School Finance: State Efforts to Reduce Funding Gaps Between Poor and
Wealthy Districts (Letter Report, 02/05/97, GAO/HEHS-97-31).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed funding gaps between
poor and wealthy school districts, focusing on the: (1) size of the gap
in total (state and local combined) funding between poor and wealthy
school districts for each state; (2) key factors that affect the size of
states' funding gaps; (3) effect of states' school finance policies on
the funding gap; and (4) implications of this information for state
policies.

GAO found that: (1) although most states pursued strategies to
supplement the local funding of poor school districts, wealthier
districts in 37 states had more total (state and local combined) funding
than poor districts in the 1991-92 school year; (2) this disparity
existed even after adjusting for differences in geographic and student
need-related education costs; (3) on average, wealthy districts had
about 24 percent more total funding per weighted pupil than poor
districts; (4) three factors affected the funding gap between a state's
poor and wealthy districts; (5) first, the extent to which a state
targeted funding to poor districts affected the funding gap; (6)
although targeting efforts typically reduced funding gaps, they did not
eliminate them; (7) second, a state's share of total funding can reduce
the funding gap, even when the targeting effort is low; (8) finally, the
local tax effort to raise education funding affected the funding gap;
(9) at the local level, the greater the tax effort that poor districts
were willing to make compared with wealthy districts, the smaller the
gap in funding between these two types of districts; (10) poor districts
in 35 states made a greater tax effort than wealthy districts; (11)
because all three of these factors can affect the funding gap, analyzing
the effects of state school finance policies required excluding the
effects of the local tax effort; (12) to do this, GAO estimated the
foundation level each state's school finance policies implicitly
supported, which estimates the minimum total funding per pupil that
districts could finance if they were to make the same local tax effort;
(13) GAO's resulting analysis showed wide variations in the implicit
foundation level that state school finance policies supported in school
year 1991-92; (14) the implicit foundation levels of almost all states
were less than their state average funding levels; (15) in 14 states,
the implicit foundation level was less than half the state average
funding level; (16) although the relative tax effort of poor and wealthy
districts greatly affects the funding gaps between these districts,
higher implicit foundation levels can help reduce the gaps; (17)
therefore, states can further reduce the funding gaps by increasing
their targeting effort to poor districts, increasing the state share of
total funding, or increasing both; and (18) officials in a number of st*

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-97-31
     TITLE:  School Finance: State Efforts to Reduce Funding Gaps 
             Between Poor and Wealthy Districts
      DATE:  02/05/97
   SUBJECT:  Aid for education
             State-administered programs
             School districts
             Disadvantaged persons
             State aid
             Municipal taxes
             Fiscal policies
             Public schools
             Intergovernmental fiscal relations
IDENTIFIER:  Alaska
             New Hampshire
             Dept. of Education Title I Program
             New Mexico
             Utah
             New Jersey
             Mississippi
             Maryland
             Delaware
             West Virginia
             Iowa
             Kansas
             Texas
             Wyoming
             Washington
             Connecticut
             Louisiana
             North Dakota
             Nevada
             Michigan
             Pennsylvania
             Arkansas
             Kentucky
             Missouri
             Tennessee
             Oregon
             Colorado
             South Dakota
             Vermont
             Arizona
             Illinois
             Maine
             Massachusetts
             Montana
             Nebraska
             New York
             Ohio
             Rhode Island
             Virginia
             Wisconsin
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

February 1997

SCHOOL FINANCE - STATE EFFORTS TO
REDUCE FUNDING GAPS BETWEEN POOR
AND WEALTHY DISTRICTS

GAO/HEHS-97-31

Reducing Funding Gaps

(104846)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CCD - Common Core of Data
  NCES - National Center for Education Statistics
  TTR - total taxable resources

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-275105

February 5, 1997

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman
The Honorable Christopher Dodd
The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun
United States Senate

Children who come from poor families or live in poor communities
often have low levels of academic achievement and high dropout rates. 
In addition, poor communities often lack the tax base to provide
sufficient funding for education programs, even when they tax
themselves at high rates.  To counteract the adverse effects of
poverty, the federal government has funded education services for low
achievers in poor areas through specially targeted programs.\1

This federal effort, however, only supplements the much larger role
that state and local governments play. 

Many states recognize the additional cost of educating poor students
and the struggle of poor districts to adequately fund the needs of
their students.  States have used a variety of strategies to address
these problems.  Given your interest in the issue, you asked us to
determine (1) the size of the gap in total (state and local combined)
funding between poor and wealthy school districts for each state, (2)
the key factors that affect the size of states' funding gaps, and (3)
the effect of states' school finance policies on the funding gap.  In
addition, you asked us to describe the implications of this
information for state policies. 

To help answer these questions, we used school year 1991-92
district-level data, the most recent available, to analyze each state
except Hawaii.\2 We supplemented this information by contacting
education officials in the states to determine the extent to which
each state's school finance system had changed since the 1991-92
school year.  We used standard school finance measures and developed
a new equity measure--implicit foundation level--that accounts for
the effects of state policies on the funding levels of school
districts.  The implicit foundation level represents the minimum
total funding that a state's districts could spend per student if
they were to make an equal local tax effort.  Our approach helps
explain the structural forces that drive the inequities between
wealthy and poor districts.  Unlike some other studies, our analyses
account for geographic differences in education costs and student
need among districts\3 and use income per pupil to measure districts'
ability to raise education revenues.\4 Finally, we consulted with
several school finance experts on the methodology used in our review
and the resulting information contained in this report.\5 Appendixes
I to V describe our methodology in greater detail.  See the glossary
at the end of this report for definitions of key terms.  We conducted
our work between March and December 1996 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\1 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides targeted
programs to improve educational opportunities for students such as
those who are poor or who have disabilities or limited English
proficiency.  Title I of this act is the largest federal education
program for elementary and secondary school children and is for those
whose education attainment is below the level appropriate for their
age.  It serves over 6 million children through supplemental
instruction in reading, math, or language arts. 

\2 We did not review state targeting in Hawaii because the entire
state is one district. 

\3 Because districts have different education costs, we adjusted all
funding figures for geographic differences in education costs by
applying a recently developed teacher cost index.  We also accounted
for differences in student need by adjusting the pupil count to give
extra weight to those pupils who were disabled or poor or by
controlling for student need factors in our regressions. 

\4 Most school finance studies measure a district's ability to raise
revenues for education as district wealth defined as property value
per pupil.  However, we used district income defined as resident
income per pupil, using total income data from the 1990 census,
because we could not construct a property value per pupil measure
from the national district-level databases available.  Furthermore,
beyond the field of school finance, income--as opposed to wealth--is
the most commonly accepted measure of the ability to raise revenue. 
The main limitation of our income measure is that it does not include
commercial or other nonresidential income and may therefore
understate some districts' ability to raise revenue. 

\5 School finance experts who reviewed our analyses and this report
are Helen Ladd (Duke University), Martin Orland (Department of
Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)), and
Lawrence Picus (University of Southern California). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Although most states pursued strategies to supplement the local
funding of poor school districts, wealthier districts in 37 states
had more total (state and local combined)\6 funding than poor
districts in the 1991-92 school year.  This disparity existed even
after adjusting for differences in geographic and student
need-related education costs.\7 On average, wealthy districts had
about 24 percent more total funding per weighted pupil than poor
districts.\8

Three factors affected the funding gap between a state's poor and
wealthy districts.\9 First, the extent to which a state targeted
funding to poor districts affected the funding gap.  Although
targeting efforts typically reduced funding gaps, they did not
eliminate them.  Second, a state's share of total funding can reduce
the funding gap, even when the targeting effort is low.  Finally, the
local tax effort to raise education funding affected the funding gap. 
At the local level, the greater the tax effort that poor districts
were willing to make compared with wealthy districts, the smaller the
gap in funding between these two types of districts.  Poor districts
in 35 states made a greater tax effort than wealthy districts. 

Because all three of these factors can affect the funding gap,
analyzing the effects of state school finance policies (targeting and
state share) required excluding the effects of the local tax effort. 
To do this, we estimated the foundation level that each state's
school finance policies implicitly supported.  This implicit
foundation level estimates the minimum total funding per pupil that
districts could finance if they were to make the same local tax
effort. 

Our resulting analysis showed wide variations in the implicit
foundation level that state school finance policies supported in
school year 1991-92.  This variation ranged from $721 in New
Hampshire to $5,415 in Alaska, with a national average of $3,134 per
weighted pupil.\10 The implicit foundation levels of almost all
states were less than their state average funding levels.  In 14
states, the implicit foundation level was less than half the state
average funding level.\11

Although the relative tax effort of poor and wealthy districts
greatly affects the funding gaps between these districts, higher
implicit foundation levels can help reduce the gaps.  Therefore,
states can further reduce the funding gaps by increasing their
targeting effort to poor districts, increasing the state share of
total funding, or increasing both.  Officials in a number of states
reported making such changes between school years 1991-92 and
1995-96, although 25 states reported making little or no changes in
their targeting of poor districts or state share. 


--------------------
\6 In this report, we refer to total funding as all revenue from
local and state sources, including funds used for capital
expenditures and debt service.  This excludes federal funding. 

\7 Unless otherwise noted, the figures in this report are in real
dollars adjusted for cost and student need differences within a
state.  App.  V provides information on how to adjust each state's
figures to make accurate national comparisons. 

\8 To account for differences in student need by district, disabled
students were assigned a weight of 2.3 and poor students a weight of
1.2.  These national weights were developed for the Department of
Education's NCES.  See app.  II. 

\9 For reporting purposes, we grouped the student population of each
state into five groups.  These groups were determined by ranking the
districts within a state according to increasing district income and
then dividing these districts into five groups, each with about the
same student population.  We defined poor districts as those in the
first group and wealthy districts as those in the fifth group. 
Normally, each group consisted of about 20 percent of the student
population.  In some states, however, the five groups may have
differed greatly in the number of students because districts cannot
be statistically divided into smaller units.  In a few states, one
district (for example, New York City) accounted for more than 20
percent of the student population and represented the entire group. 
Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the distribution
of the student population, with the wealthiest group being group
four. 

\10 These amounts are adjusted nationally for differences in cost and
need. 

\11 The average is the maximum foundation level that is possible in a
state given its total funding for education.  To achieve the maximum,
states would have to optimize their policies to fund education and
target poor districts to enable all districts to finance the average
funding level with an average tax effort. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Until the 1800s, America's schools were mainly private local
entities.  In the mid-1800s, several states rewrote their
constitutions to create statewide public education systems and
establish government responsibility for financing schools.\12 Today,
all states have constitutional provisions on free public education,
and, based in part on these provisions, a number of state courts have
ruled that education is a fundamental right subject to equal
protection under the law. 

The largest single federal elementary and secondary education grant
program is title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
The program, which began in 1965, continues to focus on providing
compensatory services to educationally disadvantaged children through
categorical, program-specific grants.  The fiscal year 1997
appropriations for title I compensatory education for the
disadvantaged was $7.7 billion. 


--------------------
\12 Allan R.  Odden and Lawrence O.  Picus, School Finance:  A Policy
Perspective (New York:  McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992), pp.  1-19. 


      STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING
      VARIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

Federal aid, however, only provides about 7 percent of the funding
for elementary and secondary education.  Nationwide, the other 93
percent is about evenly split between state and local funding,\13
although the state share of total (state and local) funding for
education varies by state.  Although states have increased their
control over schools, state contributions in the 1991-92 school year
varied from 8 percent of total funding in New Hampshire to 85 percent
of total funding in New Mexico.\14

States' ability to fund education also varies.  States with higher
income levels can provide more funding for their students.  In the
1991-92 school year, states' average income per weighted pupil ranged
from $41,385 in Utah to $160,761 in New Jersey.  States also vary in
the number of students with additional educational needs, such as
poor or disabled students, who tend to have education costs higher
than average.  For example, the student poverty rate among states in
1989 ranged from about 33 percent in Mississippi to under 8 percent
in New Hampshire. 

In addition, localities' ability to raise revenues varies widely. 
Localities raise revenues primarily through property taxes and, to a
lesser extent, through local sales and income taxes.  However, a
heavy reliance on local property taxes as a major source of school
revenue has produced funding disparities because school districts'
property tax bases vary widely.  Localities with low property values
usually have low funding per pupil even with high tax rates;
localities with high property values have high funding per pupil even
with low tax rates.\15

Since the late 1960s, the funding gaps arising from the continued
reliance on local tax revenues have led to litigation challenging the
constitutionality of state school finance systems, with varying
results. 


--------------------
\13 School Finance:  Trends in U.S.  Education Spending
(GAO/HEHS-95-235, Sept.  15, 1995). 

\14 Our analysis excludes Hawaii, where the state provided nearly 98
percent of the total funding, exclusive of federal funding, in the
1991-92 school year. 

\15 Allan Odden, "School Finance in the 1990s," Phi Delta Kappan,
Vol.  73, No.  5 (1992), pp.  455-461. 


      ACHIEVING EQUITABLE SCHOOL
      FINANCE SYSTEMS INVOLVES
      COMPLEX ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

Researchers concerned about the equity of school finance
systems--that is, the distribution of education funding--have focused
on two important definitions of equity:  vertical equity and fiscal
neutrality.  Vertical equity recognizes that legitimate differences
occur among children and that some students, such as those who are
disabled, have low academic achievement, or limited English
proficiency, need additional educational services.  After adjusting
the pupil count to give greater weight to those pupils who need extra
educational services and adjusting the funding for cost differences
in educational resources, some experts would argue that funding per
weighted pupil should be nearly equal among districts.  Fiscal
neutrality asserts that no relationship should exist between
educational spending per pupil and local district property wealth per
pupil (or some other measure of fiscal capacity).  That is, the
quality of education should be a function only of the entire state's
wealth, not of a locality's.  Unlike vertical equity, which calls for
nearly equal funding per weighted pupil among districts after
adjustments have been made, fiscal neutrality allows for differences
in funding as long as they are not related to the districts' taxable
wealth. 

In addition to equity, researchers are also concerned about the
adequacy of educational resources.  Education funding is termed
adequate if it enables each student to achieve some minimum level of
academic performance.  Not much is known, however, about the level of
funding needed to achieve a certain level of performance.  As a
result, determining an adequate level of funding for a district is
difficult. 

In response to legal and political pressures, states have sought to
equalize--that is, compensate for the differences in--districts'
abilities to raise revenue for funding education.  In general, states
have used one or both of the following equalization strategies: 
added new state or local money to the school finance system to
increase funding for poor districts or redistributed the available
funding to poor districts by modifying school finance formulas. 
Redistributing education revenues may also include recapturing the
local revenues raised above an established level in wealthy districts
and giving them to poor districts. 

One of the more common funding formulas used to equalize the ability
of districts to raise education revenues is the foundation program. 
A foundation program sets an expenditure per pupil--the minimum
foundation--at a level that would provide at least a minimum-quality
education for every pupil.  Usually, districts must put forth a
minimum local tax effort to receive state aid, which makes up the
difference between what localities raise by the required local tax
effort and the foundation amount.  This funding formula results in
states targeting more state education funds, on a per pupil basis, to
those districts with low tax bases than to those with high tax bases. 

Despite the seeming simplicity of this funding formula, equalizing
school finance systems is a complex and difficult undertaking.  In a
recent report, we reviewed the experiences of three states that had
used one or both of the equalization strategies noted above.\16
Although these states reported reduced funding gaps, their
legislative solutions reflected citizens' concerns about increased
taxes to raise more state revenues and concerns of wealthy districts
that wanted to maintain existing spending levels. 


