,009 1982-83 397,955 409,247 63,696 30 4 34 56.972 404,578 415,870 1977-78 1,493,077 1,550,431 90,640 43 2 45 52.881 1,530,836 1,588,190 1978-79 1,538,709 1,570,596 86,250 39 2 41 52.881 1,572,078 1,603,965 1979-80 1,608,663 1,642,833 79,120 35 3 38 57,622 1,630,161 1,644,331 1980-81 1,646,648 1,674,073 73,945 33 3 36 57,662 1,662,931 1,690,356 1981-82 1,678,933 1,707,307 69.115 31 3 34 67.183 1,680,865 1,709,239 1982-83 1,713,269 1,730,826 66,815 30 3 33 67.183 1,712,901 1,730,458 1977-78 $ 360,905 Rudyard I Table 4 .4 6 .—Continued. Personnel Budget* Operating Cost A ll. Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid A llocation* 1977-78 $462,066 479,268 $ 89,100 42 2 44 $48,255 $502,911 520,113 1978-79 486,722 502,382 97,865 44 2 46 48,255 536,332 551,992 1979-80 500,455 525,084 101,660 46 1 47 52.581 549,534 574,163 1980-81 524,817 540,855 104,765 47 48 52.581 577,001 593,039 1981-82 542,687 559,294 106,950 48 49 61.306 588,331 604,938 1982-83 564,305 577,218 47 61.306 610,639 623,552 107,640 47 1977-78 427,876 490,830 78,650 37 3 40 68.115 438,411 501,365 1978-79 496,018 507,976 77,625 35 3 38 68.115 506.486 517.486 1979-80 511,512 576,993 75,210 34 3 37 74.222 506.486 577,981 1980-81 525,005 535,350 71,530 33 4 37 74.222 522,313 532,658 1981-82 537,182 562,170 69,345 31 4 35 86.538 519,989 544,977 1982-83 550,450 568,706 66,240 30 4 34 86.538 530,152 548,408 D is tr ic t Personnel U nits Adjusted P ers. Un. Personnel U nits Genesee Camden F ro n tier CXI Table 4 .4 6 .—Continued. Personnel Budget* Operating Cost A11. Personnel U nits $6,404,821 6,649,221 $1,173,700 1978-79 6,737,218 6,849,048 1979-80 Personnel Units Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid A llocation* 553 553 $1,666,525 $5,911,996 6,156,396 1,310,310 591 591 1,666,525 6,381,003 6,492,833 6,876,245 7,184,917 1,379,195 624 624 1,815,936 6,439,504 6,748,176 1980-81 7,163,526 7,331,215 1,466,135 658 658 1,815,936 6,813,725 6,981,414 1981-82 7,359,573 7,939,320 1,542,150 692 692 2,117,254 6,784,469 7,364,216 1982-83 7,545,593 7,681,870 1,617,360 727 727 2,117,254 7,045,699 7,181,976 2,418,939 2,507,675 336,380 158 158 173,518 2,582,101 2,670,537 1978-79 2,542,875 2,595,736 338,790 154 154 173,518 2,708,147 2,761,008 1979-80 2,607,788 2,662,733 326,255 147 147 189,074 2,744,969 2,799,914 1980-81 2,674,787 2,724,325 314,525 142 142 189,074 2,800,238 2,849,776 1981-82 2,773,141 2,825,241 304,635 138 138 220,447 2,857,329 2,909,429 1982-83 2,836,343 2,877,624 294,630 133 133 220,447 2,910,526 2,951,807 D is tr ic t Troy 1977-78 Muskegon Heights 1977-78 Adjusted P ers. Un. *Top number in d ic a te s minimum amount; bottom number in d ic a te s maximum amount. Table 4.47.--Texas school finance plan: total state aid allocation. District Lakeshore 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Homer 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Personnel arlfl Operating Cost Allocation* Transportation Allocation Special Ed. Personnel Salary Special Ed. Supplies Allocation $2,347,020 2,776,024 2,829,136 2,883,529 2,847,313 2,912,411 2,907,503 2,974,176 2,909,481 2,969,642 2,978,437 3,031,726 $125,124 $324,864 $18,000 131.631 338,224 18,000 131.631 351,889 17.500 131.631 348,473 17,000 131.631 353,882 16.500 131.631 369,541 16.500 896,904 929,334 929,673 959,812 948,030 973,289 971,352 989,193 971,697 989,917 990,670 1,003,077 73,546 117,312 6.500 77.370 122,136 6.500 77.370 117,296 6,000 77.370 122,990 6,000 77.370 117,961 5.500 77.370 123,180 5.500 Total State Aid Allocation* $2,815,008 3,244.012 3,307,991 3,371,384 3,348,333 3,413,431 3,404,607 3,471,280 3,411,494 3,471,655 3,496,109 3,549,398 1,094,262 1,126,692 1,135,679 1,165,818 1,148,696 1,173,955 1,177,712 1,195,553 1,172,528 1,190,748 1,196,720 1,209,127 ui v> Table 4.47.—Continued. District Central lake 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Center Line 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Personnel and Operating Cost Allocation* Transportation Allocation Special Ed. Personnel Salary Special Ed. Supplies Allocation 231,366 240,484 246,002 255,587 248.936 260,997 263,458 272,189 257.936 267,045 270,847 280,053 $36,773 $ 54,144 $ 3,000 38.686 56,371 3.000 38.686 58,648 3.000 38.686 61,495 3.000 38.686 64,342 3.000 38.686 67,189 3.000 3,241,102 3,378,286 3,404,609 3,471,229 3,374,969 3,443,106 3,417,536 3,469,733 3,314,642 3,368,694 3,355,371 3,389,576 42,265 360,960 20,000 44.463 366,409 19.500 44.463 351,889 18,000 44.463 348,473 17.000 44.463 332,438 15.500 44.463 335,946 15.000 Total State Aid Allocation* 325,283 334,401 344,059 353,644 349,270 361,331 366,639 375,370 363,964 373,073 379,722 388,928 3,664,327 3,801,511 3,834,981 3,901,601 3,789,321 3,857,458 3,827,472 3,879,669 3,707,043 3,761,095 3,750,780 3,784,985 CTi O Table 4.47.—Continued. D istrict Detroit 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Cherryhill 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Personnel and Operating Cost Allocation* $154,842,190 160,582,076 162,335,023 164,045,881 161,605,526 163,408,305 162,654,222 163,921,944 159,770,699 161,167,793 160,699,064 161,636,392 2",574,616 2,669,184 2,696,689 2,751,675 2,718,373 2,774,933 2,761,351 2,799,881 2,735,402 2,774,971 2,783,075 •> and aoo Special Ed. Personnel Salary Special Ed. Supplies Allocation $1,212,317 $16,892,928 $936,000 1,275,358 16,826,624 895,500 1,275,358 16,646,314 851,500 1,275,358 16,665,199 813,000 1,275,358 16,493,051 769,000 1,275,358 16,427,759 733,500 - 0- 306,816 17,000 -0- 291,248 15,500 - 0- 293,241 15,000 - 0- 286,978 14,000 - 0- 278,816 13,000 - 0- 279,955 12,500 Transportation Allocation Total State Aid Allocation* $169,883,435 179,623,321 181,332,505 183,043,362 180,398,698 182,201,477 181,407,779 182,675,501 178,308,108 179,705,202 179,135,681 180,073,009 2,898,432 2,993,000 3,003,437 3,058,423 3,026,614 3,083,174 3,062,329 3,100,859 3,027,218 3,066,787 3,075,530 vnQfi.ftfn Table 4.47.—Continued. District Port Austin 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Elk Rapids 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Transportation Allocation Special Ed. Personnel Salary Special Ed. Supplies Allocation Total State Aid Allocation* $196,534 204,712 209,704 214,165 204,038 212,782 213,615 228,456 206,214 211,244 213,494 217,184 $25,789 $27,072 $1,500 27.130 28,185 1.500 27.130 29,324 1.500 27.130 30,748 1.500 27.130 32,171 1.500 27.130 33,595 1.500 $250,895 259,073 266,519 270,980 261.992 270,736 272.993 287,834 267,015 272,045 275,719 279,409 649,939 679,389 694,188 720,665 710,548 742,729 737,865 754,853 716,895 735,019 743,472 756,474 79,038 99,264 5.500 83.148 112,457 6,000 83.148 116,917 6,000 83.148 122,516 6,000 83.148 137,320 6.500 83.148 142,825 6.500 Personnel and Operating Cost Allocation* 833,741 863,191 895.793 922,270 916,613 948.794 949,529 966,517 943,863 961,987 975,945 988,947 at ro Table 4.47.—Continued. D istrict Arenac Eastern 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Rudyard 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Personnel and Operating Cost Allocation* $350,699 360,905 369,563 379,148 378,002 387,629 388,839 399,183 392,286 403,009 404,578 415,870 1,530,836 1,588,190 1,572,078 1,603,965 1,630,161 1,664,331 1,662,931 1,690,356 1,680,865 1,709,239 1,712,901 1,730,458 Transportation Allocation Special Ed. Personnel Salary Special Ed. Supplies Allocation Total State Aid Allocation* $459,421 469,627 483,199 492,779 493,910 503,537 507,594 517,938 513,888 524,611 529,027 540,319 $51,578 $54,144 $3,000 54.260 56,371 3.000 54.260 58,648 3.000 54.260 61,495 3.000 54.260 64.342 3.000 54.260 67.189 3.000 130,616 81,216 4.500 137.408 75,161 4.000 137.408 68,423 3.500 137.408 71,744 3.500 137.408 64.342 3.000 137.408 67.189 3.000 1,747,168 1,804,522 1,788,647 1,820,534 1,839,492 1,873,662 1,875,583 1,903,008 1,885,615 1,913,989 1,920,498 1,938,055 o» to Table 4.47.—Continued. D istrict Genesee 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1982-83 linden Frontier 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 T«.ancnn».+a+*nn .-.fJjlL¥ . nn Special Ed. Personnel Salary Special Ed. Supplies Allocation $502,911 520,113 536,332 551,992 549,534 574,163 577,001 593,039 588,331 604,938 610,639 623,552 $31,281 $72,192 $4,000 32,908 84,272 4,500 32,908 87,593 4,500 32,908 91,768 4,500 32,908 108,945 5,000 32,908 109,704 5,000 438,411 501,365 506.486 517.486 512,500 527,981 522,313 532,658 529,989 544,977 530,152 548,408 82,859 63,168 3,500 87,168 65,766 3,500 87,168 68,423 3,500 87,168 61,495 3,000 87,168 64,342 3,000 87,168 67,189 3,000 Total State Aid Allocation* $610,384 627,586 658,012 673,672 674,535 699,164 706,177 722,215 735,184 751,791 758,251 771,164 587,939 650,892 662.920 673.920 671,591 687,072 673,976 684,321 684,499 699,487 687,509 705,765 164 1981-82 Personnel and Operating Cost Allocation* Table 4 .4 7 .—Continued. D is tr ic t Personnel and Operating Cost A llocation* Transportation A llocation Special Ed. Personnel Salary Special Ed. Supplies A llocation Total State Aid Allocation* Troy 1977-78 $5,911,996 6,156,396 $261,232 $ 893,376 $49,500 $7,116,104 7,360,504 1978-79 6,381,003 6,492,833 274.817 939,225 52.500 7,647,545 7,759,375 1979-80 6,439,504 6,748,176 274.817 1,078,728 55.500 7,848,549 8,157,221 1980-81 6,813,725 6,981,414 274.817 1,128,266 58.000 8,274,808 8,442,497 1981-82 6,784,469 7,364,216 274.817 1,283,428 61.000 8,403,714 8,983,461 1982-83 7,045,699 7,181,976 274.817 1,345,492 64,000 8,730,008 8,866,285 1977-78 2,582,101 2,670,537 16,476 288,768 16,000 2,903,345 2,991,781 1978-79 2,708,147 2,761,008 17.333 291,248 15.500 3,032,228 3,085,089 1979-80 2,744,969 2,799,914 17.333 293,241 15.000 3,070,543 3,125,488 1980-81 2,800,238 2,349,776 17.333 297,227 14.500 3,129,298 3,179,836 1981-82 2,857,329 2,909,429 17.333 300,264 14.000 3,188,926 3,241,026 1982-83 2,910,526 2,951,807 17.333 302,351 13.500 3,243,710 3,284,991 Muskegon Heights *Top number indicates minimum amount; bottom indicates maximum amount. 166 M innesota School Finance Plan The b a sic s t a t e school aid form ula a ll o c a t e s funds to lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s on th e b a s is o f pup il u n i ts . M innesota u t i l i z e s a w eighted pup il form ula whereby a k in d e rg a rte n pupil eq u als 0 .5 pupil u n i t , an elem entary pupil eq u als 1 . 0 pupil u n it and a secondary pupil i s w eighted 1 .4 pupil u n i ts . In a d d itio n , th e M innesota plan encompasses a d e c lin e o f e n ro llm e n t and a f a s t growth u n it adjustm ent c a lle d supplem ental u n its . The i n a b i l i t y o f school d i s t r i c t s to c u t c o s ts as f a s t as e n ro llm e n t d e c lin e s encouraged th e M innesota l e g i s l a t u r e to d esig n a d e c lin in g e n ro llm e n t a d ju stm en t. D i s t r i c t s which ex p erien ce d e c lin e o f en ro llm e n t g e t . 6 f o r each s tu d e n t l o s t from th e p revio u s y e a r 's e n ro llm e n t. For fa st-g ro w in g d i s t r i c t s , i f th e growth i s in excess o f 2%, an a d d itio n a l .1 i s added fo r each new s tu d e n t f o r each p ercen tag e o f growth bu t n o t to exceed .5 f a s t growth t o t a l u n i ts . The l e g i s l a t u r e provided r e l i e f f o r f a s t growth b u t s e t a cap to c o n tro l th e flow o f monies to th e s e d i s t r i c t s . The tr a n s p o r ta tio n a id form ula e q u a liz e s ta x e s f o r school t r a n s p o r ta tio n . The lo c a l school d i s t r i c t le v ie s one m ill f o r t r a n s ­ p o r ta tio n and th e s t a t e pays th e rem ainder o f th e a u th o riz e d c o s ts f o r tr a n s p o r ta tio n o f s tu d e n ts . No s t a t e funding is provided f o r s tu d e n ts liv in g le s s than one m ile from th e sc h o o l. The fo u n d atio n a id b alan ces the s t a t e 's c o n trib u tio n a g a in s t lo c a l p ro p e rty ta x e f f o r t . The M innesota l e g i s l a t u r e s e ts a founda­ tio n allow ance per pup il from which lo c a l e f f o r t i s s u b tra c te d to 167 determ ine t o t a l s t a t e a id to a d i s t r i c t . The l e g i s l a t u r e a tte m p ts to e q u a liz e th e fo u n d atio n in th e s e t ti n g o f th e g u aran tee and th e s e t ti n g o f a re q u ire d lo c a l ta x e f f o r t . The l e g i s l a t u r e has been aware o f ra p id ly in c re a s in g p ro p e rty v alu es and has assumed t h a t th e s t a t e 's sh a re o f e d u ca tio n al c o sts should be 65 to 70%. T h e re fo re , th e 1975 l e g i s l a t u r e lowered th e re q u ire d lo c a l e f f o r t from 30 to 29 m i l l s , and th e 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e lowered i t to 28 m ills f o r th e 1978-79 school y e a r and t h e r e a f t e r . The purpose o f th e Foundation a id program i s to e q u a liz e th e d o l la r s a v a ila b le in r e l a ti o n to th e d iffe r e n c e s in p ro p e rty w ealth in v a rio u s d i s t r i c t s . T h e re fo re , th e i n te n t o f l e g i s l a t i o n i s to p ro v id e equal d o lla r s f o r equal tax e f f o r t s w ith in in d iv id u a l d is tric ts . D i s t r i c t s which were spending above th e s t a t e average were accommodated by a g ra n d fa th e r levy which allow ed th e s e d i s t r i c t s to c o n tin u e t h i s d is e q u a liz in g e x p e n d itu re . However, a l e g i s l a t i v e mandate o f a 2.5% re d u c tio n per y e a r to b rin g th e se d i s t r i c t s down to th e s t a t e average was included in th e l e g i s l a t i v e fin a n c e p la n . Due to i n f l a t i o n and o th e r in c re a s e s in c o s t s , th e re d u c tio n o f t h i s lev y has been d isc o n tin u e d . The lo c a l d i s t r i c t a ls o r e t a in s lo c a l c o n tro l over th e amounts o f lo c a l levy by p re s e n tin g th e d i s t r i c t an o p tio n o f going to th e c it i z e n s w ith a referendum f o r school purposes to v o te in c re a s e s in th e lo c a l lev y . The fo u n d atio n le v e ls used in t h i s stu d y r e p re s e n t th e base o f $960 in 1976-77 and an i n f l a t i o n f a c t o r o f 7%i s fig u re d in to 168 y ie ld a new fo u n d atio n l i m i t through th e l i f e o f th e p ro je c tio n s used in th e stu d y . A h i s t o r i c a l review o f th e foun d atio n a id l im i ts in Minne­ so ta in d ic a te s t h a t th e M innesota l e g i s l a t u r e has in cre ased th e foun­ d a tio n each y e a r sin c e 1970-71. 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 $404, 600, 750, 788, 825, 900, 960, 9 20 30 30 30 30 30 29 28 m m m m m m m m 11s 11s 11s 11s 11s 11s 1 1 s 19 T h e re fo re , th e re s e a rc h e r has reaso n ab le a ssu ra n ce t h a t th e i n f la te d foundation a id g u a ra n tee s used in t h i s re s e a rc h a re w ith in reason and v a lid f o r th e purposes o f t h i s re s e a rc h . Table 4 .4 8 .- - Minnesota school finance plan: Lakeshore d i s t r i c t weighted pupil un its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupi 1 Units 79-80 Pupil U nits 80-81 Pupil Uni ts 81-82 Pupil Units 82-83 Pupil U nits K 304 152 274 137 280 140 264 132 246 123 284 142 1 272 272 269 269 242 242 248 248 234 234 218 218 2 270 270 260 260 257 257 232 232 237 237 223 223 3 276 276 271 271 261 261 258 258 233 233 238 238 4 260 260 273 273 268 268 258 258 255 255 230 230 5 258 258 264 264 278 278 273 273 263 263 260 260 6 272 272 256 256 262 262 275 275 271 271 261 261 7 307 430 271 379 255 357 261 365 274 384 270 378 8 297 416 310 434 273 382 257 360 263 368 277 388 9 368 515 336 470 350 490 309 433 291 407 298 417 10 338 473 322 451 294 412 307 430 271 379 255 357 11 333 466 316 442 301 421 275 385 287 402 253 354 12 246 344 303 424 287 402 273 382 250 350 260 364 T o tals 3725 3801 4404 3608 4330 3375 3490 4172 4031 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil units. 3327 3906 3830 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 Table 4 .4 9 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Homer d i s t r i c t weighted pupil units. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 K 97 49 86 43 82 41 79 40 78 39 85 43 1 113 113 104 104 92 92 88 88 84 84 84 84 2 93 93 98 98 90 90 80 80 76 76 73 73 3 88 88 91 91 96 96 88 88 78 78 75 75 4 90 90 87 87 90 90 95 95 87 87 77 77 5 110 no 92 92 88 88 92 92 97 97 89 89 6 93 93 109 109 91 91 88 88 91 91 96 96 7 114 160 92 129 107 150 89 125 86 120 89 125 8 97 136 109 153 88 123 103 144 86 120 83 116 9 117 94 132 106 148 86 120 100 140 83 116 10 106 164 148 112 157 90 126 102 143 82 115 96 134 11 110 154 95 133 100 140 81 113 91 127 73 102 12 70 98 98 137 85 119 89 125 72 101 81 113 T otals 1298 Pupil Units 1267 1496 79-80 Pupil Uni ts 1205 1465 80-81 Pupil Units Pupil Units 1108 1160 1394 81-82 1341 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 82-83 Pupil Units 1084 1275 1243 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 - 1.0 Table 4 .5 0 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Central Lake d i s t r i c t weighted pupil u n its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 K 38 19 43 22 42 21 45 23 46 23 50 25 1 44 44 39 39 45 45 44 44 47 47 47 47 2 41 41 43 43 39 39 44 44 43 43 46 46 3 37 37 43 43 46 46 41 41 46 46 45 45 4 46 46 38 38 44 44 47 47 42 42 48 48 5 47 47 43 43 36 36 42 42 44 44 40 40 6 43 43 49 49 45 45 37 37 44 44 46 46 7 45 63 46 64 52 73 48 67 40 56 46 64 8 51 71 47 66 48 67 55 77 50 70 42 59 9 39 55 51 71 47 66 48 67 54 76 50 70 10 59 83 41 57 54 76 50 70 51 71 58 81 11 52 73 56 78 39 55 51 71 47 66 48 67 12 45 63 45 63 49 69 34 48 45 63 41 57 T otals 587 Pupil Units Pupil Uni ts 586 584 685 79-80 676 80-81 Pupil U nits Pupil Units 599 586 682 81-82 678 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil units. 82-83 Pupil Units 607 691 695 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 Table 4 .5 1 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Center Line d i s t r i c t weighted pupil u n its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Uni ts* 78-79 Pupil Units 79-80 Pupil Uni ts 80-81 Pupil U nits 81-82 Pupil Units 82-83 Pupil Units K 230 115 240 120 235 118 221 111 221 111 240 120 1 242 242 208 208 217 217 212 212 199 199 200 200 2 294 294 220 220 189 189 197 197 193 193 181 181 3 257 257 284 284 213 213 182 182 190 190 186 186 4 271 271 244 244 269 269 202 202 173 173 180 180 5 312 312 267 267 240 240 265 265 199 199 170 170 6 317 317 303 303 260 260 233 233 258 258 193 193 7 346 484 315 441 302 423 258 361 232 325 256 358 8 394 552 342 479 312 437 298 417 255 357 230 322 9 402 563 385 539 334 468 305 427 291 407 249 349 10 461 645 403 564 386 540 335 469 305 427 292 409 11 470 658 436 610 381 533 365 511 317 444 289 405 12 420 588 430 602 399 559 349 489 334 468 290 406 T otals 4416 4077 5298 3422 3737 4881 4466 2956 3167 4076 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 3751 3479 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 Table 4 .5 2 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Detroit d i s t r i c t weighted pupil u n its. Pupil Units* Pupil U nits Pupil U nits Pupil U nits Pupil Units 77-78 K 18,239 9,120 17,284 8,642 15,428 7,714 14,983 7,492 13,750 6,875 13,963 6,982 1 20,352 20,352 17,428 17,428 16,515 16,515 14,741 14,741 14,317 14,317 13,138 13,138 2 20,552 20,552 20,411 20,411 17,478 17,478 16,563 16,563 14,784 14,784 14,359 14,359 3 17,780 17,780 18,296 18,296 18,171 18,171 15,560 15,560 14,745 14,745 13,162 13,162 4 17,023 17,023 16,795 16,795 17,283 17,283 17,164 17,164 14,698 14,698 13,929 13,929 5 16,641 16,641 16,083 16,083 15,867 15,867 16,328 16,328 16,216 16,216 13,886 13,886 6 17,559 17,559 15,779 15,779 15,250 15,250 15,045 15,045 15,482 15,482 15,376 15,376 7 16,841 23,577 16,757 23,460 15,059 21,083 14,553 20,374 14,359 20,103 14,775 20,685 8 16,415 22,981 15,581 21,813 15,504 21,706 13,932 19,505 13,465 18,838 13,284 18,598 9 21,882 30,635 19,782 27,695 18,777 26,888 18,683 26,156 16,789 23,505 16,226 22,716 10 15,666 21,932 16,976 23,766 15,347 21,486 14,567 20,394 14,495 20,293 13,025 18,235 11 11,656 16,318 10,607 14,850 11,494 16,092 10,391 14,547 9,863 13,808 9,814 13,740 12 9,157 12,820 8,420 11,788 7,663 10,728 8,304 11,626 7,507 10,510 7,125 9,975 T o tals 78-79 210,199 219,763 247,290 79-80 190,814 199,836 236,806 80-81 Pupil U nits Grade 226,315 81-82 172,062 180,470 215,495 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 82-83 204,174 194,781 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 Table 4 .5 3 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Cherry Hill d i s t r i c t weighted pupil units. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil Units 79-80 Pupil Units 80-81 Pupil Units 81-82 K 242 121 225 113 209 105 202 101 189 1 211 211 222 222 207 207 192 192 2 250 250 195 195 205 205 191 3 241 241 243 243 189 189 4 200 200 233 233 235 5 226 226 194 194 6 260 260 215 7 228 319 8 287 9 Pupil Units 82-83 Pupil U nits 95 202 101 185 185 174 174 191 177 177 171 171 199 199 185 185 172 172 235 183 183 193 193 179 179 226 226 228 228 177 177 187 187 215 185 185 215 215 217 217 169 169 267 374 221 309 190 266 221 309 223 312 402 220 308 259 363 214 300 184 258 214 300 300 420 295 413 227 318 266 372 220 308 189 265 10 320 448 285 399 280 392 215 301 252 353 209 293 11 298 417 301 421 268 375 264 370 203 284 238 333 12 287 402 273 382 276 386 245 343 242 339 186 260 T o tals 3168 3350 3917 2804 2987 3730 3495 2513 2645 3261 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 3080 2916 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 Table 4 .5 4 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Port Austin d i s t r i c t weighted pupil units. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* K 25 13 27 14 28 14 26 13 26 13 29 15 1 15 15 14 14 15 15 16 16 14 14 15 15 2 19 19 16 16 15 15 16 16 17 17 15 15 3 19 19 23 23 20 20 18 18 19 19 20 20 4 13 13 21 21 26 26 22 22 20 20 22 22 5 15 15 11 11 18 18 21 21 18 18 17 17 6 14 14 15 15 11 11 18 18 21 21 18 18 7 36 50 21 29 22 31 16 22 26 36 32 45 8 35 49 37 52 22 31 23 32 16 22 27 38 9 37 52 34 48 36 50 21 29 22 31 16 22 10 26 36 36 50 33 46 35 49 20 28 22 31 11 39 55 25 35 34 48 31 43 33 46 19 27 12 29 41 39 55 25 35 34 48 31 43 33 46 T otals 322 78-79 Pupil Units Pupil Units 305 319 391 79-80 383 80-81 Pupi 1 U nits Pupil Uni ts 283 297 360 81-82 347 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 82-83 Pupil Units 285 328 331 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 Table 4 .5 5 .--Minnesota school finance plan: Elk Rapids d i s t r i c t weighted pupil u n its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 K 69 35 79 40 77 39 83 42 84 42 92 46 1 98 98 79 79 90 90 88 88 94 94 96 96 2 73 73 96 96 77 77 88 88 87 87 92 92 3 80 80 80 80 106 106 85 85 97 97 95 95 4 89 89 86 86 87 87 114 114 92 92 105 105 5 84 84 90 90 87 87 87 87 115 115 93 93 6 64 64 86 86 92 92 89 89 89 89 118 118 7 100 140 68 95 91 127 97 136 94 132 94 132 8 89 125 107 150 72 101 97 136 103 144 100 140 9 91 127 95 133 113 158 77 108 103 144 110 154 10 91 127 95 133 99 139 118 165 80 112 108 151 11 102 143 96 134 101 141 105 147 125 175 85 119 12 88 123 103 144 97 136 102 143 106 148 126 176 T otals Pupil U nits 1160 1118 1308 79-80 Pupil Units 1189 1346 80-81 Pupil Units Pupi 1 U nits 1428 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 82-83 Pupil U nits 1314 1269 1230 1380 81-82 1471 1517 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 Table 4 .5 6 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Arenac Eastern d i s t r i c t weighted pupil un its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil U nits 79-80 Pupil Uni ts 80-81 Pupil U nits 81-82 Pupil Uni ts 82-83 Pupil Units K 30 15 39 20 37 19 37 19 37 19 40 20 1 39 39 27 27 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 2 48 48 39 39 27 27 34 34 33 33 33 33 3 46 46 53 53 43 43 29 29 38 38 36 36 4 50 50 48 48 54 54 44 44 30 30 39 39 5 49 49 51 51 48 48 55 55 45 45 31 31 6 55 55 51 51 53 53 50 50 57 57 47 47 7 57 80 54 76 50 70 52 73 49 69 56 78 8 48 67 60 84 56 78 52 73 54 76 52 73 9 64 90 47 66 59 83 55 77 51 71 53 74 10 59 83 63 88 47 66 58 81 55 77 51 71 11 43 60 56 78 60 84 44 62 55 77 52 73 12 42 59 39 55 51 71 55 77 40 56 50 70 T otals 627 630 741 619 736 730 573 577 598 707 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 681 678 K = .5 pupil un its; 1-6 = 1 . 0 Table 4 .5 7 .--Minnesota school finance plan: Rudyard d i s t r i c t weighted pupil un its. Pupil U nits Pupil U nits Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 82-83 Pupi 1 Units K 62 31 63 32 63 32 61 31 65 33 67 34 1 64 64 57 57 58 58 58 58 56 56 60 60 2 56 56 63 63 57 57 57 57 58 58 55 55 3 57 57 52 52 59 59 53 53 53 53 54 54 4 59 59 54 54 49 49 56 56 50 50 50 50 5 46 46 58 58 53 53 43 48 54 54 48 48 6 66 66 44 44 55 55 50 50 45 45 51 51 7 73 102 61 85 40 56 50 70 46 64 42 59 8 69 97 68 95 56 78 37 52 47 66 43 50 9 93 130 63 88 62 87 52 73 34 48 43 60 10 69 97 79 111 54 76 53 74 44 62 29 41 11 77 108 58 81 67 94 45 63 45 63 37 52 12 64 90 61 85 46 64 53 74 36 50 35 49 T otals 855 719 781 1003 79-80 905 80-81 Pupil U nits 673 818 81-82 Pupil Uni ts 633 759 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 614 702 673 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1 . 0 Table 4 .5 8 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Genesee d i s t r i c t weighted pupil u n its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil Uni ts K 69 35 62 31 58 29 57 29 1 79 79 73 73 66 66 61 2 67 67 87 87 81 81 3 60 60 71 71 92 4 64 64 63 63 5 59 59 68 6 65 65 7 71 8 82-83 Pupil U nits 56 28 62 31 61 60 60 59 59 72 72 67 67 66 66 92 85 85 77 77 71 71 75 75 98 98 90 90 81 81 68 67 67 80 80 103 103 96 96 58 58 66 66 66 66 78 78 101 101 99 66 92 59 83 68 95 67 94 79 111 80 112 75 105 70 98 62 87 71 99 71 99 9 68 95 89 125 83 116 77 108 69 97 79 111 10 59 83 64 90 84 118 78 109 73 102 65 91 11 56 78 56 78 61 85 80 112 75 105 70 98 12 47 66 50 70 51 71 55 77 72 101 67 94 T otals 882 844 962 Pupil Units Pupil U nits Pupi 1 U nits 79-80 913 1011 80-81 958 939 1047 81-82 1079 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 967 1101 1109 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1 . 0 Table 4 .5 9 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Camden Frontier d i s t r i c t weighted pupil un its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 K 46 23 37 19 39 20 41 21 37 1 55 55 45 45 37 37 38 38 2 37 37 54 54 45 45 36 3 45 45 36 36 53 53 4 48 48 45 45 36 5 45 45 50 50 6 59 59 49 7 67 94 8 76 9 Pupil Uni ts Pupil Units Pupil Units Pupil Units 82-83 Pupil Units 19 42 21 41 41 36 36 36 38 38 40 40 44 44 36 36 37 37 36 53 53 44 44 36 36 47 47 38 38 56 56 46 46 49 55 55 51 51 41 41 61 61 62 87 51 71 57 80 54 76 44 62 106 67 94 62 87 52 73 58 81 54 76 65 91 72 101 64 90 59 83 49 69 55 77 10 72 101 60 84 67 94 59 83 55 77 45 63 11 55 77 67 94 57 80 63 88 56 78 51 71 12 68 95 49 69 60 84 51 71 56 78 50 70 T otals 738 693 876 79-80 799 81-82 621 642 673 827 80-81 759 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 597 734 696 K = .5 pupil un its; 1-6 = 1 . 0 Table 4 .6 0 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Troy d i s t r i c t weighted pupil un its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil Units 79-80 Pupil Uni ts 80-81 Pupil Units 81-82 Pupil U nits 82-83 Pupil U nits K 821 411 845 423 834 417 801 401 786 393 868 434 1 947 947 898 898 924 924 912 912 876 876 859 859 2 1,027 1,027 981 981 930 930 957 957 945 945 907 907 3 941 941 1,082 1,082 1,033 1,033 980 980 1,008 1,008 995 995 4 902 902 1,000 1,000 1,149 1,149 1,098 1,098 1,041 1,041 1,071 1,071 5 870 870 977 977 1,083 1,083 1,245 1,245 1,189 1,189 1,128 1,128 6 842 842 937 937 1,052 1,052 1,166 1,166 1,341 1,341 1,280 1,280 7 859 1,203 920 1,288 1,023 1,432 1,149 1,609 1,274 1,784 1,464 2,050 8 813 1,138 918 1,285 983 1,376 1,094 1,532 1,228 1,719 1,362 1,907 9 792 1,109 855 1,197 965 1,351 1,033 1,446 1,150 1,610 1,291 1,807 10 791 1,107 812 1,137 876 1,226 989 1,385 1,059 1,483 1,179 1,651 11 786 1,100 812 1,137 833 1,166 899 1,259 1,015 1,421 1,087 1,522 12 689 965 779 1,091 805 1,127 826 1,156 891 1,247 1,007 1,410 T otals 11,080 11,816 12,562 13,803 13,149 12,490 13,433 14,266 15,146 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1 . 4 pupil un its. 14,498 16,157 17,021 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 Table 4 .6 1 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Muskegon Heights d i s t r i c t weighted pupil un its. Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil U nits 79-80 Pupil U nits 80-81 Pupil Units 81-82 Pupil Units 82-83 Pupil U nits K 284 142 269 135 261 131 260 130 264 132 287 144 1 325 325 264 264 250 250 243 243 242 242 245 245 2 258 258 312 312 253 253 240 240 233 233 232 232 3 261 261 242 242 293 293 238 238 225 225 219 219 4 243 243 239 239 222 222 268 268 218 218 206 206 5 223 223 230 230 226 226 210 210 254 254 206 206 6 215 215 204 204 210 210 207 207 192 192 232 232 7 246 344 196 274 186 260 191 267 188 263 175 245 8 257 360 243 340 193 270 183 256 189 265 186 260 9 233 326 257 360 243 340 193 270 183 256 189 265 10 223 312 217 304 239 335 226 316 180 252 170 238 11 219 307 206 288 201 281 221 309 209 293 166 232 12 213 298 201 281 190 266 185 259 204 286 192 269 T otals 3080 3200 3614 2865 2967 3473 3337 2781 3213 *A11 pupil units contained in th is table are weighted numbers: pupil units; 7-12 = 1.4 pupil un its. 2705 3111 2993 K = .5 pupil units; 1-6 = 1.0 183 Table 4 . 6 2 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Lakeshore computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je c te d Weighted Pupil U nits Actual L ost 4404 4330 4172 4031 3906 3830 ! 96( (131) (237) (283) (295) (253) Adjustm ent T otal Weighted Pupil U nits Actual Pupil U nits 57 79 142 170 177 152 4461 4409 4314 4201 4083 3982 3801 3725 3608 3490 3375 3327 D eclining Enrollm ent Adjustm ent 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te G uarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (R equired Local E ffo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 4461) - (29 m ills x $91,359,079) = $4,581,447 - $2,649,413 = $2,932,034 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te G uarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (R equired Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 3801) - (29 m ills x $91,359,079) = $3,903,627 - $2,649,413 $1,254,214 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te G uarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f fo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 4409) - (28 m ills x $91,359,079) = $4,845,491 - $2,558,054 = $2,287,437 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te G uarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (R equired Local E f fo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 3725) - (28 m ills x $91,359,079) = $4,093,775 - $2,558,054 = $1,534,622 184 Table 4 . 6 2 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E ffo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 4314) - (28 m ills x $91,359,079) = $5,073,264 - $2,558,054 = $2,515,210 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E ffo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 3608) - (28 m ills x $91,359,079) « $4,243,008 - $2,558,054 = $1,683,778 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E ffo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 4204) - (28 m ills x $91,359,079) = $5,288,632 - $2,558,054 = $2,730,578 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E ffo rt x Local SEV) * S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 3490) - (28 m ills x $91,359,079) = $4,390,420 - $2,558,054 = $1,831,108 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E ffo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 4083) - (28 m ills x $91,359,079) = $5,495,718 - $2,558,054 = $2,937,664 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E ffo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 3375) - (28 m ills x $91,359,079) = $4,542,750 - $2,558,054 = $1,983,350 185 Table 4 . 6 2 . — Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 3982) - (28 m il l s x $91,359,079) = $5,734,080 - $2,558,054 = $3,176,026 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 3327) - (28 m il l s x $91,359,079) = $4,790,880 - $2,558,054 = $2,231,386 186 Table 4 . 6 3 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Homer computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je c te d Weighted Pupil Units 1496 1465 1394 1341 1275 1243 D eclinin g Enrollm ent Adjustment Actual L ost Adjustment ( 22) ( 44) ( 97) (111) (131) (112) 13 26 58 67 80 67 Total Weighted Pupil U nits 1509 1491 1452 1408 1355 1310 Actual Pupil U nits 1298 1267 1205 1160 1108 1084 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 1509) - (29 m il l s x $22,228,383) = $1,549,743 - $644,623 = $905,120 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 1298) - (29 m il l s x $22,228,383) = $1,333,046 - $644,623 = $687,396 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) * S t a t e Aid ($1,099 x 1491) - (28 m i l l s x $22,228,383) = $1,638,609 - $622,395 = $1,016,214 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a t e Aid ($1,099 x 1267) - (28 m il l s x $22,228,383) = $1,392,433 - $622,395 = $770,038 187 Table 4 . 6 3 . --Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 1452) - (28 m ills x $22,228,383) = $1,707,552 - $622,395 = $1,085,157 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 1205) - (28 m ills x $22,228,383) = $1,417,080 - $622,395 = $794,685 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 1408) - (28 m ills x $22,228,383) = $1,771,264 - $622,395 = $1,148,869 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 1160) - (28 m ills x $22,228,383) = $1,459,280 - $622,395 = $836,885 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 1355) - (28 m ills x $22,228,383) = $1,823,830 - $622,395 = $1,201,435 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 1108) - (28 m il l s x $22,228,383) = $1,491,368 - $622,395 = $867,865 188 Table 4 . 6 3 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 1310) - (28 m ills x $22,228,383) = $1,886,400 - $622,395 = $1,264,005 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 1084) - (28 m ills x $22,228,383) = $1,560,960 - $622,395 = $937,125 189 Table 4 . 6 4 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Central Lake computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je c te d Weighted Pupil U nits 685 676 682 678 691 695 Declining Enrollment Adjustment Actual Lost Adjustment ( 4) (13) 2 7 • • • Actual Pupil U nits 687 683 582 680 691 695 587 584 586 586 599 607 • 2 ( 4) • Total Weighted Pupil U nits • • • • • • ■ 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 687) - (29 m il l s x $27,335,884) = $705,549 - $792,741 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 587) - (29 m il l s x $27,335,884) = $602,849 - $792,741 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) - S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 683) - (28 m il l s x $27,335,884) = $750,617 - $765,405 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 584) - (28 m il l s x $27,335,884) $641,816 - $765,405 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S t a te Aid 190 Table 4 . 6 4 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 682) - (28 m ills x $27,335,884) = $802,032 - $765,405 = $35,451 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 586) - (28 m ills x $27,335,884) = $689,136 - $765,405 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 680) - (28 m ills x $27,335,884) = $855,440 - $765,405 = $90,035 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 586) - (28 m il l s x $27,335,884) = $737,188 - $765,405 D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 691) - (28 m ills x $27,335,884) = $930,086 - $765,405 = $164,681 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 599) - (28 m il l s x $27,335,884) = $806,254 - $765,405 = $40,849 191 Table 4 . 6 4 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 695) - (28 m il l s x $27,335,884) = $1,000,800 - $765,405 = $235,395 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 607) - (28 m il l s x $27,335,884) = $874,080 - $765,405 = $107,235 192 Table 4 . 6 5 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Center Line computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je c te d Weighted Pupil U nits 5298 4881 4466 4076 3751 3479 D eclinin g Enrollm ent Adjustment Actual Lost Adjustment (443) (683) (825) (885) (856) (786) 266 410 495 531 514 472 Total Weighted Pupil U nits Actual Pupil U nits 5564 5291 4961 4607 4265 3951 4416 4077 3737 3422 3167 2956 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 5564) - (29 m i l l s x $204,922,679) = $5,714,228 - $5,942,758 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S ta te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 4416) - (29 m il l s x $204,922,679) = $4,535,232 - $5,942,758 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 5291) - (28 m i l l s x $204,922,679) = $5,814,809 - $5,737,835 = $76,974 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 4077) - (28 m i l l s x $204,922,679) = $4,480,623 - $5,737,835 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 193 Table 4 . 6 5 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 4961) - (28 m i l l s x $204,922,679) = $5,834,136 - $5,737,835 = $96,301 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 3737) - (28 m il l s x $204,922,679) = $4,394,712 - $5,737,835 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula = No S t a te Aid 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 4607) - (28 m il l s x $204,922,679) = $5,795,606 - $5,737,835 $57,771 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 3422) - (28 m i l l s x $204,922,679) = $4,304,876 - $5,737,835 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 4265) - (28 m il l s x $204,922,679) = $5,740,690 - $5,737,835 = $2,855 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 3162) - (28 m i l l s x $204,922,679) = $4,256,052 - $5,737,825 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a t e Aid 194 Table 4 . 6 5 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 3951) - (28 m il l s x $204,922,679) = $5,689,440 - $5,737,835 * D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 2956) - (28 m ills x $204,922,679) = $4,256,640 - $5,737,835 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 195 Table 4 . 6 6 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Detroit computation. Year Pro jected Weighted Pupil Units 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 247,290 236,806 226,315 215,495 204,174 194,781 Declining Enrollment Adjustment Actual Lost Adjustment (11,403) (17,326) (20,887) (23,352) (25,332) (24,597) 6,842 10,396 12,532 14,011 15,199 14,758 Total Weighted Pupil U nits Actual Pupil Units 254,132 247,202 238,847 229,506 219,378 209,355 219,763 210,199 199,836 190,814 180,470 172,062 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 254,132) - (29 m ills x $5,043,799,622) $260,993,564 - $146,270,189 = $114,723,375 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 219,763) - (29 m ills x $5,043,799,622) = $225,696,601 - $146,270,189 = $79,425,385 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 247,202) - (28 m ills x $5,043,799,622) = $271,674,998 - $141,226,389= $130,448,609 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 210,199) - (28 m il l s x $5,043,799,622) = $231,008,701 - $141,226,389 = $89,781,213 196 Table 4 . 6 6 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 238,847) - (28 m il l s x $5,043,799,622) = $280,884,072 - $141,226,389 = $139,657,683 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 199,836) - (28 m il l s x $5,043,799,622) = $235,007,136 - $141,226,389 = $93,780,747 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 229,506) - (28 m i l l s x $5,043,799,622) = $288,718,548 - $141,226,389 = $147,492,159 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 190,814) - (28 m il l s x $5,043,799,622) = $240,044,012 - $141,226,389 = $98,817,623 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 219,378) - (28 m i l l s x $5,043,799,622) = $295,282,788 - $141,226,389 = $154,056,399 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 180,470) - (28 m il l s x $5,043,799,622) = $242,912,620 - $141,226,389 = $101,686,231 197 Table 4 . 6 6 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 209,255) - (28 m il l s x $5,043,799,622) = $301,471,200 - $141,226,389 = $160,244,811 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a t e Aid ($1,440 x 172,062) - (28 m il l s x $5,043,799,622) = $247,769,280 - $141,226,389 $106,541,451 198 Table 4 . 6 7 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Cherry Hill computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je cted Weighted Pupil Units 3918 3730 3495 3261 3080 2916 D eclining Enrollm ent Adjustment Actual Lost Adjustment (409) (433) (495) (531) (500) (464) 245 260 297 319 300 278 Total Weighted Pupil Units 4163 3990 3792 3580 3380 3194 Actual Pupil U nits 3350 3168 2987 2804 2645 2513 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 4163) - (29 m il l s x $64,635,621) = $4,275,401 - $1,874,433 = $2,400,968 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 3350) - (29 m il l s x $64,635,621) = $3,440,450 - $1,874,433 = $1,566,017 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) - S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 3990) - (28 m il l s x $64,635,621) = $4,385,010 - $1,809,797 = $2,575,213 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 3168) - (28 m i l l s x $64,635,621) = $3,481,632 - $1,809,797 = $1,671,835 199 Table 4 . 6 7 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 3792) - (28 m il l s x $64,635,621) = $4,459,392 - $1,809,797 = $2,649,595 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 2987) - (28 m i l l s x $64,635,621) = $3,512,712 - $1,809,797 = $1,702,915 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a t e Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 3580) - (28 m i l l s x $64,635,621) = $4,503,640 - $1,809,797 = $2,693,843 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 2804) - (28 m i l l s x $64,635,621) = $3,527,432 - $1,809,797 = $1,717,635 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a t e Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 3380) - (28 m il l s x $64,635,621) = $4,549,480 - $1,809,797 = $2,739,683 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a t e Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a t e Aid ($1,346 x 2645) - (28 m i l l s x $64,635,621) = $3,560,170 - $1,809,797 = $1,750,373 200 Table 4 . 6 7 . —Continued. 1932-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 3194) - (28 m il l s x $64,635,621) = $4,599,360 - $1,809,797 = $2,789,563 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 2513) - (28 m i l l s x $64,635,621) = $3,618,720 - $1,809,797 = $1,808,923 201 Table 4 . 6 8 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Port Austin computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je cted Weighted Pupil U nits 391 383 360 347 328 331 D eclining Enrollment Adjustment Actual Lost Adjustment (19) (19) (34) (34) (41) (22) 11 11 21 21 25 13 Total Weighted Pupil U nits Actual Pupil U nits 402 394 381 369 353 344 322 319 305 297 283 285 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 402) - (29 m il l s x $18,644,835) = $412,854 - $540,700 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 322) - (29 m il l s x $18,644,835) = $330,694 - $540,700 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a t e Aid 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 394) - (28 m il l s x $18,644,835) = $433,006 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 319) - (28 m il l s x $18,644,835) = $350,581 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 202 Table 4 . 6 8 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo rt x Local SEV) « S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 381) - (28 m ills x $18,044,835) = $448,056 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 305) - (28 m il l s x $18,644,835) = $358,680 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 369) - (28 m ills x $18,644,835) = $464,202 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E ffo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 297) - (28 m ills x $18,644,835) = $373,626 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E ffo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 353) - (28 m il l s x $18,644,835) = $475,138 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,345 x 283) - (28 m il l s x $18,644,835) = $380,918 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid 203 Table 4 . 6 8 . --Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 344) - (28 m ills x $18,644,835) = $495,360 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 285) - (28 m ills x $18,644,835) = $410,400 - $522,055 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid 204 Table 4 . 6 9 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Elk Rapids computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je cted Weighted Pupil Units 1308 1364 1380 1428 1471 1517 F a s t Growth Enrollm ent Adjustment Actual Gained Adjustment 44 56 16 48 43 46 13 22 • • 14 • • 14 Total Weighted Pupil U nits Actual Pupil U nits 1321 1386 1380 1442 1471 1531 1118 1160 1189 1230 1269 1314 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 1321) - (29 m i l l s x $68,712,339) = $1,356,667 - $1,992,658 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 1118) - (29 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,148,186 - $1,992,658 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 1386) - (29 m i l l s x $68,712,339) = $1,523,214 - $1,923,945 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a t e Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 1160) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,274,840 - $1,923,945 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 205 Table 4 . 6 9 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 1380) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,622,880 - $1,923,945 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 1189) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,398,264 - $1,923,945 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 1442) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,814,036 - $1,923,945 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a t e Aid ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 1230) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,547,340 - $1,923,945 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 1471) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,979,966 - $1,923,945 = $56,021 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 1269) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,708,074 - $1,923,945 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 206 Table 4 . 6 9 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 1531) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $2,204,640 - $1,923,945 = $280,695 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 1314) - (28 m il l s x $68,712,339) = $1,892,160 - $1,923,945 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Form ula: No S t a te Aid 207 Table 4 . 7 0 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Arenac Eastern computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je cted Weighted Pupil U nits 741 736 730 707 681 678 D eclining Enrollm ent Adjustment Actual Lost * • ( 5) ( 6) (23) (26) ( 3) Adjustment • • 3 4 14 16 2 Total Weighted Pupil U nits Actual Pupil U nits 741 739 734 721 697 680 630 627 619 598 577 573 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a t e Aid ($1,027 x 741) - (29 m il l s x $12,231,962) = $761,007 - $354,726 = $406,208 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 630) - (29 m i l l s x $12,231,962) = $647,010 - $354,726 = $292,284 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 739) - (28 m i l l s x $12,231,962) = $812,161 - $342,495 = $469,666 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 627) - (28 m il l s x $12,231,962) = $689,073 - $342,495 = $346,578 208 Table 4 . 