INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.

While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify 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 complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued againbeginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

University Miaorilms International

300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8300333

Rinaldi, Robert Thomas

COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OF SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE PRACTITIONERS AND ACADEMICIANS REGARDING CURRENT CONCEPTS, ISSUES, AND UNDERSTANDINGS OF PERTINENCE TO THE FINANCING OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The Ohio State University

PH.D. 1982

University Microfilms International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Copyright 1982 by Rinaldi, Robert Thomas All Rights Reserved

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Glossy photographs or pages Colored illustrations, paper or print Photographs with dark background Illustrations are poor copy Pages with black marks, not original copy Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ^ " Print exceeds margin requirements Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine Computer printout pages with indistinct print Page(s) author. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. . Text follows.

Two pages numbered Curling and wrinkled pages Other

University Microfilms International

COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OF SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE PRACTITIONERS AND ACADEMICIANS REGARDING CURRENT CONCEPTS, ISSUES, AND UNDERSTANDINGS OF PERTINENCE TO THE FINANCING OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Robert T. Rinaldi, A.B., M.A., M.Ed.

The Ohio State University

1982

Reading Committee James L. Collins, Ph.D. Walter G. Hack, Ph.D. W. Frederick Staub, Ph.D. Thomas M. Stephens, Ed.D.

Approved By

U>. fy/ieJii.'.L

Adviser Faculty for Educational Administration

This investigation is dedicated to all of the children who have attended or currently attend the public schools of the United States, and particularly to those children in attendance who have been

or currently are being denied equal educational opportunity because of the inadequacies and inequities historically associated with the finan cing of American Education.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express sincere appreciation to the graduate committee: Dr. James L. Collins, Dr. Walter G. Hack, Dr.

Thomas M. Stephens, and Dr. W. Frederick Staub, Adviser, for their highly valued assistance throughout this investigation. Special appreciation is expressed to Billie J. Rinaldi, for her extended personal support and assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. Special recognition is also extended to Dr. Thomas M. Stephens, and to his course in Psychoeducational Diagnosis given in 1969 at the University of Pittsburgh. The writer further wishes to acknowledge the leadership and assistance of Dr. Godfrey D. Stevens, adviser during his original doctoral program matriculation at the University of Pittsburgh. A final special note of thanks is extended to Dr. W, Frederick Staub and Dr. Walter G. Hack for. their invaluable time, persistent encouragement, and tremendous support.

VITA March 8, 1942 1963 1964-1968 1966. . . . . . . . . . 1968 1968-1971 Born: New York City, New York

A.B., St. Michael's College Winooski Park, Vermont Elementary and Secondary Teaching Experience M.A., Fairfield University Fairfield, Connecticut M.Ed., University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire Doctoral Fellow, Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Assistant Director of Education, Youth Development Center, Newcastle, Pennsylvania Vocational Program Consultant, Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania State Director of Special Education Pierre, South Dakota Assistant Superintendent, Baltimore City Public Schools, Baltimore, Maryland Research Associate, Academic Faculty for Exceptional Children, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Assistant Director, Tri-State Midwest Regional Resource Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS

1969-1970 1970-1971 1971-1973 1973-1980 1979-1982

1980-1982

"The School Health Team and School Health Physician." of Piseases of Chi 1dren, Vol. 29, February 1975.

American Journal

iv

"Deinstitutionalization and Beyond." Bailiwick, Maryland State Council for Exceptional Children, Spring 1976. "Urban Schools and P.L. 94-142, One Administrator's Perspective on the Law." Perspectives on the Implementation of the Education of All Handicapped Act of 1975, Richard A. Johnson and Anthony P. Kowalski (eds.): The Council of Great City Schools, Washington, D.C. 1976. "The IEP (Individualized Education Plan) as a Child Find Instrument." Implementation of the Individualized Education Program, Anthony P. Kowalski (ed.): The Council of Great City Schools, Washington, D.C. 1976. "Early Identification of Handicapped Children through a Frequency Sampling Technique." Exceptional Children, Vol. 43, No. 7, April 1977. "A Field Study of a Frequency Sampling Technique in the Early Identifi cation of Handicapped Children: A Second Year Report." Child Study Journal, State University of New York at Buffalo, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1979. "Apprising Parents and the Community of School Programs for Special Children: Support Services." American School Health Association, Stephen J. Jerrick and Warren Shaller (eds.), Summer 1979. "Extended School Year for the Handicapped: Legal Requirements and Educational Efficacy." Journal of Special Education, (in press), 1982. "The Process of Multi-Factored Assessment for Handicapped Students." Theory Into Practice, The Ohio State University, Spring 1982. UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS "Political Implications and Distributional Consequences of School Finance Reform, 1970-80." June 1980. "From Regression to Progression - Property Taxation - Past, Present, and Future." August 1981. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Fields: Teaching, Curriculum, and Supervision, A.B., M.A. Major Area, Science Education Professor Michael D. Andrew, Adviser Exceptional Children, Administration and Supervision, M.Ed. Professor Thomas M. Stephens, Adviser Professor Godfrey D. Stevens, Adviser Educational Administration, Ph,D. Professor W. Frederick Staub, Adviser

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VITA LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Rationale Purpose and Statement of the Problem Null Hypothesis Definition of Terms Design of the Study Population Samples - Method of Research Data Gathering - Instrumentation Statistical Procedures - Data Treatment Limitations and Delimitations of the Study Significance of Research, II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The History and Social Context of Public School Finance and Public School Finance Reform Origins of School Finance Theory, 1900-1950 Equality and Adaptability
vi

ii iii iv x xi

1 6 10 11 12 14 14 15 17 18 19 21 23 23 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Chapter Local Control and Individual Worth Legislation and Litigation, 1950-1982 Concepts, Issues, and Understandings of Pertinence to the Financing of the Public Schools The Politics and Progress of Public School Finance Reform The Legal Basis for Equity in Public School Finance and its Relationship to Equal Educational Opportunity A Proposed Conceptual Framework for Public School Finance Policy Criteria III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Rationale for Research Design Development and Grouping of School Finance Statements Selection and Grouping of School Finance Experts Use of the Preselection Panel Statistical Treatment Statistical Analysis System Use of Preselection Panel Data Use of Practitioner/Academician Data Tables, Figures, and Appendixes Page 32 39 59 59

70 81 90 91 91 99 102 104 104 106 107 109

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) Chapter IV. PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS Sampling Results Preselection Panel Item Responses Practitioner/Academician Item Responses Practitioner/Academician Item Subgroup Responses Variances in Practitioner/Academician Responses Summary of Data V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS Summary Purpose and Statement of the Problem Limitations and Delimitations Procedures and Methodology Sources of Error. Analysis of Patterns of Responses..: Conclusions Questions One, Two, Three, and Four Null Hypothesis Implications Dissemination of Information Subsequent Research Professional Development Page 110 Ill Ill 125 129 133 144 157 158 158 160 161 165 166 175 175 179 180 181 182 183

vii i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) Page BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIXES A. B. EXPERT PRESELECTION PANEL SURVEY INSTRUMENT MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR PRESELECTION PANEL RESPONSES TO SEVENTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRESELECTION PANEL RESPONSES TO SEVENTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN SURVEY INSTRUMENT MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF PRACTITIONER RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRACTITIONER RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS COMPOSITE MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS COMPOSITE FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS... VERTICAL FREQUENCY BAR GRAPH COMPARISONS OF PRACTITIONER/ CADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS GLOSSARY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE TERMS
ix

185

201

209

C.

212 222

D. E.

230

F.

233

G.

245

H.

248

I.

260

J.

263 275 288 344

K. L. M.

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Number and Percent of Returns for Preselection Panel Members and Practitioner/Academician Groups 2. Summary of Seventy-Five Low, Medium, and High Current Topical Relevance Responses of Fourteen Preselection Panel Members Class Limits, Frequency, and Item Classification for Relevance Level Responses of Fourteen Preselection Panel Members Bimodal Distribution Patterns of Preselection Panel Member Survey Item Responses Summary of Practitioner/Academician Responses Indicating Highest Levels of Agreement/ Disagreement with Identified Survey Items Significant Differences in Practitioner/ Academician Responses to Individual Survey Items and Subgroups of Items at .01 and .05 Levels of Confidence Analysis of Variance of Practitioner/Academician Responses to Identified Subgroups of Survey Items Bimodal and Atypical Frequency Distributions of Identified Survey Items Summary Practitioner/Academician Responses to Three Optionally Specified School Finance Issues Item-by-Item Summary of Relevance and Agreement Levels, and Significant Differences among Preselection Panel Members, Practitioners, and Academicians Page 112

114

3.

115 122

4. 5.

130

6.

134

7. 8. 9. 10.

136 139 141

145

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A Chronology of Public School Finance Theory ,. A State-by-State Summary of Equalization Approaches and School Finance Litigation Nine Cell School Finance Issue Conceptual Framework Equity/Efficiency Subgroup of School Finance Statement Survey Items... Equal Educational Opportunity Subgroups of School Finance Statement Survey Items Local Control/Property Taxation Subgroups of School Finance Statement Survey Items State Aid-to-Education Subgroup of School Finance Statement Survey Items Alternative Financing Subgroup of School Finance Survey Items Histogram and Frequency Polygon of Relevance Level Responses of Fourteen Preselection Panel Members Additional School Finance Survey Items Suggested by Preselection Panel Members

Page 38 48 86 94 95 96 97 98

117 124

10.

xi

Chapter I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

Local tax paying ability has historically been the major determinant of social policy for public education (James, 1961, 1971). How much local communities have been willing to spend on public education has not been determined directly by social preferences, but by the ability to generate revenue through real property values of a locally administered property tax system. Property taxation began With

with local levies upon land and cattle in the American Colonies.

the Industrial Revolution came the proliferation of property (capital), including intangible property, confounding the application of a uniform tax to property irrespective of form. Because of this a

narrower view was adopted at the beginning of the twentieth century, establishing property taxation as a selective tax on real estate, business equipment, and inventory. The share of the property tax in total tax revenue has declined from 50% to 10% in the past 80 years, with revenues accruing to local governments, imposed and collected locally (Halstead, 1978). There

is a wide variation in rates and the definition of property among political subdivisions and often in assessments within political sub divisions. Unlike other taxes such as sales and corporate income,
1

the property tax is direct and visible personally viewed by the public as a matter of local control, and is particularly subject to criticism during the inflationary periods. With the property tax

providing the bulk of public school financing, and with significant wealth disparities among political subdivisions, there has been considerable variation in per pupil funding and overall equity of school finance among local school districts. These variations have

historically been a matter of concern in the study of school finance (Cubberly, 1905, 1916; Frasier, 1922; James, 1958, 1961; James, Thomas, & Dyck, 1963; Johns & Morphet, 1952, 1960; Mort, 1926; Mort, Reusser, & Polley, 1950; Pittinger, 1925; Strayer, & Haig, 1923; and Swift, Fletcher, & Harper, 1922). With the significant increases in public school enrollment following World War II and the Korean Conflict, taken together with the increasingly higher costs of educational personnel costs and services, wealth disparities among school districts increased and fiscal equity for equal educational opportunity became politically focused (Coons, Clune, & Sugarman, 1970; Hack & Woodard, 1971; James, 1971; Jencks, 1972; and Wise, 1960). School finance litigation was Although the Supreme

initiated in both State and Federal Courts.

Court ruled against use of the U.S. Constitution as legal remedy for school finance reform (Rodriguez v. San Antonio School District 1973), school finance litigation proceeded on state constitutional grounds with considerable success (Robinson v. Cahill, 1973; Serrano v. Priest, 1971, 1976). The findings of these cases, particularly the

Serrano cases in California, popularized the term "fiscal neutrality," and generated the significant efforts made toward school finance reform during the decade of the 1970's. The theoretical concept of fiscal neutrality, established to provide courts and/or economists with a measurable way to identify the relative relationship of per pupil expenditure to school district wealth, seems to have been marginally effective in defining and/or reducing disparities in educational expenditures across local political subdivisions (Carroll, 1979; Carroll & Park, 1979). Although many

states have changed from Strayer-Haig foundation formulae to Serranobased power equalization formulae to improve equity, results have been mixed. In some states, such as Ohio, the change in formula has

aggravated problems of revenue disparity (Ohio Comnittee of Twenty, 1979). In the 22 states that enacted reforms in school finance systems,

there has been a growth in statewide total spending and district revenues. However, districts serving disproportionate numbers of Also, property tax

poor children have not significantly benefited.

rates in poorer local districts have increased in being overburdened relative to districts with higher income populations (Augenblick, 1979; Carroll, 1979; Odden & Augenblick, 1980; and Odden & Vincent, 1976). School finance reform in the 1970's has solved some problems and created others. General aid has been strengthened with some leveling

up of less wealthy districts; equity has increased through a reduction of the linkage between per pupil expenditure level and local district wealth; and an expansion of local district fiscal capacity beyond

property wealth has begun (Adams, 1980; Berne & Stiefel, 1979; Odden & Augenblick, 1980; and Odden, Berne, & Stiefel, 1979). Moreover,

states have attempted to enhance traditional foundation programs, develop power equalization formulae, or use a combination of such state funding plans to strengthen aid and improve equity (Callahan & Wilken, 1976; and Odden, 1978). Notwithstanding such gains, certain Given

political limits to school finance reform have been identified.

continued reliance on the local property tax system, even including improvement in state support to improve equity, local tax paying ability and the local perceptions of tax paying ability remain the determinants of social policy for public education. The definition of fiscal neutrality, the equity consequences of the definition, and the subsequent relationship to equal educational opportunity are critical issues of school finance that were extensively investigated in the decade of the 1970's. Does the equal division of

shares per pupil to school districts assure the equal distribution of shares within school districts? Does equal distribution of equal shares account for the differential cost of education for pupils with exceptional learner characteristics, or for poor pupils in property poor school districts? Is the district power equalization formula superior to the traditional Strayer-Haig-Mort foundation formula, or are both subject to the political limits of school finance reform? What is the relationship of fiscal neutrality to equal educational opportunity? These are some of the pertinent issues to be addressed and further clarified by school finance practitioners and policymakers in the decade of the 1980's.

Equity in school finance systems, and the equity consequences of school finance reform are complex concepts with numerous proposed quantifiable standards reconmended in the literature (Berne & Stiefel, 1979; Carroll, Cox, & Lisowski, 1979; Friedman & Wiseman, 1978; Johns & Magers, 1978; and Odden & Vincent, 1976). The abundance

of quantifiable data and empirical work in the field in the 1970's seems to have confused and confounded some issues, and at least partially obscured the need for further conceptual development. In

a field of investigation as clearly politically sensitive and contro versial as the financing of public education through the local property tax system, the comparison and analysis of qualitative responses of school finance practitioners and academicians to current concepts, understandings, and issues of pertinence in the field is a logical step toward delineation and resolution of issues. It is truly not difficult to elaborately document the failure of school bond issues over the last decade, nor to explain the signifi cance of grass roots movements such as Proposition 13 as barometers of local willingness and/or ability to pay for public education. Tax

relief is clearly a higher priority than school finance reform, with little doubt that reform will not occur in lieu of property tax relief. State legislators are very aware of this circumstance, and with the notion that voters tend to equate the cost of education with the local property tax rate (Cohen, Levin, & Beaver, 1973, Feldstein, 1975; Levin, 1977; and Odden, 1976). The political implications and distri

butional consequences of school finance reform in the 1970's provide

much data, and much room for further conceptual development in effect ing equalization of funds for equal educational opportunity. This

process involves the identification and application of equal procedural treatments in politically sensitive areas. The dependence of public

school financing on the local system of property taxation greatly impacts distributional parities for funding public education across local subdivisions. Current analysis tends toward the desirability

of financing education apart from rather than a part of a local property tax system. The opinions of practitioners and academicians in the field of school finance may vary markedly regarding concepts, understandings, and issues. It may be that the school finance reform movement of the

1970's represents a further attempt to resolve the libertarian v. egalitarian dilenma as a dominant value conflict in our society (James, 1971). Regardless of this possibility, the efficiency or adequacy of

school financing should not be subject to unresolved questions and inadequate conceptual development in the field. Necessary trade-offs among equity goals are difficult to derive in a public policy context without a professional language that clearly defines terms and provides agreed upon contexts with which to identify alternative policy issues (Berne & Stiefel, 1979; Garms, 1980; Hyman, 1978; Odden & Augenblick, 1980; and Pincus, 1977). Rationale Policymaker, educational personnel, and interest group representa tive questionnaires, polls, and surveys regarding school finance issues

have become increasingly prevalent in the literature.

An opinion

survey, conducted by the School Finance Project of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR, 1981), sampled over two thousand practitioners and policymakers regarding general school finance issues. Of ten groups surveyed, one group of state and local Other groups included

school finance administrators was included.

principals, teachers, school board members, executives, and legislators. Funding was identified as one of the three most important problems of education today by 75 percent of all respondents. A school finance

issues questionnaire, developed by the Educational Commission of the States (ECS, 1980), sampled over 250 state policymakers, educational personnel, and interest group representatives. Respondents answered

a forced choice questionnaire of 36 questions ranking relative importance of school finance issues in the coming decade. Basic school

finance reform and changes in the tax structure for education were reported as the two top education finance concerns for the 1980's. Thorough review of the literature, including a computer-assisted search of ERIC and ESERS document files, has revealed the absence of current data regarding the opinions of school finance practitioners and academicians on current concepts, understandings, and issues of pertinence of financing of the public schools. The opinions of school

finance administrators at state departments of education have not been assessed and evaluated. The opinions of professors of school finance

within departments and faculties of educational administration have not been assessed and evaluated. Interestingly, professors of school

finance, many of whom serve as members of state and/or local school finance committees, are generally not included as policymakers or practitioners in the field. Similarly, the opinions and recommenda

tions of past and current major contributors to the literature in the field have not been assessed and evaluated. Among the critical issues regarding public school financing include applicable free market economic principles and topical areas particular to public education. The incidence of real property tax

revenue in local political subdivisions and the relative adequacy/ inadequacy of this revenue source for financing the public schools are of primary concern. The collection of available revenue and the

allocation of monies in and among local school districts within a state are also significant considerations. James (1961, 1963) noted that

school finance investigators generally ignored free market economic principles, including variable demand for local education attributable to local choice and property tax incidence, and have assumed a universal demand for education. This assumption leads directly to concerns of

equity of financing and equal educational opportunity juxtaposed to variable demand and variable ability to pay at the local level. The relative impact of litigation on the efficacy of school finance reform is also a critical issue of current topical interest. The legal context of the contemporary school finance reform movement began with landmark decisions in California (Serrano v. Priest, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976) and New Jersey (Robinson v. Cahill, 1973). Federal level, and in a 5-4 decision (Rodriguez v. San Antonio At the

School District 1973), education was determined not to be a "fundamental interest" of the federal government. This decision of the U.S.

Supreme Court has not seemed to slow the pace or clarify the directions of litigation in the various state courts. As of December, 1981,

litigation on public school finance had been initiated in 31 states (Education Commission of the States, 1981). Most recently in New York State (Levittown v. Nyquist, 1981, 1982) school finance litigation evolved to include a comprehensive set of school finance issues. This case, affirmed at the appellate

level and reversed by the New York State Court of Appeals (highest court level), begins with the Serrano simple neutrality issue and includes other issues to be considered in equity measurements. Variable costs for special pupil populations, variable purchasing power of the education dollar, municipal overburden (high needs for local noneducation expenditures competing for limited resources), and attendance-based pupil counts (in districts with low attendance-tomembership ratios) are the new equity considerations presented for analysis by school finance academicians and practitioners. The proliferation of judicial review and legislative action, combined with the plethora of quantitative research in public school finance, provides ample justification for qualitative analysis. The

perceptions and opinions of school finance practitioners and academi cians are simply not known and/or perhaps closely held. The develop

ment of a profile of responses of school finance practitioners and academicians to current concepts and issues of pertinence to the

10

financing of the public schools is a logical next step of considerable research value. Significant similarities and differences in the opinions of school finance practitioners and academicians regarding school finance con cepts and issues should be assessed and reported. Such data will be

useful in a field where the major contributors to the literature have identified the need for conceptual development, and which, since its beginnings 75 years ago, has continuously wrestled with the equitable distribution of available fiscal resources. Purpose and Statement of the Problem Purpose. The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the

responses of school finance practitioners and academicians, particular ly including: (1) state level school finance administrators; and

(2) school finance academicians and researchers, to current concepts, understandings and issues of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. Those school finance issues presented for analysis will

include the identification and interaction of school and public finance issues presented in the professional literature as of signifi cance to the process and progress of school finance. The presentation

of contemporary school finance issues in appropriate historical context, and in a forced choice format, is designed to provide specific insight to current conceptual development in the field, and to provide data for comparison of practitioner and academician groups. Statement of the problem. The present investigation provides

evidence helpful in solving the research problems as presented in the following four questions:

1.

To what extent do the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians agree on current concepts, understandings, and issues of pertinence to the financing of the public schools?

2.

To what extent are there discrepancies among responses of school finance practitioners and academicians as to school finance concepts, issues, and understandings presented?

3.

Are there statistically significant differences among responses of these two population samples, regarding their levels of agreement or disagreement with current concepts, understandings, and issues of pertinence to the financing of the public schools?

4.

What are the implications of the patterns of responses of school finance practitioners and academicians, regarding their levels of agreement or disagreement with current concepts, understand ings, and issues of pertinence to the financing of the public schools?

The problem area being addressed directly by this investigation is the currently perceived need for continued conceptual development in the school finance area. Null Hypothesis From the stated purpose and problem, the following null hypothesis has been formulated. There are no statistically significant differences

12

among the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians to current concepts, understandings, and issues of pertinence to the financing of the public schools, as presented in a multiple item forced answer format: H :
Q

X- = Xg
J

0 where ITj = school finance

practitioners and "Xg

school finance academicians. Definition of Terms

The terms included in the statement of the problem and in the stated questions are operationally defined here to clarify their mean ings as intended for the purposes of this study. Definitions for all

school finance terms used in this study and in the school finance survey instrument are in common usage in the area. A glossary of these

terms is included as Appendix M of this paper (p. 344). School finance practitioners: School finance specialists and

administrators at the state level, including department and bureau chiefs, budget officers, legislative analysts, etc., with organiza tional responsibilities for budget preparation and projection, revenue estimation, and fiscal accounting and disbursement procedures. Key

membership in the practitioner group will include Assistant Super intendents of Finance in State Departments of Education. School finance academicians: Professors of Educational

Administration and/or School Finance at colleges and universities with public school administrator training programs. Key membership in the

academician group also includes researchers and policy developers at national level educational policy and/or school finance agencies and organizations (i.e., Educational Commission of the States, Advisory

13

Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Rand Corporation, School Finance Project, etc.). School finance issues: Issues pertinent to the financing of the

public schools, including concepts and definitions of adequacy and equity, and the qualitative and quantitative analysis of such concepts and definitions. Key issues include (1) the ingredients of state aid-

to-education formulae; (2) relationships of equity, efficiency, and liberty considerations; and (3) local, state, and federal governmental relationships and responsibilities. School finance equity: The principle of equity in school finance

includes the answers to four questions (Berne & Stiefel, 1979): (1) Who are the different groups for whom school finance systems should be equitable? (students, parents, taxpayers, teachers, etc.); (2) What services or resources should be equitably distributed? (actual dollars,

physical resources, i.e., teachers/books, price adjusted dollars, etc.); (3) What are the different equity principles to be used to determine fair distribution? (horizontal equity = equal shares per pupil, vertical equity = unequal shares per pupil based on exceptional pupil characteristics, i.e., handicaps/disadvantaged/poverty, equal opportunity principle = relationship-type measures, i.e., property wealth per child/average revenues per child); and (4) How should the degree of equity be measured? (relative adequacy/inadequacy of various dispersion measures). School finance adequacy: The principle of adequacy in school finance includes the determination of expenditures per pupil necessary

14

to provide appropriate instruction, local fiscal capacity and effort, and state and federal aid. Current expanded measures of fiscal

capacity include a combination of property wealth and personal income. A fully funded foundation or equalization state program proportionally supplements local fiscal capacity uniformly measured. With general

equalized state aid and special pupil/special district categorical state aid, both adequacy and equity goals can be addressed. School finance reform: Any recommended methodology for defining

and improving equity and adequacy of public school financing in local districts, including equity measures, distribution formulae, and state systems of financing the public schools. The term also refers to the

changes legally required in state educational finance systems as a result of litigation. Design of the Study Population samples - Method of research. comprise the study sample. Two major groups will

The first major group includes state level

school finance officials (Assistant Superintendent, School Finance Officer, School Budget Analyst, etc.). The second major group includes

professors of school finance at colleges and universities, and other academicians researchers in school finance at regional or national research and information centers. tioner and academician groups. These will be classified as practi

The practitioner group will include

from 40 - 50 respondents; and the academician group will include from 50 -r 60 respondents. State assistant superintendents for school

finance in state departments of education and professors of school

15

finance at colleges and universities with professional preparation programs are the primary target population. The method of inquiry used for this study specifically involves a conceptual issues survey instrument which provides a basis for the comparison and analysis of school finance expert responses. Qualita

tive research is undertaken to gain a clarity of understanding of current thought in the field of school finance and regarding school finance reform. Data collection is designed to facilitate interpreta tion according to political* legal, economic, and educational dimensions impacting the process and progress of school finance through the decade of the 1970's. This is exploratory research designed to find out what

school finance experts think about the issues presented; what differ ences might exist among their responses to current concepts, issues, and understandings; and the significance and implications of patterns of responses. As such, this research is inquiry oriented and highly

appropriate for subsequent validation or rejection of hypotheses (Kerlinger, 1973). Data Gathering - Instrumentation, A nonstandardized school finance

survey instrument has been developed and will be mailed to the two major population groups of the sample. Practitioner respondents have been

selected primarily from the Education Finance Center of the Education Commission of the States' mailing list of key state school finance offi cers. This listing includes state assistant superintendents of school

finance and program and budget directors, analysts, and officers in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Academician/researcher respondents and

16

additional practitioner respondents have been selected from the current American Education Finance Association mailing list of professional membership. Prior to the final selection of survey instrument items, a first listing of school finance statements will be presented for review to a preselection panel of school finance experts. These experts are

nationally prominent and widely published school finance academicians and researchers. Their ratings of the current topical relevance of

school finance statements will provide a perspective of current expert opinion, help focus the content of the survey instrument, and provide insight to the consensus of leadership in the school finance area. The

use of the preselection panel is also intended to simplify data collec tion and increase the percentage of respondents to the survey. panelists will also be asked to suggest other items or areas of interest which in their opinion have not been adequately treated. Instrumentation for the school finance survey begins with a 75 item instrument (See Appendix A, p. 201 ). A group of 12 to 18 expert Expert

preselection panel members rate each item (school finance statement) as high (H), medium (M), or low (L) in current topical relevance. second stage of instrumentation includes the highest rated 55 items (school finance statements) in a second instrument (See Appendix D, p. 222). The two major population groups of the study (40 - 50 school finance practitioners; 50 - 60 school finance academicians) will rate each item on a six point scale representing their level of agreement or disagreement with the concept or issue presented. The

17

This type of rating scale represents an ordinal measure of the underlying continuum of agreement/disagreement for each group. Such

ratings suggest equal intervals (Kerlinger, 1973) and fix a continuum in the mind of the respondent. Therefore-, the assumption was made

that an interval of one exists between each point on the rating scale. As a result, data yielded from the survey instrument meet the require ment for interval data in parametric statistical analysis. Statistical procedures - Data treatment. The SASStatistical

Analysis System (SAS Institute, 1978) will be utilized for computerassisted processing of survey data. ing calculations and data arrays: (1) Frequency, cumulative frequency, percentage, and cumulative percentage of high, medium and low relevance responses of expert preselection panel members to 75 school finance items; (2) Frequency, cumulative frequency, percentage, and cumulative percentage of level of agreement/ disagreement responses of school finance practi tioners and academicians to 55 school finance items; (3) Mean, standard deviation, standard error and variance of preselection panel and practitioner/academician respondents by individual items and subgroups of items; and This analysis includes the follow

18

(4)

analysis of variance and significant differences among practitioners/academicians by individual items and subgroups of items. Survey items with

bimodal and/or atypical frequency distributions will also be reported. All school finance statements will be item analyzed with a variance procedure for the academician and practitioner groups. Significant items will be treated independently and as related to each other according to the five identified item subgroups. Threats to

internal validity will be controlled through the use of the mean in data analysis. Threats to external validity (multi-x interference)

are of limited concern owing to the fact that data treatment revolves around the statistically significant responses of groups rather than individuals (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The desired outcome of the

present investigation will be to determine what school finance practitioners and academicians agree or disagree with, or are neutral or uncertain about, regarding current concepts, understandings, and issues pertinent to the financing of the public schools; and to determine significant variances in response by item and by group of items between two specified major groups. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study. Research for this

study has been designed to permit comparison and analysis of responses of school finance practitioners and academicians to current concepts, understandings, and issues. Each practitioner/academician respondent

will provide his/her level of agreement/disagreement with 55 survey

19

items.

Analysis is limited to levels of relevance and agreement,

significant differences of responses, and bimodal distributions. The use of a nonstandard!'zed data gathering instrument has required certain statistical treatments and analyses. Findings are

limited to those statements appropriately made as a result of a commercially available statistical analysis package and other standard procedures. Standard sources of error include sampling error,

statistical misapplication or error in analyses, and a nonstandardized instrument. Significance of Research The significance of qualitative research in school finance begins with its infrequency when compared to a plethora of quantitative research on the equity and efficiency of public school financing systems. There is a need for more attention to the conceptual ground This investigation will further a

work (Berne & Stiefel, 1979).

conceptual framework for equity analyses, as reflected in the responses (opinions) of practitioners and academicians in the field. of equity is one of egalitarian principle. The issue

Long before the school

finance reform of the 1970's, it was recognized that "no amount of empirical quantitative research in school finance would ever settle the ancient and often bitter dispute about the egalitarian and the libertarian dilemma that has been perhaps the dominant value conflict in our nation from its beginnings" (Hickrod, 1971; James, 1961). This

investigation will provide a current baseline for egalitarian/liber tarian response analysis which could serve subsequent research.

20

This research will also provide data on the differences between the responses of practitioners and academicians on items and groups of items in the school finance issues survey instrument. The possible

significance of this data includes the development of a basis for the measurement of change in the variance of response among practitioners and academicians, i.e., baseline data for a longitudinal research study. Significant differences in responses between practitioners and

academician groups pertaining to current concepts, understandings, and issues provide insight to current inequities and inadequacies in state school financing systems. The decade of the 1970's was extremely active for the field of school finance; "the 1980's will also be vibrant, but a new set of issues and changing politics are likely to arise" (Odden, Augenblick, & McGuire, 1980). The responses/opinions of school finance practi

tioners, analysts, and/or reform activists at state education agencies, national education organizations, and other advocacy and professional organizations,regarding the progress and status of school finance at the outset of the 1980's, is an appropriate contribution to an exten sive empirical literature. There appears to be considerable room for

exploratory and qualitative research in the school finance area. Research implications and training implications which currently are not in evidence will be considered as significant results of this investigation.

Chapter II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The review of the literature is presented in two major sections: (1) The History and Social Context of Public School Finance and Public School Finance Reform; and (2) Concepts, Issues, and Understandings of Pertinence to the Financing of the Public Schools. of school finance is multi-dimensional. The literature

The principles of school

finance, local control, state support, and federal intervention (through both legislative and judicial actions) extend from the early work at Columbia University (Cubberly, 1905, 1916; Strayer & Haig, 1923); through the literature of equity (Coons, Clune, & Sugarman, 1970; Levin, 1973, 1977; Wise, 1968); and to the equity and other consequences of the school finance reform movement of the 1970's (Berne, & Stiefel, 1978; 1979; Friedman & Wiseman, 1978; Odden, Augenblick, & Vincent, 1976, 1980). The first section of this review

will trace the evolution of thought into policy and evaluation of school finance procedures since the turn of the Twentieth century. This includes ample research in quantitative formulae for the measurement and distribution of thorough and efficient expenditures for publicly supported and operated elementary and secondary education. The development of formulae for the distribution of state and local funds for education is fairly extensive (Cubberly, 1905, 1916; Garms,

1979, 1980; Johns & Morphet, 1952, 1961, 1975; Morrison, 1924, 1930; Mort, 1924, 1933; Mort, Reusser, & Polley, 1950; Strayer & Haig, 1923 Swift, Fletcher, & Harper, 1922; Updegraff, 1922). As is generally

recognized in the field, the work of H. Thomas James and his students at the University of Chicago (1958, 1961, 1971, 1980; with Alan & Dyck, 1963; and with Kelly & Garms, 1966) provides a substantial base for academic inquiry in the school finance field and has been extensively referenced. The equity and efficiency variables in school finance, as identified by James in 1961 and 1963, are reviewed in the context of the school finance reform efforts of the 1960s and 1970s. Since

James' research, many equity and fiscal response studies have been completed (Aaron, 1974; Adams, 1979, 1980; Barro, 1972, 1974; Berne & Stiefel, 1978, 1979; Carroll, 1979; Carroll, Cox, & Lisowski, 1979; Carroll & Park, 1979; McClure, 1977; Netzer, 1966; Odden & Vincent, 1976; Vincent, 1979; Vincent & Adams, 1978). With the search for

school finance equity consequences well under way, Jencks (1972) and others questioned the efficiency of educational expenditures notwith standing inequities in financing. Others include Jarvis and Gann who

as forerunners of the nation-wide property tax reform movement, clarified the political limitations of school finance reform, and focused the school finance equity needs of the taxpayer group. The first section of this review also includes treatment of federal legislation with significantly impacts school finance and its many equity considerations (P.L. 88-352, The Civil Rights Act of 1964

23

P.L. 89-10, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), and of significantly related state and federal court decisions: Brown v.

Board of Education, 1954, 1955; Hobson v. Hansen, 1967, 1971; Levittown v. Nyquist, 1982; Mclnnis v. Shapiro, 1968; Robinson v. Cahill, 1973; Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 1973; and the pivotal decisions of Serrano v. Priest, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976. The

identification of trends and issues establishes a pattern of inquiry from which school finance expert opinion in the literature and the field can be assessed. The second section of this review identifies and investigates the importance of current concepts, issues and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. These include: (1) the

definition and measurement of equity; (2) the relationships of property tax reform and school finance reform; (3) public opinion and political support of public schools; (4) local, state, and federal responsibility for the financing of the public schools; (5) the provision of equal education opportunity; (6) free choice and privatization; and (7) the importance of school finance policy and procedural issues. It is from this section that empirical data selected to facilitate further conceptual development has emerged. The History and Social Context of Public School Finance and Public School Finance Reform The Origins of State School Finance Theory Ellwood P. Cubberly (1905) was the first to develop a theory of state support for school finance and the first to apply equality as a

24

uniform criterion to school finance support systems.

The following

quotation, which has often been cited in the literature, represents the conceptualization of state responsibility for the provision of elemen tary and secondary education: The state owes it to itself and to its children not only to permit of the establishment of schools, but also to require them to be establishedeven more, to require that these schools, when established, shall be taught by a qualified teacher for a certain minimum period of time each year, and taught under conditions and accord ing to requirements which the state has, from time to time, seen fit to impose. While leaving the way open for

all to go beyond these requirements the state must see that none fall below (p. 16). As James (1961) has observed, Cubberly's investigations assumed an equal demand or local preference for education, indicated in the follow ing passage from James' original study: Cubberly's investigation, clearly premised on the assumption of a universality of demand for education, led him to the conclusion that the state should distribute funds to local schools in such a way as to equalize "the burdens and advantages of education." Subsequently Cubberly and others, notably Strayer and Haig (1923) contributed to the development of a mechanism for implementing the policy of equalization-the foundation program (p. 19).

25

Recognizing the unequal distribution of wealth, as reflected in varying property tax yield, Cubberly applied the concept of state support to the necessity of apportionment and equalization of state school funds as follows: Theoretically all the children of the state are equally important and are entitled to the same advantages; practically this can never be quite true. The duty of the state is to secure for all as

high minimum of good instruction as is possible, but not to reduce all to the minimum to equalize the advantages to all as nearly as can be done with the resources at hand; to place a premium on those local efforts which will enable communities to rise above the legal minimum as far as possible; and to encourage com munities to extend their energies to new and desirable undertakings (p. 17). Cubberly further recognized in 1905 that few states had developed "a just and equitable plan for distributing the funds at hand" (p. 253). Based in part on the "thorough and efficient system of education" clause in many state constitutions, some of the earliest educational acts of the states involved the equalization of educational opportunity. As Burke (1956) has noted, over two-thirds of the states were already making grants to poorer subdivisions by 1925 (p. 396). Strayer and

Haig (1923) stated that "equalization of educational opportunity" meant

"equalization of school support," "prescribed minimum standards," and raising: . . . the funds necessary for this purpose by local or state taxation adjusted in such manner as to bear upon the people in all localities at the same rate in relation to their taxpaying ability . . . (p. 174). Strayer and Haig also called for the provision of supervision and control for all the schools through a state department of education. Paul R. Mort (1924), a student and colleague of Strayer at Columbia University, first proposed the measurement of the need for fiscal support for a "satisfactory minimum program." His concept of "weighting" for pupils with exceptional learning characteristics, and his identification of the elements to include in a minimum program remain significant variables in current methods of determining fiscal neutrality. He also advanced the idea of the basic funding unit, the

"instructional or teacher unit" for state support of public education. What has become known as the Strayer-Haig-Mort foundation program is a result of a sequence of thought which emphasizes local initiative/ effort/control and which tends to equate local self government with democracy itself. A lesser known school finance theorist, Updegraff (1922) had also developed concepts of state support based upon fundamental local support of public education. He advocated a variable level

foundation formula, unlike the Strayer-Haig formula, and like Cubberly, combined equalizing and incentive criteria within the same

27

formula.

His model for state support was later used by Coons, Clune,

and Sugarman (1970) in the development of power equalization formulae. Power equalized or guaranteed yield formulae replaced Strayer-HaigMort foundation programs in a number of states during the 1970's. Among the principles of state support proposed by Updegraff (1922) are included the following: The purpose of state aid should not only be to protect the state from ignorance, to provide intelligent workers in every field of activity, and to educate leaders, but also to guarantee to each child, irrespective of where he happens to live, equal opportunity to that of any other child for the education which will best fit him for life (p. 117). James (1971) has noted that perhaps the most pervasive value in the school finance literature is equality. Cubberly (1905) made a

useful distinction between equality of educational opportunity and equality in the burdens of taxation required to support schools. While uniform state-administered tax programs equalize the tax burdens to support education, equality of educational opportunity has not been historically realized by uniform state grants per pupil. further concluded the following in 1971: . . . after my studies of state school finance done earlier in this decade were completed, I concluded that the variations in levy rates were probably as great after fifty years of effort to equalize them James

28

as they were when Cubberly first studied them in 1905 (p. 5). . . . n o amount o f empirical quantitative research i n school finance would ever settle the ancient and often bitter dispute about the egalitarian and the libertarian dilemma that has perhaps been the dominant value conflict in our nation from its beginnings. The full state fund

ing of elementary and secondary education would be a long step to the egalitarian side (p. 10). The origins of state school finance theory reflect the development of formulae and programs for state support of local public education, while the mainstream of research and academic thought has tended to emphasize the importance of local control (libertarian) over uniform state-wide equalization (egalitarian). Equity for taxpayers at the

local level, then as now, seems to have mitigated equal educational opportunity for all pupils regardless of where they live in a state. Musgrave (1959) has clarified the dilemma from a public finance point of view through the classification of education as a "merit preference" rather than as a "social preference." Social preferences,

for example, national defense, are assumed to be diffused and possessed by all citizens. Merit preferences, for example, education, are

desired and possessed by "only a select number" of the population. Assuming a universal demand for public education ignores state alloca tion of available resources among competing programs and services and

29

continues to make equalization of educational opportunity and educa tional revenues a difficult and continuing process. (1961) provides a pertinent summary of the issue: Early students of school finance chose to treat educa tion in the context of social preferences, thereby assuming that demands for education are universal, an assumption generally unacceptable in public finance theory. Furthermore they often insist on the view Again James

point that education is a unique branch of government, to be supported through decisions made separately from decisions on support of other services of government. Public finance investigators, on the other hand, generally view education in the context of merit preferences, are unable or unwilling to deal with the data available from school finance studies, and argue for balancing out preferences for education along with preferences for other public programs. Somewhere in the

relatively unexplored structure of underlying values that shape demands for education probably lie some data which, when revealed, will provide new insights for both groups of investigators (pp. 17-18). Equality and Adaptability The criterion of equality pervades school finance theory and includes the following assumptions:

30

1.

There is or should be a universal demand for elementary and secondary education (Cubberly, 1905).

2.

States should equalize the variable burdens and advantages of public education by proportioning and distributing funds to local subdivisions (Strayer & Haig, 1923).

3.

Standards for equal educational opportunity are logically based upon a prescribed minimum program for each student, including elements and "weightings" for exceptional learner characteristics and dis advantaged pupil populations (Mort, 1924; Mort, Reusser, & Polley, 1950).

The criterion of adaptability is generally considered as the second major concept in school finance theory. Mort and his students (1924, 1950) first recognized that local public demand for educational services was widely variable. Emphasis on local control was viewed

as a positive safeguard against excessive uniformity and as an impor tant element of adaptability, local choice, personal freedom, etc. 1950, Mort, Reusser, and Polley stated as follows: . . . our whole emphasis on local control and operation of schools had as a very important purpose of potential contribution to adaptability. This is what people meant In

when they said that local control and support encouraged experimentation. These measures embolden communities

to try new ways of meeting newly emerging problems (p. 207).

Pittinger (1925) used the terms "principle of equalization" and "principle of stimulation" for equality and adaptability and indicated the polarity or contradiction they posed for state school finance systems. These are the essential themes in the development of school

finance literature. Until the beginnings of the "Age of Equality" with the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the equality/adaptibility criteria have been straddled by Strayer-Haig-Mort type foundation programs. Although Updegraff

(1922) had earlier proposed variable ratio foundation plans which attempted to reconcile the criteria, the almost universal adoption of Strayer-Haig-Mort type formulae precluded further attempts until the beginnings of the school finance reform efforts of the 1950's and 1960's. With the research of Wise (1968) and Coons, Clune, and

Sugarman (1970); and with the Robinson v. Cahill (1973) and Serrano v. Priest (1971, 1974, 1975, 1976) state supreme court decisions in New Jersey and California, the legal and conceptual groundwork for the development of new procedures to reconcile the criteria was reaffirmed. James (1958), in his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Chicago, suggested that "the success of the foundation program has come, not from equalizing among local units the costs of education borne by the property tax, but as a device for the allocation by state legislatures of the costs of schools among several revenue sources" (pp. 19-20). This is to say that state legislatures, having recognized

what school finance theorists have not, that public demand for educa tion is variable rather than universal, have tended to use foundation

32

programs as an optional revenue source to assure adaptability/local control first and equality/equalization second. This would account

for continuing disparities in the funds available to support education at local levels within a state, notwithstanding numerous attempts at reform and multiple measurements of equity. Local Control and Individual Worth The mainstream of school finance literature has consistently valued and emphasized the importance of local control of education. Although it seems that libertarian viewpoints logically might correlate with valuing local control and that egalitarian viewpoints logically might correlate with a state controlled and equalized school finance system, the ubiquitous acceptance of local adaptability has consis tently precluded this recognition. A decided minority, notably Swift,

Fletcher, and Harper (1922) and Morrison (1924, 1930) have thought of this "localism" as excessive. Swift (1922) comments:

That as a nation we are failing to provide thousands and thousands of prospective citizens with the educational opportunities essential to individual and national intelligence, morality and welfare is only too evident . . . after fifty years of support by local taxation, we find ourselves in an educational situation marked by economic and educational inequalities . . . it would seem that the time has arrived when we should undertake to ascertain whether or not a thoroughgoing modification, perhaps, indeed a complete reversal of

33

our traditional policies of school support may not be necessary. May not the solution of our financial

difficulties lie in shifting the burden in such a manner as to make the proper portion of its weight rest upon the state rather than upon the local comnunities (p. 3). Given the current professional consensus of school finance reform, it may be that Swift's comment is as timely in 1982 as it was in 1922. Henry C. Morrison 0924, 1930) has been referred to as the forgotten theorist of public school finance. In his major text,

School Revenue, published in 1930, he made the following three major observations: 1. There were great inequalities of wealth among school districts that caused great inequalities in educational opportunity. 2. Constitutionally, education was a state function and local school districts had failed to assure the efficiency and equity of elementary and secondary education within the various states. 3. State equalization funds such as from the Cubberly-Updegraff-Strayer-Haig-Mort axis of thought would continue to fail to meet educational needs. Morrison (1930) proposed a model of state support in which all local school districts are abolished and the state becomes the unit for

taxation and administration of the public schools.

He further

suggested that the income tax rather than the property tax was most equitable for state school financing. Clarifying Morrison's contributions as a school finance theorist, James (1961) comments as follows: Morrison argued against vesting excessive discretion in the local district. Like Swift, he saw the impor

tance to the nation of the education of its youth, and felt that the well-being of the individual was of greater importance to the nation in the long run than the doctrine of local control (p. 26). Anticipating present and future charges of paternalism, Morrison stated as early as 1924 that: He who decries as paternalistic effective concern on the part of the state for the education of all of its youth is little aware how nearly neglect and fiscal inequality touch interests which he holds most dear. In the end, the poor schools are traceable to inadequate local support, to untrammeled localism, to the fatuous belief that a fiscal system appropriate to pioneer days can with non-essential changes be applied to the economic and political conditions of the twentieth century (p. 59). Morrison identified the polarity or contradiction between local control and individual worth, simultaneous to Updegraff's identification

of the polarity or conflict between the equality and adaptability criteria. Although neither theorist's ideas were particularly well

accepted when introduced in the 19201s Mort (1950) later recognized Updegraff's contribution to possible reconciliation of the equality/ adaptability conflict. Current district power equalization formulae

as recommended by Coons, Clune, and Sugarman (1970) and as interfaced with state supreme court actions such as Serrano v. Priest (1971) and Robinson y, Cahill (1973) are actually rediscoveries of Updegraff's variable ratio foundation plan. This clear emphasis on individual worth, for individuals and for the nation, remains tangent to the mainstream of American political thought, particularly with reference to the primacy of local control. Johns and Morphet (1975), in their third edition of what many consider to be the basic school finance textbook, have conmented as follows: Morrison's ideas on state school finance were not well received. At that time, great emphasis was being given In fact, local

to local initiative and local home rule.

self government was almost equated to democracy itself in the political thought of Morrison's time. The Cubberly-

Updegraff-Strayer-Haig-Mort axis of thought was in the mainstream of American political thought and, therefore, widely accepted. However, the defects that Morrison

saw in local school financing are as evident today as in his time. Furthermore, educational opportunities are

far from being equalized among school districts within

most states, and there is more complaint about the inequities of local property taxes for schools than ever before. It is interesting to note that, in recent years, Hawaii has established a state system of educa tion with no local school districts that is similar to the model advocated by Morrison (p. 215). The individual worth of the educated individual to the society generally, and to the local civil community particularly, is signifi cant. When the primacy of local control discriminates against

equitable funding for individuals in one subdivision when compared to another, the process of equal educational opportunity is confounded. The economic decline and racial polarization of urban communities can be attributed at least in part to the unresolved dilemma of equitable state school financing systems. James, Kelly, and Garms (1966) made

the following rather bleak assessment, which was requoted by James (1980) in his foreword to the First Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association: In our society the educated are capital assets to a community, and the uneducated are liabilities. As

long as a city has empty spaces within its boundaries, it matters little that educated citizens who are able to win social and economic privileges move out to the edges of the city and those who cannot remain at its core. It is when the educated cross the boundary and leave the city, subtracting their productive skills and capital wealth from the pool of the city, and adding

37

both to another civil division, that the city is weakened. If for each educated person it loses,

the city must accept in exchange an uneducated person, then as long as that pattern of change persists the decline of the city is inevitable (p. 16). Given the current status of the adequacy and equity of school financing, a need for continued conceptual development is emergent. In a generally recognized major explication of the concepts of equity and their relationship to school financing plans, Berne and Stiefel (1979) commented as follows: This paper emphasizes the need for continued conceptual development of the ways in which policy tools affect different kinds of school finance equity. No empirical

work is presented, in part because it is the author's perception that, at this point, relatively more attention should be paid to the conceptual groundwork (p. 109). Since the conceptual groundwork in school finance theory through the early 1950s is complex and multi-faceted (See Figure 1, p. 38), it may be that a process of rediscovery as well as discovery will effectively address the need for further conceptual treatment. As indicated in Chapter I, the empirical work of this paper provides a basis for the identification of current expert opinions and values regarding school finance concepts and issues. These opinions

and values, as reported, will represent and reflect a current

1900 FRIEDMAN L.

GARHS TRON

JORDAN FORBIS IN \

WISEMAN

'KEOUN MGENBLICK

ODDEN

BERNE STIEFEL

CARROLL BARRO FEDERAL CONTROL (EQUAL PROTECTION)

1980

JENCKS 1970

COONS CLUNE SUGA

VINCENT BERKE GUTHRIE ALEXANDER

THOMAS

FEDERAL STIMULATION (TAX CREDITS)

1960 MUSGRAvE

BENSON

FRIEDMAN M (VOUCHERS)
1950

JAMES (LIBERTARIAN/EGALITARIAN DILEMMA) Johns MORPHET (SYSTEMS ANALYSIS)

DOMAIN

LOCAL
1940
COKTTOL

OF STATE CONTROL

1930

1920

MORT (WEIGHTING) (SATISFACTORY MINIMUM) PITTMERENDING UNITS) STRAVER-HAIG UPDEGRAFF (FLAT RATIO FOUNDATION PROGRAM) (VARIABLE RATIO FOUNDATION PROGRAM)

(FULL STATE ASSUMPTION) (ABOLITION OF SWIFT LOCAL SCHOOL FLETCHER DISTRICTS) HARPER (PROPER PORTI OF HEIGHT ON STATE RATHER LOCAL COMMUNITIES)

IMTJSON

1910

CU8BERLV (STATE RESPONSIBILITY)(UNIFORM CRITERIA) (LOCAL |NCENTIVES)

1900

EGALITARIAN!