--------------------
\16 School Finance:  Three States' Experiences With Equity in School
Funding (GAO/HEHS-96-39, Dec.  19, 1995). 


   WEALTHY DISTRICTS HAD MORE
   EDUCATION FUNDING PER WEIGHTED
   PUPIL THAN POOR DISTRICTS IN
   MOST STATES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Although most states pursued strategies to supplement the local
funding in their poorest districts, the strategies generally did not
offset the advantage of wealthy districts in raising local funds. 
These results occurred even after adjusting for the geographic
differences in education costs and student needs within each state. 
In most states, the total funding per weighted pupil\17 in districts
was still largely determined by districts' income per weighted
pupil.\18

In other words, these states had not achieved an income-based fiscal
neutrality in their school finance system.  On average, wealthy
districts had about 24 percent more total funding per weighted pupil
than poor districts. 

Figure 1 ranks states according to the extent to which total funding
of school districts in school year 1991-92 was linked to district
income.  In this figure, the center line, which equals a fiscal
neutrality score of 0, represents the goal of ensuring that education
funding is unrelated to differences in district income per weighted
pupil.  The figure shows that the total funding of districts in 37
states favored wealthier districts; that is, the total funding
increased as the income of the district increased.\19 In three states
the opposite occurred--the total funding decreased as district income
increased.\20 Among the 37 states whose school funding favored
wealthier districts, the amount of funding available as district
income increased varied widely.  At the high end of the 37 states,
students in Maryland had about $25 more in total funding for a $1,000
increase in income per weighted pupil above the state average.  At
the low end, students in Washington had only about $4 more for a
$1,000 increase in income per weighted pupil above the state
average.\21

   Figure 1:  Wealthy Districts in
   Most States Had More Total
   Funding per Weighted Pupil Than
   Poor Districts, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Fiscal neutrality = 0.  In states with positive scores, total
funding increased as district income increased; in states with
negative scores, total funding decreased as district income
increased.  The fiscal neutrality score (which controls for
differences in cost and need) is the elasticity of total funding per
weighted pupil relative to income per weighted pupil. 

\a The neutrality score was not statistically different from 0. 


--------------------
\17 To account for differences in student need by district, disabled
students were assigned a weight of 2.3 and poor students a weight of
1.2.  These weights were developed for the Department of Education's
NCES.  See app.  II. 

\18 District income is a measure of a district's ability to raise
revenue for education, which we define as a district's income per
pupil adjusted for within-state differences in geographic and student
need-related costs.  This measure includes personal income but not
commercial or nonresident income of a district.  Somewhat different
fiscal neutrality scores may have resulted if these other income
categories had been included.  See app.  III for a discussion of this
variable. 

\19 However, another 8 states had positive fiscal neutrality scores
that were not significantly different from 0.  These were Delaware,
West Virginia, Utah, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and
Texas. 

\20 However, one state--Wyoming--had a negative fiscal neutrality
score that was not significantly different from 0. 

\21 Washington had the lowest positive fiscal neutrality score that
was significantly different from 0. 


   THREE KEY FACTORS AFFECTED
   FUNDING GAP
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Three key factors affected the size of the funding gap between poor
and wealthy districts.  Two of these--targeting of state funds to
poor districts and the state's share of overall education
funding--represent states' school equalization policies.  The third
factor--the relative local tax effort\22 of poor districts to wealthy
districts--stems mainly from choices made at the local level.  In
general, increases in any one of these decreases the funding gap
between poor and wealthy districts. 

Nationwide, the three factors accounted for 61 percent of the
variation in the income-related funding gap.  Of the three factors,
targeting was the least important in explaining the variation in
funding gaps between wealthy and poor districts.  The state's share
of total funding accounted for more of the variation in the
income-related funding gap than targeting.  The relative local tax
effort of poor districts to wealthy districts accounted for most of
the variation (see app.  III). 


--------------------
\22 Relative local tax effort is a state's elasticity of local tax
effort relative to income per weighted pupil.  Local tax effort is a
ratio of a district's local revenue to its income. 


      TARGETING STATE FUNDS TO
      POOR DISTRICTS HELPED REDUCE
      FUNDING GAP
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

State targeting efforts\23 typically helped to reduce but did not
eliminate the gap in total funding between wealthy and poor
districts.  These results occurred even after adjusting for
geographic differences in education costs and student need.\24 For
example, Connecticut's wealthy districts had over three times the
amount of local funding as its poor districts in school year 1991-92
(see table 1).  In contrast, the state funding was over three times
higher in poor districts compared with wealthy districts; the wealthy
districts still had, however, about 34 percent more total funding per
weighted pupil than the poor districts.  In Connecticut, the gap in
total funding between the poor and wealthy districts was $2,559. 
Appendix III provides similar data for all states. 



                          Table 1
          
             Example of the Effect of a State's
          Targeting on Total Funding per Weighted
           Pupil (Connecticut), School Year 1991-
                             92

                     Average funding per
                       weighted pupil\a
                  --------------------------
                                                   Wealthy
                                                   funding
                                     Wealthy   relative to
                    Poor group      group of          poor
Funding source     of students      students     funding\b
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Local                   $2,540        $8,486          3.34
State                   $4,885        $1,500           .31
==========================================================
Total                   $7,426        $9,985          1.34
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The poor and wealthy groups each represent about 20 percent of the
student population.  Figures do not add due to rounding. 

\b We calculated this ratio by dividing the wealthy districts'
funding by the poor districts' funding, that is, $8,486/$2,540. 

Like Connecticut, most states (33 of 49) targeted more state funds to
poor districts to some degree on the basis of district income.\25 Of
the remaining 16 states, 14 provided approximately equal state
funding to poor and wealthy districts.\26 Two states--Louisiana and
North Dakota--provided more state funding to wealthy districts than
to poor districts. 

Among the states that targeted more funds to poor districts, the
additional amount of state funding varied widely.\27 For example, for
a $1,000 decrease in district income below the state average, Nevada
provided about $42 more in state funding per weighted pupil;\28
Indiana provided about $6 more in state funding per weighted
pupil.\29 Appendix V provides information on all the states'
targeting efforts. 


--------------------
\23 We define a state's targeting effort as the elasticity of the
district's state funding per pupil to the district's income per
pupil, while controlling for within-state differences in student
need-related and geographic costs.  See app.  V for a list of the
states' targeting effort and an explanation of the method we used to
calculate the effort. 

\24 We adjusted for student need by including student poverty,
disability, high school, and enrollment variables in the regression
formula we used to determine state targeting effort.  See app.  V. 

\25 Somewhat different targeting efforts may have resulted if the
measure of district income had included nonresident and commercial
income in addition to resident income.  See app.  III for our
definition of district income. 

\26 Statistically, these 14 states' targeting efforts were not
significantly different from 0. 

\27 Some states provide a minimum amount of state funding to all
districts, regardless of district income.  When we excluded the
wealthiest 15 percent of the student population from our analysis, we
found that the targeting effort substantially improved for 15 states;
that is, the elasticity changed by -.15 or more.  (See app.  V.)

\28 Unlike total funding per weighted pupil, state funding per
weighted pupil reflects each state's individual weighting of student
need factors.  We included variables in our estimation of state
targeting that controlled for the student need-related costs
associated with educating poor, disabled, and high school students
and large numbers of students.  See app.  V for further explanation. 

\29 Nevada had a targeting elasticity of -1.007; Indiana had a
targeting elasticity of -.099. 


      A HIGHER STATE SHARE OF
      OVERALL FUNDING OFFSET
      FUNDING GAP
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

A high state share of total education funding offsets income-related
funding gaps, even if the targeting effort is low.  For example,
Washington had virtually no targeting effort but funded about 75
percent of the total funding for education.  The poorest districts in
Washington had only 4 percent less ($229) to spend per weighted pupil
than the wealthiest districts.  In contrast, Michigan had a
relatively high targeting effort but funded only about 33 percent of
the total education funding in the state, which was relatively low. 
As a result, the poorest districts in Michigan had 36 percent
($1,923) less to spend per weighted pupil than the wealthiest
districts (see figs.  2 and 3).  Appendix V provides information on
the state share for all states. 

   Figure 2:  Example of the
   Effect of a Large State Share
   of Education Funds on Minimum
   Targeting (Washington), School
   Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Funding has been adjusted for differences in geographic and
student need-related costs within the state. 

   Figure 3:  Example of How
   Students in Wealthy Districts
   May Have Had Much More Funding
   Despite Extensive Targeting
   (Michigan), School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Notes:  Funding has been adjusted for differences in geographic and
student need-related costs within the state.  Since school year
1991-92, Michigan has reported that its state share has increased
almost 45 percentage points, which could result in a different
figure. 


      RELATIVE LOCAL TAX EFFORT
      AFFECTED FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

The willingness of poor districts to tax themselves at a higher rate
than wealthy districts helped reduce the funding gap between poor and
wealthy districts.  In 35 states, poor districts made a higher tax
effort than wealthy districts.  The tax effort is defined as the
ratio of district local funding to district income.\30 Poor districts
must make a higher level of tax effort to finance comparable
education programs because the same tax effort generates less revenue
in poor districts than in wealthy districts.  For example, Kansas and
Pennsylvania each targeted additional funds to poor districts to
about the same extent and funded about the same share of total
education funding.  Kansas' poor districts, however, taxed themselves
about 24 percent more than the state's wealthy districts,\31 while
Pennsylvania's poor districts had about the same tax effort as its
wealthy districts.  As a result, the gap in total funding between
poor and wealthy districts was smaller in Kansas than in Pennsylvania
(see fig.  1). 


--------------------
\30 Somewhat different local tax efforts may have resulted if the
measure of district income had included nonresident and commercial
income in addition to resident income.  See app.  III for our
definition of district income. 

\31 However, since the 1992-93 school year, Kansas has allocated
education funds through a new formula that includes a statewide
uniform tax rate for all districts. 


   STATE SCHOOL FINANCE POLICIES
   REFLECTED IN IMPLICIT
   FOUNDATION LEVEL AND
   EQUALIZATION EFFORT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

To determine the effects of state school finance policies on the
funding gap between poor and wealthy districts, we analyzed states'
school finance data.  We developed a new equity measure, implicit
foundation level, which indicates the extent to which these policies
enable districts to finance a minimum quality education for each
student with an equal tax effort.  Then we compared this level to the
state average to determine states' equalization efforts.  This
section describes how we developed these two measures. 


      IMPLICIT FOUNDATION LEVEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

We determined the combined effects of state equalization policies
(targeting and state share), while excluding the effects of local tax
effort.  To accomplish this, we viewed each state as if it were
distributing state funds according to a foundation program.  In such
a program, the state ensures all districts the ability to finance a
foundation or a minimum amount of funding per pupil, provided that
the districts make a minimum local tax effort.  Using a foundation
funding model and assuming all districts made an equal local tax
effort, we estimated the implicit foundation level that each state's
equalization policies in school year 1991-92 could have supported. 
This implicit foundation level is an estimate of the minimum amount
of total funding that states' districts could spend per student if
districts were to make an equal minimum local tax effort.\32 This new
measure, for the first time, allows analysts to examine the extent to
which the funding gap between poor and wealthy districts is due to
state equalization policies (state share and state targeting) and the
extent to which it is due to local policies (relative differences in
local tax efforts).  Appendix IV explains how we developed the
implicit foundation level. 

Figure 4 illustrates the implicit foundation level using a
hypothetical example of two districts in a state, one poor and one
wealthy.  For each district, we graphed how much total funding per
weighted pupil is associated with a given level of tax effort.\33
Since poor districts generally receive more state funding per
weighted pupil than wealthy districts, in this example we assigned
the poor district $2,500 in state funding per weighted pupil, twice
the amount the wealthy district was assigned.  Therefore, the line
for the poor district starts out higher (the district has more state
money) on the graph than the line for the wealthy district (which has
less state money).  As figure 4 shows, as both districts increase
their local tax effort, the wealthy district raises more local
revenue than the poor district for a given level of tax effort.  For
any given tax effort past a certain point (where the lines cross on
fig.  4), the wealthy district's local revenue more than offsets the
additional state money that poor districts receive--therefore, the
total funding in wealthy districts exceeds total funding in poor
districts.  The point at which the total funding lines cross is the
implicit foundation level and is the only point at which the two
districts have the same amount of total funding for the same tax
effort. 

   Figure 4:  Determining the
   Implicit Foundation Level

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\32 The implicit foundation level includes both state and local funds
adjusted for within-state differences in student need-related and
geographic costs.  After making such adjustments, the implicit
foundation level becomes total funding per weighted pupil.  See apps. 
IV and V for a discussion of the methodology we used to calculate the
implicit foundation level. 

\33 Since the student weights are relative to within-state
differences, the student weight factors associated with any
state-level funding per pupil amount equal 1. 


      EQUALIZATION EFFORT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

We compared states' implicit foundation levels with the maximum
foundation levels that would be possible given each state's amount of
total funding devoted to education.  We call this ratio a state's
equalization effort.  State average funding per weighted pupil is
actually the maximum foundation level (see app.  IV for a
mathematical explanation of this).  A state's equalization effort is
a measure of the extent to which districts in a state can finance the
state average with an average tax effort.  To achieve the maximum
foundation level without changing the total funding for education, a
state could increase its effort to target funds to poor districts or
increase the state's share of education funding or both. 


   STATES' IMPLICIT FOUNDATION
   LEVELS AND EQUALIZATION EFFORTS
   VARIED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

States' implicit foundation levels varied widely, averaging $3,134
per weighted pupil, with levels ranging as low as $721 in New
Hampshire to as high as $5,415 in Alaska in school year 1991-92.\34
In line with the purpose of foundation programs, these implicit
levels indicate the extent to which states' school finance policies
ensure a level of funding assumed adequate for districts to finance
at least a minimum quality education for every student with an equal
local tax effort.  Appendix V provides information on the implicit
foundation levels in each state. 

States' equalization efforts also varied.  Only one
state--Nevada--made the maximum equalization effort given the total
funding available for education in the state.  As a result, Nevada's
state school policies in school year 1991-92 enabled each district to
spend the state average on each student with an average tax
effort.\35 The implicit foundation levels in the other 48 states were
less than their state averages, with equalization efforts ranging
from about 87 percent (Arkansas and Kentucky) to about 13 percent
(New Hampshire).  In 14 states, the implicit foundation level was
less than half the state average.  Figure 5 summarizes the states'
equalization efforts in school year 1991-92.\36

   Figure 5:  States' Equalization
   Efforts, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\34 These figures have been adjusted for national differences in
geographic and student need-related costs. 

\35 In fact, Nevada targeted more state funds to poor districts than
was necessary to allow districts to spend the state average funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  As a result, poor
districts in Nevada were able to finance the state average funding
level with a lower tax effort than wealthy districts. 

\36 In addition to targeting funds to poor districts, some states
also provided the same minimum amount of state funding to all
districts, regardless of district income.  Unlike funding for lower
income districts, such funding for wealthy districts was not part of
the targeting effort because it was not sensitive to district income. 
Consequently, we also estimated the state implicit foundation level
and equalization effort, assuming the goal was to have all students
except for the 15 percent of students in the wealthiest districts
receive the implicit foundation level.  Using this analysis, we found
that 16 states had a net increase of 10 percentage points or more in
their equalization effort.  See table V.9 in app.  V for the results
of this analysis. 