7 0 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 734) - (28 m il l s x $12,231,962) = $863,184 - $342,495 = $520,689 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 619) - (28 m il l s x $12,231,962) = $727,944 - $342,495 = $385,449 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 721) - (28 m il l s x $12,231,962) = $907,018 - $342,495 = $564,523 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 598) - (28 m il l s x $12,231,962) = $752,284 - $342,495 = $409,789 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a t e Aid ($1,346 x 697) - (28 m i l l s x $12,231,962) = $938,162 - $342,495 = $596,364 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) * S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 597) - (28 m il l s x $12,231,962) = $776,642 - $342,495 = $434,147 209 Table 4 . 7 0 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 680) - (28 m il l s x $12,231,962) = $979,200 - $342,495 = $663,705 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 573) - (28 m il l s x $12,221,962) = $825,120 - $342,495 = $482,625 210 Table 4.71 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Rudyard computation. Year P ro je c te d Weighted Pupil U nits 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1003 905 818 759 702 673 D eclining Enrollment Adjustment Actual Lost Adjustment (1395) ( 98) (146) (147) (292) (204) 837 59 88 88 175 122 Total Weighted Pupil Units Actual Pupil U nits 1840 964 906 847 877 795 855 781 719 673 633 614 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 1840) - (29 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $1,889,680 - $418,301 = $1,471,379 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 855) - (29 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $878,085 - $418,301 = $459,784 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) - S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 964) - (28 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $1,059,436 - $403,877 = $655,559 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 781) - (28 m i l l s x $14,424,173) = $858,319 - $403,877 = $454,442 211 Table 4.71 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 906) - (28 m ills x $14,424,173) = $1,065,456 - $403,877 = $661,579 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 719) - (28 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $845,544 - $403,877 = $441,667 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a t e Aid ($1,258 x 847) - (28 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $1,065,526 - $403,877 = $661,649 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 673 - (28 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $846,634 - $403,877 = $442,757 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 877) - (28 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $1,180,442 - $403,877 = $776,565 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 633) - (28 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $852,018 - $403,877 = $448,141 212 Table 4.71 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 795) - (28 m il l s x $14,424,173) = $1,144,800 - $403,877 = $740,923 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 614) - (28 m i l l s x $14,424,173) = $884,160 - $403,877 = $480,283 213 Table 4 . 7 2 . —Minnesota school finance plan: Genesee computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je c te d Weighted Pupil U nits 962 1011 1047 1079 1101 1109 D eclining Enrollm ent Adjustment Actual Lost (13) 41* 36* 32 22 8 Adjustment 8 16 11 • • • • * • Total Weighted Pupil U nits 970 1027* 1058* 1079 1101 1109 Actual Pupil U nits 844 882 913 939 958 967 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 970) - (29 m il l s x $13,162,449) = $996,190 - $381,711 = $614,479 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,027 x 844) - (29 m i l l s x $13,162,449) = $866,788 - $381,711 = $485,077 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 1027) - (28 m i l l s x $13,162,449) = $1,128,673 - $368,549 = $760,124 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a t e Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a t e Aid ($1,099 x 882) - (28 m i l l s x $13,162,449) = $969,318 - $368,549 = $600,769 *These f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t f a s t growth u n ity and thus a r e in c re a s e s in e n ro llm e n t f o r th e s e y e a r s . Adjustment r e f l e c t s u n i t s in e x c e s s o f 2%. 214 Table 4 . 7 2 . —Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 1058) - (28 m i l l s x $13,162,449) = $1,244,208 - $368,549 = $875,659 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 913) - (28 m il l s x $13,162,449) = $1,073,688 - $368,549 = $705,139 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 1079) - (28 m i l l s x $13,162,449) = $1,357,382 - $368,549 = $988,833 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a t e Aid ($1,258 x 939) - (28 m i l l s x $13,162,449) = $1,181,262 - $368,549 = $812,713 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 1101) - (28 m i l l s x $13,162,449) = $1,481,946 - $368,549 = $1,113,397 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 958) - (28 m i l l s x $13,162,449) = $1,289,468 - $368,549 = $920,919 215 Table 4 .7 2 .—Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 1109) - (28 m ills x $13,162,449) = $1,596,960 - $368,549 = $1,228,411 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 967) - (28 m ills x $13,162,449) = $1,392,480 - $368,549 = $1,023,931 216 Table 4 .7 3 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Camden Frontier computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P rojected Weighted Pupil Units Declining Enrollment Adjustment Actual Lost 876 827 799 759 734 696 (60) (64) (78) (72) (153) ! 181 Adjustment 11 36 38 47 43 92 Total Weighted Pupil Units Actual Pupi 1 U nits 887 863 837 806 777 788 738 693 673 642 621 597 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 887) - (29 m ills x $18,579,671) = $910,949 - $538,810 = $372,139 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 738) - (29 m ills x $18,579,671) = $757,926 - $538,810 = $219,116 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 863) - (28 m ills x $18,579,671) = $948,437 - $520,231 = $428,206 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 693) - (28 m ills x $18,579,671) = $761,607 - $520,231 = $241,376 217 Table 4 . 7 3 .—Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 837) - (28 m il l s x $18,579,671) = $984,312 - $520,231 = $464,081 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 673) - (28 m il l s x $18,579,671) = $791,448 - $520,231 = $271,217 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 806) - (28 m i l l s x $18,579,671) * $1,013,948 - $520,231 = $493,717 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 642) - (28 m il l s x $18,579,671) * $807,636 - $520,231 = $287,405 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 777) - (28 m i l l s x $18,579,671) = $1,045,842 - $520,231 = $525,611 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 621) - (28 m il l s x $18,579,671) = $835,866 - $520,231 = $315,635 218 Table 4 .7 3 .—Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 788) - (28 m ills x $18,579,671) = $1,134,720 - $520,231 = $614,489 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 597) - (28 m il l s x $18,579,671) = $859,680 - $520,231 = $339,449 219 Table 4 .7 4 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Troy computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Pro jected Weighted Pupil Units 12,562 13,433 14,266 15,146 16,157 17,021 Actual Gained Adjustment Total Weighted Pupil Units 829 871 833 880 415 436 417 440 506 432 12,977 13,869 14,683 15,586 16,663 17,453 F ast Growth Enrollment Adjustment 1011 864 Actual Pupi 1 U nits 11,080 11,816 12,490 13,149 13,803 14,498 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 12,977) - (29 m ills x $454,523,683) $13,327,379 - $13,181,187 = $146,192 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: = (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 11,080) - (29 m ills x $454,523,683) $11,379,160 - $13,181,186 = D i s t r i c t Out-of-Formula: No S ta te Aid « 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 13,869) - (28 m ills x $454,523,683) $15,242,031 - $12,726,663 = $2,515,368 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: = (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,099 x 11,816) - (28 m ills x $454,523,683) $12,985,784 - $12,726,663 = $259,121 = 220 Table 4 . 7 4 .—Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) * S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 14,683) - (28 m ills x $454,523,683) = $17,267,208 - $12,726,663 = $4,540,545 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 12,490) - (28 m il l s x $454,523,683) $14,688,240 - $12,726,663 = $1,961,577 = 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 15,586) - (28 m il l s x $454,523,683) $19,607,188 - $12,726,663 = $6,880,525 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: = ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,258 x 13,149) - (28 m ills x $454,523,683) $16,541,442 - $12,726,663 = $3,814,779 = 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,346 x 16,663) - (28 m ills x $454,523,683) $22,428,398 - $12,726,663 = $9,701,735 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: = ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 13,803) - (28 m ills x $454,523,683) $18,578,838 - $12,726,663 = $5,852,175 = 221 Table 4 . 7 4 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,440 x 17,453) - (28 m il l s x $454,523,683) $25,132,320 - $12,726,663 = $12,405,657 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: = ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 14,498) - (28 m il l s x $454,523,683) $20,877,120 - $12,726,663 = $8,150,457 = 222 Table 4 . 7 5 .—Minnesota school finance plan: Muskegon Heights computation. Year 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P ro je c te d Wei ghted Pupil Units 3614 3473 3337 3213 3111 2993 D eclining Enrollm ent Adjustment Actual Lost Adjustment ( 19) (152) (227) (260) (258) (273) 91 136 156 155 164 11 Total Weighted Pupil U nits Actual Pupi 1 U nits 3625 3564 3473 3369 3266 3157 3200 3080 2967 2865 2781 2705 1977-78 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 3625) - (29 m il l s x $47,329,952) = $3,722,875 - $1,372,569 = $2,350,306 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,027 x 3220) - (29 m il l s x $47,329,952) = $3,286,400 - $1,372,569 = $1,913,831 1978-79 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 3564) - (28 m il l s x $47,329,952) = $3,916,836 - $1,325,239 = $2,591,597 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S t a te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,099 x 3080) - (28 m il l s x $47,329,452) = $3,384,920 - $1,325,239 = $2,059,681 223 Table 4 .7 5 .—Continued. 1979-80 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) - S ta te Aid ($1,176 x 3473) - (28 m il l s x $47,329,952) = $4,084,248 - $1,325,239 = $2,759,009 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,176 x 2967) - (28 m il l s x $47,329,952) = $3,489,192 - $1,325,239 = $2,163,953 1980-81 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 3369) - (28 m i l l s x $47,329,952) = $4,238,202 - $1,325,239 = $2,912,963 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,258 x 2865) - (28 m il l s x $47,329,952) = $3,604,170 - $1,325,239 = $2,278,931 1981-82 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 3266) - (28 m il l s x $47,329,952) = $4,396,036 - $1,325,239 = $3,070,797 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: ( S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U n its) (Required Local E f f o r t x Local SEV) = S t a te Aid ($1,346 x 2781) - (28 m il l s x $47,329,952) = $3,743,226 - $1,325,239 = $2,417,987 224 Table 4 .7 5 . —Continued. 1982-83 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Weighted Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo r t x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 3157) - (28 m ills x $47,329,952) = $4,546,080 - $1,325,239 = $3,220,841 ACTUAL PUPIL UNITS: (S ta te Guarantee x Actual Pupil U nits) (Required Local E f fo rt x Local SEV) = S ta te Aid ($1,440 x 2705) - (28 m ills x $47,329,952) = $3,895,200 - $1,325,239 = $2,569,961 225 Faxon's Senate B ill 1425: Proposed S ta te Aid Formula f o r Michigan In t h i s p ro p o sa l, Senator Faxon in tro d u c es the pupil-w eighted concept o f school fin an ce which i s s im ila r to Minnesota, New Mexico, and F l o r i d a 's school fin an ce p la n s . Faxon’s proposal a ttem pts to acknowledge the educational concept t h a t the f i r s t th r e e grades re p ­ r e s e n t a form ative period of s k i l l development during a c h i l d 's e a r ly years. In a d d it i o n , the proposal recognizes t h a t s p e c ia liz e d pro­ grams on th e secondary level re q u ir e a d d itio n a l exp en d itu res by school d istric ts. The a c tu a l weighting formula i s re p re se n te d by t h i s c h a r t: Pupil Weighting Factor Grade Level K 1-3 4-9 10-12 Adult Ed. Special Ed. 0.55 1.10 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 The proposal includes a f a c t o r re p re se n tin g s e n s i t i v i t y to the p re s su re s generated in a lo c a l d i s t r i c t due to enrollm ent changes. The plan provides a th r e e - y e a r adjustm ent phase-down (Appendix G) f o r d i s t r i c t s experiencing d e c lin in g e n ro llm e n ts. i s a 60-40-20% o f d e c lin e . The phase-out In a d d it i o n , th e proposal in c o rp o ra te s a sudden growth o f enrollm ent adjustm ent (Appendix H). f a c t o r compensates f o r growth over 2%. The fast-g ro w th A dditional weighted pupil u n i ts equal to growth over the 2 % base times 0 . 1 0 u n its p er member a re a llo c a te d to d i s t r i c t s ex periencing sudden growth. Senate B ill 1425 a ls o provides an inducement f o r d i s t r i c t s to decrease th e p u p il- te a c h e r r a t i o in th e elem entary g rad e s. It 226 c re a te s bonus weighted pupil u n i ts f o r annual improvements in t h i s p u p il- te a c h e r r a t i o . This p a r t i c u l a r s t a t i s t i c i s not rep o rte d by th e s t a t e in a u d ited and c o rre c te d d a ta . In div idu al d i s t r i c t s in Michigan a re bound by in d iv id u a lly n e g o tia te d c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agreements and th ese d a ta were not a v a ila b le to th e i n v e s t i g a t o r . To compute th e gross allowance f o r s t a t e a i d , th e t o t a l num­ ber o f weighted pupil u n i t s m u ltip lie d by th e foundation a l l o c a t i o n , which in 1978-79 is $1470, y i e l d s b a sic gross allow ance. The local share o f funding is determined by m u ltip ly in g the req u ire d local e f f o r t o f 29 m il l s by the d i s t r i c t ' s S t a te Equalized V aluation (SEV). This f ig u r e is then deducted from the b a sic gross allow ance. The proposal f u r t h e r a d ju s ts the b a sic gro ss allowance by in c o rp o ra tin g an E xperience-T raining F actor (ETF), which i s designed to encourage lo cal d i s t r i c t s to employ te a c h e rs w ith high t r a i n i n g and exp erien ce. This ETF i s m u ltip lie d by th e b a sic gross allowance, which w ill in c re a se the s t a t e share o f the t o t a l f i n a n c ia l package (Appendix I ) . Senate B ill 1425 r e t a i n s c a te g o r ic a l a id f o r ed u ca tio n . Aid f o r d i s t r i c t s impacted w ith high tax r a t e s r e s u l t i n g in municipal overburden i s in cre ased by $3 m illio n . Aid f o r compensatory programs i s increased by $2.5 m illio n and f u r t h e r a d d itio n s o f $300,000 f o r the e d u c a tio n a lly g i f t e d . An inducement o f $4.5 m illio n i s included f o r a comprehensive a r t s program. A dditional funding o f sp e c ia l education and vocational education programs i s in cre ased by $30 m illio n . Table 4 .7 6 .--Faxon weighted pupil units school aid plan: Lakeshore d i s t r i c t . Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil Units 79-80 Pupil Units 80-81 Pupil Units 81-82 Pupi 1 Units 82-83 Pupil Units K 304 167 274 151 280 154 264 145 246 135 284 156 1 272 299 269 296 242 266 248 273 234 257 218 240 2 270 297 260 286 257 283 232 255 237 261 223 245 3 276 304 271 298 261 287 258 284 233 256 238 262 4 260 260 273 273 268 268 258 258 255 255 230 230 5 258 258 264 264 278 278 273 273 263 263 260 260 6 272 272 256 256 262 262 275 275 271 271 261 261 7 307 307 271 271 255 255 261 261 274 274 270 270 8 297 297 310 310 273 273 257 257 263 263 277 277 9 368 368 336 336 350 350 309 309 291 291 298 298 10 338 355 322 338 294 309 307 322 271 285 255 268 11 333 350 316 332 301 316 275 289 287 301 253 266 12 246 258 303 318 287 301 273 287 250 263 260 273 Totals 3725 3801 3792 3608 3629 3490 3602 3327 3375 3488 *A11 pupil units in th is table are weighted numbers as follows: 1.10 pupil u n its, 4-9 = 1.00 pupil u n its, 10-12 = 1.05 pupil u n its. 3275 3306 K = .55 pupil u n its, 1-3 = 228 Table 4 .7 6 a .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Lakeshore d i s t r i c t , 1977-7B. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n Table: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 year 1 o r more, ' 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, ' 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree Number o f Personnel In C a teg o ries: M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.60 213 Total P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fessio n al Level o f Education fe a rs o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree M1 n, BaxT Less than 1 year 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 1 1 11 o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Oegree Min. Max. Mm. 33 17 13 7 7 25 5 28 17 13 7 32 5 17 17 14 52 Max. 1 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H1n. HaiT Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree nfn mr. 1 1 5 17 17 65 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (Table A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education y ears o f Approved E xperience . Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r m are, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Max. B.A. Oegree Min. Max. 2 6 .4 0 4.00 14.45 23.80 12.35 16.15 7.00 13.00 7.35 7.35 27.50 35.20 M.A. Oegree Min. Max. .90 4.75 17.85 19.55 17.50 70.20 .90 .95 5.25 19.55 21.25 87.75 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree Min.' Max. 1.30 4.80 1.40 4 .8 0 Sum * 231.90 mln. 241.35 max. T otal Weighted Teachers t T otal Teachers • E xperience-T raining F actor (ETF) 231.9 * 213 * 1.08873 liln . 241.35 ♦ 213 - 1.13310 max. 229 Table 4 .7 6 b .—Faxon ex p e rie n c e * tra in in g c a lc u la tio n A. ta b le : Lakeshore d i s t r i c t . 1978-79. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lcu latio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, - 3 3 o r more, ■; 5 5 o r more, *■' 7 7 o r more, ■ 9 9 or more. 11 11 o r more 8 . B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel in C a te g o rie s: M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.5. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree h in . max. M.A. Degree .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.20 213 T otal 1P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Hm. Max. Less than 1 year 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Degree Min. Max 5 28 17 13 7 32 5 28 17 13 7 32 m n. Max. 1 1 1 1 5 17 17 65 5 17 17 65 1 3 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (Table A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more Max. B.A. Degree Min. Max. M.A. Degree M in . 4 .0 0 23.80 16.15 13.00 7.35 35.20 Max. .90 .95 5.25 19.55 21.25 87.75 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M in. Max. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Degree M in . 1.40 4 .8 0 Sum * 241.35 • T o tal Weighted Teachers + T otal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain ing F a c to r (ETF) 241.35 * 213 - 1.13310 m in./m ax. Max. 230 Table 4 .7 6 c .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n A. ta b le : Lakeshore d i s t r i c t , 1979-80. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n Table: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education fe a rs o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y ear I o r more, ' 3 3 o r more, 5 5 o r more. 7 7 o r more, • 9 9 o r more. 11 I I o r more B. B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f PersonnelI 1n C ateg o ries : M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. "HTn. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree in n . nax. 1.10 1.20 213 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree h in . Max. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. H.A. Degree B.A. Degree Hin. Hax. 33 17 13 7 32 5 28 17 13 39 Hin. Max. 1 1 1 5 17 17 65 1 5 17 82 1 3 4 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F ac to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, * 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, «• 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. M.A. Degree B.A. Degree Min. Nax. 28.05 16.15 13.00 7.35 35.20 4.25 26.60 17.00 13.65 42.90 Min. Max. .90 .90 .95 5.25 1.05 19.55 5.75 21.25 21.25 87.75 110.70 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. 1.40 4 .8 0 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree Min. Max. 1.40 4.80 Sum ■ 241.5 mln. 250.5 m x . • T otal Weighted Teachers t T otal Teachers * E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 241.5 ♦ 213 ■ 1.13427 m1n. 2 5 0 .5 * 213 - 1.17606 MX. 231 Table 4.7 6 d .--F ax o n e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n A. ta b le : Lakeshore d i s t r i c t , 1980-81. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Tears of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 year 1 o r more, •' 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r n o re , ' 7 7 o r more, ■■ 9 9 o r more, ■ 11 11 or more B. B.A. Degree Number of Personnel in C ateg o rie s: .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 213 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.5. M.A. Degree Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Max. Min. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree h in . nax. 1.10 1.20 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Max. Less than 1 year 1 o r m ore, ' 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, ■ 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, ‘ 11 1 1 o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Degree Min. Max 5 28 17 13 39 5 28 17 13 39 Min. Max. 1 1 1 1 5 17 82 5 17 82 4 4 Personnel Weighted by E x perience-T raining F acto r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, ' 3 3 o r m ore, ^ 5 5 o r more, '' 7 7 o r more, *■ 9 9 o r more, r 11 11 o r more Max. B.A. Degree Min. Max. 4.25 26.60 17.00 13.65 42.90 M.A. Degree M1n. Max. .95 1.05 5.75 21.25 110.70 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. 6 .4 Sum * 250.5 Total Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers » E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 250.5 * 213 - 1.17606 n1n./m ax. 232 Table 4.7 6 e.--F ax o n e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n A. ta b le : Lakeshore d i s t r i c t , 1981-82. E xperience-T raining C alcu latio n T able: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years of. Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 year 1 or more. • 3 3 o r more, 5 7 5 o r more, 7 o r more. ■ 9 11 9 or more. 1 1 o r more B. B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel in C ateg o ries: M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r E d.5. H.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. or Ed.O. Degree H in . Max. 1.10 1.20 _213 T otal 1P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Max. Less than 1 year I o r more, * 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, •• 7 7 o r more, ■' 9 9 o r more, •" U I I o r more C. B.A. Oegree M.A. Oegree Min. Max 33 17 13 39 5 28 17 52 Min. Max. 1 1 1 5 17 82 1 5 99 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (Table A x Table 4 8 4 ); P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 y ear I or more, * 3 3 o r more, •" 5 5 o r more, •" 7 7 o r more, * 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Nax. B.A. Degree Min. Max. 31.35 4.75 17.00 28.00 13.65 17.85 42.90 57.20 M.A. Degree Min. Max. .95 1.05 1.05 5.75 1.15 21.25 6.25 110.70 133.65 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. 6 .4 Ph.D. or Ed.O. Oegree Min. Max. 6 .4 Sum * 251.0 256.3 T otal Weighted Teachers ; Total Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F actor (ETF) 251.0 * 213 - 1.17840 mln. 256.3 * 213 ■ 1.20329 aax. mln. max. 233 Table 4 .7 6 f .— Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Lakeshore d i s t r i c t , 1982-83. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less than 1 1 o r more. 3 o r more, 5 o r more, 7 o r more. 9 o r more. 11 o r more 8 . Less Than B.A. Degree /e a r 3 5 7 9 B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 11 Number o f Personnel; in C a te g o rie s: M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.5 . Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Max. TH n. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree Min. nax. M.A. Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.20 • _213i T o tal 1P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Mln. Max. Less than 1 year 1 o r more, ' 3 3 or more, • 5 5 o r more, • 7 7 o r more, • 9 9 o r more, - 11 1 1 o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Degree Mln. Max 5 2B 17 52 5 28 17 52 Mln. Max. 1 1 1 1 5 99 5 99 4 4 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x T able B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Mln. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, ' 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, • 7 7 o r more, 9 9 o r more, 11 11 o r more Max. B.A. Degree Min. Max. 4.75 28.00 17.65 57.20 M.A. Oegree M(n. Max. 1.05 1.15 6.25 133.65 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Max. Ph.D. or Ed.D. Oegree M1n. Max. 6 .4 Sum * Total Weighted T eachers i T o tal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F acto r (ETF) 256.3 * 213 * 1.20329 m ln./m ax. 256.3 234 Table 4 . 7 7 . —Computation o f Faxon formula: Lakeshore d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1364 x 3792 = $5,172,288 .029 x SEV - -2,649,413 SA = $2,522,875 Minimum Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $5,172,288 x 1.08873 5,631,225 -2,649 ,413 $2,981,812 Maximum (ETF) (RLE) $5,172,188 x 1.13310 5,860,720 -2,649,413 $3,211,307 1978-79 $1470 x 3727 = $5,478,690 RLE -2,649,413 SA = $2,829,277 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $5,478,690 x 1.13310 6,207,904 -2,649,413 $3,558,491 (ETF) (RLE) $5,478,690 x 1.13310 6,207,904 -2,649,413 $3,558,491 1979-80 $1573 x 3683 = $5,793,359 -2 ,64 9,4 13 RLE SA = $3,143,946 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $5,793,359 x 1.13427 6,571,233 -2,6 4 9 ,4 1 3 $3,921,820 (ETF) (RLE) $5,793,359 x 1.17606 6,813,538 -2,649,413 $4,163,925 235 Table 4 .7 7 .—Continued. 1980-81 $1683 x 3600 = $6,058,800 RLE -2,649,413 SA = $3,409,387 $6,058,800 x 1.17606 Adj. BGA = 7,125,512 -2,649,413 Adj. SA = $4,476,099 (ETF) (RLE) 1981-82 $1801 x 3275 = $5,898,275 RLE -2,649,413 SA = $3,248,862 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $5,898,275 x 1.17840 6,950,527 -2,649,413 $4,301,114 (ETF) (RLE) 1982-83 $1927 x 3306 = $6,370,662 RLE -2,649,413 SA = $3,721,249 $6,370,662 x 1.20329 Adj. BGA = 7,665,754 -2,649,413 Adj. SA = $5,016,341 Key: ETF RLE SA BGA SEV = = = = = (ETF) (RLE) E xperience-T raining Factor Required Local E f f o r t S ta te Aid Basic Gross Allowance S ta te Equalized Valuation $5,898,275 x 1.20329 7,097,335 -2,649,413 $4,447,922 Table 4 .7 8 .—Faxon weighted pupil units school aid plan: Homer d i s t r i c t . Pupil Units 43 85 47 84 92 84 92 88 76 84 73 80 88 97 78 86 75 79 90 95 95 87 87 77 77 88 88 92 92 97 97 89 89 109 91 91 88 88 91 91 96 96 92 92 107 107 89 89 86 86 89 89 97 109 109 88 88 103 103 86 86 83 83 117 117 94 94 106 106 86 86 100 100 83 83 10 106 111 112 118 90 95 102 107 82 86 96 101 11 110 116 95 100 100 105 81 85 91 96 73 77 12 70 74 98 103 85 89 89 93 72 76 81 85 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 K 97 53 86 47 82 45 79 43 78 1 113 124 104 114 92 101 88 97 2 93 102 98 108 90 99 80 3 88 97 91 100 96 106 4 90 90 87 87 90 5 110 110 92 92 6 93 93 109 7 114 114 8 97 9 Totals 1298 1267 1298 79-80 Pupil Units 1205 1273 80-81 1160 1130 81-82 Pupil Uni ts 1084 1108 1163 *A11 pupil units in th is table are weighted numbers as follows: 1.10 pupil u n its, 4-9 = 1.00 pupil u n its, 10-12 = 1.05 pupil un its. 1110 1078 K = .55 pupil u n its, 1-3 = 236 82-83 Pupil Units Pupil Units Grade 237 Table 4 .7 8 a .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Homer d i s t r i c t , 1977-78. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n Table: P ro fessio n al Level of Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree le s s tnan 1 year 1 o r iiore. 3 3 o r i.ore, 5 o r ro re . 7 9 7 o r more. 9 o r more, 11 11 o r more 6. B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel in C a teg o ries: .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 70 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. nax. 1.10 1.20 . Total P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Max. Less than 1 year 1 o r more, - 3 3 o r more. 5 5 o r more, • 7 7 o r more, • 9 9 o r more. ■ 11 11 o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Degree Mln. Max. 14 4 7 2 12 Min. Max. 6 4 7 4 1 5 16 6 21 2 10 4 1 12 1 1 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n al Level iDf Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than S.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 year I o r more, ■ 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, • 7 7 o r more, • 9 9 o r more, ■ 11 I I o r more Max. B.A. Degree M1n. M.A. Degree Max. Mln. Max. 1.60 3.40 10.20 6.65 3.80 6.00 7.00 5.25 6.30 17.60 23.10 1.05 4.60 2.50 13.50 1.15 5.00 16.20 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M1n. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. 11.20 1.95 Sum - Total Weighted Teachers : T otal Teachers « E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 73.7 * 70 » 1.05286 min. 76.3 t 70 ■ 1.09 max. 73.7 76.3 1.95 mln* max. 238 Table 4 .7 8 b .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Homer d i s t r i c t , 1978-79. A. E xperience-T raining C a lcu latio n T able: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y ear 1 or more. - 3 3 or more, 5 5 o r more. < 7 7 o r more, *■ 9 9 or more, •" 11 11 or more B. Number o f Personnel B.A. Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 1n C ateg o ries: .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 70 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree Ph.O. or Ed.D. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mi n . n ax . Ph.O. or Ed.D. Oegree n in . nax. 1.10 1.20 • T otal P ro fessio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Mln. Max. Less than 1 year I o r more, ' 3 3 o r more, * 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I or more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Oegree N1n. Max. 2 12 2 12 4 7 4 7 6 21 6 21 Mm. Max. 1 1 4 4 12 12 1 1 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F ac to r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 year 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, « 5 5 o r more, ' 7 7 o r more, ' 9 9 o r more, • 11 11 o r more Max. B.A. Oegree Mln. )lax. M.A. Oegree M1n. Max. M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree Min. Max. 1.60 10.20 3.80 7.00 6.30 23.10 1.15 5.00 16.20 1.95 Sum * 76.3 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining Factor (ETF) 76.3 + 70 ■ 1.09 mln./max. 239 Table 4 .7 8 c .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Homer d i s t r i c t . 1979-80. A. E x p erie n ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, ' 3 3 o r more. •' 5 5 o r more, <• 7 7 o r more, * 9 9 o r more, ' 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel In C a te g o rie s: M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. K.A. Oegree .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.60 70 Total P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel * P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Mm. nax. Less than 1 y e a r I or more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, * 11 I I o r more C. • K.A. Degree B.A. Degree Mln. Hax. 14 4 7 2 12 4 7 27 6 21 Mm. nax. K.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. U rn . n ax . Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Degree Mm. nax. 1 4 1 16 12 1 1 Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a cto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Kin. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, « 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, *"■ 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, ■ 11 I I o r more Max. K.A. Oegree B.A. Oegree Kin. 11.9 3 .8 7 .0 6 .3 23.1 Nax. K in. Max. 1.15 5.00 16.20 1.25 21.60 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mi n . Max. Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. 1.70 10.20 4 .0 0 7.35 29.70 1.95 1.95 Sum * 7 6 .4 m1o. 77.75 max. T otal Weighted T eachers t T otal T eachers ■ E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F acto r (ETF) 76.4 e 70 - 1.09143 77.75 ♦ 70 - 1.11071 240 Table 4 .7 8 d .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Homer d i s t r i c t , 1980-81. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n Table: P ro fe ssio n a l Level of Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 year 1 o r more, ■' 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, *■ 7 7 o r more, ■■ 9 9 o r more, 11 11 or more S. B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number of Personnel in C ateg o ries: .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 70 H.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree Ph.O. or Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in. nax. Ph.D. or Ed.O. Oegree in n . nax. 1.10 1.20 • T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Hin. Max. Less than 1 year 1 or more, <■ 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, c 7 7 or more, •" 9 9 or more, ' 11 11 o r more C. 8 . A. Degree H.A. Degree M1n. nax 2 12 2 12 4 7 27 4 7 27 Hin. Max. 1 1 16 16 1 1 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree M1n. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, ' 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, ' 11 1 1 o r more Max. B.A. Degree H in. Max. M.A. Degree Mln. Max. M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M1n. Max. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree Mln. Max. 1 .7 0 10.20 4 .0 0 7.35 28.70 1.25 1.95 21.60 Sum * 77.75 Total Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 77.75 t 70 - 1.11071 m ln./aiax. 241 T able 4 .7 8 e .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Homer d i s t r i c t , 1981-82. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y ear I or more, 3 3 o r more, •' 5 5 or more, < 7 7 o r more, <■ 9 9 o r more, ' 11 I I o r more 6 . B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel in C ateg o rie s: M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.60 • 70 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Mm. Max. Less than 1 year I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree H in. nax. ru n . 14 4 7 27 2 12 4 34 16 nax. Mm. Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree m n. Max. nax. 1 17 1 1 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a cto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Mln. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, ' 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. M.A. Degree B.A. Degree M1n. Max. 13.30 1.9 4 .0 0 1 2 . 0 7.35 9.2 29.70 37.4 Mln. Max. 1.25 21.60 22.95 M.A. Degree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M1n. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. 1.95 Sum • 79.15 8 0 .4 Total Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers » E x perience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 79.15 ♦ 70 ■ 1.13071 8 0 .4 f 70 - 1.14857 1.95 mln. max. 242 Table 4 .7 8 f .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Homer d i s t r i c t , 1982-83. A. E xperience-T raining C alc u la tio n Table: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, *" 7 7 o r more, •’ 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel In C ateg o ries: Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H Tn. max. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree Hin. Hax. .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 70 H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree 1.10 1.20 . T otal P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree k in . Max. Less than 1 year I o r more, « 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Degree H.A. Degree k in . Max. 2 12 2 12 4 34 4 34 Mln. Max. 17 17 1 1 Personnel Weighted by E x perience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree M1n. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, ' 7 7 o r more, *■ 9 9 o r more, •” 11 I I o r more Max. B.A. Degree M n. Max. H.A. Degree Mln. Max. M.A, Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. kax. Ph.D. or Ed.O. Degree Mln. Max. 1.9 12.0 4 .2 37.4 22.95 1.95 Sum * 80.4 Total Weighted Teachers * T otal T eachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 80 .4 ♦ 70 ■ 1.14857 «1n./m ax. 243 Table 4 . 7 9 . —Computation o f Faxon formula: Homer d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1364 x 1298 = $1,770,472 .029 x $22,228,383 = - 644,623 BGA = $1,126,849 Minimum Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $1 ,170,472 X 1.05286 1,864,059 1 ,864,059 - 644,623 $1 ,219,436 (RLE) Maximum (ETF) (RLE) $1,770,472 x 1.09 1,929,814 - 644,623 '$'1,285,191 1978-79 $1470 x 1288 = $1,893,360 RLE - 644,623 BGA = $1,248,737 Adj. BGA = RLE Adj. SA = $1,893,360 x 1.09 2,063,762 - 644,623 $1,419,139 (ETF) 1979-80 $1573 x 1226 = $1,928,498 RLE - 644,623 $1,283,875 $1,928,498 x 1.09143 Adj. BGA = 2,104,821 - 644,623 Adj. SA = $1,460,198 (ETF) (RLE) $1,928,498 x 1.11071 2,142,002 - 644,623 $1,497,373' 244 Table 4 . 7 9 . —Continued. 1980-81 $1683 x 1225 = $2,061,675 RLE - 644,623 SA = $1,417,052 $2,061,675 x 1.11071 2,289,923 - 644,623 $1,645,300 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = 1981-82 $1801 x 1110 = $1,999,110 RLE - 644,623 BGA = $1,354,487 Adj. BGA Adj. SA $1,999,110 x 1.13071 = 2,260,414 - 644,623 = $1,615,791 $1,999,110 x 1.14857 2,296,118 (ETF) - 644,623 $1,651,495 1982-83 $1927 x 1078 = $2,077,306 RLE - 644,623 $1,423,683 Adj. BGA Adj. SA Key: ETF RLE SA BGA SEV $2,077,036 x 1.14857 = 2,385,621 - 644,623 = 1,740,998 = = = = = E xp erience-T raining F acto r Required Local E f f o r t S ta te Aid Basic Gross Allowance S t a te Equalized V aluation Table 4 .8 0 .—Faxon weighted pupil units school aid plan: Central Lake d i s t r i c t . Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil Units 80-81 Pupil Units 82-83 Pupil Units K 38 21 43 24 42 23 45 25 46 25 50 28 1 44 48 39 43 45 50 44 48 47 52 47 52 2 41 45 43 47 39 43 44 48 43 47 46 51 3 37 41 43 47 46 51 41 45 46 51 45 50 4 46 46 38 38 44 44 47 47 42 42 48 48 5 47 47 43 43 36 36 42 42 44 44 40 40 6 43 43 49 49 45 45 37 37 44 44 46 46 7 45 45 46 46 52 52 48 48 40 40 46 46 8 51 51 47 47 48 48 55 55 50 50 42 42 9 39 39 51 51 47 47 48 48 54 54 50 50 10 59 62 41 43 54 57 50 53 51 54 58 61 11 52 55 56 59 39 41 51 54 47 49 48 50 12 45 47 45 47 49 51 34 36 45 47 41 43 584 587 590 586 584 586 588 81-82 Pupil Units 77-78 T otals 79-80 Pupil Units Grade 599 586 *A11 pupil units in th is table are weighted numbers as follows: 1.10 pupil u n its, 4-9 = 1.00 pupil u n its, 10-12 = 1.05 pupil units. 607 599 607 K = .55 pupil u n its, 1-3 = 246 Table 4 .8 0 a .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : C entral Lake d i s t r i c t , 1977-78. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less than 1 y ear 1 or more, * 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Oegree Less Than 1It .A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel in C a teg o ries: 37 H.A. Degree 4 30 Hours o r Ed.S. N.A. Oegree Ph.O. or Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Degree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Hin. nax. Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree Hin. Hax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Ve%r ^ H & Ved Experience HiTT! 1 3 5 7 9 or more, o r more, o r more, o r more, o r more, 11 o r more C. < 3 < 5 < 7 *9 < 11 B.A. Degree Less Than g.A. Degree H.A. Degree Max. Hin. 6 2 1 4 5 4 4 5 1 Max. 1 3 Hin. Max. 3 3 1 11 8 1 5 6 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree H in. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r more, ' 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, ' 1 1 I I o r more Max. .65 .70 B.A. Degree Hin. 4 .8 0 3.40 4.75 1.00 3.15 8 .8 0 Max. 1.60 3 .4 0 3 .8 0 5 .0 0 1.05 1 2 .1 0 H.A. Degree H in. Hax. 3.05 3.05 1.25 6.75 8 .1 0 M.A. Degree 4 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Hin. Max. Ph.D. or Ed.O. Degree Mln. Hax. Sum • T otal Weighted Teachers t T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 3 7 .6 ♦ 37 ■ 1.01622 3 8 .8 4 37 - 1.04865 B ln. 37.6 mln. 38.8 max. 247 Table 4 .8 0 b .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : C en tral Lake d i s t r i c t , 1978-79. A. E xp erien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ea r 1 o r more, 4 3 3 o r more, 4 5 5 o r more, 4 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more 8 . B.A. Degree Number o f Personnel 1n C a te g o rie s: H.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1.30 1.40 1.60 37 T o tal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Ye%r x o e r1 e n PcP e ° V ed E xperience L e ss Th#" B.A. Oegree ___________ H in. Hax. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. Decree B *A - ♦ Oegree Oegree 30 Hours ________________________________ o r Ed.S. Mln. Max? Min. Max. Min. BaxT 2 2 4 4 5 4 4 5 1 11 1 11 ^ 0r S j:? iiegree Mln. RaxT Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x T able B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Mln. Less than 1 y e a r 1 or more, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r m ore, 4 7 7 o r m ore, 4 9 9 o r m ore, 4 11 11 o r more .70 Hax. B.A. Degree H in. Hax. M.A. Degree Min. 1.60 3.4 0 3.8 0 5.0 0 1.05 1 2 .1 0 Hax. H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M ln. Max. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Degree H in . Max. 3.4 5 8 .0 0 Sum * 39.2 T otal Weighted Teachers * T o tal Teachers ■ E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a cto r (ETF) 39 .2 ♦ 37 ■ 1.0S949 ai1n./max. 248 T able 4 .8 0 c .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b l e : C en tral Lake d i s t r i c t , 1979-80. A. E xp erien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, ' 3 3 o r more, • 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, ' 9 9 o r more, - 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel in C a te g o rie s: 37 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Hax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree h in . Hax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Mln. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. Hax. 1 1 B.A. Degree H in. M.A. Degree Hax 6 2 4 5 1 4 4 5 11 Min. Max. 3 3 6 12 6 Personnel Weighted by E x perience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Mln. Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, * 9 9 o r more, ' 11 I I o r more Hax. .70 .7 5 M.A. Degree B.A. Degree M1n. Max. 5.10 1.70 3.80 3.80 5 .0 0 4.00 1.05 5.25 12.10 13.20 Mln. Hax. H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Hax. Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Degree Mln. Hax. 3.45 3.75 8 .1 0 8 .1 0 Sum • 39.3 mln. 40.55 max. T o tal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers * E x p erien ce-T rain in g F acto r (ETF) 39.3 + 37 ■ 1.06216 mln. 40.65 * 37 - 1.09595 max. 249 Table 4.8 0 d .--F ax o n e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : C en tral Lake d i s t r i c t , 1980-81. A. E x perien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, ' 3 3 o r more. <• 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more B. B.A. Oegree Less Than B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 1.05 1 .1 0 37 Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 Number o f Personnel1 In C a te g o rie s: H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree H in. Max. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Hin. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. 1 Hax. 1 B.A. Oegree H in. H.A. Oegree Hax 2 2 4 4 5 4 4 5 12 12 Hin. Hax. 3 6 3 6 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x T able B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Hin. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r m ore, <5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, <9 9 o r more, <11 II o r more .75 Hax. . A. Degree M.A. Degree 8 Mln. Hax. M1 n . 1.70 3.80 4.00 5.25 13,20 Hax. H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in . Hax. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree Hin. Hax. 3.75 8.10 Sum ■ 40.55 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 40.55 * 37 - 1.09595 250 Table 4 .8 0 e .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : C en tral Lake d i s t r i c t , 1981-82. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than 8 . A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, •• 3 3 o r more, 5 5 o r more, - 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 Ph.D. or Ed.O. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree ru n . Max. .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel In C a teg o rie s: N.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 37 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, # 11 I I o r more C. wax. 1 1 B.A. Oegree Min. M.A. Degree Max. 6 2 4 5 12 4 4 17 Min. Max. 3 9 6 Personnel Weighted by E x perience-T raining F a cto r (T able A x Table 8 ): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, * 5 5 o r more, * 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. .75 .75 B.A. Degree M.A. Degree M1n. Max. M1n. Max. 5 .7 0 4 .0 0 5.25 13.20 1 .9 4 .0 4 .2 18.7 3.75 8 .1 0 12.15 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree Min. Max. Sum • 40.75 mln. 41.70 max. T otal Weighted Teachers + T otal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 40.75 ♦ 37 ■ 1.10135 n ln . 41.7 M X . * 37 - 1.12763 251 Table 4 .8 0 f .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : C entral Lake d i s t r i c t . 1982-83. A. E xperience-T raining C alcu latio n Table: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Tears o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, * 3 3 o r more, - 5 5 o r more, *' 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 or more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personne'I in C ateg o ries: M.A. Degree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Degree Ph.D. or Ed.O. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mtn. max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree hm . Max. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 37 T otal P ro fe ssio n al Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more C. Less Than B.A. Degree Nln. Max. 1 1 B.A. Degree Min. M.A. Oegree Max 2 2 4 4 17 4 4 17 Min. Max. 9 9 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more .75 Max. B.A. Oegree Min. Max. M.A. Oegree Min. Max. M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M1n. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree Min. Max. 1 .9 4 .0 4.2 18.7 12.15 Sum * 41.7 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 41.7 ♦ 37 - 1.12703 mln./m ax. 252 Table 4.81 . —Computation o f Faxon formula: Central Lake d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1364 X 590 = $804,760 .029 x $27,335,884 = 792,741 SA = $ 12,019 Minimum Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $804,760 x l .01622 817,813 -792,741 $ 25,072 (ETF) (RLE) (RLE) Maximum $804,760 x l .04865 843,912 -792,741 $ 51,171 1978-79 $1470 x 588 = $864,360 RLE -792,741 SA = $ 71,619 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $864,360 x l . 