Figure 1.

A Chronology of Public School Finance Theory

conceptual framework, what Guthrie (1980) refers to as the "inter action between value streams." The juxtaposition of these value

streams within the contemporary school finance parameters of equity, efficiency, and liberty have significant predictive value for subsequent developments in the continuing evolution of school finance reform. Legislation and Litigation, 1950-1980. Guthrie (1980) has observed, regarding recent school finance history, that the time periods from 1955-65 and 1965-75 have been referred to as "Age of Equality" and the "Era of Efficiency". He

further comments that "such tidy separations, however expedient, are overly facile and meaningless", believing the inaccuracy and over simplification of such a division "masks the kaleidoscopic tensions that interact continuously to shape and reshape America policy" (p. 5). Although considerable attention has recently been

given in the literature to school finance litigation, and to state legislative changes in aid-to-education formulae, relatively little information is available regarding Federal legislation which establish es educational rights and authorizes educational expenditures. While in Rodriguez v. San Antonio Board of Education (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that education is not a fundamental right, there are a number of groups guaranteed educational services as a matter of Federal legislation. In light of this, the following subsection provides a

brief description of pertinent educational rights and compensatory/ supplementary funds legislation enacted by the U,S.Congress and signed into law by the President since the 1950's.

40

Legislation 1. Service Men's Readjustment Act of 1954. Public Law 78-346.

Known commonly as the G.I. Bill of Rights, this act provided tuition allowances and other expenses for higher education for veterans of the U.S. Armed Services. The legislation

functioned as a modified educational voucher plan, providing tuition, fees, and living expenses for programs of higher education and/or advanced training approved by the Veteran's Administration. 2. National Defense Education Act of 1958. Public Law 85-864.

Known commonly as NDEA, this act was passed primarily in re sponse to a demand for scientific and technological excellence to "catch up with the Russians", who had successfully launched "Sputnik I, the first unmanned earth satellite, in 1957. NDEA

provided funds for the purchase of scientific equipment by elementary/secondary and higher educational programs, and for experienced teacher and advanced scientific summer and academic year institutes. 3. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public Law 88-352.

This act, primarily a legislative response to the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954 broke new ground in two areas of pertinence to school finance equity. First,

Section 601 prohibited federal funding for any programs, agencies, or activities in which there existed practices of racial discrimination; and second, the act authorized exten sive social science research to assess equal educational

41

opportunity.

The very controversial Coleman Report Socio-political

was the product of this research.

reverberations included bussing and its various back lashes, not the least of which remains a significant decrease in local willingness to pay the rising costs of public education. 4. Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. Public Law 89-10.

Known commonly as ESEA, this multi-billion dollar com pensatory education program provided massive doses of funding for school districts with high percentages of families and children at and below the poverty level. Although many states shrewdly equalized and adjusted ESEA comparability requirements to accommodate the influx of new funds, ESEA monies directly impacted inequities in education dollars at the local level, and actually has be come a compensatory supplement to inadequately funded state foundation programs. The basic authorization also

includes provisions for compensatory funds for two special pupil populations: institutionalized handicapped students (as amended by P.L. 89-313); and institutionalized dependent/ neglected/delinquent youth (as amended by P.L. 88-675). All of the above funding specifications are included under what is known as ESEA Title I. Other titles of the legislaauthorized expenditures and provided funds for library and instructional materials (Titles II and IV), for innovative and exemplary model programs (Title III), for handicapped

42

student education services (Title VI, later to become P.L. 94-142, The Education of All Handicapped Act of 1975), and for research and dissemination activities. 5. Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1973. 93-112. Public Law

This legislation is the civil rights act for handi

capped citizens, and includes requirements to prevent dis crimination against the handicapped in employment, in the design of buildings (archietectural barriers), and in the provision of elementary and secondary education, Any agency

receiving Federal funds must comply with the provisions of the legislation or be subject to becoming ineligible for receipt of those funds. The significance of this legislation,

in addition to fiscal penalties for discrimination against the handicapped by public school systems, is the precedent established in the guarantee of educational rights at the Federal level to a specific population of students. In

effect, educational services as specified for this population become a fundamental right as guaranteed by Federal law. 6. Education of All Handicapped Act of 1975. Public Law 94-142.

This legislation is the educational rights act for handicapped children of legal school age, and includes requirements to prevent discrimination in evaluation, placement, and provision of instructional services. Funding is authorized at a fixed

per pupil rate based on authorized levels of expenditures and the numbers of identified handicapped students submitted each year to the Federal government by the states. Specific

43

requirements include multiple criteria for evaluation and placement, testing in the native language (of the home) or mode of communication, parent participation and due pro cess requirements, individualized educational planning, placement in the least restrictive environment (mainstreaming), and a full and appropriate special education program for all handicapped students in need of such service. This legisla

tion is the programmatic companion of P.L. 93-112, and pro vides the basic guarantee of educational rights for a specific population of students; a fundamental Federal right, as required through enacted legislation.. Litigation This subsection includes a topical listing of court cases related to school finance but not directly involving fiscal litigation. Also

included is an 11 page figure (Figure 2, pp. 48-58), a state-by-state summary of all adjudicated and pending school finance litigation up to and including the June 23, 1982 reversal of the New York State Appellate Court decision for the plaintiff by the New York State Court of Appeals (the highest state court). This particular case, Levittown v. Nyquist

(1982), along with Mclnnis v. Shapiro (1970), Serrano v. Priest (1974, 1976), Robinson v_. Cahill (1973), and Rodriguez v, San Antonio Board of Education (1973) are considered the cornerstones of the judicial reform movement in school finance and are treated in detail in the concluding section of Chapter II. Other adjudicated and pending school finance cases, and a state-by-state listing of equalization approaches, are also included in Figure 2.

44

The cases listed and described here, analogous to the legis lation previously described, represent related educational rights which have been identified for certain classifications of students and under certain conditions. Taken together, these cases represent

the beginnings of a formidable body of "judge-made law" (as former Supreme Court Associate Justice Benjamin A, Cardozo would say) which may point to a logical and eventual recognition of education as a fun damental right for all children of legal school age in a free and democratic society. 1. Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954), 349 U.S. 294 (1955). Although no direct relationship between

school finance policy and "de jure" segregation exists, the Brown case significantly heightened social consciousness re garding inequities in public schooling. court was clear and unmistakable. The language of the

With Associate U.S.Supreme

Court Justice Hugo Black's opening statement, "Haddock v. Haddock is hereby overruled", the power of "stare decisis" (the primacy of legal precedent) was set aside. "Separate but

equal is inherently unequal" for any public school pupil au gured a new thrust for equal treatment/equal opportunity for a new suspect classification. 2. Hobson v. Hansen. (DDC 1971). 265 F.Supp. 902 (DDC 1967), 327 F.Supp. 844

Spending disparities within the Washington, D.C.

School District were determined to be discriminatory regarding a "tracking" system where black students were separated from white students and spending for teacher salaries, etc, was

45

considerably higher in white student tracks. The Honorable Judge Skelly Wright held this procedure to be a violation of equal protection. 3. Mills v. Board of Education. 348 F.Supp. 866 (DDC 1972).

This case was similar to Hobson (above) in that a violation of equal protection was found because of spending disparities and unequal educational opportunity because of tracking. In Mi 11s, however, the suspect classification was the handicapped student population, found to be inequitably segregated into programs where expenditures and services were not comparable to those provided for nonhandicapped peers. 4. Keyes v. School District No. 1. 40 LW 5002 (Colo. 1973)

The Keyes case applied the separate but equal/unequal rule of Brown on a "de facto" as well as a "de "jure" basis. Southern

School Districts could not legislate separate programs by race; and northern school districts could not just let it happen in neighborhood schools in all black and all white communities. 5. Lau v. Nichols. 414 U.S. 564 (1974).

The Lau case determined that non-English speaking children would be discriminated against if tested, provided curriculum, and taught exclusively in other than their native language, i.e. the primary language used in the home. 6. Plyler v. Doe. 50 LW 4650 (Texas, June 15, 1982).

The Phyler case determined that illegal alien children, as "innocents", could not be denied the free public education offered to other children within a school district. This

46

decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, based on equal protection, seems to improve the credibility of strict scrutiny as an ap propriate test. Further discussion of the possible future

significance of this legal development, and its relationship to Serrano, Robinson, and Rodriguez cases, is included in the review of school finance reform following Figure 2. 7. Wolman v. Walter. 12 Cal. 3d 417 (1977). The Wolman case is

significant it that it tends to protect the rights of a some what ubiquitous group of school age citizens. Leading up to

the Plyler decision, the previous cases are connected by a common thread; equal protection against unequal exclusion, tracking or programming for a distinct minority group, i.e. black, Hispanic, handicapped, etc. In Wolman, a degree of

equal protection is extended to a percentage of eligible school age citizens (app. 10%) who happen to attend private schools. The case affirmed the right of disadvantaged, minor

ity, or other chidren who are eligible for educational revenue, e.g. ESEA Title I, P.L. 94-142 funds, by affirming the right of private schools to receive these funds for their pupils who qualify. It is an egalitarian thread that binds these cases together. The juxtaposition of the Rodriguez v. San Antonio Board of Education (1973), and Plyler v. Doe (1982) bears notice. Supreme Court decided that: The need is apparent for reform in tax systems that may have relied too long and too heavily on the local In the Rodriguez case the U.S.

47

property tax, but the ultimate solution must come from the lawmakers and from the democratic processes of those who elect them (p. 17). In other words fiscal inequities in school finance do not represent a denial of equal protection because education is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under the U.S. Constitution. In the Plyler case, the exclusion of a population of children from the benefits of public education (however inequitably they may be applied at the local level) was ruled to be a denial of equal protection. The influence of Brown might be inferred here, affirming

non-segregation and non-exclusion, even with illegal alien children. Apparently the fact that this class of children might receive an unequal educational opportunity even if they were permitted to attend public school extends beyond the purview of the equal protection pro vision. The implication is clear that, while the U.S. Supreme Court

tends to protect the educational rights of minority group pupils and of pupils subject to improper exclusion or segregation, the court will not tend to interpret education as a fundamental interest of the federal government. Short of a constitutional amendment or a drastic

reversal of "stare decisis" (legal precedent) as in the Brown decision, the matter is left primarily for the states to individually resolve.

State

Equalization Approach

Specifications

Litigation

Findings

Alabama

Foundation

$18,000 (average) support bud geted per teacher unit plus an amount not to exceed $2,630 per teacher unit for current expenses other than salaries. RLE = 7 mills. State guarantees a minimum of $38,590 per instructional unit.

None

Alaska

Foundation

Tobeluk v. Lund, 1975.

Settled by consent decree, Sept. 1976. Agreement stipulates that coflinunities must provide a local public school for children. State Supreme Court decision that school finance system was constitutional. This is a suit alleging the Minimum Foundation Program to be unconstitutional. Case Mas tried. On October 26, 1981, circuit court ruled in favor of plaintiffs but gave no deadline for the establishment of a new school finance systeai. Serrano I: Reversed lower court remanding case for trial on the facts, ruling that,if facts are correct, then equal protection Is violated (ig71). Serrano II: Reaffirmed trial court action; upheld equal protection denial on state grounds (1976). Challenged constitutionality of state school finance sys tem. District court ruled for plaintiff (1980). Supreme court upheld state finance system, reversing alstrict court action (1982).

Arizona

Foundation

Block grant program, base level of $1,536.45 per student count. Each district receives an amount of foundation aid equal to the aid it received in the base year 1978-79.

Hoi1ins v. Shofstall, 1973.

Arkansas

Foundation

Alma School District No. 30 v. DuPree, 1977.

California

Both

Guaranteed revenue for 1981-82 1s based on the district's state and local revenue received in the 1980-81 fiscal year. This amount is equalized and inflated at an average of 8%. $53.37 per mill per pupil in ADA.

Serrano v. Priest (I S II), 1974 and 1976.

Colorado

Guaranteed Tax Base

Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education.

OO

Figure 2.

State-by-State Summary of Equalization Approaches and School Finance Litigation

State Connecticut

Equalization Approach Guaranteed Tax Base

Specifications

Litigation Horton v. Mesklll, 1974.

Findings Superior Court found school finance system violated state constitution. Upheld on appeal by the State Supreme Court 1n April, 1977. Plaintiffs have returned to court.

GTB is based on the wealth of the town at the 95th percentile. Grants to towns will be based ' on each town's property/income ratio.

Delaware

Guaranteed Tax Base

$2,827 per unit on a percentage equalizing basis; minimum state share is 101 ($283), maximum state share is 90% ($2,544). Foundation level Is $1,238.99 per weighted FTE pupil.

None

Florida

Foundation

Bay County et al. v. Dept. of Education and 3 districts, 1974.

Challenged district cost adjustments as being In viola tion of uniformity provision of the state constitution. The case was withdrawn. On Jan. 7, 1981, Superior Court ruled Georgia's school finance system unconstitu tional, being in violation of the state's equal protection clause. November, 1981, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision stating that since education Is not a fundamental right under Georgia's constitution, the school finance system is not 1n violation of the state's equal protection clause. Plaintiffs are expected to file for a re-hearing.

Georgia

Both

Based on instructional units for projected ADA. State aid averages $999 per ADA.

Thomas v. Stewart, 1974.

Hawaii

Foundation

Hawaii is the only state in the union with a single unified public school system. The legislature and the governor exercise fiscal control over all expenditures for public education.

None

P U9

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

State

Equalization Approach

Specifications

Litigation

Findings

Idaho

Foundation

$22,970 per support unit. Local contribution equals .25X of the district's assessed valuation for the prior year. Districts receive general aid from one of three formulas, whichever provides the greatest amount. Districts receive 102% of prior year's total operating budget from a combination of state and local revenues plus $55 per current ADM. $1,494 per pupil. RLE 20 mills. District is guaranteed a yield of an approved cost per pupil when its local contribution is 1.593X of its wealth.

Thompson v. Engleking, 1975.

State Supreme Court decision: "education finance system Is constitutional."

Illinois

Both

Blase v. State of Illinois, 1973.

State Supreme Court held that constitution requires the state to assume, as a goal, primary responsibility for financing education.

Indiana

Foundation

None

Iowa Kansas

Foundation Guaranteed Tax Base

None Knowles v. State Board of Education, 1975. State Supreme remanded this viously ruled trial court. proceedings. Court has case, pre moot, to the No further

United School District No. 229 v. State of Kansas, 1976.

Challenges several pro visions of the Equalization Act. Case has been dismissed due to changes In the school finance law. Court of Appeals mandated department of revenue to use "fair cash value" or 100( of market value for property assessments.

Kentucky

Both

Teacher salary support from $11,930 to $19,140 per class room unit (27 ADA) plus $3,570 per unit for other current expenses.

Board of Education of Jefferson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1974.

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

in

State

Equalization Approach

Specifications

Litigation

Findings

Louisiana

Foundation '

$12,969 per teacher (average) based on a state salary schedule. RLE = 5->s mills.

Home and the Jefferson County School Board v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 1976.

Plaintiff's conplalnt con tends that property tax ratio study was defective and that state equalization funds were not equitably distributed. Judgoent in favor of defendent. Suit challenges the state's imposition of a uniform property tax. Plaintiffs were cited for contempt for noncompliance with the law on Aug. 6, 1975. A statewide referendum on the Issue held in December, 1977 rejected the statewide property tax. Case challenges the equal pro tection of the Maryland Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The suit maintains that Maryland's current system falls to provide a "thorough and efficient system of free public schools." In May, 1981, trial court held Mary land school finance system unconstitutional. The suit challenges the school finance system, declaring that it discrim inates against propertypoor school districts. Case Is currently under delibera tion In the State Supreme Court.

Maine

Both

$1,173 (statewide average expenditure) per elementary pupil. $1,515 per secondary pupil.

Boothbay vs. Longley, 1975.

Maryland

Foundation

$1,017 per pupil. RLE = .5781 of property valuation and taxable income.

Somerset County Board of Education v. Hombeck, 1979.

Massachusetts

Foundation

Weighted pupil program based on actual annual amount per FTE pupil for operating costs.

Hebby v. King, 1978.

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

State

Equalization Approach

Specifications

Litigation

Findings

Michigan

Guaranteed Tax Base

Flat grant of $360 per pupil plus plus $50.55 per mill per pupil for each mill of operating tax levied. $1,333 per weighted pupil in ADM. RLE = 23 mills. $18,593 average per teacher unit including salary and support services. $1,333 per pupil. RLE - 16.9 mills plus 57% of intangible taxes and 57% of fines, forfeitures and escheats. $54,000 per pupil, a level that includes 872 of students. $899 per elementary pupil, $1,281 per high school pupil, mandatory state levy of 25 mills for elementary, 15 mills for high school. Foundation program guarantees $90.87 per pupil In ADM kindergarten, $181.75 per pupil in grades 1-6, $218.10 In grades 7-8, and $254.45 in grades 9-12. Between $1,557 and $3,110 per weighted pupil. RLE = 1.5 cent sales tax.

Millikin v. Green. 1973

Minnesota Mississippi

Both Foundation

None None

State Supreme Court In 1972 held a constitutional Impair ment existed regarding state school financing formula. Action rescinded without coranent in 1973, apparently pending conversion to a guaranteed yield formula.

Missouri

Both

Missouri-NEA v. Tax Count, et a), 1975.

Challenges unequal property assessment. Pending.

Montana

Both

Hoodahl v. Straub, 1974.

Decision that property tax and revenue above foundation amount belongs to state.

Nebraska

Foundation

None

Nevada

Foundation

None

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

State New Hampshire New Jersey

Equalization Approach Foundation Both

Specifications $912 (average) per pupil in ADM. Chargeback: 14 mills. Two alternative calculations, whichever provides the greater aid: (1) A tax base of $158, 854 per pupil; (2) A "minimum aid" tax base is guaranteed (11.5 times state average valuation per ADM.). None

Litigation

Findings

Robinson v. Cahill, 1973.

State Supreme Court decision that school system violates "thorough and efficient" clause of state constitution. On Jan. 30, 1976, the court held that full funding of S1516 would make it consti tutional on its face. Complaint alleges that the school finance system enacted 1n 1975 deprives plaintiffs of a "thorough and efficient" education since per pupil revenue dis parities in 1981 are greater than they were in 1973. Challenges counting AEC (now DOE) funds as local revenues. Lower court ruled for Los Alamos and an appeal to the circuit court was heard In November, 1976. Decision of Circuit Court reversed decision 1n favor of state. Appealed to U.S. Suprem Court. Denied hearing; case won by state.

Abbott v. Burke, Feb. 5. 1981.

New Mexico

Foundation

$1,405 per weighted pupil in ADM. RLE = 4.000 nonresi dential and .5 mill residential plus federal impact aid (PL 874).

Los Alamos School Board v. Harry Hugalter et al., 1975.

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

State New York

Equalization Approach Guaranteed Tax Base

Specifications Two-tiered percentage equalizing formula. The state provides 49% of approved costs for average wealth dis trict up to $1,650 per pupil. The state provides 20% of the difference between $1,650 and $1,885.

Litigation Levittown v. Nyquist, 1974.

Findings Challenges school finance system as violating equal protection and education clause of state constitution. Lower court decision In June,1978 ruled in favor of plaintiffs. On Oct. 26, 1981, the appellate division of the state Supreme Court upheld all aspects of the 1978 ruling. On June 23,. 1982, the Court of Appeals (highest court in New York) reversed the appellate decision and held a "denial of equal protection" had not taken place.

North Carolina

Foundation

Teacher support between >12,390 and $20, 630. Additional support for administrative personnel and teacher aides. RLE = none. $1,425 per weighted pupil In AOH. Chargeback: 20 mills. A guaranteed yield program which assures districts that levy 20 mills, the yield of a school district with an equi valent of $48,000 per pupil. State aid makes up the difference 1f yield is less than $48,000. If local districts levy more than 20 and less than 30 mills, the guaranteed yield is set at the equivalent of $42,000 per pupil. GTB applies to basic aid only. Vocational education, special education and other categorical aid programs are on unequalized flat grant.

None

North Dakota Ohio

Foundation Guaranteed Tax Base for Basic Aid and Foundation Flat Grant for Categorical Aid

None Board of Education of the City School District of Cincinnati v. Halter, 1976. Plaintiffs claimed system violated "thorough and efficient" clause and "equal protection and benefit" clause of Ohio constitution. Trial court upheld plantlff's claim; appellate court upheld plaintiff's claim on "equal protection" argunent only. Ohio Suprene Court upheld the state system, finding that "local control provides a rational basis supporting the disparity 1n per pupil expen ditures In Ohio's school districts.

.B

in

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

State Oklahoma

Equalization Approach Both

Specifications $616 per weighted ADA. Percentage equalizing of 5 mills (between 15 and 20).

Litigation Ford v. Winters. 1977.

Findings Challenges the constitution ality of the state school aid formula on the ground that such aid is distributed on the basis of unequallzed assessment ratios. Supreme Court declined jurisdiction in the case. No further pro ceedings. On Feb. 27. 1981. District Court upheld a motion to dis miss the case in which the plaintiffs alleged that the method of financing schools in Oklahoma 1s unconstitu tional because it fails to guarantee an equal education opportunity to all pupils in the state. Plaintiffs claimed that school finance system was ineffective in equalizing district spending. State Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's earlier decision against the plain tiffs staring that state's objective In maintaining local control outwelghted interest in educational opportunity.

Fair School Finance Council v. Oklahoma, 1980.

Oregon

Foundation

For 1980-81, approved expenditures up to $2,085 per unweighted year end AOM for the previous year. Each district receives 30% of its approved expenditures as a basic grant.

Olsen v. Oregon, 1976.

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

State

Equalization Approach

Specifications

Litigation

Findings

Pennsylvania

Both

Lesser of actual instructional expenditure (AIE) per weighted pupil in ADH or a reimburse ment maximum determined by the level of local tax effort on a percentage equalizing basis with the state share 502 in an average wealth district, minimum of 152.

O'Donnell and Hilkes-Barre Area School District v. Casey, 1978.

Plaintiffs allege that the state's current funding system violates the due process protections guaranteed under the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Petition denied. Court ruled the complaint a legislative matter.

Rhode Island

Guaranteed Tax Base

State support based on 1022 of the approved expenditures of second year preceding year of appropriation distributed on a percentage equalizing basis; minimum state share 302. $986 per weighted pupil In ADH. $17,985 per classroom unit. RLE = 18 mills on nonagricul tural property; 13 mills agricultural property.

None

South Carolina South Dakota

Foundation Foundation

Hone Oster v. Kneip, 1977. Challenges the constitution ality of the state's mining* foundation program under the "thorough and efficient" and "general and uniform" clauses of the state constitution.

Tennessee

Foundation

State provides 902 of the funds for the foundation pro gram. Product for weighted pupils in ADA times state wide average foundation pro gram cost times district training and experience factor.

None

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

State Texas

Equalization Approach Foundation

Specifications State provides salary support of $15,000 (average) per per sonnel unit, current operating expenses of $200 per student, categorical progral aid and transportation services. $1,003 per weighted pupil unit. RLE = 23.25 mills. State guarantees $17 per weighted pupil unit per mill to each of the first 2 mills and $4 per weighted pupil per mill for an additional 8 mills. State aid distributed on a percentage equalizing basis The percent of expenditures aided varies from year to year based on funds appro priated by legislature. $1,185 per pupil. Required local yield is equal to the excess of basic operating costs over revenues from 13! state sales and use tax. An average of $21,000 per certificated staff person based on state salary schedule which incorporates weighting factors for experience and training.

Litigation San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 1973.

Findings Supreme Court ruled that wealth-based discrimination in education expenditures does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution.

Utah

Both

None

Vermont

Guaranteed Tax Base

None

Virginia

Foundation

None

Washington

Foundation

Seattle School District No. 1 v. State of Washington, 1975.

Argues that constitutional provision "paramount duty of state to provide education" requires state to fully fund basic education. On Jan. 14, 1977, Superior Court found the foundation plan unconsti tutional. Supreme Court affirmed decision in Sept. 1978.

Figure 2

(Cont'd)

Equalization

State Hest Virginia

Approach Foundation

Specifications Teacher salary support from $11,655 to $20,754 beginning FY 1982. Service personnel salary support from $674 per month to $1,282 per month.

Litigation Pauley et a]., et al., 1975. Kelly

Findings Contends school finance system violates "thorough and efficient" and equal protection clauses of state constitution. State Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20, 1979 that education is a funda mental right, but made no definitive judgment whether the current system 1s "thorough and efficient." Supreme Court reversed the dismissal challenging the constitutionality of the state's school finance statutes. The case has been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs. The city of Milwaukee then filed Kukor, Brodrek, and Milwaukee v. Thompson cases. Plaintiffs challenging the constitution ality of the state's school finance statutes on grounds that it neglects additional fiscal burdens of large city school districts. Case challenges state's school funding system on grounds that it fails to pro vide all students In the state with an equal educational opportunity. Supreme Court ruled the state's funding system unconstitutional, remanded the case to trial court for jurisdiction and gave until July 1, 1983 for remedy.

Wisconsin

Guaranteed Tax Base

For that portion of expendi tures up to 110% of 2nd-prioryear state average ($2,253), the guarantee on prior-year cost is $231,000 per pupil for K-12 school districts.

Tooley v. 0'Connell, Hay, 1977. Kukor et al., Brodrek et al., and Milwaukee et al., v. Thompson et al., October, 1979.

Hyovfng

Both

$37,300 per classroom unit. RLE = 10 mills (grades 1-12 district) plus revenue from 12-mill county levy and state Land Income Fund. Statewide average valuation per unit minus district valuation per unit times 17 mills times the number of units (for districts at maximum levy).

Washakie County School District No. 1 v. Herschler, 1979.

in Figure 2. State-by-State Summary of Equalization Approaches and School Finance Litigation (Adapted in part from: School Finance At A Glance - 1981. A Wall Chart of the Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, 1981)
00

59

Concepts, Issues, and Understandings of Pertinence to the Financing of the Public Schools The Politics and Process of Public School Finance Reform Legislative recommendations regarding reform of state aid formulae for purposes of equalization tend to anticipate local constituent rather than statewide needs. For the most part legislative interpre

tations of school finance reform have resulted in district power equalization formula based on the negative standard of fiscal neutral ity. The politics of interaction surrounding the Serrano v. Priest

decisions seems to have limited the application of formulae to Serranotype fiscal neutrality measures. As Guthrie (1980) noted:

. . . the major medium of reform was the judicial system (Hargrave 1970). On occasion, a court case was not itself

necessary: the threat of a well-formulated suit was suffi cient to trigger legislative or executive consideration of reform . . . (pp. 10-11). The negative standard of fiscal neutrality remains obscure and difficult to measure adequately. As such it is invisible to public

scrutiny and subject to implementation that is legalistic rather than based on the intent of legislation or procedures. The careful applica

tion of sophisticated fiscal accounting procedures can legally reorient the fiscal impact of any change in reporting of required expenditures. Friedman and Wiseman (1978) proposed a more evolved definition of conditional fiscal neutrality which includes weightings for pupils with special learning characteristics. Despite the technical upgrading of the

fiscal neutrality definition,, state administrators could still assure

60

fiscal accounting reports and requirements included flexibility so legislative and gubernatorial policies would not be significantly affected. Cohen, Levin, and Beaver (1973) and Levin (1977,1979) have extensively treated the political limits of school finance reform especially with reference to perceived needs for property tax relief and limitations on local spending. Political and economic power was

moving out of the cities and reform came slowly to urban schools. Given this backdrop, school finance reform at state executive and legislative branch levels has been extremely complex and confusing, and with urban/rural and regional preferences/conflicts. Required costs of equality mixed freely with the need to balance the state budget. Given

the state representional system of our republic, concentrated urban ares would be expected not to fare well in this political arena. If density aid (a federal subsidy) could be subtracted from estimates of local per pupil expense, then federal funds requirements for "Hold Harm less" or nonsupplanting could be legally reduced in determining reimburseable excess cost (for special pupil populations, i.e. handicapped, neglected/delinquent/institutional!zed, ADC families, etc.). Not only

is this very confusing and so difficult to understand, but it is barely visible to the public eye, and as such, subject to much bureaucratic control and manipulation. Reactions to the Coleman Report, commissioned through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were indicative of the politics of equality. Why

spend money to correct documented fiscal inequity when Coleman's data indicates it won't do any good (Jencks, 1972)? As Guthrie (1980) notedj prevailing opinions regarding reform have been extremely negative;

61

. . . perhaps existing school finance inequities are harmless. Why bother to reform a system that was in

flicting no damage; why not let it bumble along . . . (p. 9). In 1967, James C. Coleman noted a particular complication to the provision of equal educational opportunity: . . . a residential drift, concentrating high income families into certain school systems, and low income families into others . . . (p. 9). At the time the author was treating the issue of local control of educa tion as social policy. In another paper that same year, he further noted: . . . equality of educational opportunity among different populations depends upon two distinct variables: the

distribution of effective school resources, and the intensity of those resources relative to the unequal distribution of out-of-school resources (p. 14). Coleman postulated that equal educational opportunity was an ideal concept and as such, impossible to attain. It was then, hardly appro priate to speak of the equality of educational opportunity, but rather the amount of inequality measureable and amenable to correction, through policy and procedures development. Eleven years later, speak

ing to the use of the social sciences in the development of public policy, the author notes: Research results in education will be more valuable to and more widely used by those without decision-making authority, than by those with such authority (p. 17).

62

School finance reform has usually been interpreted to require forms of district power equalization. The reason for this is to permit fiscal neutrality to be measured by the court. Notwithstanding the court order, those with authority (adminstrative, legislative) have other constituencies, and their own values as well. The concept of fiscal neutrality, established to provide the courts with a measureable way to identify the relative relationship of per pupil expenditure to school district wealth, fiscally applied through various district power equalization formulae, simply has not been effective in improving disparity. Carroll (1979), in a five state

study (California, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, & New Mexico) has concluded: Reforms in these five states have not dramatically reversed, or even shifted the relationships that originally gaye rise to reform efforts . . . that correspond better to fiscal efforts, or correspond better to wealth ... (p. 16). The reasons for this failure of reform include some confusion about the nature of judicial requirements. Friedman and Wiseman

(1978) have concluded that the Serrano decisions themselves are ambiguous and inconsistent. We believe that the power equalization principle that equal tax efforts should result in equal expenditures is in consistent with simple wealth neutrality (p. 200). Since state legislatures have interpreted district power equal ization as more than a policy recommendation in Serrano-type decisions, the new condition of equal tax rates associated with equal

63

expenditures tends to confound designs for equity, by complicating the task, and by permitting the development of guaranteed yield programs amenable to add-on or adjustment through legislative authority. In few reported cases throughout the literature reviewed has any legislative modification to the guaranteed yield or district power equalization formula resulted in improved equity design. In an

eight state study (California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Oregon), Cohen, Levin, and Beaver (1973) identified the following political aspects of school finance reform: . . . tax relief is a higher priority than school finance reform, particularly as perceived by legislators ... . . . the primary problem of school finance reform is increasing and equalizing revenue while providing local property tax relief . . . . . . the political pressures surrounding the issue of school finance reform are diverse and considerable, and it is critical not to underestimate their effects . . . (p. 20 - 21). State legislatures then and now have perceived the school finance reform movement as a mechanism for local tax relief with maintenance of local control, and not as a mechanism for providing equal educational opportunity. Feldstein (1975) has clarified the legislative motive: . . . Voters tend to equate the cost of education with the local property tax rate; i.e. the school tax rate with the price of education . . . (p. 78).

64

The regressivity of the property tax under the conventional view, demonstrated by Odden and Vincent (1976) in a four state study (Connecticut, Minnesota, Missouri, and South Dakota), clearly places the local tax burden disproportionatley upon low income families. Whether in property-rich or property-poor school districts, legislator response to constituency at the local level predictably equalizes equalization. Gubernatorial postures have also tended to be responsive

to tax relief rather than reform parameters (Cohen et al., 1973). As the issue of local control tends to effectively prevent the equitable distribution of revenue for education throughout the school districts of any state, through legislative response, so also does the issue of local/state rather than federal responsibility for education tend to effectively prevent the financing of equal opportunity education, through judicial action. The paradox of school finance

reform includes the recent decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in Cincinnati v. Walter. the court has held: . . . that it was inappropriate to interfere with the General Assembly's determination of what constitutes a thorough and efficient system of schools . . . . . . that in Rodriquez v. San Antonio, the U.S. Supreme Court denial of relief under the equal protection and benefit clause was binding on the Ohio Supreme Court ... (p. 26). As in a number of states (notably New Jersey, where a second round of school finance reform seems to have begun; School Finance News, 1982) with new guaranteed yield plans, Ohio has completed legislative provision In its reversal of the Court of Appeals decision,

65

and judicial response to the equity issue, and with less equity in school finance across school districts than in 1970. Committee of Twenty (1979) has concluded: There are strong arguments in favor of replacing the guaranteed yield plan, regardless of the outcome of the court case ... (p. 17). Notwithstanding this recommendation, the missing incentive of legislative leadership to accomplish subsequent reform reduces the possibility of and course of action by state government which involves the diversion of property tax revenue from the local to the state level. The findings of the Ohio Committee of Twenty are also germane to the twenty-two states which enacted reforms in school finance systems, and to those states where no specific legislative or judicial action has occurred. As Carroll has indicated: Reform has brought about The Ohio

. . . results have been mixed.

some advances . . . growth in district revenues . . . increasing state-wide total spending . . . but judged in relation to the major goals that the proponents of reform have championed, the scattered victories of reform appear somewhat hollow (p. 6). The juxtaposition of the following two conclusions from both the Committee of Twenty and the Carroll studies is illustrative of the political dilemma to date: the tilt of the guaranteed yield toward districts with higher mi11ages has aggravated the problems of revenue

66

disparity.

The guaranteed yield plan also did not eliminate

the inherent advantage that school districts with high property value per pupil have over property-poor school districts (p. 8). Poor childrenor, more accurately, districts serving dis proportionate numbers of poor childrenhave not fared well in the wake of reform, in comparison with their higher income counterparts . . . Reform has not much affected the distrib ution of revenues between poor and rich children, while the tax rates levied by disproportionately poor districts increased relative to those levied by districts serving higher income populations (p. 6). Dichotomies of fiscal neutrality and equalization have favored local control of reported expenditures. Seen as "alternative paths converging on the same goal of equity," Carroll (1979) has concluded:

. . . local control over budgets and tax rates is the price of equalization, and revenue and tax disparities are the price of fiscal neutrality (p. 3-4). Feldstein (1975) and Reichauer and Hartman (1973) have noted that the addition of the fiscal neutrality factor is also unrelated to equity. Computation of simple fiscal neutrality also assumes the equal distribution or revenue within school districts, by ignoring the evidence of unequal distribution regardless of whether or not exceptional learner characteristic are weighted. Levy, Meitsner,

and Wildansky (1974) have cited this assumption, and the consequences of violating it as important matters for continuing research. Recent

U.S. Supreme Court and Federal District Court Decisions have estab lished inequities in expenditure and unequal educational opportunity for different suspect groups, i.e. handicapped pupils, pupils in separate tracks, non-English speaking pupils; all within individual school districts, and unaccomodated by any form of district power equalization. The eligibility of private schools, serving ten per

cent of all eligible pupils, for certain educational revenue from state and local sources has also been raised. At the beginning of this review, Coleman's definition (1967) of the variables impacting equality of educational opportunity, i.e. distribution of resources in schools, and intensity of resources relative to unequal distribution of out-of-school resources was postulated. It is in good evidence that fiscal neutrality, as understood, defined, and acted upon by the legislatures and the courts, and even in cases where some improvement has occurred, bears little relationship to equality of educational opportunity for pupils in general, and may negatively correlate with educational equality for poor and/or exceptional pupils in particular. The political implications and distributional consequences of school finance reform in the decade of the seventies provide more food for thought than the actual consequences of the reform movement, particularly in effecting equalization of funds for equal educational opportunity. It appears we may be just discovering how to identify and apply equal procedural treatments to politically sensitive issues, at least in this area. Recent studies tend to indicate that;

(1) where distributional patterns of inequity/disparity exist in

68

property tax structure; (2) where attempts have been made to resolve the problem through a change or adjustment in the state financing formula; and (3) where local control has been perceived as threatened; then (4) reform has been vigorously resisted and diluted from a variety of sources for a variety of reason (5) changes in state financing formulae have sometimes compounded the problem; and (6) (6) property tax reform vs. school finance polarization has occurred. Notwithstanding the inconsistencies and contradictions of the school finance reform process, in depth analysis reveals emerging themes which indicate amelioration of significant disparities over time. themes: 1. General aid has been strengthened; general operating equalization programs have been broadened and strengthened. 2. 3. State funding has consistently increased. There is increased equity; school finance reforms have increased the equity of school finance structures. 4. Expanded fiscal capacity; new methods have been developed to expand the measure of fiscal capacity of local school districts beyond just property wealth per pupil. 5. A dramatic expansion in the level of state support for high cost programs for various special pupil populations, as well as an increase in the number of state programs for these students. Odden, Augenblick, and McGuire (1980) have identified seven

69

6.

Formula adjustments and factors have been designed for school districts with special needs, to assist school systems with particular district related characteristics.

7.

Tax and expenditure limitations are increasingly being incorporated into new formulae and revised rules and regulations (in about two-thirds of all states).

Directions through the eighties, with declining enrollment a decided advantage, seem twofold (1) basic reform of school finance procedures, formulae, and rules; and (2) basis reform in the tax structure to support local educational services on an equitable state wide basis. Research in educational finance is:evolving beyond

the necessary quantitative research toward qualitative analysis of what our preferences for public education actually are, toward a perspective of societal needs. As Johns and Morphet (1960,1975) have

indicated in the preface to their second and third edition standard school finance text: Sound political and educational finance policies have facilitated desireable changes in educational programs and services, but unsound policies have either prevented or greatly retarded many needed improvements in educational opportunities . . . It has now become apparent to serious students of school finance that educational finance policies have such a criti cal influence on every educational service and program provided, on the national economy, on the welfare of individuals, and even on the welfare of the nation itself,

70

that educational finances cannot be studied adequately in isolation from the total social system . . . (p. ix). Certain vital issues are in need of resolution for the effective progress and process of public school finance for the remainder of the twentieth century. Morphet (1975): How can personal and partisan political considerations be minimized and attention to the needs of the nation and its citizens be maximized in the process of arriving at major decisions relating to education and provisions for its financial support (p. 59)? The Legal Basis for Equity in Public School Finance and its Relationship to Equal Educational Opportunity Five court cases have been selected and identified as the corner stones of the judicial reform of school finance movement. These are Perhaps the primary question is posed by Johns and

(in order presented): (1) Mclnnis v. Shapiro (1970); (2) Serrano v. Priest (1971,1976); (3) Robinson v. Cahill (1973); (4) Rodriguez v. San Antonio School District (1973); and (5) Levittown v. Nyquist (1982). These are the cases that have opened and closed the doors, established the precedents, and which provide the basis for further legal develop ment and evolution. These cases, taken together with the civil rights

and educational rights legislation previously reported (Service Men's Readjustment Act (1954); National Defense Education Act (1958); Civil Rights Act (1964); Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965); Vocational Rehabi1itation Amendments (1973); and The Education of All Handicapped Act (1975); see pp. 40-42), and with civil and educational

rights litigation previously reported (Brown v. Board of Education) (1954); Hobson v. Hansen (1971); Mills v. Board of Education (1972); Keyes v. School District No. (1973); Laji v. Nichols (1974); Plyler

y_. Doe (1982); and Molman v. Walter (1977); see pp. 44-46), form the basis for this legal inquiry and analysis. 1. Mclnnis v. Shapiro. 293 F.Supp. 327 (N.D. Illinois, 1968).

The Mclnnis case was based upon inequities in the Illinois State school finance system. A three judge panel in federal

district court decided in favor of the state (defendant), indicating that no equal protection need existed for equal spending and that the remedy sought by plaintiffs was not judicially manageable. The significance of Mclnnis is that it shaped subsequent plaintiff strategies toward outcomes the courts could measure. The utility of the Coons, Clune, Sugar-

man principle of fiscal neutrality (1970), which measured the equality of fiscal inputs, rather than the difficult-to-assess "equal school outcomes" position of Mclnnis plaintiffs, was thereby established. 2. Serrano v. Priest. (1976). 96 Cal. RPTR. 601 (1971); 18 Cal 3d 279,

The Serrano case is the most famous, most complex, and The case itself

most telling school finance reform litigation.

spanned eight years (1968-1976), produced a number of trial court opinions, and two state supreme court decisions. The following sequence of steps represents the major turning points and findings of the litigation: a) Plaintiffs file in Los Angeles County in 1968, suing the State Treasurer because the California legislature is

72

immune from suit. Defendent files for a demurrer, saying that even if plaintiffs facts of fiscal inequity were correct, that no law was being violated. Lower court con curred with the defendants and an appeal was filed. b) The California Supreme Court held in 1971 that the lower court had erred, and that, if plaintiff's facts were correct, both the California and U.S. Constitutions had been violated. The case was remanded to lower court for trial on the facts. c) This is the Serrano I decision.

During trial litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Rodriguez case against the plaintiffs, disallowing the use of equal protection for school finance reform in federal court. In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court said the

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution did not apply. Since the original Serrano opinion rested the findings of facts in part on a violation of equal protection as a U.S. Constitutional guarantee, part of the basic for subsequent findings was removed.by the Rodriguez decision. d) Los Angeles Superior Court held in 1974 that the California system of school finance was a violation of the state constitution, because of the states equal protection clause, and that education was a fundamental interest guaranteed by the state constitution. Court. e) The California Supreme Court in 1976 reaffirmed trial court action. This is the Serrano II decision. Defendant appealed to the Supreme

73

3.

Robinson v. Cahill.

62 N.J. 473, 303A.2d 273 (1973).

The uniqueness of the Robinson case is that plaintiff relief from an inequitable school finance system is based on grounds other than equal protection of state or federal constitutions. The New Jersey State Constitution, as with most other states, has a clause which requires the legislature to establish a "thorough and efficient" system of education throughout the state. Many states have copied or paraphrased the language

of the New Jersey Constitution as one of the first in the thir teen original colonies. The court reasoned that thorough and

efficient meant equal educational opportunity, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case on appeal. Thus

the basis for school finance reform as a component of equal educational opportunity was established without the need for a denial of equal protection. Education was a fundamental

interest of the state regardless of whether inequities in funding and distribution were tantamount to a denial of equal protection on either state or federal constitutional grounds. 4. Rodriguez v. San Antonio School District. (W.D. Texas 1971), 411 U.S. 1, 58 (1973). 337 F.Supp. 380 The Rodriguez

case developed in Texas with a state school system with similar disparities and along similar judicial patterns. The one key

difference was that plaintiff relief in Rodriguez rested solely on the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and not on state fundamental interest/equal protection grounds as in Serrano. After an initial decision in favor of

the plaintiffs in federal district court, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that "education is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Constitution." This has effectively closed the door to school finance lawsuits at the federal court level, shifting and maintaining litigation within each state's judicial system. Rodriguez clearly under

cut part of the basis for Serrano (federal equal protection) and substantially slowed the process of judicial reform in public school finance. Further, the court used a standard

of review traditionally employed by the judiciary instead of the strict scrutiny ordinarily required in matters of consti tutional analysis. This permitted a majority of the justices

to say that the Texas school finance system, regardless of how inequitable, is operated and implemented on a "rational basis". As such, strict scrutiny was not required, and the court, after noting some apparent inequities,concluded that "the considera tion and initiation of fundamental reforms with respect to state taxation and education are matters reserved for the legislative processes of the various states." Levittown v. Nyquist. 94 Misc. 2d 466 (1978), Opinion No. 317 The uniqueness

(New York Court of Appeals, June 23, 1982).

of Levittown is its highly evolved and comprehensive treatment of a number of pertinent school finance issues. The litigation

was based on both state and federal equal protection provisions, and on the thorough and efficient state education clause. In addition to the standard Serrano fiscal neutrality argument

75

that expenditures per pupil should not be subject to local property wealth, issues which were more easily translatable into state aid formula components were specifically addressed. These included: a) Educational Overburden - the needs of special pupil populations, the necessity for school finance systems to relate to special pupil needs, and accommodation for school districts and regions with disproportionately high percentages of special needs pupils. b) Purchasing Power - the cost variation caused by variations in purchasing power of the education dollar across school districts and regions. c) Municipal Overburden - the interaction between municipal and school finance and the need for formula accommodation for school districts and regions with extraordinarily high needs for noneducational essential services. d) Attendance Overburden - the use of an attendance-based pupil count for state aid purposes discriminates unfairly against school districts with low attendance-to-membership ratios, a factor essentially beyond the local control of a school district. On June 23, 1982, the New York State Court of Appeals (highest court) reversed the Appellate level decision in the Levittown case and found that no violation of equal protection of either state or federal constitution had occurred. The final decision

of Levittown in New York State joins with state court decisions

76

in Arizona (Hollins v. Shofstall 1973); Idaho (Thompson v. Engelkinq 1975); Oregon (01sen v. State 1976); Ohio (Cincinnati 2L* Walter 1978; Pennsylvania (O'Donnell & Wilkesbarre SD v.. Casey 1978); Georgia (Thomas v. Stewart 1981); and Colorado (Lujan v. Board of Education 1982), upholding constutitionality. Johns and Morphet (1975) concluded the following in their comments regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rodriguez: The ruling of the court on Rodriguez no doubt slowed school finance reform. However, the rulings of state courts on

school financing will no doubt continue to bring pressure for improvement of school financing. But the greatest pressure

for school finance reform will no doubt come from public en lightenment on school finance, which will produce an electorate demanding equality and equity in school financing (p. 272). The legal basis for equity in school finance is in doubt. Declining

enrollments and an enlightened public are generally accepted as the most positive developments in the improvement of fiscal inequities and inadequacies in public education. Pioneers in public school finance

reform have turned to libertarian alternatives such as voucher systems. President Reagan in!982 recommended a tax credits plan for parents who elect to send their children to private schools, further undercutting support for public education. In the face of the Levittown decision, the politics of school finance seems to have quietly precluded the politics of school finance reform. As was slowly learned in attempts to develop legislative

responses to Serrano and Robinson decisions, as was documented by study committees and commissions in other states such as Ohio, even

when the cure was upheld, implementation often proved worse than the disease. It is possible that previous attempts to revise state aid formulae in response to or concurrent with litigation, and the failures of those efforts in states such as New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan were in part considered by the Levittown Court in reaching decision. The relationship of equity in school finance to equal educational opportunity can be clearly inferred from the following further comment on the matter by Johns and Morphet (1975): Often appropriate educational opportunities are lacking due to insufficient funds, ineffective leadership, indefensible procedures, or programs that do not meet the needs of many of the students . . . There are wide differences in financial support for schools and wide variations in educational opportunities. The place of residence of a student has considerable significance for his educational progress. Discrimination presumably is illegal

or is at least indefensible. Yet discrimination based on place of residence, social or economic status, and even racial origin is still practiced and condoned in many parts of the country (p. 16). Without equity in school finance across all school districts, pupils protected in one school district by the actions of Brown, Hobson, the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc. may not receive the same or adequate degree of protection in another. It is a direct relationship. Without

equity in school finance, there is not equal educational opportunity. The political realities and exigencies of the school finance reform

78

movement make it perfectly clear that pupils do not "have the vote", and that public schooling may not be considered the preferred educational choice of our nation's leaders. It is logically difficult

to reconcile the action of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rodriguez with the action of the New York State Court of Appeals in Levittown. Where

lives the responsibility or the redress? Where does the byck stop? What is the democratic value of equal educational opportunity? and should it be guaranteed by law? This is not to ignore or deny the progress made in school finance reform as reported by Odden (1980) and noted earlier (p. 68). It mcy be that education is not logically a fundamental right guaran teed by the U.S. Constitution, and is a right logically guaranteed by State Constitutions, Courts, and Legislature. It may be that school finance equity will once and for all be achieved through what seems to a complex process without a direction. The legal basis for assuring Can it

this achievement remains confused and in doubt. In the face of con tinued inequities and disparities, to the extent the inevitable decline of the city (James, Kelly, and Garms, 1966) tends to produce an Edwardian urban underclass of children and adults and more children, Thomas Jefferson has commented: I am not an advocate of frequent changes in laws or consti tutions but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more devel

oped, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep

79

pace with the times.

Me might as well require a man to

wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors (from the-wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., courtesy of The National Park Service Brochure, 1973). The point striven for here is, nowhere is education treated as a capital asset; nowhere is education as a public priority and public necessity identified. Musgrave (1959) has proposed a merit preference basis for education at the local level. James (1961,1971) has shown It is clear

that tax paying ability determines the social preference. then what might be next realized.