      STATE EQUALIZATION EFFORTS
      HELPED REDUCE FUNDING GAPS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

State equalization efforts, representing the combined effects of
state targeting and state share, have an important effect on reducing
the funding gap between poor and wealthy districts.  When we
controlled for the differences in the tax effort of wealthy and poor
districts in each state, we found that states with higher
equalization efforts tended to have smaller funding gaps between poor
and wealthy districts, as measured by their fiscal neutrality scores
(see app.  V).  However, differences in the tax effort of wealthy and
poor districts still accounted for more of the variation in
income-related funding gaps than did states' equalization efforts.\37
That is, states' finance policies, as measured by their equalization
efforts, helped to reduce the funding gap between poor and wealthy
districts, but differences in the tax effort of these districts
continued to be the more important determinant of the funding gap. 

For example, Maryland had an above average equalization effort (about
63 percent), yet it also had the largest income-related funding gap
(see fig.  1).  This large gap can be explained in part by the
relative local tax effort:  wealthy districts in Maryland made a tax
effort that was about 53 percent higher than the tax effort of poor
districts, the highest such ratio in the nation.  Thus, despite
Maryland's substantial efforts to equalize funding, the effort did
not overcome the differences in local funding by district that were
due, in part, to the relatively high tax effort of wealthy districts
(see app.  III). 


--------------------
\37 Nationwide, equalization effort and relative local tax effort
accounted for about 63 percent of the variation in the income-related
funding gap. 


   LARGE SHIFTS IN STATE TARGETING
   MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAXIMIZE
   STATE EQUALIZATION EFFORTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To further reduce the funding gap between poor and wealthy districts,
states would need to increase their equalization effort by either
increasing their share of total funding, increasing their targeting
effort to poor districts, or increasing both.  To illustrate the
extent of the change that would be needed to maximize a state's
equalization effort without any increase in state funding, we
analyzed state targeting in school year 1991-92, while holding the
state share constant and assuming all districts made an equal tax
effort.\38 Under this scenario, 48 states would have had to reduce
their funding of wealthy districts to increase their funding of poor
or middle-income districts\39 or both.  In many states, the magnitude
of the targeting change would have had to be significant to enable
districts to spend the state average with an average tax effort. 
Relative to the distribution needed to attain the state average for
all students, 29 states would have had to significantly shift their
funding from wealthy districts to poor or middle-income districts or
both (see table 2). 



                          Table 2
          
               States That Would Have Had to
           Significantly Shift Funds From Wealthy
             Districts to Maximize Equalization
                Efforts, School Year 1991-92

States needing to                       Have changed
shift 35% or more                       school finance
of state funds      Would also have     system since
from wealthy        needed to increase  school year 1991-
districts to poor   state funding in    92 to increase
or middle-income    poor districts by   funding to low-
districts\a         35% or more         wealth districts
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Arizona             X

California

Colorado                                X

Connecticut                             X

Illinois            X

Kansas                                  X

Louisiana                               X

Maine

Maryland            X                   X

Massachusetts                           X

Michigan                                X

Mississippi                             X

Missouri            X                   X

Montana             X                   X

Nebraska            X                   X

New Hampshire       X

New Jersey                              X

New York

North Dakota                            X

Ohio                                    X

Oregon              X                   X

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island                            X

South Dakota        X

Tennessee                               X

Vermont             X

Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The amount of shifting is based on a comparison of what state
funding wealthy districts received and the funding they would have
received if all districts could have financed the state average with
an average tax effort and if no change had occurred in the state
share or total funding for education. 

Detailed information on state equalization policies and changes in
state funding needed to enable districts to spend the state average
for each student with an average tax effort appears in the state
profiles in this report (see apps.  VII through LV).  Each profile
provides information on (1) the actual state and local funding
distribution to districts in school year 1991-92 for districts in
five groups of approximately equal student population, according to
increasing district income, and (2) how funding would have been
distributed among these groups if each district could have financed
the state's average total funding per weighted pupil with an average
tax effort.\40


--------------------
\38 In a forthcoming school finance report, we plan to more fully
analyze how state targeting and state share would need to change to
reduce the funding gaps. 

\39 We defined the middle-income districts as any one or more of the
middle three income groups, which combined represent about 60 percent
of the student population. 

\40 Critical data in each state profile include school year 1991-92
data on the state share of total funding, the state targeting effort,
the average total funding per weighted pupil, the implicit foundation
level (in dollars and as a percent of the average), the fiscal
neutrality score, and state and group data for the number of
districts and pupils, poverty and disabled rates, income per pupil,
and tax effort. 


   TWENTY-FIVE STATES REPORTED
   MAKING LITTLE OR NO CHANGES
   SINCE SCHOOL YEAR 1991-92
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We contacted state education officials to determine the extent to
which the states had changed their targeting effort and state share
between school years 1991-92 and 1995-96.  Twenty-five states
reported making little or no changes to their targeting effort or
state share.  The remaining 24 states reported making targeting
changes that may have increased their implicit foundation levels. 
For example, education officials in Missouri said that changes
implemented in 1993 had increased targeting to low-wealth districts
and that the state's new formula provides more state funding to
districts with both lower property wealth and higher tax efforts.\41
Six of the 24 states also reported making increases of 10 percentage
points or more in their state share of education funding:  Tennessee
(10), Colorado (11), Kansas (18), Utah (24), Oregon (30), and
Michigan (45). 

In some cases, lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a
state's school finance system have prompted changes in targeting or
state share.  For example, one lawsuit alleged that Tennessee's
school finance system resulted in inequalities that violated the
state constitution, and the state has since significantly revised its
system.\42 Appendix LVI summarizes the changes states have made
between school years 1991-92 and 1995-96. 

Of the 10 states noted in table 2 requiring the largest shifts in
state funding to poor districts, 5 reported making changes that
provided more or much more state funding to low-wealth districts than
in school year 1991-92.  The other five states reported making little
or no changes to their school finance system by school year
1995-96.\43


--------------------
\41 We plan to analyze the effects of such increases in a forthcoming
school finance report. 

\42 For a discussion of Tennessee Small School System v.  McWherter,
851 s.w.2d 139 (Tenn.  1993), see GAO/HEHS-96-39, Dec.  19, 1995. 

\43 The five states that reported making changes as of school year
1995-96 to increase funding for low-wealth districts were Maryland,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Oregon.  The five states that
reported making little or no changes since school year 1991-92 were
Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Vermont.  South
Dakota reported making a change that would target more funding to
low-wealth districts as of January 1997. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

Recognizing the struggle of poor districts to adequately fund the
education needs of their students, states have used several
strategies to reduce the funding gap between poor and wealthy
districts.  States that want to further reduce the funding gap
between poor and wealthy districts would have to continue to increase
the state share of total funding, increase their targeting effort to
poor districts, or increase both.  If targeting is increased, poor
and middle-income districts would receive more state funding, while
wealthy districts would receive less state funding.  States may also
increase their state share of education funding.  A higher state
share can offset income-related gaps even if the targeting effort is
low, according to our analysis.  However, making such changes may be
difficult because of taxpayer concerns. 

Decisionmakers and others can use the measures in this report--
particularly the fiscal neutrality score, implicit foundation level,
and equalization effort--to assess the equity effects of current and
proposed changes in state school finance policies.  In addition, the
implicit foundation level, when compared to a standard like the state
average, can be used as a measure of the adequacy of funding provided
by a state's school finance system.  Moreover, these measures can be
used to assess progress over time in achieving more equity in school
finance systems within states. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10

The Department of Education reviewed a draft of this report and had
no comments. 


--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to
appropriate congressional committees and all members of the Congress,
the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant
Director, on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any questions. 
GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments appear in appendix LVII. 

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
=========================================================== Appendix I

The objectives of this study were to determine (1) the size of the
gap in total (state and local combined) funding between poor and
wealthy school districts for each state, (2) the key factors that
affect the size of states' funding gaps, and (3) the effect of
states' school finance policies on the funding gaps.  To help answer
these questions, we used school year 1991-92 district-level data from
the Department of Education, the most recent available, and
supplemented these data when key data were missing.  We used standard
school finance measures and developed a new method to measure the
effect of state policies on the funding levels of school
districts.\44 We supplemented our analysis by contacting education
officials in the states to determine the extent to which a state's
school finance system had changed since school year 1991-92. 


--------------------
\44 Various school finance experts reviewed this new method.  The
following experts were involved in early discussions and reviewed
drafts of this report:  Helen Ladd (Duke University), Martin Orland
(Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics),
and Lawrence Picus (University of Southern California). 


   SCOPE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

For this study, we conducted a district-level analysis of all states
except Hawaii.\45 We wanted our analysis to examine state funding for
regular school districts with students in grades kindergarten to 12,
so the analysis excluded administrative districts and districts
serving unique student populations, such as vocational or special
education schools.\46 Our analysis also excluded a number of small
districts that had extreme outlying values of income per pupil.\47
Finally, we excluded districts that lacked data for critical
variables, such as poverty level.  The 2,235 districts excluded from
the analysis had a total enrollment of 335,558.  The final database
used in our analysis of the 49 states contained 14,425 districts with
a total of 41,204,610 students, representing 99.2 percent of the
students in 49 states. 


--------------------
\45 Hawaii's state school system is considered one district, so no
comparisons can be made about state allocations to different
districts.  Similarly, the District of Columbia and five U.S. 
territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico,
and Virgin Islands) have one-district systems and were not included
in our analysis. 

\46 That is, we excluded districts in the Common Core of Data (CCD)
with agency type codes 3 to 7 and school district codes 4 to 7. 

\47 A total of 49 districts were excluded as outliers using the
method developed by David A.  Belsley, Edwin Kuh, and Roy E.  Welsch,
Regression Diagnostics:  Identifying Influential Data and Sources of
Collinearity (New York:  John Wiley and Sons, 1980), pp.  27-30. 
Specifically, we used their DFBETA statistic as the basis for
deleting outlying observations. 


   DATA SOURCES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

This study was based mainly on revenue and demographic data obtained
from the Department of Education's Common Core of Data (CCD) for the
1991-92 school year, the most current data available for a national
set of districts.  Data for the CCD were submitted by state education
agencies and edited by the Education Department.  We obtained
district per capita income and population data directly from the 1990
census because they were not available in the CCD. 

For variables in our analysis that had missing or incomplete data, we
obtained the data directly from state education offices.  For
example, we obtained district-level data for disabled students for
school year 1991-92 directly from the state education offices for
nine states because the CCD either did not report the number of
disabled students in the states or reported a number substantially
different from one reported by another Education Department
source.\48 We made further edits on the basis of consultations with
Department of Education experts. 

In some cases, we imputed critical data when they were missing and
not available from other sources.  We imputed income per pupil data
for 199 districts in California because the per capita income data
needed to compute this variable were not reported by these
districts.\49 We also imputed cost index data for 310 districts,
including 18 in Alaska and 72 in New York (mainly Suffolk County).\50
The imputation method we used to impute cost index data was based on
the recommendation of the school finance expert who developed the
cost index. 

We conducted structured telephone interviews with state school
finance officials to determine the extent to which states had changed
their school finance systems since school year 1991-92.  We did not,
however, verify the accuracy of the officials' statements. 


--------------------
\48 The CCD did not report disabled student data for Kentucky, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  The CCD provided data on
disabled students for Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, and New Jersey
that were at least 15 percent different than and at least 3,500
disabled students different from those reported by the Department of
Education's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
for school year 1991-92. 

\49 We developed a formula to predict the income per pupil of the
missing districts by running a regression between income per pupil
and median housing value for districts in California whose median
housing value was at least $5,000. 

\50 Cost index values for these districts were imputed using the
value from a district with a similar enrollment in the same or a
similar county. 


   METHODOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

To measure the size of the gap in total funding between poor and
wealthy districts, we used the elasticity of total (state and local)
funding in a district relative to district income,\51 a measure of a
district's ability to raise revenue for education.  In a regression
model, we used dependent and independent variables that were adjusted
for differences in geographic cost and student need within the state
and put into index form\52 (see app.  II).  A district's total
funding per weighted pupil was the dependent variable; a district's
income per weighted pupil was the independent variable.\53 Each
observation was weighted by the district size to allow districts with
larger enrollments to have a greater effect on the results.  Appendix
III describes this process in detail. 

To determine the relationship between the total funding gaps and the
key factors affecting the size of the gaps, we conducted a regression
analysis using a state's fiscal neutrality score (the elasticity of
total funding to district income) as the dependent variable and the
following as independent variables: 

  -- a state's share of total funding,

  -- a state's targeting effort (described in this app.), and

  -- a state's relative local tax effort (the elasticity of local tax
     effort relative to district income--see app.  III). 

To measure the extent to which states targeted their education funds
to poor districts, we estimated the elasticity of state funding in a
district relative to district income.\54 Using a regression model, we
defined the dependent variable as a district's state funding per
pupil and the key independent variable as a district's income per
pupil.  Both variables were adjusted for differences in geographic
cost within the state (see app.  II).  To control for student need
and economies of scale, we included four additional independent
variables:  poor students, disabled students, high school students,
and district size.  All variables in the analysis were put into index
form and were included in the regression.  Each observation was
weighted by the district size to allow districts with larger
enrollments to have a greater effect on the results.  We set certain
constraints on the regression coefficients.  The resulting regression
coefficient of the income per pupil variable is our measure of a
state's targeting effort and measures the elasticity of state funding
relative to district income.  Appendix V describes this methodology
in greater detail. 

We developed an equity measure--implicit foundation level--to assess
the state policies (targeting and state share) that affect the
funding gap between wealthy and poor districts.  We calculated this
measure using a formula involving a state's share of total funding, a
state's targeting effort, and a state's average total funding per
weighted pupil.  To calculate the targeting effort in this formula,
we used the same multivariate linear regression as the one already
described, except we imposed the restriction that the income per
pupil variable have a nonpositive coefficient.  Appendix IV explains
the theory behind the equity measure we developed, and appendix V
explains the regression. 

Appendixes VII through LV provide profiles of each state's school
finances in school year 1991-92.  The profiles provide summary
information on the total funding per weighted pupil, states' share of
education funding, states' targeting effort, implicit foundation
level, equalization effort, and fiscal neutrality score.  To report
the state profiles for school year 1991-92, we ranked each state's
districts according to increasing district income and then divided
the districts into five groups, each with about the same number of
students.\55 We then calculated the mean state, local, and total
funding per weighted pupil for each group.  These funding figures
were also adjusted for differences in geographic costs within the
state (see app.  II).  Appendix VI provides an overview of the state
profiles. 

Because we relied on state and local funding data from the 1991-92
school year, we telephoned state school finance officials to
determine what changes had occurred in the school finance systems
from school years 1991-92 through 1995-96.  We specifically asked
about changes in targeting that would affect low-wealth districts and
changes in the state's share of total funding.  Appendix LVI presents
interview results. 


--------------------
\51 This elasticity measures the average percent change in total
funding for a 1-percent increase in a district's income. 

\52 To derive the index form of each variable, we measured all
variables as district rates and then divided the district rate by its
corresponding state average. 

\53 A better income measure of a district's ability to raise revenue
for education would include commercial and other nonresidential
income in addition to personal income.  However, such district-level
data are not available for all states in a national database. 
Therefore, we used total income data from the 1990 census to
determine income per pupil.  App.  III further explains this measure
of district income. 

\54 This elasticity measures the average percent change in state
funding for a 1-percent increase in a district's income. 