05949 915,781 -792,741 $123,040 (ETF) (RLE) 1979-80 $1573 x 590 = $928,070 RLE -792,741 SA = $135,329 $928,070 x l . 06216 Adj. BGA = 985,759 792,741 Adj. SA = $193,018 (ETF) (RLE) $928,070 x l . 09595 1,017,118 - 792,741 $224,377 253 Table 4.81 . —Continued. 1980-81 $1683 x 587 = $987,921 RLE -792,741 SA = $195,180 $ 987,921 x 1.09595 Adj. BGA = 1,082,712 - 792,741 Adj. SA = $ 289,971 (ETF) (RLE) 1981-82 $1801 x 599 = $1,078,799 RLE - 792,741 SA = $ 286,058 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $1,078,799 x 1.10135 1,188,135 - 792,741 $ 395,394 (ETF) (RLE) 1982-83 $1927 x 607 = $1,169,689 RLE - 792,741 SA = $ 376,948 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = Key: ETF RLE SA BGA SEV = = = = = $1,169,689 x 1.12703 1,318,275 - 792,741 $ 525,534 (ETF) (RLE) E xperience-T raining F actor Required Local E f fo r t S ta te Aid Basic Gross Allowance S ta te Equalized V aluation $1,078,799 x 1.12703 1,215,839 - 792,741 $ 423,098 Table 4 .8 2 .—Faxon weighted pupil units school aid plan: Center Line d i s t r i c t . Grade 77-78 Pupil Uni ts* 78-79 Pupil Units 79-80 Pupil Uni ts 80-81 Pupil Units 81-82 Pupil Uni ts 82-83 Pupil Units K 230 127 240 132 235 129 221 122 221 122 240 132 1 242 266 208 229 217 239 212 233 199 219 200 220 2 294 323 220 242 189 208 197 217 193 212 181 199 3 257 283 284 312 213 234 182 200 190 209 186 205 4 271 271 244 244 269 269 202 202 173 173 180 180 5 312 312 267 267 240 240 265 265 199 199 170 170 6 317 317 303 303 260 260 233 233 258 258 193 193 7 346 346 315 315 302 302 258 258 232 232 256 256 8 394 394 342 342 312 312 298 298 255 255 230 230 9 402 402 385 385 334 334 305 305 291 291 249 249 10 461 484 403 423 386 405 335 352 305 320 292 307 11 470 517 436 458 381 400 365 383 317 333 289 303 12 420 462 430 452 399 419 349 384 334 351 290 305 T otals 4416 3737 4077 4504 4104 3617 3422 3751 3452 *A11 pupil units in th is table are weighted numbers as follows: 1.10 pupil u n its, 4-9 = 1.00 pupil u n its, 10-12 = 1.05 pupil un its. 2956 3174 2949 K = .55 pupil u n its, 1-3 = 255 Table 4 .8 2 a .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Center Line d i s t r i c t , 1977-78. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience 8 Less Than . A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y e ar 1 or more, - 3 3 or more, ' 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, •• 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 or more 8 . B.A. Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f PersonnelI in C ateg o rie s: M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Oegree n in . Max. 1.05 1.05 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 270 Total P ro fessio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than 8 . A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y ear 11 or Wl more, "IU< X -1 < 3 3 or more, -ess Than Degree b .A. ffln . Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 or more, < 5 5 or more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 or more, < 11 11 o r more C. Max. 24 10 2 8 14 7 9 3B 2 8 7 47 B.A. Degree Min. 783 335 226 360 402 2195 Max. 184 599 335 226 360 2597 M.A. Degree Min. 359 142 165 385 458 4995 Max. 102 16 5 2 1 11 1 1 21 4 192 2 257 142 165 385 5453 1 2 19 2 2 196 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (T able A x Table B): P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, ' 11 11 o r more Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Max. 15.60 1.40 6.50 9.80 1.50 6 .0 0 5.25 7.20 32.30 6 .0 0 5.60 39.95 B.A. Degree Min. Max. 626.40 147.20 284.75 509.15 214.70 318.25 360.00 226.00 422.10 378.00 2414.50 2856.70 M.A. Degree Min. Max. 323.10 91.80 134.90 244.15 173.25 149.10 442.75 189.75 572.50 481.25 6743.25 7334.55 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. 2 .1 0 22.4 1.4 7.0 1.30 2.80 30.40 3 .2 1.5 1.40 33.60 6 .8 374.4 3.4 382.2 Sum « 13,224.75 r»1n. 13,424.35 max. T otal Weighted Teachers t T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 13,224.75 * 11,132 - 1.18799 m1n. 13,424.35 * 11,132 ■ 1.20592 nax. 265 Table 4 .8 4 b .—Faxon experience-training c a lc u la tio n ta b le : D e tro it d i s t r i c t , 1978-79. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n Table: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 1.0 0 1.05 1.1 0 H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1.30 1.40 1.60 Number o f Personneli 1n C ategories: 11.132 T otal P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree M1 n. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, « 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more C. B.A. Degree H.A. Degree Max. Hin. nax. B in. 10 10 2 8 2 8 7 47 7 47 184 599 335 226 360 2597 102 14 184 599 335 226 360 2597 102 14 257 . 142 165 385 5453 257 142 165 385 5453 Max. M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. 2 2 1 21 1 21 Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree H in. Max. 5 5 11 1 11 1 2 2 196 196 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree H in. Less than 1 year 1 or more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more • Max. 6.50 9.80 1.50 6 .0 0 5 .6 0 39.95 B.A. Oegree M1 n . Max. 147.20 509.15 318.25 226.00 378.00 2B56.70 H.A. Degree Hin. Hax. 91.80 244.15 149.10 189.75 481.25 7334.55 H.A. Oegree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Hax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Kin. Max. 7 .0 1.5 1.40 33.60 3 .4 382.2 Sum • T otal Weighted Teachers t T otal Teachers * E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 13,424.35 * 11,132 ■ 1.20592 mln./max. 13,424.35 266 Table 4 .8 4 c .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g ta b le : D e tro it d i s t r i c t , 1979-80. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y ear 1 or more, ' 3 3 or more, •" 5 5 or more, < 7 7 or more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Degree .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 Ph.D. or Ed.D. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. n in . nax. Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree n in . nax. 1 .1 0 1.2 0 Number o f Personnel 1n C a te g o rie s: 11.132 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less than 1 y ea r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, * 7 7 o r more, « 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more C. Less Than B.A. Oegree B.A. Degree H.A. Degree Hin. Hax. Hin. Hax. H in. Hax. 24 10 2 8 14 783 335 226 360 2597 184 599 335 226 2967 359 142 165 385 5453 102 257 142 165 5838 2 8 7 47 54 16 5 2 1 11 1 22 196 2 1 21 2 198 Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a cto r (T able A x T able B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Hin. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, * 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more Hax. 16.80 1.50 6 .0 0 5 .6 0 39.95 B.A. Degree H1n. Hax. 665.55 318.25 226.00 378.00 2856.70 H.A. Degree Hin. Hax. 341.05 149.10 189.75 481.25 7361.55 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in. Hax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree H in. Hax. 2 .2 0 22.4 1 .5 1.40 33.60 3 .4 382.2 Sum ' 13,483.75 mln. 13,684.10 max. T otal Weighted Teachers * T o tal Teachers ■ E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F acto r (ETF) 13.485.75 ♦ 11,132 - 1.21126 n ln . 13,684.10 * 11,132 - 1.22926 a u . 267 Table 4.84 d .~ F ax o n e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : D e tro it d i s t r i c t , 1980-81. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n Table: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y e a r ] o r more, < 3 3 o r more, *■ 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1.30 1.40 1.60 Number o f Personnel 1n C ateg o ries: 11.132T otal P ro fe ssio n al Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education VME r L M S e 0Ved Experience Less Than Degree b .A. H in. Less than 1 year 1 o r more, < 3 < 5 < 7 < 9 < 11 C. Hax. 10 10 14 14 2 8 2 8 54 54 B.A. Degree H.A. Degree 0e?^ ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. nax. Hin. Hax. Min. Max. 184 599 335 226 2957 184 599 335 226 2957 102 102 257 142 165 5835 257 142 165 5835 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (Table A x Table 8 or Be9ree in n . RaxT 5 5 2 2 11 1 11 1 22 22 198 198 ): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree H in. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, * 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more Hax. 7 .0 10.5 1.5 6 .4 45.9 B.A. Degree Min. Hax. 156.40 569.05 335.00 237.30 3252.70 H.A. Oegree Hin. Hax. 96.90 269.85 163.30 206.25 7877.25 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. or Ed.O. Oegree "ffln . Max. 2.40 7 .0 16.5 1 .6 35.20 386.1 Sum • 13,684.10 T otal Weighted Teachers * Total T eachers ■ E x perience-T raining F actor (ETF) 13,684.10 + 11,132 - 1.22926 mln./m ax. 268 Table 4 .8 4 e .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : D e tro it d i s t r i c t , 1981-82. A. E xperience-T raining C alc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Tears o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, * 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, « 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours . o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. m n. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree H in. Hax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 Number of Personnel1 1n C a teg o ries: T1.132 T otal P ro fe ssio n al Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than 8 . A. Degree M1 n. Less than 1 y e a r 1 or more, ' 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more C. B.A. Oegree H.A. Degree Hax. H in. Hax. H in. Hax. 24 10 2 8 14 54 62 783 335 226 2957 184 599 335 3183 359 142 165 5835 102 257 142 6003 2 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (T able A x Table 16 5 2 1 11 1 22 198 198 2 22 8 ): P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, * 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Less Than B.A. Degree Hin. Hax. 18.0 1.5 6 .4 45.9 7 .5 1.5 1 .6 52.7 B.A. Degree Min. Max. 743.85 174.80 335.00 599.00 237.30 351.75 3252.70 3501.30 H.A. Degree H in. Max. 376.95 107.10 163.30 295.55 206.25 177.50 7877.25 8104.05 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. k in . Max. Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree Max. Min. 2 .4 35.2 24.0 2 .6 1 .6 35.2 386.1 7.50 17.60 1.70 386.10 Sum « 13,713.70 m1n. 13,825.05 max. Total Weighted Teachers 4 T otal Teachers * E xperience-T raining F a cto r (ETF) 13,713.70 * 11.132 - 1.23192 mln. 13,825.05 ♦ 11,132 - 1.24192 max. 269 Table 4 .84f.--F axon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : D e tro it d i s t r i c t , 1982-83. A. E xperience-T raining C alcu latio n Table: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 year 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 or more, < U 11 or more B. B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 Ph.O. or Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M in. nax. Ph.D. or Ed.O. Oegree m n. nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • Number of Personnel1 In C ategories;:11.132 Total P ro fessio n al Personnel P rofessional Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree C. M.A. Degree Max. M in. Max. M in. 10 10 184 599 335 3183 102 14 184 599 335 3183 102 14 257 142 6003 257 142 6003 Min. Less than 1 year 1 or more, ■; 3 3 or more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 or more, < 9 9 o r more, ' 11 11 o r more B.A. Oegree 2 2 62 62 Max. Personnel weighted by Experience-T raining F actor (Table A x Table 5 8 2 2 22 22 5 11 11 199 199 ): P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more Hax. 7.5 1.5 1 .6 52.7 B.A. Degree Min. Max. 174.80 599.00 351.75 3501.30 M.A. Degree Min. Max. M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. 107.10 295.55 177.50 8104.05 Ph.D. or Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. 7.50 17.60 1.70 386.10 2 .6 35.2 Sum • 13,825.05 Total weighted Teachers t Total Teachers * E xperience-T raining F actor (ETF) 13,825.05 ♦ 11,132 - 1.24192 mln./max. 270 Table 4 .8 5 . —Computation o f Faxon formula: D etroit d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1364 x 219,705 = $299,677,620 .029 x $5,043,799,622 = 146,270,189 (RLE) SA = $153,407,431 Minimum $299,677,620 x 1.18799 Adj. BGA = 356,014,016 -146,270,189 Adj. SA = $209,743,827 Maximum (ETF) (RLE) $299,677,620 x 1.20592 361,387,236 -146,270,189 $215,117,047 1978-79 $1470 x 215,757 = $317,162,790 RLE -146,270,189 SA = $170,892,601 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $317,162,790 x 1.20592 382,472,952 -146,270,189 $236,202,763 (ETF) (RLE) 1979-80 $1573 x 209,783 = $329,988,659 RLE -146,270,189 SA = $183,718,470 $329,988,659 x 1.21126 Adj. BGA = 399,702,063 -146,270,189 Adj. SA = $253,431,874 (ETF) (RLE) $329,988,659 x 1.22926 405,641,859 -146,270,189 $259,371,670 271 Table 4 .8 5 . —Continued. 1980-81 $1683 x 202,043 = $340,038,369 RLE -146,270,189 SA = $193,768,180 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $340,038,369 x 1.22926 417,995,565 -146,270,189 $271,725,376 (ETF) (RLE) 1981-82 $1801 x 180,261 = $324,650,061 RLE -146,270,189 SA = $178,379,872 $324,650,061 x 1.23192 Adj. BGA = 399,942,903 -146,270,189 Adj. SA * $253,672,714 (ETF) (RLE) $324,650,061 x 1.24192 403,189,404 -146,270,189 $256,919,215 1982-83 $1927 x 171,353 = $330,197,231 RLE -146,270,189 SA = $183,927,042 $330,197,231 x 1.24192 Adj. BGA = 410,078,545 -146,270,189 Adj. SA = $263,808,356 Key: ETF RLE SA BGA SEV = = = = = (ETF) (RLE) E xperience-T raining F acto r Required Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid Basic Gross Allowance S ta te E qualized V aluation Table 4 .8 6 .--Faxon weighted pupil units school aid plan: Cherry Hill d i s t r i c t . Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil Units 79-80 Pupil U nits 80-81 Pupil U nits 81-82 Pupil U nits 82-83 Pupil U nits K 242 133 225 124 209 115 202 111 189 104 202 111 1 211 232 222 244 207 228 192 211 185 204 174 191 2 250 275 195 215 205 226 191 210 177 195 171 188 3 241 265 243 267 189 208 199 219 185 204 172 189 4 200 200 233 233 235 235 183 183 193 193 179 179 5 226 226 194 194 226 226 228 228 177 177 187 187 6 261 261 215 215 185 185 215 215 217 217 169 169 7 228 228 267 267 221 221 190 190 221 221 223 223 8 287 287 220 220 259 259 214 214 184 184 214 214 9 300 300 295 295 227 227 266 266 220 220 189 189 10 320 336 285 299 280 294 215 226 252 265 209 219 11 298 313 301 316 268 281 264 277 203 213 238 250 12 287 301 273 287 276 290 245 257 242 254 186 195 T otals 2987 3168 3350 3357 3176 2542 2804 2995 2807 *A11 pupil units in th is table are weighted numbers as follows: 1.10 pupil u n its, 4-9 = 1.00 pupil u n its, 10-12 = 1.05 pupil un its. 2513 2651 2504 K = .55 pupil u n its, 1-3 = 273 Table 4 .8 6 a — Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Cherry H111 d i s t r i c t , 1977-78. A. E xperience-T raining C alc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than b.A. Degree Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, '■ 3 3 o r more, ■' 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, ' 11 11 or more B. .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1.30 1.40 1.60 Number o f Personnel in C ateg o ries: ' 188 T otal P ro fe ssio n al Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, •' 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. Hax. 1 1 B.A. Degree Hin. M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree Hax. 11 7 8 3 6 7 9 4 15 6 9 19 Min. Max. Kin. Kax. 3 3 11 23 29 64 3 3 11 23 93 2 2 Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Oegree "Min", flax. Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a cto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree M(n. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, 11 I I o r more Max. .65 .70 B.A. Degree Min. 8.80 5.95 5.70 9.00 4.20 16.50 Max. 2.40 6.80 6.65 6.00 9.45 20.90 M.A. Degree M1n. Max. 2.70 2.85 2.85 11.55 3.15 26.45 12.65 36.25 28.75 86.40 125.55 H.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M1n. Hax. 3 .2 Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. 3.2 Sum * 2 2 0 .2 0 229.05 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers • E x perience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 220.20 a 188 - 1.17128 ailn. 229.05 ♦ 188 ■ 1.21835 nax. Max. m1 n. max. 274 Table 4 .8 6 b .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Cherry H ill d i s t r i c t , 1978-79. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree . Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. “ H in. nax. Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Oegree H in. Hax. .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel In C a teg o rie s: H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ear I o r more, ' 3 3 o r more, ■' 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 or more, * 9 9 or more, < 11 I I o r more 8 B.A. Oegree 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 188 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, ‘ 7 7 o r more, * 9 9 o r more, * 11 I I o r more C. Less Than B.A. Oegree H in. nax. 1 1 B.A. Degree H in. It. A. Oegree Hax. m n. Hax. 3 3 8 8 7 7 6 6 11 11 9 19 9 19 23 93 23 93 3 3 3 3 2 2 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a cto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree M1 n. Less than 1 y ea r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, *■ 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more .70 Max. B.A. Oegree H in. Hax. 2.40 6.80 6.65 6 .0 0 9.45 20.90 H.A. Degree M'tn. Hax. 2.85 3.15 12.65 28.75 125.55 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. "W in. Hax! Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Oegree Min. Hax. 3 .2 Sum • T otal Weighted Teachers * T o tal T eachers ■ E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 2 29.05.+ 188 ■ 1.21835 aiin./m ax. 229.05 275 Table 4 ,8 6 c .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Cherry H ill d i s t r i c t , 1979-80. A. E xperience-T raining C a lcu latio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education fe a rs o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, r 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. . A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 Ph.D. or Ed.D. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. N in. Nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Nax. .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 Number o f PersonnelI In C ateg o rie s: M.A. Degree a 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree 8 1.10 1.20 188 T otal P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Tears o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. Hax. 1 1 B.A. Degree Min. M.A. Oegree Max 11 7 8 3 6 7 9 19 28 6 n in . nax. 3 3 11 23 93 3 3 11 116 2 2 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree M1n. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, « 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. .70 .75 B.A. Degree M M.A. Oegree Max. 3 8 7 34 6 28 Hln. 3 3 11 116 Hex. M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. n in . nax. 3 3 127 2 Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree n in . nax. 2 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 year I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. .75 .75 B.A. Degree Min. Max. 10.45 2.85 7.00 8 .0 0 6.30 7.35 30.80 37.40 M.A. Degree Min. Max. 3.15 3.45 3.45 13.75 13.75 156.60 171.45 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. 3.2 Ph.D. or Ed.O. Oegree Min. Max. 3 .2 Sum • T otal Weighted Teachers * Total Teachers ■ E x perience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 235.45 f 188 - 1.25239 itln . 248.20 * 188 ■ 1.32021 max. 235.45 mln. 248.20 max. 278 Table 4 .8 6 f .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Cherry H ill d i s t r i c t , 1982-83. A. E xperience-T raining C alc u la tio n Table: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 year 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, ' 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more 8 . B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree n in . nax. .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.05 1.10 Number o f Personnel in C ateg o ries: H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Oegree 1.10 1.20 188 T otal P ro fessio n a l Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less than 1 year I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. Less Than B.A. Oegree h ln . Max. 1 1 B.A. Oegree Min. H.A. Oegree Max. 3 3 8 8 7 34 7 34 Min. Max. 3 3 127 3 3 127 2 2 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (T able A x Table B): P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more Max. B.A. Degree M1n. Max. H.A. Oegree Min. Hax. H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Oegree M1n. Max. 2.85 .75 8.00 7.35 37.40 3.45 13.75 171.45 3 .2 Sum * 248.20 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers » E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 248.20 * 188 • 1.32Q21 mln./m ax. / 279 Table 4 .8 7 . --Computation o f Faxon formula: Cherry H ill d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1364 x 3357 .029 x $64,635,621 SA Minimum Adj. BGA Adj. SA $4,578,948 x 1.17128 5,363,230 -1,874,433 $3,488,797 $4,578,948 1,874,433 (RLE) $2,704,515 Maximum 1« 4 .9 6 a .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e * tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : 6enesee d i s t r i c t , 1977-78. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education fe a r s o f Approved E xperience L essT h an B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .65 Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more B. B.A. Degree Number o f Personnel In C ate g o ries: .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 ■.90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 41 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree or Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1.30 1.40 1.60 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Ve#£ « H ^ : ° Ved ex p erien ce L essT h an Degree M1n. Max. Less than 1 y e ar 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more C. B.A. Degree b .A. N in. M.A. Degree Max. 5 6 5 5 4 6 5 4 5 1 4 Min. M ax. 3 3 4 7 O e ^ + 30 Hours o r Ed. S . Min. HaxT P^ D„ o r n in . nax. 4 7 1 1 2 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rainin g F a cto r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education y“ E 0 M ? ! ; OWed E xperience L essT h an B.A. Oegree W in Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r m ore, < S 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more MaxT B.A. Degree Min. Max. 4.00 5.10 4.75 4.00 1.05 4.40 4.25 5.70 5.00 4 .2 0 5 .5 0 M.A. Degree “ HTiT O e^M + 30 Hours ~RTnl 2.70 2 .7 0 4.2 0 B.05 1.25 1.35 4 .6 0 8.75 2.70 P^ DA o r UTrT TG3TT Sum ■ 40.85 43.40 T otal Weighted Teachers ♦ T otal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 40.85 ♦ 41 - .99634 min. 43.40 + 41 - 1.05854 max. HaxT min. max. 319 Table 4 .9 6 b .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Genesee d i s t r i c t . 1978-79. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 S o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 1 1 11 o r more B. B.A. Oegree Number o f Personnel1 In C a te g o rie s: .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 • .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 41 N.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. K.A. Oegree Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 N.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. N in. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree K in. nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • T o tal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. nax. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more C. B.A. Degree N.A. Oegree N in. Max. 5 5 6 6 5 4 5 5 4 5 Min. nax. 3 3 4 7 4 7 2 2 Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a c to r (Table A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree N in. Less than 1 y ea r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more Nax. B.A. Degree N in. Max. N.A. Degree N in. Nax. N.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. N in. Nax. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree N in. Max. 2.70 4.25 5.70 5.00 4 .2 0 5 .5 0 4.60 8.75 2.70 Sum ■ 43.40 T o tal Weighted Teachers * T otal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a cto r (ETF) 4 3.40 + 41 » 1.058S4 m in./m ax. 320 T able 4 .9 6 c .— Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Genesee d i s t r i c t , 1979-80. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 1 1 I I o r more 8 . B.A. Oegree Number o f Personnel In C a teg o rie s: .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 • .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 41 M.A. Degree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. N in. Nax. Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Oegree n in . nax. 1.05 1.05 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • T o tal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Max. Less th an 1 y e a r I o r m ore, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r m ore, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Oegree M.A. Oegree Min. Max. n in . Max. 5 5 5 3 3 6 4 7 2 4 9 6 5 4 5 5 9 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x Table 8 ): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than 8 .A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 y e a r I o r m ore, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r m ore, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more Max. M.A. Oegree B.A. Oegree Min. Max. 4.25 5 .7 0 5 .0 0 4 .2 0 5 .5 0 4.75 6 .0 0 5.25 9.90 Nin. Max. 2.85 2.85 4.60 8 .7 5 2 .7 0 5.00 12.15 M.A. Oegree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree Min. Max. Sum ■ 43.55 45.90 T o tal Weighted Teachers ♦ T o tal Teachers ■ E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 43.55 ♦ 41 ■ 1.06220 min. 45.90 a 41 ■ 1.11951 max. m1n. max. 321 Table 4 .9 6 d .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Genesee d i s t r i c t , 1980-81. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education fe a r s o f Approved Experience Less Than 1B.A. Oegree .50 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more B. B.A. Degree Number o f Personnel In C ateg o ries: M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A, Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 • .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree ru n . nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 * 41 . T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Max. Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 1 1 1 1 o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Oegree Min Max 5 5 6 6 5 9 5 9 Min. Max. 3 3 4 9 4 9 Personnel Weighted by E x perience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x Table 8 ): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Kin. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. M.A. Degree B.A. Degree M(n. Hex. M 46.20 47.40 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 46.20 f 41 - 1.12683 n in . 47.40 ♦ 41 • 1.15610 nax. min. max. 323 Table 4 .9 6 f.~ F a x o n e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Genesee d i s t r i c t , 1982-83. A. E xperience-T raining C alc u la tio n Table: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience B.A. Degree Less Than 9.A. Degree 1 Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel1 1n C ateg o ries: .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 41 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A, Degree Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. h in . nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree H in. nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 ■ Total P ro fessio n a l Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience MJn. Max. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, <*7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Degree Less Than B.A. Degree M.A. Degree Min. Max 5 5 6 6 14 14 Min. Max. . 3 3 13 13 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Nax. B.A. Degree Min. Max. M.A. Degree Max. M in. M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M in. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. 3.15 5.00 6.30 15.40 17.55 Sum « 47.40 T o tal Weighted Teachers * T o tal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 47.40 + 41 * 1.15610 mln./max. 324 Table 4 . 9 7 . —Computation o f Faxon formula: Genesee d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1364 x 842 = $1,148,488 .029 x $13,162,449 = - 381,711 (RLE) SA = $ 766,777 Minimum $1,148,488 x .99634 Adj. BGA H , 14 4 ', 2 8 5 Adj. SA f 381,711 762,574 Maximum (ETF) (RLE) $1,148,488 x 1.05854 n ;m ,7 2 0 $ 381,711 897,009 1978-79 $1470 x 889 = $1,306,830 RLE - 381,711 SA = $ 988,119 Adj. BGA Adj. SA = $1,306,830 x 1.05854 1,383,332 - 381,711 $1,001,621 (ETF) (RLE) 1979-80 $1573 x 923 = $1,451,879 RLE - 381,711 SA = $1,070,168 $1,451,879 x 1.06220 Adj. BGA Adj. SA (ETF) 1 ,5 4 2 ,1 8 6 - 381,711 $1,160,475 $1,451,879 x 1.11951 1 ,6 2 5 7 3 9 3 (RLE) - 381,711 $1,243,682 325 Table 4 . 9 7 .—Continued. 1980-81 $1683 x 947 = $1,593,801 RLE - 381,711 SA = $1,212,090 A dj. B6 A = Adj. SA = $1,593,801 x 1.11951 1,784,276 - 381,711 $1,402,565 (ETF) (RLE) 1981-82 $1801 x 966 = $1,739,766 RLE - 381,711 SA = $1,358,055 $1,737,766 x 1.12683 A dj. BGA = 1,960,421 - 381,711 Adj. SA = $1,578,710 (ETF) (RLE) $1,739,766 x 1.15610 2,011,343 - 381,711 $1,629,632 1982-83 $1927 x 969 = $1,867,263 RLE - 381,711 SA = $1,485,552 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = Key: ETF RLE SA BGA SEV = * = * - $1,867,263 x 1.15610 2,158,743 - 381,711 $1,777,032 (ETF) (RLE) E xperience-T raining F acto r Required Local E f fo r t S ta te Aid B asic Gross Allowance S ta te E qualized V aluation Table 4 .9 8 .—Faxon weighted pupil units school aid plan: Camden Frontier d i s t r i c t . Pupil Units Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 K 46 25 37 20 39 21 41 23 37 20 42 23 1 55 61 45 50 37 41 38 42 41 45 36 40 2 37 41 54 59 45 50 36 40 38 42 40 44 3 45 50 36 40 53 58 44 48 36 40 37 41 4 48 48 45 45 36 36 53 53 44 44 36 36 5 45 45 50 50 47 47 38 38 56 56 46 46 6 59 59 49 49 55 55 51 51 41 41 61 61 7 67 67 62 62 51 51 57 57 54 54 44 44 8 76 76 67 67 62 62 52 52 58 58 54 54 9 65 65 72 72 64 64 59 59 49 49 55 55 10 72 76 60 63 67 70 59 62 55 58 45 47 11 55 58 67 70 57 60 63 66 56 59 51 54 12 68 71 49 51 60 63 51 54 56 59 50 53 T otals 693 738 742 79-80 Pupil U nits 673 698 80-81 Pupil U nits 642 678 81-82 Pupil Units *A11 pupil units in th is table are weighted numbers as follows: 1.10 pupil u n its, 4-9 = 1.00 pupil u n its, 10-12 = 1.05 pupil units. Pupil Units 597 621 645 82-83 625 598 K = .55 pupil u n its, 1-3 = 327 Table 4 .9 8 a .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b l e : Camden F ro n tie r d i s t r i c t , 1977-78. A. E xperience-T raining C alc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel In C ateg o ries: .75 .60 .65 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 39 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree Ph.D. or Ed.D. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. m n. Hax. Ph.D. or Ed.D. Oegree Min. Max. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Veif™H^r,V Experience ed Min". 1 3 5 7 9 o r more, o r more, o r more, o r more, o r more, 11 o r more C. B.A. Degree L« * 0 egree Than B Hax. Min. Max. 3 7 4 < 3 < 5 < 7 <9 < 11 2 1 9 M.A. Oegree m n. Max. 1 3 7 4 2 10 1 3 3 3 9 6 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 or su re, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. M.A. Oegree B.A. Oegree Min. Hax. 2.40 5.95 3.80 2.00 1.05 9 .9 0 2.55 6.65 4.00 2.10 11.00 M1n. Max. M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. .90 .95 3.45 3.75 8 .1 0 3.75 12.15 • Sum * 41.30 43.15 T otal Weighted Teachers ♦ T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 41.30 t 39 - 1.05897 m1n. 43.15 t 39 - 1.10641 max. m1n. max. 328 Table 4 .9 8 b .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Camden F r o n tie r d i s t r i c t , 1978-79. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .6 5 .7 0 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y e ar 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Oegree Number o f Personnel In C ate g o rie s: .75 .BO .65 .95 .90 ■ .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 39 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1 .40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree b in . max. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • T o ta l P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegrae Hrn. max. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. M.A. Degree B.A. Oegree Min. Max Min. Max. 3 7 4 3 7 4 1 1 2 10 2 10 3 9 3 9 Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x Table 8 ): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r m ore, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r m ore, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 11 o r more Max. M.A. Oegree B.A. Degree ffin . Max. Min. Max. 2.55 6.65 4.00 .95 2 .1 0 1 1 .0 0 3 .7 5 12.15 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M(n. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. Sum * 43.15 T otal Weighted T eachers * T o tal Teachers ■ E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F ac to r (ETF) 4 3.15 t 39 - 1.10641 m ln./m ax. 329 Table 4 .9 6 c .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Camden F ro n tie r d i s t r i c t , 1979-60. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .BO .65 Less than 1 y e ar I o r more. < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more 6 . B.A. Degree Number o f Personnel1 In C ateg o rie s: H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. ' m n. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree ru n . nax. .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 ■ 39 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years of Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. max. Less than 1 year I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Degree m n. nax. 3 7 4 2 3 7 4 10 12 H1n. Hax. 1 1 3 9 12 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 year I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. M.A, Degree B.A. Degree Min. 2.55 6.65 4.00 2.10 11.00 Max. Min. Max. M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree Min. Max. .95 2.85 7.00 4.20 13.20 1.05 3.75 12.15 16.20 Sum ■ 43.15 44.50 Total Weighted Teachers * T o tal Teachers • E x perience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 43.15 t 39 - 1.10641 m1n. 44.50 t 39 - 1.14103 max. mln. max. 330 Table 4 . 98d .--F axon ex p e rie n c e * tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Camden F ro n tie r d i s t r i c t . 1980-81. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 1 1 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel 1n C ateg o ries: Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. m n. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree m n. nax. .90 ■ .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 39 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 < T otal P ro fessio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Hax. Less than 1 year I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, '< 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Degree m n. nax 3 7 4 3 7 4 12 12 . Min. Max. 1 1 12 12 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (Table A x T able B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. B.A. Degree Min. Max. 2.85 7.00 4.20 13.20 M.A. Degree Min. Max. M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. .95 16.20 Sum • 44.50 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 44.50 ♦ 39 • 1.14103 m1n./max. 331 Table 4 .9 8 e .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Camden F ro n tie r d i s t r i c t . 1982-83. A. E xperie n ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Number o f Personnel In C ate g o rie s: M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Oegree .90 • .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1,05 1 .1 0 Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree m n. nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 . 39 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Min. Max. Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Oegree M1n. Max Kin. Max. 3 7 16 3 7 16 1 1 12 12 Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rainin g F a c to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r m ore, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more Max. B.A. Degree Min. Max. 3.00 7.35 17.60 M.A. Degree Min. Nax. M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree M1n. Max. 1.15 16.20 Sum * 45.30 T o tal Weighted Teachers * T o tal Teachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain ing F a c to r (ETF) 45.30 + 39 - 1.16154 m ln./m ax. 332 T able 4 .9 8 f .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Camden F ro n tie r d i s t r i c t . 1981-82. A. E xp erien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more. < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more B. B.A. Degree Number o f Personnel1 in C a te g o rie s: M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. N.A. Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 ■ .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree h in . nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 < 39 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree H in. nax. Less than 1 y e a r I or more, < 3 3 or more, < 5 5 or more, < 7 7 or more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Oegree m n. 3 7 4 12 M.A. Oegree Hax Min. 1 . 3 7 16 Max. 1 12 12 Personnel Weighted by E x perience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x T able 8 ): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r m ore, < 7 7 o r more. < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more Max. M.A. Degree B.A. Oegree Min. 4.75 7.00 4.20 13.20 Max. M1n. Max. M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Min. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree Min. hax. 1.05 3.00 7.35 17.60 1.15 16.20 16.20 Sum • 46.40 45.30 T o tal Weighted T eachers * T otal T eachers * E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 46.40 * 39 - 1.18974 mln. 45.30 * 39 ■ 1.16154 max. mln. max. 333 Table 4 .9 9 .—Computation o f Faxon formula: Camden Frontier d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1374 x 742 = $1,012,088 .029 x $18,579,671 = - 538,810 (RLE) SA = $ 473,278 Minimum $1,012,088 x 1.05897 Adj. BGA = T ,071,771' - 538,278 Adj. SA = $ 533,493 Maximum (ETF) (RLE) $1,012,088 x 1.10641 1,119,784 - 538,278 $ 5 8 l,506 1978-79 $1470 x 724 = $1,064,280 RLE - 583,810 SA = $ 525,470 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $1,064,280 x 1.10641 1,177,530 - 538,810 $ 638,720 (ETF) (RLE) 1979-80 $1573 x 708 = $1,113,684 RLE - 538,810 SA = $ 574,874 $1,113,684 x 1.10641 Adj. BGA = 1,232,191 - 538,810 Adj. SA = $ 693,381 (ETF) (RLE) $1,113,684 x 1.14103 1,270,747 - 538,810 $ 731,937 334 Table 4 .9 9 .—Continued. 1980-81 $1683 x 702 = $1,181,466 RLE - 538,810 SA = $ 642,656 $1,181,466 x 1.14103 Adj. BGA = 1,348,088 - 538,810 Adj. SA = J ~ 809,278 (ETF) (RLE) 1981-82 $1801 x 625 = $1,125,625 RLE - 538,810 SA = $ 586,815 $1,125,625 X 1.16154 Adj. BGA = 1,307,458 - 538,810 Adj. SA = $" 768,648 (ETF) (RLE) $1,125,625 x 1.18974 1,339,201 - 538,810 $ 800,391 1982-83 $1927 x 598 = $1,152,346 RLE - 538,810 SA = $ 613,536 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = Key: ETF RLE SA BGA SEV = = = = = $1,152,346 x 1.18974 1,370,992 - 538,810 $ 832,182 (ETF) (RLE) E xperience-T raining F acto r Required Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid Basic Gross Allowance S ta te Equalized V aluation Table 4.1 0 0 .--Faxon weighted pupil units school aid plan: Troy d i s t r i c t . Grade 77-78 Pupil Units* 78-79 Pupil Uni ts 79-80 Pupil Units 80-81 Pupil Uni ts 81-82 Pupil Units 82-83 Pupil U nits K 821 452 845 465 834 459 801 441 786 432 868 477 1 947 1,042 898 988 924 1,016 912 1,003 876 964 859 945 2 1,027 1,130 981 1,079 930 1,023 957 1,053 945 1,040 907 998 3 941 1,035 1,082 1,190 1,033 1,136 980 1,078 1,008 1,109 995 1,095 4 902 902 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 1,149 1,149 1,098 1,098 1,041 1,041 1,071 1,071 5 870 870 977 977 1,083 1,083 1,245 1,245 1,189 1,189 1,128 1,128 6 842 842 937 937 1,052 1,052 1,166 1,166 1,341 1,341 1,280 1,280 7 859 859 920 920 1,023 1,023 1,149 1,149 1,274 1,274 1,464 1,464 8 813 813 918 918 983 983 1,094 1,094 1,228 1,228 1,362 1,362 9 792 792 855 855 865 865 1,033 1,033 1,150 1,150 1,291 1,291 10 791 831 812 853 876 920 989 1,038 1,059 1 ,1 1 2 1,179 1,238 11 786 825 812 853 833 875 899 944 1,015 1,066 1,087 1,141 12 689 723 779 818 805 845 826 867 891 936 1,007 1,057 T otals 11,816 11,080 11,160 13,149 12,490 11,853 12,529 13,803 13,209 *A11 pupil units in th is table are weighted numbers as follows: 1.10 pupil u n its, 4-9 = 1.00 pupil u n its, 10-12 = 1.05 pupil un its. 14,498 13,882 14,547 K = .55 pupil u n its, 1-3 = 336 T able 4 .1 0 0 a .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Troy d i s t r i c t , 1977-78. A. E xperie n ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 1 1 o r more B. B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel In C a te g o rie s: M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1 .60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Hax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree H tn. nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 . 548 T o tal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Mln. Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r m ore, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r m ore, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 1 1 o r more C. Max. B.A. Degree H in. Max. 70 84 24 46 84 66 1 1 H.A. Degree 48 27 78 66 48 105 Hin. Hax. 14 4 21 20 22 20 10 21 20 22 2 70 90 3 2 3 2 2 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Y ears o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree H in. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more Hax. .75 .8 0 B.A. Degree M(n. Max. 5 6 .0 19.2 71.4 39.1 62.7 79.8 4 8 .0 66.0 5 0 .4 50.4 8 5 .8 115.5 H.A. Degree H in. Nax. 12.60 3.60 19.95 9.50 21.00 22.05 25.30 23.00 25.00 27.50 94.50 121.50 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Hax. 2 .2 0 2.40 4 .8 0 3 .9 4 .8 0 Sum * 584.30 588.95 T otal Weighted T eachers * T o tal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 584.30 ♦ 548 ■ 1.06624 mln. 588.95 f 548 - 1.07473 max. 3.9 mln. max. 337 Table 4 .1 0 0 b .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Troy d i s t r i c t , 1978-79. A. E xp erien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree . Number o f Personnel In C a te g o rie s: H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ea r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more 6 B.A. Degree .90 ■ .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree H lh. Hax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • 548 T o tal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree k in . Hax. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < S 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Degree M.A. Degree Mln. Max. 24 46 84 24 46 84 66 66 48 105 48 105 Min. Max. 4 4 10 21 20 22 10 21 20 22 90 90 2 2 3 3 2 2 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x T abte B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Mln. Less than 1 y e ar I o r m ore, < 3 3 o r more, « S S o r more, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more Hax. B.A. Degree H(n. Hax. 19.2 39.1 79.8 6 6 .0 .80 5 0 .4 115.5 M.A. Degree M1n. Max. 3.60 9.50 22.05 23.00 27.50 121.50 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree H1n. Hax. 2.40 3.90 4.80 Sum • T o tal Weighted Teachers * T o tal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F acto r (ETF) 588.95 a 548 * 1.07473 m ln./m ax. Hin. 588.95 Max. 338 Table 4 . 100c.—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Troy d i s t r i c t , 1979-80. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 • .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel 1n C ateg o rie s: M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1.30 1.40 1.60 ' 548 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Hin. Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more C. HaxL B.A. Degree M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours M.A. Degree “HTnT" Max. 70 84 24 46 84 Hin. max. Min. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree Min. Max. . 14 4 66 21 20 22 153 90 10 21 20 112 66 1 1 48 105 . 2 2 3 3 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree M1 n . Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. .80 .85 B.A. Oegree Wfn. Max. 59.5 79.8 66.0 50.4 115.5 20.4 43.7 84.0 69.3 168.3 M.A. Degree Mln. 13.30 22.05 23.00 27.50 121.50 Max. 3.80 10.50 24.15 25.00 151.20 M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree M1n. Max. 2.40 2 .6 0 4.80 4.80 3 .9 0 Sum * 590.4 612.5 T otal Weighted Teachers ♦ T otal Teachers * E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 590.4 ♦ 548 • 1.07746 mln. 612.5 ♦ 54B ■ 1.11770 max. 3.90 mln. max. 339 Table 4.100d.--F axon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b l e : Troy d i s t r i c t , 1980-81. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l le v e l o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ea r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more 8 . B.A. Degree Number o f Personnel In C ate g o rie s: M.A. Degree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 • .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. m n. nax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree nax: Mln. 1.05 1.05 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • 548 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree h in . Hax. T ffitT Max. 24 46 84 24 46 84 66 66 153 153 Mln. . max. 4 4 10 21 20 112 10 21 20 112 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x T able 8 CM C. M.A. Oegree CM Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more B.A. Oegree 3 3 ): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Mln. Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more .85 Max. B.A. Degree Mln. Nax. 20.4 43.7 84.0 69.3 168.3 M.A. Oegree M1n. Max. 3.80 10.50 24.15 25.00 151.20 M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree M1n. hax. 2.60 3.90 4.80 Sum ■ 612.5 T o tal Weighted Teachers * T otal T eachers * E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 612.5 t 548 - 1.11770 m ln./aiax. 340 T able 4 .1 0 0 e .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Troy d i s t r i c t . 1961-82. A. E x perie n ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: Tears o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y e ar 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 S o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more B. P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education____________________________ M.A. Dlt n „ B.A. M.A. Degree + ^ or Oegree Degree 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .90 ' .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel In C a te g o rie s: 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 D e g r^ ♦ 30 Hours Degree 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 548 T o tal P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l le v e l o f E ducation YM£ » M £ ° Ved E xperience L« * Th*" b.A . Degree M ln. Hax. Less than 1 y e a r I o r m ore. < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 S o r m ore. < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore. < 11 I I o r more C. B-ADegree H.A. Degree Min. flax. "W in . 