The declaration of public education

as a social preference, a good for one and all, an investment in the future of our country, an internal Marshall Plan and Child Bill of Rights. The need for conceptual development about what education

is and how it can be supported in a free and democratic society may never be greater. The Honorable Jacob Fuchsberg, in dissent from the

majority in Levittown has summarized what seems the crux of the matter: In any meaningful ordering of priorities, it is the impact education makes on the minds, characters, and capabilities of our young citizens that we must find the answer to seemingly unsoluble societal problems. In the long run, nothing may be more important and there fore more fundamental to the future of our country. Can it be

gainsaid that, without education there is no exit from the ghetto, no solution to unemployment, no cutting down on

80

crime, no dissipation of intergroup tension, no mastery in the age of the computer. Horace Mann put it pragmatically

that education is not only "the great equalizer of men", but by alleviating poverty and such societal costs, more than pays for itself . . . (p. 2). . . . I n fine, poor children, as well as rich, and the nation of which both are a part, are entitled to an education that prepares today's students to face the world of today and to morrow. Those who took and tolled the testimony tell us that,

by any standard that counts, for the multitudinous many no such educational opportunity exists ... (p. 10). Well prepared cases such as Levittown have provided comprehensive sets of issues of pertinence to school finance which become part of ongoing policy and procedures development in the school finance arena. The judicial reform movement in public school finance has stimulated change, growth, and development. The decade of the 1980's may prove

to be a new time of transition, reconceptualization, and attention to the task of assuring equal educational opportunity for our children. Commenting on a public crisis in confidence in the schools in 1971, James A. Allen has provided a durable bit of wisdom: We have the capability to make our schools more responsive to the concerns, old and new, of our times and thus more responsive to our needs. . . . What is justifiably in doubt, however, is our will to accomplish this aim (p. 19). The nonpartisan will of our state legislatures, with federal help, is a very necessary capability.

81

A Proposed Conceptual Framework for School Finance Policy Criteria The development of school finance policy criteria emerges from a central theme or focus for policy development and implementation. In keeping with what has been indicated, that progress in school finance might be a process of rediscovery as well as discovery, a theme of equalization is identified. Strayer and Haig (1923) provide

the description of record from "The Financing of Education in the State of New York": There exists today and has existed for many years a movement which has come to be known as "the equalization of educational opportunity" or "the equalization of school support." These phrases are interpreted in various ways.

In its most extreme form the interpretation is somewhat as follows. The state should insure equal educational

facilities to every child within its borders at a uniform effort throughout the state in terms of the burden of taxation; the tax burden of education should throughout the state be uniform in relation to tax-paying ability, and the provision for school should be uniform in relation to the educable population . . . Most of the supporters of this proposition, however, would not preclude any particular community from offering at its own expense a particularly rich and costly educational pro gram. They would insist that there be an adequate minimum

offered everywhere, the expense of which should be considered a prior claim upon the state (p. 173).

82

The theme is therefore equalization of educational support, a position difficult to refute logically in support of public education in a free and democratic society. Berne and Stiefel (1979) in their

analysis of equity concepts and their relationships to state school finance plans have identified five school finance plans: 1. 2. 3. Guaranteed tax base, Percentage equalizing, Foundation with local supplementation from local district's own base, 4. Foundation with local supplementation from guaranteed tax base add-on; 5. Full state assumption {p. 127);

Within the equalization theme, concepts of equity as further addressed by Berne and Stiefel questions: 1. Who are the different groups for whom school finance systems should be equitable? 2. What services, resources, or more generally, objects should be distributed fairly among these groups? 3. What are the different equity principles that can be used to determine whether the distribution is fair? 4. 5. How should the degree of equity be measured? How are equity conceptions related to other school finance goals such as efficiency or adequacy? 6. How, in a public policy context, are choices among the equity goals made, and how are tradeoffs among the equity goals determined? (p. 110). include but are not limited to the following

83

Johns and Morphet (1975) have taken an additional step and provided ten correlations between values and funding models: 1. If one believes that educational opportunities should be substantially equalized financially among the dis tricts of a state, but that districts should be left with some local leeway for enrichment of the foundation program, an equalization model is the best model . . . 2. If one believes that educational opportunities should be completely equalized financially among the districts of a state, the complete state support model is preferred. 3. If one believes that all children, regardless of varia tion in ability, talent, health, physical condition, cultural background, or other conditions that cause variations in educational need, have a right to the kind of education that meets their individual needs, he will select school finance models which incorporate the pro grams needed and that will provide for necessary cost differentials per unit of need. 4. If one believes that educational opportunity should be substantially equalized among the states, he will support a revenue model that provides a substantial percent of school revenue in general federal aid apportioned in such a manner as to equalize opportunities among the states. 5. If one believes that taxes for the support of public schools should be relatively progressive rather than re gressive, he will prefer revenue models that provide a high percent of school revenue from federal and state sources.

6. If one believes that public financed education should tend to remove barriers between caste and class and provide social mobility, he will oppose any plan of of school financing that promotes the segregation of pupils by wealth, race, religion, or social class. 7. If one believes that all essential functions of state and local government should be equitably financed in relation to each other, he will oppose any finance model . . . under which federal or state funds are allocated to local governments on the basis of "the more you spend" rather than on the basis of need. 8. If one believes that the educational output per dollar of investment in education should be maximized, he will support finance models that improve efficient district organization and efficient organization of school centers . . . 9. If one believes in a federal system of government, he will support finance models that will not require a decision ... at the federal level when it can be made at the state level, and will not require a decision ... at the state level when it can be made at the local level, regardless of the percent of revenue provided by each level . . . 10, If one believes that education is essential to the success ful operation of a democratic form of government in a free enterprise society, and if one believes that education is essential to the economic growth of the nation and to the fulfillment of the legitimate aspirations of all persons

85

in our society, he will support revenue models sufficiently financed to meet educational needs adequately (pp. 270-1). A good way to monitor legal supplanting of federal and state aid at the local level through "field accounting" i.e., the elimination of density aid from per pupil expense for determining excess cost or the reassignment of Title I personnel payroll locations without actual reassignment of duties, etc., is to identify the needs, determine the values/preferences, and distribute the resources (prorated if necessary) across competing and prioritized activities. A scientific conceptual

process approach to school finance policy development and implementation will also tend to prevent what is perhaps the worst byproduct abuse of limited funding/resources. This occurs when, owing to a short fall of

resources/dollars to meet commitments to needs/activities, fiscal pro cedures are manipulated in such a way as to mask or disguise the fact that a certain quality and quantity of need exists. Not only are re sources unavailable to impact bonafide needs within established priorities (which can legitimately happen) but there is an actual masking of needs to pretend assurance of adequacy of resources. Figure 3 on the following page is a nine cell conceptual framework which juxtaposes school finance policy criteria with standard economic effects. The school finance policy domains of equity, efficiency, and

liberty are established, from the First Yearbook of the American Educa tion Finance Association (1980), and are interfaced with the standard economic effects of allocation (the mix of goods and services, who gets what), distribution (location of resources, who pays how much), and

86

ECONOMIC EFFECTS Allocation Distribution Stabilization 1 Equi ty/ Equality 4

o a.

2 Cell

Efficiency 9

Ui

8 5 i/>

Liberty/ Free Choice

Legend:

Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Equal or equitable per pupil expenditures Equal or equitable taxpayer shares of expense Equity regarding other public finance costs Cost effectiveness of Instruction Efficiency/uniformity of revenue gathering Effect of efficiency outside of education Privatization, vouchers, tax credits, etc, s Adaptability, local control, and tax reform = Political and legal factors

= = = = = = =

Figure 3. Nine Cell School Finance Issue Conceptual Framework

87

stabilization (overall or macroeconomic effect both in and outside of education). While the conceptual framework was not suitable for

identifying categories of school finance statements and juxtapositions (which are better described as interfaces among cells within the matrix), it does provide a complete framework for identification of all aspects of school finance policy criteria. Cells 1, 2, and 3 of the matrix represent the equity/equality dimension of school finance policy criteria. The interface of these

cells with standard economic effects provides an answer to Berne and Stiefel (1978) regarding the full spectrum of equity considerations. For example, Cell 1 represents equity for pupils in resources allocation (dollars, books, etc.) among and within school districts; Cell 2 repre sents equity for taxpayers in the distribution of revenue or shares of expense for resources allocation; and Cell 3 represents equity consider ations with reference to other public finance costs (i.e. municipal overburden, see also no. 7, p. 84). Cells 4, 5, and 6 of the matrix represent the efficiency dimension of school finance policy criteria. The interface of these cells with

standard economic effects provides an answer to Jencks (1972) and to that part of the Rodriguez majority that subscribed to the "benign neglect" fiscal containment policies diluted from the Coleman Report recommendations. These cells of the matrix also permit a longitudinal

perspective of the efficiency of schooling over time, rather than the simply self-serving and sensationalistic "Jenny can't cut up a pizza or read a telephone book" type of short term exigent accountability. Cell 4 represents the efficiency of instruction, including cost effectiveness

based on the mix of available resources and levels of expenditures. Cell 5 represents the efficiency of revenue incidence, assessment, collection, use, etc, with implications for taxpayer equity. Cell 6

represents the impact of educational efficiency on the educational system in general and on the larger society. The longitudinal study of the cost effectiveness of the G.I. Bill in increased tax dollar return of educated and trained veterans would appropriately be placed within this cell. The use of efficiency of instruction measures that

do not accommodate long term and external benefits of educational services, and particularly their use to justify reductions or maintenance of inadequate expenditures for the education of school age children in the United States is ethically questionable and extremely inefficient. Cells 7, 8, and 9 of the matrix represent accommodation for private or other educational alternatives, local control and social preferences for educational services, and political and legal factors concomitant with a federal/state/local system of government. Cell 7 represents

the possibility/contingency of resources allocated for free choice other than the local public school or public educational program (e.g. a voucher or modified voucher plan). Rather than apart from the choice of public educational services, the matrix tend to reorient the egalitarian/ libertarian dilemma toward a allocative continuum of public/private education with efficiency of instruction as the interface, i.e. Cells 1-4-7. Cell 8 represents local controls on spending, revenue production,

collection, etc. and completes the distributive continuum of Cells 2-5-8. The efficient use of limited resources to assure minimum standards for public instruction and equal educational opportunity permits the

89

maintenance and possible increase of free choice options within an equitably delivered array of public/private educational services. Lastly, Cell 9 represents the impact of free choice on the efficiency of the entire educative process, including the effects of legal and political factors concomitant with a federal/state/local system of government. The cumulative macroeconomic effect of equity

in school finance in contrast to other public finance costs, the effect of program and cost efficiency on the larger society, and the accommoda tion of local option and personal free choice within the egalitarian/ libertarian continuum, vary directly with the efficient delivery of equal educational opportunity. The equalization of public school

financial support; with accommodations for local control and free choice beyond the provision of a minimum educational program for all based on services and individual needs, and the efficient delivery of those services; will produce the most positive impact on the education of our children in preparation for free and responsible citizenry; will tend toward optimal efficiency; and will return the greatest benefit to the society as a whole. The proposed conceptual framework for public school finance policy criteria is intended to reflect acceptance of the concept of education as the process of developing human capital. Schultz (1970), on behalf

of the National Educational Finance Project, made the following comment; . . . the human approach to education treats the allocative decisions (relating to education) as investment decisions concerning man . . . and assumes that the form and amount of human capital can be altered by an appropriate investment (chap. 2 ) .

Chapter III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study is designed to assess and report the opinions and values of school finance experts. It is hoped the findings of the study will shed some light on professional capability and will to address and solve the difficult problems associated with the financing of the public schools. School finance reform is almost universally

recognized as a need and is even cited in judicial decisions where relief sought for fiscal inadequacies and inequities has been denied (Rodriguez v. San Antonio Board of Education, 1973; Levittown v. Nvauist. 1982). about the issues? What do school finance experts, professionals, think What are their values and beliefs? What do they

think could be done about it? Johns and Morphet (1975) have cited a number of background factors associated with public school inequalities, including the following: ... people do not realize the extent or implications of in equalities; some people have become accustomed to the existing situation and accept it as normal; substantial numbers seem to be concerned about their own personal problems and the rising costs of living and of government than about varia tions in educational opportunity that do not seem to affect them immediately (p. 187).

91

It is not currently clear whether school finance practitioners and academicians have an objective and balanced perspective on reform. What is clear is that there exists wide differences among local school districts in wealth per pupil and that until comparatively recently, the lack of adequately developed and understood procedures confounded aid-to-education processes. Given a profile of school finance statements regarding these con cepts, procedures, and processes, what would be the opinions and the differences in opinions among school finance professionals in the field and in teaching, research, arid service? Do they not realize what the problems are, or just not know how to solve them, or feel it's hopeless even to try? This research and the methodologies employed represent

an attempt to identify value streams, levels of agreement/disagreement, and basic understanding of school finance concepts and relationships. Rationale for Research Design Development and Grouping of School Finance Statements Seventy-five school finance statements were developed from a re view of current literature, particularly including handbooks and year books of the Education Finance Center of the Educational Commission of the States and the American Education Finance Association. These state

ments were assembled into an instrument (See Appendix A, p. 201) which permitted the rating of each statement as high, medium, or low in current topical relevance to school finance and school finance reform. Attempts were made to organize the statements into a framework which consistently applied both educational and public finance principles and terminology. The nine cell school finance issue conceptual

framework presented in Chapter II (See Figure 3, p. 86 ) was designed as a result of this process. It was discovered, however, that school finance statements did not fit clearly within one cell or domain in contrast to another. Two reasons were suggested for this (1) the

need for further conceptual development in the field (Berne and Stiefel, 1979); and (2) school finance statements tended to suggest relationships and juxtapositions which made it difficult to identify them within one concept area or another. As a result, the seventy-five items remained ungrouped, pending the identification of a panel of recognized experts to comment regar ding their relevance and interrelationship. To get expert feedback on

the relevance of the items developed and selected, the survey instru ment included in Appendix A was mailed to nineteen school finance ex perts for review and comment. The confidentiality of these expert panel lists was guaranteed as a part of their participation and names cannot be provided. It is very safe to assume that panel members' names would be readily recognized by school finance professionals and even by be ginning students in the field. Upon receipt of expert panelists recommendations regarding the current topical relevance of each item, the list was pared to fiftyfive items in preparation for a wider survey of school finance practi tioners and academicians. Three reasons are provided for reducing the

number of statements (1) to eliminate those statements felt by expert panelists to be very low in relevance; (2) to identify the kinds of statements and embodied concepts thought of as low in relevance by the experts; and (3) to simplify the instrument in hopes of assuring a

higher rate of return from practitioners and academicians. The fifty-five school finance statements were assembled into the practitioner/academician survey instrument (See Appendix D, p.222). Items were randomly ordered for presentation to respondents. Five

operational groupings of the school finance statements were then devel oped using the following general categories (1) Equity and Efficiency; (2) Equal Educational Opportunity; (3) Local Control/Property Taxation; (4) State Aid-to-Education; and (5) Alternative Financing. Although

some statements remained difficult of placement into one group or another, the utility of this grouping for the analysis of school finance expert opinion and for contrasting practitioner and academician sub groups was realized. The following Figures 4-8 identify the subgroups Numbers used

and the school finance statements included within them.

to identify items within each figure correspond to the numbering of school finance statements found in Appendix D. There item numbers have

been retained for all fifty-five school finance statements and are used throughout the study to facilitate identification and statistical anal ysis. The original numbering of the seventy-five statements presented

to preselection panel members was also reordered to reflect consistency of item identification. Except for the original listing of seventy-five

items in Appendix A, all other appendixes, figures, and tables conform to the renumeration. Although originally scattered throughout the

seventy-five item instrument, the twenty statements eliminated as lowest in relevance were renumbered from fifty-six through seventy-five.

94

Item Number

School Finance Statement

3 6 8

Equity of funding Is of greater concern than adequacy of funding. There can be no program equity without tax equity In public education. The responses of state legislatures to problems 1n school finance have substantially resolved equity Issues. More equity Implies greater centralization. The concept of fiscal neutrality is generally questionable as a basis for measuring school finance equity. Intra-district disparities in per pupil expenditures may be as significant a problem as Inter-district disparities. It should be emphasized that educated persons are capital assets to the community. Racism 1s a significant causal factor contributing to Inequities In the financing of the public schools. Measurement of efficiency of instruction focused on narrow bands of test outcomes provides a questionable basis for accountability. Measurement of the efficiency of Instruction based on broad longitudinal constructs provides a question able basis for determining accountability.

11 15

16

32 33

39

40

Figure 4.

Equity/Efficiency Subgroup of School Finance Statement Survey Items

Item Number

School Finance Statement

Equal educational opportunity for all children should be regarded as a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Equality of educational opportunity Is a practical goal. Equality of educational opportunity Is a desirable goal. Categorical state and/or federal aid to education Is necessary for certain pupil groups. The economic return of the high costs of achieving equal educational opportunity will ultimately exceed expenditures. The costs of equal educational opportunity are less than the costs of not providing it. Taxpayer reluctance to support the costs of public education illustrates the tendency of Individuals to ignore the greater public Interest. Requiring one national standard for equal educational opportunity 1n lieu of individual state standards violates free choice. Requiring one state-wide standard for equal educational opportunity in lieu of local social preferences violates free choice. The divergence between private free choice and the social benefits of public education 1s a signifi cant dilemma with reference to equal educational opportunity in a free society. Equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the needs of the individual.

9 10 32 34

35 46

49

50

52

55

Figure 5.

Equal Educational Opportunity Subgroups of School Finance Statement Survey Items

School Finance Statement

1
2

Local property tax relief Is currently a higher priority than school finance reform. The Issue of local control takes precedence over equal educational opportunity. The property tax has become Increasingly Inequit able for use as a basis for funding public education. Poor schools are directly traceable to Inadequate local support. Equalization of property tax assessments throughout a state 1s a logical prerequisite for establishing a foundation program. State-wide administration of property taxation systems may be a necessary first step 1n Implement ing a rational system of state aid to education. The amount of property wealth per publl 1s the most appropriate base from which to determine the fiscal capacity of a school district. Public education 1s a local enterprise, determined primarily by local preferences. Local tax paying ability 1s the major determinant of public education policy. Business and Industrial Interests will tend not to support legislative changes toward state-administered property tax systems. School finance reform and property tax reform are not necessarily"antithetical.

12

13

30

36

44 45 53

54

Local Control/Property Taxation Subgroups of School Finance Statement Survey Items

Item Number

School Finance Statement

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 38

Municipal overburden. Variable costs for special needs students. Variable costs for disproportionate percentages of special needs students (educational overburden). A cost of education index to accommodate variations in local purchasing power. An index of local tax paying ability. Density/sparsity factors (economies of scale). Elimination of the use of attendance-based per pupil counts for determining state aid eligibility. Hold harmless provisions. Incentives for local Initiative. State equalization of property tax assessments. Operationally, district power equalization formulae do not represent an improvement over Strayer-Haig foundation programs. Recapture, the transfer of revenue from propertyrich to property-poor school districts, is an appropriate strategy to equalize revenues within a state. Leveling up less wealthy and/or lower spending school districts by providing state aid to make up funding differences is a politically feasible equalization methodology.

47

51

Figure 7.

State Aid-to-Education Subgroup of School Finance Statement Survey Items

Item Number

School Finance Statement

Increased state and federal financial support for public education would result 1n decreased local responsibility. A combination of taxes, such as property, sales, and Income, represents the most equitable approach to funding public education. The full state assumption of the costs of public education Is necessary to assure school finance equity. There 1s a need to significantly increase the proportionate state share of expense for public education. Complex dispersion measures of school finance equity confound rather than clarify the process of assur ing equal educational opportunity. Measurements of fiscal capacity should be expanded to Include personal income. Educational vouchers would shift substantial power from educators to parents. Educational vouchers might significantly reduce equal access to equal education with poor and dis advantaged pupils increasingly concentrated in the public schools. Educational vouchers will figure largely in the financing of American education by the year 2000. Tuition tax credits will figure largely as an alternative education financing system by the year
2000.

14

27

28

29

37 41 42

43 48

Figure 8.

Alternative Financing Subgroup of School Finance Survey Items

99

Selection and Grouping of School Finance Experts Three distinct groups of school finance experts were identified as follows: 1. Preselection Panel Members - nineteen nationally recog nized school finance experts: academicians, researchers, and foundation directors, were identified to review and comment on the current topical relevance of seventy-five school finance statements. Names and information regarding these experts were obtained from qualitative and frequen cy analysis of professional literature, and from speaker/ presenter listings at national professional meetings and conferences. The panel included representation from what

might"be"considered the academic group of school finance professionals, as well as those researchers usually asso ciated with the progress and process of school finance reform. 2. School Finance Practitioners fifty-six state and

Federal level school finance administrators and program analysts: Assistant Superintendents for School Finance,

budget directors, and fiscal analysts, were identified to review and report their level of agreement or disagreement on fifty-five school finance statements. Agreement or

disagreement was recorded on a six point ordinal scale (See Appendix D, p.228). A basic list of fifty state

finance administrators, one per state, was obtained from the Education Finance Center of the Educational Commission

100

of the States.

This list represented their actual mailing

list to states regarding the school finance activities of their organization. To this list was added the names of

six school finance administrators working directly and/or affiliated with the Federal government and public school finance administrators or on national school finance pro jects. These six additional practitioners were obtained

from the membership mailing list of the American Education Finance Association. 3. School Finance Academicians - seventy-five school finance academicians: Professors of Educational Administration,

Economics, and School Finance; and project/center-based school finance researchers, were identified to review and report their level of agreement or disagreement on fiftyfive school finance statements. Agreement or disagreement

was recorded on a six point ordinal scale (See Appendix D, p. 228). The basic list of school finance academicians and

researchers was obtained from an analysis and selection pro cess using the official active membership mailing list of the American Education Finance Association for 1982. The

list included the names, titles, and professional associa tion of over 300 members. The listing was narrowed to

include only academic faculty and research directors who were associated with school finance projects, This first

final listing of 115 academicians/researchers was then cross-referenced with the 1982 Program of the American

Education Finance Association Annual Conference to assure the participation of all major researchers and presentors. Lastly, a publications count served to help reduce the final number to seventy-five potential respondents. Dele

tions from the final listing included mostly educational administration faculty below the rank of professor with major interests, activities, and publications in areas other than public school finance. Much consideration was initially given for the inclusion of parent/ consumer school finance advocates and for local school finance analysts. However, it was decided that the purposes of this investigation would be better served if these groups were not included in the sample. Reasons

for the exclusion of these two groups include but are not limited to the following: 1. Extreme variations in knowledge base and levels of professional expertise were evident. 2. Direct familiarity and experience with state school financing formulae was not evident. 3. Operational definition of the school finance practitioner group tended to exclude other than state level finance officers with experience and responsibility for state aid to education programs. 4. Primary requirements for selection to one or more sample groups included direct familiarity with state aid to education formulae and school finance theory and practices.

102
The primary purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians to current, concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. The operational definition specified in the purpose

and statement of the problem (p. 10) was the basis for the process and final selection of members for each sample group. Use of the Preselection Panel The use of a preselection panel of outstanding school finance experts to rate the current topical relevance of school finance state ments was based on the degree of utility and control the technique contributed to the research effort. First, the panel provided a

sound mechanism for expert ratings of the current topical relevance of prepared school finance statements. A final listing thought most

relevant by a cross section of leaders in the field improved the professional reliability and construct validity of the survey instrument through a reduction in the total number of items. In this way, the

procedure lent a control over the quality and uniformity of content, and also shortened the instrument through a focusing of the content. This made the instrument more direct, easier to complete, and probably had some influence on the rate of return and reliability of individual responses. Agencies/organizations and their respective departments/centers from which school finance expert preselection panel members were chosen included the following: 1. 2. Colorado Department of Education; Commissioner's Office. Education Commission of the States; Education Finance Center.

103

3.

Illinois State University; Center for the Study of Educational Finance.

4. 5.

Library of Congress; Senior Specialist Area. Maryland Department of Education; State Board of Higher Education.

6. 7.

National Institute of Education; School Finance Project. New York University; Graduate School of Public Administration, Department of Economics.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Rand Corporation; Social Sciences Area. Stanford University; School of Education SRI International; Economics Area. U.S. Department of Education; School Finance Branch. University of California; School of Education. University of Florida; Institute for Educational Finance. University of Rochester; Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

15.

University of Wisconsin-Madison; Department of Educational Administration.

The preselection panel survey instrument was addressed by the name of the nationally recognized expert and in each case of return response the expert intended had completed the instrument. Each of the above

agencies received one survey instrument except the Education Commission of the State and New York University, where two experts at each center were identified. Completed survey instruments with detailed comments

and other observations were received from thirteen of the fifteen above listed university centers, public, and private agencies/organizations.

104
Preselection panel members were asked to rate the current topical relevance of seventy-five school finance statements on a three point ordinal scale of H = High, M = Medium, and L = Low. Items more than one standard deviation below the mean were eliminated from the final list. Twenty statements were thus removed, leaving the final fifty-five item practitioner/academician survey instrument. Practitioners/

academicians were asked to rate their level of agreement/disagreement with each school finance statement on a six point ordinal scale of SD = Strongly Agree, GA = Generally Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, GD = Generally Disagree, and SD = Strongly Disagree. Because of the

differences in the scales used, combined with different instrument contents (twenty statements eliminated, and more than ten restructured and/or reworded at the suggestion of preselection panel members and Ohio State University Educational Administration Faculty), preselection panel members were also identified as practitioners/administrators. The input of these leading experts as members of practitioner and academician groups was considered very important. Difficulties with

pretest validity (Campbell and Stanley, 1963) were thought of minor significance given sample size, quality of input, and the differences between the two instruments (See Appendixes A, p.201 and B, p.209 ). Statistical Treatment Statistical Analysis System SAS is a computer system for data analysis which permits the structuring of input data to produce tabular and plotted statistical information. By carefully selecting and developing program areas and

program statements, a number of of discrete data sets are created which

105

readily permit the processing, arranging, printing and picturing appropriate data and data arrays. used to: 1. Compute and array means, standards deviations, standard errors, and variances for seventy-five preselection panel -and fifty-five practitioner/academician school finance statement responses,-including group and composite analysis of practitioner/academician school finance statements. 2. Compute and array frequencies, cumulative frequencies, percentages, and cumulative percentages for seventy-five preselection panel school finance statement responses, fifty-five practitioner/academician school finance statement responses, and five subgroups of fifty-five school finance statement responses. 3. Determine significance of differences in practitioner/ academician responses to fifty-five individual state ments and five subgroups of fifty-five school finance statements. 4. Develop and array vertical frequency graphs of practi tioner/academician school finance survey responses with a a statement-by-statement comparison of response frequency by statement and by group. Appendixes B and C (pp.209-221) and E through L (pp.230-343) have been generated directly from computed printouts from the SAS program These appendixes contain appropriate arrays of data for analysis of research hypothesis and also provide comprehensive tabular information which establishes a potential data base for serving subsequent research. The SAS computer system has here been

106

Use of Preselection Panel Data As indicated the use of a preselection panel process served to focus the school finance instrument, shortened and simplified the content, and provide data on perceived relevance for each of seventyfive school finance statements. Relevance level response information

obtained for the fifty-five statements in the final survey instrument served as very limited basis for comparison because of the differences in the responses required for each survey instrument, i.e. three point relevance scale v. six point agreement/disagreement scale). Primary use of the data was to serve as a basis for reducing the number of items by choosing the most relevant, focusing the instrument, improving validity/reliability, and decreasing the required response time for practi ti oners/academi ci ans. Relevance response information obtained for the twenty statements removed from the school finance survey instrument provided a basis for analysis of patterns of statements determined low in relevance by expert preselection panel members. three distinct ways: 1. Potential emergence of patterns of low relevance level responses based on item content. 2. Comparison of patterns of low relevance level responses with other school finance survey data from the literature. 3. Distribution of relevance level responses across five identified subgroups of school finance statements. Preselection panel response data was also used in identifying bimodal responses to school finance statements to in part support the This data lends itself to analysis in

107

identification of polarization of opinion in the field. In addition to SAS data arrays, the number and percent of returns for preselection panel members, a summary of their responses, and a

histogram and frequency polygon of all panel responses are also in cluded. This data was generated to assist in the elimination of

school finance statements determined low in relevance from the final instrument and to provide empirical justification for the development of the final instrument. Use of Practitioner/Academician Data As indicated the use of practitioner/academician data served to identify levels of agreement/disagreement to fifty-five school finance survey statements by two groups and a composite of school finance practitioners and academicians. A summary of this data was also made available to identify levels of agreement/disagreement with five sub groups of fifty-five school finance statements. Frequency analysis of

item responses was undertaken to determine the existence of bimodal and or atypical frequency distributions. This data was useful in de

termining highest/lowest mean levels of agreement/disagreement with survey items and in identifying polarization of opinion. Analysis of variance of practitioner/academician responses using SAS t-test protocols provided the following information: 1. Significant or nonsignificant differences between practitioners and academicians for each of fifty-five school finance statements. 2. Significance or nonsignificance differences between practitioners and academicians for each of five

108

subgroups of fifty-five school finance statements. 3. Significant differences in agreement, in disagreement, and in agreement/disagreement with each of fifty-five school finance statements, and for five subgroups of these statements. Significant difference is reported at the p < .01 and p < .05 levels for items and For survey items and subgroups, three

subgroups.

possibilities of significance or non significance were possible: a. Significant or nonsignificant difference for an item or subgroup along a continuum of agreement with the item or subgroup. b. Significant or nonsignificant difference for an item or subgroup along a continuum of disagreement with the item or subgroup. c. Significant or nonsignificant difference for an item or subgroup with one group agreeing and the other group disagreeing with the item or subgroup. The primary use of practitioner/academician survey data was to ascertain levels of agreement and disagreement with school finance statements, determine the significance of these responses across the two groups by item and by subgroups of items, and to provide a basis for determining the relationship of current conceptual development to the progress and process of public school financing.

109

Tables, Figures, and Appendixes There are ten tables, ten figures, and thirteen appendixes to this research study. The Listing of Tables (p. x) is organized to report

data from preselection panel to practitioner/academician groups from mean and frequency item analysis to analysis of variance. Each table

represents an extract of the data, cross-referenced with the appendixes. Tables include one number and frequency of percent instrument return, two bimodal distribution pattern analyses; one class limits and items

classification; two summaries of significant and nonsignificant practi tioner academician responses; one summary of responses of preselection panel members; one analysis of variance of five identified subgroups of survey items; two bimodal frequency distributions of survey items; one

item-by-item summary of all responses; and one summary of optional data. Figures include one chronology of school finance theory; one summary of equalization and litigation by state; one conceptual frame work; five different subgroups of fifty-five school finance statements; one histogram/frequency polygon of preselection panel member responses; and one listing of additional school finance statements proposed by pre selection panel members (See Listing of Figures, p. xi). Of the thirteen appendixes, ten have been directly generated through SAS programming, and provide the data base for this research study and for the development of related tables and figures. These will The

be referenced and discussed in detail in the following Chapter IV. preselection panel survey instrument and the revised practitioner/ academician survey instrument are included as two appendixes; and a

glossary of pertinent school finance and taxation terminology is also appendixed for reference and review,(See Appendixes, p. ix).

Chapter IV PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS

The purpose of the present investigation was to compare and analyze the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians, parti cularly including: (1) state level school finance administrators; and (2) school finance academicians and researchers, to current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. The findings are presented in the following six sections: (1) sampling results; (2) preselection panel responses; and practi tioner/academician (3) item responses; (4) item subgroup responses; (5) item variances and (6) summary of data. A Student t-test

comparison of practitioner/academician item and subgroup of items responses served as an analysis of variance in order to identify statistically significant differences (p < .01; p < .05 ) across the two groups by item and by subgroup of items. Extensive reference is made in this chapter to the data found in Appendixes A through L. Where space is available, school finance

statements are included directly on the face of each table for ready comparison and analysis. The reader is referred to Figures 4-8 (pp.94-8)

for listings of school finance statement subgroups, and to Appendixes

110

Ill

A (p. 20l) and D (p. 222) for listings of the original seventy-five and fifty-five item school finance statements. finance statements are coded Q1 through Q75. In Appendixes B-C, school The N of 14 represents In Appendixes E-L,

sample size and also denotes the preselection panel.

school finance statements are coded Q1 through Q55. The N of 43 repre sents sample size and also denotes the practitioner group or Grp 1. The N of 50 represents sample size and also denotes the academician group or Grp 2. Sampling Results Data gathering instruments were mailed to three sample groups: Group A, Expert Preselection Panel Members; Group 1, School Finance Practitioners; Group 2, School Finance Academicians. Data on the number

and percent of return for each sample group is presented in Table 1. The highest percent of return was from Group 1, School Finance Practitioners (76.8%), followed closely by Group A, Expert Preselection Panel Members (73.7%). The lowest net return was from Group 2, School Finance Acade A total number of 107 returns resulted in a 71.3%

micians (66,7%).

mean rate of return for all survey groups. Preselection Panel Item Responses Appendix A (p.201 ) includes the expert preselection panel survey instrument with cover letter, seventy-five school finance statements, and an answer key for rating items high, medium, or low in relevance. Provision on the back of the answer key was also made for preselection panel experts to suggest modifications to statements or additional statements for consideration. Appendix B (p.209) provides basic statis

tical summaries for seventy-five items, Please recall that these items

112

TABLE 1 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RETURNS FOR PRESELECTION PANEL MEMBERS AND PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN GROUPS

Sample Groups A 1 2

Total Number In Mailing 19 56 75

Total Number of Returns 14 43 50

Per Cent of Returns 73.7 76.8 66.7

Total Note. Group A: Group 1: Group 2:

150

107

Average %

71.3

Preselection Panel Members School Finance Practitioners School Finance Academicians

113

have been reordered so the last twenty (Q56-Q75) are the lowest mean rated items. These were the items deleted from the revised survey To locate content of

instrument because of low relevance ratings.

items deleted, please refer to the listing of seventy-five statements in Appendix A (pp. 204-207) The original numbers of deleted items are #s 5, 6, 10, 18, 22, 23, 30, 36, 41, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 61, 62, 65, 71, and 74. Table 2 provides a summary of all relevance responses For

by preselection panel members to the original seventy-five items.

example, in the following Table 2, for item no. 22, 10 panel members answer low relevance, 4 medium relevance, and 0 high relevance. To

obtain an ordinal scale score, multiply 10 low responses times 1 for low, plus 4 medium reponses times 2 for medium plus o high responses x 3 for high = 10(1) + 4(2) + 0(3) = 18 ordinal scale score. Basis for Deletion of Twenty Items. As earlier indicated, the use

of the preselection panel served to focus the instrument, identify high relevance responses, increase construct validity, improve respondent reliability, and help assure a high rate of return. methods were employed. Two statistical

The first is found in Table 3 (p. 115) which

provides class limits and frequencies for seventy-five tallied items in four relevance level groups. On this basis, using 28 or a mean

rating of 2 (medium) as one point above cutoff, twenty-six items would have been deleted. In addition to the items listed above, this would have deleted original #s 4, 29, 31, 39, 42, and 67. Since

some low relevance items were considered desirable for control purposes in the revised instrument, and for other content reasons to be treated in the next subsection, a less restrictive procedure was selected.

114
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF SEVENTY-FIVE LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH CURRENT TOPICAL RELEVANCE RESPONSES OF FOURTEEN PRESELECTION PANEL MEMBERS

Item No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. ro 21. 22. 23. MC 25. Note.

L 0 3 2 7 11 10 4 2 1 9 4 3 0 1 4 4 1 6 5 0 2 10 10 0 0

N 7 3 1 2 2 1 5 9 6 4 4 4 5 7 5 4 9 7 2 8 9 4 2 1 2

H 7 8 11 5 1 3 5 3 7 1 6 7 9 6 5 6 4 1 7 6 3 0 2 13 12

Item No. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

L 1 2 2 3 8 5 2 0 6 4 8 4 2 4 1 10 4 6 5 2 0 0 4 7 8

M 5 1 10 10 4 6 8 5 2 3 2 5 6 7 7 3 7 6 4 6 5 2 4 6 4

H 8 11 2 1 2 3 4 9 6 7 4 5 6 3 6 1 3 2 5 6 9 12 6 1 2

Item No. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

L 7 6 4 3 4 2 6 3 10 4 7 10 4 3 6 4 7 5 3 1 8 4 2 10 4

M 4 6 2 6 2 2 0 7 4 6 5 2 6 7 6 3 1 0 5 5 4 5 3 3 3

H 3 2 8 5 8 10 8 4 0 4 2 2 4 4 2 7 6 9 6 8 2 5 9 1 7

To obtain an ordinal scale score for each Item, add the number of High, Medium, and Low responses after multiplying by factors of 3, 2, and 1, respectively. 3(H) + 2(M) + 1(1) - Scale Score

TABLE 3 CLASS LIMITS, FREQUENCY, AND ITEM CLASSIFICATION FOR RELEVANCE LEVEL RESPONSES OF FOURTEEN PRESELECTION PANEL MEMBERS

Class

Class Llmits

Class Frequency

Item No. Tallies

MC MC

Lowest Relevance Low Relevance

14-20

5, 10,

23, 41, 59, 62, 74

21-27

18

4, 6, 18, 29, 30, 31, 36, 39, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61, 65, 67, 71

High Relevance

28-34

35

2. 20, 44, 63,

7, 21, 45, 64,

8, 28, 48, 66,

9, 32, 53, 68,

11, 34, 54, 69,

12, 15, 16, 17, 35, 37, 38, 40, 55, 57, 58, 60, 72, 75

Highest Relevance

35-42

14

1 , 3, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 46, 47, 56, 70, 73

75 Note. Rating of School Finance Lowest possible score Highest possible score Midpoint of the range Expert Responses: = 14 = 42 28 High 3 - ? "

Item numbers correspond to numbered Items of the Preselection Panel instrument (Appendix A), and not the reordered survey items found in Appendixes B and C.

116

To provide an appropriate statistical basis for lowering the relevance cutoff point to include more items on the revised survey instrument, a histogram and frequency polygon of the relevance level responses of the fourteen preselection panel members was constructed. The following Figure 9 indicates the distribution of relevance respon ses, and suggests that a cutoff point one-half the range of the low relevance category (20.5-27.5) meets statistical requirements while achieving the content objective of reducing the number of deleted items. Having now established 24 instead of 28 as the ordinal scale

score cutoff, Appendix B (p.209 ) shows all items below a mean rele vance score of x = 1.71428571 (x 14 = 24) are deleted from the first fifty-five items and the revised instrument (See p.211 , Q56-Q75). Similarly, all items at or above a mean relevance score of x = 1.85714286 (x 14 = 25.9: Note, because of small sample size no items fall between the interval) are included in the first fifty-five items and the revised instrument (See p. 210, Q1-Q55). Content Analysis of Relevance Response Ratings of Seventy-Five Items. The level of relevance rating assigned each school finance state

ment and the bimodal distribution of item responses indicating polariza tion of opinion are determined as the basis for content analysis of the results of the preselection panel survey. Six of the twenty deleted items rated lowest in relevance by expert panelists related to federal involvement and monitoring or control of processes of funding public education. These were original item #s 5, 6, 36, 59, 61, and 62. Content pertained to strict scrutiny of funds for

education as a federal government responsibility; one national solution

18 -

13.5

20.5

27.5

34.5

42.5

Figure 9.

Histogram and Frequency Polygon of Relevance Level Responses of Fourteen Preselection Panel Members

118

to school financing; increasing federal share of expense; school finance as a primary federal concern; and equal educational opportunity guaran teed either as a result of federal legislative enactment or judicial review. Eight of the twenty deleted items rated lowest in relevance by expert panelists related to state aid formula factors to assure equal ization of school support and/or equal educational opportunity. were original item #s 18, 22, 23, 30, 49, 50, 51, and 65. These

Content per

tained to out-of-school resources; household time contributions; nonsupplanting; earmiarking; recapture; and flat grant v. variable ratio, all as factors or procedures associated with state aid to education formulae and both state and federal categorical aid. Four of the twenty deleted items rated lowest in relevance by expert panelists related to the interface between school finance, public finance, and economics. and 71. These were original item #s 10, 41, 52,

Content pertained to reductions in private economy because of

public education tax expenditures; public education as a social rather than a merit preference; longitudinal measurement of instructional efficiency (educated person = capital asset); and use of economic models to estimate production effects of schooling. The remaining two deleted items rated lowest in relevance by expert panelists related to historical gerrymandering of school districts as a factor in school finance inequities, and Professor Morrison's elo quent statement regarding the obsolescence of school financing systems tied to local control. These were original item #s 43 and 74 (Recall

Appendix A, p. 201, for listing of original seventy-five items).

119
The six items reincluded in the revised fifty-five school finance statement survey instrument were more broadly based and contained con cepts for which levels of agreement/disagreement as reported by prac titioners/academicians were of interest. High agreement and/or bimodal and atypical frequency responses by practitioners and academicians for these reincluded items would be later noted. The content of these six
*

original item #s 4, 29, 31, 39, 42, and 67 pertained to the following: 1. Equal educational opportunity as a U.S. Constitutional guarantee (#4). 2. Elimination of attendance-based per pupil counts for determining state aid eligibility (#29). 3. 4. 5. 6. Educated persons as capital assets to the community (#39). Hold harmless provisions in state aid formulae (#31). Racism a significant factor in fiscal inequities (#42). One national standard for equal educational opportunity violated free choice (#67). The inclusion of these items in the revised survey instrument will provide a basis for comparison of agreement/disagreement responses of practitioner/academician groups. An evaluation of the efficacy of

substituing the more inclusive statistical procedure will also be made in Chapter V. All other original survey items, a total of forty-eight in all, were rated medium to high in relevance by expert preselection panelists. Refer back to Table 3 (p. 115), and to Appendix A (p. 208). Also,

refer to Appendix C (p. 212) for a complete review of frequencies and percentages of fourteen school finance expert preselection panel

120
members' relevance responses to seventy-five school finance statements. Fourteen original school finance statements received highest relevance ratings from the preselection panel. These include item #s

1, 3, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 46, 47, 56, 70, and 73.

Eight of these

highest relevance responses pertained directly to procedures and factors associated with the development and implementation of state school financing and state aid to .education formulae. 1. 2. Issues included:

Variable costs for special needs students (#24). Variable costs for disproportionate percentages of special needs students (#25).

3. 4. 5.

Indexing local tax paying ability (#27). State equalization of property tax assessments (#33). Cost of education index keyed to local purchasing power (#26).

6.

Property wealth as the appropriate base to measure fiscal capacity (#46).

7.

Inclusion of personal income in the measure of fiscal capacity (#47).

8.

Educational vouchers reducing access to equal educational opportunity (#56).

Three of the above listed highest relevance responses pertained to a juxtaposition of property tax relief/reform to school finance reform. Issues included: 1. Local property tax relief a higher priority than school finance reform (#1). 2. School finance/property tax not antithetical (#73).

121
3. Dilemma of private free choice and social benefits of equal educational opportunity (#70). The three remaining highest relevance responses pertained to items juxtaposing equity and adequacy of funding considerations with central control and equal educational opportunity. 1. 2. Issues included:

Equity a greater concern than adequacy of funding (#3). Equality of educational opportunity a desirable goal (#13).

3.

More equity implied greater centralization (#14).

Data presentation and analysis in the following subsection (Practitioner/ Academician Item Responses) will treat relationships among levels of relevance and levels of agreement established for survey items. Bimodal Frequency Distribution Patterns of Preselection Panel Member Item Responses. The following Table 4 identifies five original

preselection panel relevance responses for which a significant polariza tion of response has occurred. Of all relevance responses reviewed,

these five alone met a "5-2-5" criteria (less that 15% at the midrange; more than 40% at the poles). These items are significantly bimodal in

response character, giving some suggestion of polarization or ambivalence of opinion. Expert preselection panel members' perceptions of relevance varied markedly with reference to fiscal neutrality, full state assumption, educational vouchers, and one state or national standard for assessing equal educational opportunity. Of a total of 70 possible responses

(14 respondents x 5 questions = 70), 65 or 92.9% were evenly ranked low (29) or high (36) in relevance, and 5 or 7.1% were ranked medium.

122

TABLE 4

BIMODAL DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF PRESELECTION PANEL MEMBER SURVEY ITEM RESPONSES

Item No. 19

L 5

M 2

H 7

School Finance Statement The concept of fiscal neutrality is generally questionable as the basis for measuring school finance equity. The full state assumption of the costs of public education 1s necessary to effect school finance equity. Educational vouchers will figure largely In the financing of American education by the year 2000. Requiring one national standard for equal educational opportunity 1n Heu of Individual state standards violates free choice. Requiring one state-wide standard for equal educational opportunity 1n lieu of local social preferences violates free choice.

34

57

67

68

Total

29

36

Note. Refer to Appendix C (p.212) for a review of Low (L), Medium (M), and High (H) relevance responses to preselection panel member survey items.

123
Further discussion of these bimodal distributions, in comparison with similar data compiled for practitioner/academician responses (See also Table 7, p. 136), is included in the following subsection and in the summary of Chapter V. Comments and Suggestions of Preselection Panel Members. On the

reverse side of the answer sheet of the preselection survey instrument, panel experts were asked to provide additional comments or suggestions, and to include other school finance statements deemed relevant. Figure

10 on the following page concludes this subsection of the findings and is a listing of the seven school finance statements recommended by three of the panel experts. There were two comments regarding the relative

difficulty in understanding what some of the statements meant, and a request for clarification as to whether the study was on school finance or on school finance reform. There were four comments on the apparently

significant value of the study and its implications and two specific indications of interest in the findings. Three comments were also made to the effect that school finance problems unique to Ohio might not be appropriate to generalize from. As

the survey instrument was prepared on Ohio State University stationary, these comments were positively regarded as appropriate cautions against a provincial or regionalistic attitude regarding public school financing. All fourteen experts answered all seventy-five school finance statements and ten of fourteen provided additional comments, suggestions, or school finance statements. Since only three of the expert panelists suggested

additional school finance statements, it was not possible to suggest a pattern or trend regarding these statements.

124

Additional School Finance Statements

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The current governance system assumes local choice. The role of the Federal Government 1n the financing of public schools will be dramatically different by 1990. Statutes and constitutional amendments limiting property taxes enhance equalization of educational opportunity. Statutes and constitutional amendments limiting property taxes will figure largely in the financing of education by the year 2000. Statutes and constitutional amendments limiting total state spending enhance equalization of educational opportunity. Statutes and constitutional amendments limiting total state spending will figure largely 1n the financing of education by the year 2000. Tuition tax credits will result in converting the public schools into charity schools for the poor and minorities, devoid of children from wealthier families.

Figure 10.

Additional School Finance Survey Items Suggested by Preselection Panel Members

125
Practitioner/Academician Item Responses This subsection of the findings includes practitioner and academi cian responses to the fifty-five item school finance survey instrument, and to the optional specified questions on the reverse side of the survey instrument answer sheet (See Appendix D, p.229). All items were

ranked within three levels of agreement or disagreement on a six point ordinal scale. A scaled score of 1.0 indicates the highest level of

agreement, 2.0 the second highest, and 3.0 the lowest level of agreement with the statement as made. A scaled score of 6.0 indicates the highest

level of disagreement, 5.0 the second highest, and 4.0 the lowest level of disagreement with the statement as made. An average of 3.5 at the Any average or

midpoint of the range would indicate a neutral position.

mean between 3.0 (lowest level of agreement) and 4.0 (lowest level of disagreement) would tend to be considered as nonsignificant in showing a directional trend toward agreement or disagreement. A total of forty-

three practitioners and fifty academicians from forty-eight states completed the survey instrument and approximately 50% included optional specified and unspecified comments and suggestions. Practitioners are

identified as Group (GRP) = 1 in the Appendixes; Academicians are identi fied as Group (GRP) = 2. There were 43 respondents.

Practitioner Item Responses Summary.

The mean of all practitioner responses to fifty-five school finance statements was 3.0549, indicating a skew slightly in favor of a tendency toward agreement with the statement as made. The great majority of prac titioners responded to all or within two of all statements presented. All practitioners rated 12 items at highest agreement levels (1.0 - 2.5), and

126
rated 5 items at highest disagreement levels (4.0 - 6.0). There were fewer readings in the higher disagreement ranges so a larger range was used to identify a group of higher readings. School finance survey items rated high in agreement included practitioner/academician survey item #s 1, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 31, 54, and 55. 1. The content of these items include:

Property tax relief a higher priority than school finance reform (#1).

2. 3.

Equal educational opportunity as a desirable goal (#10). Equalization of property assessments as a logical prerequisite for a foundation program (#13).

4. 5.

Combination of taxes to support public education (#14). Variable costs for special needs students built into state aid to education formulae (#18).

6.

Variable costs for disproportionate percentages of high cost pupils (educational overburden; #19).

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

An index of local tax paying ability (#21). Density/sparsity factors in state aid formulae (#22) State equalization of property tax assessments (#26). Educated persons as capital assets to the community (#31). School finance and property tax reform not antithetical (#54).

12.

Equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the individual (#55).

Practitioners rated survey item #s 3, 8, 27, 33, and 43 as high in disagreement. 1. The content of these items include: Equity a greater concern than adequacy of funds (#3).

127
2. State legislative response as resolution of equity issues (#8). 3. Full state assumption of public education costs as necessary for equity (#27). 4. Racism a significant causal factor in school finance inequities (#33). 5. Educational vouchers figuring largely in school finance in the year 2000 (#43). Appendix E includes the responses of forty-three practitioners to fifty-five school finance items and to five subgroups of those items (p. 230). Appendix F contains frequencies and percentages of responses

for practitioners to fifty-five school finance items (p.233 ). Academician Item Reponses Summary. There were 50 respondents.

The mean of all academician responses to fifty-five school finance statements was 3.0525, indicating a skew slightly in favor of a tendency toward agreement with the statement as made. The great majority of aca demicians answered all fifty-five school finance statements with all responding to within two of all statements presented. All academicians

rated 14 items at highest agreement levels (1.0 - 2.5). and rated 5 items at highest disagreement levels (4.0 - 6.0). There were fewer readings

in the higher disagreement ranges so a larger range was used to identify a group of higher readings. School finance survey items rated high in agreement included prac titioner/academician survey item #s 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26, 31, 37, 39, 42, 54, and 55. 1. The content of these items include:

Equal educational opportunity as a desirable goal (#10).