\55 Normally, each group consisted of about 20 percent of the student
population.  In some states, however, the five groups may have had
large differences in the number of students because our analysis was
at the district level and districts cannot be statistically divided
into smaller units.  In a few states, one district (for example, in
Las Vegas and New York City) accounted for more than 20 percent of
the student population and represented the entire group.  Finally,
Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the distribution
of the student population. 


ADJUSTING FOR GEOGRAPHIC AND
STUDENT NEED- RELATED DIFFERENCES
IN EDUCATION COSTS
========================================================== Appendix II

Education costs vary by school district in a state (and nationwide)
because of geographic differences in the cost of educational
resources and in the number of students with special needs.  The cost
of educational resources may vary across districts for several
reasons.  For example, a district may be able to hire a teacher of a
given quality at a lower rate than other districts because the
district may have a lower cost of living or offer certain amenities
or working conditions that are more attractive to teachers than the
other districts.  Also, districts with either large or small student
populations may face higher costs than other districts because of the
diseconomies of scale that can occur in providing services at these
levels.\56

The cost of educating students also varies for a number of other
reasons.  Districts with high proportions of students with special
needs, such as the disabled, the poor, and those with limited English
proficiency, generally have higher education costs than average
because such students require additional educational services. 
Furthermore, districts that largely serve high school students tend
to have higher per pupil education costs than those that largely
serve elementary students.\57

As discussed in our previous report on equity measures,\58 when
estimating comparable measures of funding levels or disparities among
districts, accounting for districts' differences in educational
resource costs and student needs is useful.  This appendix discusses
how we made these adjustments in our study. 


--------------------
\56 Allan R.  Odden and Lawrence O.  Picus, School Finance:  A Policy
Perspective (New York:  McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992), pp.  235-238. 

\57 However, one expert reviewer suggested that the cost of educating
elementary students in the primary grades may have increased compared
with educating high school students because of recent state efforts
to lower the student-teacher ratio in these early elementary years. 

\58 School Finance:  Options for Improving Measures of Effort and
Equity in Title I (GAO/HEHS-96-142, Aug.  30, 1996). 


   ADJUSTING FOR DIFFERENCES IN
   EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

To adjust for geographic differences in resource costs by district,
we used a national district-level teacher cost index recently
developed for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).\59
Although an index that examines differences in the cost of living is
available by district,\60 the NCES teacher cost index is better
suited to comparing districts by considering the purchasing power of
districts in determining personnel-related costs, a major cost to
school districts.\61 Our focus is on a district's ability to provide
comparable educational services to its students, rather than on
whether teachers' salaries are adequate given the cost of living in
their area. 

Not all costs, however, vary within a state.  For example, the cost
of books, instructional materials, and other supplies and equipment
tends to vary little within a state or, for some items, the nation. 
Therefore, we used the teacher cost index only to adjust the 84.8
percent of current expenditures estimated to relate to personnel
costs, including salaries, fringe benefits, and some purchased
services.\62

Finally, we rescaled the NCES teacher cost index to create
district-level indexes for each state that reflect the education
resource cost differences in just one state rather than the
differences nationwide.  To rescale the teacher cost index, we
determined the average teacher cost index for the state, then divided
each district's teacher cost index by the state average to obtain the
district-level teacher cost index adjusted for within-state
differences.  A teacher cost index equal to 1.0 indicates a district
with average resource costs for the state.  Table II.1 provides the
average cost index for each of the five income groups of districts in
a state.  In all states except four (Alaska, Nevada, New York, and
North Carolina), the range in the average cost indexes across groups
in the table was less than twice the standard deviation of the
district-level cost index.  This suggests that states may have had
more variation in cost differences among individual districts than
across the income groups shown in the table. 


--------------------
\59 See Jay Chambers and William Fowler, Jr., Public School Teacher
Cost Differences Across the United States, Department of Education,
NCES, Analysis/Methodology Report, No.  95-758 (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct.  1995). 

\60 McMahon and Chang have developed an estimating equation to
predict cost of living in areas for which the actual indexes are not
available.  See W.  McMahon and S.  Chang, "Geographical
Cost-of-Living Differences:  Interstate and Intrastate, Update,"
Center for the Study of Educational Finance, MacArthur/Spencer
Special Series (Normal, Ill.:  1991). 

\61 Because of missing cost index data, we had to impute cost index
data for 310 districts, including 18 in Alaska and 72 in New York
(mainly Suffolk County). 

\62 This estimate was developed for NCES by Stephen M.  Barro.  See
Cost of Education Differentials Across the States, Department of
Education, NCES, Working Paper No.  94-05 (Washington D.C.:  July
1994).  In using this estimate, we assumed that all personnel costs,
including noncertified personnel costs, have patterns of cost
variation similar to certified personnel. 


   ADJUSTING FOR DIFFERENCES IN
   STUDENT NEED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

To account for the differences in student need by district, we made
adjustments that weighted poor students and disabled students
according to their need for additional services.\63 Our analysis did
not account for limited English proficient students, generally
recognized as a third group of high-cost students, because we could
not obtain accurate district-level data on the number of such
students. 

To account for differences in student needs by district, students
with disabilities were given a weight of 2.3 because the cost of
educating such children is generally 2.3 times the cost of educating
children who do not need special educational services, although the
cost of educating children with specific types of disabilities varies
widely.\64 We also assigned a weight of 1.2 for children from poor
families.  This additional .2 weighting for poor students stems from
an estimate based on the average title I allocation per student
divided by average funding per student.  We used a set of weights
developed for an NCES report.\65

Using these weights, we developed a district-level need index
adjusted for differences within the state.  We used the following
equation to calculate the need index for each district: 

   Equation II.1

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

AdjMem = adjusted membership; a district's fall membership + (1.3 x
students with Individual Education Plans) + (.2 x students below the
poverty line)

AdjStMem = adjusted membership in a state; the sum of AdjMem for all
districts in a state

Member = membership; a district's fall membership

StMem = state membership; the sum of Member for all districts in a
state. 

Table II.2 provides the average need index for each of the five
income groups of districts in a state.  In all states except three
(Alaska, Maryland, and New Mexico), the range in the average need
indexes across groups in the table was less than twice the standard
deviation of the district-level need index.  This suggests that
states may have had more variation in need differences among
individual districts than across the income groups shown in the
table. 



                         Table II.1
          
           Cost Index to Adjust for Within-State
                        Differences

                   (State average = 1.00)

                                                  Wealthie
                Poorest                              st
                --------                          --------
                           Group   Group   Group
State            Group 1       2       3       4   Group 5
--------------  --------  ------  ------  ------  --------
Alabama              .96     .99    1.00    1.04      1.01
Alaska              1.07    1.02     .99     .97       .91
Arizona              .99    1.01    1.01     .96      1.04
Arkansas             .96     .98     .98    1.03      1.04
California           .97     .98    1.05    1.00      1.00
Colorado             .94     .98    1.02    1.02      1.03
Connecticut         1.00    1.00     .99    1.00      1.00
Delaware             .96     .96    1.01    1.03      1.03
Florida              .94    1.05    1.00    1.00      1.00
Georgia              .93     .97    1.00    1.04      1.06
Idaho               1.00     .98    1.01     .99      1.01
Illinois             .90    1.11     .92     .99      1.05
Indiana              .99     .99     .98    1.02      1.02
Iowa                 .96     .98    1.00    1.00      1.05
Kansas              1.01     .97     .98     .98      1.06
Kentucky             .96     .97     .99    1.02      1.05
Louisiana            .98     .99    1.00    1.01      1.03
Maine                .99    1.00     .99     .99      1.02
Maryland            1.03     .96     .99     .99      1.04
Massachusetts       1.00    1.00     .99    1.01      1.00
Michigan             .99     .95     .99    1.01      1.05
Minnesota            .92     .98     .98    1.03      1.08
Mississippi          .98     .98     .99    1.01      1.04
Missouri             .94     .95    1.01    1.02      1.09
Montana             1.02     .99    1.01     .99       .99
Nebraska             .97     .98    1.00    1.05      1.00
Nevada\             1.04    1.01     .95     .95        \a
New Hampshire        .98     .99    1.03    1.01       .98
New Jersey          1.01     .99    1.00    1.01       .99
New Mexico          1.00     .98     .98    1.02      1.02
New York             .89     .91    1.13     .92       .98
North Carolina       .95     .99    1.00    1.02      1.04
North Dakota         .98    1.00    1.01     .99      1.03
Ohio                 .95    1.00    1.00    1.01      1.04
Oklahoma             .98     .98    1.02     .99      1.03
Oregon               .96     .99     .99    1.03      1.03
Pennsylvania         .94     .97    1.04    1.00      1.04
Rhode Island        1.03     .99    1.00    1.00       .98
South Carolina       .95     .98    1.01    1.03      1.03
South Dakota         .98     .97    1.02     .97      1.04
Tennessee            .97     .98    1.01    1.01      1.02
Texas                .98     .97     .98    1.03      1.03
Utah                 .98     .96    1.00    1.02      1.02
Vermont             1.01     .99     .99    1.00      1.01
Virginia             .94     .96    1.03     .98      1.09
Washington           .94    1.00     .99    1.01      1.07
West Virginia        .98     .99    1.00    1.02      1.01
Wisconsin            .94    1.02     .99    1.01      1.04
Wyoming              .99    1.01    1.00     .98      1.01
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 



                         Table II.2
          
           Need Index to Adjust for Within-State
                        Differences

                   (State average = 1.00)

                                                  Wealthie
                Poorest                              st
                --------                          --------
                           Group   Group   Group
State            Group 1       2       3       4   Group 5
--------------  --------  ------  ------  ------  --------
Alabama             1.01    1.00    1.01     .99       .99
Alaska              1.04    1.00     .98     .99       .99
Arizona             1.04    1.00     .99    1.00       .98
Arkansas            1.03    1.00    1.00     .98       .99
California          1.01    1.00    1.01    1.00       .99
Colorado            1.01    1.02     .99     .97      1.01
Connecticut         1.04    1.00     .99     .99       .98
Delaware            1.01    1.01    1.00     .99       .98
Florida             1.01    1.00    1.00     .99      1.01
Georgia             1.02    1.02     .99     .99       .98
Idaho                .99    1.01    1.00    1.00      1.00
Illinois            1.02    1.00    1.00    1.00       .98
Indiana             1.01     .99    1.00    1.01       .99
Iowa                 .99     .99    1.01    1.00      1.01
Kansas              1.01     .99    1.00    1.01       .99
Kentucky            1.03    1.00     .99     .98       .99
Louisiana           1.01    1.01     .99     .99      1.00
Maine               1.01     .99    1.00    1.00      1.00
Maryland            1.06     .99     .98    1.00       .97
Massachusetts       1.00    1.00     .99    1.02       .99
Michigan            1.03    1.00     .99    1.00       .98
Minnesota           1.00     .99    1.00    1.01      1.01
Mississippi         1.00    1.02    1.00     .99       .99
Missouri            1.02    1.02     .99    1.01       .96
Montana             1.02     .99    1.02     .99       .98
Nebraska             .99    1.00     .99    1.01      1.01
Nevada\             1.02     .99    1.02    1.01        \a
New Hampshire        .99    1.00    1.00    1.00      1.01
New Jersey          1.02    1.01    1.00     .99       .99
New Mexico          1.01     .99    1.00    1.01       .96
New York             .99     .99    1.03     .98       .97
North Carolina      1.01    1.00    1.01    1.00       .99
North Dakota        1.01    1.01    1.01     .99       .98
Ohio                1.01    1.01    1.01     .99       .98
Oklahoma            1.02     .99     .98     .98      1.02
Oregon              1.01    1.01    1.00     .98      1.00
Pennsylvania        1.01    1.00    1.01    1.00       .98
Rhode Island        1.01     .98    1.00    1.01       .99
South Carolina      1.01    1.01     .98    1.00      1.00
South Dakota        1.03     .99     .98     .99      1.01
Tennessee           1.02    1.01     .99    1.00       .98
Texas               1.02    1.00    1.00     .99       .98
Utah                1.01    1.00     .98     .99      1.02
Vermont             1.01    1.00    1.00    1.00       .99
Virginia            1.00     .99     .99    1.01      1.00
Washington          1.02    1.00    1.01     .99       .98
West Virginia       1.03    1.01     .99     .98       .99
Wisconsin           1.00    1.03     .99    1.00       .98
Wyoming              .99     .99    1.01    1.01       .99
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 


--------------------
\63 However, when we estimated the targeting effort and implicit
foundation levels of states, we adjusted for student-need factors by
controlling for such factors in our regression analysis. 

\64 This cost estimate is based on analysis of data from a nationally
representative sample.  For more information, see M.T.  Moore and
others, Patterns in Special Education Service Delivery and Cost,
Decision Resources Corp.  (Washington, D.C.:  1988).  More recent
studies have resulted in a similar figure. 

\65 Thomas Parrish, Christine Matsumoto, and William Fowler, Jr.,
Disparities in Public School District Spending:  1989-90, Department
of Education, NCES, Report No.  95-300 (Washington D.C.:  Feb. 
1995).  We also used these weights in GAO/HEHS-96-142, Aug.  30,
1996. 


ANALYSIS OF FISCAL NEUTRALITY
========================================================= Appendix III

In our study, the goal of fiscal neutrality is achieved in a state
when total (state and local) funding per weighted pupil does not
depend on differences in districts' income per weighted pupil.  We
measured the extent of this dependency using the income elasticity of
total funding per weighted pupil and defined this elasticity as a
state's fiscal neutrality score.  A positive fiscal neutrality score
would indicate that per pupil funding rises with income; a fiscal
neutrality score of 0 would indicate that fiscal neutrality has been
achieved (that is, no relationship exists between per pupil funding
and per pupil income); and a negative score would indicate higher
funding in low-income districts. 

The first section of this appendix presents the method we used to
estimate each state's fiscal neutrality score and the results of our
analysis.  The second section shows how the variation in fiscal
neutrality scores among states is explained by differences in state
equalization policies (state share and state targeting) and by
differences in the relative local tax effort of wealthy and poor
districts. 


   CALCULATING FISCAL NEUTRALITY
   SCORES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

We used a linear regression model to estimate the elasticity of total
funding in a district relative to district income.  Both the
dependent and independent variables were adjusted for differences in
geographic cost and student need within the state and expressed as a
percent of their respective state averages.\66

By expressing each variable as a percent of its state average value,
both the dependent and independent variables can be interpreted as
index numbers.  A value below 1.00 signifies that a district was
below the state average for that variable; a value above 1.00
signifies that a district was above the state average.  With these
adjustments the regression model took the following form: 

   Equation III.1

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Because both variables are measured relative to their respective
state averages, the regression coefficient (1) represents
the percent difference, from the state average, in total funding
relative to a percent difference, from the state average, in district
income.  This is precisely the elasticity we wanted to estimate and
use as our fiscal neutrality score.\67 A positive coefficient implies
that total funding per weighted pupil is higher in wealthy districts,
and a negative coefficient, the opposite.  A coefficient that is not
statistically different from 0 implies that fiscal neutrality has
been achieved because no systematic differences exist in per pupil
funding between wealthy and poor districts. 

We used a district's total funding per weighted pupil as the
dependent variable.  This variable included state and local funding
for all purposes, including maintenance and operations,
transportation, and capital expenditures and debt service.\68 We
divided the district's total funding by its fall membership to put
the variable in per pupil form. 