70 84 24 46 84 219 14 4 21 20 112 10 21 2 132 3 66 153 Max. H in. or HaxT W in . RaxT 2 3 2 2 Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x T able B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Tears o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree Mln. Less than 1 y e ar I o r m ore, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r m ore, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more .85 Wax. .85 M.A. Degree B.A. Degree Mln. Max. 66.50 2 2 .8 84.00 4 6 .0 69.30 8 8 .2 168.30 240.9 Mln. Max. 14.70 4 .2 0 24.15 11.50 25.00 26.25 151.20 178.20 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree Mln. Max. 2.60 4 .8 0 2.80 4.80 3.90 Sum ■ 615.3 630.4 T otal Weighted T eachers + T o tal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F ac to r (ETF) 615.3 t 548 - 1.12281 mln. 630.4 t 548 - 1.15036 max. 3.90 mln. max. 341 Table 4 .1 0 0 f.—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Troy d i s t r i c t , 1982-83. A. E xperience-T raining C a lc u la tio n Table: P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y ea r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree Number o f Personnel 1n C ateg o ries: H.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 ■ .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Ph.D. or Ed.O. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. “HTrT: HaxT Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Degree “HTn nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 ■ 548 T otal P ro fe ssio n al Personnel P ro fessio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A, Oegree W rT R ax7 Less than 1 y ea r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. 8.A. H.A. Oegree Oegree U n r — HaxT 24 46 84 219 24 46 84 219 H in . Hax. 4 4 10 21 10 21 2 2 132 132 3 3 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F a c to r (T able A x Table 8 ): P ro fe ssio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree H in. Less than 1 y ea r I o r more, < 3 3 o r m ore, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more .85 Hax. B.A. Degree H in. Max. 66.50 84.00 69.30 168.30 H.A. Oegree H in. Max. 42.00 11.50 26.25 178.20 H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Hin. Hax. Ph.O. or Ed.D. Degree H1n. Hax. 2.80 4.80 3.90 Sum ■ 630.4 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers ■ E x perience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 630.4 ♦ 548 ■ 1.15036 mln./m ax. 342 Table 4.101 . —Computation o f Faxon formula: Troy d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1364 x 11,160 = $15,222,240 .029 x $454,523,683 = -13,181,187 (RLE) SA = $ 2,041,053 Minimum A dj. BGA = A dj. SA = $15,222,240 x 1.06624 16,230,561 -13,181,187 $ 3,049,374 Maximum (ETF) (RLE) $15,222,240 x 1.07473 16,359,798 -13,181,187 $ 3,178,611 1978-79 $1470 x 11,900 = $17,493,000 RLE -13,181,187 SA = $ 4,311,813 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $17,493,000 x 1.07473 18,800,252 -13,181,187 $ 5,619,065 (ETF) (RLE) 1979-80 $1573 x 12,573 = $19,777,329 RLE -13,181,187 SA = $ 6,596,142 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $19,777,329 x 1.07746 21,309,281 -13,181,187 $ 8,128,094 (ETF) (RLE) $19,777,329 x 1.11770 22,105,121 -13,181,187 $ 8,923,934 343 Table 4.101 . —Continued. 1980-81 $1683 x 13,252 = $22,303,116 RLE -13,181,187 SA = $ 9,121,929 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $22,303,116 x 1.11770 24,928,193 -13,181,187 $11,747,006 (ETF) (RLE) 1981-82 $1801 x 13,923 = $25,075,323 RLE -13,181,187 SA = $11,894,136 $25,075,323 X 1.12281 Adj. BGA = 28,154,823 -1 3 ,1 8 1 ,1 8 7 Adj. SA = $14,973,636 (ETF) (RLE) $25,075,323 x 1.15036 28,845,649 -13,181,187 $15,664,462 1982-83 $1927 x 14,586 = $28,107,222 RLE -13,181,187 SA = $14,926,035 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = Key: ETF RLE SA BGA SEV = = = s = $28,107,222 x 1.15036 32,333,424 -13,1 8 1 ,1 8 7 $19,152,237 (ETF) (RLE) E x p erien ce-T rain in g F acto r Required Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid B asic Gross Allowance S ta te E qualized V aluation Table 4 .10 2.—Faxon weighted pupil units school aid plan: Muskegon Heights d i s t r i c t . Grade 77-78 Pupil Uni ts* 78-79 Pupil Uni ts 79-80 Pupil U nits 80-81 Pupil Units 81-82 Pupil Units 82-83 Pupi 1 Uni ts K 284 156 269 148 261 144 260 143 264 145 287 158 1 325 358 264 290 250 275 243 267 242 266 245 270 2 258 284 312 343 253 278 240 264 233 256 232 255 3 261 287 242 266 293 322 238 262 225 248 219 241 4 243 243 239 239 222 222 268 268 218 218 206 206 5 223 223 230 230 226 226 210 210 254 254 206 206 6 215 215 204 204 210 210 207 207 192 192 232 232 7 246 246 196 196 186 186 191 191 188 188 175 175 8 257 257 243 243 193 193 183 183 189 189 186 186 9 233 233 257 257 243 243 193 193 183 183 189 189 10 223 234 217 228 239 251 226 237 180 189 170 179 11 219 230 206 216 201 211 221 232 209 219 166 174 12 213 224 201 211 190 200 185 194 204 214 192 202 T otals 3080 3200 3190 2967 3071 2865 2961 2705 2781 2851 *A11 pupil units in th is table are weighted numbers as follows: 1.10 pupil u n its, 4-9 = 1.00 pupil u n its, 10-12 = 1.05 pupil un its. 2761 2673 K = .55 pupil u n its, 1-3 = 345 Table 4 .1 0 2 a .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Huskegon H eights d i s t r i c t , 1977-78. A. E x p erien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more B. .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel1 In C ate g o ries: H.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree B.A. Oegree Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. m n. nax. Ph.O. o r Ed.D. Degree h in . nax. 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • 204 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree M ln . Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. Hax. 1 1 1 2 3 M.A. Oegree B.A. Degree m n. Hax. 34 27 18 14 10 45 26 27 18 14 55 m n. nax. 4 1 5 4 37 4 1 5 41 8 1 1 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x T able B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Mln. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Max. .70 .75 .80 1.70 2.55 B.A. Oegree M)n. 27.20 22.95 17.10 14.00 10.50 49.50 Max. 6.10 22.10 25.65 18.00 14.70 60.55 M.A. Degree Mln. 3.80 1.05 5.75 5 .0 0 49.95 Max. M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree m n. Max. 4.20 1.15 6.25 55.35 1.95 Sum ■ 211.95 219.60 T o tal Weighted Teachers * T o tal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F acto r (ETF) 211.95 e 204 - 1.03897 mln. 219.60 e 204 - 1.07647 max. 1.95 mln. max. 346 Table 4 .1 0 2 b .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b l e : Kuskegon H eights d i s t r i c t . 1976-79. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education f e a r s o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more B. B.A. Oegree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 • .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel In C ate g o rie s: M.A. Oegree * 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in. Hax. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Oegree TTTrT HaxT 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • 204 T o tal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education fe a rs o f Approved Experience Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < S 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. Less Than B.A. Oegree B.A. Degree H.A. Oegree W in — Hax7 "W iT— HaxT UTiT— HaxT 1 1 3 3 8 8 26 27 18 14 55 26 27 18 14 55 . 4 4 1 1 5 41 5 41 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x Table B ): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation f e a r s o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree H in. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < S 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more Hax. B.A. Degree Tffii: " HaxT M.A. Degree "HT7T:— HaxT M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Hin. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree “HTn Max. 6.40 2 2 .1 0 .75 2.55 25.65 18.00 14.70 60.55 4 .2 0 1.15 6.25 55.35 1.95 Sum ■ 219.6 T otal Weighted T eachers t T o tal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 219.6 e 204 - 1.07647 m ln./m ax. 347 T able 4 .1 0 2 c .—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Muskegon H eights d i s t r i c t , 1979-80. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Y ears o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 1 1 o r more B. B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 ■ .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel 1n C a te g o rie s: M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree .. n „ PD; „ 0 Jr;*"' °* 9ree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1.30 1.40 1.60 204 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education E xperience b .A. ti» " Oegree m n. max. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B-A. Degree M.A. Degree Min. M ax. 34 27 18 14 55 26 27 18 69 M in . Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Max. M in . ^ hax. or r\«Ar— oegree h in . nax. 8 4 1 4 5 41 46 1 Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F ac to r (T able A x Table B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Y ears o f Approved E xperience Less Than 8 .A. Degree Mln. Less than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more Max. Mln. .75 28.90 25.65 18.00 14.70 60.50 .75 2 .5 5 B.A. Oegree 2.55 Max. 6.80 24.70 27.00 18.90 75.90 M.A. Degree Mln. Hax. 4.20 1.15 6 .2 5 55.35 4.60 1.25 62.10 M.A. Degree a 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in. Hax. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Oegree Min. Max. 1.95 Sum ■ 219.95 224.55 • T o tal Weighted T eachers * T o tal T eachers ■ E x p erien ce-T rain in g F acto r (ETF) 219.95 a 204 - 1.07819 mln. 224.55 t 204 - 1.10074 max. 1.95 mln. max. 348 Table 4,102d.—Faxon e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Muskegon H eights d 1 str1 ct« 1980-81. A. E xperience-T raining C alcu latio n T able: P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y ear 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel in C ateg o ries: M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. “Hl'iT. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree TOxT "FtTn M.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 ■ .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 • 204 T otal P ro fessio n al Personnel P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Hm. Max. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. B.A. Degree Mln. HaxT 34 27 18 69 34 27 18 69 M.A. Degree HTnT HaxT" 4 4 1 1 46 46 Personnel Weighted by E xperience-T raining F acto r (Table A x Table B): P ro fessio n al Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree M1n. Less than 1 y ear I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more B.A. Oegree Max. (Hn. Max. .80 2.55 32.3 27.0 18.9 75.9 24.7 27.0 18.9 75.9 M.A. Degree Min. Max. 4.60 1.25 62.10 4.60 1.25 62.10 M.A. Oegree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Mln. Max. Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree N1n. Max. 6 .8 .75 2.55 1.95 Sum ■ 227.30 226.55 T otal Weighted Teachers * T otal Teachers ■ E xperience-T raining F acto r (ETF) 227.30 ♦ 204 • 1.11422 mln. 226.55 ♦ 204 ■ 1.11054 max. 1.95 mln. max. 349 Table 4 .1 0 2 e .~ F ax o n e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Muskegon H eights d i s t r i c t . 1981-82. A. E x p erie n ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Oegree Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .60 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 H.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .90 ' .90 .96 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1 .0 0 1.05 1 .1 0 Number o f Personnel 1n C ate g o rie s: H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1.30 1.40 1.60 ' 204 T otal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l le v e l o f E ducation Years o f Approved Experience Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 S o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 I I o r more C. Less Than B.A. Oegree B.A. Oegree HTin— HSI7 TWiT— HaxT 1 1 3 3 34 27 18 69 H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Degree HaxT “Win H.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. H in. Hax. Ph.O. o r Ed.O. Degree H.A. Oegree H in. Hax. Tmn— res: 8 26 27 87 4 4 47 1 46 Personnel Weighted by E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (Table A x T able B): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree M^n. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 I I o r more Hax. HJn. Hax. .80 2.55 32 .3 27 .0 18.9 75.9 7 .6 0 26.00 28.35 95.70 .75 2.5 5 H.A. Degree B.A. Degree H in. Hax. 4 .6 0 1.25 62.10 5.00 63.45 H in. Hax. 1.95 1.96 Sum * 227.3 231.4 T otal Weighted T eachers * T o ta l T eachers ■ E xp erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 227.3 ♦ 204 • 1.11422 mln. 231.4 * 204 - 1.13431 max. mln. max. 350 Table 4 .1 0 2 f.~ F a x o n e x p e rie n c e -tra in in g c a lc u la tio n ta b le : Muskegon H eights d i s t r i c t , 19S2-83. A. E xperien ce-T rain in g C a lc u la tio n T able: P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved E xperience Less Than B.A. Degree Less than 1 y e a r 1 o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 1 1 11 o r more B. B.A. Degree .75 .80 .85 .95 .6 0 .65 .70 .75 .75 .80 .85 Number o f Personnel in C a te g o rie s: M.A. Degree ♦ 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Degree .90 • .90 .95 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.10 1.05 Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Degree 1.05 1.05 1.30 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.95 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. UTrT— KaxT Ph.D. o r Ed.O. Oegree -RTnT MaxT 1.10 1.20 ' 204 T o tal P ro fe ssio n a l Personnel P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f Education Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree Min. Max. L ess than 1 y e ar I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < S 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r more, < 9 9 o r more, < 11 II o r more C. M.A. Degree B.A. Degree M in. M ax. "HTnT Max. 4 47 4 47 8 8 26 27 87 26 27 87 Personnel Weighted by E x p erie n ce-T rain in g F a c to r (T able A x T able B ): P ro fe ssio n a l Level o f E ducation Years o f Approved Experience Less Than B.A. Degree M in. Less than 1 y e a r I o r more, < 3 3 o r more, < 5 5 o r more, < 7 7 o r m ore, < 9 9 o r m ore, < 11 II o r more .80 2.55 Max. B.A. Degree M in . M ax. 7.60 26.00 28.35 95.70 M.A. Degree + 30 Hours o r Ed.S. M.A. Oegree M in . M ax. 5.00 63.45 M in . Ph.D. o r Ed.D. Degree M1n. Max. Max. 1.95 Sum ■ 231.4 T o tal w eighted T eachers ♦ T o tal Teachers * E x p erien ce-T rain in g F a c to r (ETF) 231.4 * 204 ■ 1.13431 n tn ./m a x . 351 Table 4 .1 0 3 .—Computation o f Faxon formula: Muskegon Heights d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 $1364 x 3190 = $4,351,160 .029 x $47,329,952 = 1,372,569 (RLE) SA = $2,978,591 Minimum $4,351,160 x 1.03897 Adj. BGA = 4,520,725 -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 Adj. SA = $3,148,156 Maximum (ETF) (RLE) $4,351,160 x 1.07647 4,683,893 -1,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 $3,311,324 1978-79 $1470 x 3142 = $4,618,740 RLE -1,372,569 SA = $3,246,171 $4,618,740 x 1.07647 Adj. BGA = 4,971,935 -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 Adj. SA = $3,599,366 (ETF) (RLE) 1979-80 $1573 x 3075 = $4,836,975 RLE -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 SA = $3,464,406 A dj. BGA = Adj. SA = $4,836,975 x 1.07819 5,215,178 -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 $3,842,609 (ETF) (RLE) $4,836,975 x 1.10074 5,324,252 -1,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 $3,951,683 352 Table 4 .1 0 3 .—Continued. 1980-81 $1683 x 2985 = $5,023,755 RLE -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 SA = $3,651,186 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = $5,023,755 x 1.11054 5,579,081 -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 $4,206,512 (ETF) (RLE) $5,023,755 x 1.11422 5,597,568 -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 $4,224,999 1981-82 $1801 x 2761 = $4,972,561 RLE -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 SA = $3,599,992 $4,972,561 x 1.11422 Adj. BGA = 5,540,527 -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 Adj. SA = $4,167,958 (ETF) (RLE) $4,972,561 x 1.13431 5,640,426 -1,372,569 $4,267,857 1982-83 $1927 x 2673 = $5,150,871 RLE -1,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 SA = $3,778,302 Adj. BGA = Adj. SA = Key: ETF RLE SA BGA SEV = = = = $5,150,871 x 1.13431 5,842,684 -1 ,3 7 2 ,5 6 9 $4,470,115 (ETF) (RLE) E x p erien ce-T rain in g F acto r Required Local E f fo r t S ta te Aid B asic Gross Allowance S ta te E qualized V aluation 353 Michigan Public School Finance Plan The 79th l e g i s l a t u r e o f th e S ta te o f Michigan enacted E n ro lled House B ill 4350 to make " a p p ro p ria tio n s f o r th e purpose o f a id in g in th e su p p o rt o f th e p u b lic schools and in te rm e d ia te school 20 d i s t r i c t s o f th e S t a te ." The fin a n c e plan approved by th e governor i s a com bination o f f l a t g ra n t and fo u n d atio n t ie d to a powere q u a liz in g concept o f school fin a n c e . There i s a llo c a te d to every d i s t r i c t an amount p er membership pupil s u f f i c i e n t to g u a ra n tee th e d i s t r i c t a combined s t a t e lo ca l y ie ld o r "g ro ss allow ance" o f $164.00 in 1977-78 and $260.00 in 1978-79, p lu s $40.00 p er m ill o f ta x le v ie d f o r purposes included in th e o p e ra tio n c o s t o f th e d i s t r i c t . . . n o t in excess o f 30 m ills in 1977-78. The n e t a llo c a tio n f o r each d i s t r i c t s h a ll be an amount per membership pup il computed by s u b tr a c tin g from th e g ro ss allow ance guaranteed th e d i s t r i c t , th e p ro d u ct o f th e d i s t r i c t 's s t a t e e q u a liz e d v a lu a tio n behind each membership p u p il and th e mi11age u t i l i z e d f o r computing th e g ro ss a llo w a n c e .21 The l e g i s l a t u r e responded to th e school d i s t r i c t s ' re q u e s t f o r f in a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e to help w ith th e im pact o f d e c lin in g e n r o l l ­ m ents. The b i l l " a llo c a te d "6,000,000 to be d i s t r ib u t e d to th o se d i s t r i c t s e x p e rie n c in g a d e c lin e o f membership in 1977-78 over 1977-77 in ex cess o f 2%. The d i s t r ib u t i o n made under t h i s su b se c tio n s h a ll be on th e b a s is o f an amount per pupil o f membership d e c lin e in excess o f 2 % . 1,22 M ichigan's fin a n c e plan r e t a in s c a te g o ric a l a id s f o r com­ p en sato ry e d u c a tio n , s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n , v o c a tio n a l-te c h n ic a l e d u c a tio n , and tr a n s p o rta tio n program s. ad d ed -co st b a s is . G en erally th e s e f a c to r s a re funded on an While th e s e f a c to r s a re im p o rtan t to c o n s id e r, d a ta r e l a t i v e to th e funding and im plem entation o f th e s e programs a re in d iv id u a lly designed and o u ts id e th e r e s e a r c h e r 's b a sic review in t h i s stu d y . In a d d itio n , a f t e r d isc u ssio n w ith v a rio u s agencies w ith in th e S ta te Department o f E ducation, i t was re v e ale d t h a t addedc o s t funding i s g e n e ra lly designed to reim burse up to 75% o f th e a d d itio n a l c o s t but th e in d iv id u a l d i s t r i c t s a re g e n e ra lly funded a t a r a t e o f 65-69% o f t h e i r in d iv id u a l added c o s ts beyond th e normal a llo c a tio n p er p u p il. 355 Table 4 .1 0 4 .—Michigan data. D is tric t S ta te SEV E nrollm ent SEV/PP Lakeshore 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 24.87 $ 97,754,215 104,597,040 111,918,833 119,753,151 128,135,872 137,105,383 3,801 3,725 3,608 3,490 3,375 3,327 $25,718 28,080 31,020 34,313 37,966 41,210 25.00 Homer 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 23,784,370 25,449,297 27,230,748 29,136,900 31,176,483 33,358,837 1,298 1,267 1,205 1,160 1,108 1,084 18,324 20,086 22,598 25,118 28,138 30,774 23.80 C en tra l Lake 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 29,249,396 31,296,834 33,487,634 35,831,768 38,339,992 41,023,791 587 584 586 586 599 607 49,829 53,591 57,146 61,146 64,007 67,584 31.88 C en ter Line 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 219,922,679 234,615,976 251,039,094 268,611,831 287,414,659 307,533,685 4,416 4,077 3,737 3,422 3,167 2,956 49,801 57,546 67,177 78,496 90,753 103,721 22.51 D etro i t 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Local O perating Mi 11 age 5,396,865,638 5,774,646,233 6,178,871,469 6,611,392,472 7,074,189,945 7,569,383,241 219,763 210,199 199,836 190,814 180,470 172,062 24,558 27,472 30,920 34,648 39,199 43,992 356 Table 4 .1 0 4 .—Continued. D is tric t S ta te SEV E nrollm ent SEV/PP 28.65 Cherry H ill 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 69,160,114 74,001,322 79,181,415 . 84,724,114 90,654,802 97,000,638 3,350 3,168 2,987 2,804 2,545 2,513 $20,645 23,359 26,509 30,215 35,621 38,600 Rudyard 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 20.44 15,433,865 16,514,236 17,670,233 18,907,149 20,230,649 21,646,794 322 319 305 297 283 285 47,931 51,769 57,935 63,660 71,486 75,954 Genesee 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 25.11 14,083,820 15,069,687 16,124,565 17,253,285 18,461,015 19,753,286 844 882 913 939 958 967 16,687 17,086 17,661 18,374 19,270 20,427 P o rt A ustin 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 25.00 19,949,973 21,346,471 22,840,724 24,439,576 26,150,346 27,980,870 322 319 305 297 283 285 61,956 66,917 74,888 82,288 92,404 98,178 21.08 Elk Rapids 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Local O peratin g M illag e 73,522,203 78,668,757 84,175,570 90,067,860 96,372,610 103,118,693 1,118 1,106 1,189 1,230 1,269 1,314 65,762 71,129 70,795 73,226 75,944 78,477 357 Table 4 .1 0 4 .—Continued. D is tric t S ta te SEV Enrollm ent SEV/PP Arenac E astern 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 22.60 $ 13,088,199 14,004,373 14,984,679 16,033,607 17,155,959 18,356,876 630 627 619 598 577 573 $20,775 22,336 24,208 26,812 29,733 32,036 Camden F ro n tie r 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 21.95 19,880,248 21,271,865 22,760,896 24,354,159 26,058,950 27,883,077 738 693 673 642 621 597 26,938 30,695 33,820 37,935 41,963 46,705 28.33 Troy 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 486,340,341 520,384,165 556,811,057 595,787,831 637,492,979 682,117,488 11,080 11,816 12,490 13,149 13,803 14,498 43,894 44,041 44,581 45,311 46,185 47,049 28.30 Muskegon H eights 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Local O perating M illage 50,643,049 54,188,062 57,981,226 61,116,912 65,395,096 69,972,753 3,200 3,080 2,967 2,865 2,781 2,705 15,826 17,594 19,542 21,332 23,515 25,868 358 Table 4 .1 0 5 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Lakeshore d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m i l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (24.87 x 25,718) = 1364 - 640 = $724 TOTAL STATE AID = $724 x E nrollm ent o f 3801 = $2,753,419 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m i l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (24.87 x 28,080) = 1460 - 698 = $762 TOTAL STATE AID = $762 x E nrollm ent o f 3725 = $2,837,147 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + ( 3 0 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (24.87 x 31,020) = 1478 - 771.4674 = $706.5326 TOTAL STATE AID = $706.5326 x E nrollm ent o f 3608 = $2,549,169.6208 359 Table 4 .1 0 5 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (24.87 x 34,313) = 1497 - 853.36431 = $643.63569 TOTAL STATE AID = $643.63569 x E nrollm ent o f 3490 = $2,246,288.5581 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m i l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m i l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (24.87 x 37,966) = 1518 - 944.21442 = $573.78558 TOTAL STATE AID = $573.78558 x E nrollm ent o f 3375 = $1,936,526.3325 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m i l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (24.87 x 41,210) = 1540 - 1,024.8927 . = $515.1073 TOTAL STATE AID = $515.1073 x E nrollm ent o f 3327 = $1,713,761.9871 360 Table 4 .1 0 6 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Homer d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m i l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (25.00 x 18,324) = 1364 - 458.10 = $905.90 TOTAL STATE AID = $905.90 x E nrollm ent o f 1298 = $1,175,858.20 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (25.00 x 20,086) = 1460 - 502.15 = $957.85 TOTAL STATE AID = $957.85 x E nrollm ent o f 1267 = $1,213,595.95 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (25.00 x 22,598) = 1478 - 564.95 = $913.05 TOTAL STATE AID = $913.05 x E nrollm ent o f 1205 = $1,100,225.25 361 Table 4 .1 0 6 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - 25.00 x 25,118 = 1497 - 627.95 = $869.05 TOTAL STATE AID - $869.05 x E nrollm ent o f 1160 = $1,008,098 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (25.00 x 28,138) = 1518 - 703.45 = $814.55 TOTAL STATE AID = $814.55 x Enrollm ent o f 1108 = $902,521.40 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (25.00 x 30,774) = 1540 - 769.35 = $770.65 TOTAL STATE AID = $770.65 x E nrollm ent o f 1084 = $835,384.60 362 Table 4 .1 0 7 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Central Lake d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m i l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (23.80 x 49,829) = 1364 - 1185.9302 = $178.0698 TOTAL STATE AID = $178.0698 x E nrollm ent o f 587 = $104,526.9726 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (23.80 x 53,591) = 1460 - 1275.4658 = $184.5342 TOTAL STATE AID = $184.5342 x 584 = $107,767.9728 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (23.80 x 57,146) = 1478 - 1360.0748 = $117.9252 TOTAL STATE AID = $117.9252 x E nrollm ent o f 586 = $69,104.1672 363 Table 4 .1 0 7 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (23.80 x 61,146) = 1497 - 1455.2748 = $41.7252 TOTAL STATE AID = $41.7252 x Enrollm ent o f 586 = $24,450.9672 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (23.80 x 64,007) = 1518 - 1523.3666 = -$5.3666 Enrollm ent o f 599 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (2380 x 67,584) = 1540 - 1608.4942 = -$68.4992 Enrollment o f 607 364 Table 4 .1 0 8 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Center Line d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (31.88 x 49,801) = 1364 - 1587.65588 = -$223.65588 E nrollm ent o f 4416 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (31.88 x 57,546) = 1460 - 1834.56648 = -$374.56648 E nrollm ent o f 4077 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 mi l l s x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 mi l l s x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (31.88 x 67,177) = 1478 - 2141.60276 = -$663.60276 Enrollment o f 3737 365 Table 4 .1 0 8 .--Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (31.88 x 78,496) = 1497 - 2502.45248 = -$1,005.45248 E nrollm ent o f 3422 1981-82 STATE AID = $138 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (31.88 x 90,753) = 1518 - 2893.20564 = -$1,375.20564 E nrollm ent o f 3167 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (31.88 x 103,721) = 1540 - 3,306.62548 = -$1,766.62548 Enrollment o f 2956 366 Table 4 .1 0 9 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: D etroit d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (22.51 x 24,558) = 1364 - 557.80058 = $811.19942 TOTAL STATE AID = $811.19942 x E nrollm ent o f 219,763 = $178,271,618,137 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (22.51 x 27.472) = 1460 x 618.39472 = $841.60528 TOTAL STATE AID = $841.60528 x E nrollm ent o f 210,199 = $176,904,588.25 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (22.51 x 30,920) = 1478 - 696.0092 = $781.9908 TOTAL STATE AID = $781.9908 x E nrollm ent o f 199,836 = $156,269,913,508 367 Table 4 .1 0 9 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (22.51 x 34,648) = 1497 - 779.92648 = $717.07352 TOTAL STATE AID = $717.07352 x E nrollm ent o f 190,814 = $136,827,666,645 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (22.51 x 39,199) = 1518 - 882.36969 = $635.63051 TOTAL STATE AID = $635.63051 x E nrollm ent o f 180,470 = $114,712,238,139 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (22.51 x 43,992) = 1540 - 990.25992 = $549.74008 TOTAL STATE AID = $549.74008 x E nrollm ent o f 172,062 = $94,589,377.6449 368 Table 4 .1 1 0 .--C om putation o f Michigan form ula: Cherry H ill d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (28.65 x 20,645) = 1364 - 591.47925 = $772.52075 TOTAL STATE AID = $772,52075 x E nrollm ent o f 3350 = $2,587,944.5125 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (28.65 x 23,359) = 1460 - 669.23535 = $790.76465 TOTAL STATE AID = $790.76465 x E nrollm ent o f 3168 = $2,505,142.4112 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (28.65 x 26,509) = 1478 - 759.48285 = $718.51715 TOTAL STATE AID = $718.51715 x E nrollm ent o f 2987 = $2,146,210.72705 369 Table 4 .1 1 0 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (28.65 x 30,215) = 1497 - 865.65975 = $631.34025 TOTAL STATE AID = $631.34025 x E nrollm ent o f 2804 = $1,770,278,061 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (28.65 x 35,621) = 1518 - 1,020.54165 = $497.45835 TOTAL STATE AID = $497.45835 x E nrollm ent o f 2545 = $1,266,031.50075 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (28.65 x 38,600) = 1540 - 1,1 0 5 .8 9 = $434.11 TOTAL STATE AID = $434.11 x E nrollm ent o f 2513 = $1,090,918.43 370 Table 4.111 . —Computation o f Michigan formula: Port Austin d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (25.00 x 61,956) = 1364 - 1,548.90 = -$184.90 E nrollm ent o f 322 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (25.00) x 66,917) = 1460 - 1,672.925 = -$212,925 E nrollm ent o f 319 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (25.00 x 74,888) = 1478 - 1,872.20 = -$394.20 Enrollment o f 305 371 Table 4.111 . —Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) ■ $1497 - (25.00 x 82,288) =* 1497 - 2,057.20 = -$560.20 E nrollm ent o f 297 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (25.00 x 92,404) = 1518 - 2,310.10 = -$792.10 Enrollm ent o f 289 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (25.00 x 98,178) = 1540 - 2,454.45 = -$914.45 Enrollment o f 285 372 Table 4 .1 1 2 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Elk Rapids d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (21.08 x 65,762) = 1364 - 1,386.26296 = -$22.26296 E nrollm ent o f 1118 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (21.08 x 71,129) = 1460 - 1,499.39932 = -$39.39932 Enrollm ent o f 1106 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (21.08 x 70,795) = 1478 - 1,492.3586 = -$14.3586 Enrollment o f 1189 373 Table 4 .1 1 2 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (21.08 x 73,226) = 1497 - 1,543.60408 = -$46.60408 Enrollm ent o f 1230 1981-82 STATE AID = $317 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) = (21.08 x 75,994) = 1518 - 1601.95352 = -$83.95352 E nrollm ent o f 1269 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (21.08 x 78,477) = 1540 - 1,654.29516 = -$114.29516 Enrollment o f 1314 374 Table 4 .1 1 3 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Arenac Eastern d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (22.60 x 20,775) = 1364 - 469.515 = $894,485 TOTAL STATE AID = $894,485 x E nrollm ent o f 630 = $563,525.55 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (22.60 x 22,336) = 1460 - 504.7936 = $955.2064 TOTAL STATE AID = $955.2064 x E nrollm ent o f 627 = $598,914.4128 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (22.60 x 24,208) = 1478 - 547.1008 = $930.8992 TOTAL STATE AID = $930.8992 x E nrollm ent o f 619 = $576,226.6048 375 Table 4 .1 1 3 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (22.60 x 26,812) = 1497 - 605.9512 = $891.0488 TOTAL STATE AID = $891.0488 x E nrollm ent o f 598 = $532,847.1824 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - 22.60 x 29,733) = 1518 - 671.9658 = $846.0342 TOTAL STATE AID = $846.0342 x E nrollm ent o f 577 = $488,161.7334 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (22.60 x 32,036) = 1540 - 724.0136 « $815.9864 TOTAL STATE AID = $815.9864 x E nrollm ent o f 573 = $467,560.2072 376 Table 4 .1 1 4 .—Computation o f Michigan form ula: Rudyard d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (20.44 x 47,931) = 1364 - 979.70964 = $384.29036 TOTAL STATE AID = $384.29036 x E nrollm ent o f 855 = $328,320 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (20.44 x 51,769) = 1460 - 1,058.15836 = $401.84164 TOTAL STATE AID = $401.84164 x E nrollm ent o f 781 = $313,962 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (20.44 x 57,935) = 1478 - 1,184.1914 = $293.8086 TOTAL STATE AID = $293.8086 x E nrollm ent o f 719 = $211,386 377 Table 4 .1 1 4 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (20.44 x 63,660) = 1497 - 1,301.2104 = $195.7896 TOTAL STATE AID = $195.7896 x E nrollm ent o f 673 = $131,908 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (20.44 x 71,486) = 1518 - 1,461.17384 = $56.82616 TOTAL STATE AID = $56.82616 x E nrollm ent o f 633 = $37,107 1982-83 STATE AID * $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (20.44 x 75,954) = 1540 - 1,552.49976 = -$12.49976 Enrollment o f 614 378 Table 4 .1 1 5 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Genesee d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (25.11 x 16,687) = 1364 - 419.01057 = $944.98943 TOTAL STATE AID = $944.98943 x E nrollm ent o f 844 = $797,571.07892 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (25.11 x 17,086) = 1460 - 429.02946 = $1,030.97054 TOTAL STATE AID = $1,030.97054 x Enrollm ent o f 882 = $909,316.01628 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (25.11 x 17,661) = 1478 - 443.46771 = $1,034.53229 TOTAL STATE AID = $1,034.53229 x Enrollm ent o f 913 = $944,527.98077 379 Table 4 .1 1 5 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (25.11 x 18,374) = 1497 - 461.37114 = $1,035.62886 TOTAL STATE AID = $1,035.62886 x Enrollm ent o f 939 = $972,455.49954 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (25.11 x 19,270) = 1518 - 483.8697 = $1,034.1303 TOTAL STATE AID = $1,034.1303 x E nrollm ent o f 958 = $990,696.8274 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (25.11 x 20,427) = 1540 - 512.92197 = $1,027.07803 TOTAL STATE AID = $1,027.07803 x Enrollm ent o f 967 = $993,184.45501 380 Table 4 .1 1 6 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Camden Frontier d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (21.95 x 26,938) = 1364 - 591.2891 = $772.7109 TOTAL STATE AID = $772.8109 x E nrollm ent o f 738 = $570,260.6442 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (21.95 x 30,695) = 1460 - 673.75525 = $786.24475 TOTAL STATE AID = $786.24475 x E nrollm ent o f 693 = $544,867.61175 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (21.95 x 33,820) = 1478 - 742.349 = $735,651 TOTAL STATE AID = $735,651 x E nrollm ent o f 673 = $495,093,123 381 Table 4 .1 1 6 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (21.95 x 37,935) = 1497 - 832.67325 = $664.32675 TOTAL STATE AID = $664.32675 x E nrollm ent o f 642 = $426,497.7735 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (21.95 x 41,963) = 1518 - 921.08785 = $596.91215 TOTAL STATE AID = $596.91215 x E nrollm ent o f 621 = $370,682.44515 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (21.95 x 46,705) = 1540 - 1,025.17475 = $514.82525 TOTAL STATE AID = $514.82525 x E nrollm ent o f 597 = $307,350.67425 382 Table 4 .1 1 7 .—Computation o f Michigan form ula: Troy d i s t r i c t . 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (28.33 x 43,894) = 1364 - 1,243.51702 = $120.48298 TOTAL STATE AID = $120.48298 x Enrollm ent o f 11,080 = $1,334,951.4184 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (28.33 x 44,041) = 1460 - 1,247.68153 = $212.31847 TOTAL STATE AID = $212.31847 x E nrollm ent o f 11,816 = $2,508,755.04152 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (28.33 x 44,581) = 1478 - 1,262.97973 = $215.02027 TOTAL STATE AID = $215.02027 x Enrollm ent o f 12,490 = $2,685,603.1723 383 Table 4 .1 1 7 .--Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (28.33 x 45,311) = 1497 - 1,283 .,66063 = $213.33937 TOTAL STATE AID = $213.33937 x Enrollm ent o f 13,149 = $2,805,199.37613 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (28.33 x 46,185 = 1518 - 1,308.42105 = $209.57895 TOTAL STATE AID = $209,57895 x E nrollm ent o f 13,803 = $2,892,818.24685 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (28.33 x 47,049) = 1540 - 1,332.89817 = $207.10183 TOTAL STATE AID = $207.10183 x Enrollm ent o f 14,498 = $3,002,562.33134 384 Table 4 .1 1 8 .—Computation o f Michigan formula: Muskegon Heights d istr ic t. 1977-78 STATE AID = $164 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (164 + 1200) - (28.30 x 15,826) = 1364 - 447.8758 = $916.1242 TOTAL STATE AID = $916.1242 x E nrollm ent o f 3200 = $2,931,597.44 1978-79 STATE AID = $260 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (260 + 1200) - (28.30 x 17,594) = 1460 - 497.9102 = $962.0898 TOTAL STATE AID = $962.0898 x E nrollm ent o f 3080 = $2,963,236,584 1979-80 STATE AID = $278 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (278 + 1200) - (28.30 x 19,542) = 1478 - 553.0386 = $924.9614 TOTAL STATE AID = $924.9614 x E nrollm ent o f 2967 = $2,744,360.4738 385 Table 4 .1 1 8 .—Continued. 1980-81 STATE AID = $297 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (297 + 1200) - (28.30 X 21,332) = 1497 - 603.6956 = $893.3047 TOTAL STATE AID = $893.3047 x E nrollm ent o f 2865 = $2,559,317.9655 1981-82 STATE AID = $318 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (318 + 1200) - (28.30 x 23.515) = 1518 - 665.4745 = $852.5255 TOTAL STATE AID = $852.5255 x E nrollm ent o f 2781 = $2,370,873.4155 1982-83 STATE AID = $340 + (30 m ills x 40,000 SEV/pp) (max. 30 m ills x max. 40,000 SEV/pp) = (340 + 1200) - (28.30 x 25,868 = 1540 - 732.0644 = $807.9356 TOTAL STATE AID = $807.9356 x E nrollm ent o f 2705 = $2,185,465,798 386 C alifornia State Finance Plan The fo u n d atio n program o f f e r s a g u a ra n tee to each in d iv id u a l d is tric t. The g u aran tee i s th e amount o f money t h a t th e s t a t e guar­ a n te e s to each d i s t r i c t to spend on each s tu d e n t provided th e d i s t r i c t le v ie s a re q u ire d p ro p e rty ta x e f f o r t . I f a d i s t r i c t is c la s s ifie d as a w ealthy d i s t r i c t and th e lo c a l e f f o r t r a is e s more than th e foun­ d a tio n program amount, th e s t a t e re c a p tu re s a s e t p e rcen tag e o f the excess in o rd e r to sh a re th e w ealth and keep t h e i r e x p e n d itu re s and ta x r a t i o s in lin e w ith le s s w ealthy d i s t r i c t s . T his i s th e r e s u l t o f th e Serrano requirem ent o f f i s c a l n e u t r a l i t y : t h a t i s , th e fin a n c in g o f th e sch o o ls s h a ll be based on th e w ealth o f th e s t a t e r a th e r than th e w ealth o f th e in d iv id u a l d i s t r i c t s . C a lifo rn ia has d i f f e r e n t fo u n d atio n g u a ra n tee s based on th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f th e school d i s t r i c t . A u n ifie d school d i s t r i c t is a com bination o f a K- 8 d i s t r i c t w ith a 9-12 d i s t r i c t to form a comprehensive K-12 e d u c a tio n al u n it under th e d ir e c tio n o f one school board. These d i s t r i c t s a re funded a t $10 more p er pupil than in d i­ vidual elem entary d i s t r i c t s o f 900 o r few er stu d e n ts in A.D.A. o r a high school d i s t r i c t w ith 300 o r few er A.D.A. U n ific a tio n i s encour­ aged because o f th e values placed on c o n tin u ity o f programs which r e s u l t when elem entary and high school d i s t r i c t s have a common govern­ ing school board. A d m in istra tiv e e ase in rec o rd keeping is o fte n c ite d as a n o th e r f a c to r c o n trib u tin g to th e encouragem ent o f u n i­ fic a tio n . The s m a lle r n e ce ssa ry d i s t r i c t s a re funded a t $10 le s s p er p up il because th e se d i s t r i c t s accru e sav in g s as th e county assumes m aintenance and h e a lth s e rv ic e s f o r which th e s e d i s t r i c t s need not pay. 387 For th e b a sis o f t h is re s e a rc h , th e in v e s tig a to r has assumed t h a t a l l th e Michigan sample d i s t r i c t s would be c la s s if i e d as u n i­ f ie d d i s t r i c t s and hence e l i g i b l e f o r th e inducement o f th e ad d i­ tio n a l monies th a t C a lifo rn ia p ro v id es. The C a lifo rn ia C o n stitu tio n re q u ire s th e county a s s e s s o rs to a sse ss p ro p e rty a t 25% o f tr u e m arket v a lu e . The s t a t e then a u d its th e se v a lu a tio n s and can a d ju s t the lo ca l v a lu a tio n s so t h a t a s s e s s ­ ment p r a c tic e s a re eq u alized by th e c o u n tie s . T his s t a t e adjustm ent f a c to r is known as th e C o llie r E ffe c t. The foundation program amounts a re th e c e n tra l fe a tu r e o f the C a lifo rn ia school fin an ce system . Since 1973, th e s t a t e l e g is la tu r e has provided f o r autom atic annual in c re a se s in th e foundation program amounts. Data gathered from C a lifo rn ia rev eal th e follow ing a ctu al and p ro je c te d foundation le v e ls . I t i s im portant to note th a t language o f th e AB 65 i s a lre a d y under p o l i t i c a l in sp e c tio n and i s s u b je c t to change a t alm ost any tim e. For th e purposes o f t h i s re s e a rc h , the follow ing d a ta were in co rp o rated in to th e stu d y . UNIFIED FOUNDATION PROGRAM LEVEL CHANGES F isc a l Year 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P rio r Law 1,095 1,170 1,240 1,314 1,393 1,476 1,561 AB 65 1,095 1,215 1,324 1,443 1,530 1,662 1,762 P o litic a l Compromise 1,252 1,095 1,328 1,142 1,427 1,241 1,360 1,546 1,452 1,659 1,537 1,747 1,851 1,629 The Assembly B ill 65 r e ta in s th e use o f B o a rd -in itia te d perm is­ s iv e o v e rrid e s o f lo c a l tax e s le v ie d . These "lo c a l c o n tro l" mechanisms 388 allow lo c a l boards o f ed u catio n to perm it a d d itio n a l ta x a tio n w ith o u t v o te r a p p ro v a l. Hence a s i t u a t i o n could and did develop where boards lea rn ed to use th e p erm issiv e o v e rrid e ta x e s to "b ea t th e system ." AB 65 has e lim in a te d many o f th e 60 o v e rrid e s form erly a v a ila b le to th e lo c a l boards o f e d u c a tio n . However, s p e c ific -p u rp o s e o v e rrid e s a re s t i l l a v a ila b le f o r lo c a l board use. The C a lifo rn ia s o lu tio n to d e c lin in g en ro llm en t has been su g g ested as " (a ) 75 per c e n t o f th e c u rr e n t y e a r lo s s in A.D.A. but only i f t h a t lo s s in A.D.A. r e p re s e n ts a t l e a s t a 1 p er c e n t lo s s in A .D .A.; and (b) 50 p e rc e n t o f th e p r io r y e a r lo s s in A.D.A. b u t only 23 i f th e lo s s had q u a lif ie d f o r 75 p e rc e n t o f th e p r io r y e a r ." How­ e v e r, t h i s proposal i s under d is c u s s io n and new language has been proposed; th e r e f o r e , a d e c lin in g en ro llm e n t adjustm ent has not been in clu d ed in t h i s re s e a rc h . The l e g i s l a t u r e has implemented a re c a p tu re p ro v isio n to a s s i s t in th e e q u a liz a tio n p ro c e ss . The Act re q u ire s a p h a se-in o f a uniform tax r a t e per d o l la r o f e x p e n d itu re . The p h a se -in o f th e re c a p tu re i s 10% in 1978-79, 15% in 1979-80, and 20% in 1980-81. In d i s t r i c t s w ith above-average a sse sse d v a lu e , any excess revenue which i s gen­ e ra te d w ill be re c a p tu re d by th e s t a t e and r e v e r t to th e S ta te Fund f o r E q u a liz a tio n o f School T axes, where i t w ill be r e d is tr ib u te d to th o se d i s t r i c t s o f low w e a lth . I t is im p o rtan t to note t h a t none o f th e sample d i s t r i c t s used in t h i s re s e a rc h lev y a mi1 1 age in excess o f th e re q u ire d lo c a l levy under C a lif o rn ia law. T h e re fo re , th e re c a p tu re p ro v isio n has n o t been c o sted o u t in th e d a ta . Table 4.1 1 9 .—California foundation aid. D is tr ic t K- 8 Membership K- 8 Foundation 2,516 2,448 2.376 2.376 2,276 2,261 $2,898,432 3,086,928 3,278,880 3,400,612 3,520,972 3,705,779 1,285 1,277 1,232 1,164 1,099 1,066 $1,719,330 1,847,819 1,929,312 1,931,076 1,930,943 1,983,826 $4,617,762 4,934,747 5,208,192 5,331,688 5,451,915 5,689,605 895 868 824 710 763 751 1,022,090 1,077,188 1,128,880 1,030,920 1,172,731 1,223,379 403 399 381 358 345 333 539,214 577,353 596,646 593,922 606,165 619,713 1,561,304 1,654,541 1,725,526 1,624,842 1,778,896 1,843,092 392 391 397 403 402 410 447,664 489,141 543.890 585,156 617,874 667.890 195 193 189 183 197 197 258,960 277,341 294,084 301,767 344,159 364,647 706,624 766,482 837,974 886,923 962,033 1,032,537 Membership Foundation Lakeshore 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Homer 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 C entral Lake 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Table 4.1 1 9 .—Continued. D is tr ic t |Membership | h K -8h . , r i K i. „ I''? Membership .Foundation 9 -’2 3,067,776 3,055,403 3,087,060 3,023,416 2,970,240 3,009,204 1,453 1,654 1,500 1,354 1,247 1 ,1 2 0 $ 1,944,114 2,393,338 2,349,000 2,246,286 2,190,979 2,084,320 161,402 154,414 146,555 138,329 131,816 125,872 185,935,104 194,716,054 202,245,900 202,236,998 203,919,352 206,304,208 58,361 55,785 53,281 41,945 48,654 46,190 78,087,018 80,720,895 83,438,046 86,176,755 85,485,078 85,959,590 264,022,122 275,436,949 285,583,946 288,413,753 289,404,430 292,263,798 2,146 2,014 1,936 1,814 1,728 1,691 2,472,192 2,539,654 2,671,680 2,652,068 2,673,216 2,771,549 1,205 1,154 1,051 990 917 822 1,612,290 1,669,838 1,645,866 1,642,410 1,611,169 1,529,742 4,084,482 4,209,492 4,317,546 4,294,478 4,284,385 4,301,291 Foundation Foundation Center Line 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 2,663 2,423 2,237 2,068 1,920 1,836 $ $ 5,011,890 5,448,741 5,436,060 5,269,702 5,161,219 5,093,524 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 lerry H ill 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 390 D e tro it Table 4.119.--Continued. D is tr ic t K- 8 Membership K- 8 Foundation 9-12 Membership 9-12 Foundation 131 134 128 121 106 90 $173,968 192,558 199,168 199,529 185,182 166,590 Total Allowance 0 P o rt Austin 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 191 185 177 176 177 195 $ $218,122 231,435 242,490 255,552 272,049 317,655 $ 392,090 423,993 441,658 455,081 457,231 484,245 Elk Rapids 00 US 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 746 771 779 828 855 885 851,932 964,521 1,067,230 1,202,256 1,314,135 1,441,665 372 390 410 402 414 429 497,736 564,330 642,060 666,918 727,398 798,369 1,349,668 1,528,851 1,709,290 1,869,174 2,041,533 2,240,034 422 422 402 386 376 367 481,924 527,922 550,740 560,472 577,912 597,843 208 205 217 212 201 206 276,224 294,585 337,652 349,588 351,147 381,306 758,148 822,507 888,392 910,060 929,059 979,149 Arenac Eastern 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Table 4.1 1 9 .—Continued. n le W rt K- 8 Membership K- 8 Foundation Membership Foundlwon 303 261 229 203 159 144 $405,414 375,057 356,324 334,747 277,773 266,544 Rudyard 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 552 520 490 470 474 470 $ 630,384 650,520 671,300 682,440 728,538 765,630 $1,035,798 1,025,577 1,027,624 1,017,187 1,006,311 1,032,174 Genesee 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 to 686 701,188 779,373 868,580 942,348 1,028,253 1,117,494 230 259 279 290 289 281 305,440 372,183 434,124 478,210 504,883 520,131 1,006,628 1,151,556 1,302,704 1,420,558 1,533,136 1,637,625 478 445 425 410 405 396 545,876 556,695 582,250 595,320 622,485 645,084 260 248 248 252 216 345,280 356,376 385,888 415,548 377,352 372,051 891,156 913,071 968,138 1 , 010,868 999,837 1,017,135 614 623 634 649 669 Camden F ro n tie r 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 201 <0 ro Table 4.11 9.