128
2. Equalization of property assessments as a logical prerequisite for a foundation program (#13). 3. 4. 5. Combination of taxes to support public education (#14). Significance of intra-district disparities (#16). Variable costs for special needs students built into state aid to education formulae (#18). 6. Variable costs of disproportionate precentages of high cost pupils (#19). 7. 8. 9. 10. An index of local tax paying ability (#21). State equalization of property tax assessments (#26). Educated persons as capital assets to the community (#31). Expansion of fiscal capacity measurement to include personal income (#37). 11. Measuring efficiency of instruction focused on narrow bands of test outcomes as questionable accountability (#39). 12. Educational vouchers reducing access to equal educational opportunity (#42). 13. School finance and property tax reform not antithetical (#54). 14. Equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the individual (#55). Academicians rated survey item #s 2, 3, 6, 8, and 27 as high in disagreement. 1. 2. The content of these items include: Equity a greater concern than adequacy of funds (#3), Local control taking precedence over equal educational opportunity (#2).

129
3. 4. No program equity without tax equity (#6). State legislative response as resolution of equity issues (#8). 5. Full state assumption of public education costs as necessary for equity (#27). Appendix G contains mean response data for academician responses to fifty-five school finance items and to five subgroups of those items (p. 245 ). Appendix H contains frequencies and percentages of responses

for academicians to fifty-five school finance items (p. 248). Table 5 on the following page provides a summary of practitioner/ academician responses indicating the highest levels of agreement and disagreement with identified survey items. It also includes a composite

of mean highest agreement and disagreement for both groups useful in the identification of variances in respondent opinions regarding school finance issues. Table 5 will be further referenced in the variances in

practitioner/academician responses subsection of this Chapter. Practitioner/Academician Subgroup Responses Five subgroups of school finance statements were established to assist in determining variations in practitioner/academician responses to differing concepts or frames of reference within the school finance area. These groups are identified as follows: 1. Group 1 (AVEEQUIT) - the equity/efficiency subgroup of Survey

school finance survey items (See Figure 4, p. 94).

items in this group relate generally to equity considera tions, factors influencing levels of equity, the measurement of equity, and the measurement of efficiency of instruction.

130

TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES INDICATING HIGHEST LEVELS OF AGREEMENT/ DISAGREEMENT WITH IDENTIFIED SURVEY ITEMS

Practitioners Mean Highest Agreement (1.0 - 2.5) Mean Highest Oi sagreement (4.0 - 6.0) 1, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 31, 54, 55 3, 8, 27, 33, 43

Academicians 10, 18, 31, 54, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 26, 37, 39, 42, 55

Composi te 10, 13, 14, 18. 19, 21, 26, 31, 39, 42, 54, 55 3, 8, 27, 43

2, 3, 6, 8, 27

Note. Refer to Appendix D (p.222)for school finance statements to accompany survey item numbers. Survey Items were ranked on a six point ordinal scale with 1 3 highest agreement and 6 * highest disagreement. Refer to Appendixes E (p.230). G means and standard deviations of practitioners, academicians, and f1fty-f1ve survey Items and five (p.245), and I (p.260)for a review of highest agreement/disagreement for a composite, respectively, for all subgroups.

2.

Group 2 (AVEEQUAL) - the equal educational opportunity subgroup of school finance survey items (See Figure 5, p. 95). Survey items in this group relate generally

to concepts, costs, and free choice relationships of equal opportunity education. 3. Eleven items are included.

Group 3 (AVELOCAL) - the local control/property taxation subgroup of school finance survey items (See Figure 6, p. 96). Survey items in this group relate generally to

the issues of local support, local control, property wealth, and property taxation. Eleven items are included. 4. Group 4 (AVESTAID) - the state aid to education subgroup of school finance survey items (See Figure 7, p. 97). Sur vey items in this group relate generally to components of state aid formulae and methods for equalizing revenues and their distribution within a state. Thirteen items are included. 5. Group 5 (AVEOTHER) - the alternative financing subgroup of school finance survey items (See Figure 8, p. 98). Survey

items in this group relate generally to changes in support and taxation patterns, expanded definitions of fiscal capa city, full state assumption, educational vouchers, and tuition tax credits. Data for subgroup analysis is found in Appendixes E (p.230), G (p. 245 ), I (p. 260 ), and K (p. 275 ). Practitioner and academician responses to subgroups of school finance survey items seemed to have followed similar patterns of agreement or disagreement.

132
With reference to Group 1 (AVEEQUIT) the mean response for all practitioners was 3.438; the mean response for academicians was 3.464; and the composite was 3.452. Very little difference in response is

noted, with no directional trend toward agreement or disagreement with the statement as made. With reference to Group 2 (AVEEQUAL) the mean response for practi tioners was 2.725; the mean response for academicians was 2.674; and the composite was 2.698. Very little difference in response is noted,

with a directional trend toward general agreement with the statement as made. With reference to Group 3 (AVELOCAL) the mean response for prac titioners was 3.061; the mean response for academicians was 3.265; and the composite was 3.171. A significant difference at p <.05 is noted

between practitioner and academician responses. With reference to Group 4 (AVESTAID) the mean response for practi tioners was 2.799; the mean response for academicians was 2.716; and the composite was 2.754. Very little difference in response is noted, with

a directional trend toward general agreement with the statement as made. With reference to Group 5 (AVEOTHER) the mean response for practi tioners was 3.231; the mean response for academicians was 3.135; and the composite was 3.179. A small difference is noted between practitioner

and academician response, with a tendency toward agreement with the statement as made. It should be noted that the primary purpose of developing subgroups of school finance statements was to provide a further basis for analysis of differences in practitioner/academician responses. Determining whether

133
any significant difference would emerge across more narrowly defined school finance conceptual areas was of particular interest. Though

some statements within the same group were polar or alternative choices, the definition of the purpose of each subgroup retained the validity of the aggregate. The subgroups were not constructed so as to be

mutually exclusive; this was not a primary criterion, but was regarded as desirable. As such the perceived unit integrity of the subgroups These subgroups are

seemed to more than meet the initial requirements.

not meant to be considered as part of a conceptual framework for public school finance policy criteria. Refer to Figure 3 (p. 48) and accompany

ing text for a summary of this matter. Variations in Practitioner/Academician Responses Variations in practitioner/academician responses are reported in this subsection for all fifty-five school finance statements and five subgroups. Traditional analysis of variance using t-test procedures Analysis of

is reported for item responses in the following Table 6.

variance data for school finance statements and subgroups are included as Appendix K (p.275 ) of this investigation. The last column on the

right PRQB>(T) represents decimal equivalents for confidence level analysis. If the probability decimal for each statement Q1 - Q55 is

less than 0.05 then p < .05; if the decimal is less than 0.01 then p < .01. Significant Differences in Practitioner/Academician Item and Sub group Responses. Ten individual school finance statement items showed < .01 and p < .05 levels. Six school

significant differences at the p

finance statements, item #s 2, 6, 8, 10, 50, and 55, showed significant

TABLE 6
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL SURVEY ITEMS AND SUBGROUPS OF ITEMS AT .01 AND .05 LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE

Item No. 2

Significance Level .01 .05 X X X

School Finance Statement The issue of local control takes precedence over equal educational opportunity. There can be no program equity without tax equity 1n public education. The responses of state legislatures to pro blems 1n school finance have substantially resolved equity Issues. Equality of educational opportunity 1s a desirable goal.

6
8

10 23

X X

Elimination of the use of attendance-based per pupil counts for determining state aid eligibility. There 1s a need to significantly increase the proportionate state share of expense for public education. Complex dispersion measures of school finance equity confound rather than clarify the pro cess of assuring equal educational opportunity. Requiring one national standard for equal educational opportunity 1n lieu of Individual state standards violates free choice. Requiring one state-wide standard for equal educational opportunity in lieu of local social preferences violates free choice. Equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the needs of the Individual.

28

29

49

50

55

AVELOCAL

Local Control/Property Taxation Subgroup of School Finance Survey Items.

Note. Refer to Appendix K (p.275) for an analysis of variance of practitioner/ academician responses to f1fty-f1ve survey Items and five subgroups.

135
differences in practitioner/academician responses at p < .01. Four

school finance statements, item #s 23, 28, 29, and 49, showed signifi cant differences in practitioner/academician responses at p < .05. Additionally, one subgroup of school finance statements of five such subgroups showed significant difference in response at the p < .05 level. The following Table 7 shows the results of analysis of variance

of practitioner/academician responses to identified subgroups of survey iterns. Given an agreement/disagreement response continuum, intervals of significant difference might mean different things at different places along the continuum. Appendix K provides clarifying data regarding The practitioner group mean response

significant item # 2 (p. 276).

(GRP 1) is 3.095, indicating a tendency to agree with the statement as made; and the academician group mean response is 4.102, indicating a tendency to disagree with the statement as made. Looking further, at

significant item # 10 (p. 277) the practitioner group mean response is 2.093 indicating a general agreement with the statement as made; and the academician group mean response is 1.540 indicating from general to strong agreement with the statement as made. There is a statistically

significant difference and a significantly different level of agreement with reference to item # 2. There is a statistically significant difference but no significantly different level of agreement with reference to item #10. With reference to significant item # 6, with a practitioner mean of 3.38 and an academician mean of 4.2, there is a statistically signi ficant difference and a range of statement regard from neutral to disagreement. With reference to significant item # 8, with practitioner

136

TABLE 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO IDENTIFIED SUBGROUPS OF SURVEY ITEMS

Subgroup Code AVEEQUIT AVEEQUAL

Analysis of Variance Practitioner/Academician Nonsignificant (.79) Nonsignificant (.65) Significant at .05 (.03) Nonsignificant (.37) Nonsignificant (.30)

Subgroup Description Equity/Efficiency Subgroup of Ten Survey Items Equal Educational Opportunity Subgroup of Eleven Survey Items Local Control/Property Taxation Subgroup of Eleven Survey Items State A1d-To-Educat1on Subgroup of Thirteen Survey Items Alternative Financing Sub group of Ten Survey Items

AVELOCAL

AVESTAID

AVEOTHER

Note. Refer to Appendix K (p.287) for mean, standard deviation, standard error, and variance of five subgroups of survey items.

137
and academician group mean responses of 4.13 and 4.83 respectively, a clear directional trend toward general disagreement for both groups is indicated, notwithstanding the statistically significant difference in responses.(See Appendix K, p. 277). With reference to significant item # 23, practitioner and academi cian group means of 3.71 and 3.06 show a directional trend toward disagreement and a tendency to agree, respectively. Group means for

significant item #s 28 and 29 were 3.3 and 2.7 for # 28 and the reverse for # 29, respectively, both showing a tendency toward agreement with the statement as made. With reference to significant item # 49 prac (See

titioner/academician means are also 2.7 and 3.3 respectively Appendix K, p. 280. P- 281, p. 285).

With reference to significant item # 50 , practitioner and academi cian group mean responses of 3.1 and 3.9 , respectively, indicate the same approximate polarity of practitioner agreement and academician disagreement with the statement as in significant item # 2. With

reference to significant item # 55 practitioner and academician means of 2.4 and 1.8 respectively indicate a clear directional trend toward agreement with the statement as made for both groups notwithstanding the statistically significant difference. And with reference to sub

groups of school finance statements, practitioner/academician mean responses of 3.06 and 3.26 respectively, indicate a tendency toward

agreement with the statements as made (See Appendix K, p. 287). Further discussion of the content significance of these items is included in the summary of analysis of patterns of responses in the concluding chapter of this investigation. Statistically significant

138
differences in practitioner/academician responses for item and factor analysis. provide one basis

Other bases for analysis include treat

ment of bimodal distributions of item responses; atypical (high positive or negative skew from a normal distribution) responses; and relation ships among items chosen as high in relevance by preselection panel members with items of strong agreement or disagreement as indicated by practitioners and/or academicians. Bimodal and Atypical Frequency Distributions of Practitioner and Academician Responses to Survey Items. The following Table 8 includes

both bimodal and atypical frequency distributions of identified survey items. Item #s 5, 7, and 53 are the items with a bimodal frequency

distribution; and item #s 10, 18, 31, 54, and 55 are all atypically skewed distributions toward agreement with the statement as made. With reference to the bimodal distributions, item # 5 practitioner response is the bimodal element in the composite distribution; item # 7 practi tioner response again is the bimodal element; and both item # 53 practitioner and academician responses were bimodal. With reference to items with atypical frequency distributions, item #s 10, 18, 31, 54, and 55 show the greatest skew and overall tendency toward strong agreement with the statement as made. These

items also tend to be rated as high in agreement by both practitioners and academicians. With reference to relevance level ratings of pre

selection panel members, three items (#s 10,18,54) were originally rated highest in relevance; one item (#55) was originally rated high in relevance; and one item (#31) was originally rated low in relevance. This item (#31) was one of seven such low rated items reincluded in the fifty-five item revised school finance survey instrument.

TABLE 8
BIMODAL AND/OR ATYPICAL FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF IDENTIFIED SURVEY ITEMS
Frequency Distribution Academician GA A 0 GD SD 9 8 14 7 9 2

Item No. SA 5 4

Practitioner GA A 0 GO SD 16 7 4 15 2

SA

SA 13

GA 24

Composite A D GD SD 21 11 19 4

School Finance Statement The property tax has become increasingly inequi table for use as a basis for funding public education. Increased state and federal financial support for public education would result in decreased local responsibility. Equality of educational opportunity Is a desirable goal. Variable costs for special needs students. It should be emphasized that educated persons are capital assets to the comunity. Business and industrial interests will tend not to support legislation changes toward stateadministered property tax systems. School finance reform and property tax reforw are not necessarily antithetical. Equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the needs of the individual, individual.

12 I
0 0 3

16

15

22

12

21

10 18 31 53

11 12 11

21 20 16 U

9 10 12 9

J.

0 0 0 2

29 23 18 1

15 18 17 15

6 7 11 11

0 I 3 15

0 1 0 6

0 0 0 0

40 35 29 7

36 38 33 26

15 17 23 20

I 2 7 26

1
4 11

I 0 0 9 0 2

fi
4 9

54 55

21 14

16 14

I
4

0 0

1 2

11 2

21 18

15 21

2 5

0 4

0 0

15 27

42 35

31 19

3 8

0 I 0 2

Note. Refer to Appendix L (p288)for further review of frequency distributions of survey items. for composite mean data for Table 8 survey items.

Also refer to Appendix I (p. 260)

Code: SA > Strong Agreement = 1 GA * General Agreement 2 A * Tendency to Agree = 3 D - Tendency to Disagree * 4 GO - General Disagreement * 5 SD Strong Disagreement 6

140
Responses with bimodal frequency distributions from preselec tion panel members (See Table 4, p. 122) and from practitioners and academicians (See Table 8, p. 139) do not match or seem to correlate in any significant way. There does seem to be a correlation among

high relevance response items, high agreement response items, and atypical distribution items which is direct and positive. The implica

tions of bimodal distribution of school finance statement responses to field information and conceptual development are treated in Chapter V. Miscellaneous Data. In addition to the fifty-five school finance

statements presented for response by practitioners and academicians, three optionally specified school finance issues were also included for response on the second side of the answer sheet (See p. 229 ). Respon

dents were asked to comment on the relative value of univariate (simple) v. multivariate (conditional neutrality); on the feasibility of redis ricting to promote school finance equity and equal educational oppor tunity; and on the change, if any, in the role of the federal government regarding public education in the next fifty years. The following Table 9 provides a summary of practitioner/academician responses to these three optionally specified school finance issues. With reference to univariate v. multivariate definitions of fiscal neutrality, the majority of all practitioners and academicians responding indicated that multivariate factors within a fiscal neutrality definition provided a more appropriate base for equitable distribution of school revenues. Four comments were made by practitioners regarding the diffi

culty legislatures have understanding and/or passing multivariate formula calculation procedures.

TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO THREE OPTIONALLY SPECIFIED SCHOOL FINANCE ISSUES

Questions

Practitioners Uni Multl Both None Other Blank 1 2 Yes 3 1 1 35

Academicians Uni Multl Both None Other Blank 3 Yes 16 Yes 11 3 2 2 29

Composite Uni Multi Both None Other Blank 4 13 6 3 3 64

N NR

1. Univariate (simple) vs Multivariate (conditional) Definitions of Fiscal Neutrality

29 .64 93

No Maybe

Other Blank

No Maybe 11 0

Other Blank 1 22 BTanE

Yes No Maybe 23 Yes 15 No 4

Other Blank 2 49 BTarflt 44 49 93

2. Feasiblity of Redisricting to Promote Equity.

7 Yes

27 Blank

Ro +$ - +C -

No ' + i - +C-

+ J- +C-

3. Change and Nature of Change in Role of Federal Government

14

5 5 5 7

25

21

1 11 5 11 7

27

35

2 16 10 16 14

52

93 52 145

Note. Questions No. 1 & 2 add up to the N of Practitioners (43) + Academicians (50) = (93). Question No. 3 permitted multiple responses for each subcategory. Code: +$ = More Federal money N * Sample size -$ * Less Federal money T * Total R Responding +C More Federal control -C Less Federal control NR Not Responding

142
With reference to the feasibility of redistricting to promote equity and equal educational opportunity, sixty percent of both

practitioner and academician groups thought redistricting was a feasible alternative. Three academician comments on the political

difficulties in accomplishing redistricting were also noted. With reference to the change in nature and role of the federal government regarding education, the overwhelming majority (over 90%) of practitioners, academicians, and composite indicated anticipation of changes in the federal role regarding education. Practitioners

were evenly divided on whether more or less federal dollars (propor tionate) would be expended; academicians thought more proportionate dollars by a 2:1 margin; and composite was 3:2. Practitioners were

also evenly divided on whether there would be more or less federal control of education while almost 70% of academicians indicated more federal control. Unspecified comments and suggestions made by practitioners and academicians included the following: 1. It is impossible to create equitable and equalized formulae that will pass the legislature (practitioner). 2. Some measures of output from the school system are neces sary. A voucher system might help improve the quality

of education (practitioner). 3. More money does not necessarily mean more equality or more learning, Equal educational opporutnity is such a vague term that it's used for "everything under the sun" (prac.) 4. Free choice and equity are contradictory. Equal educational

143
opportunity may be possible from a theoretical perspective, but is impossible as a practical matter (academician). 5. Finance reform will be instigated to reduce tax loads, not to equalize educational expenditure. Equalization will

not succeed because of this (academician). 6. Educational opportunity, child equity, taxpayer equity, and adequacy are values; values to be adjudicated at the state level. All those who hold education . . . and

freedom in high esteem, must monitor, influence, and pro vide leadership to ensure that those values are retained in the public interest (acad.). 7. Hamiltonian centralists seems to have been gaining in influence in public educational policy development since 1965 (acad.). Three respondents (academicians) complained of the vagueness of some of the questions and two practitioners inquired whether they should answer statements based on their own opinion or based on the policy of the department for which they worked. Several respondents commented on

the usefulness and quality of of the survey instrument, wished the in vestigators luck, and expressed interest in seeing the results of the research. A mean of 50% of all practitioners and academicians answered Less than 15% of Comments and

the three optionally specified school finance issues.

all respondents provided additional unspecified comments.

patterns of responses provided inferences of high content familiarity of respondents with survey instrument information. Respondents generally

seemed comfortable with their understanding of task content and context.

144
Summary of Data Item-by-Item Summary of Significant Findings. This section includes

responses of preselection panel members, practitioners, and academicians which have indicated highest relevance or agreement, lowest relevance or agreement, or which show a bimodal frequency distribution. The table

also includes items low in relevance which were reincluded for content reasons in the revised fifty-five survey instrument. All items with

a significant difference in practitioner/academician response at p < .01 and p < .05 have also been reported. The table also includes a useful

cross-reference of the fifty-five school finance statements by number with their original number in the seventy-five item survey instrument; and also provides the original numbers of the twenty deleted items. The usefulness of Table 10 extends to the visual array of checks or Xes for each data point which, when taken together,provide a profile of significantly rated and different items. An example of the type of in

formation that can be obtained using Table 10 is the analysis of rein cluded items to verify or discount their reinclusion based on content relevance. Reincluded item #23 has shown a significant difference in Reincluded item #31 has been rated Rein

practitioner/academician response.

as highest in relevance by both practitioners and academicians.

cluded item #49 has shown a significant difference in practitioner/ academician response, and also is reported as bimodal in distribution for preselection panel responses. This data tends to validate the

change in statistical procedure, for content reasons, which resulted in the reinclusion of these items. Further analysis based on Table

10 data arrays is reported in the concluding chapter of this study.

145
TABLE 10 ITEM-BY-ITEM SUMMARY OF RELEVANCE AND AGREEMENT LEVELS AND SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AMONG PRESELECTION PANEL, PRACTITIONERS, AND ACADEMICIANS

Item No.

0r1g Item No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (7) (8) (9) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (19) (20) (21) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (37) (38) (39) (40) (42) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (53) (54) (55)

Highest Relevance or Agreement COM PRE PRA ACA X X X iuJ 1". J

4>J

Lowest ance or Agreement PRA ACA COM

Significant Variances .01 .05

Slnodal Frequency Distribution PRE PRA ACA COM

1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. U. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

X X

r . OD
^

TJ 41 X X X X

0)1-4 M

X % X> Cm ** oi o> S u> I/) oi X X

4J - c.

X X

X X X

5 O. C rcyi-e w uu C o in ? *.

X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X

8 Zs* oi a> <o

> f 00 UH-e

pI a Su c +a . U IA tl
W> C QJ X X X X
8 >T*

XX v *

<*C * I <o >>M>

V A

>^fc c>*o v
X X X ^* CM <p Olfl o 4J * |iwu) u X X

X X X

IS* !=-*

146

TABLE 10

(CONT'D)

Item No. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. Note.

Orig Item No. (56) (57) (58) (60) (63) (64) (66) (67) (68) (69) (70) (72) (73) (75)

Hfghest Lowest Relevance or Agreement Relevance or Agreement PRE PRA ACA COM PRE PRA ACA COM X X X X X

Significant Variances .01 .05

Blmodal Frequency Distribution PRE PRA ACA COM

X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X

Refer to Appendixes K (p.275) and L (p.288) for mean, frequency and variance data. Code: PRE Preselection Panel Members COM Composite of School Finance Practitioners and Academicians PRA School Finance Practitioners R Six deleted Items relncluded In fifty-five item Instrument ACA School Finance Academicians for content through a change 1n statistical procedure.

147
The use of Appendixes K (p. 275 ) and L (p.288) with the Table 10 visual data array provides a convenient profile of each item for analy sis and summarization. Appendix K includes mean response data and an

analysis of variance for all fifty-five items and five subgroups of items; and Appendix L provides a visual review and comparison of the frequency and distribution of practitioner/academician responses to the fifty-five items. The "feel" for the data that develops upon review of

vertical frequency bar graphs for each school finance statement by practitioner and academician response is considerable. Also the bar

graph display provides further basis for inference that is useful for the analysis of current data, and that provides data for subsequent investigation. Summary of Findings and Differences in Practitioner/Academician Responses to Fifty-five School Finance Survey Items, This section in

cludes a summary of information and inference regarding practitioner/ academician responses to fifty-five school finance statements. Analysis of frequency and distribution of responses is provided. All of these

findings were based upon a thorough review of Appendix L vertical bar graph comparisons of practitioner and academician responses to the fifty-five survey items. Please refer to Appendix L (pp. 288-343)

a review of visual data bases to accompany this summary of data (.Note, practitioners = GRP 1; academicians = Grp 2; all items are numbered consecutively Q1-Q55 at the lower right of each display): Q1. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree and/or are in general agreement that local property tax relief is a higher priority than school finance reform. An

inference of more of a "knee jerk" type of response can be made regarding practitioners owing to the slope and frequency of the graph. Q2. Practitioners and academicians significantly disagree at p < .01 that local control takes precedence over equal educational opportunity. agree; as made. Q3. Both practitioners and academicians disagree, indicating that adequacy of funding is of greater concern than equity. Q4. Both practitioners and academicians agree that equal educational opportunity should be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Q5. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree that the property tax is increasingly inadequate for the costs of education. Bimodal practitioner response is noted. Q6. Practitioners and academicians significantly disagree at p < .01 that there cannot be program equity without tax equity. Practitioners tend to be neutral; academicians Practitioners tend to

academicians tend to disagree with the statement

tend to disagree with the statement as made. Q7. A bimodal distribution has emerged, particularly among practitioners, producing the inference of a polarization of opinion about whether increased state and federal support results in decreased responsibility.

149
Q8. Both practitioners and academicians disagree, but with a statistically significant difference at p < .01 indica ting that the responses of state legislatures have not resolved equity issues. Practitioners tend to disagree

and academicians generally disagree more. Q9. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree that equality of educational opportunity is a practical goal. Q10. Both practitioners and academicians tend to strongly agree that equal education opportunity is a desirable goal, although a statistically significant difference at p < .01 is reported. Practitioners generally agree and academi

cians more strongly agree. Qll. Practitioners are neutral and academicians tend to agree that more equity will cause greater centralization. Q12. Both practitioners and academicians tend to disagree with very little difference with the statement that poor schools are traceable to inadequate local support. Q13. Both practitioners and academicians tend to strongly agree that equalization of property tax assessments is a logical prerequisite for an equitable foundation program. Q14. Both practitioners and academicians generally agree that a combination of taxes would be a better base for funding public education. Q15. Both practitioners and academicians tend to disagree with the questionableness of fiscal neutrality as the basis for measuring school finance equity. Practitioners tended to agree and academicians disagree with the statement as made.

150
Q16. A normal distribution of practitioners tends to agree that intra-district disparities may be as significant as inter-district disparities. Academicians more

strongly agree with 80% of all responding in agreement. Q17. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree that municipal overburden should be factored into state equalization formulae. Q18. Both practitioners and academicians strongly agree that variable costs for special needs students should be factored into state equalization formulae. Q19. Both practitioners and academicians tend to strongly agree that variable costs for disproportionate percentages of special needs students (educational overburden) should be factored into state equalization formulae. Q20. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree with a cost of education index to accommodate variations in local purchasing power as a factor in state equalization formulae. Q21. Academicians generally agree more.

Both practitioners and academicians strongly agree that an index of local tax paying ability should be a factor in state equalization formulae.

Q22.

Both practitioners and academicians tend to strongly agree that density/sparsity factors should be included in state equalization formulae.

Q23. Practitioners and academicians significantly disagree at p < .05 regarding the elimination of attendance-based

per pupil counts for state aid eligibility. Practitioners tend to agree with inclusion and academicians tend toward agreement with exclusion of the per pupil count based on average daily attendance. Q24. Both practitioners and academicians tend to be neutral re garding the effectiveness of hold harmless procedures to facilitate equalization. No particular tendency toward

agreement or disagreement with the statement is noted. Q25. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree that incentives for local initiative should be factored into state equalization formulae. Practitioners generally agree more, with a difference approaching significance. Q26. Both practitioners and academicians tend to strongly agree that state equalization of property tax assessments should be factored into a state equalization formulae. Q27. Both practitioners and academicians tend to generally to strongly disagree that full state assumption is necessary to assure school finance equity. disagree more. Q28. Practitioners and academicians significantly disagree at p < .05 that a need exists to significantly increase the proportionate state share of expense for public education. Practitioners tend toward neutrality and academicians tend toward general agreement with the statement as made. The majority of practitioners and a larger majority of academi cians agree and agree generally, respectively, with the statement. Practitioners tend to

152
Q29. Practitioners and academicians significantly disagree at p < .05 that complex dispersion measures confound

rather than clarify the process of assuring equal educational opportunity. Practitioners tend toward

general agreement with the statement as made and academicians tend toward neutrality. Q30. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree that state-wide administration of property taxation systems may be necessary to ensure a rational system of state aid to education, with little variance. Q31. Both practitioners and academicians tend to strongly agree that educated persons are capital assets to the community. Q32. Both practitioners and academicians tend to generally agree that categorical state or federal aid is necessary for certain pupil groups. Q33. Practitioners tend to disagree and academicians are exactly neutral that racism is a significant causal factor contri buting to inequities in the financing of the public schools. The difference approaches significance at p < .05. Q34. Both practitioners and academicians tend to generally agree that the economic return of equal educational opportunity will exceed the costs of providing it. ally agree more. Q35. Both practitioners and academicians tend to generally agree that the costs of equal educational opportunity are less than the costs of not providing it. generally agree more. Practitioners Academicians gener

153
Q36. Both practitioners and academicians tend toward neutrality regarding the use of property wealth per pupil as the most appropriate base from which to determine the fiscal capacity of a school district. The majority of both

groups tends to disagree with the statement as made. Q37. Both practitioners and academicians tend to generally agree that measurements of fiscal capacity should be expanded to include personel income. Q38. Both practitioners and academicians tend to be neutral regarding the merits of Strayer-Haig v. district power equalization state aid to education formulae with little variance. Q39. Both practitioners and academicians tend to generally agree that the measurement of instructional efficiency focused on narrow bands of test outcomes is questionable. cians ten to generally agree more. Q40. Both practitioners and academicians tend to be neutral regarding the measurement of instructional efficiency based on broad longitudinal constructs. Practitioner data tended to be bimodal at the midpoint of the agreement/disagreement continuum range. Q41. Both practitioners and academicians tend toward agreement with the fact that educational vouchers would shift sub stantial power from educators to parents. generally agreed more. Academicians Academi

154
Q42. Both practitioners and academicians generally agree that educational vouchers might signifiacntly reduce equal access to equal education with poor and disadvantaged pupils increasingly concentrated in the public schools. Academicians agree generally more but a higher percentage of practitioners strongly agreed with the statement as made. Q43. Both practitioners and academicians tend to generally disagree that educational vouchers will figure largely in the financing of American education by the year 2000. Academicians seem to be distributed more uniformly in disagreement with the statement as made; practitioners bimodally distribute at the midrange, but with more disagreement toward the disagreement end. Q44. Practitioners tend toward neutrality and academicians tend toward disagreement that public education is a local enterprise determined primarily by local preferences. Q45. Fairly uniform distributions of practitioner and academi cian responses show a tendency towrd neutrality regarding local tax paying ability as the major determinant of public education policy. Academicians tended to disagree

more with the statement as made. Q46. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree that tax payer reluctance to support the costs of public education illustrates the tendency of individuals to ignore the broader public interest. A larger majority of academicians

tended toward agreement with the statement as made.

Q47.

Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree that recapture is an appropriate strategy to equalize revenues within a state. A slightly higher level of agreement

is noted among academicians. Q48. Both practitioners and academicians tend from neutrality to disagreement with tuition tax credits figuring largely as an alternative education financing system by the year 2000. Q49. Practitioners tended to disagree more.

Practitioners and academicians significantly differ at p < .05 regarding one national standard for equal educa tional opportunity. Practitioners tend to agree with

that statement as made; that one national standard violates free choice. Academicians tend to be neutral regarding the

statement as made. Q50. Practitioners and academicians significantly differ at p < .01 regarding one state-wide standard for equal Practitioners tend to agree

educational opportunity.

with the statement as made; that one state-wide standard violates free choice. statement as made. Q51. Both practitioners and academicians tend to agree that leveling up less wealthy/lower spending school districts by providing state aid to make up funding differences is a politically feasible equalization methodology. Little variance is noted. Academicians tend to disagree with

Q52.

Both practitioners and academicians, with very little variance in frequency or distribution, tend to agree that the divergence of private free choice and the social bene fits of public education is a problem with reference to equal educational opportunity in a free society.

Q53.

A bimodal distribution has emerged, among both practi tioners and academicians, producing the inference that there is equal disagreement or confusion within each group regarding business and industrial lobby support for stateadministered property tax systems. Notwithstanding the

distribution a tendency to agree with the statement as made is noted, with academicians slightly more in disagree ment. Q54. Both practitioners and academicians tend to strongly agree that school finance reform and property tax reform are not necessarily antithetical. Slightly stronger agreement is

noted among academicians regarding the statement as made. Q55. Practitioners and academicians significantly differ at p < .01 that equal educational opportunity meets the needs

of the state as well as the needs of the individual. Not withstanding the statistical significance, practitioners tend to strongly agree with the statement as made; and academicians tend to more strongly agree, The significant

difference reported for this item as the agreement end of the agreement/disagreement continuum range is of less im port than if the difference was reported at the midpoint of the range (See Q2, p. 148 and Q10, p. 149 for comparison).

Chapter V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Given the prevalent difficulties associated with the provision of effective and equal educational opportunity throughout the United States, this study was undertaken to assess the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians to current concepts, issues, and understanding of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. To

assure the appropriateness of the data base for investigation, an exten sive review of the professional literature; of social, historical, and political contexts; and of fiscal policies and procedures has been implemented. A comprehensive review of school finance legislation and

litigation and related educational and civil rights legislation and liti gation has also been completed. Although, as Guthrie (1980) and others

have commented, a "kaleidoscopic" array of tensions seems to characterize public school finance and state aid to education; the problems of equalization of revenues and equal and efficient education are present in all states, in all parts of the country. Findings of the present

investigation indicate that, despite some polarization of opinion and am bivalence, an overriding common language and understanding of the problems associated with the financing of the public schools emerges from the professional academic and bureaucratic communities.

157

158
Summary The summary of the present investigation includes an overview of the purpose and statement of the problem; limitations and delimitations; procedures and methodology; analysis of patterns of responses; and sources of error. Purpose and Statement of the Problem Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the

responses of public school finance practitioners and academicians; particularly including state level school finance administrators and professors and researchers of educational finance; to current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. Those school finance issues presented for response and analy

sis were drawn directly from the identification and interaction of school and public finance issues presented in the professional litera ture as significant to the process and progress of education finance. The presentation of contemporary school finance issues in appropriate historical, political, and social contexts is designed to provide speci fic insight to current conceptual development in the field, and to provide a comparative data base of practitioner and academician groups. Statement of the Problem. The present investigation provides

evidence helpful in solving the research problems as presented in the following four questions: 1. To what extent do the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians agree on current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools?

2.

To what extent are there discrepancies among the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians as to school finance concepts, issues, and understandings presented?

3.

Are there statistically significant differences among responses of these two population samples, regarding their levels of agreement or disagreement with current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools?

4.

What are the implications of patterns of responses of school finance practitioners and academicians, regarding their levels of agreement or disagreement with current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools?

The problem area being addressed directly by this investigation was the perceived need for continued conceptual development in the finance area, owing to significant disparities in public school finan cing and expenditures among local political subdivisions. The following null hypothesis was formulated from the stated purpose and problem. There are no statistically significant differences

among the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians regarding current current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools, as presented in a multiple item forced answer format: HQ: = X2 = 0 where jfj = school

finance practitioners and ITg = school finance academicians and researchers.

160
Limitations and Delimitations Research for this study has been designed to permit comparison and analysis of school finance practitioners and academicians to current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. Fourteen nationally prominent school finance ex

perts have assessed the level of current topical relevance of seventyfive school finance statements on a three point ordinal scale. Forty-

three school finance practitioners and fifty school finance academicians and researchers have reported their levels of agreement or disagreement on a six point ordinal scale. Analysis is limited to survey items (1)

identified as high or low in relevance or high or low in agreement/ disagreement; (2) with statistically significant differences at p and p < .01

< .05 between practitioner/academician respondents; (3) identi

fied with bimodal distributions of either preselection panel member, practitioner or academician groups, or as a composite of practitioner/ academician groups; (4) identified within five school finance statement subgroups as to levels of agreement/disagreement and statistically signi ficant differences at p < .01 and p < .05; and (5) with additional

specified and unspecified respondent comments and suggestions. Due to the complexity of the problem and the extent and specificity of data requirements, school finance survey respondents were limited to state and federal agency level practitioner and college or university/ research center academician/researcher groups. Specific limitations were

also applied in the identification of expert preselection panel members. Findings are limited to those statements appropriately made as a result of a commercially available statistical analysis package (SAS) and include

161
frequency, mean, standard deviation, and analysis of variance calculations and data arrays. The use of computer-prepared vertical

frequency bar graphs of practitioner and academician responses has also been included. Procedures and Methodology The selection of samples, construction and use of data gathering instruments, and the statistical procedures utilized in the present investigation are summarized in this section. Selection of Samples. sample. Two major groups comprised the study

The first major group (GRP = 1) includes state level school

finance officials (Assistant Superintendent, School Finance Officer, Budget Analyst, etc.). The second major group (GRP = 2) includes

professors of school finance (educational administration, economics, etc.) at colleges and universities, and other academician/researchers in school finance at regional or national research and information centers. groups. These have been classified as practitioner and academician The practitioner group included 43 respondents; and the Sample populations were

academician group included 50 respondents.

selected from two basic sources (1) the key state finance administrator mailing list of the Education Finance Center of the Education Commission of the States; and (2) the membership mailing list of the American Education Finance Association. State assistant superintendents for

school finance in state departments of education and professors of school finance and/or school finance researchers in professional preparation programs and at education finance research and information centers associated with public and private organizations were the primary target populations.

162
A third sample group included 14 expert preselection panel members who rated the current topical relevance of seventy-five school finance statements, The twenty lowest rated statements were deleted from a final fifty-five item survey instrument used for practitioner/academician responses. These experts were nationally

prominent and widely published school finance academicians and researchers. Their ratings of the current topical relevance of school

finance statements (1) provided a basic perspective of current expert opinion; (2) helped focus the content of the survey instrument; and (4) provided insight to the consensus of leadership in the school finance professional community. See Table 1 (p. 112) for a summary of the number and percent of returns for preselection panel member, practioner and academician groups. Data Gathering Instruments. The method of inquiry for this study

specifically involved the development of a school finance conceptual issues survey instrument which provided the basis for a comparison and analysis of school finance practitioner and academician responses, A

seventy-five item school finance statement survey instrument with in structions and answer key was developed from a review of pertinent literature, legislation, and litigation regarding educational financing. This non-standardized data gathering instrument was mailed to 19 expert preselection panel members, who were asked to rate the current topical relevance of each item on a three point ordinal scale of L = 1 (Low), M = 2 (Medium), and H = 3 (high). The highest relevance-rated fifty-

five items comprised the final revised survey instrument mailed to 56 school finance practitioners and 75 school finance academicians.

163

Practitioners/academicians were asked to rate their level of agree ment or disagreement with each school finance statement on a six point ordinal scale of SA = 1 (Strong Agreement), GA = 2 (General Agreement), A = 3 (Tendency to Agree), D = 4 (Tendency to Disagree), GD = 5 (Gen eral Disagreement, and SD = 6 (Strong Disagreement). Appendixes A

(p. 201) and D (p. 222) are the seventy-five and fifty-five survey item instruments used in the present investigation. Statistical Procedures. The SAS--Statistical Analysis System (SAS

Institute, 1978) has been used for computer-assisted processing of survey data. data arrays: (1) Frequency, cumulative frequency, percentage, and cumulative percentage of high, medium, and low relevance responses of 14 expert preselection panel members to 75 school finance statements; (2) Frequency, cumulative frequency, percentage, and cumulative percentage of level of agreement/ disagreement responses of 43 school finance practitioners and 50 school finance academicians to 55 school finance statements; (3) Mean, standard deviation, standard error, and variance of preselection panel and practitioner/academician respondents by each individual item and by 5 conceptual subgroups of items; and (4) Analysis of variance and statistically significant differences at p < .01 and p < .05, among the This analysis includes the following calculations and

164
responses of practitioners and academicians by 55 items and 5 subgroups of 55 items. Survey items

with bimodal distributions and/or atypical frequency distributions have also been reported. All survey items have been factor analyzed through an analysis of variance procedure for practitioner and academician groups. Signi

ficant items were treated independently and as related to each other according to the five identified conceptual subgroups of school finance statements (See Figures 4-8, pp. 94-8). Threats to internal validity

were controlled through the use of the mean in data analysis; and threats to external validity (multi-x interference) were of limited concern owing to the fact that the data treatment revolved around the statistically significant responses of groups rather than individuals (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). The use of a computer-generated series of fifty-five vertical frequency bar graph comparisons of practitioner/academician item responses has also been included as part of the statistical procedures. Information and inferences made with the use of such a visual data display produced a "feel" for the data at the unit or item level; permitted a more thorough and precise data analysis of practitioner/ academician responses; and has provided a ready reference for subsequent review and research. The desired outcome of the present investigation

has been to determine what school finance practitioners and academicians agree or disagree with, or are neutral or uncertain about, regarding current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools; and to determine significant variances

165
in response by item and by subgroup of items between the practitioner/ academician groups. Sources of Error Sampling error, the use of a non-standardized survey instrument, and statistical procedures and analyses are included in this subsection as the three most likely potential sources of error in the present investigation. Sampling Error. Sampling error was minimized through the

development of survey items that were as discrete and accurate as the data would reasonably permit. Randomization of all items was Because

adhered to in both the 75 and 55 item survey instruments.

of reasonable assurances of adequate sample sizes, no fixed selection was anticipated or used with any respondent group. The overall return

of 71.3 per cent assisted in minimizing sampling error. Instrumentation. The use of non-standardized data gathering

survey instruments has been clearly regarded as a potential source of error. Since the use of such instrumentation was operationally required

for the purposes of investigation, attempts were made through the use of preliminary analyses to establish support for the validity and relia bility of the instruments. The use of an expert preselection panel to rate the relevance of seventy-five school finance statements,the reinclusion of 6 low relevance statements in the revised instrument through a change in statistical procedure, and the reduction of items from seventy-five to fifty-five were some steps undertaken to help assure content and construct validity of the final revised instrument. Providing opportunity for preselection panel experts to make further comment and changing the wording of several

166
statements as a result of these comments provided a further reinforce ment of reliability and of content validity. Although further analysis and instrument standardization are re quired to continue to improve estimates of instrument effectiveness, a reasonable assumption of instrument reliability has been realized. Consistency of practitioner/academician responses to two matched pairs of school finance statements in the original and the revised instruments was observed. Specified and unspecified comments and suggestions of

practitioners and academicians, and an analysis of their patterns of responses suggest the good fit of individual item and item subgroup responses. To further assure continuing development, replication of

this study and subsequent research sharing data should include further standardization of the survey instrument by item and by item subgroup. It was not the intent of the present investigation to develop and standardize a school finance survey instrument, but rather to begin part of the foundation for a new type of empirical qualitative research in school finance. Statistical Procedures and Analysis. Review of all available

statistical analysis tends to confirm that the SAS analyses used were appropriate for the data available and an investigation of the problems identified. Comprehensive tabular and visual display data has been

appended for readers and reviewers access to the complete data base used by the present investigator. Analysis of Patterns of Responses The analysis of patterns of responses of preselection panel members, academicians, and practitioners to school finance statements and sub groups of statements is treated in this section.

167
Preselection Panel Members. Patterns of responses of preselection

panel members to seventy-five school finance statements have shown a skewed normal distribution with 49 of 75 items rated at or above the midpoint of the range (See Table 3, p. 115; see also Figure 9, p. 117). This implied directly that expert panel members rated two-thirds of all The skew of these

items as medium to high in current topical relevance.

contributed to instrument reliability and validity and further permitted the inclusion of more items than originally anticipated on the final revised instrument. Of the twenty items rated lowest in relevance by preselection panel members, eighteen were readily categorized into three groups. Since

these items were deleted from the final revised instrument, their classi fication and relationship to non-deleted items remained a matter of interest. Six of the twenty deleted items rated lowest by expert

panelists related to federal involvement and monitoring or control of the processes of funding public education. Content pertained to strict

scrutiny of funds for education (the original Serrano standard), one national solution to school financing with increased federal share of expense, and primary federal educational concern with equal educational opportunity guarantees. The inference that may be drawn from this

clustering is that panel experts seem to have pragmatically accepted the primacy of local control and state responsibility for public education. The historical pursuasiveness of this precedent, when combined with Rodriguez and recent state court judicial review (Levittown v. Nyquist; Lujan v. Colorado) may have convinced experts that low current topical relevance is appropriately assigned these items.

168
Preselection panel experts gave lowest relevance ratings to eight items relating to state aid to education formula and equalization. Items such as non-supplanting, earmarking, flat v. variable grant formulae, and recapture were perhaps rated as historically ineffective in assuring school finance equity. More recently developed factors for

possible inclusion in state aid formulae, including household time contributions and out-of-school resources were also rejected. The

inference here includes a probable awareness of confusion and difficulty in measuring and applying more discrete and quantitative factors cur rently in use. Factors such as household time contributions, and out-

of-school resources are amorphous and even more difficult to estimate and measure. Newness has not enhanced expert perception of relevance.

Four of the twenty deleted items related to the interface among school finance, public finance, and economics. School finance experts

have seemed to clearly tend to ignore school finance interrelationships with public finance and economics. It may be specifically inferred that,

as Musgrave (1959) and James (1961) have proposed, that education leaders tend to regard education as a social preference, not in competition or interface with other aspects of public finance and economic principle. In this case the leaders are the preselection panel members. Of the fourteen items rated highest in relevance by the preselection panel (1) eight pertained directly to state aid to education and equali zation factors; (2) three pertained to a juxtaposition of property tax relief and school finance reform; and (3) three pertained to equity and equal education. Expert panelists, thourgh their relevance rating,

have seemed to indicate the expansion of fiscal capacity and conditional

169
neutrality definitions as critical to the progress and process of school finance (See pp. 120-121). A clear concern for equal educational oppor

tunity and appropriate, objective recommendations are noted. Five survey item responses by preselection panel members have shown a pattern of bimodal frequency distribution, indicating an ambiva lence or polarization of opinion (See Table 4, p. 122). The polarity

of opinion inferred from the data reflects the current dynamics of local v. state v. federal control and funding of public education; and prevail ing disappointment with fiscal neutrality measures and district power equalization formulae as improvers of equalization. While the experts

have identified local free choice v. one state or national standard for equal educational opportunity as a current critical issue and dilemma, they nevertheless recognize that school finance and property tax reform are not antithetical and that equal educational opportunity is a desireable but perhaps not as practical a basic goal. Four of the seven additional school finance statements recommended by preselection panel members involve statutory or constitutional amend ments limiting property taxation and total state spending. As Guthrie

(1980) has observed, the actual impact of California's Proposition 13 as proposed by Jarvis and Gann (1980) has been to effect a significant equalization of educational revenue within the state. Panel experts

seem to have anticipated an increased federal role in education notwith standing Rodriguez and recent judicial review, and have again suggested the absence of antithesis between property tax and school finance reforms (See Figure 10, p. 124).

170
Practi tioner/Academi ci an Respondents. Patterns of responses of

school finance practitioners and academicians to fifty-five school finance statements have shown a skewed normal distribution with a com posite 12 of 55 items rated toward or at strong agreement and another composite 7 of 55 items rated from a tendency to disagree to strong disagreement (See Table 5, p. 130). The skew of these contributed to

instrument reliability and validity by showing consistency of response with preselection panel members and because of the conceptual validation negatively skewed patterns of responses (high agreement) lent to the current topical relevance of the majority of school finance statements. Practitioners rated twelve items highest in agreement; academicians rated fourteen items highest in agreement; and a composite of both groups yielded a total of twelve items highest in agreement. Items rated high

est by practitioners but not by academicians included local property tax relief a higher priority than school finance reform and density/sparsity factors for state aid to education formulae. Items rated highest by aca

demicians but not by practitioners included the significance of intraand well as interdistrict disparities; to include personal income; the expansion of fiscal capacity

the questionable measurement of instruction

efficiency by focusing on narrow bands of test outcomes; and the reduc tion of equal access to equal education. Items both practitioners and

academicians rated highest in agreement included the desirability of equal educational opportunity; a combination of taxes for public educa tion; treatment of educated persons as capital assets to the community;

school finance and property tax reform not antithetical, and equal educa tional opportunity meeting the needs of the state as well as the person.