We used district income per weighted pupil as the independent
variable, our measure of a district's ability to raise revenue for
education.  Because we could not develop income per pupil data from
the Common Core of Data (CCD), we used district-level per capita
income from the 1990 census to construct the variable.  We multiplied
per capita income in a district by district population, resulting in
the total income in the district.  We then divided this amount by the
total number of students in the district, resulting in income per
pupil. 

Most school finance studies measure a district's ability to raise
revenue for education as district wealth defined as property value
per pupil.  However, we chose to use district income defined as
resident income per pupil because we could not construct a
property-value-per-pupil measure at the district level from the
national databases that were available.  Furthermore, beyond the
field of school finance, income--as opposed to wealth--is the most
commonly accepted measure of the ability to raise revenue. 

A good income measure of a district's ability to raise revenue for
education should be as comprehensive as possible.  For example, the
Department of Treasury defines and compiles the total taxable
resources (TTR) for each state.  TTR takes into account all income
either received by state residents or produced in a state.  Either
income measure, by itself, is incomplete.  Income received by state
residents does not include business income earned by nonresidents
(undistributed corporate profits, for example).  Alternatively,
income produced does not include income earned by residents from
out-of-state sources (residents who work out of state, for example). 
Consequently, TTR includes both income received and income produced
to gauge a state's total taxable resources.  Unfortunately, a
comprehensive income measure such as the TTR is not available at the
school district level. 

Our income measure is money income reported in the 1990 census.  Its
major weakness is that it does not include commercial or nonresident
income that local school districts may be able to tax.  It may
therefore understate the ability of districts with high
concentrations of this type of income to raise revenues for
education.  However, our measure does include the largest income
category--resident income--represented in TTR.  Although we would
expect some differences in the results of our analyses if all income
from commercial and industrial property had been included in the
income variable, the general trends from our analyses would still
have held true. 

Finally, the regression model in equation III.1 was estimated by
weighting each observation for membership size to better reflect the
distribution of state funding to students rather than to
districts;\69 thus, school districts with larger enrollments had a
greater effect in determining the estimated coefficients of the
model. 


--------------------
\66 See app.  II for more detailed information on the cost and
student need adjustments. 

\67 An elasticity is, by definition, the percent change in a
dependent variable associated with a 1-percent change in an
independent variable.  In our model a unit change in the income index
from the state average is a percent change from the state average and
the coefficient measures the associated percentage change in per
pupil funding.  Because we have measured each variable as a percent
of its respective state averages, our elasticity measure is an
elasticity evaluated at the state averages. 

\68 Because the CCD does not report separate data on local funding at
the district level devoted to capital expenditures and debt service,
we could not exclude these funding categories from our revenue
variable. 

\69 Without weighting, each district would carry the same weight in
the analysis, regardless of size.  Weighting by students is a
generally accepted practice in school finance analysis. 


      ANALYSIS RESULTS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.1

In most states, total funding per weighted pupil increased as
district income increased (the elasticity was positive).  On average,
wealthy districts had about 24 percent more total funding per
weighted pupil than poor districts. 

In 37 states, the income elasticity of total funding per weighted
pupil was positive.  This means that as the districts' income
increased, the level of total funding increased.  However, the range
in elasticity varied among the states, with a high of .469 in
Maryland and a low of .055 in Washington. 

In three states--Alaska, Nevada, and Oklahoma--the elasticity was
negative, that is, total funding decreased as district income
increased.  Elasticities for these three states ranged from -.556 in
Nevada to -.053 in Oklahoma.  The elasticity was not statistically
different from 0 in the remaining nine states.  Table III.1 shows the
elasticities of total funding to district income and the R square for
each state.\70



                              Table III.1
                
                 State Elasticities of Total Funding to
                   District Income (Fiscal Neutrality
                     Scores) Adjusted for Statewide
                      Differences in Cost and Need

                                                 Elasticity of  Adjust
                                                 total funding    ed R
State                                                to income  square
----------------------------------------------  --------------  ------
Alabama                                                  +.290    .308
Alaska                                                   -.272    .072
Arizona                                                  +.141    .310
Arkansas                                                 +.220    .202
California                                               +.073    .125
Colorado                                                 +.154    .051
Connecticut                                              +.241    .460
Delaware\a                                               +.072    .014
Florida                                                  +.239    .432
Georgia                                                  +.323    .282
Idaho                                                    +.247    .256
Illinois                                                 +.338    .736
Indiana                                                  +.153    .120
Iowa\a                                                   +.031    .000
Kansas\a                                                 +.014   -.003
Kentucky                                                 +.126    .301
Louisiana                                                +.216    .245
Maine                                                    +.176    .155
Maryland                                                 +.469    .702
Massachusetts                                            +.447    .512
Michigan                                                 +.290    .416
Minnesota                                                +.113    .080
Mississippi\a                                            +.007   -.006
Missouri                                                 +.362    .170
Montana                                                  +.393    .337
Nebraska                                                 +.154    .045
Nevada                                                   -.556    .227
New Hampshire                                            +.238    .226
New Jersey                                               +.168    .380
New Mexico\a                                             +.004   -.012
New York                                                 +.370    .248
North Carolina                                           +.250    .307
North Dakota                                             +.236    .055
Ohio                                                     +.315    .272
Oklahoma                                                 -.053    .009
Oregon                                                   +.166    .141
Pennsylvania                                             +.300    .557
Rhode Island                                             +.274    .193
South Carolina                                           +.150    .101
South Dakota                                             +.367    .171
Tennessee                                                +.242    .149
Texas\a                                                  +.003   -.001
Utah\a                                                   +.036   -.022
Vermont                                                  +.176    .087
Virginia                                                 +.377    .608
Washington                                               +.055    .021
West Virginia\a                                          +.071    .037
Wisconsin                                                +.129    .240
Wyoming\a                                                -.196    .003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Elasticity not statistically different from 0. 

In most states, the amount of total funding (state and local funding
combined) per weighted pupil available to wealthy districts exceeded
such funding available to poor districts.  However, states varied
widely in the degree to which funding available for wealthy districts
exceeded that of poor districts.  Table III.2 summarizes the gaps in
total funding per weighted pupil between wealthy and poor districts. 

Tables III.3 and III.4 show the state averages for total funding per
weighted pupil and income per weighted pupil as well as the average
index numbers of these two variables for each of the five income
groups of districts in a state. 



                        Table III.2
          
            Total Funding Gaps Between Poor and
                     Wealthy Districts

                    Total funding per
                     weighted pupil\a
                  ----------------------
                                     For
                             For     the     Wealthy group
                   State     the  wealth  funding compared
                  averag    poor       y   with poor group
State                  e   group   group         funding\b
----------------  ------  ------  ------  ----------------
Alabama           $3,277  $3,213  $3,795              1.18
Alaska             8,030   8,912   8,877              1.00
Arizona            4,507   4,146   5,473              1.32
Arkansas           3,784   3,747   4,282              1.14
California         4,543   4,407   4,965              1.13
Colorado           5,047   5,109   5,501              1.08
Connecticut        8,221   7,426   9,985              1.34
Delaware           5,576   5,316   5,817              1.09
Florida            5,555   5,286   6,264              1.18
Georgia            4,324   3,867   5,029              1.30
Idaho              3,504   3,246   4,075              1.26
Illinois           4,970   4,330   7,249              1.67
Indiana            4,993   4,804   5,299              1.10
Iowa               4,849   5,051   4,855               .96
Kansas             4,973   4,648   5,089              1.09
Kentucky           3,728   3,601   4,143              1.15
Louisiana          3,912   3,507   4,238              1.21
Maine              5,681   5,469   6,399              1.17
Maryland           6,039   4,686   7,728              1.65
Massachusetts      6,264   5,227   8,037              1.54
Michigan           5,851   5,275   7,198              1.36
Minnesota          5,646   5,613   6,212              1.11
Mississippi        2,831   3,034   2,974               .98
Missouri           3,972   2,912   4,937              1.70
Montana            4,835   4,006   6,942              1.73
Nebraska           5,148   5,367   5,614              1.05
Nevada             3,597   4,518   3,117               .69
New Hampshire      5,850   5,592   7,284              1.30
New Jersey         9,239   8,434  11,087              1.31
New Mexico         3,830   3,891   4,094              1.05
New York           7,787   8,309  10,950              1.32
North Carolina     4,424   4,183   4,919              1.18
North Dakota       4,079   4,006   4,709              1.18
Ohio               4,709   4,305   5,688              1.32
Oklahoma           3,623   3,735   3,528               .94
Oregon             5,087   4,860   5,910              1.22
Pennsylvania       6,406   5,812   7,674              1.32
Rhode Island       5,939   5,507   6,553              1.19
South Carolina     4,112   3,840   4,151              1.08
South Dakota       3,756   3,297   4,228              1.28
Tennessee          3,329   3,038   3,671              1.21
Texas              4,603   4,689   4,691              1.00
Utah               3,177   3,333   3,301               .99
Vermont            7,722   6,478   8,454              1.31
Virginia           4,713   4,138   5,702              1.38
Washington         5,302   5,252   5,481              1.04
West Virginia      4,927   4,859   5,044              1.04
Wisconsin          5,865   5,974   6,455              1.08
Wyoming            5,920   6,573   5,514               .84
----------------------------------------------------------
\a All funding figures have been adjusted for statewide differences
in cost and need.  We assigned weights of 1.2 to poor students and
2.3 to disabled students. 

\b We calculated this ratio by dividing the wealthy districts'
funding by the poor districts' funding, for example, $3,795/$3,213 in
Alabama. 



                        Table III.3
          
           Total Funding per Weighted Pupil Index
           Adjusted for Statewide Differences in
                       Cost and Need

                   (State average = 1.00)

                              Average total funding per
                                 weighted pupil index
                            ------------------------------
                            Poor                    Wealth
                            est                      iest
                            ----                    ------
                   Average
                     total
               funding per  Grou  Grou  Grou  Grou
                  weighted     p     p     p     p   Group
State              pupil\a     1     2     3     4       5
------------  ------------  ----  ----  ----  ----  ------
Alabama             $3,277   .98   .94   .93  1.00    1.16
Alaska               8,030  1.11  1.11   .95   .85    1.11
Arizona              4,507   .92   .91  1.00   .98    1.21
Arkansas             3,784   .99   .95   .95   .98    1.13
California           4,543   .96   .96   .98  1.00    1.09
Colorado             5,047  1.01   .94   .97  1.00    1.08
Connecticut          8,221   .90   .90   .97  1.02    1.21
Delaware             5,576   .95   .93   .99  1.06    1.04
Florida              5,555   .95   .94   .98  1.02    1.13
Georgia              4,324   .90   .91  1.00  1.03    1.17
Idaho                3,504   .92   .97   .96  1.00    1.16
Illinois             4,970   .87   .85   .88   .93    1.46
Indiana              4,993   .96   .97  1.00  1.01    1.06
Iowa                 4,849  1.03  1.00   .95  1.02     .99
Kansas               4,973   .92  1.05  1.04   .99    1.01
Kentucky             3,728   .97   .98   .97   .98    1.11
Louisiana            3,912   .90   .94  1.02  1.07    1.08
Maine                5,681   .96   .91   .96  1.04    1.12
Maryland             6,039   .77   .98   .97  1.05    1.27
Massachusett         6,264   .83   .90   .93  1.05    1.28
 s
Michigan             5,851   .91   .92   .96   .99    1.23
Minnesota            5,646   .99   .97   .94  1.00    1.10
Mississippi          2,831  1.07   .93   .93  1.02    1.05
Missouri             3,972   .74   .78   .90  1.34    1.25
Montana              4,835   .81   .86   .83  1.10    1.41
Nebraska             5,148  1.03  1.01   .97   .92    1.07
Nevada               3,597  1.26   .96  1.21   .87      \b
New                  5,850   .95   .96   .88   .96    1.24
 Hampshire
New Jersey           9,239   .91   .94   .94  1.01    1.20
New Mexico           3,830  1.01  1.02   .99   .98    1.06
New York             7,787  1.04  1.11   .70  1.14    1.37
North                4,424   .95   .94   .94  1.05    1.11
 Carolina
North Dakota         4,079   .97   .93   .99   .99    1.14
Ohio                 4,709   .92   .93   .97   .98    1.21
Oklahoma             3,623  1.02  1.03   .96  1.02     .97
Oregon               5,087   .95   .92   .96  1.03    1.16
Pennsylvania         6,406   .91   .93   .91  1.05    1.20
Rhode Island         5,939   .92  1.05   .94  1.03    1.10
South                4,112   .93  1.01  1.00  1.06    1.01
 Carolina
South Dakota         3,756   .87  1.06   .96  1.02    1.11
Tennessee            3,329   .91   .86  1.05  1.07    1.10
Texas                4,603  1.01  1.03  1.00   .94    1.01
Utah                 3,177  1.05  1.08   .97   .88    1.04
Vermont              7,722   .83   .93  1.06  1.09    1.09
Virginia             4,713   .89   .90   .91  1.11    1.22
Washington           5,302   .99   .98   .99  1.01    1.03
West                 4,927   .99   .98   .98  1.04    1.02
 Virginia
Wisconsin            5,865  1.02   .94   .99   .96    1.10
Wyoming              5,920  1.11  1.04  1.03   .89     .93
----------------------------------------------------------
\a All funding figures have been adjusted for statewide differences
in cost and need.  We assigned weights of 1.2 to poor students and
2.3 to disabled students. 

\b Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 



                        Table III.4
          
          Income per Weighted Pupil Index Adjusted
           for Statewide Differences in Cost and
                            Need

                   (State average = 1.00)

                             Average income per weighted
                                     pupil index
                            ------------------------------
                            Poor                    Wealth
                            est                      iest
                            ----                    ------
                   Average
                income per  Grou  Grou  Grou  Grou
                  weighted     p     p     p     p   Group
State              pupil\a     1     2     3     4       5
------------  ------------  ----  ----  ----  ----  ------
Alabama            $63,313   .69   .87   .96  1.06    1.44
Alaska              83,220   .48   .91  1.15  1.24    1.40
Arizona             98,442   .34   .62   .77  1.07    2.35
Arkansas            55,895   .63   .80   .92  1.12    1.54
California         121,872   .40   .63   .78  1.01    2.22
Colorado            81,879   .62   .79   .97  1.21    1.45
Connecticut        148,273   .54   .77   .90  1.06    1.76
Delaware           106,718   .60   .72   .84  1.18    1.71
Florida             98,373   .69   .83   .92  1.12    1.48
Georgia             73,340   .61   .81   .94  1.16    1.52
Idaho               51,724   .59   .80   .97  1.05    1.60
Illinois           134,121   .49   .58   .67   .93    2.37
Indiana             76,049   .68   .87   .98  1.06    1.42
Iowa                69,690   .75   .88   .95  1.08    1.34
Kansas              74,725   .68   .82   .93  1.08    1.48
Kentucky            63,691   .56   .78   .96  1.18    1.55
Louisiana           58,920   .67   .77   .96  1.15    1.54
Maine               76,336   .64   .76   .89  1.14    1.57
Maryland           114,832   .63   .79   .98  1.17    1.55
Massachusett       133,452   .60   .78   .95  1.09    1.60
 s
Michigan            80,367   .62   .75   .91  1.09    1.70
Minnesota           81,234   .62   .78   .89  1.10    1.62
Mississippi         51,017   .59   .75   .87  1.05    1.79
Missouri            79,570   .60   .76   .96  1.13    1.64
Montana            115,518   .42   .65   .78  1.09    2.12
Nebraska            94,845   .69   .83   .96  1.12    1.42
Nevada              86,827   .65  1.00  1.06  1.25      \b
New                106,978   .63   .79   .90  1.07    1.60
 Hampshire
New Jersey         160,761   .39   .63   .86  1.11    2.06
New Mexico          54,999   .47   .81   .92  1.32    1.97
New York           114,397   .63   .85   .94  1.05    1.62
North               76,415   .67   .84   .92  1.14    1.42
 Carolina
North Dakota        58,094   .68   .88   .98  1.12    1.41
Ohio                80,781   .64   .79   .91  1.11    1.57
Oklahoma            64,014   .62   .81   .92  1.18    1.48
Oregon              85,350   .64   .78   .92  1.13    1.57
Pennsylvania        99,378   .63   .82   .91  1.08    1.58
Rhode Island       108,151   .73   .90  1.01  1.09    1.35
South               65,707   .67   .85  1.02  1.13    1.32
 Carolina
South Dakota        57,440   .64   .88  1.02  1.12    1.36
Tennessee           70,681   .64   .82   .93  1.14    1.46
Texas               62,842   .47   .81  1.01  1.18    1.55
Utah                41,385   .69   .87   .98  1.06    1.36
Vermont            112,652   .50   .74   .91  1.18    1.68
Virginia            93,199   .67   .81   .87  1.08    1.60
Washington          82,373   .61   .78   .89  1.07    1.70
West                58,725   .65   .82   .99  1.15    1.39
 Virginia
Wisconsin           82,555   .68   .81   .93  1.04    1.57
Wyoming             55,152   .69   .89  1.00  1.11    1.31
----------------------------------------------------------
\a All income figures have been adjusted for statewide differences in
cost and need.  We assigned weights of 1.2 to poor students and 2.3
to disabled students. 