--Continued. D is tr ic t Foundation Membership Foundation Total Foundation Allowance 8,558 9,011 9,402 9,668 9,934 $ 9,241,344 10,791,638 12,435,180 13,745,724 14,956,396 16,281,826 3,058 3,258 3,479 3,747 4,115 4,564 $4,091,604 4,714,326 5,448,114 6,216,273 7,230,055 8,493,604 $13,332,948 15,505,964 17,883,294 19,961,997 22,186,451 24,775,430 2,312 2,199 2,094 2,040 2,005 1,988 2,663,424 2,772,939 2,889,720 2,982,480 3,101,735 3,258,332 888 1,188,144 1,274,807 1,367,118 1,368,675 1,363,432 1,334,337 3,851,568 4,047,746 4,256,838 4,351,155 4,465,167 4,592,669 K" 8 MCTibership K" 8 9 -1 2 9 -1 2 Troy 8 ,0 2 2 Muskegon Heights 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 881 873 825 776 717 393 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 394 Table 4 .1 2 0 .—California local e f f o r t revenue generation. D is tric t Michigan SEV PaUfn^nla E q u iv alen t SEV LOCal E ffo r t Requ1rec Required LOCdl E ffo rt G eneration Lakeshore 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 91,359,079 97,754,215 104,597,040 111,918,833 119,753,151 128,135,872 137,105,383 $ 45,679,540 48,877,108 52,298,520 55,959,417 59,876,576 64,067,936 68,552,692 38.7 $ 1,767,798 1,891,544 2,023,953 2,165,629 2,317,223 2,479,429 2,652,989 Homer 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 22,228,383 23,784,370 25,449,297 27,230,748 29,136,900 31,176,483 33,358,837 11,114,192 11,892,185 12,724,649 13,615,374 14,568,450 15,588,242 16,679,419 430,119 460,228 492,444 526,915 563,799 663,264 645,493 27,335,884 29,249,396 31,296,854 33,487,634 35,831,768 38,339,992 41,023,791 13,667,942 14,624,698 15,648,427 16,743,817 17,915,884 19,169,996 20,511,896 528,949 565,976 605,594 647,986 693,345 741,879 793,810 204,922,679 219,267,267 234,615,976 251,039,094 268,611,831 287,414,659 307,533,685 102,461,340 109,633,634 117,307,988 125,519,547 134,305,916 143,707,330 153,766,843 3,965,254 4,242,822 4,539,819 4,857,606 5,197,639 5,561,474 5,950,777 C entral Lake 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 C enter Line 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 395 Table 4 .1 2 0 .—Continued. Michigan SEV C a lif o r n ia E q u ivalent SEV Local E f fo r t Requi red Local E ffo rt G eneration $5,043,799 ,662 5,396,865 ,638 5,774,646 ,233 6,178,871 ,469 6,611,392 ,472 7,074,189 ,945 7,569,383 ,241 $2,521,899 ,831 2,698,432 ,819 2,887,323 ,117 3,089,435 ,735 3,305,696 ,236 3,537,094 ,973 3,784,691 ,621 38.7 $ 97,597,523 104,429,350 111,739,405 119,561,163 127,930,444 136,885,575 146,467,566 64,635,621 69,160,114 74,001,322 79,181,415 84,724,114 90,654,802 97,000,638 32,317,811 34,580,057 37,000,661 39,590,708 42,362,057 45,327,401 48,500,319 1,250,699 1,338,248 1,431,926 1,532,160 1,639,412 1,754,170 1,876,962 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 18,644,835 19,949,973 21,346,471 22,840,724 24,439,576 26,150,346 27,980,870 9,322,418 9,974,987 10,673,236 11,420,362 12,219,788 13,075,173 13,990,435 360,778 386,032 413,054 441,968 472,906 506,009 541,430 Elk Rapids 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 68,712,339 73,522,203 78,668,457 84,175,570 90,067,860 96,372,610 103,118,693 34,356,170 36,761,102 39,334,379 42,087,785 45,033,930 48,186,305 51,559,347 1,329,584 1,422,655 1,522,240 1,628,797 1,742,813 1,864,810 1,995,347 D istric t D etro it 1976--77 1977--78 1978--79 1979--80 1980-■81 1981-•82 1982-•83 Cherry H ill 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 P o rt Austin 396 Table 4 .1 2 0 .—Continued. Local E ffo rt Required Local E ffo rt G enerati on 38.7 $236,688 253,257 270,985 289,954 310,250 331,968 355,206 Michigan SEV C a lif o r n ia E q uivalent SEV $12,231,962 13,088,199 14,004,373 14,984,679 16,033,607 17,155,959 18,356,876 $ 6,115,981 6,544,100 7,002,187 7,492,340 8,016,804 8,577,980 9,178,438 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 14,424,173 15,433,865 16,514,236 17,670,233 18,907,149 20,230,649 21,646,794 7,212,087 7,716,933 8,257,118 8,835,117 9,453,575 10,115,325 10,823,397 279,108 298,645 319,550 341,919 365,853 391,463 418,865 Genesee 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 13,162,449 14,083,820 15,069,687 16,124,565 17,253,285 18,461,015 19,753,286 6,581,225 7,041,910 7,534,844 8,062,283 8,626,643 9,230,508 9,876,643 254,693 272,522 291,598 312,010 333,851 357,221 382,226 D istric t Arenac E astern 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Rudyard 397 Table 4 . 1 2 0 .—Continued. r D istric t Michigan SEV a l -a E q u iv a le n t SEV Local E ffo rt Requ1red Local E ffo rt Generat1on Camden F r o n t i e r 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $18,579,671 19,880,248 21,271,865 22,760,896 24,354,159 26,058,950 27,883,077 $ 9,289,836 9,940,124 10,635,933 11,380,448 12,177,080 13,029,475 13,941,539 38.7 $ 359,517 384,683 411,611 440,423 471,253 504,241 539,538 454,523,683 486,340,341 520,384,165 556,811,057 595,787,831 637,492,979 682,117,488 227,261,842 243,170,171 260,192,083 278,405,529 297,893,916 318,746,490 341,058,744 8,795,033 9,410,686 10,069,434 10,774,294 11,528,495 12,335,489 13,198,973 47,329,952 50,643,049 54,188,062 57,981,226 61,116,912 65,395,096 69,972,753 23,664,976 25,321,525 27,094,031 28,990,613 30,558,456 32,697,548 34,986,377 915,835 979,943 1,048,539 1,121,937 1,182,612 1,265,395 1,353,973 Troy 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Muskegon H ts . 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Table 4 .1 2 1 .—California membership revenue generation. D istrict K- 8 Membership K- 8 x $1132 9-12 Membership 9-12 x $1318 T . , * ,o ta i * 2,516 2,448 2,376 2,326 2,276 2,261 $2,848,112 2,771,136 2,689,632 2,633,032 2,576,432 2,559,452 1,285 1,277 1,232 1,164 1,099 1,066 $1,693,630 1,683,086 1,623,776 1,534,152 1,448,482 1,404,988 $4,541,742 4,454,220 4,313,408 4,167,184 4,024,914 3,964,440 Lakeshore 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Homer 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 CO CD 824 802 732 681 1,013,140 982,576 932,768 907,864 863,716 770,892 363 399 381 358 345 333 478,434 525,882 502,158 471,844 454,710 438,894 1,491,574 1,508,458 1,434,926 1,379,708 1,318,426 1,209,786 392 391 397 403 402 410 443,744 442,612 449,404 456,196 455,064 464,120 195 193 189 183 197 197 257,010 254,374 249,102 241,194 259.646 259.646 700,754 696,986 698,695 697,390 714,907 723,766 895 868 Central Lake 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 03 Tab! e 4.1 2 1 .—Conti nued. D istrict K- 8 x $1132 K- 8 Membership 9-12 Membership 9-12 x $1318 Total $ Center Line 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 2,663 2,423 2,237 2,068 1,920 1,836 $ 3,014,516 2,742,836 2,532,284 2,340,976 2,173,440 2,078,352 1,753 1,654 1,500 1,349 1,247 1 ,1 2 0 $ 2,310,454 2,179,972 1,977,000 1,784,572 1,643,546 1,476,160 $ 5,324,970 4,992,808 4,509,284 4,125,548 3,816,986 3,554,512 Detroi t 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 CO 161,402 154,414 146,555 138,329 131,816 125,872 182,707,064 174,796,648 165,900,260 156,588,428 149,215,712 142,487,104 58,361 55,785 53,281 51,945 48,654 46,190 76,919,798 73,524,630 70,224,358 68,463,510 64,125,972 60,878,420 259,626,862 248,321,278 236,124,618 225,051,938 213,341,684 203,365,524 2,146 2,014 1,936 1,814 1,728 1,691 2,429,272 2,279,848 2,191,552 2,053,448 1,956,096 1,914,212 1,205 1,154 1,051 990 917 822 1,588,190 1,520,972 1,385,218 1,304,820 1,208,606 1,083,396 4,017,462 3,800,820 3,576,770 3,358,268 3,164,702 2,997,608 Cherry Hill 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 to <0 Table 4.121 . —Continued. D istr ic t K- 8 Membership K- 8 x $1132 9-12 Membership 9-12 x $1318 T . , t ,o ta i * 216,212 209,420 200,364 199,232 200,364 220,740 131 134 128 121 106 90 $172,658 176,658 168,704 159,478 139,708 118,620 746 771 779 828 855 885 884,472 872,772 881,828 937,296 967,860 1,001,820 372 390 410 402 414 429 490,296 514,020 540,380 529,836 545,652 565,422 1,374,768 1,386,792 1,422,208 1,467,132 1,513,512 1,567,242 422 422 402 386 376 367 477,704 477,704 455,064 436,952 425,632 415,444 208 205 217 212 201 206 274,144 270,190 286,006 279,416 264,918 271,508 751,848 747,894 741,070 716,368 690,550 688,084 Port Austin 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 191 185 177 176 177 195 $ $ 388,870 386,032 369,068 358,710 340,072 339,360 Elk Rapids Arenac Eastern 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 400 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Table 4.121 . —Continued. n : c+MVt D is tr ic t K- 8 Membership K- 8 x $1132 9-12 Membership 9-12 x $1318 TA. al t l0 tai * 552 520 490 470 474 470 $624,864 588,640 554,680 532,040 536,568 532,040 303 261 229 203 159 144 $399,354 343,998 301,882 267,554 209,562 189,792 $1,024,218 932,638 856,502 799,594 746,130 721,832 614 623 634 649 669 686 695,048 705,236 717,688 734,668 757,308 776,552 230 259 279 290 289 281 303,140 341,362 367,722 382,220 380,902 370,358 998,188 1,046,598 1,085,410 1,116,888 1,138,210 1,146,910 478 445 425 410 405 396 541,096 503,740 481,100 464,120 458,460 448,272 260 248 248 252 216 201 342,680 326,864 326,864 332,136 284,688 264,918 883,776 830,604 807,964 796,256 743,148 713,190 Rudyard 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Genesee 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Camden F ro n tie r 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 § Table 4.121 . —Continued. D istrict K- 8 Membership K- 8 x $1132 9-12 Membership 9-12 x $1318 Total $ $ 9,080,904 9,687,656 10,200,452 10,643,064 10,944,176 11,245,288 3,058 3,258 3,479 3,747 4,115 4,564 $4,030,440 4,294,044 4,585,322 4,938,546 5,423,570 6,015,352 $13,111,348 13,981,700 14,785,774 15,581,610 16,367,746 17,260,640 Troy 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 8 ,0 2 2 8,558 9,011 9,402 9,668 9,934 O ro Muskegon Heiqhts 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 2,312 2,199 2,094 2,040 2,005 1,988 2,617,184 2,489,268 2,370,408 2,309,280 2,269,660 2,250,416 888 881 873 825 776 717 1,170,384 1,161,158 1,150,614 1,087,350 1,022,768 945,006 3,787,568 3,650,426 3,521,022 3,396,630 3,292,428 3,195,422 403 Table 4 .1 2 2 .—C aliforn ia s t a t e aid computation. D istr ict Foundation Grant " Loca1 E ffo rt * S ta te A1d Lakeshore 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 4,617,762 4,934,747 5,208,192 5,331,688 5,451,915 5,689,605 - 1,561,304 1,654,541 1,725,526 1,624,842 1,778,896 1,843,092 - $ 1,841,544 = $ 2,023,953 = 2,165,629 = 2,317,223 = 2,479,429 = 2,652,989 = 2,776,218 2,910,794 3,042,563 3,014,465 2,972,486 3,036,616 Homer 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 460,228 492,444 526,915 563,799 603,264 645,493 = = = = = = 1,101,076 1,162,097 1,198,611 1,061,043 1,175,632 1,197,599 C entral Lake 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 706,624 766,482 837,974 886,923 962,033 1,032,537 140,648 160,888 189,988 193,578 220,154 238,727 565,976 605,594 647,986 693,345 741,879 793,810 Center Line 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 *1981-82 *1982-83 5,011,890 5,448,741 5,436,060 5,269,702 5,161,219 5,093,524 - 4,242,822 4,539,819 4,857,606 5,197,639 5,561,474 5,950,777 = = = = = = 769,068 908,922 578,454 72,063 -400,255 -857,253 264,022,122 275,436,949 285,583,946 288,413,753 289,404,430 292,263,798 - 104,429,350 111,739,405 119,561,163 127,930,444 136,885,575 146,467,566 = = = = = = 159,592,772 163,697,544 166,022,783 160,483,309 152,518,855 145,796,232 D e tro it 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 404 Table 4 .1 2 2 .—Continued. D 1 s tH c t Foundation Grant ' L oca1 E f f o r t " S t a te A1d Cherry H ill 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $4,084,482 4,209,492 4,317,546 4,294,478 4,284,385 4,301,291 - $1,338,248 1,431,926 1,532,160 1,639,412 1,754,170 1,876,962 = $2,746,234 = 2,777,566 = 2,785,386 = 2,655,066 = 2,530,215 = 2,424,329 392,090 423,993 441,658 455,081 457,231 484,245 - 386,032 413,054 441,968 472,906 506,009 541,430 = = = « = = 6,058 10,939 310 -17,825 -48,778 -57,185 - 1,422,655 1,522,240 1,628,797 1,742,813 1,864,810 1,995,347 = = = = = = -72,987 6,611 80,493 126,361 176,723 244,687 P o rt Austin 1977-78 1978-79 *1979-80 *1980-81 *1981-82 *1982-83 - Elk Rapids *1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1,349,668 1,528,851 1,709,290 1,869,174 2,041,533 2,240,034 Arenac E astern 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 758.148 822,507 888,392 910,060 929,059 979.149 253,257 270,985 289,954 310,250 331,968 335,206 504,891 551,522 598,438 599,810 597,091 643,943 1,035,798 1,025,577 1,027,624 1,017,187 1,006,311 1,032,174 298,645 319,550 341,919 365,853 391,463 418,865 737,153 716,027 685,705 651,334 614,848 613,309 Rudyard 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 405 Table 4 .1 2 2 .—Continued. D istric t Total Foundation Grant - Local E f f o r t = S t a te Aid Genesee 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 1,006,628 1,151,556 1,302,704 1,420,558 1,533,136 1,637,625 - $ 272,522 291,598 312,010 333,851 357,221 382,226 = s = = = = $ 734,106 859,958 990,694 1,086,707 1,175,915 1 ,255,399 Camden F r o n t i e r 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 891,156 913,071 968,138 - 1 , 0 1 0 ,8 6 8 - 999,837 1,017,135 - — 384,683 411,611 440,423 471,253 504,241 539,538 s = = = = 506,473 501,460 527,715 539,615 495,596 477,597 Troy 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 13,332,948 15,505,964 17,883,294 19,961,997 22,186,451 24,775,430 - — 9,410,686 10,069,434 10,774,294 11,528,495 12,335,489 13,198,973 = s = = 3,922,262 5,436,530 7,109,000 8,433,502 9,850,962 11,576,457 Muskegon Heights 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 ♦Recapture amount. 3,851,568 4,047,746 4,256,838 4,351,155 4,465,167 4,592,669 - 979,943 1,048,539 1,121,937 1,182,612 1,265,395 1,353,973 - s = = s 2,871,625 2,999,207 3,134,901 3,168,543 3,199,772 3,238,696 406 New Je rse y School Finance Plan The New J e r s e y s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n c o n ta in s th e p ro v isio n t h a t the s t a t e w ill provide a “thorough and e f f i c i e n t " p u b lic education system. I t was t h i s s ta te m e n t t h a t brought the Robinson v. C a h ill case to th e S t a t e Supreme C ourt. The c o u rt re tu rn e d a v e r d i c t t h a t th e s t a t e must design a funding plan t o comply w ith th e T & E r e q u i r e ­ ment o f th e c o n s t i t u t i o n . The funding plan r e q u ir e s the s t a t e commissioner o f education t o determ ine a “S t a te Support Ratio" f o r each and every p u b lic school d i s t r i c t in th e s t a t e . This su ppo rt r a t i o i s determined by d iv id in g th e d i s t r i c t ' s e q u aliz ed v a lu a tio n p e r pupil by a s t a t e guaranteed v a lu a tio n p e r pupil and s u b tr a c tin g t h i s q u o tie n t from 1.0000. The formula f o r determ ining th e s t a t e su p p o rt r a t i o i s : d i s t r i c t ' s e q u a liz e d STATE SUPPORT RATIO = 1.0000 - Va^ t e ° ? u a rln te f d' v a lu a tio n per pupil The s t a t e guaranteed v a lu a tio n per pupil i s d e riv e d by m u ltip ly in g a f a c t o r o f 1.30 times th e s t a t e average v a lu a tio n per pupil in 1976-77. All school y e a rs t h e r e a f t e r , th e law provides f o r the f a c t o r t o be 1 .3 5 . The base d a ta f o r Michigan i s a s t a t e e q u aliz ed v a lu a tio n o f $55,415,725,924 f o r th e school y e a r ending 1977. s t a t e a id membership f o r th e same base y e a r was 2,081,936. Total D ividing the v alues y i e l d s a q u o tie n t which r e p r e s e n ts th e s t a t e v a lu a tio n p e r pupil o f $26,617; 1.3 times t h i s value equals a s t a t e guaranteed v a lu a tio n o f $34,602 f o r 1976-77. The formula then s e t s th e parame­ t e r s f o r th e school y e a rs t h e r e a f t e r a t 1.35. Computing t h i s f i g u r e 407 y i e l d s a value o f $35,933. However, the s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e o f New Je rse y has s t i p u l a t e d a guaranteed v a lu a tio n of $106,000 f o r the school y e a r 1978-79. T h ere fo re , the re s e a rc h e r w ill compute the p ro je c tio n s using Michigan values and New J e rs e y v a lu e s. The amount o f s t a t e a id paid to indiv id u al d i s t r i c t s is found by m u ltip ly in g th e d i s t r i c t ' s s t a t e support r a t i o times the n e t c u rr e n t expense budget. This fa c to r in g produces the s t a t e amount and the lo cal e f f o r t necessary to meet the t o t a l expense budget. The t o t a l process demands t h a t ind iv id u al d i s t r i c t adminis­ t r a t o r s engage in s h o r t - and long-range planning modes so t h a t re q u e st f o r funds can be presen ted e a r ly enough to the Commissioner o f Edu­ c a tio n to determ ine how much money should be requested f o r school fin an c in g from the s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e . The s t a t e w ill no t provide support aid beyond the 65th per­ c e n t i l e o f n e t c u r r e n t expense budgets per p u p il. On th e o th e r hand, the s t a t e w ill provide su ppo rt to every d i s t r i c t equal to no le s s than 10% o f the 65th p e r c e n t i l e f i g u r e s . In a d d it i o n , an annual a p p ro p ria tio n o f $500,000 i s made to the Commissioner o f Education to meet unforeseen c o n d itio n s , in clu d in g s u b s ta n tia l in c re a s e s in e n r o l l ­ ments . The New Je rse y plan r e t a i n s c a te g o ric a l aid s f o r sp e cia l e d u ca tio n , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , debt s e r v i c e , budgeted c a p i ta l o u tla y , and b u ild in g a id . Special education funding i s determined on the b a s is o f a d d itio n a l c o s t f a c t o r s . ta b le on the follow ing page. These values a re presented in the 408 Special Education Classes Additional Cost Factors E d u c a b l e .................................................................... T r a i n a b l e .................................................................... O rtho pedically handicapped .............................. N eu rolo gically impaired ...................................... P e rc e p tu a lly impaired .......................................... V isu a lly handicapped .......................................... Audi t o r i a l l y h a n d i c a p p e d .................................. Communication handicapped .................................. Emotionally d istu rb e d .......................................... S o c ia lly m aladjusted .......................................... C hronically i l l ....................................................... M ultiply handicapped .......................................... Other C lasses and S ervices 0.53 0.95 1.27 1.06 0.85 1.91 1.38 1.06 1.27 0.95 0.85 1.27 A dditional Cost F actors Approved p r iv a te school t u i t i o n ..................... 1.0 plus th e a d d itio n a l c o st f a c t o r o f th e handicap Supplementary and speech i n s t r u c t i o n . . . 0.09 based on th e number o f p u p ils a c t u a l l y re c e iv in g such i n s t r u c t i o n in th e p r i o r school y e a r B ilingual education ............................................... 0.16 0.11 S t a te compensatory e d u c a t i o n ................. .... . Approved local vocational education . . . . 0.53 In o rd er to compute a d d itio n a l c o s t f a c t o r s f o r th e sample d i s t r i c t s , an estim ated number o f s p e c ia l education p u p ils was a rr iv e d a t by using the United S ta te s O ffice o f Education/Bureau o f Handicapped f i g u r e s , which reveal t h a t approxim ately 12.035% o f a sample po pulation a re in need o f sp e c ia l education s e r v i c e s . Furthermore, the Education Commission o f the S ta te s e stim a te s t h a t New Je rs e y sp e n t app ro x i­ mately $2,333 per pupil in th e school y e a r 1977-78. The s t a t e pays 100% o f the approved t r a n s p o r t a ti o n c o s ts f o r elem entary p u p ils who l i v e beyond two m iles from t h e i r schools and secondary p u p ils who l i v e beyond 2 .5 m iles from t h e i r re s p e c tiv e sc h o o ls. Table 4 .123 .—New Jersey formula: Michigan guaranteed valuation.* 1977-78 D istrict Lakeshore $ 1,898,856 3,375,744 1978-79 $ 2,031,776 3,612,046 1979-80 $ 2,174,000 3,864,890 1980-81 $ 2,326,180 4,135,432 1981-82 $ 2,489,013 4,424,912 1982-83 $ 2,663,240 4,734,650 Homer 917,877 813,966 982,128 870,944 1,050,877 931,910 1,124,438 997,144 1,203,148 1,066,943 1,287,369 1,141,630 Central Lake 55,528 798,746 59,408 854,565 63,567 914,384 68,017 978,391 72,778 1,046,879 77,872 1,120,161 542,297 7,800,733 583,183 8,343,859 620,876 8,931,059 664,338 9,556,232 710,841 10,225,196 760,600 10,940,931 158,510,480 237,765,720 169,606,214 254,409,320 181,478,648 272,217,973 194,182,154 291,273,230 207,774,904 311,662,357 222,319,418 333,478,721 Cherry Hill 2.875.470 2.875.470 3.076.753 3.076.753 3.292.125 3.292.125 3.552.574 3.552.574 3.769.154 3.769.154 4.032.995 4.032.995 P ort Austin 34,677 498,809 37,104 533,726 39,701 571,087 42,480 611,063 45,454 653,837 48,636 699,605 Center Line D e tro it Table 4.12 3.--Continued. D istrict 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 $1,624,817 112,955 $1,738,554 120,862 $1,860,253 129,322 389,340 439,042 416,593 469,776 Rudyard 2,445,582 1,316,852 Genesee Camden F ro n tie r Elk Rapids Arenac Eastern Troy Muskegon Heights 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $1,990,470 138,375 $2,129,803 148,061 $2,278,889 158,425 445,755 502,660 476,958 537,846 510,345 575,495 546,069 615,780 2,616,773 1,409,031 2,799,947 1,507,663 2,995,943 1,613,200 3,205,659 1,726,124 3,430,055 1,846,953 608,272 477,928 650,851 511,383 696,410 547,180 745,159 585,482 797,320 626,466 853,133 670,318 336,752 653,695 360,325 699,453 385,547 748,415 412,535 800,804 441,413 856,860 472,312 916,840 1,109,290 15,956,716 1,186,941 17,073,685 1,270,027 18,268,843 1,358,928 19,547,663 1,454,053 20,915,999 1,555,837 22,380,119 3,861,672 2,366,831 4,131,989 2,532,509 4,421,228 2,708,785 4,730,714 2,899,470 5,061,864 3,102,433 5,416,195 3,419,603 *Top number indicates sta te aid; bottom number indicates local e ffo r t. Table 4.124.—New Jersey formula: New Jersey valuation.* 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 3,428,490 1,846,110 $ 3,668,484 1,975,338 $ 3,925,279 2,113,611 $ 4,200,048 2,261,564 $ 4,494,051 2,419,874 $ 4,808,629 2,589,261 1,125,698 606,145 1,204,497 648,575 1,288,812 693,975 1,379,028 742,554 1,475,559 794,532 1,578,849 850,150 486,936 367,338 520,965 393,008 557,432 420,519 596,453 449,955 638,204 481,453 682,879 515,154 5,339,539 3,003,491 5,713,307 3,213,735 6,113,238 3,438,697 6,541,165 3,679,405 6,999,046 3,936,964 7,488,980 4,212,551 257,579,530 138,696,670 275,610,097 148,405,437 294,902,804 158,793,817 315,546,000 169,909,384 337,634,220 181,803,041 361,268,615 194,529,254 Cherry Hill 3,738,110 2,012,829 3,999,778 2,153,727 4,279,763 2,304,487 4,579,346 2,465,801 4,899,900 2,638,407 5,242,893 2,823,096 Port Austin 266.969 266.969 285.415 285.415 305.394 305.394 326.772 326.772 349.646 349.646 374.121 374.121 D is tr ic t Lakeshore Homer Central Lake Center Line D etro it Table 4.1 2 4 .--Continued. D istrict 1977-78 1978-79 1980-81 780,955 1,078,461 $ 835,622 1,153,953 $ 894,115 1,234,730 538,448 289,934 576,140 310,229 616,470 331,945 Rudyard 2,445,582 1,316,852 2,616,773 1,409,031 Genesee 706,030 380,170 Camden F ro n tier Elk Rapids Arenac Eastern Troy Muskegon Heights $ 729,864 1,007,908 $ 1979-80 1981-82 $ 1982-83 956,703 1,321,166 $1,023,678 1,413,642 659,623 355,181 705,796 380,044 755,202 406,647 2,799,947 1,507,663 2,995,943 1,613,200 3,205,659 1,726,124 3,430,055 1,846,953 755,452 406,782 808,334 435,256 864,917 465,724 925,461 498,325 990,243 553,208 643,791 346,656 688,856 370,922 737,075 396,887 788,670 424,669 843,877 454,396 902,949 486,203 10,410,264 6,655,742 11,138,982 7,121,644 11,918,711 7,620,159 12,753,021 8,153,570 13,645,732 8,724,320 14,600,933 9,335,023 4,048,527 2,179,976 4,331,924 2,332,574 4,635,158 2,495,855 4,959,620 2,670,564 5,306,793 2,857,504 5,678,269 3,257,529 *Top number indicates sta te aid; bottom number indicates local e f f o r t . 413 Footnotes--Chapter IV \ a n Dusartz v. H a t f i e l d , 344 F. Supp. 870 (1971). 2 Robinson v. C a h i l l , S u p e rio r Court o f New Je rs e y Law D iv isio n , Hudson County Docket Number L-18704-69 (1972). 3 Serrano v. P r i e s t , 5 Cal. 3d. 584, 96 C a l. R ptr. 601, 487 P. 2d 1241 (1971). 4 Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School D i s t r i c t , 411 U.S. 1 (1973). 5 S ta ff o rd T. N ag atani, S ta te Support and Operation o f Public Schools in Hawaii (Denver: Education Commission o f th e S t a t e s , 1971), pp. 1-2. 6 Ib id ., p. 4. 7 Ib id ., p. 16. O Texas Senate B ill #1, Texas Senate (1977), p. 1. 9 Ib id ., p. 2 . 1° I b id . , p. 3. 11 I b i d . , p. 7. 12Ib id ., p. 9. 13Ib id ., p. 13. 14Ib id ., pp. 16-17. 15 Ib id . 16Ib id ., p. 17. 17I b id ., p. 18. 18Ib id ., p. 19. 19 Minnesota H is to r ic a l Review o f S t a te Finance (M inneapolis: (Minnesota Department o f E ducation, 1976), p. 7. 20Michigan Enrolled House B ill 4350 (1977), p. 54. 21I b i d ., p. 3. 414 22 23 I b i d . , p. 4. Paul G o ld fin g er, C a lif o r n ia Foundation Program and Revenue Lim its (Sacramento: C a lif o r n ia C o a litio n f o r F a ir School Finance, 1976), p. 9. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The w r i t e r ' s purpose in t h i s re s e a rc h was to examine d i f f e r ­ e n t approaches to p u b lic school fin an c e as ap p lied to c u r r e n t and p r o je c te d Michigan en ro llm en t d a ta . In p a r t i c u l a r , th e r e s e a r c h e r was looking f o r im p lic a tio n s o f each a l t e r n a t i v e fin a n c e plan f o r Michigan d i s t r i c t s in v a rio u s sta g e s of growth o r d e c l in e . The q u e stio n s o f equal e d u ca tio n al o p p o rtu n ity , d e c lin in g e n ro llm e n ts , municipal overburden, and c a te g o r ic a l a id s were a d d re ssed . Fourteen d i s t r i c t s were s e le c te d from th e 530 p u b lic K-12 school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan. The s t r a t i f i e d random sample r e f l e c t s the v a rio u s s ta g e s o f change e v id e n t in th e Michigan p u b lic sc h o o ls. Large, sm a ll, s t a b l e , slow and f a s t growing plus slow and r a p id ly d e c lin in g d i s t r i c t s were included in th e stu d y . The l a r g e s t d i s t r i c t in th e S t a te o f Michigan and some o f th e sm a lle r d i s t r i c t s were in clu d ed . A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e Middle C i t i e s A s s o c ia tio n , an a s s o c i a t i o n o f 16 school d i s t r i c t s in th e s t a t e which c o l l e c t i v e l y comprise th e f i f t h l a r g e s t school d i s t r i c t in the United S t a t e s , was a ls o included in th e s tu d y . The r e s e a r c h e r b e lie v e s th e design o f th e study accommodated th e d a ta to be r e f l e c t i v e o f th e p u b lic schools 415 416 in Michigan and t h e r e f o r e they a re r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th o se d i s t r i c t s not included in th e stu d y . Chapter II c o n ta in s a review o f th e r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e r e g a rd ­ ing school f in a n c e . An h i s t o r i c a l and j u d i c i a l review was completed which p rovides the background f o r exam ination o f the demand fo r fin a n c e reform in the p u b lic sc h o o ls. The l i t e r a t u r e encompasses th e time frame o f 1630 to 1978. In Chapter I I I , the w r i t e r d isc u sse d the methods and proce­ dures which were used to complete th e stu d y . were s e l e c te d f o r in c lu s io n in th e stu d y . Seven fin an c e models Six o f the s e l e c te d models have su rvived j u d i c i a l s c r u t in y and a re being used in th e s t a t e s from which they came. One plan was intro d u ced in th e Michigan Senate during March, 1978. The plan in tro d u c e s a concept o f pupil weights which i s s i m i l a r in n a tu re to th e fin a n c e plans p r e s e n t l y o p e ra tio n a l in M innesota, New Mexico, and F lo r id a . The seven fin a n c e models were a p p lie d to th e sample d i s t r i c t s over th e time span o f 1977-78 to 1982-83. The e n ro llm e n t p r o je c tio n s were computed u sing th e C ohort-Survival tech n iq u e o f en ro llm ent p ro­ je c tio n . The r e s e a rc h included a l l d a ta and model procedures which were made a v a i l a b l e to t h e r e s e a r c h e r . Findings The Hawaiian model, which r e p r e s e n ts th e only s t a t e in the United S t a te s to use Full S t a te Funding, r e q u ir e s d e t a i l e d planning and communications between t h r e e d iv e r s e groups: L e g i s l a t u r e , and th e S t a t e Board o f E ducation. th e Governor, the The lack o f dependence 417 on th e p ro p e rty ta x allows th e Hawaiian system o f s t a t e ta x a ti o n to spread more e q u ita b ly th e burden o f school fin a n c e over th e v a rio u s income and e x c is e tax e s used in funding the Hawaiian school system. Full s t a t e funding models seem to be b e t t e r a b le to handle i n f l a t i o n than a re tho se systems dependent on p ro p e rty t a x e s . The c e n t r a l i z a ­ t io n o f school fin a n c e tends to e q u a liz e th e economic re so u rc e s f o r a l l school system s: r u r a l , urban, and suburban. The use o f state-m an d ated c la s s s i z e s c r e a t e s th e e q u a liz a ­ tio n o f p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f s f o r a l l sc h o o ls. The mandated l i m i t a ­ t i o n s on equipment and s u p p l i e s , s p e c ia l edu catio n p e rs o n n e l, and s u p p lie s c r e a t e an e q u a liz e d environment f o r a l l s c h o o ls. The PPBS model used by th e Hawaiian government demands t h a t school personnel engage in s h o r t - and lo ng-range p lan n in g . They must become f a m i l i a r with t h e i r r e s p e c t iv e school d i s t r i c t s so t h a t e n r o l l ­ ment p ro je c tio n s can be form ulated p r i o r to development o f a school budget. The Texas model i s a n o th e r a tte m p t a t c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f the school fin an c e p la n . The c e n t r a l i z a t i o n makes each d i s t r i c t equal in personnel u n i t s , s a l a r y demands, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a l l o c a t i o n s , and s p e c ia l education s e r v i c e s . The model makes p ro v isio n f o r s p e c ia l needs o f d i s t r i c t s based on s i z e o f th e d i s t r i c t as determ ined by th e s p a r s i t y o f the d i s t r i c t . A f l a t g r a n t a l l o c a t i o n o f $110 in 1977-78 and $115 in 1978-79 and t h e r e a f t e r p rovides an o p e ra tin g a l l o c a t i o n based on th e t o t a l p o p u latio n o f th e r e s p e c t iv e d i s t r i c t s . The t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a l l o c a ­ t i o n based on bus c a p a c ity p la c e s a premium on l a r g e r - c a p a c i t y b uses. 418 The Texas s t a t u t e a ls o pro vides f o r a mandated lo c a l e f f o r t f o r each in d iv id u a l d i s t r i c t . This mandated lo c a l e f f o r t w ill be e q u a liz in g when th e s t a t e assessm ent p r a c t i c e s board becomes opera­ t io n a l . The Minnesota model uses weighted pupil u n i t s , which c r e a t e s a s i t u a t i o n where d i s t r i c t s can sp e n t more monies where a s p e c ia l need e x i s t s . The use o f weighted pupil u n i ts a ls o a s s i s t s in making adjustm ents to th e c u r r e n t d e c lin in g en ro llm e n t s i t u a t i o n which i s im pacting upon th e p u b lic schools o f th e United S t a t e s . The i n c l u ­ sion o f a c o n s ta n t adjustm ent f a c t o r f o r d e c lin in g e n ro llm e n t d i s ­ t r i c t s allow s d i s t r i c t s b e t t e r to a d j u s t to th e f i n a n c ia l c o n s t r a i n t s n e cessary under tho se c o n d itio n s . In a d d i t i o n , a f a s t growth a d j u s t ­ ment a s s i s t s th o se d i s t r i c t s making th e s p e c ia l t r a n s i t i o n to ra p id growth. The Michigan e q u a liz a tio n formula combined w ith f l a t g ra n ts and a foundation program tend s t o e q u a liz e d i s t r i c t s which a re levy­ ing th e i d e n t i c a l mi 11 age f o r o p e r a tio n s . The model does n o t c r e a t e a good r e s o l u ti o n f o r those d i s t r i c t s t h a t a re o u t-o f-fo rm u la . The in c lu s io n o f c a te g o r ic a l a id s as a method o f fin a n c e may no t provide adequate funding f o r mandated programs. The Department o f Education g e n e r a lly provides f o r up to 75% o f added c o s t funding. However, th e normal reimbursement o fte n p rovides only 65-69% o f the added c o s t reimbursement. The New Je rs e y model provides a b a s is f o r d e te rm in a tio n of th e s t a t e and lo cal share o f th e budget demands o f in d iv id u a l d i s ­ tric ts . The im portant c o n tr ib u tio n o f the model i s th e emphasis 419 placed on d e t a i l e d planning p r i o r to submission o f budget r e q u e s t s . The d i s c r e t io n a r y funds placed a t the Commissioner o f E d u c a tio n 's d isp o sa l c r e a t e a s i t u a t i o n where the p o l i t i c a l p rocess may c r e a t e a d is e q u a liz in g a s p e c t o f th e fin an c e model. With th e exception o f Alaska and New York, New J e r s e y spends more per pupil than any o th e r s ta te . The model appears to work well with h ig h ly i n d u s t r i a l i z e d , h ig h -a sse sse d p ro p e rty w ith sup p o rt from s t a t e income t a x e s . The C a li f o r n ia model i s d i f f i c u l t to e v a lu a te . The e q u a l iz a ­ t i o n a id and the b a sic a id continu e to add to d i s e q u a l i z a t i o n among the various d i s t r i c t s . The state-m and ated 38.7 m il l s as th e re q u ire d lo cal e f f o r t would be e x c e ssiv e in Michigan. In f a c t , only 2 o f th e 530 p u b lic K-12 school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan levy as much m illa g e as t h a t re q u ire d by C a lif o r n ia law. All Michigan K-12 p u b lic school d i s ­ t r i c t s would q u a li f y as u n if ie d d i s t r i c t s under th e C a li f o r n ia d e f i ­ n itio n . T h e re fo re , a l l 14 o f th e sample d i s t r i c t s would q u a li f y f o r the bonus in c e n tiv e f o r d i s t r i c t s t o u n ify . Even under the d i r e c t i o n o f S errano , many o f th e d i s t r i c t s s t i l l levy m illa g e which would q u a li f y them as o u t-o f-fo rm u la . The i n s t i t u t i o n o f th e re c a p tu r e p ro ­ v is io n se rv e s as a d d itio n a l in c e n tiv e f o r o u t-o f-fo rm u la d i s t r i c t s to reduce t h e i r lo c a l m illa g e to th e re q u ire d lo ca l e f f o r t r a t h e r than c o n tr i b u te to th e e q u a l iz a t i o n o f a l l d i s t r i c t s which may levy l e s s than th e re q u ire d 38.7 m il l s f o r o p e ra tio n . The Faxon p ro p o sa l, Senate B ill 1425, would in tro d u c e weighted pupil u n i ts to th e Michigan p u b lic school fin a n c e model. The .55 w eighting f o r k in d e rg a rte n s tu d e n ts i s an a ttem p t to r e f l e c t th e r e a l i t y t h a t k in d e rg a rte n s tu d e n ts a re in school only a h a l f day 420 in s te a d o f a f u l l day. The in tr o d u c tio n o f a 60-40-20 ph ase-o u t o f d e c lin in g enro llm ent adjustm ents does n ot com pletely cover th e c r i s i s t h a t many o f M ichigan's p u b lic schools a re p r e s e n tly e x p e rie n c in g . The w eighting concept allow s th e d e sig n e r to c r e a t e emphasis upon whatever background in fo rm a tio n t h a t d e sig n e r f e e l s i s im p o rtan t. Two f a c t o r s intro d u ced could have i n t e r e s t i n g r a m if ic a tio n s f o r budget d e s ig n e r s . The d a ta i n d ic a t e t h a t th e e x p e r ie n c e - tr a in in g f a c t o r w ill have massive im p lic a tio n s f o r budget and revenue genera­ tio n . Although d a ta were n o t a v a i la b l e to t e s t th e Improvement in T eacher-R atio c o ncept, i t seems t h a t t h i s f a c t o r would a ls o have im portant consequences t o th o se d i s t r i c t s which a re e x p erien c in g d r a s t i c d e c lin e o f e n ro llm e n ts. Conclusions Numerous v a r i a t i o n s o f in d iv id u a l fin a n c e models e x i s t in th e 50 s t a t e s . This r e s e a r c h e r has examined seven v a r i e t i e s o f fin an c e models d e a lin g w ith revenue production and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t a t e funds. These models in clu d e f u l l s t a t e fu n d in g , f l a t g r a n t s , foundation g u a ra n te e s , e q u a liz in g form u las, and pupil w eighting models. In a d d i t i o n , se v e ra l o f th e models r e t a i n c a te g o r ic a l a id s to fund s p e c ia l needs o r i n t e r e s t s w ith in in d iv id u a l s t a t e s . Each model, w ith th e exception o f Hawaii, i s l a r g e ly dependent on revenues g en erated by p ro p e rty t a x a t i o n . Since i t i s extrem ely doubtful t h a t lo c a l communities would agree to g iv e up t h i s semblance o f " lo c a l c o n tro l" t h a t i s re p re se n te d by th e in d iv id u a l community d e c is io n s involved in v otin g f o r lo ca l monies f o r e d u c a tio n , i t i s 421 t h i s r e s e a r c h e r 's conclusion t h a t continued r e lia n c e on p roperty ta x a tio n i s here to s ta y or w ill be re ta in e d a t l e a s t in to th e i n t e r m ediate f u tu r e . Michigan c i t i z e n s voted in November, 1978, on numerous ta x re v is io n q u e s tio n s . The a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a ila b le ranged from massive tax s la sh e s as r e s u l te d in the C a lif o r n ia P ro p o sitio n 13 to s e t t i n g l im i t a t i o n s which w ill a lig n tax r a t e s w ith the i n f l a t i o n a r y s p i r a l o f our cou ntry . b a llo t. Voucher plans were a ls o included on the November The questio n s t h a t were to be answered a re : 1. What a re th e consequences o f reduced funding? 2. Whow ill pay f o r the s e rv ic e s now expected and demanded? 3. Howw ill lo cal monies be generated to pay f o r lo cal se rv ic e s ? 4. Howdo th e se tax q u e stio n s impact upon th e concerns d e s ir e s fo r local co n tro l o f a d i s t r i c t ' s schools? To d a te , th ese q u e stio n s have r a r e l y su rfa c e d . and The D e tr o it News r e c e n tly published an a r t i c l e which in d ic a te d t h a t th e n e t r e s u l t o f the tax q u e stio n s would be in creased c o s ts f o r most o f the c i t i z e n s o f Michigan.^ Major funding changes have h i s t o r i c a l l y occurred a t times when the involved s t a t e s have had an e x is ti n g su rp lu s o f funds in th e s t a t e tr e a s u r y . C a l i f o r n i a 's P ro p o sitio n 13 was overwhelmingly passed in the face o f a $5 b i l l i o n s u r p lu s . Recommendations A fte r examination o f each a l t e r n a t i v e funding model, the re s e a rc h e r concludes t h a t power e q u a liz in g models w ill have th e b e st 422 chance to r e l i e v e th e p re s su re on school fin a n c e . Full s t a t e funding models w ill provide th e b e st example o f e q u a l iz a t i o n o f e d u ca tio n al o p p o rtu n ity to a l l s t u d e n ts , but t h i s s t r a t e g y has l i t t l e chance o f su rv iv in g the p o l i t i c a l p ro c e ss. F l a t g r a n t models have th e d i s t i n c t f e a t u r e o f providing i d e n t i c a l amounts o f money to each d i s t r i c t f o r each pupil r e g a r d le s s of the w ealth o f th e d i s t r i c t . This f l a t g r a n t i s used in th e Texas and Michigan model, y e t no system e x i s t s to e lim in a te s t a t e a id f o r those d i s t r i c t s which g e n e ra te la r g e sums o f money in excess o f the s t a t e d monetary l i m i t s . C e n tra liz e d c o n tro l o f revenue p rod uctio n and d i s t r i b u t i o n can make p ro v isio n s f o r e q u a l iz a t i o n o f e d u c a tio n a l o p p o r tu n ity , but th e problem o f l o c a l l y n e g o tia te d c o n tr a c t s and th e demand f o r r e t e n ­ t io n o f lo cal c o n tro l o f e d u ca tio n al d e c is io n making could provide extreme stumbling blocks to th e e f f e c t i v e use o f th e s e ty p es o f models. The key q u e stio n s to which a l t e r n a t i v e models o f s t a t e fin a n c e must respond a re e q u a liz a tio n o f e d u c a tio n a l o p p o rtu n ity and p ro p e rty ta x r e d u c tio n . With th e s e two q u e s tio n s in mind, th e re s e a r c h e r su g g e sts th e follow ing model as a composite o f th e s tu d ie d fin a n c e p la n s . Since foundation p lan s make th e assum ption t h a t a l l s tu d e n ts a re a l i k e in t h e i r in d iv id u a l needs in t h e i r q u e s t f o r an e d u c a tio n , a weighted u n i t system o f edu cation should be in c o rp o ra te d i n t o th e fin an c e model. The w eightings would s i g n i f y a r e c o g n itio n t h a t s t u ­ dents a l l have s p e c ia l needs and t h a t c e r t a i n programs demand e x tr a funding in o rd e r to provide th o se ty p es o f programs. F u r th e r , 423 c a t e g o r i c a l a id programs can be e lim in a te d w ith th e in c lu s io n o f s p e c ia l c la s s e s o f stu d e n t needs in c o rp o ra te d in to th e fin a n c e schema. The e lim in a tio n o f c a te g o r ic a l g ra n ts provides f o r in c lu s io n o f a l l s tu d e n ts w ith in a s t a t e to be included w ith in a s i n g l e school f in a n c in g p la n . "The s e p a r a te edu catio n al systems f o r v o c atio n a l e d u c a tio n , s p e c ia l edu catio n and stu d e n ts who a tte n d th e b a s ic p ro­ gram can be e lim in a te d . S t a te s can c o n sid e r a l l th e w eig hts a t th e same tim e, thus tr y in g to keep a balance among them and in r e l a t i o n 2 to th e program f o r normal s t u d e n t s . " Furtherm ore, th e adoption o f a weighted pupil formula may disarm a s i g n i f i c a n t p o rtio n o f the p o l i t i c a l i n f i g h t i n g and c a te g o r ic a l grantsmanship t h a t occurs w ith c a te g o r ic a l s . The vested i n t e r e s t s w ill no lon ger need to secu re in c r e a s e s in reimbursement p ercen tag es f o r t h e i r programs. Addi­ t i o n a l l y , a weighted pupil plan encompassing a l l a sp e c ts o f th e edu­ c a tio n a l program w ill focus on th e needs o f s p e c ia l s tu d e n ts and w ill s t i l l allow lo cal c o n tro l to design and experim ent w ith new programs f o r d e liv e r y o f ed u ca tio n al s e r v i c e s . The in c lu s io n o f a w eighting concept f o r those s tu d e n ts who q u a li f y f o r T i t l e I , ESEA programs w ill provide f o r a l l s tu d e n ts in the s t a t e to be included in th e funding program. This pro cess w ill rec o g n ize d i f f e r e n c e s in s tu d e n t needs and a ls o d i f f e r e n c e s in p ro­ gram c o s t s . Furtherm ore, t h i s weighted concept w ill provide r e l i e f f o r th o se d i s t r i c t s which a re impacted by th e problems o f m unicipal overburden. Other s t a t e fin a n c e p lan s have used t h i s p a r t i c u l a r measure as th e b a s is f o r determ ining e l i g i b i l i t y f o r compensatory programs. At th e p r e s e n t tim e , i t appears t h a t t h i s i s th e b e s t 424 measure a v a i l a b l e . I t would a ls o appear t h a t more re s e a rc h needs to be completed in t h i s a re a f o r a new e l i g i b i l i t y req uirem ent. To f u r t h e r e q u a liz e funds p er s t u d e n t, t h i s weighted method­ ology would be a p p lie d to th e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s ts o f the in d iv id u a l d istric ts. A r e q u ire d lo c a l e f f o r t o f one m ill would be used to provide th e lo c a l sh a re o f approved t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s . The S t a te Department o f Education would s t i l l r e t a i n th e a u d itin g f u n c tio n , b u t c o s ts in excess o f th e re q u ire d lo cal e f f o r t would be paid by th e sta te . The d e c lin in g enro llm ent phenomenon appears to be a long-term problem o f many o f th e Michigan p u b lic K-12 school d i s t r i c t s . The p ro v isio n o f a d d itio n a l funding to a s s i s t th e s e d i s t r i c t s has been suggested by se v e ra l o f th e s t a t e fin an c e plan s used in t h i s stu d y . A th r e e - y e a r p h a se-o u t formula appears to be inadequate to make th e a d justm ent in goods and s e r v i c e s . The problem o f d e c lin in g e n r o l l ­ ments i s l a r g e r than a th r e e - y e a r problem. T h e re fo re , t h i s model would in c lu d e a permanent w eighting f a c t o r o f .6 f o r any enro llm ent lo s s which occurs from y e a r to y e a r. D i s t r i c t s faced w ith r a p id growth a re saddled w ith d i f f e r e n t kinds o f problems than d i s t r i c t s fa c in g d e c lin in g e n ro llm e n ts. The proposed model would provide f o r .1 e x tr a u n i t s f o r growth in excess o f 2% to a maximum o f .5 f a s t growth u n i t s . The proposed formula would in clu d e r e g u l a r classroom u n i t s as well as s p e c ia l ed u catio n u n i t s , v o c a tio n a l- te c h n ic a l e d ucational u n i t s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t u n i t s , d e c lin in g en ro llm e n t and rap id growth a d ju stm en ts. 425 Table 5 . 1 . —Pupil weighting form ula.* Grade and C la s s if ic a tio n K-3 4-9 10-12 W eighting 1.234 1.000 1.400 S pecial E ducation Speech M entally re ta rd e d P h y s ic a lly handicapped L earning d i s a b i l i t y E m otionally d is tu rb e d P h y s ic a lly and o th erw ise h e a lth handicapped Deaf H a rd -o f-h earin g V isu a lly handicapped M u ltip le handicapped 3.000 2.300 3.500 2.300 3.700 3.500 3.000 2.500 3.000 4.950 V ocational-T echnical A g ric u ltu re D is tr ib u tiv e ed u catio n H ealth Home economics (nonwage e arn in g ) Home economics (wage e arn in g ) O ffice Trade and in d u stry 1.38 1.97 1.26 1.10 2.92 4.70 8.33 *The in d iv id u a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s p re se n te d in th e r e s e a r c h e r 's proposed funding schema were a rriv e d a t a f t e r c o n s id e ra tio n o f sev­ e ra l d a ta so u rc e s . M in n eso ta's pup il w eighting plan and S enator Faxon's proposed plan in c o rp o ra te p u p il w eighting as a c e n tra l f e a tu r e o f th o se p la n s . The re s e a rc h e r has a ls o review ed th e funding models o f th e S ta te s o f New Mexico and F lo rid a as examples o f pup il w eighting form ula. The in d iv id u a l w eig h tin g s accorded to each in d iv id u a l group o f stu d e n ts were developed a f t e r c a re fu l review o f o th e r e x is tin g funding models which use w eighted p u p il as a b a s is f o r awarding s t a t e a id . The K-12 and s p e c ia l ed u ca tio n w eig h tin g s were designed w ith a preconceived plan o f a ttem p tin g to e lim in a te c a te g o ric a l funding as an a d d itio n a l package o f th e s t a t e funding m odel. C u rren t d a ta provided by th e Michigan Departm ent o f Education r e f le c te d th e p re s e n t monetary funding o f v a rio u s programs in t h i s S ta te . The v o c a tio n a l-te c h n ic a l groupings were a rriv e d a t and d e v e l­ oped from 1976-77 d a ta provided to th e re s e a rc h e r from th e Michigan Department o f E ducation. The proposed w eig h tin g s were developed from th e f in a n c ia l d a ta th u s p ro v id ed . The w eig h tin g s a re r e f l e c t i v e o f th o se d a ta . 