171
State aid to education formula equalization factors rated highest in agreement by both practitioners and academicians include the following four areas (1) equalization of property tax assessments; (2) variable costs for special students; (3) variable costs for dispropor tionate percentages of special students; (4) an index of local tax paying ability. Two pairs of similar questions included in the seventy-

five item original instrument to assist in the verification of instrument validity and reliability have been similarly rated by practitioners, academicians, and/or preselection panel members. The two items which

treated out-of school community resources as a state aid factor were rated low in relevance and deleted from the final revised instrument (original item #s 18 and 22); and the two items which treated the equalization of property tax assessments were rated high in relevance by preselection panel members and practitioners/academicians (original item #s 16 and 33). Clear consistency has been observed regarding preselec tion panel member and practitioner/academician responses. This inter

face of level of relevance and level of agreement responses has suggested a certain unanimity of understanding and committment to the process and progress of school finance reform. Inferences drawn for preselection

panel members regarding conceptual approach to school finance in this section apply equally for practitioners and academicians. Three survey items responses, two by practitioners and one by both practitioners and academicians, have shown a pattern of bimodal frequency distribution, indicating an ambivalence or polarization of opinion (See Table 8, p.139). The polarity of opinion inferred from the data reflects

a growing understanding of the inadequacy of local property taxes to

172
support the costs of public education today, tempered with ambivalence regarding a possible decrease in local responsibility through state administration of property taxation systems. No correlation between

preselection panel and practitioner/academician bimodal distributions is evident from the data. Practitioner patterns of response to items with reference to local control/local choice issues have emerged with a certain tendency to agree with and support local responsibility for education. Perhaps more than other groups within the sample, practitioners are almost painfully aware of and prefer to dwell within the historical, social, and political contexts of education financing. They are simultaneously

aware of continuing disparities in equalization and equal education and have a good conceptual grasp of how school finance problems might be resolved in an abstract, ideal setting. Perhaps an overestimation

of political policies and constraints, and a rather fatalistic attitude toward resolution, has produced an ambivalence and polarization of opin ion which may be a critical bottleneck in the school finance reform process (See Table 8, p. 139 and Table 9, p. 141). Academician patterns of response have emerged with less of a bias or orientation toward local control/local choice, with less ambivalence and polarization of opinion, but with a similar fatalistic attitude toward resolution. They tend to support multivariate and conditional

definitions of fiscal neutrality but generally disagree with the use of the concept as the basis for measuring school finance equity. As

indicated earlier, though academicians have shown a broad understanding of the problems and possible solutions associated with the financing of

173
the public schools, they are usually not included as policy or decision makers in applied areas of school finance. The impact of

school finance academicians and researchers on conceptual development in school finance is considerable; the impact of school finance aca demicians and researchers on the political processes associated with changes and improvements in school finance continues to be suspect. Practitioners rated five items highest in disagreement; academiciand rated five items highest in disagreement; and a composite of both groups yielded a total of four items highest in disagreement. Items rated lowest (highest in disagreement) by practitioners but not by academicians included racism as a causal factor in school finance inequities and educational vouchers figuring largely in education financing by the year 2000. Items rated lowest (highest in disagree

ment) by academicians but not by practitioners included the issue of local control taking precedence over equal educational opportunity and no program equity without tax equity in public education. Items both

practitioners and academicians rated lowest (highest in disagreement) included equity of funding of more concern than adequacy of funding; state legislative responses as solutions to school finance equity issues; and the full state assumption of the costs of public education. Of the three sample groups, both practitioners and academicians expressed strongest disagreement with full state assumption and the preselection panel rated the issue as high in relevance with a bimodal distribution. Patterns of responses seem to have indicated that the primary ob stacles to school finance reform and school finance equity/equalization are conceptual with reference to state and federal level school finance

174
practitioners and the local control/choice issue, and political with reference to practitioner resistance to change and to academician perception of political realities and low level of participation. Some inference can also be made regarding how school finance practi tioners and academicians perceive themselves as essentially powerless to resolve school finance equity issues. This may result in occasional

rational sophistry which belies the frustration a number of school finance experts have come to feel regarding the process and progress of school finance. James (1971) has commented:

. . . Alan Hickrod, in an article in the February 1971 Review of Educational Research noted my prediction a decade ago that no amount of empirical quantitative research in school finance would ever settle the ancient and often bitter dispute about the egalitarian and the libertarian dilemma that has perhaps been the dominant value conflict in our nation from its beginnings. The

full state funding of elementary and secondary education would be a long step toward the egalitarian side. We can

expect strong statements to be made from the libertarian point of view in the media shortly, and in the political arena later. If the egalitarians win this one, be assured that the libertarians will seek redress, most probably by expanding the private sector. This probability, I should

guess, should be weighed on the con side, but that too is arguable (p. 10).

175
Conclusions Twenty conclusions have been drawn from the findings of this investigation, from item analysis and from analysis of variance of the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians. Presenta

tion of the conclusions is organized in relationship to the four research questions posed and in response to the null hypothesis stated. Question One To what extent do the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians agree on current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools? Conclusions. to question one. 1. There was no statistically significant difference at p < .01 or p < .05 for 81 per cent (45) of the final revised 55 school finance statements and for 80 per cent (4) of the five conceptual subgroups of school finance statements. 2. Highest levels of agreement between practitioner and academician groups occurred in 21.8 per cent (12) of all cases where respondents agreed with the statement as made and in 7.2 per cent (4) of all cases where respondents disagreed with the statement as made, yielding a total of 29 percent (16) of the 55 school finance statements. 3. Salient areas of agreement for practitioner/academician groups were related to (a) factors in state aid to education formulae; (b) desirability and personal and social benefits of equal educational opportunity; (c) difficulties in assessing The following three conclusions were drawn in answer

176
equity and efficiency of instruction; and (d) necessity for change in the nature and role of the federal government in the funding and control of public education. (See Table 5, p. 130; Table 9, p. 141; and Table 10, p.145-6) Question Two To what extent are there discrepancies among the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians as to school finance concepts, issues, and understandings presented? Conclusions. Conclusions four through fifteen have been drawn in

response to question two. 4. Significant differences at p < .01 were identified for

10.9 per cent (6) of 55 school finance statements and at p < .05 for 9.1 percent (5) school finance statements, including one conceptual subgroup. 5. Practitioners agreed and academicians disagreed that local control takes precedence over equal educational opportunity with a significant difference at p <.01. 6. Practitioners tended to agree and academicians disagreed that there could not be program equity without tax equity in public education with a significant difference at p < .01. 7. Practitioners tended to generally disagree and academicians more strongly disagreed that state legislative response had substantially resolved school finance equity issues with a significant difference at p < .01. 8. Practitioners generally agreed and academicians strongly agreed that equality of educational opportunity is a

desirable goal with a significant difference at p < .01. 9. Practitioners tend from neutral to disagreement and academi cians tend to agree regarding the elimination of an attendancebased per-pupil count for determining state aid eligibility with a significant difference at p < .05. 10. Practitioners tend toward neutrality and academicians tend toward general agreement that there is a need to significantly increase the proportionate state share of expense for public education with a significant difference at p < 05. 11. Practitioners tend toward general agreement and academicians tend toward neutrality that complex dispersion measures measures confound rather than clarify equal educational opportunity with a significant difference at p 12.
<

.05.

Practitioners tend toward general agreement and academicians tend toward neutrality that requiring one national standard for equal education violates free choice with a significant difference at p < .05.

13.

Practitioners tend to agree and academicians tend to disagree that requiring one state-wide standard for equal education violates free choice with a significant difference at p < .01.

14.

Practitioners generally agree and academicians strongly agree that equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the individual with a significant difference at p < .01.

15.

Practitioners tended to agree and academicians tended toward neutrality regarding a conceptual subgroup of 11 school finance

178
statement relating to local control and local support of public education with a significant difference at p < .05 (See Table 6, p. 134; Table 7, p.136; and Table 10, p. 145-6). Question Three Are there statistically significant differences among responses of these two population samples regarding their levels of agreement or disagreement with current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools? Conclusions. to question three. 16. As a result of the analyses performed, there were statistically significant differences at p < .01 for six school finance statements and at p <.05 for four school finance statements and one conceptual subgroup of eleven school finance statements. Specific qualifications have been presented in conclusions four through fifteen. Question Four What are the implications of patterns of responses of school finance practitioners and academicians regarding their levels of agree ment or disagreement with current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools? Conclusions. The following three conclusions have been drawn in Conclusion number sixteen has been drawn in response

response to question four. 17. Patterns of responses of school finance practitioners and academicians tend to show correspondence and general agreement regarding the provision and desirability of equal educational opportunity in responses to ten identified items in an equal

179
education opportunity conceptual subgroup; while no such correspondence and a tendency towards neutrality regarding equity considerations to assure equal educational opportunity is evident in an equity/efficiency conceptual subgroup of ten identified items. 18. Patterns of responses of school finance practitioners and academicians show strongest correspondence and agreement in conceptual and philosophical areas, in comparison to specific procedural and policy development areas, where disagreement and significant differences in patterns of responses tend to emerge. 19. Patterns of responses of school finance practitioners and academicians show weakest correspondence and disagreement in local control of education issues and areas, where practitioners tend to support and agree with local control and management of public education, and academicians tend to question and disagree with local control/local choice as equity in school finance and equal educational opportunity become procedurally confounded. (See Figures 4-8, pp. 94-98; see also Table 10, p. 145-6; see also Appendix K, p. 287 ). Null Hypothesis The following null hypothesis has been formulated for the present investigation. There are no statistically significant differences among

the responses of school finance practitioners and academicians regarding current concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the

180
financing of the public schools, and as presented in a multiple item forced answer format: Hg: Xj = jfg = 0 where X"j = GRP 1 = school
=

finance practitioners and Conclusions.

GRP 2 = school finance academicians.

Conclusion number twenty has been drawn in response

to the stated position of the null hypothesis. 20. The null hypothesis was not found to be tenable as a conse quence of the statistically significant differences revealed in 6 school finance statements at p < .01, in 4 school finance statements at p < .05, and in 1 conceptual subgroup of 10

school finance statements at p. < .05, and through application of an analysis of variance procedure using SAS Proc t-test statistical analysis procedures (See Appendix K, p. 275). Implications Eleven implications are presented in relationship to (1) the dissemination of information on the responses of school finance practi tioners and academicians to school finance statements, and on the historical and social context of public school finance; (2) the need for subsequent research and replication of the study; and (3) the value of the present investigation for professional and citizen group discussion and development. Implications for the dissemination of information regarding the empirical qualitative research being conducted include the search for a meaningful consensus among school finance professionals regarding equalization and equal educational opportunity. Implications for the

need for subsequent research include a replication of the present investigation and further standardization of the revised school finance

181
survey instrument. Implications for professional development and

discussion, including interface with advocacy groups, citizens commit tees, municipal and state governments, and elected officials, emerge from the the qualitative research design and data base. Dissemination of Information The virtual absence of qualitative data, values and opinion field-based research and the like, as revealed in the literature review, served as the basis for the following two implications. 1. Information on the historical and social context of school finance needs to be disseminated in the litera ture and shared by school finance practitioners and academicians. 2. Investigators need to be encouraged to disseminate even limited and partial answers to the problems of equaliza tion and equal educational opportunity; to search for a meaningful qualitative exchange, a sharing or consensus among school finance professionals, based on a sense of faith and responsibility for the American public education system. Sharing of information with citizens and advocacy groups and the value of this interaction to school finance professionals and to citizens served as the basis for the following implication. 3. School finance professionals need to be encouraged to participate in the conduct of state-wide voter campaigns to keep alive a variety of general and state-specific school finance issues.

182
Subsequent Research Due to the limitations, delimitations and generally focused and positive results of a new research effort in empirical qualitative research in school finance, and the deficit and confusion regarding available information, there is a need for further research as follows: 4. Replication is needed which includes other significant populations, i.e. citizens and school finance advocates, local school finance administrators, legislative fiscal analysts, etc. 5. Research is needed to determine if level of agreement or disagreement responses are dependent on such variables as: years of experience; level of professional training and experience; state,region, or area of the country; etc. 6. Research is needed to determine what value qualitative and conceptual research, such as undertaken through the present investigation, may have on future developments and opinions, and on the progress and process of school finance reform. 7. Procedures are needed to standardize and prioritize signifi cant issues or practices identified in the present investi gation. Perhaps a most effective way to stimulate subsequent research development and implementation is to disseminate research findings with a personable and informative letter to school finance research centers, university-affiliated programs, sionals in the field. and to widely respected active profes

This would include dissemination of research

findings to centers, agencies, and organizations identified with

183
public education and with school finance. The list of centers,

agencies, and organizations which contributed to the present investiga tion by providing expert preselection panelists will receive copies

of the research for purposes of information dissemination and to stimulate the continuing of qualitative empirical research in school finance (See pp. 102-3). Professional Development Implications for professional development include but are not limited to the following: 8. The judged adequacy of the preparation of both school finance practitioners and academicians regarding concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. These needs would be assessed and determined

by university school administrator educators and other fieldbased educational personnel. 9. The extent to which the topics of school finance and school finance reform are included in administrator preservice education needs to be assessed, curricular modifications in administrator education determined, and changes implemented where direct attention to school finance curriculum development and the opportunity for active participation of trainees can occur. 10. Graduate programs designed to prepare educational administrative personnel for leadership positions need to undergo a curriculum renewal to assess, identify and implement changes needed, and

to evaluate the impact of pre- and inservice training and

materials designed to assist the development of minimum competency in concepts, issues, and understandings of pertinence to the financing of the public schools. 11. Inservice education programming, including coursework, seminars, local-state, and regional-national meetings, symposia, and working conferences regarding school finance and school finance reform. This implication includes the conceptualization and

development of a continuing education and development training program for educational administrators and school board members regarding the political processes, realities, and contingencies of the financing of the public schools. Professional development for school finance practitioners and ad ministrators of necessity includes the politics and processes of educa tional finance. As Burkhead (1964) has commented:

Education is one of the most thorough political enterprises in American life-or for that matter in the life of any society. Yet, ironically enough school systems and school problems have rarely been studied as political phenomena (p. 93). There is still much hope and perhaps more need than ever before. The

Honorable Jon Newman (1981) of the U.S. Court of Appeals has put the case for all of us: Within the grand design of the old federalism, there is room for a little chemistry in construing the fundamental legal document of their state-the state constitution. Perhaps the

discipline is more akin to alchemy, for it seems likely that . . . leaden language is waiting to be turned into the pure gold of vital protections of individual rights.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

186

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J. A. Crisis in confidence: PTA Magazine, October, 1971.

The public and its schools.

Barro, S. Alternative post-Serrano systems and their implications. In J. A. Pincus (Ed.), School finance in transition. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974, 25-80. Barro, S. M. An econometric study in public school expenditure variations across states, 1951-1967. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp., 1972. Barro, S. M. Theoretical models of school district expenditure determination and the impact of grants-in-aid. Santa Monica, CR1 Rand Corp., 1972. Beard, C. A. The unique function of education in American democracy. Educational Policies Commission, Washington, D.C., 1937. Benson, C. S. The economics of public education. Mifflin, 1961. Boston: Houghton-

Benson, C. S., Medrich, E. A., & Buckley, S. A new view of school efficiency: Household time contributions to school achievement. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and practices, the 1980s: A decade of conflict. First Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980. Berke, J. Answers to inequality. Corporation, 1974. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing

Berke, J., Campbell, A. K., & Goettel, R. J. Financing equal educational opportunity. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporati on, 1972. Berne, R. A methodological assessment of education equity and wealth neutrality measures. Public Policy Research Institute, New York University, 1978.

187

Berne, R.s & Stiefel, L. The measurement of equity in school finance with an expenditure disparity measure, Paper NoTl9. Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, 1978. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. Concepts of equity and their relationship to state school finance plans. Journal of Education Finance, 1979,5(2). Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. School finance reform: Optimistic findings, Working Paper No. 16. New York: Public Policy Research Institute, New York University, June, 1979. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. Taxpayer equity in school finance reform: The school finance and public finance perspective. Journal of Education Finance, 1979, (1). Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. The equity of school finance systems over time: The value judgments inherent in evaluations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1979, 15. Bernstein, C. D. et al. Major policy issues in financing special education. Journal of Education Finance, 1976, ]_ (3), 299-317. Black, D., Lewis, K. A., & Kink, C. Wealth neutrality and the demand for education. National Tax Journal, 1979, 32 (2). Brischetto, R. R. (Gen. Ed.) Minorities, the poor and school finance reform (nine volumes). San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Develop ment Research Association, 1979. Browing, S. R., & Long, D. C. School finance reform and the courts after Rodriquez. In J. A. Pincus (Ed.), School finance in transition. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974, 81-105. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955). Brown, L. et al. School finance reform in the seventies: Achieve ments and failures. Journal in Education Finance, 1978, (2). Burke, A. J. Financing public schools in the United States. New York: Harper & Bros., 19561 Burkhead, J,, Public school finance; Economics and politics. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1964.

188

Callahan, J., & Wilken, W. (Eds.) School finance reform: A legislator's handbook. National Council of State Legislators, Washington, O.C., 1979. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Reprinted from N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Carrol 1, S. J. Tte search for equity in school finance: Summary and conclusions. Washington, D.C.: TFe Rand Corporation (NIE-R2420), 1979. Carroll, S. 0., Cox, M., & Lisowski, W. The search for equity in school finance: Results from five states. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1979. Carroll, S. J., & Park, R. E. The search for equity in school finance: Michigan school district response to the guaranteed tax base. Washington, D.C.: The Rand Corporation (NIE-R2393), 1979. Cincinnati Board of Education v. Walter, 10 003D 26 (Court of Appeals, Hamilton Cy.TT 1978. Civil Rights Act. 1964. Public Law 88-352.

Cohen, M. A., Levin, B., & Beaver, R. The political limits to school finance reform. The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., 1973. Coleman, J. S. Equality of educational opportunity. Government Printing Office, 1966. Washington, D.C.:

Coleman, 0. S. Equality of education opportunity reconsidered. Paper presented at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, November 1967. Coleman, J. S. The struggle for control of education. Paper presented at the Symposium of Social Pol icy-Local Control of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskutoon, Canada, October 5-7, 1967. Coleman, J. S. The use of social science in the development of pub!ic policy. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, March 27-31, 1968. Committee for Economic Development. Paying for better public schools. Committee for Economic Development, New York, 1959. Committee of Twenty. The. funding of primary and secondary public education in Ohio. Academy for Contemporary Problems, Columbus, Ohio, 1979.

189

Coons, J. E. Recent trends in science fiction: Serrano among the people of number. Journal of Law and Education, 1977, 6, 23-30. Coons, J. E. Can education be equal and excellent? In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and practices, the 1980s: A decade of conflict. First Annual Yearbook of tfi? American Education Finance Association, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980. Coons, J. E., Clune, W., & Sugarman, S. Private wealth and public education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 197CL Cubberley, E. P. School funds and their apportionment. Columbia Teachers College, 1905. Cubberley, E. P. Public school administration. New York:

New York, n.p., 1916.

Davis, D. L. Taxpaying ability: A study of the relationship between wealth and incomein California counties. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, SchooT of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, 1963. Downey, L. W. The task of public education. Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, 1960. Duea, J., & Bishop, W. L. The PROBE results: Important differences in public and professional perceptions of the schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 1980, 6!2, 50-52. Education Commission of the States, Education Finance Center. Special education finance: The interaction between state and federal support systems (Report #F79-3). The Commission, Denver, CO, 1979. Education of All Handicapped Act. 1974. Public Law 94-142.

Elam, S. M., & Gough, P. B. Comparing lay and professional opinion on Gallup Poll questions. Phi Delta Kappan, 1980, 6, 47-48. Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 1956. Public Law 89-10.

Elliott, E. C. Some fiscal aspects of public education. Contributions to Education No. 6, Teachers CoTTege, Columbia University, New York, 1905. Feldstein, M. Wealth neutrality and local choice in public education. American Economic Review, 1975, 65, 75-89.

190

Forbls, J. K., & McKeown, M. The quest for equity: An elusive goal. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of We American Education Finance Association, March 1980. Fowlkes, J. G., & Watson, G. E. School finance and local planning. Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, 1957. Frasier, G. W. The control of city school finances. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1922. Freeman, R. A. Taxes for the schools. The Institute for Social Science Research, Washington, 1960. Friedman, L. S. The ambiguity of Serrano: Two concepts of wealth neutrality. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 1977, 4, 97-108. Friedman, L. S., & Wiseman, M. Understanding the equity consequences of school finance reform. Harvard Educational Review, 1978, 43 (2), 193-223. Friedman, M. The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955. Galbraith, J. K. 1958. The affluent society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston: Houghton

Galbraith, J. K. The new industrial state. Mifflin Co., 1967.

Gallup, G. H. The 12th annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 1980, 62, 33-46. Gardner, J. W. Creative federalism. Washington, D.C.: of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1966. Department Journal

Garms, W. I. Measuring the equity of school finance systems. of Education Finance, 1979, 4_ (4).

Garms, W. I. The three basic questions of school finance: Who should pay? Who should benefit? Who should govern? Research in Education, 1980. Garms, W. I. et al. School finance: The economics and politics of public education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

191

Gatti, J. F., Tashman, L. 0., & Swert, J. K. The wealth neutrality of district power equalizing grants in public school financing: Additional evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 1978, 4 (2). Gauerke, W. E., & Childress, J. R. (Eds.) Theory and practice of school finance. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1967. Ginsberg, A., & Moskowitz, J. Achieving equity: Sources of change in state school finance iji the 1970s. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the American Education Finance Associ ation, March 1980. Goertz, M. Money and education: How far have we come? Princeton, NJ: Education Policy Research Institute, Educational Testing Service, 1979. Goertz, M., Moskowitz, J., & Sinkin, 0. Plain talk about school finance. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1978. Grubb, W. N., & Michael son, S. States and schools: The political economy of school finance. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1974. Guthrie, J. W. (Ed.) School finance policies and practices, the 1980s.: A decade of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publish ing Company, 1980. Guthrie, J. W. United States school finance policy 1955-1980. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and practices, the 1980s: A decade of conflict" First AnnualYearbook of the American Education Finance Association. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980. Hack, W. G., & Woodard, F. 0. Economic dimensions of public school finance: Concepts and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1971. Hal stead, D. K. Tax wealth in fifty states, a report of the national institute of education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978, 47. Hanson, N. Economy of scale in education: An analysis of the relationship between district size and unit costs in the public schools. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, 1963. Harris, S. E. More resources for education. Brothers, 1960. New York: Harper &

192

Hartman, W. T. Policy effects of special education funding formulas. Program Report #80-81. National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C., 1980. Hirsch, W. Z. Analysis of the rising cost of education. Washington Joint Economic Committee, Congress Study Paper, No. 4, 1959. Hobson v. Hansen, 265 F. Supp. 902 (DDC 1967). Hobson v. Hansen, 327 F. Supp. 844 (DDC 1971). Hortori v. Meskill, 1972 Conn. 615, 376A.2 359 (1977). Hyman, J. B. Suggested future initiatives in educational finance. Rand Paper Series 5980. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corp., 1977. James, H. T. Toward a unified concept of state school finance systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1958. James. H. T. School revenue systems in five states. University, Stanford, 1961. Stanford

James, H. T. Realistic fiscal bases for federal programs. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, Atlantic City, New Jersey, February 19, 1968. James, H. T. The impending revolution in school business management. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of School Business Officials, Houston, Texas, October 22, 1968. James, H. T. Diagnosis and treatment for ailing school finance systems. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Louisville, Kentucky, November 15, 1971. James, H. T., Kelly, J. A., & Garms, W. I. Determination of Educa tional expenditures in large cities of the United States. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Research Project No. 2389, Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1966. James. H. T., Thomas, J. A., & Dyck, H. J. Wealth, expenditures, and decision-making for education. U.S. Department of Health, Educa tion, and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 1241, and Extension of Cooperative Research Project No. 803, Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1963.

193

Jencks, C. et al. Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972. Johns, R. L., & Alexander, K. Alternative programs for financing education. National Educational Finance Project, Florida: 1971. Johns, R. L., Alexander, K., & Stollar, D. H. (Eds.) Status and impact of educational finance programs. Gainesville, FL: National Educational Finance Project, 1971. Johns, R. L., & Morphet, E. L. (Eds.) Problems and issues in public school finance. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1952. Johns, R. L., & Morphet, E. L. Financing the public schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1960. Johns, R. L., & Morphet, E. L. The economics and financing of educa tion, a^ systems approach (3rd ed.). Englewood CIiffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Johns, T. L., & Magers, D. A. Measuring the equity of state finance programs. Journal of Education Finance, 1978, 3_ (4). Jordan, K. F., & McKeown, M. P. Equity in financing public elementary and secondary schools. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and practices, the 1980s: A decade of conflict. First Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980. Journal of Education Finance. 1978, TTTT Equity of school finance programs. New York:

Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. Holt, Rinehart and Wiston, Inc., 1973.

Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo., 40 LW 5002 (1973). Kirst, M. W., & Garms, W. I. The political environment of school finance policy in the 1980s. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and practices, the 1980s: A decade of conflict. First Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980. Ladd, H. Local education expenditures, fiscal capacity and the composition of the property tax base. National Tax Journal, 1975,28(2).

194

Ladd, H. State-wide taxation of commercial and industrial property for education. National Tax Journal, 1976, 29 (2). Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 564 (1974). Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Summary of state-wide school finance cases since 1973. Washington, D.C.: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, January, 1978. Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Summary of state-wide school finance cases since 1973. Washington, D.C.: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, March, 1980. Leppert, J., & Routh, D. A policy guide to weighted pupil education finance systems: Some emerging practical advice. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1979. Levin, B. Current trends in school finance reform litigation: commentary. Duke Law Journal, 1977, 1977 (6). Levin B. New legal challenges in educational finance. Educational Finance, 1977, 3^, 54-69. A

Journal of

Levin, B. State school finance reform: Court mandate or legislative action? Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State Legislators, July, 1977. Levin, B. The courts as educational policymakers and their impact on federal programs. Santa Monicja, CA: Rand Corp., 1977. Levin, B. Trends in school finance litigation, school finance reform in the states. Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, July, 1979. Levin, B., Muller, T., & Sandoval, C. The high cost of education in cities. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1973. Levin, H. M. Educational vouchers and social policy. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and practices, the 1980s: A decade of conflict. First Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980. Levin, M. R., & Shank, A. (Eds.) Educational investment in an urban society: Costs, benefits, and public policy. New York: Teachers College Press, 1970. Levittown v. Nyquist, 94 Misc. 2d 466 (June 23, 1978).

195

Levittown v. Nyquist, Opinion No. 317 (Court of Appeals, New York StateT June 23, 1982. Levy, F., Meitsner, A., & Wildansky, A. Urban outcomes. Press, University of California, 1974. Berkeley

Lujan v. Colorado State Bd. of Ed., Civil Action No. C-73688 (District Ct. Col.) March 13, 1979. Maririelli, J. J. Critical issues in the financing of education for the handicapped. Journal of Education Finance, 1975, 1 (2), 246-69. McClure, C. E. The "new view" of the property tax: National Tax Journal, 1977, 30 (1). A caveat.

McGaughy, J. R. The fiscal administration of city school systems. New York: MacMillan, 1924. Mclnnis v. Shapiro, 293 F. Supp. 327 (N.D. Illinois, 1968). McLaughlin, F. C. Fiscal and administrative control of city school systems. Public Education Association, New York, 1949. McLure, W. P. Alternative methods of financing special education. Journal of Education Finance, 1975, 1 (1), 36-51. Michaelson, J. B. Efficiency, equity, and the need for a new educa tional policy. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and practices, the 1980s: A decade of conflict. First Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980. Mieszknowski, P. M. The property tax: An excise or a profits tax? Journal of Public Economics, 1972, ]_ (73). Miner, J. Social and economic factors in spending for public educa tion, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1963. Morrison, H. C. The financing of public schools in the state of Illinois. New York: MacMillan Company, 1924. Morrison, H. C. School revenue. Press, 1930. Chicago: University of Chicago New York: Teachers

Mort, P. R. The measurement of educational need. College, Columbia University, 1924. Mort, P. R. State support for public schools. Teachers College, 1926.

New York:

Columbia

196

Mort, P. R.t Reusser, W. C., & Pol ley, J. W. New York: McGraw Hill, 1950.

Public school finance.

Munse, A. R., & McLoone, E. P. Public school finance programs of the United States, 1957-58. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1960. Musgrave, R. A. The theory of public finance. New York: McGraw Hill, 1959. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. State profiles in special education. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1977. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Digest of education statistics 1979. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Digest of education statistics 1980. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, education, and welfare, 1980. National Defense Education Act. 1958. Public Law 85-864. Washington, D.C.: The

Netzer, D. Economics of the property tax. Brookings Institution, 1966.

New York State Commission on the Quality, Cost and Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education. Report of the New York State Commission on the quality, cost and financing of elementary and secondary education. Albany, NY, 1972, 2 . Noonan, R. D. Semantics of equality of education opportunity. College Record, 1974, 76 (1), 63-88. Odden, A. School finance reform in the states: 1978. Commission of the States, Denver, CO, 1978. Teachers

Education

Odden, A. State and federal pressures for equity and efficiency in education financing. Paper No. 21, Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, 1979. Odden, A., & Augenblick, J. School finance reform in the states: 1980. Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, 1980. Odden, A., Augenblick, J., & Vincent, P. School finance reform in the states: 1976-77. Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, 1976.

197

Odden, A., Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. Equity in school finance. Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, IcTucation Commission of the States, 1979. Odden, A., & Vincent, P. E. The regressivity of the property tax. Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States. 1976. Oliver, J., & Morris, 6. Federal and state school finance reform. A special report to the AFT task force on education. American Federation of Teachers/AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., 1976. Olsen, E. 0. A method for predicting the effects of different forms of outside aid on local educational expenditure. New York: Ford Foundation, 1972. Pearly, M. E. et al. Wealth neutrality and conditional wealth neutrality as goals of special education finance in Illinois. Research in Education, November, 1980. Peckman, J., & Okner, B. Who bears the tax burden? The Brookings Institution, 1974. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Pincus, J. The Serrano case: Policy for education or for public finance? The Rand Paper Series, Santa Monica, Cfr The Rand Corp., 1977. Pittinger, B. F. An introduction to public school finance. Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin, 19257 273: Pl.yler v. Doe, 50 LW 4650 (June 15, 1982). Project 842 Staff, et al. School finance study: An analysis of Ohio' school finance plan. School Management Institute, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1978. Reichauer, R., & Hartman R. Reforming school finance. D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1973. Washington, Cambridge Washington, D.C.:

Renshaw, E. F. A note on the expenditure effect of state aid to education. The Journal of Political Economy, April, 1960. Renshaw, E. F. Estimating the returns to education. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1960, XLII (3), Part 1. Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303A.2d. 273 (1973).

198
Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 337 F. Supp. 380 (W.D. Tex., 19*1), 411U.S. 1, 58 (1973). Rolph, E. R., & Break, G. F. Public finance. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1961. Rossmiller, R. A. et al. Educational programs for exceptional children. Gainesville, FL: National Educational Finance Project, 1969. Rossmiller, R. A. et al. Educational programs for exceptional children: Resource configurations and costs. Madison, MI: Department of Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, 1970. Rossmiller, R. A. et al. Fiscal capacity and educational finance. National Educational Finance Project, Special Study Number 10. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1970. Rossmiller, R. A. et al. Educational programs for exceptional children: Resource configurations and costs. National Education Finance Project Special Study #2. Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 1971 Rossmiller, R. A., & Frohreich, L. E. Expenditures and funding patterns in Idaho's programs for exceptional children. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1979. Rostow, W. W. The stages of economic growth. Press, Cambridge, 1960. Cambridge University

Rowe, L. S. The financial relation of the department of education to city government. Anna!s of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1900, 15_. Sacks, S. City schools/suburban schools: A history of fiscal conflict. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1972. Schultz, T. W. Education and economic growth. Social Forces Influencing American Education, Sixtieth Yearbook National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, The University of Chicago Press, 1961. Schultz, T. w. The economic value of education. University Press, 1963. New York: Columbia

Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584. 487 P.2d 1241. 96 Cal. RDtr. 601 (1971): Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728, 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1974). Serrano v. Priest. 10 Cal. App. 3d 1110, 89 Cal. Rrtr. 345,(1975).

199

Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 279 (1976). Service Men's Readjustment Act. 1954. Simon, H. A. 1961. Public Law 78-346. New York: MacMillan,

Administrative behavior (2nd ed.).

Simpson, A. D. The financial support of education. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook. Forty-Fifth Yearbook, Part II, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1946. Stocker, F. D., Bowman, J. H., Lucier, R. L., & Oakland, W. H. Fiscal options for the State of Ohio. Academy of Contemporary Problems, Columbus, Ohio, 1980. Strayer, G. D., & Haig, R. M. The financing of education in the State of New York. A report reviewed and presented by the EducatTonal Finance Inquiry Commission of the American Council on Education, New York: MacMillan Co., 1923. Swift, Fletcher, & Harper. State policies in public school finance. Bulletin, 1922, No. 6, Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior, Bureau of Education, Government Printing Office, 1922, 3. Thomas, E. P. Education in Jersey City: An assessment of the impact of Robinson V. Cahill. Research in Education, December, 1979. Thomas, J. A. Issues in educational efficiency. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and practices, the 1980s: A decade of conflict. First Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publish ing Company, 1980. Tiedt, S. W. The role of the federal government in education. York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Tron, E. (Ed.) Public school finance programs, 1975-76. D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1976. Updegraff, H. Rural school survey of New York State. NY: By the author, 1922. New

Washington,

Ithaca,

Vincent, P. E. Alternative measures of fiscal capacity of school districts in California. Denver, CO: Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, January, 1979. Vincent, P. E., & Adams, E, K. Fiscal responses of school districts: A Study of two statesColorado and Minnesota. Denver, CO: Colorado Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, October, 1978.

200

Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1973, Public Law 93-112. Weisbrod, B. A. An investment in human capital. The Journal of Political Economy. 1962, 70, pt. 2, 106-123. Weisbrod, B. A. External Benefits of Public Education. NJ: Princeton University, 1964. Winensky, G. R. Hills, CA: State aid and educational opportunity. Sage Publications, 1970. Princeton, Beverly

Wise, A. E. The Constitution and equality: wealth, geography, and equal educational opportunity, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1967. Wise, A. E. Rich schools, poor schools. Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1968. University of Chicago

Wolman v. Walter, 12 California 3rd 417 (1977). Woodward, H. B. The effect of fiscal control on current school expenditures. Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1948. Cited in P. Mort et al., Public School Finance, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960, 67-68. Wright, K. H. Effects of state mandating on special education funding in an inner-city program. Ann Arbor: MI: University of Michigan, 1979.

APPENDIX A EXPERT PRESELECTION PANEL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

201

202

T ONo tato Umit

Cotog* ol EducaHon Acadamlc Faculty of educationalAdiiihUatattoii

301 Ramiayar Hall 29 Waat Woodruff Avenua Columbus, Ohio 43210 Phona 614 422-7700

May 14, 1982

Dear Your help 1s requested in an Investigation of the opinions of school finance academicians and practitioners regarding concepts and juxtapositions of pertinence to the financing of elementary and secondary public education. As a nationally recognized school finance expert, you are asked to serve as a school f1nance expert preselection panel member, and to rate the current top ical relevance of seventy-five school finance statements. The mean highest ratings of a group of fifteen preselection panel members will be Incorporated into a fifty Item school finance survey Instrument which will then be mailed to one hundred school finance academicians and practitioners for response. School finance statements have been constructed to permit respondents to register their level of agreement or disagreement with the concept or juxta position presented on a five point scale. However, the rating that you assign in the preselection process should not reflect your agreement or disagreement with the statement. Rather, you are asked to rate the current topical relevance of each statement on a three point scale of low, medium, or high, on an answer key designed for this purpose. Please find enclosed a listing of the seventy-five school finance state ments, the answer key, and a stamped, self addressed envelope. Space has been provided on the reverse side of the answer key for you to suggest additional statements and/or make additional comments or suggestions. You are encouraged to suggest additional statements and to make other comments regarding this research. Your suggestions will also be included in the school finance survey Instrument, and will become part of the basis for subsequent analysis of research data.

203

School Finance Expert Item Preselection Survey May 14, 1962 Page 2 As a member of the school finance expert preselection panel, a copy of this Investigation and Its findings will be provided you upon completion. Your responses will remain anonymous when research findings are reported. As a prominent school finance expert, you will also be asked to respond to the completed school finance survey instrument. It is at this point that your levels of agreement or disagreement with school finance statements will be obtained. Please accept our apology for this intrusion upon your valuable time. Given the individual and cumulative contributions of school finance expert preselection panel members in the field, this study simply could not be undertaken without your participation. It is hoped that our findings will provide part of the basis for further conceptual development in the field of school finance. Your contribution is critical to this effort. If you have any questions regarding the school finance statement preselection process, please contact Bob Rinaldi at (614) 267-6396. Please also complete the answer key and return it in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest possible convenience. To assure timely preparation and dissemination of the school finance survey instrument, your kindest consideration is requested in returning the answer key by June 1, 1982. Please accept 1n advance our deep appreciation and gratitude for your kind consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Robert T. Rinaldi Graduate Research Associate Walter G. Hack Professor of Educational Administration Enclosures cc: W. Frederick Staub

204

SCHOOL FINANCE STATEMENTS

1. Local property tax relief is currently a higher priority than school finance reform. 2. The issue of local control takes precedence over equal educational opportunity. 3. Equity of funding 1s of greater concern than adequacy of funding. 4. Equal educational opportunity for all children should be regarded as a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 5. Strict scrutiny of the equitable distribution of revenue for public education should be a federal government responsibility. 6. A single national solution to school finance problems is infeasible. 7. The property tax has become increasingly inequitable for use as a basis for funding public education. 8. There can be no program equity without tax equity in public education. 9. Increased state and federal financial support for public education would result in decreased local responsibility. 10. Tax expenditures for public education cause reductions in the private economy. 11. The responses of state legislatures to problems in school finance have substantially resolved equity Issues. 12. Equality of educational opportunity is a practical goal. 13. Equality of educational opportunity 1s a desireable goal. 14. More equity implies greater centralization. 15. Poor schools are directly traceable to Inadequate local support. 16. Equalization of property tax assessments throughout a state is a logical prerequisite for establishing a foundation program. 17. A combination of taxes, such as property, sales, and Income, represents the most equitable approach to funding public education. 18. The availability of out-of-school community resources can be an Important factor in assessing equal educational opportunity. 19. The concept of fiscal neutrality 1s generally questionable as the basis for measuring school finance equity. 20. Intra-d1strict disparities 1n per pupil expenditures may be as significant a problem as 1nter-district disparities.

205

School Finance Statements Cont'd Each of the following considerations are of critical significance in the development and implementation of an equitable state aid to education formula: 21. Municipal overburden. 22. Availability of out-of-school resources. 23. Household time contributions to school achievement. 24. Variable costs for special needs students. 25. Variable costs for disproportionate percentages of special needs students (educational overburden).

26. A cost of education index to accommodate variations in local purchasing power. 27. An index of local tax paying ability. 28. Density/sparsity factors (economies of scale). 29. Elimination of the use of attendance-based per pupil counts for determining state aid eligibility. 30. Procedures to assure non-supplanting of funds. 31. Hold harmless provisions. 32. Incentives for local initiative. 33. State equalization of property tax assessments. End of this section" 34. The full state assumption of the costs of public education is necessary to eventuate school finance equity. 35. There is a need to significantly increase the proportionate state share of expense for public education. 36. There is a need to significantly increase the proportionate federal share of expense for public education. 37. Complex dispersion measures of school finance equity confound rather than clarify the process of assuring equal educational opportunity. 38. State wide administration of property taxation systems may be a necessary first step in the implementation of a rational system of state aid to education. 39. It should be emphasized that educated persons are capital assets to the community. 40. Categorical state and/or federal aid to education is necessary for certain pupil groups.

206

School Finance Statements Cont'd

41. The economic classification of public education as a social preference, like national defense, rather than as a merit preference with variable local demand, should be generally accepted. 42. Racism 1s a significant causal factor contributing to inequities in the financing of the public schools. 43. Historical gerrymandering of local school district boundaries is a significant causal factor contributing to inequities 1n the financing of the public schools. 44. The economic return of the high costs of achieving equal educational opportunity will ultimately exceed expenditures. 45. The costs of equal educational opportunity are less than the costs of not providing it. 46. The amount of property wealth per pupil is the most appropriate base from which to determine the fiscal capacity of a school district. 47. Measurements of fiscal capacity should be expanded to include personal income. 48. Operationally, district power equalization formulae do not represent an improvement over Strayer-Haig foundation programs. 49. Earmarking of revenue specifically for public education has tended to assure school finance equity. 50. Earmarking of revenue specifically for public education has tended to erode public support. 51. Operationally, there has been little difference between flat grant and equalization grant state aid formulae in assuring school finance equity. 52. Measurement of the efficiency of instruction should include longitudinal assessment of the educated vs. noneducated person as a capital asset. 53. Measurement of the efficiency of instruction focused on narrow bands of test outcomes provides a questionable basis for accountability. 54. Measurement of the efficiency of instruction based on broad longitudinal constructs provides a questionable basis for determining accountability. 55. Educational vouchers would shift substantial power from educators to parents. 56. Educational vouchers might significantly reduce access to equal education. 57. Educational vouchers will figure largely 1n the financing of American education by the year 2000. 58. Public education is a local enterprise determined primarily by local preferences. 59. Financing of the public schools is a primary concern of the federal government. 60. Local tax paying ability is the major determinant of public education policy.

207

School Finance Statements Cont'd

61. Federal judicial action will clearly establish equal educational opportunity as a fundamental right for all children by the year 2000. 62. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution will be necessary to clearly establish equal educational opportunity as a fundamental right for all children. 63. Taxpayer reluctance to support the costs of public education illustrates the tendency of individuals to ignore the broader public interest. 64. Recapture, the transfer of revenue from property-rich to property-poor school districts,is appropriate to equalize education revenues in a state. 65. Recapture, the transfer of revenue from property-rich to property-poor school districts,is a politically Infeasible equalization methodology. 66. By the year 2000, tuition tax credits will figure largely as an alternative education financing system.. 67. Requiring one national standard for equal educational opportunity in lieu of individual state standards violates free choice. 68. Requiring one state wide standard for equal educational opportunity in lieu of local social preferences violates free choice. 69. Leveling up less wealthy and/or lower spending school districts by providing state aid to make up funding differences 1s a politically feasible equalization methodology. 70. The divergence between private free choice and the social benefits of public education is a significant dilemma with reference to equal educational opportunity in a free society. 71. The application of economic models to estimate the production effects of schooling would tend to improve comniunity support for public school finance. 72. Business and industrial interests will tend not to support legislative changes toward state administered property tax systems. 73. School finance reform and property tax reform are not necessarily antithetical. 74. Current public school finance remains tied to the belief that a fiscal system appropriate to pioneer days can with non-essential changes be applied to the economic and political conditions of the twentieth century. 75. Equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the needs of the individual.

208

SCHOOL FINANCE SURVEY INSTRUMENT PRESELECTION ANSWER KEY Instructions: Please circle L (Low), M (Medium), or H (High) for each of seventy-five school finance statements. Rate all statements based on your view of their current topical relevance to the progress and process of school finance. Statements that you have a strong opinion about and/or about which you think It would be significant to know professional opinion should be rated higher than others. Statements that you disagree with strongly should not be rated, on that basis, any less relevant than statements you agree with strongly. For Items 21-33, your ratings should reflect your assessment of the relevance of including that particular factor or provision within the structure of a state aid to education formula. H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 51.
MC nt

1 .

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. .66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M . M M M M M M M

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

. __se use reverse side for reconnendatlons and other comments or suggestions. Please return the answer key by June 1, 1982. Thank you very much for your time.

APPENDIX B MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR PRESELECTION PANEL RESPONSES TO SEVENTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

209

MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR PRESELECTION PANEL RESPONSES TO SEVEMTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

VARIABLE

N It 1* Ik Ik Ik Ik lk Ik lk lk lk lk lk Ik lk lk lk Ik lk lk lk lk lk lk lk lk lk lk lk lk Ik lk lk Ik lk lk lk lk Ik lk lk

1FM

STANDARD DEVIATION 36.86715387 0.51887*52 0.8klB9739 0.7**9*63* 0.9*926229 0.8287*193 0.61572793 0.6*620617 0.86**3782 0. 825*2 )31 0.*972*516 0.63332369 0.8287*193 0.8287*193 0.57893*22 0.9*926229 0.51355259 0.61572793 0.2672612* 0.36313652 0.650**36* 0.7**9*63* 0.55*70020 0.53k522k8 0.77032889 0.6629935k 0.*972*516 0.96076892 0.89258238 0.8287*193 0.7262730* 0.7300*591 0.6 3 332369 0.7300*591 0.87705802 0.7262730* 0.k972k516 0.36313652 0.86kk3782 0.91387353 0.77032889

H1NIHJN VALUE 52.00000000 2.00010000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 I.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00009000 2.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 2.00000000 I.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000900 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 I.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00030000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 2.00000000 I.00000000 1.00000000 I.00000000

HAXIHUN VALUE 167.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.09000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000003

STD ERROR OF HE AN 9.85316353 0.13867505 0.2250065k 0.19909528 0.25370102 0.221k9060 0.16kS6021 0.17270586 0.23103073 0.22360286 0.13289k36 0.16926288 0.221*9060 0.221*9060 0.15*72668 0.25370102 0.13725270 0.l6k5602l 0.071*2857 0.09705232 0.17383837 0.19909528 0.lk82k986 0.1*28571* 0.20587905 0.177192*8 0.13289*36 0.25677630 0.23855267 0.221*9060 0.19*10*63 0.19511298 0.16926288 0.19511298 0.23**0362 0.19*10*63 0.13289*36 0.09705232 0.23103373 0.2**2*298 0.20587905

SUN

VARIANCE

C. V. 32.*62 20.755 35.717 28.187 51.Ilk kO.OOS 29.725 26.608 k0.3k0 36.112 18.815 26.868 *0.008 *0.008 26.1*5 kk.299 21.lk6 29.725 9.126 12.710 26.018 28.187 27.735 29.782 kl .*79 30.9k0 18J815 *8.038 k0.3!0 *0.008 31.77* 37.85k 26.868 37.85k k3.853 31.77k 18.815 I2.-7I0 *0.1*0 39.982 35.9k9

lONUN 01 02 0) 0* QS Q6 07 QS 09 010 Oil 012 013 01* OIS Oik 017 oia 019 020 021 022 023 02* 025 02b 027 Q28 029 030 031 032 033 03* 035 03k 037 038 039 0*0

111.571*2857 2.50300000 2.357lk28k 2.6k28571k 1.857lk2S6 2.07lk2857 2.071*2857 2.*28571*3 2.1*28571* 2.28571*29 2.6*2 8571* 2.357lk28k 2.071*2857 2.071*2857 2.21*28571 2.1*2 8571k 2.k28S7!*3 2.071*2857 2. 928571*3 2.8571*286 2.50300300 2.6*2 8571k 2.03300300 1.8571k286 l.8571k286 2.1*28571* 2.6*28571* 2.00300000 2.21*28571 2.071k2857 2.28571*29 1.928571*3 2.3571*286 1.928571*3 2.00300900 2.285 71k29 2.6k28571k 2.8571*286 2.1*28571* 2.285 7lk29 2.1*28571*

1590.0030000 35.0000000 33.0000000 37.0000000 26.0030000 29.0000000 29.0030000 3k.0000000 30.0000000 32.0000000 37.0000000 33.0000000 29.0000000 29.0000000 31.0000000 30.0000000 3k.0000000 29.0000000 kl.0000000 kO.0000003 35.0000000 37.0000000 28.0000000 26.0000000 26.0000000 30.0000000 37.0000000 28.0000000 31.0000000 29.0000000 32.0000000 27.0000000 33.0000000 27.0000000 28.0000000 32.0000000 37.0000000 kO. 0000000 30.0000000 32.0000000 30.0000000

1359.1868132 0.2692308 0.7087912 0.55k9k51 0.9010989 0.6868132 0.3791209 O.kl7582k 0.7*72527 0.6013187 0.2*72527 0.*010989 0.6868132 0.6868132 0.33516*8 0.9010989 0.2637363 0.3791209 0.071*286 0.1318681 0.*230769 0.55*9*51 0.3076923 0.28571*3 0.593*066 0.k39560k 0.2k72527 0.9230769 0.7967033 0.6868132 0.527k725 0.5329670 0.k0l0989 0.5329670 0.7692308 0.527k725 0.2*72527 0.1318681 0.7*72527 0.83S16*8 0.593*066

211

<rn<#0990C*N0AJOfOl tiMiM*moo4<#m<

M* ill

00 TFL

ooeoeeoQeoeofioeeeflfloooeE e e o e e e e o o e e e e o r e e e e e e e o o o o eeo o EE oeeeooecoooeooeeeeeeoe ee o o e e o e o e o e o e e o e o e c ooo o o o o e o a o o n o o o o o o o o o o oo e o n O o e e e o o e o o o e e o e e e e e e e o o ee O ee E oocooooccoecooffooooooeo

KIM< * IT # N I MQ IM ^ >0 <D H m e M r in IT IM <

c u. N> o

9 9 9 9 9 eeoeooeooecoeeoooooooooooeooooccooo

N O IA ** p- us *tk N f * IN + TF>& C *0 I/*. * EK o o c N <O f V M N M IM M * rsi m eg i

-0 9 00 a M M r a D m < o ^ f < o a > m M a S I* ^ 00 O P * * B Q 9 M N IT M ^ O O N M ' r i n e M ^ ^ t f l C t ^ O N 10> p. tfi <0 9 O* IN M F N N O O r g N ^ N O ^ ^ N O O ^ e N 1 IM 00 FM A i r M < N V e < J > I N < s j & * R< \ ' N IM " M

O O

3 T_ *A X 4 >

ocnooooorrDDDnDQDDODDDaDooac: ooeoeeoeeeeoeeeeeeeeoe oeeoeooeeeeeeoo ooeeeccccooeeoocooooooooeo

CO
*I O Q. Q_ < 2

>

oeeeoooeeeceeeeeoeeeoeeeeoQe oocoeeooeoeeeeeeneoooeoeooeooeeoco eooeoeeeooeooooeoeeeoooooeoo eoeooeeec-oeecooooeoeeeea oeooooorcfooocoo0OQoeoocoocoeo eeooeooooeeccooeooooooecoeeoeooeoo oeooeeoeeoceooceoccooeoecooooooooeo oeoocooocoocoooooooooooooooooooooo

>-

z >

' t A * a C r N j < A + * ' f * C t f > K < S t f > l F- * IN TFS RE M M M * o o i r u n r t f t i s j o o r i s < n a * * j Q r * ^ c B ' M CO ^ N<00noom i M C a o o D i n o i N O i M i M r J * O ra PU h- IM f- rsi <m M IM IM 0> R W * ,irNQ<#OKik.#^e9kN^<0minAr 4 IF* W* us m k n n j f f i 0 m 9 & i r * j u s 9 * m * i t f > t r FSI * I T N M NIM)| P* '^Nh-N-f-OD^*-*1"* R* i * i i i i * i oeeeeoeeeoeoeoeoeeeoo
K . N \ <+ I US -O ON M . . _ + T* M * CM US I i i r o o i n ^ M K om f- fsj # U I I A N N N a * ^ F* IA * N * . M IR AI US us L tAJ<^^0 US M <M - US * IM ^ 00 rsi M *1 T COMOfl^OS FG # I <+ IM <M * ^ I> O No<rN^eir ** IM IM I TF> M I M # T <\F US < ^ n* ^ ws m ^ r * # I N <D < 0 ^ * K ^ ISJ ^ ^ e N o ^ c e i M 4M O RJ M N i r i r f M N t A < f < O N 4 ' i r N A N t f t t p N ^ <o # K us m
* 00 nos