\b Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 


--------------------
\70 The adjusted R square is the proportion in the variation of the
dependent variable explained by the independent variable(s). 


   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNDING
   GAPS AND STATE SHARE, STATE
   TARGETING, AND RELATIVE LOCAL
   TAX EFFORT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

We identified state share, state targeting, and relative local tax
effort as the three key factors affecting the size of school funding
gaps between poor and wealthy districts using the following
rationale.  First, we set aside the effects of state share and state
targeting by assuming that states do not fund schools and that
funding per pupil depends entirely on the revenue from local tax
bases.  Under this assumption, the funding gap occurs because wealthy
districts can generate more local funding than poor districts when
the tax effort for all districts is equal.  However, the gap in
funding between wealthy and poor districts would grow smaller as poor
districts increase their local tax effort relative to wealthy
districts.  Therefore, in the absence of any state funding for
education, the funding gap between poor and wealthy districts would
be completely determined by the relative local tax effort of poor and
wealthy districts. 

A state can help offset the funding gap by providing a portion of the
total funding and targeting more state funds to poor districts. 
Consequently, the size of the funding gap between wealthy and poor
districts should depend on both state equalization policies (state
share and state targeting) and the relative local tax effort of poor
districts and wealthy districts. 

To measure a state's relative local tax effort, we estimated the
income elasticity of local tax effort.  For each state, this
elasticity measures the percent change in local tax effort associated
with a 1-percent increase in district income per weighted pupil.  As
measured this way, the greater the elasticity, the greater the tax
effort in wealthy districts as compared with poor districts.  This
elasticity is represented by the regression coefficient (1)
in the following equation: 

   Equation III.2

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

local tax effort index = the ratio of a district's local funding to
its income expressed as a percent of the average tax effort of all
districts, represented by the dependent variable above

elasticity of local tax effort = a state's elasticity of local tax
effort to income per weighted pupil, represented by 1 in
equation III.2

ï¿½ = an error term that reflects the variation in the local tax effort
that cannot be accounted for by the other variables in the model. 

To estimate the extent to which the three factors--elasticity of
local tax effort, state share, and state targeting (see table
III.6)--accounted for the variation in the funding gap between
wealthy and poor districts, we constructed a regression model that
used these three factors to explain cross-state differences in fiscal
neutrality scores: 

   Equation III.3

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

fiscal neutrality score = a state's elasticity of total funding per
weighted pupil relative to income per weighted pupil

state funding percentage = state funding as a percentage of total
(state and local) funding

state targeting effort = a state's elasticity of state funding per
weighted pupil relative to income per weighted pupil

elasticity of local tax effort = a state's elasticity of local tax
effort relative to income per weighted pupil

ï¿½ = an error term that reflects the variation in funding gaps that
cannot be accounted for by the other variables in the model. 

The results of this analysis showed that the three factors accounted
for about 61 percent of the variation in the income-related funding
gaps.\71 Although increases in both state targeting and state share
led to decreases in states' fiscal neutrality scores, state share had
a relatively greater impact on reducing income-related funding gaps
than did states' targeting efforts.  Increases in the elasticity of
local tax effort were associated with increases in the funding gap,
meaning that as the wealthy districts' tax effort increased relative
to the poor districts' tax effort, the income-related funding gap
also increased.  The elasticity of local tax effort factor of the
three factors in this equation accounted for most of the variation in
the fiscal neutrality scores (see table III.5).  Table III.6 shows
the state data used in the regression analysis. 



                              Table III.5
                
                       Regression Results (N=49)

                                                Regres
                                                  sion    Beta       t
                                                coeffi  coeffi  statis
Factor                                           cient   cient     tic
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
State targeting                                      -       -       -
                                                 .2265   .3280   3.278
State share                                          -       -       -
                                                 .4854   .4064   4.065
Elasticity of local tax effort                   .5583   .6578   6.849
----------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table III.6
          
            State Results for Factors Affecting
                     Fiscal Neutrality

                                         State
                             State    share of  Elasticity
                  Fiscal  targetin       total    of local
                neutrali         g     funding         tax
State           ty score  effort\a   (percent)    effort\b
--------------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------
Alabama            +.290     +.020        69.8        .027
Alaska             -.272     +.068        76.4       -.808
Arizona            +.141     -.232        46.8       -.468
Arkansas           +.220     -.328        65.4       -.243
California         +.073     -.119        68.9      -1.028
Colorado           +.154     -.753        43.5       -.381
Connecticut        +.241     -.430        38.8       -.066
Delaware           +.072     -.070        70.2       -.235
Florida            +.239     -.615        53.0        .234
Georgia            +.323     -.242        54.6        .007
Idaho              +.247     -.130        67.1        .011
Illinois           +.338     -.230        33.2       -.179
Indiana            +.153     -.099        54.1       -.511
Iowa               +.031     -.104        49.0       -.772
Kansas             +.014     -.241        43.8       -.448
Kentucky           +.126     -.239        70.0        .274
Louisiana          +.216     +.150        62.2       -.237
Maine              +.176     -.287        49.4       -.172
Maryland           +.469     -.566        40.4        .164
Massachusetts      +.447     -.316        30.8        .077
Michigan           +.290     -.475        32.9       -.031
Minnesota          +.113     -.499        53.5       -.104
Mississippi        +.007     -.020        64.4       -.267
Missouri           +.362     -.017        44.6       -.018
Montana            +.393     -.126        44.2       -.469
Nebraska           +.154     -.246        34.3       -.430
Nevada             -.556    -1.007        56.9      -1.252
New Hampshire      +.238     -.571         8.3       -.370
New Jersey         +.168     -.104        43.1       -.203
New Mexico         +.004     +.024        85.0      -1.776
New York           +.370     -.578        42.6        .076
North Carolina     +.250     -.016        67.7        .052
North Dakota       +.236     +.173        48.0       -.451
Ohio               +.315     -.180        41.9       -.276
Oklahoma           -.053     -.102        71.1       -.473
Oregon             +.166     -.043        31.1       -.393
Pennsylvania       +.300     -.255        43.0       -.023
Rhode Island       +.274     -.694        39.3        .045
South Carolina     +.150     -.505        52.4       -.194
South Dakota       +.367     +.116        29.5       -.164
Tennessee          +.242     +.017        47.0       -.709
Texas              +.003     -.522        47.4       -.234
Utah               +.036     -.172        60.2       -.734
Vermont            +.176     -.539        29.0       -.333
Virginia           +.377     -.499        36.0        .096
Washington         +.055     -.009        75.2       -.277
West Virginia      +.071     -.127        72.5       -.230
Wisconsin          +.129     -.270        46.2       -.160
Wyoming            -.196     +.296        52.5      -1.645
----------------------------------------------------------
\a This is the elasticity of state funding to district income.  App. 
V describes how we calculated this elasticity. 

\b This is the income elasticity of local tax effort. 

Another way to illustrate that state equalization policies (state
share and state targeting) reduced but did not eliminate the funding
gap between wealthy and poor districts is shown in table III.7.  In
most cases, the addition of state funding to local funding caused
total funding to be less sensitive to district income than local
funding.  This is illustrated by the fact that states' income
elasticities of total funding are usually less than those of local
funding.  The elasticity of local tax effort accounted for most of
the variation in the fiscal neutrality scores.  We compared the local
tax efforts of poor and wealthy districts in table III.8.  In 35
states, poor districts made a higher tax effort than wealthy
districts. 



                              Table III.7
                
                    Income Elasticities Adjusted for
                 Statewide Differences in Cost and Need

                                                 Income elasticity of
                                                ----------------------
                                                 Local   State   Total
                                                fundin  fundin  fundin
State                                              g\a     g\b     g\c
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Alabama                                         +1.301   +.020   +.290
Alaska                                           -.420   +.068   -.272
Arizona                                          +.486   -.232   +.141
Arkansas                                        +1.503   -.328   +.220
California                                       +.684   -.119   +.073
Colorado                                         +.985   -.753   +.154
Connecticut                                      +.889   -.430   +.241
Delaware                                         +.429   -.070   +.072
Florida                                         +1.239   -.615   +.239
Georgia                                         +1.235   -.242   +.323
Idaho                                           +1.240   -.130   +.247
Illinois                                         +.687   -.230   +.338
Indiana                                          +.533   -.099   +.153
Iowa                                             +.408   -.104   +.031
Kansas                                           +.344   -.241   +.014
Kentucky                                        +1.473   -.239   +.126
Louisiana                                        +.473   +.150   +.216
Maine                                           +1.072   -.287   +.176
Maryland                                        +1.271   -.566   +.469
Massachusetts                                   +1.190   -.316   +.447
Michigan                                        +1.171   -.475   +.290
Minnesota                                       +1.105   -.499   +.113
Mississippi                                      -.125   -.020   +.007
Missouri                                         +.510   -.017   +.362
Montana                                          +.549   -.126   +.393
Nebraska                                         +.364   -.246   +.154
Nevada                                           +.025       -   -.556
                                                         1.007
New Hampshire                                    +.319   -.571   +.238
New Jersey                                       +.692   -.104   +.168
New Mexico                                       -.265   +.024   +.004
New York                                        +1.152   -.578   +.370
North Carolina                                  +1.096   -.016   +.250
North Dakota                                     +.626   +.173   +.236
Ohio                                             +.670   -.180   +.315
Oklahoma                                         +.585   -.102   -.053
Oregon                                           +.710   -.043   +.166
Pennsylvania                                    +1.080   -.255   +.300
Rhode Island                                    +1.104   -.694   +.274
South Carolina                                   +.620   -.505   +.150
South Dakota                                     +.793   +.116   +.367
Tennessee                                        +.208   +.017   +.242
Texas                                            +.934   -.522   +.003
Utah                                             +.797   -.172   +.036
Vermont                                          +.376   -.539   +.176
Virginia                                        +1.247   -.499   +.377
Washington                                       +.488   -.009   +.055
West Virginia                                    +.738   -.127   +.071
Wisconsin                                       +1.083   -.270   +.129
Wyoming                                              -   +.296   -.196
                                                 1.836
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a We calculated the elasticity of local funding to district income
the same way we calculated the total funding elasticity. 

\b App.  V describes how we calculated the elasticity of state
funding to district income. 

\c This is the fiscal neutrality score. 



                        Table III.8
          
            Local Tax Effort Disparities Between
                 Poor and Wealthy Districts

                         Tax effort\a
                  --------------------------
                                                Poor group
                                                tax effort
                                                  compared
                   State   For the   For the  with wealthy
                  averag      poor   wealthy     group tax
State                  e     group     group      effort\b
----------------  ------  --------  --------  ------------
Alabama           $15.52    $17.41    $16.76          1.04
Alaska             22.99     30.25     19.47          1.55
Arizona            24.35     47.63     18.56          2.57
Arkansas           23.40     26.81     25.04          1.07
California         11.79     18.65      9.35          1.99
Colorado           34.97     47.93     33.29          1.44
Connecticut        34.29     29.69     33.59          0.88
Delaware           15.44     12.92     12.21          1.06
Florida            26.48     22.60     29.37          0.77
Georgia            26.23     23.12     28.83          0.80
Idaho              22.34     24.35     24.86          0.98
Illinois           24.39     29.09     20.38          1.43
Indiana            30.13     37.13     26.22          1.42
Iowa               35.87     51.39     27.22          1.89
Kansas             37.62     40.78     32.90          1.24
Kentucky           17.42     14.04     20.80          0.68
Louisiana          25.11     23.86     19.12          1.25
Maine              37.61     46.46     38.04          1.22
Maryland           31.59     23.79     36.41          0.65
Massachusetts      32.62     25.58     32.36          0.79
Michigan           48.78     40.01     49.38          0.81
Minnesota          31.75     36.66     32.08          1.14
Mississippi        19.78     39.02     13.74          2.84
Missouri           27.41     22.71     27.10          0.84
Montana            23.94     42.44     18.64          2.28
Nebraska           36.38     51.44     30.73          1.67
Nevada             17.84     28.42     13.73          2.07
New Hampshire      50.35     70.96     40.24          1.76
New Jersey         32.93     34.85     24.58          1.42
New Mexico         10.51     27.48      9.67          2.84
New York           39.87     42.35     49.75          0.85
North Carolina     18.58     18.77     19.54          0.96
North Dakota       37.11     47.60     35.24          1.35
Ohio               33.75     37.27     33.55          1.11
Oklahoma           16.45     19.55     13.67          1.43
Oregon             41.09     53.06     32.74          1.62
Pennsylvania       36.63     36.67     38.27          0.96
Rhode Island       33.60     31.54     32.86          0.96
South Carolina     29.70     30.40     26.48          1.15
South Dakota       46.52     50.90     41.36          1.23
Tennessee          24.82     29.77     22.13          1.35
Texas              38.73     44.82     37.74          1.19
Utah               30.43     45.72     26.86          1.70
Vermont            48.97     66.35     39.30          1.69
Virginia           31.55     28.65     32.15          0.89
Washington         15.84     17.72     13.44          1.32
West Virginia      23.03     25.84     22.05          1.17
Wisconsin          38.31     47.27     37.63          1.26
Wyoming            51.22     90.83     21.79          4.17
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Local tax effort is the local funding per weighted pupil raised
for $1,000 of income per weighted pupil. 

\b We calculated this ratio by dividing the poor districts' tax
effort by the wealthy districts' tax effort, for example,
$17.41/$16.76 in Alabama. 


--------------------
\71 The adjusted R square for the analysis was .6054. 