426 The rev en u e-p ro d u ctio n a sp e c ts o f a s ta te -w id e school fin a n c e plan t r a d i t i o n a l l y have been c e n te re d on a g ro ss allow ance o r founda­ tio n program and re c e n tly a power e q u a liz in g concept has been added to th e form ula. While t h i s scheme g u a ra n tee s t h a t d i s t r i c t s levying th e same mi 11 age a re assu red th e same monies f o r equal e f f o r t , many d i s t r i c t s remain o u tsid e o r o u t-o f-fo rm u la and th e funds g en erated in th e s e d i s t r i c t s provide d is e q u a liz in g revenue f o r th e s e d i s t r i c t s . In 1976-77, th e Michigan s ta te -w id e average m illa g e f o r a l l 530 K-12 p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s was 27.295867 m il l s . For th e s e le c te d sample o f 14 d i s t r i c t s , th e 1976-77 average m illa g e le v ie d was 24.965714. Table 5 .2 .—Sample d i s t r i c t s ' 1976-77 m illa g e le v ie d . D is tric t M illage Levied Lakeshore Homer C entral Lake C enter Line D e tro it Cherry H ill P o rt A ustin Elk Rapids Arenac E astern Rudyard Genesee Camden F r o n tie r Troy Muskegon H eights X= 24.87 25.00 23.80 31.88 22.51 28.65 25.00 21.08 22.60 20.44 25.11 21.95 28.33 28.30 24.965714 The Michigan S ta te L e g is la tu re has r e c e n tly passed a new fo u n d ation l i m i t o f $1470 as th e g u a ra n tee f o r lo c a l d i s t r i c t s . The 427 value p er m ill le v ie d then eq u als $58.88. The re s e a rc h e r proposes to s e t a v alue p er m ill le v ie d and t i e t h a t v alue to a re q u ire d lo c a l lev y . Coupled w ith t h i s g u aran tee w ill be a re c a p tu re p ro v isio n t h a t w ill encourage th e o u t-o f-fo rm u la d i s t r i c t s to reach th e re q u ire d lo c a l e f f o r t . The v alue o f t h i s f a c to r th e re f o re produces p ro p e rty ta x a tio n re d u c tio n w hile c re a tin g e q u a lity o f ed u ca tio n al o p p o rtu n ity . The proposed value p er m ill s h a ll be as fo llo w s: 1977-78 $65.00 1978-79 70.00 1979-80 1980-81 75.00 80.00 1981-82 86.00 1982-83 92.00 The in c re a s in g v alue per m ill le v ie d i s r e f l e c t i v e o f th e in f la tio n a r y r a t e t h a t pervades t h i s c o u n try . e stim a te o f 7% i n f l a t i o n . I t i s a c o n se rv a tiv e The re q u ire d lo c a l e f f o r t w ill be s e t a t 24 m ills t o t a l o p e ra tin g m illa g e . The spread o f mi 11ages le v ie d in Michigan during 1976-77 f o r o p e ra tio n s i s a s fo llo w s: Under 20 m ills 22 d i s t . 2 0 .0 1-25.5 2 5 .6 -3 0 .0 252 d i s t . 173 d i s t . 30.01-33.00 48 d i s t . 33.01-50.00 35 d i s t . The re c a p tu re p ro v isio n w ill be phased in over th e l i f e o f t h i s stu d y . T his w ill giv e lo c a l d i s t r i c t a d m in is tra to rs and boards o f e d u ca tio n th e o p p o rtu n ity to p rovide p ro p e rty ta x r e l i e f a t th e lo c a l l e v e l. The re s e a rc h e r has included a re c a p tu re p ro v isio n as an i n t e ­ g ra l p a r t o f th e proposed funding p la n . The re c a p tu re concept was 428 in clu d ed to p ro v id e an added inducement f o r p ro p e rty ta x r e l i e f in th o se d i s t r i c t s which a re o u t-o f-fo rm u la . For th e p a s t se v e ra l y e a r s , Michigan Department o f Education has not had much su ccess in coping w ith d i s t r i c t s which have e le c te d to levy e x tra m illa g e beyond th e lim its recognized by th e s t a t e funding form ula. The re s e a rc h e r reco g n izes t h a t a re c a p tu re p ro v isio n would n o t be a pop u lar concept t i e d to th e funding model. However, in o rd e r to work e f f e c t i v e l y to reach a modicum o f e q u a liz a tio n i n t e r ­ d i s t r i c t , a d r a s t i c measure must be used. The c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n o f t h i s plan would provide monies from th o se w ealthy enough to a ffo rd th e m onetary p e n a lty to provide funding f o r th o se d i s t r i c t s le s s w ealthy and le s s a b le to p rovide an equal le v e l o f e d u c a tio n a l bene­ f i t to t h e i r s tu d e n ts . R ecapture w ill be phased in a t the follow ing r a t e s : 1977-78 5% 1978-79 10% 1979-80 15% 1980-81 20% 1981-82 1982-83 25% 30% These cap tu red funds w ill be used in th e e q u a liz a tio n a id o f s t a t e ­ wide school fin a n c e reform . The lo c a l sh a re o f th e e q u a liz a tio n form ula w ill be d e te r ­ mined by th e S ta te Board o f E d u c a tio n 's C hief E xecutive O ffic e r and h is s t a f f . The s t a t e su p p o rt r a t i o i s found by d iv id in g th e d i s ­ t r i c t ' s e q u a liz e d v a lu a tio n p er pupil by th e S ta te G uaranteed v a lu a tio n 429 p er p upil and s u b tra c tin g t h i s value from 1.0000. The form ula f o r t h i s v alue s h a ll be: D i s t r i c t 's e q u a liz e d S ta te S upport R atio = 1.0000 - v a lu a tio n p e r pupil S ta te guaranteed v a lu a tio n p e r pupil The s t a t e g uaranteed v a lu a tio n p er pupil s h a ll be 1.5 tim es th e s t a t e average v a lu a tio n p er pupil in 1976-77 and t h e r e a f t e r i t s h a ll be tie d to th e m a tte r o f i n f l a t i o n . For example: 1978-79 1.7 1979-80 1980-81 1.8 1981-82 2.0 1982-83 2.1 1.9 There s h a ll be no voted o v e rrid e s o f th e re q u ire d lo c a l e f f o r t as t h i s p r a c tic e p e rp e tu a te s th e d is e q u a liz in g p r a c tic e s t h a t have been common. The proposed funding plan has a ls o in c o rp o ra te d a p ro h ib itio n a g a in s t a save harm less c la u s e . Several funding p lan s have been examined during th e review o f s t a t e funding s t r a t e g i e s . Changes in funding plans g e n e ra lly in c lu d e a saving c la u se which is designed to save r ig h ts o r , as in th e c ase o f fu n d in g , p re v e n t a d i s t r i c t from re c e iv in g few er d o lla r s than p re v io u sly c o lle c te d v ia th e s t a t e a id form ula. The proposed plan looks to e q u a liz e funding among a l l d i s t r i c t s as w ell as to p rovide an avenue f o r p ro p e rty tax re d u c tio n . T h e re fo re , i t becomes n e ce ssa ry to p re v e n t methods o f d is e q u a liz a tio n o r in c re a se d p ro p e rty ta x a tio n . Table 5 .3 .—A h lfeld's weighted pupil u n its: Elk Rapids. 1977-78 Act. Wt. K-3 4-9 10-12 Vocati onal-Techni cal A gricu lture D is trib u tiv e education Health Home economics (nonwage earning) Home economics (wage earning) O ffice Trade and in d u stry Fast growth Key: Act. = actual 1979-80 Act. Wt. 1980-81 Act. Wt. 1981-82 Act. Wt. 1982-83 Act. Wt. 275 472 155 339 472 217 287 485 164 354 485 230 302 494 166 373 494 232 294 512 192 363 512 269 311 545 176 384 545 246 322 567 180 397 567 252 39 26 34 22 117 60 78 81 41 27 35 23 123 62 81 85 42 27 36 24 126 62 83 89 43 28 37 25 129 64 85 93 44 29 38 25 132 67 87 93 46 30 39 26 138 69 90 96 6 1 6 1 1 21 3 15 3 5 6 1 6 1 1 21 3 15 3 5 6 1 6 1 1 21 3 15 3 5 6 1 6 1 1 21 3 15 3 5 6 1 6 1 1 21 3 15 3 5 7 1 7 1 1 25 3 18 3 5 13 15 10 18 30 13 14 16 10 19 32 13 14 16 10 19 32 13 14 16 10 19 32 13 14 16 10 19 32 13 15 17 10 21 33 13 9 10 9 10 9 10 9 10 9 10 9 10 14 41 15 44 15 44 15 44 15 44 16 47 9 11 42 92 1657 9 11 42 92 1719 3 1722 9 11 42 92 1758 1 1759 9 11 42 92 1814 2 1816 9 11 42 92 1853 9 11 42 92 T9TT 2 1913 Wt. * weighted pupil units 430 Special Education Speech M entally retard ed Learning d i s a b il i ty Emotionally d istu rb ed P h y sically & otherw ise h e alth handicapped Deaf H ard-of-hearing V isually handicapped M ultiple handicapped 1978-79 Act. Wt. 431 Table 5 .4 .—A h lfe ld 's com putation o f school fin a n c e : Elk Rapids. 1977-78 $65 x 24 m ills = $1560 x 1657 = $2,584,920 S ta te Aid R atio : 1 - ||^ f ■ 1 -56 - -.5 6 Local E ffo rt = $2,584,920 S ta te Aid = $0.00 1978-79 $70 x 24 m ills = $1680 x 1722 = $2,892,960 S ta te Support R atio : S ta te Aid 1 - = 1.48 = - .4 8 = $0.00 Local E ffo rt = $2,892,960 1979-80 $75 x 24 m ills = $1800 x 1759 = $3,166,200 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - 71 4 5 ? = 1.49 = - .4 9 = $0.00 Local E f fo rt = $3,166,200 1980-81 $80 x 24 m ills = $1920 x 1816 = $3,486,720 S ta te Support R atio : S ta te Aid 1 - - $0.00 Local E f fo rt = $3,486,720 = 1*51 = -.51 432 Table 5 .4 .—Continued. 1981-82 $86 x 24 m ills = $2064 x 1853 = $3,824,592 S ta te Support R atio : S ta te Aid 1 - = 1-54 = -.5 4 = $0.00 Local E ffo rt = $3,824,592 1982-83 $92 x 24 m ills = $2208 x 1913 = $4,223,904 S ta te Aid R atio : S ta te Aid 1 - = $0.00 Local E ffo rt = $4,223,904 = 1.57 = -.5 7 Table 5 .5 .—Ahlfeld's weighted pupil units: Detroit. 1977-78 Act. K-3 4-9 10-12 Wt. 68,107 84,044 97,545 97,545 12,163 17,028 1978-79 Act. Wt. 64,986 80,193 92,345 92,345 12,692 17,769 1979-80 Act. Wt. 59,575 73,516 89,723 89,723 11,487 16,082 1980-81 Act. Wt. 54,192 66,873 88,050 88,050 11,673 16,342 1981-82 Act. Wt. 50,356 62,139 83,769 83,769 12,621 17,669 1982-83 Act. Wt. 47,719 58,885 80,573 80,573 10,485 14,679 Special Education Speech Mentally retarded Learning d is a b ility Emotionally disturbed Physically & otherwise health handicapped Deaf Hard-of-hearing Visually handicapped M ultiple handicapped 18,948 9,547 12,452 13,353 6,022 18,066 3,957 9,101 5,162 11,873 3,441 12,732 954 3,339 902 3,157 860 3,010 150 450 999 2,498 200 600 120 594 143 429 954 2,385 191 573 114 564 135 405 902 2,255 180 540 108 535 387 129 860 2,150 172 516 103 510 2,419 3,388 2,903 5,719 1,828 2,303 2,394 3,304 2,873 5,660 1,809 2,279 2,274 3,138 2,729 5,376 1,719 2,166 2,160 2,981 2,593 5,108 1,633 2,058 2,052 2,463 1,551 2,832 4,852 1,954 1,500 1,650 1,440 1,584 1,368 1,505 1,300 1,430 1,235 1,359 1,173 1,290 2,688 7,849 1,792 8,422 2,072 17,260 2,580 7,534 2,554 7,458 2,426 7,084 2,305 6,731 1,720 8,084 1,989 16,568 1,702 7,994 1,968 16,393 1,617 7,600 1,870 15,577 1,536 7,219 1,777 14,802 2,190 6,395 1,459 6,857 1,688 14,061 320,164 306,773 8,035 291,664 9,065 278,339 7,995 314,808 300,729 286,334 251,322 16,210 267,532 23,076 11,627 15,164 16,262 7,357 4,835 6,306 4,204 22,071 11,121 14,504 15,555 1,099 3,847 1,051 3,679 999 3,497 165 495 1,099 2,748 220 660 132 653 158 474 1,051 2,628 210 630 126 624 2,520 3,478 3,024 5,957 1,904 2,399 7,692 5,055 6,593 4,395 6,994 4,596 5,995 3,997 20,982 10,571 13,789 14,789 6,678 4,389 5,724 3,816 20,034 10,095 13,165 14,119 6,316 4,151 5,414 3,609 Vocational-Technical Agriculture D istributive education Health Home economics (nonwage earning) Home economics (wage earning) Office Trade and industry Declining enrollment Key: Act. = actual Wt. = weighted pupil units 250,732 354 251,086 434 T able 5 . 6 . —A h lf e ld 's com putation o f school fin a n c e : D e tr o it. 1977-78 $65 x 24 m ills = $1560 x 320,164 = $499,455,840 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - 3 9 * ^ 2 6 = ^ ’ *52 = .48 = $239,738,803 Local E f fo r t = $259,717,037 1978-79 $70 x 24 m ills = $1680 x 314,808 = $528,877,440 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - 4 5 |fffg = 1 - .49 = .51 = $269,727,494 Local E ffo rt = $259,149,946 1979-80 $75 x 24 m ills = $1800 x 300,729 = $540,013,122 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - 4 7 = .50 = .50 = $270,006,561 Local E f f o r t = $270,006,561 1980-81 $80 x 24 m ills = $1920 x 286,334 = $549,761,280 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - gfl’j-yg = -50 = .50 = $274,880,640 Local E f fo r t = $274,880,640 435 Table 5 .6 .—Continued. 1981-82 $86 x 24 m ills = $2064 x 267,532 = $552,186,048 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - = .51 = .49 = $ 2 7 0 ,5 7 1 ,1 6 4 Local E f fo r t = $281,614,884 1982-83 $92 x 24 m ills = $2208 x 251,686 = $555,722,688 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - 5 5 * 3 9 5 = .52 = .48 = $266,746,890 Local E f f o r t = $288,975,798 Table 5 .7 .—A h lfeld's weighted pupil un its: Muskegon Heights. 1977-78 A ct. Wt. K-3 4-9 10-12 Special Education Speech Mentally retard ed Learning d is a b i1i ty Emotionally d istu rb ed P h y sically & otherw ise h e alth handicapped Deaf H ard-of-hearing V isually handicapped M ultiple handicapped V ocational-Technical Agri c u ltu re Di s t r i b u ti ve education Health Home economics (nonwage earning) Home economics (wage earning) O ffice Trade and industry D eclining enrollm ent Key: Act. = actual 1978-79 Act. Wt. 1979-80 Act. Wt. 852 1109 306 1051 1109 428 874 1085 234 1079 1085 328 89 59 312 156 205 218 100 66 86 300 152 198 211 291 147 191 207 95 62 81 54 285 143 186 57 97 64 83 56 15 53 14 49 14 49 14 49 963 1245 287 1188 1245 402 938 1161 305 1157 1161 427 112 336 170 324 163 104 212 237 108 71 92 62 229 56 15 53 16 1982-83 Act. Wt. 1069 1137 445 1233 1289 426 221 1981-82 Act. Wt. 1137 318 999 1289 304 74 96 64 1980-81 Act. Wt. 68 866 200 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 16 3 40 9 15 3 38 9 15 3 38 9 14 3 35 9 14 3 35 9 14 3 35 9 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 36 44 28 50 87 35 35 42 27 48 83 34 34 40 26 47 79 33 33 39 25 46 77 32 32 38 24 44 75 30 31 37 23 43 73 29 20 22 19 21 18 20 17 19 16 18 15 17 39 114 37 108 36 105 35 102 34 99 34 99 26 30 122 25 29 118 242 4533 108 4641 24 28 113 233 4382 91 4573 23 27 108 225 4230 91 432T 22 103 217 4119 67 4186 21 99 208 3923 118 4041 250 4713 Wt. = weighted pupil units 26 25 437 Table 5 . 8 . —A h lfe ld 's computation o f school finan ce: Muskegon H eights. 1977-78 $65 x 24 m ills = $1560 x 4713 = $7,352,280 S ta te Support R atio : S ta te Aid 1 - 3 9 * 9 2 6 = .34 = .6 6 = $4,852,505 Local E f f o r t = $2,499,775 R ecapture P ro v isio n : Overage: $65 x 28.30 m ills = $1840 x 4713 = $8,671,920 $1,319,640 R ecapture o f 5% to S ta te : ($65,982) 1978-79 $70 x 24 m ills = $1680 x 4641 = $7,796,880 S ta te Support R atio : S ta te Aid 1 - = .33 = .67 = $5,223,910 Local E f f o r t = $2,572,970 R ecapture P ro v isio n : Overage: $70 x 28.30 m ills = $1981 x 4641 = $9,193,821 $1,396,941 R ecapture o f 10% to S ta te : ($139,694) 1979-80 $75 x 24 m ills = $1800 x 4573 = $8,231,400 S ta te Support R atio : S ta te Aid 1 - 4 7 *9 ^ = .33 = .67 = $5,515,038 Local E f fo r t = $2,716,362 R ecapture P ro v isio n : Overage: $75 x 28.30 m ills = $2,123 x 4573 = $9,708,479 $1,477,079 R ecapture o f 15% to S ta te : (221,562) 438 Table 5 . 8 . —Continued. 1980-81 $80 x 24 m ills = $1920 x 4321 = $8,296,320 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - = .34 = .6 6 = $5,475,571 Local E f f o r t = $2,820,749 R ecapture P ro v isio n : Overage: $80 x 28.30 m ills * $2264 x 4321 = $9,782,744 $1,486,424 R ecapture o f 20% to S ta te : ($297,285) 1981-82 $86 x 24 m ills = $2064 x 4186 = $8,639,904 S ta te Support R a tio : S ta te Aid 1 - = .34 = .6 6 = $5,702,007 Local E f f o r t = $2,937,397 R ecapture P ro v isio n : $86 x 28.30 m ills = $2434 x 4186 = $10,188,724 Overage: $1,548,820 R ecapture o f 25% to S ta te : ($387,205) 1982-83 $92 x 24 m ills = $2208 x 4041 = $8,922,528 " IQ •JQl S ta te Support R a tio : 1 - ^ * -g-gg = .35 = .65 S ta te Aid = $5,799,643 Local E f f o r t = $3,122,885 R ecapture P ro v isio n : Overage: $92 x 28.30 m ills = $2604 x 4041 ® $10,522,764 $1,600,236 R ecapture o f 30% to S ta te : ($480,071) Table 5 .9 .--Comparison o f local e ff o r t/s ta te aid: Hawaiian model.* 1977-78 D is tr ic t Lakeshore $ 7,349,195 1978-79 $ 7,706,408 1979-80 $ 7,986,843 1980-81 $ 8,926,425 1981-82 $ 8,553,570 1982-83 $ 9,022,150 Homer 2,509,671 2,621,213 2,667,446 2,747,570 2,808,106 2,939,589 Central Lake 1,135,045 1,208,199 1,297,197 1,387,997 1,518,100 1,646,061 Center Line 8,538,282 8,434,638 8,272,403 8,105,331 8,026,418 8,016,073 424,909,563 434,866,402 442,366,582 451,961,048 457,381,598 466,597,267 Cherry H ill 6,477,192 6,552,067 6,612,617 6,641,540 6,704,625 6,814,747 P o rt Austin 622,584 659,791 675,218 703,587 717,357 772,723 Elk Rapids 2,161,416 2,399,240 2,632,244 2,922,845 3,216,699 3,562,753 Arenac Eastern 1,218,099 1,296,830 1,370,361 1,416,650 1,462,597 1,553,621 Rudyard 1,653,134 1,615,350 1,591,744 1,594,324 1,604,547 1,664,787 Genesee 1,631,758 1,824,249 2,021,227 2,224,472 2,428,367 2,621,904 Camden F ro n tie r 1,426,916 1,433,339 1,489,908 1,520,885 1,574,129 1,618,694 21,423,069 24,439,151 27,650,737 31,149,718 34,988,258 39,309,587 6,187,168 6,370,395 6,568,434 6,787,128 7,049,362 7,334,283 D e tro it Troy Muskegon Heights *Hawaii is th e only f u l l- s ta te - a i d d i s t r i c t used in th is study. is generated. T herefo re, no lo cal e f f o r t Table 5 .1 0 .—Comparison o f local e ffo r t/s ta t e aid: Texas model, minimum experience le v e ls .* D is tr ic t Lakeshore 1978-79 1977-78 $ 334,934 2,347,020 $ 334,934 2,820,136 1980-81 1979-80 $ 364,962 2,847,313 $ 364,962 2,907,503 1982-83 1981-82 $ 425,520 2,909,481 $ 425,520 2,978,437 81,492 896,904 81,492 929,673 88,798 948,030 88,798 971,352 103,532 971,697 103,532 990,670 Central Lake 100,217 231,366 100,217 246,002 109,202 248,936 109,202 263,458 127,322 267,936 127,322 270,847 751,272 3,241,102 751,272 3,404,609 818,627 3,374,969 818,627 3,417,536 954,462 3,314,642 954,462 3,355,371 18,491,208 154,842,190 18,491,208 162,335,023 20,149,024 161,605,526 20,149,024 162,654,222 23,492,354 159,770,699 23,492,354 160,699,064 Cherry H ill 236,962 2,574,616 236,962 2,696,689 258,207 2,718,373 258,207 2,735,402 301,051 2,783,075 301,051 2,804,164 P o rt Austin 68,354 196,534 68,354 209,704 74,483 204,038 74,483 213,615 86,842 206,214 86,842 213,494 Center Line D e tro it 440 Homer Table 5 .1 0 .—Continued. 1977-78 D is tr ic t Elk Rapids $ 251,908 649,939 1978-79 $ 251,908 694,188 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 274,493 710,548 $ 274,493 737,865 $ 320,039 716,895 $ 320,039 743,472 1979-80 $ 44,844 350,699 44,844 369,563 48,864 378,002 48,864 388,839 56,972 392,286 56,972 404,578 Rudyard 52,881 1,530,836 52,881 1,572,078 57,622 1,630,161 57,622 1,662,931 67,183 1,680,865 67,183 1,712,901 Genesee 48,255 502,911 48,225 536,332 52,581 549,534 52,581 577,001 61,306 588,331 61,306 610,639 Camden F ro n tie r 68,115 438,411 68,115 506,486 74,222 512,500 74,222 522,313 86,538 529,989 86,538 530,152 Troy 1,666,525 5,911,996 1,666,525 6,381,003 1,815,936 6,439,504 1,815,936 6,813,725 2,117,254 6,784,469 2,117,254 7,045,699 Muskegon Heights 173,518 2,582,101 173,518 2,708,147 189,074 2,744,969 189,074 2,800,238 220,447 2,857,329 220,447 2,910,526 Arenac Eastern *Top number ind icates local e ffo r t; bottom number ind icates sta te aid . Table 5 .1 1 .—Comparison o f local e ffo r t /s t a t e aid: Texas model, maximum experience le v e ls .* 1977-78 D is tr ic t Lakeshore $ 334,934 2,776,024 1978-79 $ 334,934 2,883,529 $ 364,962 2,912,411 1981-82 1980-81 1979-80 $ 364,962 2,974,176 $ 425,520 2,969,642 1982-83 $ 425,520 3,031,726 Homer 81,492 929,334 81,492 959,812 88,798 973,289 88,798 989,193 103,532 989,917 103,532 1,003,077 C entral Lake 100,217 240,484 100,217 255,587 109,202 260,997 109,202 272,189 127,322 267,045 127,322 280,053 751,272 3,378,286 751,272 3,471,229 818,627 3,443,106 818,627 3,469,733 954,462 3,368,694 954,462 3,389,576 18,491,208 160,582,676 18,491,208 164,045,881 20,149,024 163,408,305 20,149,024 163,921,944 23,492,354 161,167,793 23,492,354 161,636,392 Cherry H ill 236,962 2,669,184 236,962 2,751,675 258,207 2,774,933 258,207 2,799,881 301,051 2,774,871 301,051 2,804,428 Port A ustin 68,354 204,712 68,354 214,165 74,483 212,782 74,483 228,456 86,842 211,244 86,842 217,184 Center Line D e tro it Table 5 .1 1 .--Continued. 1977-78 D is tr ic t $ 1980-81 $ 274,493 754,853 1982-83 1981-82 $ 320,039 756,474 44,844 379,148 48,864 387,629 48,864 399,183 56,972 403,009 56,972 415,870 Rudyard 52,881 1,588,190 52,881 1,603,965 57,622 1,664,331 57,622 1,690,356 67,183 1,709,239 67,183 1,730,458 Genesee 48,255 520,113 48,255 551,992 52,581 574,163 52,581 593,039 61,306 604,938 61,306 623,552 Camden F ro n tie r 68,115 501,365 68,115 517,486 74,222 577,981 74,222 532,658 86,538 544,977 86,538 548,408 Troy 1,666,525 6,156,396 1,666,525 6,492,833 1,815,936 6,748,176 1,815,936 6,981,414 2,117,254 7,364,216 2,117,254 7,181,976 Muskegon Heights 173,518 2,670,537 173,518 2,761,008 189,074 2,799,914 189,074 2,849,776 220,447 2,909,429 220,447 2,951,807 443 44,844 360,905 *Top number ind icates local e ffo r t; bottom number ind icates sta te aid . 320,039 735,019 $ $ 274,493 742,729 Arenac Eastern 251,908 679,389 1979-80 251,908 720,665 Elk Rapids $ 1978-79 Table 5 .1 2 .—Comparison o f local e ff o r t/s ta te aid: Minnesota model.* D is tr ic t 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 2,649,413 2,932,034 $ 2,558,054 2,287,437 $ 2,558,054 2,515,210 $ 2,558,054 2,730,578 $ 2,558,054 2,937,664 $ 2,558,054 3,176,026 Homer 644,123 905,198 622,395 1,016,214 622,395 1,085,157 622,395 1,148,869 622,395 1,201,435 622,395 1,264,505 C entral Lake 792,741 765,405 765,405 37,803 765,405 91,293 765,405 164,681 765,405 235,395 Lakeshore • • • • • • 5,942,758 5,737,835 76,974 5,737,835 96,301 5,737,835 57,771 5,737,835 2,855 5,737,835 146,270,189 114,723,375 141,225,389 130,448,609 141,226,389 139,657,683 141,226,389 147,492,159 141,226,389 154,056,399 141,226,389 160,244,811 Cherry H ill 1,874,433 2,400,968 1,809,797 2,575,213 1,809,797 2,649,595 1,809,797 2,693,843 1,809,797 2,739,683 1,809,797 2,789,563 P o rt Austin 540,700 522,055 522,055 522,055 522,055 522,055 Center Line • • D e tro it • • • Table 5 .1 2 .--Continued. D is tr ic t Elk Rapids 1977-78 1978-79 $1,992,658 $1,923,945 • • • • • • 1979-80 $1,923,945 • • • 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $1,923,945 $1,923,945 56,021 $1,923,945 280,695 • • • 342,495 469,666 342,495 520,689 342,495 564,523 342,495 596,364 342,495 663,705 Rudyard 418,301 1,471,379 403,877 655,559 403,877 661,579 403,877 661,649 403,877 776,565 403,877 740,923 Genesee 381,711 614,479 368,549 760,124 368,549 875,659 368,549 988,833 368,549 1,113,397 368,549 1,228,411 Camden F ro n tie r 538,810 372,139 520,231 428,206 520,231 464,081 520,231 493,717 520,231 525,611 520,231 614,489 13,181,187 146,192 12,726,663 2,515,368 12,726,663 4,540,545 12,726,663 6,880,525 12,726,663 9,701,735 12,726,663 12,405,657 1,372,569 2,350,306 1,325,239 2,591,597 1,325,239 2,759,009 1,325,239 2,912,963 1,325,239 3,070,797 1,325,239 3,220,841 Troy Muskegon Heights *Top number ind icates local e ffo r t; bottom number ind icates sta te aid . 445 354,727 406,208 Arenac Eastern Table 5 .1 3 .—Faxon proposal: minimum experience le v e ls .* D is tr ic t Lakeshore Homer Central Lake D e tro it Cherry H ill P o rt A ustin 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 2,649,413 2,981,812 $ 2,649,413 3,558,491 $ 2,649,413 3,921,820 $ 2,649,413 4,476,029 $ 2,649,413 4,301,114 $ 2,649,413 5,016,341 644,623 1,219,436 644,623 1,419,139 644,623 1,460,198 644,623 1,645,300 644,623 1,615,791 644,623 1,740,998 792,741 25,072 792,741 123,040 792,741 193,018 792,741 289,971 792,741 395,394 792,741 525,534 5,942,758 1,222,355 5,942,759 1,678,845 5,942,758 1,867,445 5,942,758 2,030,899 5,942,758 1,094,927 5,942,758 1,294,303 146,270,189 209,743,827 146,270,189 236,202,763 146,270,189 253,431,874 146,270,189 271,725,376 146,270,189 253,672,714 146,270,189 263,808,356 1,874,433 3,488,797 1,874,433 4,008,918 1,874,433 4,216,255 1,874,433 4,499,799 1,874,433 4,105,042 1,874,433 4,495,855 540,700 540,700 540,700 540,700 33,930 540,700 26,642 540,700 78,504 • • * • • • • * • 446 C enterline 1977-78 Table 5 .1 3 .—Continued. D is tr ic t Elk Rapids 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $1,992,658 $1,992,658 $1,992,658 106,341 $1,992,658 368,181 $1,992,658 639,512 $1,992,658 969,403 • • • • • • Arenac Eastern 354,727 433,921 354,727 433,921 354,727 599,130 354,727 706,404 354,727 725,288 354,727 827,415 Rudyard 418,301 709,364 418,301 938,281 418,301 967,027 418,301 1,010,964 418,301 886,848 418,301 951,487 Genesee 381,711 762,574 381,711 1,001,621 381,711 1,160,475 381,711 1,402,565 381,711 1,578,710 381,711 1,777,032 Camden F ro n tie r 538,810 533,493 538,810 638,720 538,810 693,381 538,810 809,278 538,810 768,648 538,810 832,182 13,181,187 3,049,374 13,181,187 5,619,065 13,181,187 8,128,094 13,181,187 11,747,006 13,181,187 14,973,636 13,181,187 19,152,237 1,372,569 3,148,156 1,372,569 3,599,366 1,372,569 3,842,609 1,372,569 4,206,512 1,372,569 4,167,958 1,372,569 4,470,115 Troy Muskegon Heights *Top number ind icates local e ffo r t; bottom number in d icates sta te aid. Table 5 .1 4 .--Faxon proposal: maximum experience le v e ls .* D is tr ic t 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 2,649,413 3,558,491 $ 2,649,413 4,163,925 $ 2,649,413 4,476,099 $ 2,649,413 4,447,922 $ 2,649,413 5,016,341 644,623 1,285,191 644,623 1,419,139 644,623 1,497,379 644,623 1,635,300 644,623 1,651,495 644,623 1,740,998 792,741 51,171 792,741 123,040 792,741 224,377 792,741 289,971 792,741 423,098 792,741 525,534 5,942,758 1,451,014 5,942,758 1,678,845 4,942,758 2,031,982 5,942,758 2,030,899 5,942,658 1,337,159 5,942,758 1,294,303 146,270,189 215,117,047 146,270,189 236,202,763 146,270,189 259,371,670 146,270,189 271,725,376 146,270,189 256,919,215 146,270,189 263,808,356 Cherry H ill 1,874,433 3,704,328 1,874,433 4,008,918 1,874,433 4,374,374 1,874,433 4,499,799 1,874,433 4,428,845 1,874,433 4,495,855 P ort Austin 540,700 540,700 540,700 5,148 540,700 33,930 540,700 35,964 540,700 78,504 Homer C entral Lake Center Line D e tro it • • • • • • 448 $ 2,649,413 3,211,307 Lakeshore Table 5 .1 4 .—Continued. D is tr ic t Elk Rapids 1977-78 $ 1,992,658 • • • 1978-79 $ 1,992,658 • • • 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 1,992,658 159,973 $ 1,992,658 368,181 $ 1,992,658 685,474 $ 1,992,658 969,403 354,727 477,432 354,727 536,479 354,727 656,338 354,727 706,404 354,727 757,818 354,727 827,415 Rudyard 418,301 886,233 418,301 938,281 418,301 1,000,700 418,301 1,010,964 418,301 904,103 418,301 951,487 Genesee 381,711 897,009 381,711 1,001,621 381,711 1,243,682 381,711 1,402,565 381,711 1,629,632 381,711 1,777,032 Camden F ro n tie r 538,810 581,506 538,810 638,720 538,810 731,937 538,810 809,278 538,810 800,391 538,810 832,182 13,181,187 3,178,611 13,181,187 5,619,065 13,181,187 8,923,934 13,181,187 11,747,006 13,181,187 15,664,462 13,181,187 19,152,237 1,372,569 3,311,324 1,372,569 3,599,366 1,372,569 3,951,683 1,372,569 4,224,999 1,372,569 4,267,857 1,372,569 4,470,115 Troy Muskegon Heights *Top number ind icates local e ffo r t; bottom number indicates sta te aid . 449 Arenac Eastern Table 5 .1 5 .--Michigan school finance plan.* D is tr ic t Lakeshore Homer Central Lake Cherry H ill P o rt Austin 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 2,432,640 2,753,419 $ 2,600,050 2,837,147 $ 2,781,768 2,549,170 $ 2,976,970 2,246,289 $ 3,186,000 1,936,526 $ 3,410,175 1,713,762 594,484 1,175,858 636,034 1,213,596 677,210 1,100,225 728,400 1,008,098 778,924 902,521 833,596 835,385 696,182 104,527 744,600 107,768 796,960 69,104 852,630 24,451 912,277 976,056 7,012,608 7,481,295 8,004,654 8,561,844 9,162,131 • • Detroi t 1978-79 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • 9,775,492 • • • 153,834,100 178,271,618 129,902,982 176,904,588 139,085,856 156,269,914 148,644,106 136,827,667 159,174,540 114,712,238 170,341,380 94,589,378 1,979,850 2,589,550 2,119,392 2,505,888 2,267,133 2,147,653 2,428,264 1,769,324 2,598,445 1,264,865 2,779,379 1,090,642 498,778 533,687 570,960 610,929 653,730 699,390 450 Center Line 1977-78 Table 5 .1 5 .—Continued. D is tr ic t Elk Rapids 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $1,549,548 $1,738,840 $1,773,988 $1,899,120 $2,032,938 $2,173,356 • • • • • • • • * • • « • • • # • • Arenac Eastern 296,100 563,526 316,635 598,914 338,593 576,227 362,388 532,847 387,744 488,162 414,852 467,560 Rudyard 837,900 328,320 836,298 313,962 851,296 211,376 875,573 131,900 924,813 36,081 952,928 Genesee 353,636 797,571 378,378 909,316 404,459 944,528 432,879 972,455 463,672 990,697 496,071 993,184 Camden F ro n tie r 436,158 570,261 467,082 544,868 499,366 495,093 534,786 426,498 571,941 370,682 611,925 307,351 13,783,520 1,334,951 14,746,368 2,508,755 15,774,870 2,685,603 16,883,316 2,805,199 18,054,324 2,892,818 19,325,834 3,002,562 1,433,600 2,931,597 1,533,840 2,963,237 1,581,411 2,744,360 1,730,460 2,559,318 1,849,365 2,370,873 1,980,060 2,185,466 Troy Muskegon Heights *Top number ind icates local e ffo r t; bottom number in d icates sta te aid. • • • Table 5 .1 6 .—C alifornia school finance plan.* D is tr ic t 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 2,023,953 2,910,794 $ 2,165,629 3,042,563 $ 2,317,223 3,014,465 $ 2,479,429 2,972,486 $ 2,652,989 3,036,616 460,228 1,101,076 492,444 1,162,097 526,915 1,198,611 563,799 1,061,043 603,264 1,175,632 645,493 1,197,599 565,976 140,648 605,594 160,888 647,986 189,988 693,345 193,578 741,879 220,154 793,810 238,727 4,242,822 769,068 4,539,819 908,922 4,857,600 578,454 5,197,639 72,063 5,561,474 5,950,777 104,429,350 159,592,772 111,739,405 163,697,544 119,561,163 166,022,783 127,930,444 160,483,309 135,885,575 152,518,855 146,467,566 145,796,232 Cherry H ill 1,338,248 2,746,234 1,431,926 2,777,566 1,532,160 2,785,386 1,639,412 2,655,066 1,754,170 2,530,215 1,876,962 2,424,329 P o rt Austin 386,032 6,058 413,054 10,939 441,968 472,906 506,009 541,430 Homer C entral Lake Center Line D e tro it • • • • • • * • • * * • • • • • • * 452 $ 1,841,544 2,776,218 Lakeshore Table 5 .1 6 .--Continued. D is tr ic t Elk Rapids 1977-78 $1,442,655 • • • 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $1,522,240 6,611 $1,628,797 80,493 $1,742,813 126,361 $1,864,810 176,723 $1,995,347 244,687 253,257 504,891 270,985 551,522 289,954 598,438 310,250 599,810 331,968 597,091 335,206 643,943 Rudyard 298,645 737,153 319,550 716,027 341,919 685,705 365,853 651,334 391,463 614,848 418,865 613,309 Genesee 272,522 734,106 291,598 859,958 312,010 990,694 333,851 1,086,707 357,221 1,175,915 382,226 1,255,399 Camden F ro n tie r 384,683 506,473 411,611 501,460 440,423 527,715 471,253 539,615 504,241 495,596 539,538 477,597 Troy 9,410,686 3,922,262 10,069,434 5,436,530 10,774,294 7,109,000 11,528,495 8,433,502 12,335,489 9,850,962 13,198,973 11,576,457 Muskegon Heights 979,943 2,891,625 1,048,539 2,999,207 1,121,937 3,134,901 1,182,612 3,168,543 1,265,395 3,199,772 1,353,975 3,238,696 *Top number ind icates local e ffo r t; bottom number ind icates sta te aid. 453 Arenac Eastern Table 5 .1 7 .—New Jersey school finance plan.* D is tr ic t 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $ 1,846,110 3,428,490 $ 1,975,338 3,668,484 $ 2,113,611 3,925,279 $ 2,261,564 4,200,048 $ 2,419,874 4,494,051 $ 2,589,261 4,808,629 606,145 1,125,698 648,575 1,204,497 693,975 1,288,812 742,554 1,379,028 794,532 1,475,559 850,150 1,598,849 367,338 486,936 393,008 520,965 420,519 557,432 449,955 596,453 481,453 638,204 515,154 682,879 3,003,491 5,339,539 3,213,735 5,713,307 3,438,697 6,113,238 3,679,405 6,541,165 3,936,964 6,999,046 4,212,551 7,488,980 138,696,670 251,579,530 148,405,437 275,610,097 158,793,817 294,902,804 169,909,384 315,546,000 181,803,041 339,634,220 194,529,254 351,268,615 Cherry H ill 2,012,829 3,738,110 2,153,727 3,999,778 2,304,487 4,279,763 2,465,801 4,579,346 2,638,407 4,899,900 2,823,096 5,242,893 P o rt Austin 266,969 266,968 285.415 285.415 305.394 305.394 326,772 326,771 349,646 349,645 374,121 374,120 Lakeshore Homer C entral Lake Center Line D e tro it Table 5 .1 7 .—Continued. D is tr ic t 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1981-82 1980-81 1982-83 $ 1,007,908 729,864 $ 1,078,461 780,955 $ 1,153,953 835,622 $ 1,234,730 894,115 $ 1,321,166 956,703 $ 1,413,642 1,023,678 289,934 538,448 310,229 576,140 331,945 616,470 355,181 659,623 380,044 705,796 406,647 755,202 Rudyard 1,316,852 2,445,582 1,409,031 2,616,773 1,507,663 2,799,947 1,613,200 2,995,943 1,726,124 3,205,659 1,846,953 3,430,055 Genesee 380,170 706,030 406,782 755,452 435,256 808,334 465,724 864,917 498,325 925,461 553,208 990,243 Camden F ro n tie r 346.656 643.656 370,922 688,856 396,887 737,075 424.669 738.670 454,396 843,877 486,203 902,949 6,655,742 10,410,264 7,121,644 11,138,982 7,620,159 11,918,711 8,153,570 12,753,021 8,724,320 13,645,732 9,335,023 14,600,933 2,179,976 4,048,527 2,332,524 4,311,924 2,495,855 4,635,158 2,670,564 4,959,620 2,857,504 5,306,793 3,257,529 5,678,269 Elk Rapids Arenac Eastern Troy Muskegon Heights *Top number ind icates local e ffo r t; bottom number in d icates sta te aid . Table 5 .1 8 .—Comparison o f local e ffo r t and sta te aid: Ahlfeld model.* 1977-78 D is tr ic t Elk Rapids D e tro it $ 2,584,920 1978-79 $ 2,892,960 $ 3,166,200 1981-82 1980-81 1979-80 $ 3,486,720 $ 3,824,592 1982-83 $ 4,223,904 259,149,946 270.006.561 274.880.640 281,614,884 266,746,890 239,738,803 269,727,494 270.006.561 274.880.640 270,571,164 288,975,798 2,499,775 2,572,970 2,716,362 2,820,749 2,937,397 3,122,885 4,852,505 5,223,910 5,515,038 5,475,571 5,702,007 5,799,643 456 259,717,037 Muskegon Heights** *Top number in d ic a te s local e f f o r t ; bottom number in d ic a te s s t a te a id . * * D istric t pays recap tu re p ro v isio n . Table 5 .1 9 .—Comparison o f local e ff o r t, sta te a id , and total revenue: Local E ffo rt Total Revenue S ta te Aid Hawaii. Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid 1977-78 Elk Rapids ••• Detroi t ••• Muskegon Heights ••• 1978-79 2,161,416 ••• 424,909,563 424,909,563 • •• 434,866,402 434,866,402 6,187,168 6,187,168 ••• 6,568,434 6,568,434 $ 2,161,416 $ $ 2,399,240 1979-80 Elk Rapids ••• Detroi t ••• Muskegon Hei ghts • *• $ 2,632,244 • *• 2,632,244 ••• 442,366,582 442,366,582 • •• 6,568,434 6,568,434 ••• Detroi t •i» Muskegon Heights ••• $ 3,216,699 $ 2,399,240 1980-81 $ $ 2,922,845 451,961,048 1981-82 Elk Rapids Total Revenue $ 2,922,845 451,961,048 1982-83 $ $ 3,562,753 $ 3,562,753 3,216,699 ••• 457,381,598 457,381,598 • ** 466,597,267 466,597,267 7,049,362 7,049,362 ••• 7,334,283 7,334,283 Table 5 .2 0 .--Comparison o f local e ff o r t , sta te a id , and total revenue: Texas/minimum experience. Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid Total Revenue Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid 1977-78 Elk Rapids $ D e tro it Muskegon Heights 251,908 $ 833,741 1978-79 $ 1,085,649 $ 251,908 $ D e tro it Muskegon Heights D e tro it H eights" $ 1,147,701 169,883,435 188,374,643 18,491,208 181,332,505 199,823,713 173,518 2,903,345 3,076,863 173,518 3,032,228 3,205,746 274,493 $ 916,613 1980-81 $ 1,191,106 $ 274,493 $ 949,529 $ 1,224,022 20,149,024 180,398,698 200,547,722 20,149,024 181,407,779 201,556,803 189,074 3,070,543 3,259,617 189,074 3,129,298 3,318,372 1982-83 1981-82 Elk Rapids $ 320,039 $ 943,863 $ 1,263,902 $ 320,039 $ 975,945 $ 1,295,984 23,492,354 178,308,108 201,800,462 23,492,354 179,135,681 202,628,035 220,447 3,188,926 3,409,373 220,447 3,243,710 3,464,157 458 $ 895,793 18,491,208 1979-80 Elk Rapids Total Revenue Table 5 .2 1 .—Comparison o f local e ffo r t , sta te aid , and total revenue: Texas/maximum experience. Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid Total Revenue Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid 1978-79 1977-78 Elk Rapids $ D e tro it 251,908 $ 863,191 $ 1,115,099 $ 251,908 $ 922,270 198,114,529 18,441,208 183,043,362 201,534,570 173,518 2,991,781 3,165,299 173,518 3,085,089 3,258,607 1980-81 274,493 $ 948,794 $ 1,223,287 $ 274,493 $ 966,517 Muskegon Heights 1,241,010 20,149,024 182,201,477 202,350,501 20,149,024 182,675,501 202,824,525 189,074 3,125,488 3,314,562 189,074 3,179,836 3,368,910 1982-83 1981-82 D e tro it $ $ 320,039 $ 961,987 $ 1,282,026 $ 320,039 $ 988,947 $ 1,308,986 23,492,354 179,705,202 213,197,556 23,492,354 180,073,009 203,565,363 220,447 3,241,026 3,461,473 220,447 3,284,991 3,505,438 459 $ Muskegon Heights Elk Rapids 1,174,178 179,623,321 1979-80 D e tro it $ 18,491,208 Muskegon Heights Elk Rapids Total Revenue Table 5 .2 2 .—Comparison o f local e ffo r t , sta te a id , and total revenue: Minnesota. Local E ffo rt Total Revenue S ta te Aid Local E ffo rt 1977-78 Elk Rapids $ Detroi t Muskegon Heights 1,992,658 ... $ 1978-79 $ 1,992,658 $ 1,923,945 $ $ $ Detroi t Muskegon Heights 114,923,375 260,993,564 141,226,389 130,448,609 271,674,998 1,372,569 2,350,306 3,722,875 1,325,239 2,591,597 3,916,836 1,923,945 $ 1980-81 $ 1,923,945 $ 1,923,945 .. . $ D e tro it Muskegon Heights $ $ 1,923,945 141,226,389 139,637,683 280,884,072 141,226,389 147,492,159 288,718,548 1,325,239 2,759,009 4,084,248 1,325,239 2,912,963 4,238,202 1981-82 Elk Rapids 1,923,945 146,270,189 1979-80 Elk Rapids Total Revenue S ta te Aid 1,923,945 $ ... 1982-83 $ 1,923,945 $ 1,923,945 $ ... $ 1,923,945 141,226,389 154,056,399 295,282,788 141,226,389 160,244,811 301,471,200 1,325,239 3,070,797 4,396,036 1,325,239 3,220,841 4,546,080 Table 5 .2 3 .--Comparison o f local e ff o r t , sta te a id , and total revenue: Faxon/minimum. Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid Total Revenue Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid 1977-78 Elk Rapids $ D e tro it 1,992,658 $ ... 1978-79 $ 1,992,658 $ 1,992,658 $ 146,270,189 236,202,763 382,472,952 1,372,569 3,148,156 4,520,725 1,372,569 3,599,366 4,971,935 1,992,658 $ 106,341 1980-81 $ 2,098,999 $ 1,992,658 $ D e tro it Muskegon Heights $ 368,181 $ 2,360,839 146,270,189 253,431,874 399,702,063 146,270,189 271,725,376 417,995,565 1,372,569 3,842,609 5,215,178 1,372,569 4,206,512 5,579,081 1982-83 1981-82 Elk Rapids 1,992,658 356,014,016 $ Muskegon Heights $ 209,743,827 1979-80 D e tro it ... 146,270,189 Muskegon Heights Elk Rapids Total Revenue 1,992,181 $ 639,512 $ 2,631,693 $ 1,992,658 $ 969,403 $ 2,962,061 146,270,189 253,672,714 399,942,903 146,270,189 263,808,356 410,078,545 1,372,569 4,167,958 5,540,527 1,372,569 4,470,115 5,842,684 Table 5 .2 4 .—Comparison o f local e ffo r t, sta te aid , and total revenue: Faxon/maximum. Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid Total Revenue Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid 1977-78 Elk Rapids $ D e tro it Muskegon Heights 1,992,658 $ ... 1978-79 $ 1,992,658 $ 1,992,658 $ ... $ D e tro it Muskegon Heights D e tro it Muskegon Heights $ 1,992,658 215,117,047 361,387,236 146,270,189 236,202,763 382,472,952 1,372,569 3,311,324 4,683,893 1,372,569 3,599,366 4,971,935 1980-81 1,992,658 $ 159,973 $ 2,152,631 $ 1,992,658 $ 368,181 $ 2,360,839 146,270,189 259,371,670 405,641,859 146,270,189 271,725,376 417,995,565 1,372,569 3,951,683 5,324,252 1,372,569 4,224,999 5,597,568 1982-83 1981-82 Elk Rapids $ 146,270,189 1979-80 Elk Rapids Total Revenue 1,992,658 $ 685,474 $ 2,678,132 $ 1,992,658 $ 969,403 $ 2,962,061 146,270,189 256,919,215 403,189,404 146,270,189 263,808,356 410,078,545 1,372,569 4,267,857 5,640,426 1,372,569 4,470,115 5,812,684 Table 5 .2 5 .—Comparison o f local e ff o r t , sta te a id , and total revenue: Michigan. Local E ffo rt Total Revenue S ta te Aid Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid 1977-78 Elk Rapids D e tro it $ 1,549,438 ... $ 1978-79 $ 1,549,548 $ 1,738,840 ... $ 299,600,557 129,902,782 176,904,588 306,807,370 1,430,400 2,931,597 4,361,997 1,533,840 2,963,237 4,497,077 1980-81 Muskegon Heights 1,773,988 $ ... $ 1,773,988 $ 1,899,120 Muskegon Heights 1,899,120 139,085,856 156,269,914 295,335,770 148,454,106 136,827,667 285,281,773 1,640,751 2,774,360 4,415,111 1,730,460 2,559,318 4,289,778 1982-83 1981-82 $ $ $ 2,032,938 $ $ 2,032,938 $ 2,173,356 $ .. . $ 2,173,356 159,174,540 114,712,238 273,886,778 170,341,380 94,589,378 264,930,758 1,849,365 2,370,873 4,220,338 1,980,060 2,185,466 4,165,526 463 $ D e tro it Detroi t 1,738,840 178,271,618 1979-80 Elk Rapids $ 121,328,939 Muskegon Heights Elk Rapids Total Revenue Table 5 .2 6 .—Comparison o f local e ff o r t , sta te a id , and total revenue: C alifornia. Local E ffo rt S ta te Ai d Total Revenue Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid 1977-78 Elk Rapids $ D e tro it Muskegon Heights 1,442,655 $ ... 1978-79 $ 1,442,655 $ 1,522,240 $ D e tro it Muskegon Heights D e tro it Muskegon Heights $ 1,528,851 159,592,772 264,022,122 111,739,405 163,697,544 275,436,949 979,943 2,871,625 3,851,568 1,048,539 2,999,207 4,047,746 1,628,797 $ 80,493 1980-81 $ 1,709,290 $ 1,742,813 $ 126,361 $ 1,869,174 119,561,163 166,022,783 285,583,946 127,930,444 160,483,309 288,413,753 1,121,937 3,134,901 4,256,838 1,182,612 3,168,543 4,351,155 1981-82 Elk Rapids $ 1,864,810 $ 176,723 1982-83 $ 2,041,533 $ 1,995,347 $ 244,687 $ 2,240,034 136,885,575 152,518,855 289,404,430 146,467,566 145,796,232 292,263,798 1,265,395 3,199,772 4,465,167 1,353,973 3,238,696 4,592,669 464 $ 6,611 104,429,350 1979-80 Elk Rapids Total Revenue Table 5 .2 7 .—Comparison o f local e ff o r t , sta te a id , and total revenue: New Jersey. Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid Total Revenue Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid 1977-78 Elk Rapids D e tro it $ 112,955 $ 1,624,817 1978-79 $ 1,737,772 $ 120,862 $ 254,409,320 169,606,214 424,015,534 2,366,831 3,861,672 6,228,503 2,532,509 4,131,989 6,664,498 $ Muskegon Heights 1980-81 129,322 $ 1,860,253 $ 1,989,575 $ 138,375 $ $ 1,990,470 $ 2,128,845 272,217,973 181,478,648 453,696,621 291,273,230 194,182,154 485,455,384 2,738,785 4,421,228 7,160,013 2,899,470 4,730,714 7,630,184 1982-83 1981-82 Muskegon Heights 1,859,416 396,276,200 D e tro it D e tro it $ 158,510,480 1979-80 Elk Rapids 1,738,554 237,765,720 Muskegon Heights Elk Rapids Total Revenue 148,061 $ 2,129,803 $ 2,277,864 $ 158,425 $ 2,278,889 $ 2,437,314 311,662,357 207,774,904 519,397,261 333,478,721 222,319,418 555,798,139 3,102,433 5,061,864 8,164,297 3,319,603 5,416,195 8,735,798 Table 5 .2 8 .—Comparison o f local e ffo r t , sta te a id , and total revenue: A h lfeld 's proposed model. Local E ffo rt S ta te Aid Local E ffo rt Total Revenue D e tro it $ 2,584,920 ... $ $ 2,584,920 $ 2,892,960 ... $ 499,455,840 259,149,946 269,727,494 528,877,440 2,499,775 4,852,505 7,352,280 2,570,970 5,223,910 7,794,880 $ 3,166,200 1980-81 ... $ $ 3,166,200 $ 3,486,720 ... $ Muskegon Heights* 3,486,720 270,006,561 540,013,122 274,880,640 274,880,640 549,761,280 2,716,362 5,515,038 8,231,400 2,820,749 5,475,571 8,296,320 1982-83 1981-82 D e tro it $ 270,006,561 Muskegon Heights* Elk Rapids 2,892,960 239,738,803 1979-80 D e tro it $ 259,717,037 Muskegon Heights* Elk Rapids Total Revenue 1978-79 1977-78 Elk Rapids S ta te Aid $ 3,824,592 $ ... $ 3,824,592 $ 4,223,904 $ ... $ 4,223,904 281,614,884 270,571,164 552,186,048 288,975,798 266,746,890 555,722,688 2,937,397 5,702,007 8,639,404 3,122,885 5,799,643 8,992,528 * D is tr ic t pays recap tu re p ro v isio n . 467 R e fle c tio n s A review o f th e s e le c te d s t a t e fin a n c e plans re v e a ls se v e ra l th in g s to t h is re s e a rc h e r. The t o ta l q u e stio n o f school fin a n c e i s a com plicated and h ig h ly p o l it i c i z e d a re a in which hidden agendas and sp e c ia l i n t e r e s t groups a re a c tiv e ly a t work. P u b lic schools as we now know them a re th e p roducts o f p o l i t i c a l a c tio n a t th e s t a t e l e v e l. The o r ig in a l l e g i s l a t i o n re q u ire d lo c a l d i s t r i c t s to p rovide educa­ tio n a l s e r v ic e s , re q u ire d t h a t they provide p u b lic su p p o rt b u t did n o t p ro v id e fu n d in g . That am biguity has c re a te d a s i t u a t i o n where the s t a t e re q u ire d s e rv ic e s in a way which made th e d e liv e ry o f th o se s e rv ic e s dependent upon lo c a l re s o u rc e s . The subsequent h is to r y o f school fin a n c e has been a s e r i e s o f e f f o r t s to p rovide e q u ity funding w ith in th e u n it which o rig in a te d th e re q u ire m e n ts. T hat p ro cess has been com plicated by a p e r s i s t e n t am biguity in th e n o tio n o f e q u a lity w ith some a s s o c ia tin g e q u a lity o f funding w ith e q u a lity o f o pportu­ n i ty . Each o f th e s e le c te d s t a t e p lan s has in d iv id u a l f a c e ts which may make i t a very a t t r a c t i v e fin a n c e p la n . The concepts o f re q u ire d lo c a l e f f o r t , e q u a liz a tio n o f f in a n c ia l o p p o rtu n ity , p ro p e rty tax r e d u c tio n , and e ff ic ie n c y o f management and o p e ra tio n a re g o als t h a t are to be s tr iv e n f o r and h o p e fu lly a tta in e d in any fin a n c e model f o r s t a t e e d u c a tio n . The model o f e d u ca tio n al fin a n c e t h a t I have proposed as an a l t e r n a t i v e to th e p re s e n t model in c o rp o ra te s f e a tu r e s o f se v e ra l o f th e fin a n c e p lan s reviewed 1n t h i s s tu d y . concept o f a re q u ire d lo c a l e f f o r t . The model develops th e T his su p p o s itio n seems to produce 468 two im p o rtan t c o n ce p ts: e q u a lity o f e d u c a tio n a l f in a n c ia l s t a b i l i t y and p ro p e rty ta x re d u c tio n f o r some o f th e d i s t r i c t s w hile re q u irin g a d d itio n a l f in a n c ia l commitment in o rd e r to e q u a liz e over th e e n ti r e s ta te . In a d d itio n , th e re c a p tu re p ro v isio n may provide an a lt e r n a ­ t iv e response to th o se d i s t r i c t s which a re impacted by m unicipal overburden which may l i m i t t h a t d i s t r i c t 's a b i l i t y to levy a d d itio n a l ta x a tio n to buy th e le v e l o f q u a lity th ey may p r e f e r . C o n cep tu ally , th e proposed model appears to m e rit c o n sid e ra ­ tio n as an a l t e r n a t i v e to th e p re s e n t funding model used in M ichigan. I t in c o rp o ra te s many o f th e d iv e rs e concepts e x h ib ite d in many o f th e funding models s tu d ie d . c o n tr o l. The model a ls o speaks to th e is s u e o f lo c a l The system o f school fin a n c e proposed in t h i s model r e t a in s th e lo c a l d i s t r i c t ' s a b i l i t y t o make c u r r i c u la r d e c isio n s which have t r a d i t i o n a l l y f a l l e n w ith in th e realm o f "lo c a l c o n tr o l." The s t a t i s ­ t i c s c ite d in d ic a te t h a t th e model more n e a rly e q u a liz e s th e lo c a l and s t a t e e f f o r t s in su p p o rtin g th e e d u c a tio n a l programs o f th e sample d is tric ts . A lso, w ith in t h i s c o n te x t, th e model b u ild s in th e power and a u th o r ity o f th e lo c a l d i s t r i c t s to make d e te rm in a tio n s concern­ ing e d u c a tio n a l d e c is io n s w ith in th e c o n fin e s o f th e in d iv id u a l d is tric ts . The e d u c a tio n a l fin a n c e q u e stio n i s complex and m u lti­ f a c e te d . Any a tte m p t to d e fin e a model t h a t is a l l th in g s to a l l people s t i l l has n o t been d e fin e d w ith in th e l i t e r a t u r e nor w ith in th e a c tu a l p r a c tic e o f funding s t a t e e d u c a tio n a l program s. The pro ­ posed model p re s e n ts a f u r t h e r a tte m p t to look a t a d i f f e r e n t concept 469 and methodology o f p ro v id in g s t a t e and lo c a l monies to fin a n c e th e e d u ca tio n al programming o f t h i s S ta te f o r young p eo p le. C e rta in ly , school fin a n c e has many a m b ig u itie s in h e re n t w ith in th e p ro c e ss , s t r u c tu r e , and d e s ire d outcom es. Perhaps t h i s model comes a b i t c lo s e r in d e a lin g w ith th e q u e stio n o f e q u ity and e q u a lity o f e d u catio n al o p p o rtu n ity and, p o s s ib ly more im p o rta n tly , on becoming p o l i t i c a l l y a c c e p ta b le to th e p o l i t i c i a n s , e d u c a to rs , and th e p u b lic . Several su g g e stio n s f o r f u r t h e r re s e a rc h a re in clu d ed as a fo ca l p o in t. F ull s t a t e funding s t r a t e g i e s must be more f u l l y in v e s­ tig a te d to determ ine th e p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s o f t h i s model in r e l a ti o n to th e dynamics involved in th e " lo c a l c o n tro l" q u e s tio n . W ithin th e c o n te x t o f p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s , th e q u e stio n o f c a te g o r ic a l a id s v ersu s w eighted pupil u n its d eserv es more c o n c e n tra te d in v e s tig a tio n . The f u l l r a m ific a tio n s o f th e p ro p e rty ta x , s t a t e income ta x , e x c ise ta x e s , and e d u c a tio n a l ta x a tio n procedures should be i n v e s ti ­ g a te d . C e rta in ly th e mood o f th e p u b lic a t t h i s tim e in our h is to r y su g g e sts t h a t re se a rc h must be done in th e a re a o f p ro p e rty ta x re d u c tio n as evidenced by th e C a lifo rn ia n Proposal 13 and M ichigan 's Headlee Amendment. What do th e s e l e g i s l a t i v e enactm ents r e a l l y mean to th e fin a n c in g o f p u b lic ed u catio n ? The q u e stio n o f assessm ent p r a c tic e s and how p ro p e rty a s s e s s ­ ing i s done aro se during t h i s r e s e a rc h . The evidence su g g e sts t h a t f u r t h e r re s e a rc h should be conducted in t h i s v i t a l l y im p o rtan t a re a . 