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooc

APPENDIX C FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRESELECTION PANEL RESPONSES TO SEVENTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

212

FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRESELECTION PANEL RESPONSES TO SEVENTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

Q1 2 3 92 1 2 3 33 1 2 3 Q4 1 2 3 Q5 I 2 3 06 1 2 3 Q7 I 2 3 Q8 1 2 3

FREQUENCY 7 7 FREQUENCY 3 3 8 FREQUENCY 2 I 11

CUM FUEQ 7 1* CUM FREQ 3 6 14 CUM FREO 2 3

PERCENT 50.000 50.000 PERCENT 21.429 21.429 57.143 PERCENT 14.286 7.143 78.571 PERCENT 50.000 14.286 35.714 PERCENT 28.571 35.714 35.714 PERCENT 14.286 64.286 21.429 PERCENT 7.143 42.857 50.000 PERCENT 28.571 28.571 42.857

CUM PERCENT 50.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 21.429 42.857 109.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 21.429 100.000 CUM PERCENT 50.000 64.286 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 64.286 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 78.571 103.000 CUM PERCENT 7.143 50.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 57.143 100.000

FREQUENCY 'CUM FREQ 7 2 5 FREQUENCY 4 5 5 FREQUENCY 2 9 3 FREQUENCY I 6 7 FREQUENCY 4 * 6 7 9 14 CUM FREQ 4 9 14 CUM FREQ 2 11 14 CUM FREQ 1 7 14 CUM FREQ 4 8 14

214 APPENDIX C Q9 1 2 3 aio 2 3 311 1 2 3 312 I 2 3 313 1 2 3 314 I 2 3 315 1 2 3 116 2 3 JIT I 2 3 FREQUENCY 3 4 7 FREQUENCY 5 9 FREQUENCY 1 r 6 FREQUENCY 5 5 FREQUENCY 5 5 **EQUENCY 1 9 FREQUENCY 5 2 7 FREQUENCY 8 6 FREQUENCY 2
9

(CONT'D) PERCENT 21.429 28,571 50.000 PERCENT 35.714 64.2 86 PERCENT 7.143 50.000 42.857 ERCENT 28.571 35.714 35.714 PERCENT 28.571 35.714 35.714 PERCENT 7.143 64.286 28.571 PERCENT 35.714 14.286 50.000 PFRCENT 57.143 42.857 PERCENT 14.286 64.286 21.429 CUM PERCENT 21.429 50.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 35.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 7.143 57.143 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 64.286 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 64.286 100.000 CUM PPRCENT 7.143 71.429 100.000 CUM PERCENT 35.714 50.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 57.143 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 78.571 100.000

CUM FREQ 3 7 14 CUM FREQ 5 14 CUM FREO I 8 14 CUM FRET 4

P

14 CUM FREQ 4 9 14 CUM FREQ 1 10 14 CUM FREQ 5 7 14 CUM FREQ

9

14 CUM FREQ 2 11 14

215 APPENDIX C )L8 2 3 319 2 3 320 1 2 3 921 I 2 3 322 1 2 3 123 1 2 3 324 1 2 3 }25 1 2 3 126 2 3 FREQUENCY 1 13 FREQUENCY 2 12 FREQUENCY I 5 3 FREQUENCY 2 I 11 FREQUENCY 2 10 2 FREQUENCY 3 10 1 FREQUENCY 5 6 3 FREQUENCY 2 8 FREQUENCY 5 9 CUM FRFQ 1 1% CUM FREQ 2 CUM FREQ I 6 14 CUM FREQ 2 3 14 CUM FREQ 2 12 14 CUM FREQ 3 13 14 CUM FREQ 5 11 14 CUM FREQ 2 10 14 CUM FREQ 5 14 (CONT'D) PERCENT 7.143 92.857 PERCENT 14.286 85.714 PERCENT 7.143 35.714 57.143 PERCENT 14.286 7.143 78.571 PERCENT 14.286 71.429 14.286 PERCENT 21.429 71.429 7.143 PERCENT 35.714 42.857 21.429 PERCENT 14.286 57.143 28.571 PERCENT 35.714 64.286 CUM PFRCENT 7.143 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 100.000 CUM "ERCENT 7.143 42.857 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 21.429 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 85.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 21.429 92.857 100.000 CUM PERCENT 35.714 78.571 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 71.429 100.000 CUM PERCENT 35.714 100.000

216 APPENDIX C (CONT'D)

127 I
7

FREQUENCY 6 2 6 FREQUENCY 4 3 7 FREQUENCY 4 5 5 FREQUENCY 2 6 6 FREQUENCY 7 3 FREQUENCY I 7 6 FREQUENCY 7 3 FREQUENCY 5 5

CUM FREQ 6 8 14 CUM FREQ 4 7 14 CUH FREQ 4 9 14 CUM FREQ 2 8 14 CUM FREQ 4 11 14 CUM FREQ 1 8 14 CUM FREQ 4 11 14 CUH FREQ 5 9 14

PERCENT 42.857 14.286 42.857 PERCENT 28.571 21.429 50.000 PERCENT 28.571 35.714 35.714 PERCENT 14.286 42.857 42.857 PERCENT 28.571 50.000 21.429 PERCENT 7.143 50.000 42.857 PERCENT 28.571 50.000 21.429 PERCENT 35.714 28.571 35.714

CUH PERCENT 42.857 57.143 100.000 CUH PERCENT 28.571 50.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 64.286 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 57.143 100.000 CUM PERCENT 29.571 78.571 100.000 CUM PERCENT 7.143 57.143 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 78.571 100.000 CUH PERCENT 35.714 64.286 103.000

3 328 1 2 3329 1 2 3 930 1 2 3 331 I 2 3 332 L 2 3 333 1 2 3 134 1 2 3

217 APPENDIX C (CONT'D)

J35 1 2 3 335 2 3 337 2 3 338 1 2 3 339 I 2 3 340 1 2 3 341 I 2 3 342 1 2 3 343 I 3

FREQUENCY 2 6 6 FREQUENCY 5 9 FREQUENCY 2 12 FREQUENCY 4 4 6 FREQUENCY 4 2 8 FREQUENCY 3 6 5 FREQUENCY 4 2 8 FREQUENCY 2 2 10 FREQUENCY 6 8

CUM FREQ 2 8 14 CUM FREQ 5 14 CUM FREQ 2 14 CUM FREQ 4 8 14 CUM FREQ 4 6 14 CUM FREQ 3 9 14 CUM FREQ 4 6 14 CUM FREQ 2 4 14 CUM FREQ 6 14

PERCENT 14.286 42.857 42.857 PERCENT 35.714 64.286 PERCENT 14.286 85.714 PERCENT 28.571 28.571 42.857 PERCENT 28.571 14.286 57.143 PERCENT 21.429 42.857 35.714 PERCENT 28.571 14.286 57.143 PERCENT 14.286 14.286 71.429 PERCENT 42.857 57.143

CUM PERCENT 14.286 57.143 100.000 CUM PERCENT 35.714 100.000

CUM PERCENT 14.286 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 57.143 103.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 42.857 103.000 CUM PERCENT 21.429 64.286 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 42.857 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 28.571 100.000 CUM PERCENT 42.857 103.000

218 APPENDIX C(CONT'D) 344 1 2 3 145 1 2 3 346 1 2 3 347 1 2 3 348 I 2 3 349 1 2 FREQUENCY 3 7 4 FREQUENCY 4 6 4 FREQUENCY 4 6 r.u* F R E Q 3 10 14 CUM FREQ 4 10 14 CUM FREQ 4 10 PERCENT 21.429 50.000 28.571 OERCENT 28.571 42.857 28.571 PERCENT 28.571 42.857 28.571 PERCENT 21.429 50.000 28.571 PERCENT 28.571 21.429 50.000 PERCENT 50.000 7.143 42.857 CUM PERCENT 21.429 71.429 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 71.429 loo.goo

CUM PERCENT 28.571 71.429 100.000 CUM PERCENT 21.429 71.429 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 50.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT

4
FREQUENCY 3 7

14
CUM FREQ 3 10

4
FREQUENCY

14
CUM FREQ

4
3 7 FREQUENCY

4
7

14
CUM FREQ

7
1 6 FREQUENCY

7
8

50.000
57.143 100.000

3 150
1

14 CUM FREQ 5 14 CUM

FREQ

PERCENT
35.714

CUM PERCENT
35.714 100.000

3 351
1 2

5 9
FREQUENCY 3

64.286 PERCENT
21.429 35.714 42.857

CUM PERCENT
21.429 57.143 100.000 CUM

3
8

5
6 FREQUENCY

3 )52 1
2

14 CUM
FREQ

PERCENT 7.143
35.714 57.143

PERCENT
7.143 42.857 100.000

1 5
8

I 6 14

219 APPENDIX C 153 1 2 3 354 1 2 3 355 I 2 3 356 1 2 3 357 1 2 3 35 8 1 2 3 )59 I 2 3 360 1 2 361 I 2 3 FREQUENCY CUM FRFQ 4 9 I* CUM FREQ 2 5 14 CUM PREQ 4 7 14 CUM FREQ 11 13 14 CUM FREQ 10 It 14 CUM FREQ 9 13 14 CUM FREQ 6 13 14 CUM FREQ 10 14 CUM FREQ 10 12 14 (CONT'D) PFRCENT 28.571 35.714 35.714 PERCENT 14.286 21.429 64.286 PERCENT 28.571 21.429 50.000 PERCENT 78.571 14.286 7.143 PERCENT 71.429 7.143 21.429 PERCENT 64.286 28.571 7.143 CUM PERCENT 28.571 64.286 100.000 CUM PERCENT 14.286 35.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 50.000 lob.ooo CUM PERCENT 78.571 92.857 100.000 CUM PERCENT 71 .429 78.571 100.000 CUM PERCENT 64.286 92.857 100.000

* 5 5
FREQUENCY. 2 3 9 FREQUENCY 4 3 7 FREQUENCY 11 2 1 FREQUENCY 10 1 3 FREQUENCY 9 4 I FREQUENCY 6 7 1 FREQUENCY 10 4 FREQUENCY 10 2 2

PERCENT ' CUM PERCENT 42.857 50.000 7.143 PERCENT 71.429 28.571 PERCENT 71.429 14.286 14.236 42.857 92.857 100.000 CUM PERCENT 71.429 101.000 CUM PERCENT 71.429 85.714 100.000

220

APPENDIX C

(CONT'D)

162 1 2 3 }63 1 2 3 364 1 2 3 365 I 2 3 366 1 2 3 367 1 2 3 368 1 2 3 169 1 2 3

FREQUENCY 8

CUH FREQ 3 12 I* CUH FREQ 8 10 I* CUH FREQ 10 13 1* CUH FREQ 6 12 I* CUH FREQ 7 13 14 CUH FREQ 8 12 14 CUH FREQ 7 11 14 CUH FREQ 6 12 14

PERCENT 57.143 28.571 14.286 PERCENT 57.143 14.286 28.571 PERCENT 71.429 21.429 7.143 PERCENT 42.857 42.857 14.286 PERCENT 50.000 42.857 7.143 PERCENT 57.143 28.571 14.286 PERCENT 50.000 28.571 21.429 PERCENT 42.857 42.857 14.286

CUM PERCENT 57.143 85.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 57.143 71.429 100.000 CUH PERCENT 71.429 92.857 100.000 CUH PERCENT 42.857 85.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 50.000 92.857 100.000 CUH PERCENT 57.143 85.714 100.000 CUH PERCENT 50.000 78.571 100.000 CUH PERCENT 42.857 85.714 100.000

*
2 FREQUENCY 8 2 4 FREQUENCY 10 3 1 FREQUENCY 6 6 2 FREQUENCY 7 6 1 FREQUENCY 8 4 2 FREQUENCY 7 4 3 FREQUENCY 6 6 2

221

APPENDIX C

(CONT'D)

>70 1 2 171 1 2 3 172 I 2 3 373 1 2 3 37* I 2 3 375 1 2 3

FREQUENCY 10

CUM FREQ 10 I* CUM FREQ 7 12 14 CUM FREQ 10 12 14 CUM FREQ 6 12 14 CUM FREQ 8 12 14 CUM FREQ 10 13 14

PERCENT 71.429 28.571 PERCENT 50.000 35.714 14.286 PERCENT 71.429 14.286 14.286 PERCENT 42.857 42.857 14.286 PERCENT 57.143 28.571 14.286 PERCENT 71.429 21.429 7.143

CUM PERCENT 71.429 100.000 CUM PERCENT 50.000 85.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 71.429 85.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 42.857 85.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 57.143 85.714 100.000 CUM PERCENT 71.429 92.857 100.000

*
FREQUENCY 7 5 2 FREQUENCY 10 2 2 FREQUENCY 6 6 2 FREQUENCY 8 2 FREQUENCY 10 3 1

APPENDIX D PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN SURVEY INSTRUMENT

222

223

Tftc OMo Slate IMvmlty

Cotaga of Education Academic Faculty of Educational Admtniafratton 301 Ramsey er Hall 29 Wast Woodruff Avenue Columbus. Ohio 43210 Phone 614 422-7700

June IS, 1982

Dear Your help Is requested In an investigation of the opinions of school finance experts regarding concepts and issues pertinent to the financing of the public schools. As an academician or practitioner in school finance, you have been selected to respond to the enclosed survey instrument, which is composed of fifty-five school finance statements. You are asked to report your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a six point scale, rangingFrom strong agreement to strong disagreement. Please find enclosed a listing of the fifty-five school finance statements, an answer key, and a stamped self-addressed envelope. Space has been provided on the reverse side of the answer key for you to make further comment. Your comments or suggestions will become part of the basis for subsequent analysis of research data. As a respondent to the school finance survey instrument, a copy of the findings of this investigation will be provided you upon completion. Your responses will remain anonymous when research findings are reported. Please accept our apology for this Intrusion on your valuable time; this study simply could not be undertaken without your participation. It is hoped that research findings will contribute to further conceptual development 1n the field of school finance. Your contribution is critical to this effort. If you have any questions regarding completion of the survey instrument, please contact Bob Rinaldi at (614) 267-6396. Please also complete the answer key and return Tt~in the enclosed envelope at your earliest possible convenience. To assure timely preparation and dissemination of research data, your kindest consideration 1s requested in returning the answer key by July 1. 1982. Please accept in advance our deep appreciation for your assistance In this effort. Sincerely,

7T
Robert T. Rinaldi Graduate Research Associate tyoJlXL^pfacA' Halter G. Hack Professor of Educational Administration Enclosures cc: W. Frederick Staub

224

SCHOOL FINANCE STATEMENTS

1. Local property tax relief Is currently a higher priority than school finance reform. 2. The issue of local control takes precedence over equal educational opportunity. 3. Equity of funding 1s of greater concern than adequacy of funding. 4. Equal educational opportunity for all children should be regarded as a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 5. The property tax has become Increasingly Inequitable for use as a basis for funding public education. 6. There can be no program equity without tax equity in public education. 7. Increased state and federal financial support for public education would result in decreased local responsibility.

8. The responses of state legislatures to problems in school finance have substantially resolved equity issues. 9. Equality of educational opportunity is a practical goal. 10. Equality of educational opportunity is a desirable goal. 11. More equity Implies greater centralization. 12. Poor schools are directly traceable to Inadequate local support. 13. Equalization of property tax assessments throughout a state 1s a logical prerequisite for establishing a foundation program. 14. A combination of taxes, such as property, sales, and Income, represents the most equitable approach to funding public education. 15. The concept of fiscal neutrality Is generally questionable as the basis for measuring school finance equity. 16. Intra-d1strict disparities 1n per pupil expenditures may be as significant a problem as Inter-district disparities.

225

School Finance Statements Cont'd Each of the following considerations are of critical significance in the development and implementation of an equitable state aid to education formula: 17. Municipal overburden. 18. 19. Variable costs for special needs students. Variable costs for disproportionate percentages of special needs students (educational overburden).

20. A cost of education Index to accommodate variations 1n local purchasing power. 21. An Index of local tax paying ability. 22. Denslty/sparsity factors (economies of scale). 23. Elimination of the use of attendance-based per pupil counts for determining state aid eligibility. 24. Hold harmless provisions 25. Incentives for local initiative. 26. State equalization of property tax assessments. End of this section" 27. The full state assumption of the costs of public education is necessary to assure school finance equity. 28. There is a need to significantly Increase the proportionate state share of expense for public education. 29. Complex dispersion measures of school finance equity confound rather than clarify the process of assuring equal educational opportunity. 30. State-wide administration of property taxation systems may be a necessary first step in implementing a rational system of state aid to education. 31. It should be emphasized that educated persons are capital assets to the community32. Categorical state and/or federal aid to education is necessary for certain pupil groups.

226

School Finance Statements Cont'd

33. Racism 1s a significant causal factor contributing to Inequities 1n the financing of the public schools. 34. The economic return of the high costs of achieving equal educational opportunity will ultimately exceed expenditures. 35. The costs of equal educational opportunity are less than the costs of not providing it. 36. The amount of property wealth per pupil 1s the most appropriate base from which to determine the fiscal capacity of a school district. 37. Measurements of fiscal capacity should be expanded to Include personal income. 38. Operationally, district power equalization formulae do not represent an improvement over Strayer-Haig foundation programs. 39. Measurement of the efficiency of instruction focused on narrow bands of test outcomes provides a questionable basis for accountability. 40. Measurement of the efficiency of Instruction based on broad longitudinal constructs provides a questionable basis for determining accountability. 41. Educational vouchers would shift substantial power from educators to parents. 42. Educational vouchers might significantly reduce equal access to equal education with poor and disadvantaged pupils increasingly concentrated in the public schools. 43. Educational vouchers will figure largely In the financing of American education by the year 2000. 44. Public education 1s a local enterprise determined primarily by local preferences. 45. Local tax paying ability is the major determinant of public education policy. 46. Taxpayer reluctance to support the costs of public education Illustrates the tendency of individuals to Ignore the broader public Interest. 47. Recapture, the transfer of revenue from property-rich to property-poor school districts, is an appropriate strategy to equalize revenues within a state.

School Finance Statements Cont'd

48. Tuition tax credits will figure largely as an alternative education financing system by the year 2000. 49. Requiring one national standard for equal educational opportunity 1n lieu of individual state standards violates free choice. 50. Requiring one state-wide standard for equal educational opportunity 1n lieu of local social preferences violates free choice. 51. Leveling up less wealthy and/or lower spending school districts by providing state aid to make up funding differences is a politically feasible equalization methodology. 52. The divergence between private free choice and the social benefits of public education 1s a significant dilemma with reference to equal educational opportunity 1n a free society53. Business and industrial interests will tend not to support legislative changes toward state-administered property tax systems. 54. School finance reform and property tax reform are not necessarily antithetical. 55. Equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the needs of the Individual.

228

SCHOOL FINANCE SURVEY INSTRUMENT ANSWER KEY Instructions: Please circle one of six levels of agreenient with each of fifty-five school finance statements. Use the following code. If undecided between two responses, select the stronger value. SA = Strong agreement with the statement as made. GA * General agreement with the statement as made. A * Tendency to agree with the statement as made. D 3 Tendency to disagree with the statement as made. GO 3 General disagreement with the statement as made. SD a Strong disagreement with the statement as made. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
DC MC

SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA

GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

0 D D D 0 D D 0 D 0 0 D D D D D D D 0 D D 0 D 0 D D D D

GO GO GO GO GO GD GO GO GD GD GD GO GD GD GO GD GD GD GO GD GD GD GD GD GD GO GD GD

SD SD SD SO SD SD SD SD SD SD SO SO SD SD SO SD SD SD SO SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

29. SA GA A D GD SD 30. SA GA A D GO SO SA GA A D GD SD 31. 32. SA GA A D GD SD 33. SA GA A D GO SD 34. SA GA A 0 GD SD 35. SA GA A D GD SO 36. SA GA A D GD SD 37. SA GA A D GO SO 38. SA GA A D GD SD 39. SA GA A D GD SD 40. SA GA A D GD SD 41. SA GA A 0 GO SO 42. SA GA A D GD SD 43. SA GA A D GD SD 44. SA GA A 0 GO SD 45. SA GA A D GD SD 46. SA GA A ' D GD SD 47. SA GA A D GD SD 48. SA GA A 0 GD SD 49. SA GA A D GD SD 50. SA GA A D GD SD 51. SA GA A D GO SD 52. SA GA A D GD SD 53. SA GA A 0 GD SD 54. SA GA A D GD SD 55. SA GA A 0 GO SO Thank you very much for your time

229

OPTIONAL SECTIONS Specified Comments and Suggestions 1. Please comment regarding the relative value of univariate (simple) and multivariate definitions of fiscal neutrality.

2. Please comment regarding the relationship of school district boundaries to school finance equity or disequity. Is redisricting a feasible, desirable, or necessary future alternative?

3.

Will the role of the federal government regarding public education change significantly in the next fifty years. If so, how?

Unspecified Comments and Suggestions

1.

2.

3.

4. Thank you again for your kind consideration. Please return answer key by 7/1/82.

APPENDIX E MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF PRACTITIONER RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

230

MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF PRACTITIONER RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

N 41 41 42 42 41 41 42 43 41 41 41 42 42 41 41 42 41 42 43 43 43 43 43 42 43 43 41 41 41 41 43 41 41 41 41 42

tEAN 36.62790698 2.44186047 3.09521810 4.02380952 3.02325581 3.1395348B 3.38095238 3.53488372 4.13953488 2.83720930 2.09302326 3.57142857 3.80952381 2.23255814 2.06976744 1.71428571 2. 75609756 3.14285714 2.00000000 2.34883721 3.06976744 2.32558140 2.48837209 3.71428571 3.30232558 2.72091023 2.20930233 4.41860465 3.34883721 2.74418605 3.25581195 2.20910211 2.69767442 4.02125581 1.02419024 2.59521810

STANDARD DEVIATION 21.49421102 (.36R04215 1.30308309 1.15796489 1.80592111 1.48934942 1.44 749373 1.29741202 1.05968089 1.19383800 0.97135040 1.19230985 1.17365585 1.13046997 0.96103488 1.06578070 1.15716221 1.33565419 0.78679579 1.02082415 1.27979442 0.91861516 0.98493638 1.45309953 1.28238772 0.93415563 1.12457695 1.27676224 1.30719112 1.11468602 1.29270892 0.94006432 1.05863532 1.37127629 1.25474708 1.08334450

HINIMUN VALUE 1.09000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1 1 I.00030000 1

NAXIMUN VALUE 69.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000003 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000000 4.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000003 5.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000000 4.00000003 5.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000003

STO ERROR OF MEAN

SUM

VARIANCE

C.V. 58.683 56.025 42.100 28.77* 59.734 47.439 42.813 36.703 25.599 42.078 46.409 33.385 30.808 50.636 46.432 28.694 41.986 42.498 39.340 43.461 41.690 39.500 39.582 19.122 38.833 34.332 50.902 ' 28.895 39.014 40.620 39.705 42.550 39.243 14.084 41.488 41.744

Qi

QT
08

02 Q> 0* 05 Q6

09

QIO
Oil

012
Q13

01
OIS

ou 017 OIS
019

020 021

022 023 024 025 026 027 028

029

010
Oil

032 013 01* 015

.00000000 .00000000 .00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000

3.27783645 1575.0000000 462.00110742 1.87153931 0.20862447 105.0000000 1.69802555 0.20107009 130.0000000 1.34088269 169.0000000 0.17867786 3.26135105 0.27540039 130.0000000 2.21816168 135.0000000 0.22712366 2.09523810 0.22335313 142.0000000 1.68327796 152.0000000 0.19785348 178.0000000 1.12292359 0.16159982 1.42524917 122.0000000 0.18205859 0.94352159 90.0000000 0.14812955 1.42160279 0.18397740 150.0000000 1.37746806 160.0000000 0.18109901 96.0000000 1.27796235 0.17219505 89.0000000 0.92158804 0.14655645 t.13588850 0.16445353 156.0000000 1.33902439 113.0000000 0.18071838 132.0000000 1.78397213 0.20609592 86.0000000 0.61904762 0.11998523 I.04208195 101.0000000 0.15567422 1.63787375 132.0000000 0.19516682 0.84385382 100.0000000 0.14008750 0.97009967 0.15020139 107.0000000 156.0000000 2.11149826 0.22421813 1.64451827 0.19556229 142.0000000 0.87264673 0.14245740 117.0000000 1.26467331 95.0000000 0.17149638 1.63012182 0.19470442 190.0000000 1.70874862 0.19934478 144.0000000 1.24252492 0.16998802 118.0000000 1.67109635 140.0000000 0.19713626 0.88372093 0.14335847 95.0000000 1.12070875 0.16144317 116.0000000 1.88039867 173.0000000 0.20911767 1.57439024 0.19595857 124.0000000 1.17363531 109.0000000 0.16716369

APPENDIX E (CONT'D)

VARIABLE

MEAN

SIANDARD DEVIATION 1.25*02951 1.015900*3 1.24482120 1.02381628 0.99*75979 1.3157228* 1.*1523977 1.09988913 1.1*28*625 1.2*286582 1.33982161 1.3*145750 1.25930*75 1.5*56*692 1.42409578 1.20031935 0.99970960 1.161*9129 0.87919222 1.2026180* 0.41151655 0.60401942 0.454*4080 0.39688802 0.40029146

MINIMUM VALUE 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.03000000 1.00000000 I.oonooooo 2.00000000 2.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.09000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.30000000 1.54545455 2.09090909 1.8*615385 2.40000000

MAXIMUM VALUE 6.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000003 6.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000003 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000003 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 4.10000000 *.36363636 4.36363636 3.58333333 4.10000000

STO ERROR OF MEAN 0.19350095 0.15797133 0.21041319 0.15797828 0.15349*77 0.20302044 0.21817624 0.17177382 0.17848260 0.19177836 0.20924*98 0.20729999 0.19*39209 0.2*1389*9 0.222*0639 0.18521110 0.15425854 0.21008267 0.11407556 0.18339753 0.06306068 0.09211210 0.06930157 0.06052486 0.06104387

SUN

VARIANCE

C.V.

Q36 037 038 039 040 0*1 0*2 ai 0** as 0*6 0*7 0*8 0*9 Q50 051 052 Q53 as* 055 AVEEQ'JIT AVEEQUAL AVELOCAL AVESTAIO AVEOTMER

*2 *3 35 *2 *2 *2 *2 *1 *1 *2 41 42 42 41 41 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

3.52380952 2.697674*2 3.45714286 2.69047619 3.28571429 3.023 80952 2.59523810 4.12195122 3.48780*88 3.33333333 3.17073171 3.00900000 3.78571429 2.7560975* 3.14614146 2.78571429 2.69047619 3.00900000 2.41R60465 2.48837209 3.43804910 2.72586328 3.06137538 2.79947959 3.23081395

148.0000000 116.0000000 121.0000000 113.0000000 138.0000000 127.0000000 109.0000000 169.0000000 143.0000000 140.0000000 130.0000000 126.0000000 159.0000000 113.0000000 129.0000000 117.0000000 113.0000000 126.0000000 104.0000000 107.0000000 147.8361111 117.2121212 131.6391414 120.3776224 138.9250000

1.57259001 1.07308970 1.54957983 1.04819977 0.9895470* 1.73112660 2.00290360 1.20975610 1.30609756 1.544715*5 1.79512195 1.80*87805 1.58710801 2.18902*19 2.0280*878 1.**076655 0.99941928 1.85365854 0.77297896 1.44629014 0.17099593 0.36*83945 0.20651644 0.15752010 0.16023325

35.587 38.400 36.007 38.053 30.275 43.512 54.532 26.684 32.767 37.286 42.256 44.782 33.278 56.081 45.262 43.088 37.157 45.383 36.351 48.330 12.028 22.159 14.844 14.177 12.390

APPENDIX F FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRACTITIONER RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

233

234

FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRACTITIONER RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

QL I 2 3 4 5 6 Q2

FREQUENCY 10 19 6 3 3 2 FREQUENCY 1 2 16 9 5 2 FREQUENCY 1 1

4 a

CUM FREQ 10 29 35 38 41 43 CUM FREQ

PERCENT 23.256 44.186 13.953 6.977 6.977 4.651 PERCENT

CUM PERCENT 23.256 67.442 81.395 88.372 95.349 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q3

2 18 27 35 40 42 CUM FREQ

4.762 38.095 21.429 19.048 11.905 4.762 PERCENT

4.762 42.857 64.286 83.333 95.238 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q4 I 2 3 4 5 6 Q5 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 13 15 2 FREQUENCY 13 7 5 8 4 6 FREQUENCY 4 16 7 4 10 2

5 12 25 40 42 CUM FREQ 13 20 25 33 37 43 CUM FREFJ 4 20 27 31 41 43

2.381 9.524 16.667 30.952 35.714 4.762 PERCENT 30.233 16.279 11.628 18.605 9.302 13.953 PERCENT 9.302 37.209 16.279 9.302 23.256 4.651

2.381 11.905 28.571 59.524 95.238 100.000 CUM PERCENT 30.233 46.512 58.140 76.744 86.047 100.000 CUM PERCENT 9.302 46.512 62.791 72.093 95.349 100.000

APPENDIX F (CONT'D)

Q6

FREQUENCY 1 5 7 10 10 7 3 FREQUENCY 1 9 15 4 12 2 FREQUENCY 4 6 16 . 14 3 FREQUENCY 4 14 16 5 2 2 FREQUENCY 11 21 9 1 1

CUM FREQ

PERCENT 11^905 16.667 23.810 23.810 16.667 7.143 PERCENT 2.326 20.930 34.884 9.302 27.907 4.651 PERCENT 9.302 13.953 37.209 32.558 6.977 PERCENT 9.302 32.558 37.209 11.628 4.651 4.651 PERCENT 25.581 48.837 20.930 2.326 2.326

CUM PERCENT 11.905 28.571 52.381 76.190 92.857 100.000 CUM PERCENT 2.326 23.256 58.140 67.442 95.349 100.000 CUM PERCENT 9.302 23.256 60.465 93.023 100.000 CUM PERCENT 9.302 41.860 79.070 90.698 95.349 100.000 CUM PERCENT 25.581 74.419 95.349 97.674 100.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q8 2 3 4 5 6 Q9 1 2 3 4 5 6 QIO 1 2 3 4 6

5 12 22 32 39 42 CUM FREQ 1 10 25 29 41 43 CUM FREQ 4 10 26 40 43 CUM FREQ 4 18 34 39 41 43 CUM FREQ IL 32 41 42 43

236

APPENDIX F

(CONT'D)

QLL

FREQUENCY 1 1 7 13 11 8 2 FREQUENCY 1 1 5 9 16 9 3 FREQUENCY 13 15 9 4 2 FREQUENCY 13 19 9 2 1 FREQUENCY 1 4 17 10 9 2

CUM FREQ

PERCENT 2L 381 16.667 30.952 26.190 19.048 4.762 PERCENT 2.381 11.905 21.429 38.095 19.048 7.143 PERCENT 30.233 34.884 20.930 9.302 4.651 PERCENT 30.233 41.860 20.930 4.651 2.326 PERCENT 9!524 40.476 23.810 21.429 4.762

CUM PERCENT 213 81 19.048 50.000 76.190 95.238 100.000 CUM PERCENT 213 81 14.286 35.714 73.810 92.857 100.000 CUM PERCENT 30.233 65.116 85.047 95.349 100.000 CUM PERCENT 30.233 72.093 93.023 97.674 100.000 CUM PERCENT 9^524 50.000 73.810 95.238 100.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q12

I 8 21 32 40 42 CUM FREQ

I 2 3 5 6 QL 3 1 2 3
*

I 6 15 31 39 42 CUM FREQ 13 28 37 41 43 CUM FREQ 13 31 40 42 43 CUM FREQ

5 Q14 1 2 3 4 5 QL5

2 3 4 5 6

4 21 31 40 42

237 APPENDIX F (CONT'D)

Q16
1
2

FREQUENCY
2

CUM FREQ 7
16

PERCENT 17.073 21.951 36.585 17.073 7.317 PERCENT

CUM PERCENT 17.073 39.024 75.610 92.683

100.000

3 4 5 Q17

7 9 15 7 3 FREQUENCY 1 5 8 14 8 5 2 FREQUENCY 12 20 10 1 FREQUENCY 7 21 10 4 1 FREQUENCY 5 8 17 7 4 2 FREQUENCY 7 20 12 3 1

31 38
41

CUM FREQ

CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q18 1 2 3 4 Q19 1 2 3 4 6 Q20 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q21 1 2 3 4 5

5 13 27 35 40 42 CUM FREQ 12 32 42 43 CUM FREQ 7 23 38 42 43 CUM FREQ 5 13 30 37 41 43 CUM FREQ 7 27 39 42 43

11.905 19.048 33.333 19.048 11.905 4.762 PERCENT 27.907 46.512 23.256 2.326 PERCENT 16.279 48.837 23.256 9.302 2.326 PERCENT 11.628 18.605 39.535 16.279 9.302 4.651 PERCENT 16.279 46.512 27.907 6.977 2.326

11.905 30.952 64.286 83.333 95.238 100.000 CUM PERCENT 27.907 74.419 97.674 100.000 CUM PERCENT 16.279 65.116 88.372 97.674 100.000 CUM PERCENT 11.628 30.233 69.767 86.047 95.349 100.000 CUM PERCENT 16.279 62.791 90.698 97.674 100.000

238 APPENDIX F (CONT'D)

Q22 1 2 3 4 5 Q23

FREQUENCY 4 23 9 5 2 FREQUENCY 1 4 5 8 11 10 4 FREQUENCY 1 12 14 9 3 4 FREQUENCY 3 16 15 8 1 FREQUENCY 12 18 8 2 3 FREQUENCY 2 2 3 13 15 8

CUM FREQ 4 27 36 41 43 CUM FREQ

PERCENT 9.302 53.488 20.930 11.628 4.651 PERCENT

CUM PERCENT 9.302 62.791 83.721 95.349 100,000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q24 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q25 1 2 3 4 5 Q26 1 2 3 4 5 Q27 I 2 3 4 5 6

4 9 17 28 38 42 CUM FREQ 1 13 27 36 39 43 CUM FREQ 3 19 34 42 43 CUM FREQ 12 30 38 40 43 CUM FREQ 2 4 7 20 35 43

9.524 11.905 19.048 26.190 23.810 9.524 PERCENT 2.326 27.907 32.558 20.930 6.977 9.302 PERCENT 6.977 37.209 34.884 18.605 2.326 PERCENT 27.907 41.860 18.605 4.651 6.977 PERCENT 4.651 4.651 6.977 30.233 34.884 18.605

9.524 21.429 40.476 66.667 90.476 100.000 CUM PERCENT 2.326 30.233 62.791 83.721 90.698 100.000 CUM PERCENT 6.977 44.186 79.070 97.674 100.000 CUM PERCENT 27.907 69.767 88.372 93.023 100.000 CUM PERCENT 4.651 9.302 16.279 46.512 81.395 100.000

239
APPENDIX F (CONT'D)

Q28 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q29 I 2 3 4 5 Q30 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q31 1 2 3 4 Q32 1 2 3 4 5 Q33 I 2 3

*

FREQUENCY 3 9 13 7 10 1 FREQUENCY 7 9 18 6 3 FREQUENCY 4 8 8 8 I FREQUENCY 11 16 12 4 FREQUENCY 4 17 13 6 3 FREQUENCY 2 4 7 16 6 8

CUM FREQ 3 12 25 32 42 43 CUM FREQ 7 16 34 40 43 CUM FREQ 4 12 26 34 42 43 CUM FREQ 11 27 39 43 CUM FREQ 4 21 34 40 43 CUM FREQ 2 6 13 29 35 43

PERCENT 6.977 20.930 30.233 16.279 23.256 2.326 PERCENT 16.279 20.930 41.860 13.953 6.977 PERCENT 9.302 18.605 32.558 18.605 18.605 2.326 PERCENT 25.581 37.209 27.907 9.302 PERCENT 9.302 39.535 30.233 13.953 6.977 PERCENT 4.651 9.302 16.279 37.209 13.953 18.605

CUM PERCENT 6.977 27.907 58.140 74.419 97.674 100.000 CUM PERCENT 16.279 37.209 79.070 93.023 100.000 CUM PERCENT 9.302 27.907 60.465 79.070 97.674 100.000 CUM PERCENT 25.581 62.791 90.698 100.000 CUM PERCENT 9.302 48.837 79.070 93.023 100.000 CUM PERCENT 4.651 13.953 30.233 67.442 81.395 100.000

5 6

240

APPENDIX F

(CONT'D)

034

FREQUENCY 2 5 8 15 9 2 2 FREQUENCY 1 6 15 13 7 1 FREQUENCY 1 1 9 11 12 6 3 FREQUENCY 5 14 15 7 2 FREQUENCY 8 2 6 10 9 7 1

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q35

5 13 28 37 39 41 CUM FREQ

12.195 19.512 36.585 21.951 4.878 4.878 PERCENT

12.195 31.707 68.293 90.244 95.122 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 6 036

6 21 34 41 42 CUM FREQ

14.286 35.714 30.952 16.667 2.381 PERCENT

14.286 50.000 80.952 97.619 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q37 1 2 3 4 5 Q38

1 10 21 33 39 42 CUM FREQ 5 19 34 41 43 CUM FREQ

2.381 21.429 26.190 28.571 14.286 7.143 PERCENT 11.628 32.558 34.384 16.279 4.651 PERCENT

2.381 23.810 50.000 78.571 92.857 100.000 CUM PERCENT 11.628 44.186 79.070 95.349 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 &

2 8 18 27 34 35

5.714 17.143 28.571 25.714 20.000 2.857

5.714 22.857 51.429 77.143 97.143 100.000

241 APPENDIX F (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

CUM FREQ
4 18 36 40 41 42

PERCENT
9.524 33.333 42.857 9.524 2.381 2.381

CUM PERCENT
9.524 42.857 85.714 95.238 97.619

1
4 14 18 4

1
2 3 4 5
6

1 1

100.000

FREQUENCY
1
3 4 16 16 3

CUM FREQ
3 7 23 39 42

PERCENT
7.143 9 524 38.095 38.095 7.143

CUM PERCENT
7.143 16.667 54.762 92.857

L
2 3 4 5

100.000

FREQUENCY

CUM FREQ
5 17 26 36 41 42

PERCENT
11.905 28.571 21.429 23.810 11.905 2.381

CUM PERCENT
11.905 40.476 61.905 85.714 97.619

1
5 12 9 10 5

1
2 3 4 5 6
2

100.000

FREQUENCY
1 11 11 10
7 3

CUM FREQ
11 22 32 39 42

PERCENT
26.190 26.190 23.810 16.667 7.143

CUM PERCENT
26.190 52.381 76.190 92.857

1
2 3 4

6
3

100.000

FREQUENCY
2 1
13 13 8 6

CUM FREQ
I
14 27 35 41

PERCENT
2.439 31.707 31.707 19.512 14.634

CUM PERCENT
2.439 34.146 65.854 85.366

100.000

242 APPENDIX F (CONT'D)

Q44

FREQUENCY 2 11 8 14 7 1 FREQUENCY I 2 10 11 12 5 2 FREQUENCY 2 3 12 10 10 3 3 FREQUENCY 1 4 11 18 3 2 4 FREQUENCY 1 9 7 14 8

4

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

2 3 4 5 6 Q45

11 19 33 40 41 CUM FREQ

26.829 19.512 34.146 17.073 2.439 PERCENT

26.829 46.341 80.488 97.561 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q46

2 12 23 35 40 42 CUM FREQ

4.762 23.810 26.190 28.571 11.905 4.762 PERCENT

4.762 28.571 54.762 83.333 95.238 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q47

3 15 25 35 38 41 CUM FREQ

7.317 29.268 24.390 24.390 7.317 7.317 PERCENT

7.317 36.585 60.976 85.366 92.683 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q48

4 15 33 36 38 42 CUM FREQ

9.524 26.190 42.857 7.143 4.762 9.524 PERCENT

9.524 35.714 78.571 85.714 90.476 100.000 CUM PERCENT

2 3
4

5 6

9 16 30 38 42

21.429 16.667 33.333 19.048 9.524

21.429 38.095 71.429 90.476 100.000

243 APPENDIX F (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

CUH FREQ
10 21
29 36 37 41

PERCENT
24.390 26.829 19.512 17.073 2.439 9.756

CUM PERCENT
24.390 51.220 70.732 87.805 90.244

1
2 3 4 5 6

2 10 11 8
7

1
4

100.000

10

FREQUENCY
2 7 6

CUH FREQ
7 13 23 36 38 41

PERCENT
17.073 14.634 24.390 31.707 4.878 7.317

CUM PERCENT
17.073 31.707 56.098 87.805 92.683

1 2
3 4 5

10
13 2 3

S 1

100.000

FREQUENCY
1
4 16 13 4 4

CUM FREQ
4 20 33 37 41 42

PERCENT
9.524 38.095 30.952 9.524 9.524 2.381

CUM PERCENT
9.524 47.619 78.571 88.095 97.619

1 2
3 4 5 6 2

100.000

FREQUENCY
I
3 16 17 4 1 1

CUM FREQ
3 19 36 40 41 42

PERCENT
7.143 38.095 40.476 9.524 2.381 2.381

CUH PERCENT
7.143 45.238 85.714 95.238 97.619

1
2 3 4 5 6 3

100.000

FREQUENCY
1
6 11 9 11 3 2

CUM FREQ
6
17 26 37 40 42

PERCENT
14.286 26.190 21.429 26.190 7.143 4.762

CUM PERCENT
14.236 40.476 61.905 88.095 95.238

L 2
3 4 5 6

100.000

244

APPENDIX F

(CONT'D)

Q54 I 2 3 4 6 Q55 1 2 3 4 6

FREQUENCY 4 21 16 1 1 FREQUENCY 9 14 14 4 2

CUM FREQ 4 25 41 42 43 CUM FRFQ 9 23 37 41 43

PERCENT 9.302 48.837 37.209 2.326 2.326 PERCENT 20.930 32.558 32.558 9.302 4.651

CUM PERCENT 9.302 58.140 95.349 97.674 100.000 CUM PERCENT 20.930 53.488 86.047 95.349 100.000

APPENDIX G
MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

245

MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

VARIABLE

H
53 48 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 49 50 49 59 49 50 49 48 50 50 50 50 49 50 50 50 50 50 48 49 50 49 49 50 53 48 48

HEAM

STANDARD DEVIATION 25.93987554 1.61758401 1.50339751 1.22890361 1.54853453 1.47542223 1.47167127 1.55538345 0.99644759 1.14360095 0.70595138 1.34392055 1.27279221 1.09885531 1.35842045 1.26638916 1.33621143 1.44278642 0.91003476 0.97415584 1.03015751 1.12448023 0.97226854 1.03824813 1.19522861 1.32001855 1.20220885 1.53317337 1.37333697 1.44899684 1.0*897099 0.92398133 1.30054933 1.23304832 1.1106 7515 1.08646574

NINIHUN VALUE 71.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000

MAXIMU4 VALUE 167.00000003 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 3.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000003 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 5.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000003 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000003 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 4.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000009 5.00000000

sro FRROR OF MEAN 3.66845238 0.23147814 0.21477107 0.17555766 0.22121922 0.21077460 0.21023875 0.22219764 0.14382482 0.16337156 0.09983660 0.19198865 0.18000000 0.15697933 0.19210966 0.18091274 0.19286551 0.20404081 0.12869835 0.13776644 0.14568627 0.16064003 0.13749954 0.14683046 0.16903085 0.18667881 0.17001801 0.22129451 0.19619100 0.20491910 0.14985300 0.13199733 0.18392545 0.17437937 0.16031215 0.15681782

SUN

VARIANCE

C.V.

lONtlN at 02 03 9* as a* 07 QB 09 010 Oil 012 013 014 OlS 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035

. '

116.98300000 3.02083333 4.10204082 4.10204082 2.65306122 3.10204082 4.20408163 3.44897959 4.83333333 2.67346939 1.54000000 3.16326S31 3.82000000 2.20408163 2.46300000 3.97959184 2.45833333 3.00000000 1.78000000 2.30300000 2.60000000 2.16326531 2.56000000 3.06000000 3.60000000 3.18000000 2.06000000 4.10416667 2.77551020 3.32000000 3.06122449 1.97959184 2.68000000 3.50000000 2.85416667 2.72916667

5849.0000000 .672.87714286 145.0000000 2.61657801 201.0000000 2.26020408 201.0000000 1.51020408 130.0000000 2.39795918 152.0000000 2.17687075 206.0000000 2.16581633 169.0000000 2.41921769 232.0000000 0.99290780 131.0000000 1.30782313 77.0000000 0.49836735 155.0000000 1.80612245 191.0000000 1.62000000 108.0000000 1.20748299 123.0000000 1.84530612 195.0000000 1.60374150 118.0000000 1.78546099 150.0000000 2.08163265 89.0000000 0.82816327 115.0000000 0.94897959 130.0000000 1.06122449 106.0000000 1.26445578 128.0000000 0.94530612 153.0000000 1.07795918 180.0000000 1.42857143 159.0000000 1.74244898 103.0000000 1.44530612 197.0000000 2.35062057 136.0000000 1.88605442 166.0000000 2.09959184 150.0000000 1.10034014 97.0000000 0.85374150 134.0000000 1.69142857 175.0000000 1.52040816 137.0000000 1.23359929 131.0000000 1.18040780

22.175 53.548 36.650 29.958 58.368 47.563 35.006 45.097 20.616 42.776 45.841 42.485 33.319 49.855 55.220 31.822 54.354 48.093 51.126 42.355 39.621 51.981 37.979 33.930 33.201 41.510 58.360 37.357 49.481 43.644 34.266 46.675 48.528 35.230 38.914 39.809

APPENDIX G

(CONT'D)

VARIABLE

MEA1

STANDARD
DEVIATION

MINIMUM VALUE 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000

MAXIMUM VALUE 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 5.00000009 5.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.0COOOOOO

STD FRROR OF MEAN 0.19293541 0.18591728 0.19543769 0.14400655 0.18019149 0.16083963 0.15118579 0.14835149 0.15797114 0.17830398 0.16398553 0.17259129 0.15129365 0.18372070' 0.17595261 0.14809542 0.14458950

SUM

c.v.