ESTIMATING STATES' TARGETING
EFFORTS, IMPLICIT FOUNDATION
LEVELS, AND EQUALIZATION EFFORTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

In this study, we developed a new equity measure to assess a state's
equalization policies (state share and state targeting) that excludes
the effects of the local tax effort.  To accomplish this, we viewed
each state as if it were distributing state funds according to a
foundation program in which the state ensures a foundation or minimum
amount of funding per pupil for a minimum local tax effort.\72 Using
a foundation formula and assuming all districts made an equal minimum
tax effort, we determined each state's implicit foundation level
given the state's equalization policies in school year 1991-92.  This
implicit foundation level is an estimate of the minimum amount of
total funds (including both state and local funds) that districts
could spend per student given the state's equalization policies and
provided all districts made an equal tax effort.  The implicit
foundation level identifies a funding level per pupil at which an
equal local tax effort would produce equal funding per pupil among
all districts in a state.  This appendix describes how foundation
formulas work and how we calculated three important summary measures
for each state:  targeting effort, implicit foundation level,\73 and
equalization effort. 


--------------------
\72 We used a foundation equalization equation to model state school
finance systems because it accounts for most states' equalization
practices.  For example, in school year 1990-91, the year preceding
the school year of the Common Core of Data (CCD) we used, the
American Education Finance Association reported that 38 of the 49
states in our study used a foundation program to distribute at least
part of their school funding.  In addition, foundation equations can
also explain the funding distribution of the two states that provided
flat grants to their pupils and the one state that provided full
funding.  Finally, foundation programs share at least one important
feature with the district power equalization programs of the
remaining eight states.  Under district power equalization programs,
states guarantee districts the same dollar yield for the same tax
effort.  Although district power equalization programs do not
guarantee the same amount per pupil to each district as foundation
programs, both programs effectively target additional state funds to
districts with low (property) tax bases. 

\73 In principle, the implicit foundation level could be adjusted for
geographic or student need-related differences in cost.  We explain
how such adjustments were made in app.  V. 


   EQUALIZING SCHOOL FUNDING WITH
   A FOUNDATION PROGRAM
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

As mentioned, to calculate these three summary measures, we assumed
states behaved as if they used a foundation formula to distribute
state funds to districts.\74 As will be shown in this appendix,
foundation equalization policy can result in states targeting more
funds to districts with lower tax bases.  Because nearly all states
do target more funds to districts with low tax bases, it is
reasonable to evaluate school finance policies as if they followed an
implicit foundation equalization policy.\75 To model the state
targeting needed to enable districts to spend the implicit foundation
amount on each student with a minimum tax effort, we used a
derivation of the following foundation formula:\76

   Equation IV.1

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

gi = state funding per pupil in a school district

e* = the implicit foundation level (including both state and local
funds) that results when all districts make an equal minimum tax
effort given the state's equalization policies

t* = the minimum tax effort, a ratio of district's local revenue to
district's tax base value

vi = the tax base per pupil in a school district.  In our study, we
used income per pupil. 

One implication from the above equation is that if a state chose not
to target additional funding to poor districts and instead provided
the same funding per pupil to all students with no minimum required
local tax effort (t\* = 0), then the implicit foundation level for
the state (e\* ) would equal the average state funding per pupil. 
That is, each district's state funding per pupil (gi) would equal the
average state funding per pupil ().\77

Another implication of the equation is that if states require a
minimum tax effort (t*) greater than 0, states will have to target
more funding to poor districts than to wealthy districts to achieve
the same implicit foundation level (e*) for all districts.  The
implicit foundation level in this instance would be greater than the
average state funding per pupil () where, without a required local
tax effort, no extra state funding is targeted to poor districts. 
From our analysis of school year 1991-92 school finance data, we know
that states do, in fact, vary in the extent to which they target
additional funding to poor districts.  Consequently, our purpose was
to estimate the implicit foundation level that was possible in each
state given the degree to which a state targets more funds to poor
districts. 

We have divided the explanation into two parts.  First, we explain
how state funding would have to be targeted to ensure that all
students received the state's average total funding per pupil,
provided that all local districts made an average tax effort. 
Second, we modify our explanation to allow for state targeting that
results in an implicit foundation level that is below the state
average with districts making a minimum local tax effort.\78 On the
basis of equations developed in this second part, we then describe
how we estimated state targeting efforts, implicit foundation levels,
and equalization efforts. 


--------------------
\74 A foundation program sets an expenditure per pupil--the minimum
foundation--and usually requires a minimum local tax effort as a
condition of receiving state aid.  State aid makes up for the
difference between what localities can raise with the required local
tax effort and the foundation amount. 

\75 States that do not target more funds to low tax base districts
generally provide flat per pupil grants.  Even this policy can be
interpreted as a special foundation equalization policy:  all
districts can finance the foundation funding level with an equal tax
effort of 0. 

\76 For the notation used in equations in this appendix, we used
subscripts to represent district-level data and superscripts to
represent state-level data. 

\77 This situation occurs with flat grant programs.  Thus, states
with flat grant policies can be interpreted as providing foundation
programs as well. 

\78 In this instance, the implicit foundation level (e*), which
includes both local and state funds, would be below the average total
funding per pupil () but would exceed the average state funding per
pupil ().  If a state does not target additional funding to poor
districts, then the implicit foundation level (e*) is the average
state funding per pupil (). 


   STATE TARGETING NECESSARY TO
   ACHIEVE THE MAXIMUM FOUNDATION
   LEVEL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

Given the total amount of funding for education in a state, the
maximum foundation level possible in a state is the state's average
total funding per pupil.\79 This means that, in principle, if all
districts were to make the average tax effort to finance their local
school programs, the state could target its funds to ensure that all
districts could fund the average total funding per pupil.  To
demonstrate this, we began with an equation in which the implicit
foundation level equals the state's average total funding per pupil,
and then we modified this equation to show how state funds would have
to be distributed. 

   Equation IV.2

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

gi = state funding per pupil in a school district

= the state's average total funding per pupil, which is also the
implicit foundation level in the state

= the average tax effort of local school districts

vi = the tax base per pupil in a school district. 

The local share of total funding per pupil, by definition, is local
funding expressed as a percent of total funding.  This is expressed
by the following equation: 

   Equation IV.3

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

 = the local share of the total funding for education in the
state

= the average tax base per pupil in the state. 

Rearranging terms in equation IV.3, we found that the equation for
average tax effort of local districts is =(/).  Substituting
this equation for in equation IV.2 and rearranging terms results in
the following equation: 

   Equation IV.4

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Equation IV.4 represents how state funding would have to be
distributed if all school districts were to finance the state average
funding level, provided that districts made an average tax effort to
finance their local schools. 

We chose to measure state targeting by the income elasticity of state
funding, where district income represents the tax base per pupil. 
The income elasticity is the percent difference in state funding that
results from a 1-percent difference in district income.  We can use
the relationship in equation IV.4 to measure this elasticity by
dividing both sides of the equation by the average state funding,
that is, =(1-(/))=(1-).  This yields the following
equation: 

   Equation IV.5

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

= the average state funding per pupil, (1-). 

We note that a school district's relative state funding per pupil
(gi/) depends on (1) the relative size of its tax base per pupil
(measured as vi/) and (2) the share of education funding financed at
the local level () and by implication the share of education
funding financed with state funds (1-). 

The slope parameter of equation IV.5 (/1-) can be
interpreted as the income elasticity of state funding and represents
the state's targeting effort to achieve the maximum foundation level
(providing all districts the capacity to fund the state average
funding level with an average tax effort).\80 The relationship also
implies that the greater the local share of total funding, and
therefore the smaller the state share, the greater the state's
targeting effort must be if it is to achieve the maximum foundation
level for all students. 

Other important implications derive from this relationship: 

  -- A linear relationship must exist between a school district's
     relative state funding per pupil and the relative tax base per
     pupil. 

  -- The intercept is the inverse of the state funding percentage
     (that is, 1/(1-)). 

  -- The slope and intercept will always sum to 1 (that is,
     (1/(1-) + (-/(1-))) = 1).\81


--------------------
\79 The highest implicit foundation level is the state's average
total funding per pupil provided that districts all use the average
tax effort.  However, if states target more funding to poor districts
than is necessary to finance the average total funding level with
average local tax rates, the effect is to allow poor districts to
finance the state average funding level with a tax effort that is
less than the state average, while wealthy districts finance the
state average funding level with an above average effort.  Nevada is
the one state in our study that fell in this category. 

\80 By definition, the income elasticity of state funding is the
percent change in state funding associated with a 1-percent
difference in district income.  Because both the independent and
dependent variables in equation IV.5 are measured relative to their
respective state averages, they represent percent differences from
the state averages.  Consequently, the slope represents the percent
difference in funding per pupil associated with a 1-percent
difference in district income compared with the state average.  That
is, the slope is the income elasticity of state funding evaluated at
the state average. 

\81 These equations were developed by J.C.  Fastrup for "Fiscal
Equalization and Access to Educational Resources in the New England
States," Journal of Educational Finance (forthcoming in spring 1997). 


   STATE TARGETING THAT PRODUCES
   AN IMPLICIT FOUNDATION LEVEL
   BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

Although the state average represents the maximum foundation level
possible in a state if all districts were to make an average tax
effort, most states' implicit foundation levels are likely less than
the maximum.  In this section we develop the state targeting
implications that produce an implicit foundation level that is less
than the maximum.  We assume that all districts make the same minimum
tax effort and that the state still funds the same share of total
education funding. 

If the implicit foundation level is less than the state average, it
is because the state targets its funds to low tax base districts to a
lesser degree than is required to achieve the maximum foundation
level.  To model this condition, we introduced a new term--the
equalizing factor ()--into equation IV.2.  The value of the
equalizing factor ranges from 0 to 1.  When the equalizing factor
equals 1, the state's targeting effort is at its maximum level.  When
the equalizing factor equals 0, the state is not targeting funds to
poor districts, and every district receives the same state funding
per pupil.  In this instance, the implicit foundation level is simply
the average state funding per pupil.  An equalizing factor between 0
and 1 means the state's effort to target funds to poor districts is
less than the maximum. 

Introducing just the equalizing factor to the equation increases the
size of state funding to each district.\82 However, since the total
amount of state funding has not changed, we had to introduce a scalar
() to ensure that the sum of the state funding is still the
same percentage of total funding.  The result of introducing these
two new variables is shown in equation IV.6: 

   Equation IV.6

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

 = the equalizing factor, that is, the fraction of the
maximum targeting effort that the state undertakes

 = a scalar that ensures that the total sum of state funding
equals the total amount of state funds available for distribution. 

The next few equations show that the scalar () depends on
the state share of education funding (1-) and the equalizing
factor (). 

As stated earlier, the total amount of state funding equals the sum
of all the districts' state funding.  By multiplying both sides of
equation IV.2 by the total number of pupils in a district (Pi) and
summing both sides, we created an equation for the total amount of
state funding (G\s ). 

   Equation IV.7

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

G\s = the total sum of state funding available for distribution

Pi = the number of pupils in a district. 

Because the total amount of state funding (G\s ) available has not
changed, it must be true that the sum of total state funding under
maximum targeting efforts is the same as when targeting efforts are
less than the maximum.  This is represented in the following
equation: 

   Equation IV.8

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Solving for the scalar () yields equation IV.9: 

   Equation IV.9

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

By definition, the sum of (Pi) equals total funding and the sum of
(Pivi) equals the total amount of local funding from all school
districts.  Dividing both numerator and denominator by total funding
yields the following equation for the scalar (): 

   Equation IV.10

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

When the state's targeting is at its maximum level, then the
equalizing factor () equals 1, and the scalar ()
equals 1.  If the state were to provide flat funding per pupil to all
districts, no targeting to poor districts would occur, and the
equalizing factor () would equal 0 and the scalar
() would equal (1-), the state's share of total
funding. 


--------------------
\82 This would happen because the difference between the state
average funding level () and the local revenues that could be raised
with an average tax effort (vi) would become larger if the equalizing
factor () is less than 1.0 (see equation IV.6). 


      TARGETING EFFORT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.1

As discussed earlier, we used the slope of equation IV.5 to determine
how much the state would have to target state funding to low tax base
districts to achieve an implicit foundation level equal to the state
average.  Revising equation IV.6 produced a similar equation that
shows how much state funding would have to be targeted to low tax
base districts to achieve an implicit foundation level below the
state average.  We modified equation IV.6 by substituting
(1-)/(1-) for the scalar () and
substituting (/) for the average tax effort ().  Making
these substitutions in equation IV.6 and rearranging terms yielded
the following equation analogous to equation IV.5: 

   Equation IV.11

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

This equation is the basis for running regressions, using actual
district data for state funding per pupil (gi) and the tax base per
pupil (vi).  The slope (/(1-))
represents the state's targeting effort.  When estimating this
equation, the slope and the intercept (1/(1-)) must
be constrained so that they sum to 1.  After obtaining the regression
coefficient for the tax base per pupil, we can solve for the
equalizing factor () because the local share of funding
() is known.  When the state's implicit foundation level is
less than the state average, the state's equalizing factor
() is less than 1 and the state's targeting effort
(()/(1-)) is less than it would
be at its maximum value (/(1-)). 


      IMPLICIT FOUNDATION LEVEL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.2

The term representing the implicit foundation level in equation IV.6
equals the scalar () times the state's average total funding
per pupil () or the maximum foundation level.  Substituting the
expression in equation IV.10 for the scalar () in equation
IV.6, we expressed the implicit foundation level in terms of the
state's average total funding per pupil, the local share of school
funding, and the equalizing factor as follows: 

   Equation IV.12

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Using equation IV.12 and knowing the local funding percentage
(), the equalizing factor (), and the state average
funding level (), we solved for the state's implicit foundation
level. 


      EQUALIZATION EFFORT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.3

A state's equalization effort is a ratio of the state's implicit
foundation level to the maximum or average funding level.  By
rearranging terms in equation IV.12, we showed that a state's
equalization effort, the ratio of the implicit foundation level (e*)
to the average funding level (), equals the scalar () or
(1-)/(1-).  Therefore, a state's
equalization effort reflects the state's share of education funding
and a state's targeting effort. 

Appendix V describes how we used these equations to estimate each
state's targeting effort, implicit foundation level, and equalization
effort. 


ESTIMATING EQUITY MEASURES
=========================================================== Appendix V

This appendix describes the statistical models we used to estimate
each state's targeting effort, implicit foundation level, and
equalization effort.  It also presents the model results and the
index data for some of the model variables.  In addition, it explains
how the implicit foundation level for each state can be adjusted to
facilitate cross-state comparisons.  Finally, it describes how
states' estimated equalization efforts and relative local tax efforts
can explain the variation in state fiscal neutrality scores. 


   CALCULATING STATE TARGETING
   EFFORTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

In appendix IV, we developed a model to calculate a state's implicit
foundation level that required knowing a state's targeting effort,
share of education funding, and average total funding per pupil.  To
determine a state's targeting effort, we estimated the elasticity of
state funding with respect to district income (that is, districts'
tax bases) as measured by income per pupil.  The basic equation
representing this relationship is equation IV.11 from appendix IV,
reproduced in this appendix as equation V.1.  The coefficient of the
local tax base variable in this equation provided an estimate of the
elasticity of state funding relative to district income.\83

   Equation V.1

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

gi = state funding per pupil in a school district

= the average state funding per pupil

 = the local share of the total funding for education in the
state

 = the equalizing factor, that is, the fraction of the
maximum targeting effort that the state undertakes

vi = the tax base per pupil in a school district (in our study, we
used income per pupil)

= the average per pupil tax base in the state. 

In the regression, both the dependent and independent variables were
adjusted for differences in geographic cost within the state by
applying a district-level teacher cost index to the dollar figures
(see app.  II).  The dependent variable was a district's state
funding per pupil, and the key independent variable was a district's
income per pupil. 