470 I t would seem t h a t e q u a lity o f e d u catio n al o p p o rtu n ity demands t h a t th e S ta te re g u la te and l e g i s l a t e assessm ent ru le s and regu­ la tio n s . 471 F ootnotes—C hapter V V he D e tro it News, Sunday, J u ly 16, 1978, pp. 1.14-15. 2 Jack L eppert e t a l . , "Pupil W eighting Programs in School Finance Reform," in School Finance Reform: A L e g is la to r 's Handbook, ed. John J . C allahan and William H. Wilken (W ashington, D.C.: N ational Conference o f S ta te L e g is la to r s , 1976), p. 13. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PROFESSIONAL REGISTER—TOTAL TEACHING EXPERIENCE 473 19*6 • 19*7 PROFESSIONAL REGISTER - AMLFELD 1 9 * 6 -1 9 7 7 PROFESSIONAL P;G F IIF NONAHS ICRIATIUN OATL = 0 6 /2 9 /7 8 I »»• • txv 0 6 /2 9 /7 8 SPSS V 7 .0 .0 0 .1 2 .3 9 . PAGE 3 • CP. O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF * • • » • • * * « TOTAL TCACHING EXPERIENCE AS OF 6 - 3 0 -7 7 BY OSGRES HIGHEST DEGREE HELD CONTROLLING POP.. CIST SCHOOL DISTRICT VALUE.. CENTRAL LAKE PAGE EXV LESS CLGPEE COUNT BA POM POT INONE. COL PST i TOT P5T I 0 1 « •••••■ •* mtom b o : a 2 th a n i : 0 1 JO. L 1 E 7 .9 5 .i. : c 1 1-2 2 1 : : 2 o .o io o .o 2 2 .7 HA 2 0 0 1 OF 1 P.OH TOTAL 2 5 .9 0 0 9 8 0 .0 0 lt.e 0 1 0 .8 0 0 5 1 3 .5 mmmmmmmm 2 0 2 0 2 2 3 F-fc « 7-0 5 G 1 9 .6 0 1 0 .8 2 0 5 2 0 6 2 .5 1 9 .E 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 5 NOR! 3 3 7 .5 3 3 .3 8 21.6 8.1 0 I G 3 .7 2 .7 g 2 2 0 3 l 2 0 7 5 .0 2 5 .0 0 U 11.1 0.1 8 11.1 2 .7 0 0 6 1 .5 2 0 2 9 .6 2 0 21.6 5 3 0 .5 5 5 .6 1 3 .5 27 7 3 .0 2 9 .3 .9 0 3 5 1 1 2 .7 9 10.6 mmmmmmmm : COLUMN TOTAL 1 2 .7 0 2 « * ••••••■ • CRAMJ»*S 1 ~ 10.8 0 mmmmmmmm OF 1 9 0 0 0 1 J 0 .0 2 2 11 1 3 .5 0 0 2 o -1 5 9 100.0 9 • 13 3 5 .1 37 100.0 474 2 3-9 1976 - 1977 =ROFESSIONAL REGISTER - AHLFELP 1 9 * 6-1977 PROFESSIOHAL PEG FILE NONAHE ICRl ATION JATt * 06 7 2 9 /7 6 I • IKY CONTROLLING DIST 0 6 /2 9 /7 8 SPSS V7.0 .0 0 .1 2 .3 9 . C R O S S T A B if L A T I 0 N OF TOTAL TEACHING IXPERIEN3E #E OF 6 - 3 0 -7 7 BY OEGRFE HIGHEST DEGREE HELD FDR., SCHOOL OISTFICT VALUE.. 2 ELK FAP PAGE CEPREE : RON PCT l e t count mi TOT b: r : THAN 0 1 “ 2 9 .3 3 .1 1 2.2 1 1-2 2 100.0 IC O .0 i l.S I I I I I I I I I ml 2 3-9 3 F -t • * 7 77.B 1 5 .2 1C .6 I -X« C I G I 0 I C I X I I I I I I I C 0 0 0 1 7 .7 5 .6 l.E 2 22.2 11.1 3 .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 r .6 I -2 5 * 9-13 6 HORE 11 OR **■ * 2 e 68. 9 17,*1 2 .3 3 to . 0 6 .5 9 .6 I I I 1 1 11*1 5 .6 1 .5 2 I I I I ■I13 I 5 0 .0 I 28. 3 I 20.0 I 9 6 .2 6 6 .7 1 6 .5 7 0 .0 16 2 7 .7 * 0 .0 11.1 3 .1 12 •7 COLUNN TOTAL CRAMtRAS V = .3 0 9 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 .6 100.0 2 3 .1 1 1 .5 13 20.0 9 1 3 .8 ■ H 1 111 1•t 1 H 1 1• 11 11a •2 i 2 2 1 2 12 9 2 .3 2 6 .1 IB . b 2 P.OH r i,n 1• • 111 LFSS i T OCCT a1 EX* HA n -r - I I I I I X X I -II I I I -I- 9 1 3 .6 5 7 .7 26 9 0 .0 1 .5 1 1 .5 65 100.0 1 OF l 1976 - 1977 PROFESSIONAL RiGISTcR - AHLfELO 1976-1977 PCOFSSSIONAL K;G FILE NONAN? ICF.l AT ION OATL = G 6 /2 9 /7 0 ) 0 6 /2 9 /7 9 SPSS V 7 .0 .0 0 .1 2 .3 6 . CP. O S S T A B U L A T I O H OF • • • * • • • • * • • # # * EKY TOTAL TEACHING EXPERIENCE AS OF 6 - 3 0 -7 7 BY DEGREE HIGHEST DEGREE HELD CONTROLLING F Q »., DIST SCHOOL DISTRICT VALUE*. 3 ARENAS EASTERN PAGE PAGE 5 • 13F 1 DEGREE : RON POT lE t 1 : I : ico.o 1 8 .5 is.b 5 0 0 C 0 1 i 13 1 1 0 0 .0 : **d.i I 6 0 .6 0 0 0 0 I I I I 13 6 0 .6 2 : : : : E 0 0 c I I I I 6 1 2 .5 1 5 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 .1 MM 1 3 3 .3 2 0 .0 3 ,1 i 1 1 I 2 6 .3 1 I I I 3 9 .6 1 100.0 20. C 3 .1 I I X I 1 3 .1 2 5 0 .0 60*0 0 .3 I I I I V 1 1 t 1 -2 3 3 .7 3 ,i 2 6 6 ,7 7 .6 6 .3 3 : 1 L : o : 2 » 0 0 o : ra.o : 7 .6 : 6 ,3 COLUHH TOTAL CKAHLRFS V * i 5o.o : . : 1 o -ie HOF 5 ia . s 1 2 ,5 ♦ ■»-» 11 OP i : : : i. ico.o .6 9 7 6 6 27 0 6 .6 5 1 5 .6 6 1 2 .5 ■ 5 1 5 .6 32 1 0 0 .0 476 3-L 1 1 0 I T I I I I THAN 1 5 -6 RON « H> HA z TOT PS EXT LESS 1 W 11 V count 19*6 • 1977 PROFESSIONAL REGISTER - AHLFELO 1976-1977 PROFESSION*L P£G F1U NOHAMS (CREATION DATE = 0 6 /2 9 /7 8 ) 0 6 /2 9 /7 8 SPSS V 7.0 • 0 0 * 1 2 .3 6 . • » » • » • • • » » * • • • » « » » C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF • • • • • • • • • • ! LXY TOTAL TEACHING LX°E3IEN3E AS OF b -3 0 -7 7 9V DECREE HIGHEST DEGREE HELD CONTROLLING FO P.t OIST SCHOOL DISTFICT VALDF.. 5 LAKESHOR PAGE DEGREE COUNT : RON *CT HOT* col p : t TOT PCT GA HA TOTAL 2 I 1 1 6 .7 .9 I EX* LESS THAN 5 13,3 6 .9 2 .3 1 1-2 1 •»« 3 101,0 .9 3-1, 0 0 0 0 •s-6 11 3P M3RE COLUMN TOTAL C6AHt*FS 1 = • 3161-7 1- 6 2.8 .5 20 29 9 6 .6 2 7 .5 1 3 .1 1 3 .6 I I I I 3 .6 I I .9 1 I .5 1 ■I-------------- 117 p 2 1 .7 7 3 .9 1 6 .7 6 .7 8 .0 2 .3 23 10.8 1 2 .7 17 5 6 .7 1 6 .0 6.1 8 .0 7 2 8 .0 17 6 8 .0 1 5 .0 6 .0 25 .0 6 .0 .7 13 6 3 .3 6 .9 3 .3 0-10 ROW SPEC 7 3 3 .3 6 .9 3 .3 16 6 6 .7 1 3 .2 25 3 1 .6 2 6 ,5 1 1 .7 51 6 6 .6 6 8 .1 2 3 .9 102 106 6 9 .0 <♦7.9 6 .6 30 1 6 .1 1 0 B 25 1 1 .7 21 9 .9 0 0 3 3 .8 7 5.0 79 3 7 .1 1 .6 6 213 1 .9 100.0 1 OF 1 1976 - 1977 PROFESSIONAL P£GISTtlP » AHLFELO 1 9 * 1 -1 9 77 PROFESSIONAL *>iG FILF NONANE tCPl.ATION DATE * 1 6 /2 9 /7 6 0 6 /2 9 /7 8 SPSS V 7.0 * 0 0 .1 2 .3 9 . PAGE 7 1 • C R P S S T A B U L A T I O N OF EXY TOTAL 'LACHINS LXPSF.IENCC AS OF 6 -3 C -7 7 BY DEGREE HIGHEST DEGREE HELD CONTROLLING * 0 * .. TIST SCHOOL nS T R IC T VALUE.. 5 HOHEP. ► PAGE 1 OF 1 DtGPEfc COUNT HON PJ EX* tt 0 LESS RON TOTAL PCCT HA COL FS TOT p ; ...... *HAN 1 2 L 1 ICO.O I 3 7 8 7 .5 1 3 .5 10.0 5 * -6 6 6 0 .0 1 1 .5 8.6 5 9— 13 5 n .w 9 .f 7 .1 I I I I 12 1 7 .1 5 0 t 6 .7 0 I I E •I* •«a i 1 i 1 2 .5 i 5 .9 i 1 .5 >i-------I I I I ■ 1 1 .5 L <*0.0 2 3 .5 S. 7 •& 2 I 2 8 ,6 I 11. 0 2 .9 I 10 1 9 .3 7 1C.C 1 1 11 • • • ri • 1 • • 1 • 1 1 1-4 1 • 0 0 0 0 11 DF. MOPE COLUMN TOTAL CRT IR A S 0 = .2 9 5 1 1 16 5 9 .3 3 0 .8 2 2 .9 52 7 5 .3 I I I I 10 3 7 .0 3 8 .8 1 9 .3 17 2 5 .3 l . 3 .7 100.0 27 3 8 .6 1 .9 1 1 .9 70 1 0 0 .0 478 12 1 0 3 .0 2 3 .1 1 7 .1 7 .7 5 .7 9-6 2 .9 1 1-2 3-L 2 2 1 3 0 .0 3 .e 2 .9 i 9 ? t - 1 V 7 PROFESSIONAL REGISTER - AHLFELO 1 9 7 6-1977 P»OFFSSIO» 61 MEG FILE NONAMf (CRl.FTION OATc = 0 6 /2 9 /7 6 » 0 6 /2 9 /7 6 SPSS V 7 .0 .0 0 .1 2 .3 6 . PAGE 6 CP. 0 S S T A 3 U L A T I 0 N OF • • • * • • • • « IXY TOTAL TEACHING LXPERILN3E AS OF 6 -3 0 -7 7 BY DEGREE HIGHEST DEGREE HELD CONTROLLING FOR.. OIST SCHOOL DISTRICT VALUE*. 6 RUOYARD • * * * # • * • • • # * PAGE 1 OF 1 CEGKEC COUNT : ROW f ; t INDNE . p: t : BA HA ROM TOTfcL col LESS TOT than pct : o 1 0 I I : ; 0 L o o 1 : : : 1 o o c D 1 2 1 7 47 .5 9 .5 5 .6 1 1 2 .5 2 .2 .6 I I I I 0 6 .5 7 100.0 9 .5 5 .8 0 0 0 0 I I I 1 7 5 .8 9 : : : —_ 3 : : : i 5 -6 6 7 -6 0 10 o 4 3 .3 1 3 .5 o o 9 .3 - —- - • « • • • ■ • ■ o 12 o 9 2 .3 o 1 6 .2 D 9 .9 I : 0 o 0 I G H 1 5 1 l 1 7 .1 : lo o .o : .e 6 : : : o o o ■kjt 0 9 -1 0 11 OF NOR 16 7 3 ,7 1 6 .9 1 1 .6 • •■kMMOk 9 6 6 .3 1 2 .2 7 .6 2 1 6 .7 6 .3 1 .7 I I I I 12 9 .9 i 7 .7 2 .2 *9 i I I I 13 1 0 .7 5 2 6 .3 1C .9 6 .1 I I I I 19 1 5 .7 6 2 4 .6 6 .7 3 .3 I I I I 16 1 1 .6 I I I I 68 3 9 .7 16 33 3 1 .3 6 0 .4 2 0 .3 1 2 .6 7 1 .7 2 7 .3 COLUMN 1 76 6b to tal .8 6 1 .2 3 6 .0 CRAHERFS 1 = .6 1 6 5 2 121 1 0 0 .0 479 2 3-6 M 1 • 1 • 1 t 1 • t- i •1• « • • 1 • 1 I • 1 • • 1 • 1 1 1 -2 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • M pirv CA 19’ * - 1977 PROFESSIONAL R£GIST£P. - t-lLFElP l«>’ t- l« * /7 P’ OFFrEIOWL liTG FILE . HONAN" (CKi AT10N 3»TL = 0 6 /2 9 /7 7 0 6 /2 9 /7 9 SPSS V 7 .0 . 0 0 .1 2 .3 U . PAGE 9 > . . . . . . . . . . « . . . . . . C P c s LXY TOTAL ’ ttCHINC- LXPERILN3 E At OF CONTROLLING F O R ., U IS T STHOOt o : s t r : : T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * • * . * * * • 0 F 3V DEGREE VALUF,. HIGHEST OEGREE HELP 7 > « • • • * • « GENESEE > ••••••••« PAGE 1 OF 1 r i p .p . E t FOUNT SON POT ccl p : t tot f ; t HA i PON TOTAL 2 EX’ LESS c 0 0 0 3 10 C .li 1 0 .0 7 .3 3 7 .3 1 5 1 0 J.0 2 3 .0 1 2 .2 0 G C C 5 1 2 .2 2 t 1 0 0 .0 2 9 .0 lu .b C c I 0 6 1 9 ,6 3 ? F 5 .t 2 0 .0 1 2 .2 9 <*9.9 25 .0 9 .0 9 2 2 .0 9 u 3 6 .9 16. t 9 .9 7 6 3 .6 9 3 .0 1 7 .1 11 2 6 .0 5 1 6 0 .0 9 .0 2 .9 1 s o .o 6 .3 2 .9 2 9 .9 3 9 e o .o lb . 0 9 .0 1 2 0 .0 6 .3 2 .9 5 1 2 .2 COLUHN TOTAL 25 6 1 .0 IE 3 9 .0 91 1 0 0 .0 1-2 3-9 F-b 7-t q- 1 3 HOP" 1 1 OR CkANERFS 0 * .6 1 9 9 7 480 j THAN 1 1976 * 1977 PROFESSIONAL REGISTER - AHLFELO 1976-1977 PPOFESSIOUAL P£G FILE NONAHE (GELATION 0»TL * C6 /2 9 /7 8 > 0 6 /2 9 /7 8 SPSS V 7 .0 .0 0 .1 2 .3 6 . » • » • • « • • » • • « • • • » • » C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF • • * • • • • • • • • • » • LKY TOTAL TEACHING LXPERIENIE AS OF 6*30*77 BY DEGREE HIGHEST DEGREE HELD CONTROLLING c O R.. CIST SCHOOL DISTRICT VALUE.. 8 CAMDEN FRONTIER PICE PtGREf COUNT RON p c t COL p : t TOT p i t i ; : Bl : : 2 3 -6 3 I 1 3 7 5 .0 1 1 .5 7 .7 •i1 ; 5 -e L 1 0 0 .0 2 ip . 6 1 0 .3 I I I 0 0 0 I 0 I I I I 3 6 0 .0 2 3 .1 7 ,7 •"*■ »•*» • • 2 2 .6 ■»«* mmmm 9 : r f J.O 3 6 .6 2 3 .1 I I I I 6 MOP c 11 3F CCLUMN TOTAL CRAMLR/t V = .5 2 2 1 7 26 6 6 .7 3 7 5 .0 2 3 .1 7 .7 I 6 I 6 0 .0 - E .2 1 5 .6 I I I I I I -I I I I I -I I I I I -I I * 1 0 .3 7 1 7 .9 6 It. 3 5 1 2 .8 b 1 0 .3 t • 2 5 .0 3 .8 1 1 1 l z • 1 1 ; 1 S h- i w Z z •I1 2 6 0 .0 7 .7 5 .1 1 1 7 -8 H k I 2 I 1 I I 2 5 .0 I I 7 .7 I z I 2 .6 I — — - I ------------ * 1 7 I C I : 1 0 0 .0 I t I 2o> 9 I 0 I • m 1 7 .9 I c I : 2 1 -2 Ron TOTAL HA ■ 13 3 3 .3 I I I _m rL 15 3-S.5 39 1 0 0 .0 1 OF 1 APPENDIX B ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS: MOST LIKELY ENROLLMENTS 482 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E N R O L L ME N T P R O J E C T I O N VERSION I I I nuskegon hg ts c it y sch STANDARD UNIT LIMIT W M IC 30010 CAHOEN FRONTIER SCHOOL STANDARD UNIT LIM IT (X) B-K NUMBER IN X STO UNITS NEAN RATIO YEAR TO-T9 T9-80 80-01 81-82 8 2 -8 3 83 -8 6 86-85 85 -8 6 86-87 8 7 -8 8 8 8 -8 9 89-90 90-91 *1-92 9 2 -9 3 9 3 -9 6 * 6 -9 5 6 .6 5 K -l 1-2 2 -3 5 5 5 9 8 .6 6 9 8 .5 6 9 7 .9 5 p » o je : t £ d e n - ol .NfNT K 37. 39. 61. 37. 62. 9. 0. 0. 0. 0. a. 0. 9. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1 65. 37. 37. 61. 36. 61. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. c. c. 1. G. •1. 0. 3 -6 1 <6 100.36 6*5 5 -6 6 -7 7 -¥ 8 -9 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 9-10 10-11 11-12 1 0 6 .3 8 1 08.50 1 0 5 .1 5 1 0 0 .6< 9 6 .8 2 6 2. *1 9 3 .7 2 9 9 .3 7 5 50. 67. 33. 56. 66. 37. 39. 61. 37. 62. 0. 0. 9. 3. 9. 9. 0. 6 69. 55. 51. 61. 6 1. 50. 6 1. 62. 65. 60. 65. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 62. 51. 57. 56. 66. 66, 5 2. 63. 66. 67. 62. 6 9. 1. 0. J. C. 0. 8 67. 52. 52. *8, 56. 66. 56. 53. -3 . 65. 67. 62. -0 . 0* 0. 0. 0. 9 72. 66. 59. 69. 55. 52. 61. 61. 5G . 61, 62. 65. 60. 65 . S. G. 0. 1G 60. 67. 59. 55. 65. 51. 6?. 39. 56. 6 6. 38. 39. 62. 37. 62. 0. 0. 11 67. 57. 63. 56. 51. 63. 6*. 65. 36. 53. 6«. 35. 37. 39. 35. 63. 0. 12 -9 . CO. 51. 56. 59. .3 . 38. 63. 60. 32. -7 . 39. 32. 33. 35. 31. 35 • 484 LIKELY 6 1 .5 0 - PROJECTJD GY SRADF 2 56. 65. 36 . 38. 60. 36. 61. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9. 0. 0. 0. 0. c. 3 36. 53, 66. 36. 37. 39. 35. 6C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6. 0. 0. 6 65. 36. 53. 6*. 36. 37. 39. 35. 60. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. I HISHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E n i o u u n r M D J E c r n N VERSION I I I 6ENESEE SCHOOL OIStRICT STAMMRO IINZT L IN ir (XI PAGE 1 d a te 95/ 01/70 10 25070 1 .5 0 B-K K -l 1 -2 2 -3 * 3-% NUNBER IN X STD UNITS 6 -5 5-6 6 -7 7 -0 0 -9 6 S 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 MEAN RATH • • SB 106*10 9 7 .6 0 111*97 105*36 0 7 5. 70. 62. 71. 71. 0 3. 109. IBB. 90. 06. 03. 01. 90. 0. 0. 0. 0. 101*91 111*32 IBS*95 1 0 5 .6 1 9 -1 0 10-11 1 1 -1 2 5 5 6 1 1 0 .7 7 9 6 .6 2 95*07 90*19 9 09. 03. 77. 69. 79. 70. 92. 120. 111. 1 00. 93. 92. 90. 99. 0. 0. 0. 10 66. 06. 70. 73. 65. 75. 76. 07. 116. 1B5. 96. 00. 07. 05. 96. 0. 0. 11 56. 61. 00. 75. 70. 62. 71. 70. B3. 1 00. 100. 90. 06. 02. 01. 09. 0. 12 50. 51. 55. 72. 67. 63. 56. 66. 63. 75. 97. 90. 0 1. 75. 76. 73. 60. AN ASTERISK (* l ABOVE THE MEAN INDICATES THAT IT HAS BEEN SUPPLIED AND NOT CONFUTED HOST LIKE.Y PROJECTED ENROLLNENT TEAR 70-79 79-00 00-01 01-02 12*05 03-06 06-05 05-05 06-07 07-00 00-09 09-90 90-91 91-92 9 2 -9 3 93*96 96-90 K 62. 50. 57. 56* 62. 0. 0* 0. 0. 0* 0* 0. 0. 0. 0* 0. 0. 1 73* 66* 61. 60. 59. 65. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. D. - PROJECTED BY GRADE 2 07. 01. 72. 67. 66. 65. 72, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0* 3 71. 92. 05. 77. 71. 70. 69. 76. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6 6 3. 75. 90. 90. 01. 75. 76 . 73. 0 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0* 5 60. 67 . 00. 103. 96. 06. 00. 79. 77 . 05. 0. 0. 0. 0. B. 0. B. 6 50. 66. 66. 70. 1B1. 93. 06. 70. 77. 76. 03. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 66. 59. 60. 67. 79. 103. 95. 06. 00. 79. 77. 05. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NIC HI GAN STATE UNIVERSITY ENROL L NE NT P R D J E C T I O VERSION I I I RNOYARD AREA SCH9DL5 STANDARD JNIT U N IT (X) PACE OATE 0 6 /0 1 /7 8 XO 17110 N 1 .5 8 B-K K -l NUNBER IN K STO UNITS 1 -2 2 -3 3 -9 9 -5 5 -6 6 -7 7 -8 6 -9 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 HEAN RATIO • 6 .5 2 9 2 .1 6 9 6 .9 6 9 2 .9 9 9 9 .5 3 9 7 .5 9 9 9 .7 1 9 1 .6 1 9 3 .1 6 8 68. 56. 37. 97. 93. 39. 99. 3 9. 98. 98. 38. 91. 93. 0. 8. 0. 0. 9-18 18-11 1 1 -1 2 5 5 5 91*83 6 9 .8 8 8 9 .5 6 7 9 .1 9 9 63. 62. 52. 39. 93. 39. 36. 98. 36. 37. 37. 35. 38. 39. 6. 8. 8. 18 79. 59. 53. 99. 29. 36. 33. 38. 39. 31. 31. 31. 38. 32. 33. 8. 8. 11 58. 67. 95. 95. 37. 25. 31. 28. 26. 29. 26. 26. 26. 12 61. 96. 53. 36. 35. 29. 19. 29. 22. 20. 23. 28. 21. 21. 28. 21. AN ASTERISK! »l ASOVE THE HEAN INDICATES THAT XT HAS BEEN SUPPLIED AND NQT CONPUTEO YEAR 78-79 79-88 §#•81 81-88 82-88 8 3-8 A 88-88 85-88 8 6 -s r 87-88 88-89 89-98 98-91 91-92 82-93 93-98 99-99 K 63 63 61 65 6 5 5 5 5 6 62 486 NOST LIKELY PROJ&CTEO ENROLLNENT PROJECTEO BY GRADE 2 63. 87. 37. 58. 55. >9. 61. 8. 3 52. 89. S3. 53. 59. 51. 55. 57. 8 8 8 8 8. 8. .. 8. 8* 8 . 8. 8. 8. .. 8. 8. 0 . 0 . 8. 8. 9 59. 9 9. 56. 50. 50. 51. 99. 52. 59. 0. 0. 8. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5 56. 53. 98. 59. 98. 93. 99. 97. 51. 53. 8. a. 8. 1. 0. a. 8. 6 99. 55. 50. 95. -51. 96. 97. 97. 95. 98. 50. a. 0. 0. 0. o. 0. 7 61. 98. 50. 96. 92. 97. 92. 93. 93. 91. 99. 96. 0. 0. 0. 8. 0. 25. 27. 28. 0. 22. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E N R O L L M E N T P R O J E C T I O N VERSION I I I ARENAC EASTERN SCHOOL DIET STANOARO UNIT LIMIT CX> NUHSER IN X STO UNITS MEAN RATIO 1.53 3 -K K -i 1 -2 2 -3 3- b j..«; 5-6 6 -7 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 1 .6 5 8 S .3 5 1 0 0 .5 2 HOST LIKELY “ KOJECTEO ENF.9LLNENT YE AR 78 -7 9 79-80 60 -6 1 • 1 -8 2 62-63 83 -6 9 89-85 8 5 -8 6 8 6 -8 7 87-66 8 8 -8 9 89-90 9 0 -9 1 91 -9 2 9 2 -9 3 93 -9 9 99-95 K 39. 37. 37. 37. 90. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. PAGE I? OJ TE C5 / 2 67 7 0 IC 6010 1 27. 39. 33. 33. 33. 35. C. c. 0. 0. 0. c. ('. 3. C. C. c. 1 0 9 .9 ? 1 0 3 .7 1 1 0 1 .5 3 1 0 3 .6 9 9 8 .2 6 7-8 1 0 9 .9 7 8-9 5 9 -1 0 6 9 9 9 .2 7 99. 0* 95.32 13-11 1 1 -1 2 9C.9* 00 - PROJECTED BY GRAPE 2 39. 27. 39. 33. 33. 33. 36. C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3 53. 93. 29. 38. 36. 36. .36. 39. 0. 0. 0. 0. c. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9 98. 59. 99. 30, 39. 37. 38. 38. 90. 0. 0. 0. 0. C. 0. 0. 3. 5 51. 99. 55. 95. 31. 90. 39. 36. 39. 91. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. c. 0. 6 51. 53. 50. 57. 97. 32. 91. 39. 39. •*0. 93. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 59. 50. 52. 99. 56. 96. 31. 90. 39. 39. 39. 92. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5 60. 56. 62. 59. 52 . 59. -S . 33. 92. -0 . 91. 9 l. 99. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9 97. 59. 55. 51. 53. 51. 55. 9 7. 32. 91. 90. 90. 90. 93. 0. 0. 0. 10 63. 97. 5 8. 55. 51. 53. 50. =7. 97. 32. 91. 39. 39. 90. 92. C. 0. 11 56. 6 5. 99. 55. 52. 9*. 5 S. 9«. 59. 99. 30. 3?. 3T . 3 7. 3?. 90. 3. 12 19. "1 . 55. ->0. 50. 97. -9 . -5 • 93. 93. 90. 27. 35. 3 .. 39, 39. 37. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E N R O L L N E N T P R O J E C T I O N VERSION X I I ELK RAP IDS SCHOOLS STANDARD UNIT LXNXT IX) NUNBER IN X STO UNITS HEM RATIO K -l 1-2 2-3 3 -4 4 -9 9 -6 6 -7 6 5 9 6 6 9 9 6 99*50 101*42 1 1 1 .6 4 HOST LXKCLT PROJECTED ENROLLNENT YEAR 7 6 -7 9 7 9 -0 0 00-01 61 -0 2 0 2 -6 3 0 3 -0 4 04 -0 5 85 -8 6 0 6 -0 7 07-00 8 6 -0 9 09-90 90-91 9 1 -9 2 9 2 -9 3 93-94 9 4 -9 9 K 76* 75. SO. 91. 89. 0. 0* 0. 0. 0. B. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1 6 5 /2 6 /7 8 9060 1 .S 0 B-K 5 .9 0 PACE OATF TO 1 77. 05. S3. 89. 91. 99. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0* 0. 0. 0. 94*59 102*29 - PRO 102*07 1 0 2 .4 0 7 -0 9 -1 0 9 1 0 5 .6 9 5 1 0 9 .7 1 103*00 10-11 1 1 -1 2 9 5 1 0 3 .7 3 9 9 .4 3 00 TED BY GRAOE 4 00 5 00. 61. 76. 96. 75. 83. 62. 07. 89. 97. 0. 0. 0. 0. s. 0. 0. 6 •5 * 89. 02. 77, 97. 77. *5. 03. 69. 90. 98. 0. 0. a. s. s. s. 7 66. 67. 91. 84. 79. 180. 70. 87. 65. 91. 92. 101. 0. 8. 0. 0. 0. 0 106. 69. 92. 96. 89. 03. 109. 83. 92. 90. 96. 98. 107. 0. 0. 0. 8. 9 94. 112. 73. 97. 182. 94. 80. 111. 68. 97. 95. 101. 103. 113. 0. 0, 0. 10 94. 90. 11 6 . 76. 101. 106. 96. 91. 116. 91. 168. 99. 105. 107. 117. 0. 8. 11 94. 99. 10 1 . 120. 79. 105. 118. 101. 94. 1 20. 94. 184. 10 2 . 109. H I. 121. 0. 12 101. 94. 97. 181. 120. 76. 184. 189* 101. 94. 119. 94. 104. 182. 108. 111. 121. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E N R O L L ME N T P P O J E C T I O N VERSION I I I PaGE DATE IC 6<» 0 5 /2 6 /7 3 3 3120 PORT AUSTIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS STANDARD UNIT LIMIT CX> 1.50 OK K -l 1 -2 2 -3 NUMBER IN I STD UNITS 6 5 5 6 MEAN RATIO 6 .9 0 5 5 .3 9 1 0 7 .6 2 YEAR 7B-79 79-00 00 -0 1 0 1 -0 2 0 2 -0 3 0 3 -0 6 06-05 6 5 -0 6 06 -0 7 07-00 0 0 -0 9 09 -9 0 9 0 -9 1 9 1 -9 2 9 2 -9 3 93 -9 6 96 -9 5 K 27. 23. 26. 26. 29. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1 16. 15. 16. 16, 15. 16. 0. C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. A 1 1 2 .3 0 u -5 5.6 6 -7 7 -6 3 -9 6 6 5 5 5 9 -1 0 10-11 11-12 0 2 .7 0 9 9 .7 3 1 6 7 .7 6 1 0 6 .0 0 9 6 .6 1 9 6 . 97 9-.3 < . IO C .7 . 5 11. 13. 21. 16. 17. 16. 19. 17. 10. 19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6 15. 11. 10. 21. 10. 17. 10. 19. 1 7. 1 0. 19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 21 . 22. 16. 26. 3 2. 27. 25. 26. 26 . 25. 26. 20. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3 37. 7 2. 2 3. 16. 27. 33. ?3. 2 6. 2 7. 29. 26. ?7 . 30. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9 36. 36. 21. 22. 16. 26. 32. 27. 25. 27, 28. 25. 26. 2 Q. 0. 0. c. 10 36. 33. 35. 20. 22. 1 5. 25. 31. 26. 26. 26. 27. 25. 25. 2 3. 0. 0. 11 25. 36. 31. 33. 19. 2C. 15. 2 ,. 29. 25. 23. 26. 26. 23. 2 .. 25. C. 12 39. >5. . 31. 33. 19. 21. li . ’6. 29. 25. 23. 26. 26. 23. 26. 26. 489 MOST LItCELT PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1 2 1 .6 9 >u PROJECTCO MY GPADE 2 16. 15. 16. 17. 15. 16, 17. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3 23. 20. 1 6. 19. 20. IS . 19. 2 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. c. 0. 0. 6 21. 26. 22. 20. 22. 23. 21. 21. 23. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ENROL LNENT P R O J E C T I O N VERSION I I I PAGF OATF ZO 1 0 6 /0 1 /7 0 63190 TROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS STANMRO UNIT LX1XT IKI U SB B-K K -l 1 -2 2 -3 3 -6 6 -5 5 -6 6 -7 7 -6 6 -9 NUNBER IN X STD UNITS T 5 S 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 MEAN RATIO » 6 .3 1 IB S. 39 IB S .56 1 6 5 .3 1 1 0 6 .2 6 1 0 6 .3 1 1 0 7 .6 9 1 1 9 .2 2 9 -1 0 5 10-11 1 1 -1 2 6 6 1 0 6 .9 6 1 0 5 .1 1 1 0 2 .5 0 1 0 2 .6 5 9 9 .1 4 0 916. 903. 1696. 1 226. 1362. 1565* 1 695. 1610. 1659. 1666. 1363. 1357. 1500. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9 855. 965. 1033. 1150. 1291. 1632. 1665. 1571. 1490. 1536. 1513. 1 453. 1626. 1576. 0. 0. 0. 10 012. 876. 909. 1059. 1179. 1323. 1667. 1606. 1611. 1 520. 1572. 1551. 1690. 1661. 1616. 0. I. 11 012. 033. 099. 1015. 106% 1210. 1358. 1506. 1731. 1653. 1568. 1616. 1592. 1529. 1500. 1658. 0. 12 779. 005. 026. 091. 1007. 1070. 1199. 1347. 1493. 1716. 1639. 1556* 1600. 157B . 1516. 1467. 1646. AN ASTERISK!*) A30VE THE MEAN INDICATES THAT IT HAS BEEN SUPPLIED ANO NOT CONPUTEO HOST LIKELY PROJECTEO ENROLLMENT TEAR f 6 -7 9 7 9 -S I 00-01 0 1 -0 2 0 2 -0 S 93-06 S6-05 0 5 -S i 06-07 B7-0S B8-B9 09-90 90 -9 1 91-92 92-95 93-90 96-91 K 06 5 . 03 6 . 001. 766. 06 6 . 0. 0. 0. 0* 6. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1 B9B. 9 26. 912. B76. 059. 950. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8. 0. 0. 0. 6. 0. 0. - PROJECTED BY GRADE 2 901. 930. 957. 965. 907. B96. 906* 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3 1062. 1033. 986. 100 B . 995. 955. 937. 1036. 0. 0. 0. I. 6. I. 6. 6. 0. 6 1600. 1149. 1098. 1041. 1071. 1057. 1015. 996. 1101. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. I 977. 1003. 1265. 1109. 1120. 1160. 1165. H O I. 1079. 1193. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. I. 0. 6 937. 1052. 1166. 1361. 1200. 1 216. 1250. 1 233. 1106. 1162. 1206. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 920. 1023. 1169. 1276. 1666. 1399. 1326. 1 365. 1347. 1293. 1269. 1603. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. MICHIGAN STITE UNIVERSITY E N R O L L H E N T P R O J E C T I O N VERSION I I I CHERRY HILL 3CH09L DISTRICT STANDARD UNIT LIMIT IK) NiIHBER IN K STD UNITS 1 .5 0 B-K K-l 1-2 2 -3 3 -6 6 -5 5 -6 6 -7 7 -8 0 -9 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 2 .B6 • 9 6 .6 9 • MEAN RATIO PAGF 1 DATE 0 6 /8 1 /7 8 10 82025 ,5 6 91*69 9 2 .2 3 9 7 . BB 9 6 .6 1 9 6 .9 9 9 5 .1 6 1 0 2 .0 6 9 -1 0 1 0 -1 1 1 1 -1 2 6 6 5 • 9 6 .0 5 m • 9 6 .1 6 9 1 .6 2 AN ASTERISK!*) ABOVE THE HEAN INDICATES THAT IT HAS BEEN SUPPLIED ANO NOT COMPUTED HOST LIKELT PROJECTED ENROLLNENT YEAR 70-79 T9-BI 60-61 01-02 0 2 -0 3 83—06 06*81 05-00 06-07 07-88 00-09 09-90 90-91 91 -9 2 92-93 93-96 96-90 K 225. 2E9. 2 02. 10 9 . 202. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6. 1 222. 207. 192. 105. 17 6 . 106. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. VO PROJECTED BY GRADE 2 195. 205. 191. 177. 171. 160. 172. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3 263. 109. 199. 185. 172. 166. 155. 167. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6 2 33. 235. 1 03. 193. 179. 166. 1 60. ISO. 161. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0* 0. 0. 5 196. 2 26. 220. 1 77. 10 7 . 17 6 . 1 61. 156. 166. 156. 1. 0. I. I. 0. 1. 1. 6 215. 1 05. 215. 217. 169. 170. 165. 153. 160. 139. 169. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 267. 221. 190. 221. 223. 173. 103. 170. 150. 152. 163. 153. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 220. 259. 216. 106. 216. 21 5 . 160. 1 77. 166. 1 53. 167. 13 0 . 16 0 . 0. 0. B* 0. 9 295. 227. 2 66. 220. 109. 220. 2 22. 172. 102. 169. 157. 151. 162. 152. 0. 0. 0. 10 2 05. 200* 215. 252. 209. 179. 209. 210. 166. 172. 16 0 . 16 9 . 166. 135* 166. 0. 0. 11 301. 260. 266. 20 3 . 230. 196. 169. 196. 190. 156. 1 62. 151. 160. 135. 127. 136. 0. 10 273. 276. 265. 262. 106. 210. 180. 156. 100. 101. 161. 169. 130. 120. 126. 116. 126. 1 \ SENTER l in e »u b l ic schools STANDARD JNIT LIMIT IXI B-K NUMBER IN X STD UNITS UCHI&lN STATE UNIVERSITY E N R O L L ME N T P R O J E C T I O N VERSION X II PISE 1 DATE 06/02770 10 53110 1.50 K -l 7 1-2 2 -3 3-% %-5 5 5 5 6 9 1 .0 3 9 6 .5 ! 9L.77 9 3 .5 1 5 -6 6 -7 % % 7 -3 % 3-9 5 9 -1 0 5 10-11 11-12 5 5 9%. 6% 91 .55 ♦ MEAN RATIO 2.5% 9 1 .3 0 9 7 .2 2 9 9 .5 1 9 0 .8 9 9 7 .6 2 1 0 0 .2 5 AN ASTERISK!*) ABOVE H E MEAN INDICATES TNTT IT AAS EECM SUPPLIED AND NOT C31PJTE0 MOST LI KELT PROJESTED ENROL.1ENT TEAR 70*79 79-01 00 -0 1 01-02 62 -0 3 93-0% 06-05 05-06 0 6 -0 7 87-00 30-89 09-98 90 -9 1 91 -9 2 9 2 -9 3 93-9% 9%-95 K 2%0. 235. 221. 221. 2%1. 0. 0. 8. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1 203. 217. 212. 199. 28 0 . 217. 0. t. 0. )* 0. 0. 0. 0. }. 0. 0. 45. «0 ro PROJECTED BY SRADE 2 22 0 . 1B9. 1 97. 193. 10 1 . 102. 197. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8. 0. 0. 3 20%. 2 13. 102. 190. 106. 175. 176. 19 0 . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. % 2%%. 269. 202. 1 73. 10 8 . 1 76. 165. 16 5 . 100. 0. 8. 0. 0. 0. 8. 8. 0. 5 267. 2%0. 265. 199. 170. 170. 17%. 16 3 . 16%. 170. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8. 6 303. 268. 233. 2 50. 193. 166. 173. 169. 1 59. 159. 173. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8. 7 315. 302. 250. 232. 25 6 . 192. 1 65. 172. 16 8 . 150. 159. 172. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 3 .2 , 312. 290. 255. 230. 25 3 . 19 8 . 163. 1 70. 166. 156. 157. 170. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9 305. 33%. 385. 291. 2%9. 22%. 2%7, 10 5 . 159. 166. 162. 153. 153. 166. 1. 0. 0. 10 %03. 356. 3 35. 305. 2 92. 250. 2 25. 2%6. 186. 159. 166. 163. 153. 15%. 166. 0. 0. 11 %36. 301. 365. 317. 209. 276. 237. 213. 235. 176. 151. 15 7. 15%. 1%5. 1%5. 1 57. 8. 12 % 3|, 391. 3 .1 . 33%. 2 91. 26%. 253. 217. 1 15. 2 15. 161. 138. 1%%. 1%1. 131. 131. 1%%. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E N R O L L N E N T P R O J E C T I O N VERSION I I I CENTRAL LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL STAND*MO UNIT LIMIT tX» NUNBER IN X STD UNITS MEAN RATIO 1 .5 0 0-K K -l 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 5 -6 6 -7 7 -6 6-9 5 5 6 5 6 3 5 4 5 9 0 .0 5 1 0 5 .2 5 9 9 .4 7 3*32 1 1 3 .6 3 MOST LIKELY PROJECTEO ENROLLMENT YEAR 7 0 -7 9 7 9 -0 0 0 0 -0 1 0 1 -0 2 0 2 -0 3 0 3 -0 4 04 -0 5 05-06 06-07 07-00 00 -0 9 09 -9 0 90-91 9 1 -9 2 9 2 -9 3 9 3 -9 4 94 -9 5 P»SP I OATF 0 3 /2 6 /T e ID 5033 K 43. 42. 45. *6. 50. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3 6 4 6 6 5 • • • '. • • . • • • • . 1 0 2 .0 6 9 6 .1 7 1 0 4 .2 6 1 0 6 .2 9 1 0 4 .0 1 9 -1 0 10-11 11-12 5 5 4 1 0 6 .3 2 9 9 .2 2 0 6 .7 4 (O CO - PROJECTEO BY 6RA0E 2 43. 39. 64. 63. 46. 47. 51. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. o. 4 30. 44. 47. 42. 40. 47, 50. 51. 5 5. 0. 0. 0. 8. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3 43. 36. 42. 44. 40. 45. 44. 67. 60. 52. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6 49. 45. 3T . 44. 46. 41. 47. 46. 49. 50. 54. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8. 7 66. 52. 40. 40. 46. 49. 44. 50. 49. 52. 53. 50. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 47. 40. 55. 50. 42. 49. 52. 46. 52. 51. 55. 56. 61. 0. 0. 0. 8. 9 51. 47. 40. 54. 50. 41. 40. 51. 66. 52. 51. 54. 55. 60. 0. 0. 0. 10 41. 94, 30. 51. SO. 53. 44. 51. 54, 49. 93. 34. 50. 59. 64. 0, 0. 11 56. 39. 51. 47. 40. 55. 51. 42. 49. 52. 46. 92. 51. 55. 56. 61. 0. 12 49. 69. 34. 45. 41. 42. 40, 44. 36. 42. 65. 60. 66. 45. 40. 69. 53. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E M O l H C H f P R O J E C T I O N VERSION I I I NONER CONXUMITV SCHOOLS ». 09. 78. 73. 65. 75. 79. 87. 119. 105. 71. E6. 65. 69. 71. 3. 3. 11 1? 56. 61. 8 C. 75. 7C. 62. 71. 7C, 83. 109. 103. 69. 63. 62. 61. 6 T. 0. 50. 51. 55. ■*?. 87. 63. -5 . 69. 53. 75. 97. 90. 81. 57 • 56. 55. 60 . 496 HOST LIKSLT °R O JE J TEO ENP.OLl HENT YEAR 7 8 -7 9 7 9 -8 0 8 0 -8 1 8 1 -8 2 8 2 -8 3 8 3 -8 6 8 6 -8 5 8 5 -8 6 8 6 -8 7 8 7 -8 8 8 8 -8 9 8 9 -9 8 9 0 -9 1 9 1 -9 2 9 2 -9 3 9 3 -9 6 9 6 -9 5 PAGE 31 0 ATE 0 5 '2 V T » 25070 19 PROJECTED BY Gf APE 1 2 73. 69. 66. 65. 66. 69. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. u. 0. c. 1• c. c. 87. 81. 56. 51. 50. 69. 56. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. c. 0. 3 71, 92. 85, 58. 56. 53. 92. 57. 0. 0. c. G. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6 63. *5. 98. 90. 61. 57. 56. 55. 61. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6 7 66. 59. 68. 67. 79. 101. 95. 66. 60. 59. 58 . 6 -». 1. 0. 0. 0. 3. APPENDIX C COHORT-SURVIVAL PROJECTION 497 (a) .88 1.2 1.1 ^ N # of First irths| Kinder' garten Grade f Enrollment for Current year. 1975 1.0 1.2 \ Second Grade 1.0 N r Third Grade V Fourth Grade .9 0 .97 ' V " Fifth Grade S i z i ’h Grade Seventh Grade Total Students for each year 1975 Estimated enroll­ ments. 1976 1971 90 1972 108 1976 95 1977 1977 1973 105 1978 J-978 105 1979 1979 126 1980 1980 126 1981 (a) Survival Ratios computed from historical records (b) Number of births five years earlier. 1981 APPENDIX D HAWAIIAN STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 499 HAWAII - ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AS RELATED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION (111 1 M em bers elected directly by people 2 T hree m a|o r functions a Educational policies b. C ontrol thru th e Supt C. A ppointm ent o t Supt STATE OF HAWAII GOVERNOR Chief eiecu tiv e Administrator of Slate funds S eats chr of board & Supt in cabinet DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EOUCATION Chief adm inistrative ollicer responsible lor t O perational control over school system 2 Legislative A BOE m andates 3 Overall education program 4 Design ol particular A indwudual program s S. Allocation of funds, dissem ination ol information DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT 1 Superintendent's chiel tine ollicer 2 Supervision over seven districts ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT A STATE OFFICES ASST SUPT'S 1 B usiness Services 2 Instructional Services 3. Library Services 4 Personnel Services DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS (7) O ahu - Honolulu. C enlial. Leeward. Windward Hawaii Kauai (including Nnhau) Maui fincluding MolliV.il A Lanai) SCHOOL (215) NOTE The doiw c V tni; rigw o l budget request, appertaining lo the D epartm ent of Education STA fE LEGISLATURE R epresents the people Provides lor a statew ide system of schools -R esource raising pow er DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET A FINANCE DIRECTOR 1 Prepares budget for th e Governor 2 Provides information for th e G overnor and Legislature APPENDIX E TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPENSATION PLAN 501 TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPENSATION PLAN SALARY IN3EX BY STEPS Pay Grade Personnel U nit Value 0 2 4 5 6 7 ■ 9 10 11 12 13 1 .55 46 • .50 2 .54 56 .58 .61 63 .65 .67 .69 .71 .73 2 .60 53 . 5 .57 • 9 .61 63 .66 .69 72 .75 .78 .81 .82 .83 3 .7 5 63 5 .67 • 0 .73 76 .79 .82 •3 .84 .85 .86 .87 .88 4 .8 0 68 1 .74 • 7 .80 83 .86 .90 94 .98 1.02 1.06 1.10 1.14 S .9 0 72 . 5 .78 • 2 .86 90 .94 .98 1 03 1.08 1.13 1.18 1.23 1.28 6 .95 78 1 .84 • 8 .92 96 1.00 1.05 1 10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.00 90 3 .96 1. 0 1.04 1 08 1.13 1.18 1 23 1.29 1.35 1.41 1.47 1.53 8 1.00 96 9 1.03 1. 8 1.13 1 IB 1.23 1.29 1 35 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.59 1.65 9 1.15 90 1 . 2 1.06 1. 0 1.15 1 21 1.27 1.33 1 39 1.45 1.52 1.59 1.66 1.73 18 1.20 99 1 . 4 1.09 1. 4 1.19 1 25 1.31 1.37 1 43 1.49 1.56 1.63 1.70 1.77 11 1.25 1 OS 1 . 9 1.14 1. 9 1.25 1 31 1.37 1.43 1 49 1.55 1.61 1.67 1.73 1.79 12 1.30 1 00 1. 3 1.10 1. 3 1.28 1 33 1.39 1.45 1 52 1.59 1.67 1.75 1.83 1.91 13 .1.40 1 16 1. 1 1.26 1. 1 1.36 1 42 1.48 1.55 1 62 1.69 1.77 1.85 1.93 2.01 14 1.50 1 23 1. 8 1.33 1 . 9 1.45 1 51 1.57 1.64 1 71 1.78 1.87 1.96 2.05 2.14 15 1.75 1 40 1. 6 1.52 1. 8 ' 1.64 1 70 1.78 1.86 1 94 2.03 2.13 2.23 2.33 2.43 18 2.00 1 56 1. 3 1.70 1. 7 1.64 1 92 2.00 2.09 2 18 2.28 2.39 2.50 2.61 2.72 17 2.25 1 SO 1 . 5 1.91 1. 7 2.05 2 13 2.22 2.32 2 42 2.53 2.65 2.77 2.89 3.01 18 2.50 1 86 2. 4 2.25 2 36 2.47 2.58 2 69 2.80 2.91 3 .0 2 ' 3.13 3.24 7 . 1 . 5 2.04 APPENDIX F MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION COST ACCOUNTING 503 504 LAKESHORE SCHOOL 2 4 BUSES Total Transportation Cost Bus Depreciation + 179,818 37,473 217,291 Miles Traveled Cost per mile Disallowed & extra trip 248,155 *88 37,375 @ .88 -32,890 -184,401 Total garage operation maximum deduction Insurance maximum deduction 41,607 33,465 • 8,142 - 8,142 5,047 4,557 490 490 * 174,481 Pupils bused Cost per pupil 25% of per pupil cost Ineligible pupils 3,249 56.76 14.19 1,048 @ $14.19 Net Reimburseable Cost 75% of Net * Figures out of balance due to deduct of $1,288 for excess supervisor salary - 14,871 159,610 119,708 APPENDIX G FAXON'S DECLINING ENROLLMENT ADJUSTMENT 505 FAXON'S 60-40-20 PHASE OUT DECLINING ENROLLMENT: WEIGHTED Year Actual Enrollment 1977-78 590 1978-79 584 Difference Central Lake 1978-79: 6 x .60 = 4 1979-80 1979-80: 6 x .40 + .60 x 1980-81 1980-81: 6 x .20 + .40 x + .60 x =2 = 1 506 FAXON'S 60-40-20 PHASE OUT DECLINING ENROLLMENT Year Actual Enrollment 1977-78 587 1978-79 584 fAntral Lakp Difference___________________________ c en tral i-axe 3 1978-79: 3 x .60 = 2 1979-80 1979-80: 3 x .40 + .60 x = 1 1980-81 1980-81: 3 x .20 + .40 x + .60 x = 1 cn o ■vj B.A. No Degree 76- 77- 78- 79- 80- 81- 8277 78 79 80 81 82 83 Less than 1 M.A. 76- 77- 78- 79- 80- 31- 3277 78 79 80 81 82 83 76- 77- 78- 79- 80- 81- 3277 78 79 80 81 82 83 2 4 6 2 4 4 4 6 2 5 5 4 4 4 6 2 1 1 5 5 4 4 4 9-10 3 3 1 1 5 5 4 1 1 11 + 8 8 11 11 12 12 17 5 5 1 -2 3-4 1 1 1 1 5-6 1 7-8 1 1 3 3 3 6 3 6 3 3 6 6 9 508 Ed.S 76- 77- 78- 79- 80- 81- 82- Less than 1 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+ Ph.D 76- 77- 78- 79- 80- 81- 82- Central Lake APPENDIX H FAXON'S INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP ADJUSTMENT 509 FAXON'S INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP in excess o f 2 . 0 % = an a d d ition al 0 .1 0 u n its per member Central Lake Year Actual Projected Enrollments Actual Increase in Enrollment 1977-78 587 1978-79 584 x l .02=598 1979-80 586 _xl. 02=597 1980-81 586 _xl. 02=597 1981-82 599 _xl. 02=597 1982-83 607 x l . 02=611 2% Increase Is = to : _xl . 0 2 = FORMULA FOR ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL Any increase o f over 2% provides an a d ditio nal 0 .1 0 membership u n i ts . tn o 599 - 597 = 2 x 0.10 = .2 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Advisory Commission on Intergovernm ental R e la tio n s . S t a t e Aid to Local Government. Washington, D.C.: Advisory Commission on Intergovernm ental R e la tio n s , 1969. A l t e r n a ti v e Programs f o r Financing E d ucation . Vol. 5 o f th e N ational Education Finance P r o j e c t . Edited by Roe L. Johns and Kern Alexander. G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a , 1972. Anderson, Lewis F. H isto ry o f Common School E ducation. Henry H olt and Company, 1909. New York: B a ile y , Stephen K .; F r o s t , Richard T .; Marsh, Paul E .; and Wood, Robert C. Schoolmen and P o l i t i c s . S y racu se, N.Y.: Syracuse U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1962. B a rr, W. Monfort and W ilkerson, William R. In no v ativ e Financing o f P u b lic School F a c i l i t i e s . D a n s v ille , 111.: I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s and P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1973. ________ . American Pu blic School F inan ce. Company, 1960. New York: B e a tty , H. M. A B rie f H isto ry o f E d u ca tio n . and Company, 1922. Bendiner, Robert. 1969. London, England: The P o l i t i c s o f Sch ools. Benson, Charles S. The Cheerful P r o s p e c t. M i f f l i n , 1965. American Book New York: Harper and Row, Boston, Mass.: ________ . The Economics o f P u b lic E d u ca tio n . Houghton M i f f l i n , 1961. Watts Houghton Boston, Mass.: ________ . Education Finance in the Coming Decade. Bloomington, I n d .: The Phi D elta Kappa Education Foundation, 1975. ________ . Equity in School Financing: Full S t a t e Funding. B1oomingto n , I n d .: The Phi D elta Kappa Education Foundation, 1975. 512 513 Benson, Charles S . ; G o ld fin g er, Paul M.; Hoachlander, E. G areth; and P e rs , J e s s i c a S. Planning f o r Educational Reform; F in an cial and Social A l t e r n a t i v e s . New York; Dodd, Mead and C o., 1974. Benson, Charles S . , and Shannon, Thomas A. Schools Without Property Taxes: Hope o r I l l u s i o n . B1oomington, In d .: The Phi D elta Kappa Foundation, 1972. Berke, Joel S . ; Campbell, A. K.; and G o e t te l , R. J . Financing Equal Educational O pportunity A lte r n a tiv e s f o r S t a te F inance. B erkeley, C a l i f . : McCutchan P u b lish in g Co., 1972. ________ , and K i r s t , Michael. Federal Aid to Education: Who B e n e fits ? Mho Governs? Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and C o., 1972. Burke, Arvid J . , and Mort, Paul R. D efensible Spending f o r Public S c h o o ls. New York: Columbia U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1943. ________ . Financing P u b lic Schools in th e United S t a t e s . Harper and B ro th e rs , P u b lis h e r s , 1957. New York: Burkhead, J e s s e . Pub lic School Finance: Economics and P o l i t i c s . Syracuse, N.Y .: Syracuse U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1964. ________ . S t a te and Local Taxes f o r Pu blic E d u ca tio n . Syracuse U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1963. Syracuse, N.Y.: C aldw ell, Lynton K. The Government and A d m in istra tio n o f New York. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell C o., American Commonwealth S e r i e s , 1954. Campbell, Roland F .; C o rb a lly , John E ., J r . ; and Ramsyer, John A. In tr o d u c tio n to Educational A d m in is tra tio n . Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, I n c . , 1958. C andoli, I . C a r l; Hack, W alter G.; Ray, John R .; and S t o l l a r , Dewey H. School Business A d m in is tra tio n : A Planning Approach. Boston, Mass7: Allyn and Bacon, I n c . , 1973. Carnoy, M artin, and Levin, Henry, e d s. The Lim its o f Educational Reform. New York: David MacKay Company, 1976. C a s t a l d i , B a s il. E ducational F a c i l i t i e s : P la n n in g , Remodeling, and Management" Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, I n c . , 1977. Church, Robert L ., and S e d lac k , Michael W. Education in th e U .S .: An I n t e r p r e t i v e H is to r y . New York: The Free P r e s s , 1976. Cohen, M ichael; L evin, B etsy; and Beaver, R ichard. The P o l i t i c a l L im its to School Reform. Washington, D.C.: th e Urban I n s t i ­ t u t e , 1973. 514 Cohn, Elchanen, and Mi 11 man, Stephen D. Economics o f S ta te Aid to E ducation. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1974. Coleman, James. E qu ality o f Educational O pportunity. D.C.: Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1966. Washington, Conant, James B. The Education o f American T eachers. McGraw-Hill, 1963. New York: Coons, John E .; Clune, William H. I l l ; and Sugarman, Stephen D. P riv a te Wealth and Public Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n iv e rsity P re ss , 1970. C orb ally , John E ., J r . School Finance. Bacon, I n c . , 1962. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Cremin, Lawrence A. American Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607-1783. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. ________ . The Transform ation o f the School. P u b lis h e r s , 1961. New York: Knopp ________ . The Wonderful World o f Ellwood P. Cubberley: An Essay on the H istoriography o f American E ducation. New York: Columbia U n iv e rsity P re ss, 1965. Cronin, Joseph M. A lte r n a tiv e Measures o f Local Wealth and E f f o r t . S p r i n g f i e l d , 111.: I l l i n o i s O ffice o f Education, Department o f Planning and Research, 1977. Cubberley, Ellwood P. Public School A d m in istra tio n . Houghton-Miff1in Co., 1922. ________ . Public School A d m in is tra tio n . Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1929. . Readinqs in Public Education. M ifflin Co., 1934. 3rd ed. Boston, Mass.: Boston, Mass.: Boston, Mass.: ________ . School Funds and T heir Apportionment. C ollege, Columbia U n iv e rs ity , 1906. New York: ________ . S ta te and County Educational R eorganization. The Macmillan Co., 1914. ________ . S ta te and County School A d m in is tra tio n . Macmillan Co., 1915. . S ta te School A d m in istra tio n . Mi f f T T r T C o T n W : Houghton- New York: New York: Boston, Mass.: Teachers The Houghton- 515 Dain, Floyd R. Education in the Wilderness. Vol. I: History o f Education in Michiqan. Lansinq, Mich.: H i s t o r i c a l Commission, Dimensions of Educational Need. Vol. 1 o f the National Education Finance P r o j e c t . Edited by Roe L. Johns, Kern Alexander, and Richard R ossm iller. G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a , 1969. Eches-Racz, L. L. The P o l i t i c s and Economics o f State-Local Finance. Englewood C l i f f s , N .J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1970. E c k s te in , Otto. Public Fina nce . 2d ed. P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1967. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : Economic Factors A ffe ctin g the Financing o f Education. Vol. 2 o f the National Education Finance P r o j e c t . Edited by Roe L. Johns, Irwig J . Goffman, Kern Alexander, and Dewey H. S t o l l a r . G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a , 1970. Edmondson, James B a r t l e t t . The Legal and C o n s t i t u ti o n a l Basis o f a S t a t e School System. Bloomington, 111.: Public School Pub­ l i s h i n g Co., 1926. Education and P o l i t i c a l Development. Edited by James S. Coleman. P r in c e to n , N . J . : Princeton U n i v e rs i ty P re ss , 1965. Education and the S t a t e . Edited by John F. Hughes. American Council on Education, 1975. Washington, D.C.: Education in the S t a t e s : H i s t o r i c a l Development and Outlook. Edited by Jim B. Pearson and Edgar F u l l e r . Washington, D.C .: National Education A s s o c ia t io n , 1969. Educational Need in the Public Economy. Edited by Kern Alexander and K. Forbis Jordan. G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a : The U n i v e rs i ty P r e s s , 1976. Educational Requirements f o r the 1970*5: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Approach. Edited by Stanely Elam and William P. McClure. New York: Fre derick A. Praeger, P u b l i s h e r s , 1967. Educational Vouchers: Concepts and C o n t r o v e r s ie s . Edited by George R. LeNoure. New York: Teachers College P r e s s , Columbia Univer­ s i t y , 1972. Edwards, Newton. The Courts and the Public Schools. Rev. ed. 111.: The U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago P r e s s , 1955. ________ . The Courts and the Public Scho ols. 3rd ed. The U n iv e rs ity of Chicago P r e s s , 1971. Chicago, Chicago, 111.: 516 ________ . Equal Educational Opportunity f o r Youth. American Council on Education, 1939. Washington, D.C.: E l l o i t t , Edward C. Some Fiscal Aspects o f Pu blic Education in American C i t i e s . New York: t e a c h e r s College, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1905. Facing Financial Exigency. Edited by Frank R. Kemerer and Ronald P. S a tryb . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath Co., 1977. F a n t i n i , Mario. P u b lic Schools o f S c h u s t e r , 1973. Choice. New York: Simon and Financing Education: F is c a l and Legal A l t e r n a t i v e s . Edited by Roe L. Johns , Kern Alexander, and K. Forbis Jor da n. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r il l Publish ing Co., 1976. Financing Education in th e P u b lic S chools. Symposium conducted by the Tax I n s t i t u t e . P r i n c e t o n , N . J . : Tax I n s t i t u t e , I n c . , 1956. Financing Public Education in Michigan. R e p r e se n ta tiv e Melvin L. Larsen, Chairman. Lansing, Mich.: House Republican O f f i c e , House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , S t a t e C a p i t o l , 1976. Fiscal Planning f o r Schools in T r a n s i t i o n . Proceedings o f the 12th National Conference on Sc hools, NEA Committee on Educational Finance. Washington, D.C.: National Education A s s o c ia t io n , 1969. F i t z w a t e r , C. 0. S t a t e School System Development: P a t t e r n s and Trends. Denver, C o l .: Education Commission o f the S t a t e s , 1968. The FIeischmann R e p o r t. New York S t a t e Commission on t h e Q u a l it y , Cost and Financing o f Elementary and Secondary Education. Vol. I . New York: The Viking P r e s s , 1975. Friedman, Milton. C ap italism and Freedom. U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1967. Chicago, 111.: The From Serrano t o S e r r a n o . Denver, C o l.: Education Finance C e n te r , Education Commission o f the S t a t e s , 1975. Future D i r e c t io n s f o r School Finance Reform. Edited by Betsy Levin. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1974. 517 Futures in School Finance: Working Toward a Common Goal. Edited by K. Forbis Jordan and Kern Alexander. Proceedings o f th e 17th National Conference on School Finance. Bloomington, I n d . : The I n s t i t u t e f o r Educational Finance and Phi Delta Kappa, 1974. Garber, Lee 0 . , and Newton Edwards. The Law Governing t h e Financing o f Public E du cation. D a n s v i l l e , 111.: In tersta te Printers and P u b l i s h e r s , 1962. Gardner, John W. Excellence: Can Me Be Equal and E x c e ll e n t Too? New York: Harper & Row, 1961. Garvue, Robert J . Modern Public School Finance. The Macmillan Co., 1969. Toronto, Canada: Gaureke, Warren E . , and C h i l d r e s s , Jack R., eds. Theory and P r a c t i c e o f School F inance. Chicago, 111.: Rand McNally and Co., 1967. Gee, E. Gordon, and Sperry, David J . Education Law and t h e Pu blic Schools: A Compendium. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, I n c . , 1978. G i t t e l l , Marilyn, and Hollan der, T. Edward. Six Urban School Dis­ t r i c t s . New York: Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1968. G o ld f in g e r , Pa ul. C a l i f o r n i a Foundation Program and Revenue L i m i t s . Sacramento, C a l i f . : C a l i f o r n i a C o a li t io n f o r F a i r School Finance, 1976. G o l d s t e in , Stephen R. Law and Public Education: Cases and M a t e r i a l s . New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1975. Good, H. G. A Hist ory of American Education. m illan Co., 1956. ________ . A H isto ry o f American Education. Macmillan Co., 1962. New York: 2d ed. G o slin, David A. The School in Contemporary S o c i e t y . S c o t t , Foresman and Co., 1965. Graves, Frank P. A H isto ry o f Education. Co., 1923. New York: The Mac- New York: The Chicago, 111.: The Macmillan Guide f o r Planning Educational F a c i l i t i e s . Columbus, Ohio: Council o f Educational F a c i l i t y P l a n n e rs , I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1976. G u t h r i e , James W. Equity in School Financing: D i s t r i c t Power E q u aliz ­ i n g . Bloomington, I n d . : The Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1975. 4 518 _______ » e t a l . Schools and I n e q u a l i t y . Report o f a Michigan Research Study publis hed by t h e Urban C o a l i t i o n , 1969. Hack, Walter G., and Woodward, Francis 0. Economics Dimensions o f Pu b lic School Finance: Concepts and Cases. New York: McGrawH i l l Book Co., 1971. Hamilton, Robert H., and Mort, Paul R. The Law and Pu b lic E ducation. Chicago, 111.: The Foundation P r e s s , I n c . , 1941. A Handbook f o r Beginning School Business O f f i c i a l s in Michigan. Edited by llaymond M. S r e b o t h . Grand Rap id s, Mich. : Michigan School Business O f f i c i a l s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1971. H a r r i s , R. J . The Quest f o r E q u a lity : The C o n s t i t u t i o n , Congress and th e Supreme Court" Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana S t a t e Univers i t y P r e s s , 1960. H a r r i s , Seymour R. More Resources f o r Education. B r o t h e r s , 196!T New York: Harper H a r tl e y , Harry J . Educational Planning-Programming-Budgeting, A Systems Approach. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1968. Heald, James E . , and Moore, Samuel A. I I . The Teacher and Administra­ t i v e R e la t i o n s h i p s in School Systems^ New York: The Macmillan Co., 1968. Heer, C larence. Federal Aid and the Tax Problem. Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , The Advisory Committee on Educa­ t i o n , 1939. Herman, J e r r y J . A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s P r a c t i c a l Guide t o School F in a n ce . West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publish ing Co., 1977. Hickrod, G. Alan, and Abulao, C. M. In c r e a s in g Social and Economic I n e q u a l i t i e s Among Suburban S c h o o ls. D a n v i l l e , 1 1 1 .: I n t e r ­ s t a t e P r i n t e r s ana P u b l i s h e r s , 1969. Hickrod, G. Alan, and Hubbard, Ben C. I l l i n o i s School Finance Research: Some Knowns and Unknowns. Chicago, 111.: Ridwest A d m in is tra tio n C e n te r , U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, f o r the Confer­ ence on Dilemmas in School Finance, 1977. Hickrod, G. Alan; Chaudhari, Ramesh; and Hubbard, Ben C. School Finance Reform and Suburban D i s t r i c t s : A Few F a c t s , Several Research Design Q u e stion s, and Some P o l i c y C o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Normal, 111.: Center f o r the Study o f Educational Finance, I l l i n o i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. 519 Hirsch, Werner Z .; Marcus, Morton J . ; and Gay, Robert M. Program Budgeting f o r Primary and Secondary Public Education. New York: Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1972. Hogan, John C. The Schools, the C ourts, and t h e Pu blic I n t e r e s t . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1974. Hooker, C l i f f o r d P . , and Mueleer, Van D. The R e la t i o n s h i p o f School D i s t r i c t Reorganization to S t a t e Aid D i s t r i b u t i o n Systems. G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a : National Education Finance P r o j e c t #11, 1970. Hubbard, Ben C . , and Hickrod, G. Alan. A Look a t Comparing S t a t e Aid t o Local School D i s t r i c t s on an I n t e r s t a t e B a s i s . Normal, 111.: Center f o r th e Study o f Educational Finance, I l l i n o i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Hughes, John F.» and Hughes, Anne 0. Equal Education: A New National S t r a t e g y . Bloomington, I n d . : Indiana U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972. Hutchinson, J . Howard. School Costs and School Accounting. York: Teachers Colle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1914. New Iss u es in School Finance. S e l e c t Committee on Equal Educational Oppo rtunity , United S t a t e s Senate . Washington, D.C.: Govern­ ment P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1972. Jackson, Sidney L. America's S tr u g g le f o r Free S c h o o ls. D.C.: American Council on Public A f f a i r s , 1941. Washington, James, H. Thomas; Thomas, J . Alan; and Dyck, Harold J . Wealth, Expenditure and Decision Making f o r E d ucation. S t a n f o r d , C a l i f . : School o f Education, Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , 1961. J a r v i s , Oscar T .; Gentry, Harold W.; and Stephens, L e s t e r D. Public School Business A d m inis tr a tio n and Finance: E f f e c t i v e P o l i c i e s and P r a c t i c e s . West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker P u b lish in g Co., I n c . , 1967. Jo hns, Roe L. Full S t a t e Funding o f Education: Evolutions and Im pli­ catio n s " P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e rs i ty o f P i t t s b u r g h P r e s s , 1973. ________ , and Morphet, Edgar L. The Economics and Financing o f Education: A Systems Approach. Englewood C l i f f s , N.Y.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1969. ________ . The Economics and Financing o f Education: A Systems Approach. 3rd ed. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, 197T . 520 _________. Financing th e Public Sc hools. P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1960. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : J o n e s , Howard. Financing Public Elementary and Secondary E ducation. New York: The Center f o r Applied Research in Education, I n c . , 1966. Kirp, David L ., and Yudof, Mark G. Educational P olicy and t h e Law: Cases and M a t e r i a l s . Berkeley, C a l i f . : McCutchan Publish ing Corp., 1974. Knezevich, Stephen J . A d m inis tratio n o f Public Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1975. 3rd ed. ________ , and Fowlkes, J . G. Business Management o f Local School Systems. New York: Harper and B ro th ers , 1960. Knight, Edgar. Education in the U.S.A. Co., 1929. Boston, Mass.: Ginn and Law, Robert C ., and Sederburg, William A. School Financing: Problems/ P r o p o s a l s . Lansing, Mich.: House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e , 1977. Lazerson, Marvin. Origins of th e Union Pub!ic School: Public Educa. t i o n in Mass achuse tts, 1870-1915. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e rs i ty P r e s s , 1971. Levin, Betsy; Muller, Thomas; Scanlon, William J . ; and Cohen, Michael A. Pu blic School Finance: P re se n t D i s p a r i t i e s and F is c a l A l t e r n a ­ t i v e s . Report prepared f o r th e P r e s i d e n t ' s Commission on School Finance under HEW C o n trac t #0EC-0-71-0907. Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1972. L i s t o k i n , David. Funding Education: Problems, P a t t e r n s , S o l u t i o n s . New Brunswick, N . J . : Center f o r Urban P olicy Research, Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. Major School Finance Changes in 1973. sio n o f th e S t a t e s , 1973. Denver, C o l.: Education Commis­ Marl and, Sidney J . Issues in School Finance. Washington, D.C.: Department o f HEW, U.S. O ffice o f Education, 1972. Maxwell, James A. Financing S t a t e and Local Governments. D.C;: The Brookings I n s t i t u t e , 1965. Washington, McKay, Robert B. Reapportionment: The Law and P o l i t i c s o f Egual Rep­ r e s e n t a t i o n . New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1965. 521 M e lts n er, Arnold. P o l i t i c a l F e a s i b i l i t y o f Reform In School Financing: The Case o f C a l i f o r n i a . New York: Praeger Co., 1973. Michigan's School Enrollment Decline: P r o j e c t i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s . Lansing: Michigan Department o f Education, 1977. Moehlman, Arthur B. Public School Finance. McNally and C o ., 1927. Chicago, 111.: Rand Monroe, Paul. Essays in Comparative E ducation. Vol. I I . New York: Bureau o f P u b l i c a t i o n s , Teachers College, Columbia Univer­ s i t y , 1923. ________ . The Founding o f th e American Pu blic School System. York: The Macmillan Co., 1940. New ________ . A Textbook in t h e H isto ry o f Education. Macmillan Co., 1905. The Morrison, Henry C. The Evolving Common School. Harvard U n i v e r s i ty P r e s s , 1933. ________ . The Management o f the School Money. U n i v e r s i ty o f Chicago P r e s s , 1932. ________ . School Revenue. P r e s s , 1930. Chicago, 111.: New York: Cambridge, Mass.: Chicago, 111.: The The U n i v e r s i ty o f Chicago Mort, Paul R. The Measurement o f Educational Need. New York: Teachers C o lle g e, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1924. ________ . Research Problems in School F inance. U.S. Department o f I n t e r i o r , 1933. Washington, D.C.: ________ . S t a t e Support f o r Public Edu cation. Washington, D.C.: The American Council on Education, 1933. Mort, Paul R ., and C o r n e ll , F ra n cis G. A d a p t a b i l i t y o f Public School Systems. New York: Bureau o f P u b l i c a t i o n s , Teachers C olle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1938. Mort, Paul R., and Reusser, Walter C. Pu blic School Fin a n ce . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951. 2d ed. Mort, Paul R.; Reusser, Walter C .; and P o l l e y , John W. Public School Finance: I t s Background, S t r u c t u r e and O p e r atio n . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co ., 1960. 522 Munse, A l b e r t R. S t a t e Programs f o r Pu blic School S u pport. U.S. Department o f HEW, O ffice o f Education, MISC. 52. Washingt o n , D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1965. Murphy, Jerome T. S t a t e Education Agencies and D i s c r e t i o n a r y Funds. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1974. Muth, C. Robert, and Stuhmer, Paul R. Financing Education in Michigan; A R eport. A study funded by the Ford Foundation through the Middle C i t i e s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1977. Nagatani, S t a f f o r d T. S t a t e Support and Operation o f Public Schools in Hawaii. Denver, C o l.: Education Commission o f th e S t a t e s , WT. Netzer, Dick. Economics o f the Prope rty Tax. Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n , 1966. Washington, D.C.: The Niskanen, William A. Bureaucracy and R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Government. Chicago, 1 1 1 .: Aldine A th e rton , I n c . , 1971. Noble, S t u a r t . H istory o f American Edu cation. R i n e h a r t, 1939. New York: Farrow and Norton, John K. Changing Demands on Education and Their Fisca l I m p l i c a t i o n s . Washington, D.C.: National Committee f o r Support of th e Public Schools, 1963. ________ , ed. Dimensions in School F inance. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Educational Finance o f t h e National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1966. O'Connor, James. The Fisca l C r i s i s o f t h e S t a t e . S t . M a r t i n 's P r e s s , 1973. New York: Okun, Arthur M. E q u a lity and E f f i c ie n c y : The Big T r a d e o f f . t o n , D.C.: The Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n , 1975. Washing­ P e te r s o n , Leroy J . ; F la n ig a n , Jean M.; Clements, William H.; and Park, Chang Kee. Financing the Pu b lic Schools, 1960-1970. Washington, D.C.: Special P r o j e c t on School Finance, National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1962. P e t e r s o n , Leroy J . ; R o s s m ille r , Richard A.; and Volz, Martin M. The Law o f Pu blic School O p e r a tio n . 2d ed. New York: Harper and Row, P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1978. P i e r c e , Lawrence C .; Garms, Walter I . ; G u t h r i e , James W.; and K i r s t , Michael W. S t a t e School Finance A l t e r n a t i v e s : S t r a t e g i e s f o r Reform. Eugene, Oregon: Center f o r Educational P o licy and Management, U n i v e r s i t y o f Oregon, 1975. 523 The P o l i t i c s of Education in t h e Local Community. Edited by Robert S. Cahill and Stephen P. Henctey. D a n v i ll e , 111.: The I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s and P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1971. P o l l a r d , Hugh M. Pioneers of Popular Education. B u t le r and Tanner, L t d . , 1956. London, England: Power, Edward J . Main C urrents in the History o f E duca tion. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970. 2d ed. The P r e s i d e n t ' s Commission on School Finance. In te r im Report o f the P r e s i d e n t ' s Panel on Nonpublic Education^ F i r s t Report. 1971. Problems and Issu es in Public School F inance. Edited by Roe L. Johns and Edgar L. Morphet. National Conference o f P r o f e s s o r s o f Educational A d m i n is tr a t io n . New York: Teachers C olle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1952. The R e a l i t i e s o f School Finance. Washington, D.C.: t i o n o f School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , 1971. American Associa­ Recommendations on School Finance and Educational O p p o rtu n ity . The B r i t t o n Committee f o r L e g i s l a t i v e Action on th e Thomas Study. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Bureau o f School S e r v i c e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, 1969. Reischa uer, Robert D.; Hartman, Robert W.; and S u l l i v a n , Daniel J . Reforming School Fin a n ce . Washington, D.C.: The Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n , 1973. R e u t t e r , E. Edmund, J r . , and Hamilton, Robert R. The Law o f Public Education. 2d ed. Mineola, N.Y.: The Foundation P r e s s , 1976. Roe, William H. School Business Management. Book Co., I n c . , 1961. New York: McGraw-Hill Rosentengel, William E . , and Eastmond, J e f f e r s o n N. School Finance, I t s Theory and P r a c t i c e . New York: The Ronald P r e s s , 1957. R o s s m ille r , Richard A.; Hale, James A.; and F r o h r e ic h , Lloyd E. Fis ca l Capacity and Educational Fina n ce . National Education Finance P r o j e c t , Special Study #10. Madison, Wise., 1970. Rugg, Harold. Foundations of American E ducation. Book Company, 1947. New York: School Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Edited by Henry H. Linn. The Ronald Press C o . , 1956. World New York: 524 School Finance in T r a n s i t i o n . Proceedings o f the 16th National Con­ fe r e n c e on School Finance. G a i n e s v i l l e , F l a . : National Education Finance P r o j e c t and the I n s t i t u t e f o r Educational Finance, 1973. School Finance Reform: A L e g i s l a t o r ' s Handbook. Edited by John J . Callahan and William H. Wilken. Washington, D.C.: The L e g i s l a t o r ' s Education Action P r o j e c t , National Conference o f S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e s , 1976. Schools, People and Money: The Need f o r Educational Reform. P a r t I : Summary o f Findings and Conclusions, With Recommendations. The P r e s i d e n t ' s Commission on School Finance , 1969. Shoup, Carl S. Public F inance. Co., 1969. Chicago, 111.: Aldine Pub lishin g Soper, Wayne W. Legal L im i ta t io n s on the Rights and Powers o f School Boards With Respect to T a x a ti o n . New York: Teachers C olle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1929. S t a t e , School and P o l i t i c s . Edited by Michael W. K i r s t . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1972. S ta tu s and Impact o f Educational Finance Programs. Edited by Roe L. Johns, Kern Alexander, and Dewey H. S t o l l a r , Vol. 4 o f the National Education Finance P r o j e c t . G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a , 1971. S t r a y e r , George D. City School E x p e n d itu r e s. C olle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1905. New York: Teachers S t r a y e r , George D., and E n gle h ard t, N. L. Problems in Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: Bureau o f P u b l i c a t i o n s , t e a c h e r s C o lle ge, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1925. S t r a y e r , George D., and Haig, Robert Murray. The Financing o f Educ a t l o n in the S t a t e o f New York. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1923. Summary o f Contents and O rgan iz atio n o f the 1974-75 Michigan S t a t e School Aid A ct. East Lansing: Michigan Education Associa­ t i o n , 1975. S u z z a l lo , Henry. The Rise o f Local School Supe rvision in Massac h u s e t t s . New York: t e a c h e r s C o lle g e, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 19051 S w if t , F l e t c h e r . Federal and S t a t e P o l i c i e s in Pu blic School Finance in t h e United S t a t e s . Boston, Mass.: Ginn and C o ., 1931. 525 T ay lo r, Howard Cromwell. The Educational S i g n i f i c a n c e o f the Early Federal Land Ordinances. New York: Teachers C o lle g e, Colum­ bia U n i v e r s i t y , 1922. Thomas, J . Alan. School Finance and Educational Opportunity in Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Department o f Education, 1968. Thu rston, Lee M., and Roe, William H. S t a t e School A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: Harper and Row, 1957. Twenty-Five Years o f American E d ucation. Edited by I . L. Kandel. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1926. Tyack, David. Turning Po in ts in American Educational H i s t o r y . Waltham, Mass.: B l a i s d e l l P u b l i s h e r s , 1967. Updegraff, Harlon. p h i a , Pa .: Rural School Survey o f New York S t a t e . William F. Fell Co., 1922. Philadel­ Vacca, Richard S . , and O 'Brie n, Stephen J . The Supreme Court and t h e Relig ion-Education Controversy; A T ight rope t o Entangle­ ment. Durham, N.C.: Moore Publish in g Co., 1974. Wahlquist, John T. The Philosophy o f American E ducation. The Ronald Press Co., 1942. New York: Wildavasky, Aaron. The P o l i t i c s o f t h e Budgetary P r o c e s s . Mass.: L i t t l e , Brown, 1964. Boston, Wise, Arthur E. Rich Schools, Poor S c h o ols. Uni vers i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1968. Chicago, 111.: The Yang, Thomas Wei Chi. Measurement o f School Revenue Equity in the S t a t e s o f I l l i n o i s , Michigan and Kansas'! Normal, lTT.~i Center f o r t h e Study o f Educational Finance, Department of Educational A d m i n is tr a t io n , I l l i n o i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. ________ , and Chaudhari, Ramesh. A Study o f t h e R e la ti o n s h ip Between S e lec te d Socioeconomic V a r ia b le s and Local Tax E f f o r t to Support Pu blic Schools in I l l i n o i s ^ Normal, 111.: Center f o r th e Study o f Educational Finance, Department o f Educa­ t i o n a l A d m i n is tr a t io n , I l l i n o i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1976. Zymelman, Manuel. Financing and E f f i c i e n c y in E d ucation. Mass. : The Nimrod P r e s s , 1973. Boston, 526 A rticles Abascal, Ralph. "Municipal S erv ices and Equal P r o t e c t i o n : V a r i a t i o n s on a Theme by G r i f f i n v. I l l i n o i s . " Hastinqs Law Review 20 (1969). Alexander, Kern S. "Trends and Issues in School Finance." I n t e r ­ dependence in School Finance, th e C i t y , t h e S t a t e , t h e N a tio n . Washington, D.C.: Committee on Educational Finance o f th e National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1968. ________ , and Jo rd a n , K. F o r b i s . "E q uit ab le S t a t e School Financing." In Educational Need in the Pu blic Economy. Edited by Kern Alexander and K. Forbis Jor da n. G a i n e s v i l l e , F l a . : The U n i v e r s i t y Press es o f F l o r i d a , 1976. Anderson, Robert H. "Education and th e Evolving National Purpose." Educational Leadership 33 (1976). "Arguments f o r and Against t h e Pro pert y Tax System in Financing E d u catio n." Tulane Law Review 47 (1972). Ashmore, Mary Kay. "Explaining School Funding t o Your Community." Michigan School Board Journal (June 1977). Bain, Helen. "The Argument f o r a Department of Education." Delta Kappan 52 (September 1971). Phi Ba rro, Stephen M. " A l t e r n a t i v e s in C a l i f o r n i a School Finance ." Rand C o r p o r atio n , R-663-RC/CC, May 1973. The B a r t e l l , E rn est. "Pros and Cons o f Public Funding f o r C a tho lic Schools." C urrent H isto ry 63 (1972). Baumol, William. "Macroeconomics o f Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy o f Urban C r i s e s . " American Economics Review (June 1967). Beebe, J . W. "School Financing—Serrano v. P r i e s t : The Death Knell t o Ad Valorem School Financing." Pennsylvania Bar A s so c ia tio n Q u a r te r l y 44 (1973). Behrens, John 0. Ratios." "P ro pe rty Tax A d m in is tra tio n : Use o f Assessment Journal o f Education Finance 3 (F a ll 1977). B e l l , Daniel. "On M eritocracy and E q u a l i t y . " 29 (1972). The Public I n t e r e s t B e n s f i e l d , James A. "School Financing and the Fourteenth Amendment." I n e q u a l i t y in Education 1 (October 1966). 527 Berke, Joel S. "Full Federal Funding: Educational Nightmare." Current Hist ory 63 (1972). Berke, Joel S . , and Callahan, John J . "Serrano v. P r i e s t : Milestone o r M i l l s t o n e . " Journal o f Public Law 21 (Summer 1972). Berke, Joel S . , and Sin k in , Judy G. "Developing a 'Thorough and E f f i c i e n t ' School Finance System: A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r Imple­ menting." Journal o f Law and Education 3 (July 1974). B i l l i n g s , C. David, and L egler, John B. "Factors A ffe cting Educa­ t i o n a l Opportunity and Their Im plicatio ns f o r School Finance Reform: An Empirical Study." Journal o f Law and Education 4 (October 1975). B i l l i n g s , Thomas A. "Some Proposals f o r a More P e r f e c t Union." Phi Delta Kappan 52 (September 1971). Borrowman, Merle L. "History o f Education." In Encyclopedia o f Educational Research. 3rd ed. Edited by Chester W. H a r r is . New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960. B r e s t , Paul A. " I n t e r d i s t r i c t D i s p a r i t i e s in Educational Resources." Stanford Law Review 23 (February 1971). Brown, Sidney E ., and Moran, Robert W. "Educational Expenditures as Related to Property Tax C o l l e c t i o n . " Journal o f Educa­ t i o n Finance 3 (Winter 1978). Burke, Arvid J . "Finance in School Business Management." In School Business A d m i n is tr a t io n . Edited by Henry H. Linn. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1956. » ________ . "Measurements o f Taxpaying A b i l i t y . " In P e rsp e ctiv es on the Economics o f Education. Edited by Charles S. Benson. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1963. Callahan, John J . "The Case f o r Full Federal Funding o f Education." Current Hist ory 63 (1972). Campbell, Ernest Q. "Defining and A ttain ing Equal Educational Oppor­ t u n i t y in a P l u r a l i s t i c S o c i e t y ." Vand erb ilt Law Review 26 (1973). C a rrin gto n, Paul D. "'Equal J u s t i c e Under Law' and School Finance: An Application o f San Antonio Independent Schools v. Rodriguez." In School Finance in T r a n s i t i o n . Proceedings o f the 16th National Conference on School Finance, April 1975. 528 ________ . "Financing the American Dream: E q u a lity and School Taxes." Columbia Law Review 73 (1973). Chaffee, John, J r . " E d i t o r ' s Memorandum." Compact (May/June 1973). Chisholm, L e s l i e L . , and Cushman, M. L. " R e la tio n s h ip s o f Programs o f School Finance t o t h e Reorganization o f Local School A d m i n is tr a t iv e Units and Local School C e n te r s . " In Problems and I s s u e s in Public School Finance. Edited by Roe L. Johns and Edgar Morphet. New York: Teachers C o lle g e, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1952. " C i t i e s and S t a t e s Divided Over Desegreg atio n." 20 (April 1978). Education U.S.A. C i t i z e n s Research Council o f Michigan. "Background Paper, Numbers 1 -14 ." D e t r o i t , Michigan: J u l y 1969. Cohen, Michael D.; March, James G.; and Olesen, John P. "A Garbage Can Model o f Org aniz ational Choice." A d m i n is tr a t iv e Science Q u a r te r l y 17 (1972). Cohen, Sol. "The H isto ry o f t h e H isto ry o f American Educa tion, 1900-1976: The Uses o f th e P a s t . " Harvard Educational Review 46 (1976). Cohen, Wilbur J . "Changing In flu en c e in American Edu cation." H i sto r y 63 (1972). . "Defining Educational O pp o rtu n ity ." 61 (1973). C urrent Georqetown Law Review Coleman, James S. "Equal Educational O pp o rtu nity." t i o n a l Review 38 (Winter 1968). Harvard Educa­ Comment: "An Analysis and Review o f School Financing Reform." Law Review 44 (1976). Fordham Comment: "Rational C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Problems in Financing S t a t e and Local Governments." Yale Law Journal 76 (1968). Comment: "Reapportionment and the Problem o f Remedy." Review 13 (1966). Conant, James B. 1968). "The End o f Orthodoxy." UCLA Law Sa turday Review (January Coons, John E. "Financing Public Schools A f t e r ' R o d r i g u e z . '" Saturday Review/World (October 1973). 529 ________ . "The Law o f School Finance." In Busing* Taxes and Deseg­ r e g a t i o n . Edited by Roger DeMont, Larry Hillman, and Gerald Mansergh. D a n v i l l e , 111.: I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s and P u b lish ­ e r s , I n c . , 1973. ________ . "Recent Trends in Science F i c t i o n : Serrano Among t h e People o f Number." Journal o f Law and Education 6 (1977). ________ . "Recreating t h e Fam ily's Role in E ducation." I n e q u a l i t y in Education [Harvard Center f o r Law and E ducationJ, nos. 3 and 4 (1970). Coons, John E .; Clume, William H. I l l ; and Sugarman, Stephen D. "Educational Opportunity: A Workable C o n s t i t u t i o n a l T est f o r S t a t e Fina ncial S t r u c t u r e s . " C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 57 (1969). Coons, John E . , and Sugarman, Stephen D. "A Case f o r Choice." In P a r e n t s , Teachers and C h ild ren: Prospects f o r Choice in American E ducation. San F r a n c is c o , C a l i f . : The I n s t i t u t e f o r Contemporary S t u d i e s , 1977. Egan, Susan S. "The Independent Pu blic S ch o ols." 63 (1972). "Equal Educational O p p ortun ity ." Current H i sto r y Georgetown Law Journal 61 (1973). F a n t i n i , Mario. " A l t e r n a t i v e Educational Experiences: The Demand f o r Change." Pu blic Testimony on Pu blic Sc h oo ls. National Committee f o r C i t i z e n s in Education. Berkeley, C a l i f . : McCutchan Pub lish ing Co rp ., 1975. ________ . "External and I n t e r n a l Education Vouchers." Histo ry 63 (1972). Finn, Chester E ., S r . , and Lenkowsky, L e s l i e . Pe o p le." Commentary 54 (1972). Current "Serrano vs. t h e Freeman, Roger A. "Should S t a t e s Finance th e Schools." Journal (March 31, 1972). Wall S t r e e t Garver, George. "Declining Enrollment Problems." Secondary Education Today [Journal o f the Michigan A s s o c ia t io n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s ] 18 (1977). Geel, Tyll van. "The Rodriguez Decision and t h e P o l i t i c s o f School Finance." A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Notebook [The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, Midwest A dm in is tra tio n Center] 21 (1973). 530 G l i c k s t e i n , H. A., and Want, W. L. " I n e q u a l i t y in School Financing: The Role o f t h e Law." Stan ford Law Review 25 (1973). Goheen, Gail H. "Reform in Financing Pu blic Education: An Examina­ t i o n o f the Movement and I t s I m p l i c a t i o n s . " Tulane Law Review 47 (1972). Goldberg, Arthur. U n i v e r s i ty "E q u ality and Governmental Law Review 39 (1964). A c tio n ." New York Gornich, Alan L. "School Aid and School Finance in Michigan." Tax I n s t i t u t e : Recommendations o f Michigan S t a t e Aid Survey, T968. Grant, William R. " D e t r o i t School Finance: A Perils Melodrama." Phi Delta Kappan 59 (February 1978). o f Pa ulin e Gross, Bertram. "Adm inistration o f th e Pu blic S ch oo ls." In Public School Finance--Economics and P o l i t i c s . Edited by J e s s e Burkhead. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964. Grubb, W. North. "The D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Costs and B e n e f i ts in an Urban Public School System." National Tax Journal (March 1971). ________ . "The F i r s t Round o f L e g i s l a t i v e Reforms in th e Po stSerrano World." Law and Contemporary Problems 38 (1974). ________ , and Michelson, Stephan. "Public School Finance in a Po stSerrano World." Harvard C iv il R i g h ts - C i v il L i b e r t i e s Law Review 8 (1973). G u th rie, James W. "American School Costs Compared." 63 (1972). C urrent H i sto r y ________ . "School Finance Reform: Acceptable Remedies f o r Se rran o ." School Review (1974). Gwynne, James. "School Finance: The Case f o r E q u a l iz a ti o n o f Oppor­ t u n i t y . " I n t e l l e c t 105 (1977). Hecker, S t a n le y . "Secondary School Enrollment P r o j e c t i o n s . " Secon­ dary Education Today [Journal o f the Michigan A s s o c ia tio n of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s ] 1 (1976). Herman, Barry E. "What Was Education Like 90 Years Ago?" t i o n a l Leadership 33 (1976). Educa­ Hickrod, G. Alan. "Local Demand f o r Education: A C r i t i q u e o f School Finance and Economic Research, Circa 1959-1969." Review of Educational Research 41 (1971). 531 Hogan, John C. "Obtaining an Education as a Right of t h e Pe o ple." National Org aniz ation Legal Problems o f Education 3 (1973). Holland, David W., and Tweeten, Luther G. "The Geographic D i s t r i b u ­ t i o n o f Schooling B e n e f i t s : Im p lica tio n s f o r Pu blic School Finance ." Educational A d m in is tr a tiv e Q u a rte rly 9 (1973). Horowitz, Harold W., and N e i t r i n g , Diana L. "Equal P r o t e c t i o n Aspects o f I n e q u a l i t i e s in Pu blic Education and Pu blic A s s i s t a n c e Programs From Place to Place Within a S t a t e . " UCLA Law Review 15 (1968). _________. "Unseparate But Unequal—The Emerging Fourteenth Amend­ ment Issu e in Pu b lic School E ducation." UCLA Law Review 13 (1966). " I s 'School Finance Reform' Demolishing Local C o n t r o l. " School Board Journal 165 (1977). American James, H. Thomas. "New Developments in S t a t e School Finance." Financing t h e Changing School Program. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Educational Finance o f th e National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1962. Jargowsky, P e t e r ; Moskowitz, J a y ; and S i n k in , Judy. "School Finance Reform: Decodinq t h e Simulation Maze." Journa l o f Education Finance 3 (Fall 1977). Je n c k s , C h r i s t o p h e r . " I s t h e Public School Obsolete?" I n t e r e s t 2 (Winter 1966). The Public Johns, Roe L. " S t a te Financing o f Elementary and Secondary Educa­ t i o n . " In Education in t h e S t a t e s . Edited by Edgar F u l l e r and Jim R. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1969. Jo r d a n , K. F o r b i s , and Hanes, Carol E. "Financing Education in an Era o f L im i ts ." Phi Delta Kappan 57 (1976). J u s t u s , Hope. "Confusion Over School Finance." 1973). Compact (May/June K a r s t , Kenneth. "Serrano v. P r i e s t : A S t a t e C o u r t ' s R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and O p p o r t u n i ti e s in t h e Development o f Federal C o n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l Law." C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 60 (1972). Katz, Bennett. "Resources f o r S e t t i n g S t a t e Goals." In Education o f t h e S t a t e . Edited by John F. Hughes. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1975. 532 Katz, Michael B. "The Origin o f Pu blic Education: A Reassessment." H isto ry o f Education Q u a r te r l y 16 (1976). Keech, Ray. "The S u pe rin te n dent Talks About Brighton Area Sc hools." Secondary Education Today [Journ al o f t h e Michigan Associat i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s ] 18 (1977). Kelly, James A. "The Public P o l i c y Context o f Education Finance." A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Notebook [The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, Midwest A dm in istra tio n Center] 24 (1977-78). Kirp, David L. "Law, P o l i t i c s , and Equal Educational Opportunity: The Limits o f J u d i c i a l Involvement." Harvard Educational Review 47 (1977). Knezevich, Stephen J . "What's Ahead in Financing E ducation." New D i r e c t io n s in Financing Public S c h o o ls . Washington, D.C.: Committee on Educational Finance o f the National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1960. Kraushaar, Otto F. " P r i v a t e Schools and t h e Public I n t e r e s t . " Curr ent H isto ry 63 (1972). Kurland, P h i l l i p . "Equal Educational Opportunity: The Limits o f C o n s t i t u t i o n a l J u r i s p r u d e n c e Undefined." U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Law Review 35 (1968). ________ . "Equal in Origin and Equal in T i t l e t o t h e L e g i s l a t i v e and Executive Branches o f Government." Harvard Law Review 143 (1964). Lamb, Robert Boyden. "The T ax pa y er's Revolt Against Rising School C o s t s ." C ur rent H i sto r y 63 (1972). LaMorte, Michael W. "The 14th Amendment: I t s S i g n i f i c a n c e f o r Public School Educato rs ." Educational A d m in is tr a tio n Q u a r te r l y 10 (1974). L eppert, Ja ck , e t a l . "Pupil Weighting Programs in School Finance Reform." In School Finance Reform: A L e g i s l a t o r ' s Handbook. Edited by John J . Callahan and William H. Wilken. Washingt o n , D.C.: National Conference o f S t a t e L e g i s l a t o r s , 1976. Levin, Betsy. " A l t e r n a t i v e s t o th e P r e s e n t System o f School Finance ." Georgetown Law Journal 61 (1973). ________ . "New Legal Challenges in Educational Finance." o f Education Finance 3 (1977). Journal 533 Levin, Henry M. "Equal Educational Opportunity and the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Educational E xpenditures." Education and Urban Society 5 (1973). Lieberman, Myron. "Equality of Educational Oppo rtunity ." Educational Review 29 (Summer 1959). Harvard Lindman, Erick L. "The L oca l- S ta te-F ed e ral School Finance P a r t n e r ­ s h i p . " Trends in Financing Public Education. Proceedings o f the Eighth National Conference on S c h o o l F i n a n c e . Washington, D.C.: National Education A s s o c ia t io n , 1965. ________ . "School Finance Policy f o r the Next Decade." In Emerging Issues in Education. Edited by James E. Bruno. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1972. Lindsey, Robert. "New B a t t l e s Over School Budgets." Magazine (September 1977). New York Times Lobenherz, William. " L e g i s l a t i v e Progress on a Local School Aid Formula f o r 1978-79." Michigan School Board Journal 25 (1978). Lohrman, Maurice A. "School Pro fessio n al Sa lary Costs in Perspec­ t i v e . " Current H isto ry 63 (1972). Lucas, Jo Desha. "Serrano and Rodriguez—An Extension o f Equal Pro­ t e c t i o n . " NOLPE School Law Journal 2 (1972). Manley, Robert E. "Legal Aspects o f Financing Education." Lawyer 6 (1974). The Urban Mann, Horace. "Report f o r 1848." L ife and Works o f Horace Mann. Vol. IV. Boston, Mass.: Lee and Shepard P u b l i s h e r s , 1891. March, James G. "Commitment and Competence in Educational Adminis­ t r a t i o n . " In Educational Leadership and Declining Enrollment. Edited by Lewis B. Mathew. Berkeley, C a l i f . : McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1974. Marshall, Thurgood. 1973). "Rodriguez: The D i s s e n t . " Compact (May/June McCarthy, Martha M., and Thomas, Stephen B. "The Right to an Educa­ t i o n : New Trends Emerging From Special Education L i t i g a t i o n . " NOLPE School Law Journal 7 (1977). McGivney, Joseph H., and Haught, James M. "The P o l i t i c s o f Education: A View From t h e P e r s p e c t i v e o f the Central Office S t a f f . " Educational Adm inistration Q u a rte rly 8 (1972). 534 Meager, John K. "Why a Department of Human Resources I s Needed Now." Phi De lta Kappan 52 (September 1971). Merry, Robert W. " C a l i f o r n i a Court Upholds a Challenge Being Made in Other S t a t e s : Property Taxes Are U n fa ir in Financing Edu­ c a t i o n . " The National Observer (January 1977). Michelman, Frank I . "Foreword: On P r o t e c t i n g th e Poor Through th e F ou rt eenth Amendment." Harvard Law Review 83 (1969). Michel son, Stephen. "Public School Finance in a Po st-S erra no World." Harvard C iv il R ig h ts - C i v il L i b e r t i e s Law Review 8 (1973). ________ . "What Is a ' J u s t ' System f o r Financing Schools? An E valuation o f A l t e r n a t i v e Reforms." Law and Contemporary Problems 38 (1974). Moynihan, Daniel. "Equalizing Education— In Whose Be nefit? " I n t e r e s t 29 (1972). Public Note, " D iscrim in atio n Against th e Poor and th e Fourt eenth Amendment." Harvard Law Review 81 (1968). Nyquist, Edwald B. "Full S t a t e Funding and Local C o n t r o l . " Per­ s p e c t i v e s on Education. New York: Teachers C o lle g e, Colum­ b ia U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. O 'B rie n, J e r r o l d . "Serrano v. P r i e s t and t h e Central C ity : A Case f o r E q u ity ." Albany Law Review 37 (1973). Odden, Allan. " A l t e r n a t i v e Measures o f School D i s t r i c t Wealth." Journal o f Education Finance 2 (1977). Parsons, Cynthia. "School Finance Reform." Monitor (November 1977). The C h r i s t i a n Science Pauly, Mark V. "Mixed Pu blic and P r i v a t e Financing o f Education: E f f i c i e n c y and F e a s i b i l i t y . " American Economic Review (March 1967). Peck, John E. " S t a t e and Federal Involvement in School Finance." School Management 17 (1973). ________ . " S t a t e Funding o f th e Schools: Need vs. A b i l i t y . " Management 18 (1974). School Phe lps, James L . , and Smith, Douglas J . "School Funding Case in C a l i f o r n i a —The Serrano D e cisio n ." Memo t o Governor William M illik e n o f Michigan, 1977. 535 Pincus, John. " I n c e n t iv e s f o r Innovation in t h e Public Schools." Review o f Educational Research 44 (1974). P io u s , Richard M. "The J u d i c i a r y and Public School Finance." C urren t H isto ry 63 (1972). Pogrow, S t a n le y , and S w i f t , Douglas. "New Mexico School Finance R e v is it e d : The P o l i t i c s o f Revising a Weighted-Pupil Formula." Journal o f Education Finance 3 (1977). P o s t , A. A ., and Brandsma, R. W. " L e g i s l a t u r e ' s Response to Serrano v. P r i e s t . " P a c i f i c Law Journal 2 (1973). Powell, Lewis F. "Rodriguez: The D e cisio n ." Compact (May/June 1973). P r e s t o n , H. Lebaron. "The Supreme Court and School Finance: Some P o s s i b i l i t i e s . " Phi Delta Kappan 53(October 1972). Psacharoupoulos, George. "Investment in Education and E q u a l it y o f O p po rtu n ity ." In Educational Need in t h e Public Economy. Edited by Kern Alexander and K. Forbis Jor da n. G a i n e s v i l l e , F l a . : The U n i v e r s i ty o f F l o r i d a P r e s s , 1976. "Public Support f o r Schools: Waxing o r Waning?" (September 1973). Education U.S.A. "The Push t o 'Reform* School Financing: Is I t Making Any Educational Differen ce?" American School Board Journal 165 (1978). Ratn er, L. G. "Inter-Neighborhood Denials o f Equal P r o t e c t i o n in the P ro v isio n o f Municipal S e r v i c e s . " Harvard Civil RightsCiv il L i b e r t i e s Law Review 4 (1968). Rawls, John. " D i s t r i b u t i v e J u s t i c e : Some Addenda." Forum 13 (1969). Natural Law R o s s m ille r , Richard. " P r i v a t e Wealth and Public Education." t i o n a l A dm in is tra tio n Q u a r te r ly 6 (1970). Educa­ ________ , and Geske, T err y G. "The P o l i t i c a l Context o f School Finance Reform." A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Notebook [The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, Midwest A d m in is tra tio n Center] 25 (1976-77). S a l i s b u r y , C. J e f f e r s o n . "The Theory o f Taxation as Related to School Finance." In The Theory and P r a c t i c e o f School F in a n ce . Edited by Warren E. Gauerke and Jack R. C h i l d r e s s . Skokie, 111.: Rand McNally and Co., 1967. S c h o e t t l e , Ferdinand P. "The Equal P r o t e c t i o n Clause in P u b lic Edu­ c a t i o n . " Columbia Law Review 71 (1971). 536 ________ . " J u d i c i a l Requirements f o r School Finance Reform and Property Tax Redesign: The Rapidly Evolving Case Law." National Tax Journal 25 (1972). "Serrano and I t s Successors: The Challenge t o S t a t e Educational Finance Systems." San Diego Law Review 18 (1973). "Serrano v. P r i e s t : Equal P r o te c tio n and Public School Finance." C a l i f o r n i a Western Law Review 8 (1972). "Serrano v. P r i e s t : Renaissance f o r School Financing Through the Equal P r o t e c t io n Clause." American U n i v e rs i ty Law Review 21 (1972). "Serrano Symposium: The Death Knell to Ad Valorem School Financing." Urban Lawyer 5 (1973). Shannon, John. "The Role o f the S t a te in Equalizing Educational Opportunity—An ACIR L e g i s l a t i v e Proposal." The Challenge o f Change in School Finance. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Educational Finance o f the National Education A s s o c ia tio n , 1967. Shannon, Thomas A. "Chief J u s t i c e Wright, The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court and School Finance: Has th e 14th Done I t Again?" NOLPE School Law Journal 3 (1973). Shedd, Mark, and Clement, Ja c q u e l in e . "The Costs o f Educational Inno­ v a t i o n . " Current H istory 63 (1972). S i l a r d , John, and G old ste in , B a r ri e . "Toward Abolition o f Local Funding in Public Education." Journal o f Law and Education 3 (1964). Simpson, Robert J . , and Gordon, William M. "School Desegregation— Is Busing f o r the United S t a t e s . " NOLPE School Law Journal 3 (1973). S i n g e l l , Larry. "Toward B e t t e r Schools: The R ela tio n o f D o llars to E xce llence." Current H istory 63 (1972). Smith, Marshall S. "Equal Opportunity—Some Promise and a Lack o f V ision ." In Education, I n e q u a l it y and National P o l i c y . Edited by Nelson F. Ashline, Tom R. t>ezzullo and Charles I . N o rris. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1976. Spears, Harold. "Kappans Ponder School Finance Question s." Kappan 54 (March 1973). Phi Delta 537 "Spread o f Homeowner's R e v o lt . " 1978). U.S. News and World Report (March Stadtman, Verne A. "Governmental S t r a t e g i e s f o r Educational Reform and I n n o v a tio n ." In Education o f t h e S t a t e . Edited by John F. Hughes. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Edu­ c a t i o n , 1975. " S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis o f th e School Finance D e cision s: On Winning B a t t l e s and Losing Wars." Yale Law Journal 81 (1972). S t e i n h i l b e r , August W. "The J u d i c i a l A s s a u l t on S t a t e School Aid Laws: Problems and P ro g n o s is ." Phi Delta Kappan 40 (November 1959). S t e r n , David. "Some S p e c u la tio n s on School Finance and a More E g a l i ­ t a r i a n S o c i e t y . " Education and Urban S o c ie ty (February 1973). S t o r r , Richard J . "The Role o f Education in American H i sto r y : A Memorandum." Harvard Educational Review 46 (1976). S t r u v e , G. M. "The Less R e s t r i c t i v e - A l t e r n a t i v e P r i n c i p l e and Economic Due P r o c e s s . " Harvard Law Review 80 (1967). Teaford , John. "The Transformation o f Massachusetts Education, 1670-1780." H isto ry o f Education Q u a r te r l y 10 (1970). Thomas, J . Alan. "Educational Planning in School D i s t r i c t s . " A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Notebook 22 (1974). T ie bout, C. M. "A Pure Theory o f Local E x p en diture ." In P e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e Economics o f E d ucation. Edited by Charles S. Benson. Boston, Mass. : Houghton-Miff1in Co., 1963. Tussman, Josep h, and tenBrock, Jacobus. "The Equal P r o t e c t i o n o f the Laws." C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 37 (1949). Vacca, Richard S. "The Courts and School Finance: A In Futures in School Finance: Working Toward Proceedings o f t h e 17th National Conference Bloomington, I n d . : Phi Delta Kappa and t h e Educational Fina nce, 1974. Reexamination." a Common Goal. on School F in a n ce . In stitu te for V i e i r a , N. "Unequal Educational Expen ditu re s: Some Minority Views on Serrano v. P r i e s t . " Missouri Law Review 37 (1972). Weischadle, David E. "New J e r s e y : A Case Study in t h e P o l i t i c s o f Public School F in an ce." Jour na l o f Education Finance 3 (1977). 538 Wessel, Robert H. "Why Guaranteed Yield F a ile d in Ohio." Educational Finance 3 (1978). Journal o f W ill, George F. "T u ition Tax-Credit B i ll a Church-State I s s u e . " The D e t r o i t News (April 1978). Williams, Joseph A.; Gentry, Harold W.; and LaMorte, Michael W. "The A ttack on S t a t e Educational Finance Programs—An Overview." NOLPE School Law Journal 2 (1972). Williams, Mary Fra se . "D ollars and Sense: A Guide to t h e Data and S t a t i s t i c s o f School Finance." L e g i s l a t o r ' s Education Action P r o j e c t . Washington, D.C.: National Conference o f S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e s , 1976. Wise, Arthur E. 1971). "The C a l i f o r n i a D o c t r i n e . " Saturday Review (November ________ . "The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Challenge to I n e q u i t i e s in School Finance ." Phi Delta Kappan 50 (November 1969). Wynkoop, Robert. "Prognosis f o r Change in S t a t e Finance Plan s: An Analysis o f Recent Commission Reports and Court D e c i s i o n s . " Educational A d m i n is tr a t iv e Q u a r te r l y 10 (1974). Yudof, Mark G. "Equal Educational Opportunity and th e C o u r t s ." Law Review 51 (1973). Texas Zuckerman, Ed. " C a l i f o r n i a B a l l o t ' s Item 13—Taxpayer Backlash." Miami Herald (March 1978). Unpublished D i s s e r t a t i o n s Beck, Hugo E. "The C o n tr ib u tio n o f Henry C lin to n M orr ison." d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, 1962. Ph.D. Davis, George H. "The E f f e c t o f the Three Mill D i s t r i c t Tax on Apportionment o f County and City School Funds From Local and S t a t e Sources ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama, 1966. Feda, John. "An Analysis o f In t e r m e d i a t e Units as School Pr o p e r ty Tax Bases to Meet th e Fisca l D i s p a r i t i e s Found in t h e Support o f E ducation." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1970. F i s h e r , Douglas. "Local Determinants o f Per Pupil Expenditures in Suburban High School D i s t r i c t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univer­ s i t y o f Chicago, 1967. 539 Ford, B i l l K. "Financial and Legal R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f School D i s t r i c t s P a r t i c i p a t i n g in the Minimum Foundation Program in Texas." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Baylor U n i v e r s i t y , 1967. Harvey, Louis E. "Prop erty Tax Determinants of Educational Expendi­ t u r e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Stanfo rd U n i v e r s i t y , 1969. James, H. Thomas. Systems." "Toward a Unified Concept o f S t a t e School Finance Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, 1958. Smith, Frank H. "An Evaluation o f the In t e r m e d i a t e Unit o f Public School A d m in istra tio n in Minnesota With a Plan o f Reorgani­ z a t i o n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1961. Smith, Marvin H. "An Analysis o f Methods o f Determining Local Fund Assignments and a Proposal f o r Area Tax Assessing J u r i s d i c ­ t i o n s f o r t h e School D i s t r i c t s in Texas." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas, 1967. S t a t e and Federal Court Decisions Brown v. Board o f Education o f Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 D. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Burruss v. Wilkerson, 310 F. Supp. 572 (W.D. V i r q i n i a , 1969), a f f ' d -------------397 U V 5 . 44 (1970). Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401, 3 L. Ed. 3d, 5 (1958). Hargrave v. K irk , 313 F. Supp. 944 ( D i s t r i c t Court o f F l o r i d a , 1970). Hargrave v. McKinney, 302 F. Supp . 1381 ( D i s t r i c t Court of F l o r i d a , 1969). Harper v. V i r g i n i a S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s , 383 U.S. 663, 668 (1966). Hobson v. Hansen, 327 F. Supp. 8461 (1971). H o l l i s v. S h o f s t a l l , #C-253652 Superior Court o f Arizona (1972). Mclnnes v. O g i l v i e , 394 U.S. 322, 22 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1968). Mclnnis v. S h a p ir o , 293 F. Supp. 327 (1968). Mi11iken v. B radle y, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). Mi H i ken v. B ra dle y , 97 S. Ct. 2749 (1977). Ple sse y v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896). 540 Robinson v. C a h i l l , Superior Court o f New J e r s e y , Law Division Hudson County Docket #L-18704-69 (1972). Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School D i s t r i c t , 337 F. Supp. 280 (W. D. Texas, 1971), r e v ' d 411 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1973). Sawyer v. Gilmore, 109 Me 169, 83 A t l . 673 (1912). Serrano v. P r i e s t , 5 Cal 3d 584, 96 Cal Rptr. 601, 487 P 2d 1241 (1971). S t u a r t v. g School D i s t r i c t #1 o-----------------------------f the Villa ge of Kalamazoo, 30 Michigan - ( l g 7 -4 y :--------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- r Van Dusartz v. H a t f i e l d , 344 F. Supp. 870 (1971).