Q36 037 Q38 039 Q40 Q41 0*2 0*3

49 48 49 49 48 50 50 50

Q44
045

49
49 48 50 49 49 49

Q46
0*7 0*8 049 050 051 052

48
53 48 49

053
054 055 AVEEQJIT AVEEQJAL AVELOCAL AVESTAIO AVEOTHEA

48
50 50 50 50 50

3.73469388 2.47916667 3.40816327 2.32653061 3.37500000 2.82300000 2.40000000 3.96000000 3.83673469 3.67346939 3.16666667 2.98000000 3.59183673 3.36734694 3.93877551 2.60416667 2.66003000 3.20833333 2.16326531 1.89583333 3.46429365 2.67412121 3.26587879 2.71615385 3.13544444

1.35054789 1.2880 726 7 1.36806383 1.00804586 1.24840324 1.13730796 1.06904497 1.04900341 1.10579795 1.24812785 1.13612506 1.22040475 1.05905554 1.28604491 1.23166830 1.02603520 1.02240213 1.09074118 0.82530143 0.90482356 0.53446247 0.47605437 0.45981070 0.49112950

i.oonooooo
1.00000000

1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000

2.40000000 1.72727273 1.90909091 1.76923077 2.20000000

5.00000000
4.00000000 4.00000003 5.11111111 3.81818182 4.09090909 3.76923077

0.15743493
0.11790020 0.13060003 0.07558441 0.06732426 0.06502705 0.06945620 0.06859432

183.0000000 119.0000000 1*7.0000000 114.0000000 162.0000000 141.0000000 120.0000000 198.0090000 188.0000000 180.0000000 152.0000000 149.0000000 176.0000000 165.0000000 193.0000000 125.0000000 133.0000000 154.0000000

106.0000000 91.0000000 173.2146825

133.7060606 163.2939394 135.8076923 15*.7722222

0.48503511

4.40000000

1.8239 7959 1.65913121 1.87159864 1.01*15646 1.55851064 1.29346939 1.14285714 1.10040816 1.22278912 1.55782313 1.29078014 1.48938776 1.12159864 1.65391156 1.51700680 1.05274823 1.04530612 1.18971631 0.68I1224S 0.818705*7 0.28565013 0.22662777 0.21142588 0.24120819 0.2352S90*

36.162 51.95* 40.141 43.328 36.990 40.330 44.544 26.490 28.821 33.977 35.878 40.953 29.485 38.192 31.270 39.400 38.436 33.997 38.151 47.727 15.428 17.802 14.079

18.082
15.4*9

APPENDIX H
FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE,FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

248

249
FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

Q1

FREQUENCY 2 10 11 10 7 5 5 FREQUENCY 1 2 5 12 10 7 13 FREQUENCY 1 2 4 5 19 14 5 FREQUENCY 1 15 9 13 7 5 FREQUENCY 1 9 8 14 7 9 2

CUM FREQ 10 21 31 38 43 48 CUM FREQ

PERCENT 20*833 22.917 20.833 14.583 10.417 10.417 PERCENT 4* 082 10.204 24.490 20.408 14.286 26.531 PERCENT 4.082 8.163 10.204 38.776 28.571 10.204 PERCENT 30*612 18.367 26.531 14.286 10.204 PERCENT 18.367 16.327 28.571 14.286 18.367 4.082

CUM PERCENT 20.833 43.750 64.583 79.167 89.583 100.000 CUM PERCENT 4I08Z 14.286 38.776 59.184 73.469 100.000 CUM PERCENT 4.082 12.245 22.449 61.224 89.796 100.000 CUM PERCENT 30.612 48.980 75.510 89.796 100.000 CUM PERCENT 18*367 34.694 63.265 77.551 95.918 100.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q2

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q3

2 7 19 29 36 49 CUM FREQ

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q4

2 6 11 30 44 49 CUM FREQ

1 2 3 4 6 Q5

15 24 37 44 49 CUM FREQ

1 2 3 4 5 6

9 17 31 38 47 49

250 APPENDIX H (CONT'D)

Q6

FREQUENCY 1 2 6 7 10 13 11 FREQUENCY 1 3 16 7 8 9 6 FREQUENCY 2 1 3 13 17 14 FREQUENCY 1 6 19 14 5 5 FREQUENCY 29 15 6

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 QT

2 8 15 25 38 49 CUM FREQ

4.082 12.245 14.286 20.408 26.531 22.449 PERCENT

4.082 16.327 30.612 51.020 77.551 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q8

3 19 26 34 43 49 CUM FREQ

6.122 32.653 14.286 16.327 18.367 12.245 PERCENT

6.122 38.776 53.061 69.388 87.755 100.000 CUM PERCENT

,

2 3 4 5 6 Q9

1 4 17 34 48 CUM FREQ

2.083 6.250 27.083 35.417 29.167 PERCENT

2.083 8.333 35.417 70.833 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 5 QIO 1 2 3

6 25 39 44 49 CUM FREQ 29 44 50

12.245 38.776 28.571 10.204 10.204 PERCENT 58.000 30.000 12.000

12.245 51.020 79.592 89.796 100.000 CUM PERCENT 58.000 88.000 100.000

251 APPENDIX H (CONT'D)

QLL

FREQUENCY I 3 14 19 3 9 3 FREQUENCY 2 7 9 15 14 3 FREQUENCY 1 15 16 13 4 I FREQUENCY 12 19 11 3 2 3 FREQUENCY 1 1 6 9 16 11 6

CUM FREQ

PERCENT
9

CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q12 1 2 3 4 5 6 013

3 17 35 39 46 49 CUM FREQ 2 9 19 33 47 50 CUM FREQ

6.122 29.571 36.735 6.122 16.327 6.122 PERCENT 4.000 14.000 18.000 30.000 29.000 6.000 PERCENT

6.122 34.694 71.429 77.551 93.979 100.000 CUM PERCENT 4.000 19.000 36.000 66.000 94.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 6 Q14 I 2 3 4 5 6 QI5

15 31 44 49 49 CUM FREQ 12 31 42 45 47 50 CUM FREQ

30.612 32.653 26.531 9.163 2.041 PERCENT 24.000 39.000 22.000 6.000 4.000 6.000 PERCENT

30.612 63.265 99.796 97.959 100.000 CUM PERCENT 24.000 62.000 94.000 90.000 94.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 7 16 32 43 49

2.041 12.245 19.367 32.653 22.449 12.245

2.041 14.296 32.653 65.306 97.755 100.000

252 APPENDIX H (CONT'D) FREQUENCY

CUM FREQ 14
26

PERCENT 29.167 25.000 29.167 8.333 4.167 4.167 PERCENT

16.000 28.000 18.000 20.000

CUM PERCENT 29.167 54.167 83.333 91.667 95.833

100.000

1
2

14
12

3 4 5
6

14 4
2 2

40 44 46 48 CUM FREQ
8
22

7
1
2

FREQUENCY
8

CUM PERCENT
16.000

3 4 5
6

14 9
10

44.000
62.000 82.000

31 41 48 50 CUM FREQ 23 41 48 49 50 CUM FREQ 9 32 47 50 CUM FREQ 9

20

14.000 4.000 PERCENT 46.000 36.000 14.000 2.000

2.000

96.000
100.000

FREQUENCY 23
18

CUM PERCENF 46.000

82.000

1 2

3 4 5 9
1 2

7
I 1

96.000 98.000
100.000

FREQUENCY 9 23 15 3 FREQUENCY 9
11

PERCENT
18.000 46.000 30.000
6.000

CUM PERCENT
18.000

3 5
!0 1
2

64.000 94.000
100.000

PERCENT
18.000 22.000

CUM PERCENT
18.000

40.000
86.000

3 4 5
!L I

23 5
2

43 48 50 CUM FREQ 14 35 45 46 48 49

46.000 10.000 4.000 PERCENT 28.571 42.857 20.408 2.041 4.082 2.041

96.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 28.571 71.429 91.837 93.878 97.959

100.000

FREQUENCY
1

14
21 10 1 2 1

APPENDIX H (CONT'D) FREQUENCY

1 2

253 CUM PERCENT 16.000 42.000 90.000 96.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 6.000 30.000 66.000 92.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 4.000 16.000 48.000 78.000 94.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 8.000 34.000 64.000 80.000 96.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 40.000 72.000 90.000 94.000 98.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT

CUM FREQ 8 21 45 48 50 CUM FREQ 3 15 33 46 50 CUM FREQ 2 8 24 39 47 50 CUM FREQ 4 17 32 40 48 50 CUM FREQ 20 36 45 47 49 50 CUM FRFQ

PERCENT 16.000 26.000 48.000 6.000 4.000 PERCENT 6.000 24.000 36.000 26.000 8.000 PERCENT 4.000 12.000 32.000 30.000 16.000 6.000 PERCENT 8.000 26.000 30.000 16.000 16.000 4.000 PERCENT 40.000 32.000 18.000 4.000 4.000 2.000 PERCENT

3 4 5 3
1 2

8 13 24 3 2 FREQUENCY 3 12 18 13 4 FREQUENCY 2 6 16 15 8 3 FREQUENCY 4 13 15 8 8 2 FREQUENCY 20 16 9 2 2 1 FREQUENCY 2 4 7 1 11 18 7

3 5

4 4 I 2

3 4 5
6

15
1
2

3 4 5
6
lb

1
2

3 4 5
6

>7

1 2

3 4 5
6

4 11 12 23 41 48

8.333 14.583 2.083 22.917 3 7.500 14.583

8.333 22.917 25.000 47.917 85.417 100.000

254 APPENDIX H (CONT'D)

Q28

FREQUENCY 1 8 17 11 6 5 2 FREQUENCY 5 11 12 12 5 5 FREQUENCY 1 2 14 17 11 5 FREQUENCY 1 18 17 11 3 FREQUENCY 9 16 14 6 3 2

CUH FREQ

PERCENT 16* 327 34.694 22.449 12.245 10.204 4.082 PERCENT 10.000 22.000 24.000 24.000 10.000 10.000 PERCENT 4.082 28.571 34.694 22.449 10.204 PERCENT 36.735 34.694 22.449 6.122 PERCENT 18.000 32.000 28.000 12.000 6.000 4.000

CUM PERCENT 16.327 51.020 73.469 85.714 95.918 100.000 CUM PERCENT 10.000 32.000 56.000 80.000 90.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 4.082 32.653 67.347 89.796 100.000 CUM PERCENT 36^735 71.429 93.878 100.000 CUM PERCENT 18.000 50.000 78.000 90.000 96.000 100.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q29 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q30

8 25 36 42 47 49 CUM FREQ 5 16 28 40 45 50 CUM FREQ

1 2 3 4 5 Q31

2 16 33 44 49 CUM FREQ 18 35 46 49 CUM FREQ 9 25 39 45 48 50

1 2 3 4 Q32 1 2 3 4 5 6

255 APPENDIX H (CONT'D) FREQUENCY

1 2

FREQ 4 9 23 42 47 50 FREQ

PERCENT 8.000 10.000 28.000 38.000 10.000 6.000 PERCENT 6.250 37.500 31.250 16.667 6.250 2.083 PERCENT 10^417 37.500 27.083 18.750 6.250 PERCENT 2.041 22.449 16.327 28.571 20.408 10.204 PERCENT 18.750 43.750 22.917 6.250 2.083 6.250

CUM PERCENT 8.000 18.000 46.000 84.000 94.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 6.250 43.750 75.000 91.667 97.917 100.000 CUM PERCENT 10.417 47.917 75.000 93.750 100.000 CUM PERCENT 2.041 24.490 40.816 69.388 89.796 100.000 CUM PERCENT 18.750 62.500 85.417 91.667 93.750
100.000

3 4 5
6

4 5 14 19 5 3 FREQUENCY 3
18

>4
*

I 2

3 4 5
6

15
8

3
1

3 21 36 44 47 48 FREQ

15

FREQUENCY 5
13
2

I
2

3 4 5
16

13 9 3 FREQUENCY
1 1
11

5 23 36 45 48 FREQ
1 12 20

1
2

3 4 5
6

14
10

34 44 49 CUM FREQ 9 30 41 44 45 48

J7

FREQUENCY
2

9
21
11

3
1

APPENDIX H (CONT'D) Q38

256 CUM PPKCENT 8.163 28.571 48.980 81.633 91.837 100.000 CUM PERCENT 24^490 55.102 39.796 97.959 100.000 CUM PERCENT

FREQUENCY T 4 10 10 16 5 4 FREQUENCY 1 12 15 17 4 1 FREQUENCY 2 5 7 10 17 9 FREQUENCY 5 18 12 11 4 FREQUENCY 10 20 12 6 2 FREQUENCY I 4 7 25 10 3

CUM FREQ

PERCENT A!163 20.408 20.408 32.653 10.204 8.163 PERCENT 24.490 30.612 34.694 8.163 2.041 PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q39

4 14 24 40 45 49 CUM FREQ 12 27 44 48 49 CUM FREQ

1 2 3 4 5 Q40

I 2 3 5 Q41 1 2 3 4 5 Q42 1 2 3 4 5 Q43 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 12 22 39 48 CUM FREQ 5 23 35 46 50 CUM FREQ 10 30 42 48 50 CUM FREQ 1 5 12 37 47 50

10.417 14.583 20.833 35.417 18.750 PERCENT 10.000 36.000 24.000 22.000 8.000 PERCENT 20.000 40.000 24.000 12.000 4.000 PERCENT 2.000 8.000 14.000 50.000 20.000 6.000

10.417 25.000 45.833 81.250 100.000 CUM PERCENT 10.000 46.000 70.000 92.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 20.000 60.000 84.000 96.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT 2.000 10.000 24.000 74.000 94.000 100.000

APPENDIX H (CONT'D)

257

Q44

FREQUFNCY 1 1 6 9 18 14 1 FREQUENCY L 1 10 11 10 16 I FREQUENCY 2 3 8 23 8 4 2 FREQUENCY 5 15 12 13 4 1 FREQUENCY 1 1 5 17 19 4 3

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q45

1 7 16 34 48 49 CUM FREQ

2.041 12.245 18.367 36.735 28.571 2.041 PERCENT

2.041 14.286 32.653 69.388 97.959 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q46

1 11 22 32 48 49 CUM FREQ

2.041 20.408 22.449 20.408 32.653 2.041 PERCENT 6.250 16.667 47.917 16.667 8.333 4.167 PERCENT 10.000 30.000 24.000 26.000 8.000 2.000 PERCENT

2.041 22.449 44.898 65.306 97.959 100.000 CUM PERCENT 6.250 22.917 70.833 87.500 95.833 100.000 CUM PERCENT 10.000 40.000 64.000 90.000 98.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q47 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q48

3 11 34 42 46 48 CUM FREQ 5 20 32 45 49 50 CUM FREQ

1 2 3 4 5 6

I 6 23 42 46 49

2.041 10.204 34.694 38.776 8.163 6.122

2.041 12.245 46.939 85.714 93.878 100.000

258 APPENDIX H (CONT'D)

Q49

FREQUENCY 1 4 8 14 15 5 3 FREQUENCY 1 I 6 8 20 8 6 FREQUENCY 2 6 16 20 4 1 I FREQUENCY 5 18 20 3 4 FREQUENCY 2 1 15 11 15 6

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4
5

6 Q50

4 12 26 41 46 49 CUM FREQ

8.163 16.327 28.571 30.612 10.204 6.122 PERCENT

8.163 24.490 53.061 83.673 93.878 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q51

I 7 15 35 43 49 CUM FRFQ

2.041 12.245 16.327 40.816 16.327 12.245 PERCENT

2.041 14.286 30.612 71.429 87.755 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 052 1 2 3 4 5 Q53

6 22 42 46 47 48 CUM FREQ 5 23 43 46 50 CUM FREQ

12.500 33.333 41.667 8.333 2.083 2.083 PERCENT 10.000 36.000 40.000 6.000 8.000 PERCENT

12.500 45.833 87.500 95.833 97.917 100.000 CUM PERCENT 10.000 46.000 86.000 92.000 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5

1 16 27 42 48

2.083 31.250 22.917 31.250 12.500

2.083 33.333 56.250 87.500 100.000

259

APPENDIX H (CONT'D)

Q54

FREQUENCY 1 11 21 15 2 FREQUENCY 2 18 21 5 4

CUM FREQ
.

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 Q55

11 32 47 49 CUM FREQ

22.449 42.857 30.612 4.082 PERCENT

22.449 65.306 95.918 100.000 CUM PERCENT

#

1 2 3 4

18 39 44 48

37.500 43.750 10.417 8.333

37.500 81.250 91.667 100.000

APPENDIX I
COMPOSITE MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

260

COMPOSITE MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR, AND VARIANCE FOR ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

NEAM

SfANDARD DEVIATION 4S.81569406 0.50128400 1.52456483 1.49455667 1.19072525 1.67469004 1.47389289 1.50991837 1.43346629 1.07882267 1.16378503 0.87921828 1.29559218 1.22186444 1.10767638 1.20113706 1.17918454 1.25877918 1.38916014 0.85782159 0.99084165 1.16978479 1.03105158 0.97346756 1.28029462 1.23850488 1.17447132 1.16307133 1.41886815 1.36609690 1.32996887 1.16670648 0.93352898 1.18851839 1.31796107 1.17548590 1.08098997

NINIH'JH VALUE 1.00000000 1.00000000 l.ooooooao 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 I.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00030000 I.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 I.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 .00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 I.00070000 1.00000000 1.00000000

HAXIHUN VALUE 167.00000000 2.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000003 5.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000003 6.00000000 4.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000

STO EMQR OF MEAN 4.85456133 0.05198073 0.15981782 0.15667211 0.12482192 0.17459851 0.15366396 0.15828245 0.14944919 0.11309135 0.12133298 0.09117069 0.13476668 0.1273881? 0.11548325 0.12455211 0.12361213 0.13343033 0.14482996 0.08895195 0.10274549 0.12130103 0.10749456 0.10094388 0.1334 7994 0.12843697 0.12178700 0.12060488 0.14873780 0.14242545 0.13791115 0.12163756 0.09732712 0.12324362 0.13666640 0.12460126 0.11394615

SUN 7424. 143i,0000000 250.,0000000 131. ,0000000 370. ,0000000

VARIANCE

C.V. 58.646 32.601 55.494 41.089 29.285 59.258 47.247 39.483 41.084 21.945 42.319 48.962 38.357 32.026 49.954 52.691 10.571 48.498 45.320 45.587 42.661 41.523 46.047 38.524 18.119 35.770 39.575 54.629 31.364 44.886 41.552 17.011 44.712 44.211 15.221 40.084 40.517

IONJH
CAP ai 02 ai 04 05 B6 07 as Q9 aio on 012 an 014 015 au 017 ais 919 020 021 022 823 024 325 026 027 028 329 330 031 032 033 034 035

93 93 91 91 91 92 92 91 92 91 92 93 91 92 92 93 91 89 92 93 93 93 92 93 92 93 93 93 91 92 93 92 92 93 93 89 90

79.82795699 1.53763441 2.74725275 3.63736264 4.06593407 2.87608696 3.11956522 3.82417582 1.48911041 4.50549451 2.75000300 1.79569892 1.15164835 3.81521739 2.21739130 2.27956989 3.85714286 2.59550562 3.06521739 1.88172043 2.32258065 2.81720430 2.23913343 2.52688172 3.35869565 3.46236559 2.96774194 2.12903226 4.25274725 1.04347826 1.05376344 3.15217391 2.08695652 2.68817204 3. 741 9354 8 2.93258427 2.66666667

0000000

260.,0000000

287. ,0000000 ,0000000 34B. 321.,0000000 410. ,0000000 253. ,0000000 167. 105. 151. 204.

,0000000 0000000 .0000000 0000000 212..0000000 351.,0000000 231. ooooooo 282.,0000000

175, ,0000000

,0000000 ,0000000 276. 198..0000000 187.,0000000

309.

216.,0000000 262.,0000000 206.,0000000 235. ,0000000

122.,0000000

280. ooooooo

284. ooooooo 290. ooooooo 192. ooooooo 250. ooooooo 348. ooooooo 261. ooooooo 240. ooooooo

2191. 7092099 0. 2512856 3242979 2336996 4178266 8045867 2. 1723602 2798535 0548256 1638584 3543956 0. 7730248 652 74 73 4929527 2269470 4427302 3904762 5845250 9297659 0. 7358579 0. 9817672 1. 3681964 1. 0630674 0. 9476391 1. 6391543 1, 5338943 1. 3793829 1. 3527349 2. 0131868 8662207 1. 7688172 1. 3612040 0. 8714763 4125760 1. 7170266 1. 3817671 1. 1685393

2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 1. 1. I. I. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.

2.

1.

I.

t\3

APPENDIX I (CONT'D)

9EA*

STANDARD DEVIATION 1.30398094 1.17441176 1.3106212% 1.02603472 1.13176803 1.21936908 1.23586127 1.06927337 1.13005695 1.25044559 1.22693220 1.270930R3 1.15353679 1.43506991 1.3737)25) 1.10813584 1.00666674 1.22193845 0.85582795 1.09131324 0.47997519 0.5)659465 0.46625710 0.44958386 0.44803628

MINIM'JM VALUF 1.00000000 1.00000000 l.ooooiooo 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00001000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 I.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.03000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 2.30000000 1.54545455 1.90909091 1.769230 7 7 2.20000000

MAXIMUM VALUE 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000003 5.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000009 6.03000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 5.11111111 4.36363636 4.36363636 3.7692)077 4.40000003

STD ERROR OF MEAN 0.13669435 0.12311180 0.14300050 0.10755766 0.11929383 0.12712802 0.12884744 0.11209031 0.11911846 0.131082)1 0.13005455 0.13250370 0.12092351 0.15126965 0.14480412 0.11680777 0.10495226 0.12880362 0.08922623 0.11440071 0.04977111 0.05564227 0.04834861 0.04661967 0.04645920

SUN

VARIANCE

C.V. 35.850 45.477 38.226 41.132 33.953 41.859 49.650 26.513 30.727 35.560 38.722 42.518 31.335 46.459 38.396 41.212 37.648 39.277 37.493 50.156 13.904 19.888 14.702 16.321 14.091

0)6 0)7 Q38 Q39 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 AVEEQ'JIT AVEEQUAl AVELOCAl AVESTAID AVEOTHER

91 91 84 91 90 92 92 91 90 91 89 92 91 90 91 93 92 90 92 91 93 93 93 93 9)

3.63736264 2.58241758 3.42857143 2.49450549 3.33333333 2.91304)48 2.48913043 4.03296703 3.67777778 3.51648352 3.16853933 2.98913043 3.68131868 3.08888889 3.57777778 2.68888889 2.67391304 3.11111111 2.28260870 . 2.175B2418 3.45215907 2.69804497 3.17132345 2.75468080 3.17954002

331.0000000 235.0000000 288.0000000 227.0000000 300.0000000 268.0000000 229.0000000 367.0000000 331.0000000 320.0030000 282.0000000 2 75.0000000 335.0000000 278.0000000 322.0000000 242.0000000 246.0000000 280.0000000 210.0000000 198.0000000 321.0507937 250.9181818 294.9330808 256.1853147 295.6972222

1.7003663 1.3792430 1.7177281 1.05274 73 1.2808989 1.4868610 1.5273531 1.1433455 1.2770287 1.5636142 1.5053626 1.6152652 1.3306471 2.0594257 1.8871411 1.2279650 1.0133779 1.4931336 0.7324415 1.1909646 0.2303762 0.2879338 0.2173957 0.2021257 0.2007365

APPENDIX J
COMPOSITE FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

263

COMPOSITE.FREQUENCY, CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FOR PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

QL

FREQUENCY 2 20 30 16 10 8 7 FREQUENCY 2 4 21 21 18 12 15 FREQUENCY 2 3 8 12 32 29 7 FREQUENCY 1 28 16 18 15 4 11 FREQUENCY 1 13 24 21 11 19 4

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q2

20 50 66 76 84 91 CUM FREQ

21.978 32.967 17.582 10.989 8.791 7.692 PERCENT

21.978 54.945 72.527 83.516 92.308 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q3

4 25 46 64 76 91 CUM FREQ

4.396 23.077 23.077 19.780 13.187 16.484 PERCENT

4.396 27.473 50.549 70.330 83.516 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q4

3 11 23 55 84 91 CUM FREQ

3.297 8.791 13.187 35.165 31.868 7.692 PERCENT

3.297

12.088 25.275 60.440 92.308 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q5

28 44 62 77 81 92 CUM FREQ

30.435 17.391 19.565 16.304 4.348 11.957 PERCENT

30.435 47.826 67.391 83.696 88.043 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6

13 37 58 69 88 92

14.130 26.087 22.826 11.957 20.652 4.348

14.130 40.217 63.043 75.000 95.652 100.000

265 APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

Q6

FREQUENCY 2 7 13 17 20 20 14 FREQUENCY I 4 25 22 12 21 8 FREQUENCY 2 5 9 29 31 17 FREQUENCY 1 10 33 30 10 7 2 FREQUENCY 40 36 15 1 I

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q7

7 20 37 57 77 91 CUM FREQ

7.692 14.286 18.681 21.978 21.978 15.385 PERCENT

7,692 21.978 40.659 62.637 84.615 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q8

4 29 51 63 84 92 CUM FREQ

4.348 27.174 23.913 13.043 22.826 8.696 PERCENT

4.348 31.522 55.435 68.478 91.304 100.000 CUM PERCENT

2 3 4 5 6 Q9

5 14 43 74 91 CUM FREQ

5.495 9.890 31.868 34.066 18.681 PERCENT 10.870 35.870 32.609 10.870 7.609 2.174 PERCENT 43.011 38.710 16.129 1.075 1.075

5.495 15.385 47.253 81.319 100.000 CUM PERCENT 10.870 46.739 79.348 90.217 97.826 100.000 CUM PERCENT 43.011 81.720 97.849 98.925 100.000

I 2 3 4 5 6 !10 1 2 3 4 6

10 43 73 93 90 92 CUM FREQ 40 76 91 92 93

266 APPENDIX 0 (CONT'D)

311

FREQUENCY 2 4 21 31 14 16 5 FREQUENCY 1 3 12 18 31 22 6 FREQUENCY 1 28 31 22 8 2 1 FREQUENCY 25 37 20 5 3 3 FREQUENCY 2 I 10 26 26 20 8

CUM FREQ
m

PERCENT 4.396 23.077 34.066 15.385 17.582 5.495 PERCENT 3.261 13.043 19.565 33.696 23.913 6.522 PERCENT 30^435 33.696 23.913 8.696 2.174 1.087 PERCENT 26.882 39.785 21.505 5.376 3.226 3.226 PERCENT I.099 10.989 28.571 28.571 21.978 8.791

CUM PERCENT 4^396 27.473 61.538 76.923 94.505 100.000 CUM PERCENT 3.261 16.304 35.870 69.565 93.478 100.000 CUM PERCENT 30^435 64.130 88.043 96.739 98.913 100.000 CUM PERCENT 26.882 66.667 88.172 93.548 96.774 100.000 CUM PERCENT 1.099 12.088 40.659 69.231 91.209 100.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 112

4 25 56 70 86 91 CUM FREQ

1 2 3 4 5 6 113

3 15 33 64 86 92 CUM FREJ3 28 59 81 89 91 92 CUM FREQ 25 62 82 87 90 93 CUM FREQ

1 2 3 4 5 6 !14 1 2 3 4 5 6 '15

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 11 37 63 83 91

267

APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

Q16

FREQUENCY 4 21 21 29 11 5 2 FREQUENCY 1 13 22 23 18 12 4 FREQUENCY 35 38 17 2 1 FREQUENCY 16 44 25 4 3 1 FREQUENCY 14 19 40 12 6 2

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q17

21 42 71 82 87 89 CUM FREQ

23.596 23.596 32-584 12.360 5.618 2.247 PERCENT

23.596 47.191 79.775 92.135 97.753 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q18 1 2 3 4 5 Q19 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q20 1 2 3 4 5 6

13 35 58 76 88 92 CUM FREQ 35 73 90 92 93 CUM FREQ 16 60 85 89 92 93 CUM FREQ 14 33 73 85 91 93

14.130 23.913 25.000 19.565 13.043 4.348 PERCENT 37.634 40.860 18.280 2.151 1.075 PERCENT 17.204 47.312 26.882 4.301 3.226 1.075 PERCENT 15.054 20.430 43.011 12.903 6.452 2.151

14.130 38.043 63.043 82.609 95.652 100.000 CUM PERCENT 37.634 78.495 96.774 98.925 100.000 CUM PERCENT 17.204 64.516 91.398 95.699 98.925 100.000 CUM PERCENT 15.054 35.484 78.495 91.398 97.849 100.000

APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

Q21

FREQUENCY 1 21 41 22
*

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT
ift

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q22 I 2 3 4 5 Q23

3 1 FREQUENCY 12 36 33 8 4 FREQUENCY 1 7 17 26 2* 14 4 FREQUENCY 3 18 30 24 LI 7 FREQUENCY 7 29 30 16 9 2

21 62 84 88 91 92 CUM FREQ 12 48 81 69 93 CUM FREQ

22.326 44.565 23.913 4.348 3.261 1.087 PERCENT 12.903 38.710 35.484 8.602 4.301 PERCENT

22.826 67.391 91.304 95.652 98.913 100.000 CUM PERCENT 12.903 51.613 87.097 95.699 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 5 6 Q24 I 2 3
*

7 24 50 74 88 92 CUM FREQ 3 21 51 75 86 93 CUM FREQ 7 36 66 82 91 93

7.609 18.478 28.261 26.087 15.217 4.348 PERCENT 3.226 19.355 32.258 25.806 11.828 7.527 PERCENT 7.527 31.183 32.258 17.204 9.677 2.151

7.609 26.087 54.348 80.435 95.652 100.000 CUM PERCENT 3.226 22.581 54.839 80.645 92.473 100.000 CUM PERCENT 7.527 38.710 70.968 88.172 97.849 100.000

5 6 Q25 1 2 3 4 5 6

269 APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY
1 2

CUM FREQ 32 66 83 87 92 93 CUM FREQ

PERCENT 34.409 36.559 18.280 4.301 5.376 1.075 PERCENT BM 593 9.890 4.396 26.374 36.264 16.484 PERCENT 1U957 28.261 26.087 14.130 16.304 3.261 PERCENT 12.903 21.505 32.258 19.355 8.602 5.376 PERCENT 6^ 522 23,913 33.696 20.652 14.130 1.087

CUM PERCENT 34.409 70.968 89.247 93.548 98.925 100.000 CUM PERCENT 6.593 16.484 20.879 47.253 83.516 100.000 CUM PERCENT 11.957 40.217 66.304 80.435 96.739 100.000 CUM PERCENT 12.903 34.409 66.667 86.022 94.624 100.000 CUM PERCENT 6.522 30.435 64.130 84.783 98.913 100.000

3 4 5
6

32 34 17 4 5
1

FREQUENCY
2 6

1 2

3
4

5
6

9 4 24 33 15 FREQUENCY
1 11
26

6 15 19 43 76 91 CUM FREQ

!8

1 2

3 4 5
6

24 13 15 3 FREQUENCY
12 20

11 37 61 74 89 92 CUM FREQ 12 32 62 80 88 93 CUM FREQ

9
1 2

3 4 5
6

30
18

3 5 FREQUENCY
1
6 22

I 2

3 4 5
6

31 19 13
1

6 28 59 78 91 92

270

APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

Q31

FREQUENCY I 29 33 23 7 FREQUENCY 13 33 27 12 6 2 FREQUENCY 6 9 21 35 11 11 FREQUENCY 4 8 26 30 17 5 3 FREQUENCY 3 11 33 26 16 3 1

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 Q32 I 2 3 4 5 6 Q33 I 2 3 4 5 6 Q34

29 62 85 92 CUM FREQ 13 46 73 85 91 93 CUM FREQ 6 15 36 71 82 93 CUM FREQ

31.522 35.870 25.000 7.609 PERCENT 13.978 35.484 29.032 12.903 6.452 2.151 PERCENT 6.452 9.677 22.581 37.634 11.828 11.828 PERCENT

31.522 67.391 92.391 100.000 CUM PERCENT 13.978 49.462 78.495 91.398 97.849 100.000 CUM PERCENT 6.452 16.129 38.710 76.344 88.172 100.000 CUM PERCENT

i 2 3 4 5 6 Q35

8 34 64 31 86 89 CUM FREQ

8.989 29.213 33.708 19.101 5.618 3.371 PERCENT

8.989 38.202 71.910 91.011 96.629 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6

11 44 70 86 89 90

12.222 36.667 28.889 17.778 3.333 1.111

12.222 48.889 77.778 95.556 98.889 100.000

271

APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

Q36

FREQUENCY 2 2 20 19 26 16 8 FREQUENCY 2 14 35 26 10 3 3 FREQUENCY 9 6 16 20 25 12 5 FREQUENCY 2 16 29 35 8 2 1 FREQUENCY 3 8 11 26 33 12

CUM FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q37

2 22 41 67 83 91 CUM FREQ

2.198 21.978 20.879 28.571 17.582 8.791 PERCENT

2.198 24.176 45.055 73.626 91.209 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q38

14 49 75 85 88 91 CUM FREQ

15.385 38.462 28.571 10.989 3.297 3.297 PERCENT

*

15.385 53.846 82.418 93.407 96.703 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q39

6 22 42 67 79 84 CUM FREQ

7.143 19.048 23.810 29.762 14.286 5.952 PERCENT

7.143 26.190 50.000 79.762 94.048 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Q40

16 45 80 88 90 91 CUM FREQ

17.582 31.868 38.462 8.791 2.198 1.099 PERCENT

17.582 49.451 87.912 96.703 98.901 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 4 5

8 19 45 78 90

8.889 12.222 28.889 36.667 1 3.131

8.889 21.111 50.000 86.667 tnn.nnn

272

APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

CUM FREQ
10 40 61 82 91 92

PERCENT
10.870 32.609 22.826

CUM PERCENT
10.870 43.478 66.304 89.130 98.913 100.000

1 2 3 4 5 6
2

1 10 30 21 21 9 1

22.826
9.783 1.087

FREQUENCY
1 21 31 22 13
2

CUM FREQ
21 52 74 87 89 92

PERCENT
22.826
33.696 23.913 14.130 2.174 3.261

CUM PERCENT
22.826 56.522 80.435 94.565 96.739

1 2 3
5
6

100.000

FREQUENCY
2 1 5 20 38 18 9

CUM FREQ
1
6 26 64 82 91

PERCENT
1.099 5.495 21.978 41.758 19.780 9.890

CUM PERCENT
1.099 6.593 28.571 70.330 90.110

1 2 3 4 5
6

100.000

FREQUENCY
3 1 17 17 32 21
2

CUM FREQ
1
18 35 67 88 90

PERCENT
1.111 18.889 18.889 35.556 23.333 2.222

CUM PERCENT
1.11L

1 2 3 4 5
6

20.000
38.889 74.444 97.778

100.000

FREQUENCY
2 3 20 22 22 21

CUM FREQ
3 23 45 67 88

PERCENT
3.297 21.978 24.176 24.176 23.077

CUM PERCENT
3.297 25.275 49.451 73.626

273 APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

Q46

FREQUENCY 4 6 20 33 18 7 5 FREQUENCY 1 9 26 30 16 6 5 FREQUENCY 2 1 14 24 33 12 7 FREQUENCY 3 14 19 22 22 6 7 FREQUENCY 3 8 12 18 33 10

CUN FREQ

PERCENT

CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 5 6 Q47

6 26 59 77 84 89 CUM FREQ

6.742 22.472 37.079 20.225 7.865 5.618 PERCENT

6.742 29.213 66.292 86.517 94.382 100.000 CUM PERCENT

L 2 3 5 6 Q48

9 35 65 81 87 92 CUM FREQ

9.783 28.261 32.609 17.391 6.522 5.435 PERCENT

9.783 38.043 70.652 88.043 94.565 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 4 5 6 Q49

1 15 39 72 84 91 CUM FREQ

1.099 15.385 26.374 36.264 13.187 7.692 PERCENT

1.099 16.484 42.857 79.121 92.308 100.000 CUM PERCENT

1 2 3 5 6 Q50

14 33 55 77 83 90 CUM FREQ

15.556 21.111 24.444 24.444 6.667 7.778 PERCENT

15.556 36.667 61.111 85.556 92.222 100.000 CUM PERCENT

I 2 3 5

8 20 38 71 81

8.889 13.333 20.000 36.667 11.Ill

8.889 22.222 42.222 78.889 Qrt.fiin

274 APPENDIX J (CONT'D)

q51

frequency 3 10 32 33
8

cum freq

percent

cum percent

1
2 3 4 5 6 q52

10
42 75 83 88 90 cum freq
8 42 79 86 91 92

11.111
35.556 36.667 8.889 5.556

11.111
46.667 83.333 92.222 97.778

5 2 frequency

2.222
percent 8.696 36.957 40.217 7.609 5.435 1.087 percent 7.778 28.889

100.000
cum percent 8.696 45.652 85.870 93.478 98.913

1 1 2
3 4 5 6 q53
8 34 37 7 5

I
frequency 3 7 26

100.000
cuh percent 7.778 36.667 58.889 87.778 97.778

cum freq 7 33 53 79 88 90 cum f r e q 15 57 88 91 92 cum freq 27 62

1
2 3 4 5
6

20
26 9

22.222
28.889

2
frequency

10.000 2.222
percent 16.304 45.652 33.696 3.261 1.087 percent 29.670 38.462 20.879 8.791 2.198

100.000
cum percent 16.304 61.957 95.652 98.913

q54

1 1 2
3 4 6 q55 15 42 31 3

1
frequency 2 27 35 19 8 2

100.000
cum percent 29.670 68.132 89.011 97.802

1 2
3 4 6

81
89 91

100.000

APPENDIX K

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

275

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO ONE GROUP AND FIVE SUBGROUPS OF FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS
VARIABLE* 01 CRP N 48 MEAN 2.*11860*7 3.02083333

STD OEV
1.3680*215 1.61758401

STD ERROR 0.208624*7 0.233*781*

MINIMUM 1.00000000 1.00000000

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -1.8491 -1.8321

OF 88.7 89.0

PROB > ITI 0.0678 0.0703

43

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F VARIABLE: 02 GRP N 42 49 MEAN 3.09523810 4.10204082

l.*0 UITH *7 AND *2 OF

PROB > F 0.2722

sro OEV
1.3030B309 1.50339751

STD ERROR 0.20107009 0.21477107

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -3.4221 -3.3845

OF 89.0 89.0

PROB > ITI 0.0009 0.0011

1.00000000 1.00000000

FDR H3S VARIANCES A*E EQUAL, F LEs 03 CRP N 42 49 MEAN 4.02380952 4.10204082

1.33 KITH 48 AN3 41 OF

PROB > F 0.3510

STO OEV 1.15796*89 1.22890361

STO ERROR 0.I78677B6 0.17555766

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -0.3123 -0.3109

OF

PROB > ITI

1
2

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

89.0

88.2

0.7555 0.75*6

FOR H3: VARIANCES A)E EQUAL. F VARIABLE: Q* CRP N 43 49 MEAN 3.02325581 2.65306122

1.13 UITH *8 ANO 41 OF

PROB > F' 0.7006

STO OEV 1.80592111 1.54853453

STO ERROR 0.275*0039 0.22121922

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 1.0480 1.0586

OF PROB > |T| 83.3 90.0 0.2977 0.292*

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

FOR H3s VARIANCES A*E EQUAL. F =

1.36 UITH *2 ANO *8 OF

PROB > F* 0.3023

LE: 05
6RP N 43 49 MEAN 3.13953488 3.102040*2 STO OEV 1.4893*9*2 1.47542223 STO ERROR 0.22712366 0.21077460 MINIMUM MAXIMUM 6.00000000 6.00000000 VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL OF PROB > |T|

1 2

1.00000000 1.00000000

0.1210
0.1211

88.2

90.0

0.9040 0.9039

ro
OI

FOR HOI VARIANCES ARE EQUAL* F

1.02 UITH 42 AND *8 OF

PROB > F' 0.9**8

APPENDIX K
VARIABLE: Ob CUP N MEAN 3*38095230 *.20*08163

(CONT'D)

sro

oev

STO ERROR 0*22335313 0.21023875

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -2.6835 -2.6801

OF PROS > |T| 87.3 89.0 0.0087 0.0088

*2

l.**7*93T3 1*47167127

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

6.00000000

FOR H3 VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F* VARIABLE* 07 6RP N MEAN 3.53*88372 3.4*897959

1.03 WITH 48 AND *1 OF

PROS > F" 0.9191

STO OEV 1.297*1202 1.555383*5

STO ERROR 0.197853*8 0.2221976*

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

i

OF 0.2887 0.2853 89.8 90.0

PROS > |T] 0.7735 0.7760

43 9

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. Fa< LEI Q8 6RP N *3 MEAN *.13953*88 *.83333333

1.** WITH *8 ANO *2 OF

PRtJB > F' 0.2331

STO OEV 1.05968089 0.996**759

STO ERROR 0.16159982 0.1*382*82

MINIMUM
2.00000000

MAXIMUM
6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T -3.2071 -3.2181

OF PROS > |T|

86.*

1 2

*8

2.00000000

89.0

0.0019 0.0018

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F VARIABLE: Q9 GRP N *3 *9 MEAN 2.83720930 2.673*6939

1.13 WITH *2 AND *7 OF

PR1B > F> 0.6793

STO OEV 1.19383800 1.1*360095

STO ERROR 0.1B205859 0.16337156

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.669* 0.6713

OF 87.3 90.0

PR3B > ITI 0.5050 0.5038

1.00000000 1.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. FaVARIABLE: Q10 GRP N *3 MEAN 2.0?302326 1.5*000000

1.09 MITH *2 AND *8 OF

PROB > F** 0.7695

STO OEV 0.971350*0 0.7059513B

STD ERROR 0.1*812955 0.09983660

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 3.0959 3.1695

OF
75.5 91.0

PROB > ITI

50

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

3.00000000

0.0028 0.0021

ro

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F*

1.89 MITH *2 ANO *9 DF

PROB > F 0.0322

APPENDIX K

(CONT'D)

VARIABLE: Oil CM N

mean
3.57142857 3.16126531

STD OEV 1.19210985 1.34392055

STD ERROR 0.18397740 0.19198865

OF

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 1.5350 1.5208

OF 88.9 89.0

PROB > |T| 0.1283 0.1319

42 49

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

FOR H3: VARIANCES A*E EQUAL. F'> VARIABLE: Q12 6RP N 42 50 NEAN 3.83952381 3.82000000

1.27 HITH 48 AND 41

PROB > F' 0.4352

STD OEV 1.17365585 1.27279221

STO ERROR 0.18109903 0.18000000

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -0.0410 -0.0407

OF 89.2 90.0

PROB > IT| 0.9674 0.96T6

1.00000000 1.00000000

a.oooooooo

6.00000000

FOR HOJ VARIANCES A*E EQUAL, F' 013

1.18 HITH 49 AND 41 OF

PROB > F 0.5973

UP 1 2

N 43 49

MEAN 2.23255814 2.20408163

STO OEV 1.13046997 1.09885531

STD ERROR 0.17239505 0.15697933

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 5.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.1221 0.1224

OF PROB > ITI 87.7 90.0 0.9031 0.9029

1.00000000
I.OOOOOOOO

FOR H9: VARIANCES A*E EQUAL, F VARIABLE: Q14 GRP N 43 50 MEAN 2.05976744 2.46000000

1.06 WITH 42 ANO 48 OF

PROB > F"= 0.8450

STD OEV 0.96103488 1.35842045

STO ERROR 0.14655645 0.19210966

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -1.6150 -1.5746

DF 87.9 91.0

PROB > |T| 0.1099

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

0.1188

FOR HO: VARIANCES A*E EQUAL, F' VARIABLE: Q15 GRP N 42 49 NEAN 3.71428571 3.97959184

2.00 HITH 49 ANO 42 OF

"B_>_F" '0235

STO OEV 1.06578070 1.26638916

STD ERROR 0.16445353 0.18091274

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -1.0851 -1.0708

OF PROB > |T| 89.0 89.0 0.2808 0.2871 ro

1.00000000

2.00000000

oo

FOR H33 VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F

1.41 HITH 48 ANO 41 DF

PROB > F 0.2607

APPENDIX K

(CONT'D)

: Q16 VARIABLE GRP 1 2 N 41 48 MEAN 2.75609756 2.45833333 STO OEV 1.15716221 1.336211*3 STO ERROR 0.18071838 0.19286551 47 ANO 40 OF VARIABLE: 017 GAP N MEAN STO OEV 1.33565*19 1.*42786*2
f"

MINIMUM 1.00000000

MAXIMUM 5.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T 1.1266 1.1139

OF PROB > ITI 87.0 87.0 0.2630 0.2684

1.00000000

PROS > F 0.3539

STO ERROR 0.20609592

0.20*0*081

MINIMUM
1.00000000

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.4926 0.4893

OF PROB > |T| 89.1 90.0 0.623S 0.6258

3.1*28571* 3.00000000 50 FOR HO* VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, VARIABLE! Q18 CRP N 43 50 MEAN
2.00000000

1 2

I.00000000

6.00000000

1.17 HITH_*9 AND *1 OF

PRI1B > F' = 0.615*

STO OEV 0.78679579 0.91003476 1.3* HI

STO ERROR 0.11998523 0.12869835 *MD

0F

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 4.00000000
5.00000000

VARIANCES

OF PROB > ITI 1.2503 1.23*7 91.0 91.0 0.2144 0.2194

1.78000000

1.00000000 1.00000000
PRRIB_*

UNEQUAL EQUAL

FOR HOS VARIANCES AE EQUAL. F'

VARIABLE: 019 GRP

^'*

N 43 50

MEAN 2.34883721 2.30000000

STO OEV 1.02082415 0.97415584

STO ERROR 0.15567422 0.1377664*

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.2349 0.2358

OF

PROB > ITI

1.00000000 1.00000000

87.5 91.0

0.8148 0.8141

FOR HOS VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F* VARIABLE: Q20 GRP N 43 MEAN 3.06976744
2.60000000

1.10 HITH 42 ANO 49 OF

STO OEV 1.279794*2 1.03015751

STO ERROR 0.19516682 0.14568627

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 1.9289 1.960S

OF PROB > ITI 80.4 91.0 0.0573 0.0530

50

I.00000000 1.00000000

5.00000000

ro ~-4 lO

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F--

1.54 HITH 42 ANO *9 OF

PROB > F' 0.1439

APPENDIX K
VARIABLE' GRP

(CONT'D)

Q21
N MEAN 2.32558140 2.16326531 STD OEV 0.91R61516 1.12**8023 STD ERROR 0.14038750 0.1606*003 MINIMUM MAXIMUM 5.00000000
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.7615 0.7516

OF 89.6 90.0

PROB > |T| 0.4483 0.4543

43
49

1.00000000 1.00000000

FOR HOi VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F LE: Q22 GRP N 43 50 MEAN 2.48837209 2.56000000

1.50 UITH 48 AND 42 OF

PROB > F* 0.1839

STO OEV 0.98493638 0.97226854

STO ERROR 0.15020139 0.13749954

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 5.00000000 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T -0.3517 -0.3521

OF PROB > |T|

88 .6

I.00000000 1.00000000

91.0

0.7259 0.7256

FOR HO: VARIANCES A3E EQUAL. F'= LE: Q23 GRP N 42 MEAN 3.71428571 3.06000000

1.03 WITH 42 AND 49 DF

PROB > F 0.9249

STO OEV 1.45309953 1.03824813

STO ERROR 0.22421813 0.14683046

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 2.4412 2.5111

OF 72.5 90.0

PROB > |T| 0.0171

1 2

SO

1.00000000 1.00000000

5.00000000

O.OUB

FOR HO: VARIANCES A*E EQUAL. F" VARIABLE: Q24 GRP N 43 SO MEAN 3.33232558 3.63000000

1.96 UITH 41 AND 49 DF

PROB > F = 0.0248

STO OEV 1.28238772 1.19522861

STD ERROR 0.19656229 0.16903085

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T -1.1516 -1.1578

DF PROB > |T|

86.7 91.0 0.2527 0.2500

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F' VARIABLE: Q25 GRP N 43 50 MEAN 2.72093023 3.18000000

1.15 MITH 42 AND 49 OF

PROB > F* 0.6319

STO OEV 0.93415563 1.32001855

STD ERROR 0.14245740 0.18667881

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
5.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCE; UNEQUAL EQUAL

T
-1.9549 -1.9061

OF PROS > |r|

87.9 91.0 0.0538 0.059B ro
00

1.00000000 1.00000000

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F =

2.03 UITH 49 ANO 42 OF

PROB > F 0.0236

APPENDIX K

(CONT'D)

VARIABLE: Q26 GRP N 90 MEAN STO OEV STD ERROR 0.171*9638 0.17001801 MINIMUM MAXIMUM 5.00000000
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.61B3 0.6151

OF 90.3 91.0

PROS > |T| 0.5380 0.5400

43

2.20930213
2.06000000

1.12*57495
1.20220889

1.00000000 1.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F VARIABLE: Q27 6RP N 43 48 MEAN 4.41860465 4.10416667

1.1* MITH *9 AND 42 OF

PROB > F* 0.6615

STO OEV 1.27676224 1.53317337

STD ERROR 0.19470442 0.22129451

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 1.0668 1.05*1

OF

PROB > |r|

1.00000000 1.00000000
PROB >

88.6 89.0

0.2890 0.2938

FOR HO: VARIANCES A*E EQUAL. F VARIABLE: Q2B GRP

N

1.44 HITH 47 AND 42 OF

0.2305

MEAN 3.34883721 2.77551020

STD OEV 1.30719112 1.37333697

STO ERROR 0.19934478 0.19619100

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 2.0498 2.0432

OF 89.4 90.0

PROB > |T| 0.0433 0.0440

43 49

1.00000000 1.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F VARIABLE: Q29 GRP N 43 50 MEAN 2.7441B605 3.37000000

1.10 WITH 48 ANO 42 OF

PROB > F 0.7478

STO OEV 1.11468602 1.44899684

STD ERROR 0.16998802 0.20491910

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T -2.1627 -2.1209

OF 89.9 91.0

PROB > |T| 0.0332 0.0366

I.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F1' VARIABLE: Q30 GRP N 43 49 MEAN 3.25581395 3.06122449

1.69 WITH 49 AND 42 OF

PROB > F 0.0844

STO OFV 1.29270892 1.04897099

STD ERROR

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.7858 0.7966

OF
BO.9 90.0

PROB > |T| 0.4343 0.4278

0.19713626 0.14985300

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

INS CO

5.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F>

1.52 MITH 42 ANO 48 OF

PROB > F 0.1619

APPENDIX K

(CONT'D)

VARIABLES qil CRP N 49 MEAN 2.21910233 1.97959184 STO OEV 0.94006432 0.92398133 STO ERROR 0.14335847 0.13199733 MINIMUM MAXIMUM 4.00000000 4.00000000 VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 1.1788 1.1801

OF MOB > III

88.0

43

I.00000000 1.00000000

90.0

0.2417 0.2411

FOR MOi VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F" VARIABLE! Q32 CAP N 43 50 MEAN 2.69767442 2.68000000

1.04 KITH 42 AND 48 OF

PROB > F 0.9032

STO OEV 1.05863532 1.30054933

STO ERROR 0.16144037 0.18392545

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 5.00000000
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.0722 0.0711

OF 90.7 91.0

MOB > ITI 0.9426 0.9435

I.00000000 1.00000000

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F-VARIABLE: Q33 CRP N 43 50 MEAN 4.02325581 3.50000000

1.51 MITH 49 AND 42 OF

PROB > F 0.1748

STO OEV 1.37127629 1.23304812

STO ERROR 0.20911767 0.17437937

MINIMUM 1.00030000

MAXIMUM

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 1.9217 1.9373

OF PROB > ITI 85.3 91.0 0.0580 0.0558

1.00000000

6.00000000 6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F VARIABLE: Q34 CRP N 41 48 MEAN 3.02439024 2.85416667

1.24 MITH 42 AND 49 OF

PROB > F 0.4718

STO OEV 1.25474708 1.11067515

STO ERROR 0.19595857 0.16031215

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.6723 0.6789

OF 80.7 87.0

MOB >| 1T 0.5033 0.4990

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F" VARIABLE: Q35 CRP N 42 48 MEAN 2.59523810 2.72916667

1.28 MITH 40 AND 47 OF

PROB > F= 0.4197

STO OEV 1.08334450 1.08646574

STO ERROR
0.16716369 0.15681782

MINIMUM I.00000000

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -0.5843 -0.5842

OF 86.5

PROB > |T| 0.5605 0.5606

1.00000000

88.0

FOR H0> VARIANCES AtE EQUAL. F*>

1.01 HUH 47 AND 41 OF

PROB > F 0.9904

fo fSJ

CO

APPENDIX K

(CONT'D)

VARIABLE: 036 GRP N 42 MEAN 3.52380952 3.73469388 STD OEV 1.25402951 1.35054789 STO ERROR 0.19350095 0.19293541 MINIMUM MAXIMUM 6.00000000 VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL . T -0.7TI8 -0.7673 OF PROB > |T| 88.4 89.0 0.4423 0.4449

49

I.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES A*E EQUALI F LE: Q37

1.16 UITH 48 AND 4| OF

PROP > F 0.6303

GRP

N
43 48

MEAN 2.69767442 2.47916667

STO OEV 1.03590043 1.28807267

STO ERROR 0.15797333 0.18591728

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 5.00000000
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.8956 0.8350

DF
88.0

PROB > |T| 0.3729 0.3785

1
2

1.00000000 1.00000000

89.0

FOR H9: VARIANCES A1E EQUAL. F VARIABLE* Q38 GRP

H

1.55 UITH 47 AND 42 DF

PROB > F= 0.1539

MEAN 3.45714286 3.40816327

STD DEV 1.24482120 1.36806383

STD ERROR 0.21041319 0.19543769

MININUN

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.1706 0.1679

OF 77.2
82.0

PROB > ITI 0.8650 0.8671

35 49

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES AtE EQUAL. F VARIABLE: Q39 GRP N 42 49

1.21 WITH 48 AND 34 OF

PROB > F 0.5685

MEAN
2.69047619 2.32653061

STD OEV 1.02381628 t.00804586

STD ERROR 0.15797828 0.14400655

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 1.7026 1.7046

OF 86.5 89.0

PROB > |T| 0.0922 0.0918

I.00000000 1.00000000

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQJAL. F* VARIABLE: Q40 GRP N 42 48 MEAN 3.28571429 3.37500000

1.03 UITH 41 AND 48 DF

PROB > F>< 0.9119

STD DEV 0.99475979 1.24840324

STO ERROR 0.15349477 0.18019149

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
5.00000000 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T -0.3772 -0.3716

OF 87.3

PROB > |T| 0.7069 0.7111

1.00000000 1.00000000

8B.0

ro 00 OJ

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F'

1.5T UITH 47 AND 41 OF

PROB > F 0.1405

APPENDIX K
LEI 0*1

(CONT'D)

BRP

MEAN 3.02)80952 2.82000000

SID OEV 1.31572284 1.137)0796

StO ERROR 0.20302044 0.16083963

MtNINUN

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.7869 0.7970

OF PROB > ITI 81.7 90.0 0.4336 0.4276

'i 2

*2
50

1.00000000 1.00000000

5.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES AXE EQUAL, F*< VARIABLE: Q42 CRP N 42 50 MEAN 2.59523810 2.40000000

1.34 KITH 41 AND 49 DF

PROB > F* 0.3273

STO OEV 1.41523977 1.06904497

STO ERROR 0.21837624 0.15118579

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.7351 0.7530

OF PROB > |TI 75.3 90.0 0.4646 0.4534

1.00000000 1.00000000

5.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES A*E EQUAL, F*< VARIABLE: 043 6RP N 41 50 MEAN 4.12195122 3.96000000

1.75 WITH 41 ANO 49 OF

PROB > F= 0.0606

STO OEV 1.09988913 1.04900341

STO ERROR 0.17177382 0.14835149

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.7135 0.7169

OF PROB > IT| 83.8 89.0 0.4775 0.6753

1.00000000

2.00000000

6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F*> VARIABLE: Q44 CRP N 41 49 MEAN 3.48780488 3.83673469

1.10 WITH 40 AND 49 DF

PROB > F 0.7465

STO OEV 1.14284625 1.10579795

STO ERROR 0.17848260 0.15797114

MINIMUM 2.00000000

MAXIMUM
6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T -1.4639 -1.4683

OF PROB > |TI 84.2

1.00000000

8.0

0.1469 0.1456

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F" LE: Q45 CRP N 42 49 MEAN 3.33333333 3.67346939

1.07 UITH 40 AND 48 OF

PROB > F 0.8213

STO

OEV

STO ERROR 0.19177836 0.17830398

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

r -1.2989 -1.2985

DF
87.0 89.0

PROB > |T| 0.1974 0.1*75

I.242865R2 1.24812785

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000 6.00000000

l\3
00

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F-

1.01 iltTH 48 AND 41 OF

PROB > F 0.9840

APPENDIX K

(CONT'D)

GRP

MEAN

STO OEV 1.33982161 1.13612536

STO ERROR 0.20924498 0.16198553

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.0153 0.0155

OF 78.9 87.0

PROB > |TI 0.9878 0.9877

41 48

3.1707)171 3.16666667

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F VARIABLE: Q47 GRP N 42 50 MEAN 3.00000000 2.98000000

1.39 UITH 40 AND 47 OF

PROB > F' 0.2764

STO OEV 1.34345750 1.22040475

STO ERROR 0.20729999 0.17259129

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.0741 0.0748

OF 83.8 90.0

PROB > IT| 0.9411 0.9406

1.00000000 1.00000000

FOR HI): VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F VARIABLE: Q48 CRP N 42 49 MEAN 3.78571429 3.59183673

1.21 UITH 41 AND 49 DF

PROB > F* 0.5166

STD DEV 1.25989475 1.05905554

STO ERROR 0.19439209 0.15129365

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.7871 0.7977

OF PROB > IT| 80.5 89.0 0.4336 0.4272

1.00000000

2.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F VARIABLE: Q49 GRP N 41 49 MEAN 2.75609756 3.36734694

1.42 UITH 41 AND 48 DF

PROB > F 0.2468

STO DEV 1.54564692 1.28604493

STO ERROR 0.24138949 0.18372070

MINIMUM 1.00000030

MAXIMUM

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T -2.0150 -2.0482

OF 78.0 88.0

PROB > IT| 0.0474 0.0435

1.00000000

6.00000000

6.00000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F'

1.44 UITH 40 AND 48 OF

PROB > F= 0.2224

LE: Q50
GRP N 41 49 MEAN 3.14634146 3.93877551 STD DEV 1.42409578 1.23166830 STO ERROR 0.22240639 0.17595261 MINIMUM MAXIMUM VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL T -2.7943 -2.8307 OF
79.7 88.0

PROB > ITI 0.0065 0.0058 ro

00

1 2

1.00000000 1.00000000

6.00000000
6.00000000

cn

FOR H3: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F>*

1*34 UITH 40 AND 48 OF

PROfl > F= 0.3344

APPENDIX K
VARIABLE: OSI
GRP 1 2

(CONT'D)

N
42 48

HEAN 2.79571*29 2.60416667

STO OEV 1.20031935 1.02603520

STO ERROR 0.18521310 0.14B09S42

MINIMUM 1.00000000 1.00000000

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 6.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

r 0.765k 0.7736

OF 81.2 88.0

PROS > III 0.4462 0.4412

FOR HO: VARtAICES ARE EQUAL F VARIABLE: 052 GRP 1 2 N 42 50 HEAN 2.6)047619 2.66000000

1.37 WITH 41 AND 47 OF

PROS > F 0.2980

STO OEV 0.99970960 1.02240213

STO ERROR 0.15425854 0.14458950

MINIMUM 1.00000000 1.00000000

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T 0.1441 0.1439

OF 87.9 90.0

PROB > |T| 0.8857 0.8859

FOR H9: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F* VARIABLE: Q53 GRP 1 2 N 42 48 MEAN 3.00000000 3.20833333

1.05 WITH 49 AND 41 OF

PROB > F 0.8886

STD OEV 1.36149129 1.09074118

F'-

STO ERROR 0.21098267 0.15743493

MINIMUM 1.00000000 1.00000000

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 5.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T -0.7936 -0.8053

OF 78.4 88.0

PROB > |T| 0.4298 0.4228

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. VARIABLE: Q54 GRP 1 2 N 43 49 HEAN 2.41860465 2.16326531

1.56 MITH 41 AND 47 DF

PROB > F 0.1423

STO OEV 0.87919222 0.82530143

STD ERROR 0.13407556 0.11790020

MINIMUM 1.00000000 1.00000000

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 4.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T 1.4301 1.4361

OF 86.7 90.0

PROB > IT| 0.1563 0.1544

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F>> VARIABLE: Q55 GftP 1 2 H 43 48 MEAN 2.48837209 1.89583333

1.13 MITH 42 AND 48 OF

PROB > F=> 0.6685

STO OEV 1.20261804 0.90482356

STO ERROR 0.18339753 0.13060003

MINIMUM 1.00000000 1.00000000

MAXIMUM 6.00000000 4.00000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL

T 2.6318 2.6726

OF 77.6

PROB > IT I 0.0102

B9.0

0.0090

PO CO

FOR HO: VARIANCES AtE EQUAL, F

1.77 WITH 42 AND 47 OF

PROB > F 0.0591

O-l

APPENDIX K
VUltlLEl AVEEQUIT GRP H SO MEAN 3.43804910 3.46429365 STD OEV 0.4135165S 0.53446247 STD ERROR 0.06306068 0.0T5S8441 MINIMUM

(CONT'D)

HAXIHUH 4.10000000 5.11111111

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -0.2666

-0.2616

OF PROB > |TI 90.1 91.0 0.7904 0.7942

41

2.30000000 2.40000000

FOR HO: VARIANCES A*E EQUAL, F> VARIABLE: AVEEQUAL GAP N 43 50 MEAN 2.72586328 2.67412121

1.6T MITH 49 ANO 42 OF

PROS > F' 0.0914

STD OEV 0.60401942 0.47605437

STO ERROR 0.092112t0 0.06732426

HINIHUH 1*54545455 1.72727273

NAXINUN 4.36363636 3.81818182

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.4535 0.4616

OF

PROB > IT| 0.6514

79.4 91.0

0.6454

FOR HD: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL, F*> VARIABLE! AVELOCAL GRP N 43 MEAN 3.06137538 3.26587879

1.61 WITH 42 ANO 49 OF

PROS > F' 0.1091

STO DEV 9.45444080 0.45981070

STD ERROR 0.06930157 0.06502705

HININUH 2.09090909 1.90909091

HAXINUN 4.36363636 4.09090909

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL -2.1519 -2.1500

OF 89.2 91.0

PROB > IT| 0.0341 0.0342

50

FOR HO: VARIANCES AXE EQUAL, F*> VARIABLE! AVESTAIO GRP N 43 50 HEAN 2.79947959 2.71615385

1.02 MITH 49 ANO 42 OF

PROS > F* 0.9435

STD DEV 0.39688832 0.49112950

STD ERROR 0.06052486 0.06945620

MINIMUM 1.84615385 1.76923077

HAXIHUH 3.58333333 3.76923077

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 0.9045 0.8901

OF 90.7 91.0

PROB > 1T| 0.3681 0.3757

FOR HO: VARIANCES ARE EQUAL. F VARIABLE: AVEOTHER GRP N 43 SO MEAN 3.23081395 3.13544444

1.53 KITH 49 ANO 42 OF

PROS > F* = 0.1602

STO DEV 0.40029146 0.48503511

STD ERROR 0.06104387 0.06359432

HINIHUH 2.40000000 2.20000000

HAXIHUH
4.10000000 4.40000000

VARIANCES UNEQUAL EQUAL 1.0386 1.0237

OF
90.9 91.0

PROB > | IT 0.3017 0.30B7

ro 03

FOR H9: VARIANCES Alt EQUAL, F>

1.47 WITH 49 ANO 42 OF

PROB > F>* 0.2053

APPENDIX L

VERTICAL FREQUENCY BAR GRAPH COMPARISONS OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS

288

VERTICAL FREQUENCY BAR GRAPH COMPARISONS OF PRACTITIONER/ACADEMICIAN RESPONSES TO FIFTY-FIVE SURVEY ITEMS
FREQUENCY
***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

Qi

-I
1. Local property tax relief is currently a higher priority than school finance reform.

ro -I GM
00 10

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

16 + | 15
0

***** *****
MM!

| 14

***** *****

13 12 11 10 9 8 7

MIM
***
00099

| |

0 0

IHM
99090 00000

*****

***** *****
0000m

***** ***
00*00 00000 00000 00000

toil
00000 00000 00000 ***** ***** 00000 *****

***** ***** ***** *

99999

***** ***** *****

***

I
0 | 0

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** * * * * * * * * * *

** 90 ***** ***** 99999 *****

| * | 5 * | * * | 3 * | 2 ***** | ***** 1 * ***** | *****

***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

** ** ** ** ** ** **

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ' ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
*****

***** *****

1 ,

3
i

6 , ,

3
2

2. The Issue of local control takes precedence over equal educational opportunity.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FUE

NCV

1 I
t

II
IS

U I 1 II 10

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** | *****
3 4

***** *** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

Q3
GRP

ro to

3. Equity of funding is of greater concern than adequacy of funding.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY IS

MM MM MM Mitt MM MM MM MM MM MM MM

MM Mtt MM MM MM* MM

M MM MM* MM MM*

MM* MM*

M M . 99 99

MM MM MM M 9fW9 MM

WvfV

MM MM MM

4. Equal educational opportunity for all children should be regarded as a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

qs

I
5. The property tax has become increasingly inequitable for use as a basis for funding public education.

CUP

ro

to

CO

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

13

I I 11 I 10 I
12

III

I I
I

9 7

I I 6 + I MM 5 I MM % I Mtll * I Illll 2 MM I 1 I I 1

I
MM MM MM MM MM ***** I MM MM MM MM *** MM ** * * * * * * I MM MM MM Ml MM MM MM MM

II

II

Mil MM MM MM

II

M M M M

Q6
CfkP

6. There can be no program equity without tax equity in public education.

ro

id

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

16 I 15 + I 14 1 13 + I 12 I 11
10

+ ***** |*****

I I * I I 1 I I * I * I

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** ***** ***** *****

*****

**

**** **** **** **** **** ****

ay -I
7.
2

GftP

ro io CJl

Increased state and federal financial support for public education would result in decreased local responsibility-

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

IT 1 16 1 15 a 1 1* 13
>

*
*

*****

* * * *

1 12 1 It # 1 10
1

9 1
S
-

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
* *

1 T 1
t I

* * * , * * * * * * * * *
*

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** *****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
**** ****

5
4 1

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** **** *** * **** *** **** ****

1 3 1 2 +
1

****

* * *
*

* * * * * *

**
*****

* *

***** ***** *** ***** *****

0O000 00000
***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***
*****

4
I

-I

I-

QB Gar

8. The responses of state legislatures to problems in school finance have

substantially resolved equity issues.

tsi ID cn

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY
|9 +

IT
16

I | 15 | |* t | |

11111 MIM
MIM IMM IMM MIM MIM IMM Mill

MM!

11111 mil ill** IMM IMI# 11111

#MII IMM Mill Itllt 9MM M# MM

Mill

|3 f |' 12 || t | . 10 I

IMtl
IMM Ml** MIM IMM MIM MIM IMM IMM IMM MIM 11111 11111 MIM

IMM

llltl 9$l* 11111 Mil# IMM IMM 11111 Mill 11111 IMM IMM 11111 IMM IMM

$
MIM IMM MIM MIM IMM MIM Mill MIM 11111 MIM IIIM MMI Mill 11111 MIM 11111 MIM MIM MMI MMI MMI MMI MIM IMM MM* MIM Mill MMI 11111 MMI MMI MMI MMI IMM MMI

MIM

I
I I I I I I .1 I I I I

MMI MIM 11111 MMI MMI MMI MMI MIM

IMM IMM MMI MIM

IMM 11111 MMI IMM

9. Equality of educational opportunity is a practical goal.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***

25 20 15 10 5
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ****? *****

MM
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****
***** *****

***

**
***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***
***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**

*****

*****

010

GRP

10. Equality of educational opportunity is a desirable goal.

ro to oo

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

18 1 IT 1 14 1 15 1 14 1 11 1 12 * 1 II 1 10 * 1 9 1 8* 1 7 1 6 1 5 * 1 4* 1 3 * 1 2 1 1 + ***** 1 *** 1 t

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

-I

Qll G

ro

to

11. More equity Implies greater centralization.

vo

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000 00000 00 00 00 00 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000 00000 00000 00000 00Q00 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00900 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 000*0 00000

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1
00000

Q12

2
12. Poor schools are directly traceable to inadequate local support.

MP

o o

(A>

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

'

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ** ***** ***

*****

***** ***** ***** ***$* ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

\
*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** * ** ** ** '** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***

QI3

GUP

o 13. Equalization of property tax assessments throughout a state is a logical prerequisite for establishing a foundation program.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

19

| 17 |
16

18

| |

15

| 13 | 12 |
11

|4

*
*****

10

*****

9 *****

5 I 1 * ***** I * 6 ***** I S I 4* I 3 I 2 * I 1 I *
1

***** ***** # *****

2

*****

*
*****

*****

*****

***** ***** *
1

*****

***** *****

*****

*****

5 6

***** ***** *****

2

***** *****
*****
***** *****

* ***** *
3

*
*****

14.

A combination of taxes, such as property, sales, and income, represents the most equitable approach to funding public education.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

I It + I 15 + 1 1* I 13 I
12

IT

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

II 1 10 *
1

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** *****

*****

*****

(
+

MM
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

MM
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

1
+

1
*

1
*

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***

** ** ** **
**

**
**

***** *****
*****

***

***** *****

** ** ** ** **

** ** * ** ** ** ** ** **

*****

**

*MM

MM MM

***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***

15. The concept of fiscal neutrality 1s generally questionable as the basis for measuring school finance equity.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY
15
*

1) | 12 | II | 10
9 *

*****
***** *****

* *****
**
*

*****

*****

I t I s I 4 * I 3 * ***** I 2 ***** I ***** 1 I

1

a I 1 *****

*****

***** *
*****

*****

* ***** ***** *
*****

***** * * *
*****

*****

*****
*****

*****

*****
*****

*****

***** *****
*****

*****

*****

*****
*****

***** *****

***** ***** *****

*****
***** ***** *****

* ***** *

***** *****

*****

*****
*****

*****

*
*****

***** *****

***** *****

*****

#*

***** *****

3
2

*****

*
0 1 6

cup

16. Intra-dlstrict disparities 1n per pupil expenditures may be as significant problem as inter-district disparities.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FIC UENCV

13 12 11 10

1 1 * 1 1 1

1 8

7 * I 6 1 5 Mill

IIIII IIIII MIL

mi

MI II-III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII mil IIIII MIL MIL MIL
mil

MIL IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII

nm

im mi

| MIL 4 * 00990 | mil 3 *IIII |IIIII 2 IIIII | IIIII 1 IIIII | emi

IM IM

mi mil mil mil mil

MIL

MIL IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII

mil mil

mn

IIIII MIL NM IIIII IIIII mil MIL

mil mil

IM

im mi

LLLL

IIIII

IIIII
I

**I# IIIII IIIII IIIII

mil mi*

im im im im mi

MIL IIIII *mi IIIII

im im *m im

017

I17. Municipal overburden.

CUP

CJ 0 01

FREQUENCY
23

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

1
22

1 21 20 19 1

ft ft ft

*****
*****

I 1

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

18 1 17 * 1 16 1 15 ft 1 1 ft 1 13 ft 1 12 ft | M M # 11 ***** | ***** I M 10 M \ M M I 9 ft ***** | ***** 8 ft M##t | Mill 7 ft M#*t | M M * 6 ***** | ***** 5 ***** | ***** t ft *****
| *****

*****
***** *****

*****
***** ***** *****

** ***** ***
***** *****

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****
***** ***** *****

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** **ftft* ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** . ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
***** ***** ***ft* ***** ***** ***** *****

3 ft M9f
| **

M 2 ft M | ***** 1 ft ***** } ***** 1

*****
***** *****

*****
*****

*****
*

***** 3

Qia
o cn

CO

GRP

18. Variable costs for special needs students.

FREQUENCY
2 3
ZZ 21

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

0*00
00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 000 00 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000
00000 00000

+ 1

2 0 1 9 1 8 1 7 + 1 6 + 1 5 1% 1 3 1 2 1 1
0 0 0 0

00000

00000
00000

00000 00000

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 . 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 . 00000 . 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

f 9 8 1 7 0 00000

8
9 4 3 2 1

00000 0 00000 1 00000 0 00000 1 00000 # 00000 00000 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 00000 1 00000

00000

00000

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1 I
19. Variable costs for disproportionate percentages of special needs students (educational overburden).

on car

CJ

FREQUENCY
2 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 9 1 I S 1 I T 1 1 6 1 1 5 1 1 *
1

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

,
MM

MM

MM MM MM

1 3
1 1 2 1

MM MM

MM

MM MM MM

1 1

MM

1 0 1 9 1 1 T 1

MM

MM MM MM

MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM

5 MM*
| MM*

MM MM MM MM

MM

MM

MM MM

MM MM

MM

MM

| MM* 3 MM* | MM* 2 MM* | MM*

MM

MM

MM

MM MM

MM

MM

MM MM

it

MM
! *

MM

MM

020

1
20. A cost of education index to accommodate variations in local purchasing power.

GUP

O
00

CO

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FRE UENCV
2

***** ***** ***** ***

-

***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** * * * * * * * * * * * *

*****

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
***** *** ***** *****
***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

* * * * * * * * * * *

**
***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***

*** ***** *****

**

***** ***

1
, . | 21. An Index of local tax paying ability.

U> O
Q21 GRP
<0

UENCV

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 ***** ***** ***** 0000 0000 **** *** *** 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 **** **** 0000 **** 0000 **** **** 00000 00000 00000 00000 **** **** **** 00000 ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

MMt
00009 00000

**** **** **

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0000 0

Ml* ****
****

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 09 00 00

**
***** ***** ***

**

***

***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

Q22

, | 22. Density/sparsity factors (economies of scale).

GM

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY
18 17 16 15 U 13 12 1 11 10 9 8
7

*** *** *** ***

*** ***

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

* +
5

***** ***** 3 ***** ***** 2 ***** ***** 1 ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***& ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** * * ** * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** 023

I23.

GRP

co

Elimination of the use of attendance-based per pupil counts for determining state aid eligibility.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

1*
99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 ***0 #0 99991>

*****
0 9 9 0 09990 00000 00000 00999 99999 99999 99999 99999 99999 90000 00900 00000 00000 00000 90000 00000 90000 00900 00000 99999 99999

** ** ** **

99 00 99 00 00 99 00 ** 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

****<> ***** ***** *****

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

M
00000 00000

09999 09000

00 90 00 00 00 00 00 ** 00 00 00 00

**

00000 00000 00000 00900 00000

* ***
00000 ***** *****

00 00

02* 1
GRP
CO

24. Hold harmless provisions

ro

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

16 I
IS f

***** MM
MIM *****

+ | I) | 12
| |+

IQ +

| |
|

IMM ***** IMM ***** *****

***** ***** *****
*****
*****

*****

***** ***** ***** IMM *****

*****

*****

*****

***** *****

*****

***** ***** *****

*****
*****

***** ***** ***** *****

*MM ***** Itlll ***** *****

***** ***** *****
*****
*****

*****

*****

9*

*****

*****

*****

*****

***** *****

| *

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

7 +

4 # | 5+ |
+

*****

*****

*****

***** ***** ***** *****

*****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** **

3

*****

*****

***** ***** ***** *****

*****

*****

*****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

2

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

3

*****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

4

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** **

5

| |***** | *****
| *****
1

*****

***** *****

*****
*****

***** ***** *****

*****

*****

*****
*****

***** *****
*****

*****
*****

***** *****
*****

*****

*****
*****

*****

*****
*****

*****

*****
*****

) *****

*****

2 * *****

*****

*****

**
2

***** *****
4

**

*****
*****
5 6 1

*****

***** *****
*****

***** *****
*****

***** *****

*****
*****

*****
*****

*****
6

| * *****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****
0 2 5

25. Incentives for local initiative.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FftEQU NCV

20 I 1 1 i 1 1
1 3

12 II 1

* *** 1 ***** * ***** t *** * ***** 1 ***** ***** 1 ***** ***** 1 + ***** ***** 1 ***** *** 1 ***** i ***** | IIMI ***** | ***** *1111 | III** | lllll + lllll | $N*

lllll lllll 11*11 lllll |**ll 11**1 99090 Mil* ***** ***** *** *****
**

***** ***** ***** 1 11*11 lllll ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

** ** ** II ** II ** II ** II ** I* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** **

***** ***** ***** *****

r

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

5 6 1

***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***! lllll II*** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll ***** III! lllll lllll mi mi Mill lllll 11*11 lllll
2

*1 II II II II II II II II II II II ** II II II *1 II II II II II II II II II II II II
1

II II II

lllll lllll lllll lllll

lllll lllll lllll lllll

I**** ***** Q26 CUP

CO

26. State equalization of property tax assessments.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

***** ***** *****

*****

*****

***** 1 ***** * #1*1$ 1 *****

MM* ***** Ml** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

** **

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***

***

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** *****

* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** *

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

02F CUP

u
cn

27. The full state assumption of the costs of public education is necessary to assure school finance equity.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

17

| 15 |
14 t

I 16

***

***** ***** *****

*****

|
*****

*****

13 +

| 12 +

If t-

| | 10 | 9 |
a

nil# *****

*****

*****

*****
*****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** *** *****

*****

*****
*****

***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ** *****

***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** . ***** *****

I T | b * I
| |
|*****
| *****
*****

***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

4 *

***** *****
*****

***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** *****
*****

***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

***** *****
*****

***** ***** *****

***** *****
*****

***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***

*****

***** *****
*****

*****

***** *****

***** *****
*****
*****

***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** *****
*****

***** *****
*****

***** *****
*****

*****

***** *****

***** ***** ***

*****

*****

3 *****
2 *

*****

*****
*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

***

*****

*****

i ***** l ***
I
j

***** *****
2

***** *****
3

***** **
4

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

***** *****
5

***** *****
6
1

***** *****
1
|

***** *****
2

***** *****
3
2

***** *****
4

***** *****
5

*****

*****

***** *****

*****

6 Q 2 8
-| CM w
01

28. There is a need to significantly Increase the proportionate state share of expense for public education.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

UENCV
*****

**

IMM *****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** *****

I-

29. Complex dispersion measures of school finance equity confound rather than clarify the process of assuring equal educational opportunity.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY 17 + a i 16 * i 1 IS U 13 12 11 10 9 8 7
#

Mill Hill

IIMI
HI Hill Hill Hill mil Mill HIM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM Mill MM

IM M IM 1 I I 1 *

I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1

II II
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II H II II II II II II II Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill

6 9

IM
M

Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill HIH Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill HIH

+ Hill
MM 3 MM Mil 2 HIH I MM 1 * Mill HI HI HI

IM IM
III

* I

HIH Hill

30. State-wide administration of property taxation systems may be a necessary first step in Implementing a rational system of state aid to education.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY
18

17 1 16 1 15 1 I* f 1 13 + 1 12 1 11 1 10 > 1 9 + Mill MM# ** M MM* ***** MM* ***** ***** ***** *****
*0**0 0*000 00000 0*000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0*000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 000*0 00000 00000 00000

00000

*****
0****

***** MM *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** MM

* a +
1 7

1
6

1 5

1 *
1 3 + 1 2 +

1 I
1

***** ***** *****

*****

***** 1

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0*000 00000

*****
00000 0000* 00000 000*0 00000 00000 000*0

00000 00000 00000 00000 .00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 000*0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0*000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 000*0 00000 00000 00000 00000 '00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

0**** 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 000*0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

***** 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

*****
00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

*
1

2 2

*
1

031

GRP

31. It should be emphasized that educated persons are capital assets to the community.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

17

I I 1* I IS # I 12 I II I 10 I
15

16

I I I + 1 I I I 3 I *

** ** **

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

Q32

CO

CRP

ro o

32. Categorical state and/or federal aid to education is necessary for certain pupil groups.

##

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

**

**
** 00

90

00 90

09

00 00

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** *****

Q3+
1

I"
34. The economic return of the high costs of achieving equal educational opportunity will ultimately exceed expenditures.

CUP

CO

ro ro

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

18 1 IT 1 1ft 1 15 1 U 1 13 1 12 1 11 1 10 * 1 9 1 a 1 F 1
ft ft

$MM IMM MMt MIM ***** IM* MM MM MIM ***** MM ***** $MI
MM* MM

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

MM
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

MM
MM

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

1 till* 3 MM* 1 MM* 2 MM* 1 MM* 1 MM* 1 M*

MM 1 MM MM*

MMI

MM

MM IMM
MM* MM* MM*
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

MM
***** *****

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

MM*
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

MM*
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

MM
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** **

MM*

***** *****

Q3S

I I 2 35. The costs of equal educational opportunity are less than the costs of not providing it.

CM

ro
CO

CO

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

t 00

00

0 0

00 00

00

**
00 00 00

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 ** 000

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

00000 00000 00000 00000

00000 00000

00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

1
|
36. The amount of property wealth per pupil 1s the most appropriate base from which to determine the fiscal capacity of a school district.

036 GUP

ro

co

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)
FREQUENCY 21

20
19

IS
17

It IS 14 IS 12 * 11 * 10 + 9* a 7 6 t 5 ***** 1 ***** 4 ***** ***** 3 * ***** ***** 2 ***** ***** 1 ***** 1 ***** 1

* * ***** *****

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

* * * * * * *

** ** ** ** ** **

** **

**
** ** ** ** ** ** **

**
*****

*
* * *

***
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
**

***
***** ***** ***** *****

**

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *?***

***
*** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Q37
GftF

37. Measurements of fiscal capacity should be expanded to Include personal income.

to ro ui

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY 1ft 15

1* 13

12 + 11 10 9 8 T

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** *****

ft
5 4 3

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** 1 * ***** *****

2 *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ' ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ** ***** ***** *****

Q 3 B

GftP

f\J

38. Operationally, district power equalization formulae do not represent an improvement over Strayer-Haig foundation programs.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

U
17 t

*****
*****

***

I 16 | 15 + | 24 | 13 | 12
| | 10 + |
t

***** ***** ***** *****

*****

*** ***** ***** *****

*****
*****

*** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

tlM ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

*****

** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***;* ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

1+ |
J
+
6 *

| |
|

*****

*** *****
*****
*****

*****

*** *****
*****

*****

** *****
*****

*****

** *****
*****

*****

***** *****
*****

*****
*****

*****

*** *****
***** *****

***** *****
*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*** *****
*****

S*

|
| *****

*****
Ml**

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

+ *****

*****

3 * ***** |***** 2 t ***** | ***** 1 * ***** 1

*****

|*****

***** *** ***** ***** ***** 2

*****

*****

***** *** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ** ***** ***** *****

*****

*****

*****

*****

***** 5

*****

***** 6

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** I

*****

*****

***** *** ***** ***** *****

*****

*****

*** *****

***** ***** *** ***** 3

Q 3 9

C O N

39. Measurement of the efficiency of instruction focused on narrow bands of test outcomes provides a questionable basis for accountability.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

17 + 1 16 1 15 1 U 1 11 I 12 + 1 11 1 10 1 9 t1 8 1 7 1 * 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 1

***** *** Ml* III! Mill 1**1#

* II ii ** ** II ** II II II II II **

llll mil Mill 11*1 mil mil mil mil IIIII mil mil IIIII mn IIIII mil nm Mill mil mil mil mil IIIII mil mil *** *

mil

III*I MIL ***** IIIII IIIII

mi* mil IIIII mil mil IIIII mil i*ii * ** ** ***** * -I

** ***

* ** ** **** * ** ****

***** ***** ***** ***** *** Mill *** ***** *** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** 040
GOP

co ro

40. Heasurement of the efficiency of Instruction based on broad longitudinal constructs provides a questionable basis for determining accountability.

00

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

ia
1 17 a 1 U 1 15 + 1 14 1 13 1 12 + 1 11 * 1 10 1 9 1 B 1 7 1

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** *****
MM*

MM*

MM* MM*

***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** *****

***** *****

***** *****
MM* MM*

*****
*****

** ** M * ** *
M M

***** ***** *****

*****

*****
***** MM

*-

1 5 MM | MM 4 MM | MM 3 MM | MM 2 MM J MM I *M* J MM
1

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

** ** M M ** ** ** ** ** M * ** ** M ** **
M

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** *****

MM*

***** *****
MM*

***** *****
MM*

*****
*****

*****
*****

**

***** ***** *****

2

** ** * ** **
3

***** ***** *****

4

** ** ** M ** ** ** ** ** ** ** M ** ** ** ** ** ** **
5

**** **** ****

MM MM MM MM

***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** *****

*****

** *
M

** ***** *****
6

*****
***** *****
2

***** *****
***** *****
3

***** *****
***** MM*
4

* *
M *
5

MM MM
1

I 1 | 2 41. Educational vouchers would shift substantial power from educators to

parents.

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)
FREQUENCY

I I 11 I I? I It I IS I 14 I 13 I 12 t I || *
19

20 *

10 | * 9 f
T

| |
|

*****

*
*****

*
*****

1 * | 5 *****
|
*

*
*****

***** *****

*****

*****

*****

*****
***** *****

' *

***** *****

*****

*****

*****

*****

***** *****

*
*****

*****

***** *****

3 * *****

I 2 * I 1 I *
I

*****

*****

.
5

* *
6

**

' * *
*****

*****
*****
*****

*****

***** *****

1 2

Q*2

42. Educational vouchers might significantly reduce equal access to equal education with poor and disadvantaged pupils increasingly concentrated in the public schools.

oo

APPENDIX L (CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

25

1 1 * | | j | | | i

***** *** ***** ***** IIIM ***** ***** ***** ***

***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

** ** * ** ** ** ** **

** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

**

* ** ** **

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** -I

4 I-

***** *****

** ** ** **

** * ** **

** ** ** * ** * **

** ** ** ** ** *

***** ***** *****

6

Q9
6R

43. Educational vouchers will figure largely in the financing of American education by the year 2000.

u> CO

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

IEQUENCV 18 1 17 * 1 1ft 1 IS 1 U* 1 13 * 1 12 * 1 11 * 1 10 1 9 1 8* 1 7+ 1
ft

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***

***** ***** *****

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

5 I 4* 1 3 1 2* 1 1* 1

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***
***** ***** *****

*****

*****

***** *****

***** *****

***** *****

1 1

3 -I

Q*+ GAP

GJ CO ro

44. Public education Is a local enterprise determined primarily by local preferences.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

16
IS

14
13

12 1 11 1 10 1 9 i 6 1 7 1 * 1 5+ I 1 3 I 2 ***** |***** 1 *****

#

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** *****

| *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** *****

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

***** ***** ***** *****

***** *****

0*5

12 -I

GRP

45.

oo co
GJ

Local tax paying ability is the major determinant of public education policy.

APPENDIX L
FREQUENCY 23

(CONT'D)

M MM #MM MM MM M MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM

M
M F 1 1 * 1

MM MM

MM MM

MM 1

^ MM MM

MM MM MM MM 3 2

MM MM MM MM MM

6
J

0*6

|
46.

GM

Taxpayer reluctance to support the costs of public education illustrates the tendency of individuals to ignore the broader public interest.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**** **** **** **** **** **** ** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** fr ***** 1 ***** ***** 1 ***** ***** 1 ***** ***** 1 ***** **** **** *** **** *1** MM ****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** * ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

9
2

47. Recapture, the transfer of revenue from property-rich to property-poor school districts, 1s an appropriate strategy to equalize revenues within a state.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

19

I U* I 17 I 16 I IS I I* 1 13 I 12 I 11 I 10 I I I 7 I 6 I 5 I I 3 I 2 I 1 I

MM MM MM MILL MM MM MM MM

MM

MM MM

MM MM

MM MM MM *MM

MM

MM

MM MM* MM* MM* MM

Qa i 1 | 2
GBP

CO CO

0)

48. Tuition tax credits will figure largely as an alternative education financing system by the year 2000.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

IS 14 19 MM MM MM
*****

12
11 10 | 9 0 7 6 5 |
|

MM MFTM MM MM MM MM IM MM MM MM* MM* MM MM

|
*

| |

MM

MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM ***** MM MM MM MM MM **** MM MM

3 1 2 | 1 ft | 1 |

MM

MM

MM 2

MM *

MM MM MM MM MM MM

M Q49 CRP

49.

Requiring one national standard for equal educational opportunity in lieu of individual state standards violates free choice.

co co -si

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

**
****

**
***

M#

** **
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
****

***** *****

1 I -I I 2
50. Requiring one state-wide standard for equal educational opportunity 1n lieu of local social preferences violates free choice.

Q50

CM

CO CO

oo

APPENDIX L
FREQUENCY
20 19

(CONT'D)

15
17

16 1

IS + 14 +
1

M M MM MMT MM MM MM IM
MMt

13 12
1

M
>MM

MM MM MM MM MM MM MM

M M
M
MM M M M M MM *>M

Ml*
MM

MM

11
1

10 + 1 9 1

Mil
MM MM MM MM MM MM MM Ml*

fl
1

MM

1 6
1

M M M M M M

5 1 4 MM

MM

| MM 3 MM | MM 2 MM

M
M

MM
M M MM

Ml*
MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM

1 + MM
| MM

I
51.

Leveling up less wealthy and/or lower spending school districts by providing state aid to make up funding differences is a politically feasible equalization methodology.

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FH

QUEMCV

0
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** *** *****

*

***
***** ***** *****

**o* *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***
***** ***** ***** *****

***
***** ***

***
***** ***** *****

***
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

M9 MIM *****
***** ***** ** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

MM
***** ***** *****

MIM *****
***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Q52

GUP

52.

The divergence between private free choice and the social benefits of public education is a significant dileflina with reference to equal educational opportunity in a free society.

co Ck

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FREQUENCY

IS
14

13 12
11 10

III* III! I

II II

ft
7

MIM
1 I MU

II
II II II II >1 II 1* II It II l II II II II II II It II II * II II ! M II II II II II

mi
lllll

$$1

Ill
III

Mil*
I

MIM 111*1

2 + till 1 1 fr 1 *

MM
I I

lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll

lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll

lllll
lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll

lllll
lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll

lllll lllll

053

-I
53.

I-

6RP

Business and Industrial interests will tend not to support legislative changes toward state-administered property tax systems.

JS

OJ

APPENDIX L

(CONT'D)

FIEQUENCV 21 1 20 1 19 * I It 1 IT 1 11 f 15 1 14 1 13 1 12 1 11 1 10 * 1 9 1 S 1 7 1

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

*****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

00000

0000
00000

**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Mill *****
00000

00000 00000

***** ***** ***** ***** ** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

00000

00000

ft
1
+

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

1
* *
00000

3 2 1

1
*

1
*

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***

*****

***** 0*0*9

0*000

00000

***** ***** ***** *****

05* cap
54. School finance reform and property tax reform are not necessarily antithetical.

CO

ro

APPENDIX L
FREQUENCY 21 20 19 It

(CONT'D)

*****

A V A* wA* w *****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***

IT
1ft

*****
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

15 14 13 + 12 11
*
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

10 9
** *****

7
*

*
***** *****

3 2 +
1 +

*****

9**0* ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** *****

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

55. Equal educational opportunity meets the needs of the state as well as the needs of the Individual.

APPENDIX M GLOSSARY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE TERMS

344

345

GLOSSARY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE TERMS

NOTE:

This glossary contains a number of tax, education, and statis tical terms that are used in school finance research and policy analysis. In order to make comparisons of tax and expenditure

data among school districts, adjustments must be made in a number of measures. The purpose of these adjustments is to

create a set of comparable numbers and a set of common terms. Standard procedures are used to make these adjustments and the glossary indicates how some of the adjustments are made. ADA, ADM ADA is an abbreviation for student average daily attendance and ADM is an abbreviation for student average daily membership. ADA and ADM are the official measures that most states use to represent the number of students in a school district for the purpose of calcu lating state aid. ADA is always less than ADM. Assessment Ratios The assessed valuation of property in most states is usually less than the market value of the property. In other words, owners are able to sell property for a price higher than the assessed valuation of that property. Although most states have a legal standard at which all property should be assessed, assessed valuations are usually below even the legal level may vary widely among jurisdictions in a state. The actual

346 APPENDIX M (CONT'D)

assessment level or assessment ratio is determined by comparing actual assessed valuations to market values. Assessed Valuation The assessed valuation is the total value of property subject to the property tax in a school district. Usually, it is established by a local government officer and is only a percentage of the market value of ther property. Assessed Valuation Per Pupil, Adjusted The adjusted assessed valuation per pupil is the adjusted assessed valuation for a school district divided by the district's total ADA or ADM. Categorical Programs Categorical programs refer to state aid that is designated for specific programs. Examples would be transportation aid, special education aid and aid for vocational education. Equali zation formula aid is not an example of categorical aid. Formula funds provide general aid that can be used for any purpose. Chargeback Refers to number of mills assumed to be levied by district for state aid calculation, but is not a required local levy (RLE). Current operating expenditures include educa tion expenditures for the daily operation of the school program such as expenditures for administration, instruction, attendance and health service, transportation, operation and maintenance of plant and fixed charges.

Current Operating Expenditures

347

APPENDIX M

(CONT'D)

District Power Equalization

District power equalization (DPE) refers to a state equalization aid program that "equal izes" the ability of each school district to raise dollars for education. In a pure DPE program, the state guarantees to both property-poor and property-rich school districts the same dollar yield for the same property tax rate. In short, equal tax rates produce equal per pupil expenditures. In the property-poor school districts, the state makes up the difference between what is raised locally and what the state guarantees. In property-rich school districts, excess funds may or may not be "recaptured" by the state and distributed to the property-poor districts. DPE programs are given different names in marjy states including guaranteed tax base programs (GTB), guaranteed yield programs and percentage equalizing programs. DPE programs focus on the ability to support education and, thus, enhance the local fiscal role in education decision making. DPE would satisfy the "fiscal neutrality" standard without achieving "uniformity" of expenditures among school districts.

Elasticity of Tax Revenues

The elasticity of tax revenues refers to the responsiveness of the revenues from a tax to changes in various economic factors in the state or nation. In particular, policy makers may want to know whether tax revenues will increase more rapidly, as rapidly, or less rapidly than changes in personal incoim.. The

348

APPENDIX M

(CONT'D)

revenues from an elastic tax will increase by more than one percent for each one-percent change in personal income. usually elastic tax sources. Equalization Formula Aid Equalization formula aid is financial assis tance given by a higher-level government the state--to a lower-level governmentschool districtsto equalize the fiscal situation of the lower-level government. Because school districts vary in their abilities to raise property tax dollars, equalization formula aid is allocated to make the ability to raise such local funds more nearly equal. In general, equalization formula aid increases as the per pupil property wealth of a school district decreases. Expenditure Uniformity Expenditure uniformity is an equity standard in school finance requiring equal expenditures per pupil or per weighted pupil for all students in the state. ity.) Fiscal Neutrality Fiscal neutrality is a court-defined equity standard in school finance. It is a negative standard stating that current operating ex penditures per pupil cannot be related to a school district's adjusted assessed valuation per pupil. It simply means that differences in expenditures per pupil cannot be related to local school district wealth. (Sea Expenditure Uniformity.) (See Fiscal Neutral Income taxes are

349

APPENDIX M

(CONT'D)

Flat Grant Program

A flat grant program simply allocates an equal sum of dollars to each public school pupil in the state. A flat grant is not an equalization aid program because it allocates the same dollars per pupil regardless of the property or income wealth of the local school districts. However, if no local dollars are raised for education and all school dollars come from the state, a flat-grant program becomes equivalent to full state assumption.

Foundation Program

A foundation program is a state equalization aid program that typically guarantees a certain foundation level of expenditure for each student, together with a minimum tax rate that each school district must levy for education purposes. The difference between what a local school district raises at the minimum tax rate and the foundation expendi ture is made up in state aid. In the past, foundation programs were referred to as minimum foundation programs and the founda tion level of expenditure was quite low. Today, newly implemented foundation programs usually require an expenditure per pupil at or above the previous year's state average. Foundation programs focus on the per pupil expenditure level and thus enhance the state government's fiscal role in education. Full Time Equivalent count of students deter mined by computing the pupil-minutes of time in each program for the school year and

350

APPENDIX M

(CONT'D)

dividing by the number of minutes in the school year. Full State Assumption Full state assumption (FSA) is a school finance program in which the state pays for all education costs and sets equal per pupil expenditures in all school districts. FSA would satisfy the "uniformity" standard of equity. Only in Hawaii has the state government fully assumed most of the costs of public education. Guaranteed Tax Base Program (GTB) Guaranteed Yield Program Median Family Income Median family income usually is that reported in the 1970 U.S. Census. It reflects income for 1969. If the income of all families in a school district were rank ordered, the median income would be the income of the family midway between the lowest- and the highest-income families. Mill A mi11age rate is the amount of property tax dollars levied for each $1,000 of assessed valuation. Municipal Overburden Municipal overburden is an argument that refers to the fiscal position of large cities, Municipal overburden includes the large bur den of noneducation services that central cities must provide and that most other See District Power Equalization. See District Power Equalization.

351

APPENDIX M

(CONT'D)

jurisdictions do not have to provide or at least do not have to provide in the same quantity. These noneducation services may include above-average welfare, health and hospitalization, public housing, police, fire and sanitation services. These high noneducation fiscal burdens mean that education must compete with many other functional areas for each local tax dollar raised, thus reducing the ability of large city school districts to raise education dollars. The fiscal squeeze caused by the service over burden, together with the concentration of the educationally disadvantaged and children in need of special education services in city schools, puts central city school districts at a fiscal disadvantage in supporting school services. Percentage Equalizing Programs Progressive Tax A progressive tax is a tax that increases pro portionately more than income as the income level of the taxpayer increases. Under a progressive tax a high-income taxpayer will pay a larger percent of his income toward this tax than a low-income taxpayer. Property Tax Credit Breaker Program A property tax circut breaker program is a tax relief program, usually financed by the state, that focuses property tax relief on particular households presumed to be over burdened by property taxes. That is, it is See District Power Equalization.

352 APPENDIX M (CONT'D)

intended to reduce presumed regressivity of the property tax. A typical circuit breaker attempts to limit the property tax burden to a percent of household income and applies only to residential property taxes. The percent usually rises as income rises in an attempt to make the overall burden progres sive. Most states enacted circuit breaker programs initially just for senior citizens, but a few states have extended circuit breaker benefits to all low-income households, regardless of the age of the head of the household. The circuit breaker is based on actual or estimated taxes paid on residential property and generally takes the form of a credit on state income taxes. Property Tax Incidence or Burden Traditional and New Views The traditional view of property tax incidence divided the tax into two components: that which fell on land and that which fell on improvements, i.e., structures. Property taxes on land were assumed to fall on land owners. The part on improvements was assumed to fall on homeowners in the case of owned homes, to be shifted forward to tenants in the case of rented residences and to be shifted forward to consumers in the case of taxes on business property. Nearly all empirical studies based on the traditional view found the incidence pattern to result in a regressive burden distribution, markedly regressive in the income ranges below $10,000.

353

APPENDIX M

(CONT'D)

The new view of property tax incidence considers the tax to be, basically, a uniform tax on all property in the country. Such a tax is borne by owners of capital and, thus, the burden distribution pattern is progressive. Proportional Tax A proportional tax is a tax that consumes the same percent of family income at all income levels. Pupil-Weighted Sys tems or WeightedPupil Programs A pupil-weighted system is a state aid system in which pupils are given different weights based on the estimated or assumed costs of their education program; aid is allocated on the basis of the total number of weighted students. Usually, the cost of the education program for grades 4-6 is considered the standard program and weighted 1.0. For states, such as Florida, that choose to invest more dollars in the early school years, pupils in grades K-3 are given a weight greater than 1.0, typically around 1.3. In other states, high school students are weighted about 1.25, although these secondary weightings slowly are being eliminated. Recapture A feature in state aid formulas where local districts which raise an amount per pupil in excess of the state guaranteed expenditure per pupil must pay back the excess to the state for redistribution to poorer school districts.

354

APPENDIX M

(CONT'D)

Regressive Tax

A regressive tax is a tax that increases proportionately less than income as the income level of the taxpayer increases. Under a regressive tax a low-income taxpayer will pay a larger percent of his income toward this tax than a high-income taxpayer.

RLE

Required local effort, a local tax which must be levied. The local funds raised by the RLE are subtracted from the total foundation funds to determine the amount of state aid the district receives.

School District Tax Rate

School use to rate. amount

district tax rate is the term states indicate the local school property tax The tax rate often is stated as the of property tax dollars to be paid for

each $100 of assessed valuation or, if given in mills, the rate indicates how much is raised for each $1000 of assessed valuation. For example, a tax rate of $1.60 per hundred dollars of assessed valuation means that a taxpayer pays $1.60 for each $100 of his total assessed valuation; a tax rate of 16 mills indicates that $16 must be paid for each $1000 of assessed valuation. State Aid for Current Operating Expenses State aid for current operating expenses is the sum of the equalization formula aid and categorical aid for vocational education, special education, bilingual education, trans portation and other categorical aid programs. (See Categorical Programs.)

355

APPENDIX M

(CONT'D)

Tax Burden (or sometimes Tax Incidence)

Tax burden typically refers to the percent of an individual's or family's income that is consumed by a tax or by a tax system. Usually, one wants to know whether a tax or tax system's burden is distributed in a progressive, proportional or regressive manner. In the United States, a tax system that is progressive overall seems to be the most acceptable to a majority of people. Tax burden analysis takes into account the extent of tax shifting.

Tax Shifting or Tax Incidence

Tax shifting refers to the phenomenon wherein the party that must legally pay a tax, for example, a store owner, does not in fact bear the burden of the tax but shifts the tax to another party, for example, the consumer of item that is sold in the store. Taxes can be shifted either forward or backward. For example, a landlord might be able to shift his property taxes forward to tenants in the form of higher rents, and a business might be able to shift property or corporate income taxes backward to employees in the form of lower salaries. The ability to shift taxes depends on a variety of economic factors and there is great debate among economists over the extent to which some taxes are shifted. It is usually agreed, however, that individual income taxes are not shifted and rest on the individual taxpayer. It also generally is agreed that sales taxes are shifted to the

)
356 APPENDIX M (CONT'D)

consumer.

There is argument over the extent

to which corporate income taxes are shifted to consumers in the form of higher prices or to employees in the form of lower wages versus falling on the stockholders in the form of lower dividends. There is also debate about who effectively pays the property tax. Tax incidence analysis examines how various taxes may or may not be shifted.

Adapted from:

Allan Odden, School Finance Reform in the States: 1978. A Publication of the Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States, 1978.