Our analyses included four other independent variables that
controlled for student-need factors that contribute to the cost of
education.  The first three of these variables relate to the presence
of high-cost student groups in a district,\84 and the fourth variable
relates to cost differences due to economies of scale.  The four
variables are

  -- the percent of district students who are poor (based on the
     percentage of children who live in households that were below
     the poverty level in 1989);\85

  -- the percent of district students who are disabled designated as
     special education students under the Individuals With
     Disabilities Education Act (part B) who have an Individual
     Education Plan;

  -- the percent of district students who are high school students
     (grades 9 to 12); and

  -- the total square of district enrollment (membership) on October
     1, 1991. 

We included these control variables in our model rather than use the
student need index developed in appendix II because we wanted to
account for actual state targeting policies to the extent possible
rather than use a uniform measure of student need that may not
reflect actual state policy. 

All variables in the analysis were put into index form.  Including
all four control variables yielded the following model of state
targeting policies: 

   Equation V.2

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

ci = a district's teacher cost index adjusted for statewide
differences

MEMSQI\86 =a district's student membership squared as a percent of
the district student membership (as a percent of the state average)

PovI = the percent of district students below the poverty level (as a
percent of the state average)

SNI = the percent of district students with an Individual Education
Plan (a measure of pupils with special education needs) also measured
as a percent of the state average

HSI = the percent of district students who are high school students
(as a percent of the state average)

 = error term measuring all other factors affecting the
distribution of state funding. 

Each of the regression coefficients in the model depends on the
equalization factor and the local share of education funding
().  An additional coefficient (1,
2, 3, and 4), unique to each variable, was
added so that the regression coefficients added to 1.0, as required
by the equalization model (see app.  IV).  The regression
coefficients in the model range from
(1/(1-)) to
(4/(1-)).  The constant term
(0/(1-)) in the model, in effect, serves
as a control for the membership size of the district.\87



The model in equation V.2 was estimated by weighting each observation
for membership size to allow school districts with larger enrollments
to have a greater effect on determining the coefficients of the
equation.  This prevents one or a few small school districts from
unduly influencing the estimated coefficients.  The results are then
more representative of the effect that state funding targeting
policies had on students in the state. 

Because we were estimating the extent to which each state's funding
targeting policy was consistent with providing an implicit foundation
level with a minimum tax effort, we also imposed the restriction that
the three student-need variables would have non-negative
coefficients.  We did not specify the direction of the coefficient
for the membership squared variable because we did not have an
expectation of how a state's funding targeting policy might reflect
economies or diseconomies of size.  Because we wanted to determine
the actual targeting efforts of states compared with district income,
we did not restrict the coefficient for the income per pupil
variable, allowing the coefficient to be any sign.  We reported state
targeting efforts using the income per pupil coefficient obtained
from this effort.\88


--------------------
\83 A regression coefficient measures the change in the dependent
variable per unit change in the independent variable.  An elasticity
is, by definition, the percent change in a dependent variable
associated with a 1-percent change in an independent variable. 
Because the dependent and independent variables in this model are
measured as percents of their respective state averages, the
regression coefficient (1) can be interpreted as the percent
difference in state funding per pupil associated with a 1-percent
difference in district income from the state average per pupil
income.  This, by definition, is the elasticity of total per pupil
funding relative to a district's per pupil income, evaluated at the
mean of these variables. 

\84 Although students with limited English proficiency are considered
to be a high-cost student group, we did not include them in our
analysis because we could not obtain accurate district-level data on
the number of such students. 

\85 The average poverty threshold for a family of four was $12,674 in
1989. 

\86 The "I" at the end of each variable is to emphasize that each
variable is measured as a percent of its corresponding state average
(that is, as an index). 

\87 This can be seen by first multiplying both sides of equation V.2
by the average state funding per pupil ().  This adjusts each
coefficient in the equation by a constant.  The dependent variable
would then be the funding per pupil of the district (gi). 
Multiplying this resulting equation by membership size would make the
intercept shown in equation V.2 the coefficient of district
membership.  Thus, the intercept can be interpreted as the
coefficient for membership. 

\88 Because all variables are expressed in an index form, that is,
they are a ratio of the variable's district rate to the corresponding
state average, the regression coefficients of the variables
automatically represent elasticities. 


      RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.1

Table V.1 shows the targeting effort for state funds compared with
district income per pupil, the sampling error, and the overall R
square.\89 Negative targeting efforts represent more targeting to
poor than to wealthy districts; positive targeting efforts represent
more targeting to wealthy than to poor districts.  A targeting effort
of 0 signifies no targeting of state funds to either poor or wealthy
districts. 

Our analysis shows that 33 states targeted more state funds to
districts as district income declined.  However, the degree of the
targeting varied widely, ranging from a high of -1.007 in Nevada to a
low of -.099 in Indiana.  Fourteen states did not target state funds
on the basis of district income--the targeting effort was not
statistically different from 0.  Two states--Louisiana and North
Dakota--provided more state funding to districts as district income
increased. 

The degree to which states targeted state funds on the basis of
differences in district income and student need also varied widely. 
In only 19 states, district income and student need accounted for
more than 50 percent of the variation in state funding per pupil as
noted by the R squared results.  In 3 of the 19 states--Kentucky,
Maryland, and Virginia--more than 80 percent of the variation in
state funding was explained.  In the remaining 30 states, less than
half of the variation in state funding per pupil was due to
differences in district income and student need. 

Tables V.2 and V.3 provide the average income per pupil and average
state funding per pupil as well as the average index numbers of these
two variables according to groups of increasing district income. 
Tables V.4 to V.7 provide the average index numbers for the four
control variables associated with student poverty, disabled students,
high school students, and district size according to groups of
increasing district income. 



                         Table V.1
          
           Regression Results for State Targeting

                     Targeting      Sampling     Overall R
State                 effort\a         error       squared
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Alabama\b                +.020          .045          .179
Alaska\b                 +.068          .175          .487
Arizona                  -.232          .035          .410
Arkansas                 -.328          .031          .432
California               -.119          .010          .331
Colorado                 -.753          .068          .512
Connecticut              -.430          .055          .680
Delaware\b               -.070          .133          .424
Florida                  -.615          .077          .698
Georgia                  -.242          .065          .492
Idaho                    -.130          .051          .293
Illinois                 -.230          .015          .649
Indiana                  -.099          .030          .294
Iowa                     -.104          .028          .335
Kansas                   -.241          .095          .326
Kentucky                 -.239          .031          .845
Louisiana                +.150          .068          .270
Maine                    -.287          .060          .329
Maryland                 -.566          .104          .873
Massachusetts            -.316          .057          .664
Michigan                 -.475          .052          .573
Minnesota                -.499          .031          .574
Mississippi\b            -.020          .011          .285
Missouri\b               -.017          .048          .577
Montana                  -.126          .047          .207
Nebraska                 -.245          .029          .142
Nevada                  -1.007          .329          .667
New Hampshire            -.571          .132          .384
New Jersey               -.104          .027          .534
New Mexico\b             +.024          .101          .066
New York                 -.578          .024          .686
North Carolina\b         -.016          .036          .479
North Dakota             +.173          .043          .556
Ohio                     -.180          .025          .578
Oklahoma                 -.102          .029          .471
Oregon\b                 -.043          .063          .122
Pennsylvania             -.255          .019          .686
Rhode Island             -.693          .184          .494
South Carolina           -.505          .064          .625
South Dakota\b           +.116          .121          .440
Tennessee\b              +.017          .032          .496
Texas                    -.522          .035          .595
Utah\b                   -.172          .107          .405
Vermont                  -.539          .107          .280
Virginia                 -.499          .039          .835
Washington\b             -.009          .032          .226
West Virginia\b          -.127          .105          .357
Wisconsin                -.270          .029          .445
Wyoming\b                +.296          .391          .242
----------------------------------------------------------
\a This is the elasticity of state funding in a district relative to
district income adjusted for statewide differences in cost and need. 
An elasticity of 0 signifies no targeting of state funds to either
poor or wealthy districts; a negative effort indicates that more
state funding is provided to poor districts; a positive effort
indicates that more state funding is provided to wealthy districts. 

\b Statistically, the targeting effort is not significantly different
from 0. 



                                        Table V.2
                         
                           Income per Pupil Index Adjusted for
                              Statewide Differences in Cost

                                  (State average = 1.00)

                                          Average income per pupil index numbers
                                 --------------------------------------------------------
                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                        Average
                     income per
State                     pupil       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Alabama                 $63,313           .69       .87       .97      1.05          1.42
Alaska                   83,220           .49       .91      1.12      1.23          1.38
Arizona                  98,442           .35       .62       .76      1.07          2.30
Arkansas                 55,895           .64       .81       .93      1.10          1.52
California              121,872           .40       .63       .79      1.01          2.18
Colorado                 81,879           .63       .81       .96      1.17          1.46
Connecticut             148,273           .56       .77       .88      1.05          1.73
Delaware                106,718           .61       .73       .84      1.17          1.68
Florida                  98,373           .69       .83       .92      1.11          1.49
Georgia                  73,340           .62       .82       .94      1.15          1.49
Idaho                    51,724           .59       .81       .97      1.05          1.59
Illinois                134,121           .49       .59       .68       .93          2.30
Indiana                  76,049           .69       .87       .98      1.07          1.40
Iowa                     69,690           .74       .87       .95      1.08          1.35
Kansas                   74,725           .69       .82       .93      1.10          1.46
Kentucky                 63,691           .57       .78       .95      1.16          1.53
Louisiana                58,920           .67       .78       .95      1.14          1.53
Maine                    76,336           .64       .76       .89      1.14          1.57
Maryland                114,832           .66       .78       .95      1.17          1.50
Massachusetts           133,452           .60       .77       .94      1.11          1.58
Michigan                 80,367           .63       .75       .90      1.08          1.66
Minnesota                81,234           .61       .77       .89      1.11          1.62
Mississippi              51,017           .59       .76       .87      1.04          1.79
Missouri                 79,570           .61       .77       .95      1.13          1.54
Montana                 115,518           .43       .64       .79      1.07          2.07
Nebraska                 94,845           .69       .83       .95      1.13          1.43
Nevada\                  86,827           .66       .99      1.07      1.27            \a
New Hampshire           106,978           .63       .78       .90      1.07          1.61
New Jersey              160,761           .40       .63       .86      1.09          2.02
New Mexico               54,999           .48       .80       .91      1.34          1.90
New York                114,397           .63       .84       .96      1.02          1.57
North Carolina           76,415           .68       .84       .93      1.14          1.40
North Dakota             58,094           .68       .88       .99      1.11          1.39
Ohio                     80,781           .65       .80       .91      1.09          1.55
Oklahoma                 64,014           .62       .80       .90      1.16          1.51
Oregon                   85,350           .65       .79       .92      1.12          1.56
Pennsylvania             99,378           .64       .82       .92      1.07          1.55
Rhode Island            108,151           .74       .88      1.01      1.10          1.34
South Carolina           65,707           .68       .86      1.00      1.13          1.33
South Dakota             57,440           .66       .87      1.01      1.10          1.37
Tennessee                70,681           .65       .83       .93      1.13          1.43
Texas                    62,842           .48       .82      1.01      1.18          1.53
Utah                     41,385           .69       .87       .96      1.05          1.39
Vermont                 112,652           .50       .74       .91      1.17          1.66
Virginia                 93,199           .67       .80       .86      1.09          1.61
Washington               82,373           .62       .78       .90      1.06          1.67
West Virginia            58,725           .66       .83       .98      1.13          1.37
Wisconsin                82,555           .68       .84       .92      1.04          1.53
Wyoming                 $55,152           .68       .89      1.01      1.12          1.30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 



                                        Table V.3
                         
                          State Funding per Pupil Index Adjusted
                            for Statewide Differences in Cost

                                  (State average = 1.00)

                                      Average state funding per pupil index numbers
                                 --------------------------------------------------------
                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                        Average
                          state
                    funding per
State                     pupil       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Alabama                  $2,287          1.07      1.01       .96       .96           .99
Alaska                    6,137          1.29      1.03       .84       .84          1.08
Arizona                   2,109          1.20      1.08      1.02      1.04           .62
Arkansas                  2,476          1.14      1.05      1.02       .93           .87
California                3,131          1.12      1.03      1.14       .92           .79
Colorado                  2,194          1.20      1.24       .95       .94           .67
Connecticut               3,186          1.59      1.17      1.04       .74           .46
Delaware                  3,916          1.15      1.04       .96       .94           .92
Florida                   2,946          1.27      1.07      1.01       .96           .66
Georgia                   2,361          1.19      1.13       .99       .90           .79
Idaho                     2,350          1.05      1.06       .99      1.04           .86
Illinois                  1,652          1.42      1.10      1.11       .79           .63
Indiana                   2,703          1.06      1.01       .97      1.03           .93
Iowa                      2,375          1.01      1.02      1.01       .99           .97
Kansas                    2,181          1.14      1.17      1.06       .95           .68
Kentucky                  2,609          1.21      1.09      1.00       .91           .80
Louisiana                 2,433          1.06      1.00      1.01       .93          1.03
Maine                     2,807          1.14      1.12      1.08      1.02           .66
Maryland                  2,438          1.19      1.16      1.05       .90           .65
Massachusetts             1,932          1.65      1.04       .79       .86           .66
Michigan                  1,925          1.70      1.19       .94       .69           .38
Minnesota                 3,019          1.23      1.09      1.05       .98           .65
Mississippi               1,823          1.02      1.04      1.03       .98           .94
Missouri                  1,773          1.02       .94       .83      1.25           .98
Montana                   2,137           .88       .93       .95      1.07          1.17
Nebraska                  1,768          1.15      1.12       .96       .95           .81
Nevada\                   2,049          1.43       .94      1.28       .79            \a
New Hampshire               486          1.77      1.07       .86       .67           .63
New Jersey                3,985          1.57      1.20       .80       .65           .79
New Mexico                3,254           .98      1.01       .98      1.03           .92
New York                  3,320          1.55      1.20       .81       .97           .64
North Carolina            2,995          1.08      1.01      1.00       .97           .94
North Dakota              1,957          1.08       .98      1.02       .97           .95
Ohio                      1,971          1.19      1.11      1.04       .88           .78
Oklahoma                  2,575          1.15      1.06       .97       .96           .86
Oregon                    1,584          1.20      1.01      1.04       .79           .97
Pennsylvania              2,753          1.26      1.05      1.09       .93           .68
Rhode Island              2,333          1.29       .98      1.02       .82           .78
South Carolina            2,153          1.16      1.09      1.01       .90           .85
South Dakota              1,109          1.21      1.16       .87       .94           .85
Tennessee                 1,566          1.07      1.01       .99      1.02           .92
Texas                     2,180          1.53      1.13      1.01       .83           .50
Utah                      1,911          1.06      1.10      1.03       .93           .92
Vermont                   2,243          1.19      1.33      1.17       .80           .51
Virginia                  1,695          1.35      1.21       .98       .94           .50
Washington                3,988          1.10      1.01      1.00       .98           .89
West Virginia             3,574          1.10      1.05      1.00       .95           .91
Wisconsin                 2,707          1.21      1.22      1.01       .90           .65
Wyoming                  $3,111          1.01       .69       .90      1.13          1.26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 



                                        Table V.4
                         
                                      Poverty Index

                                  (State average = 1.00)

                                            Average poverty rate index numbers
                                 --------------------------------------------------------
                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                        Average
                   poverty rate
State                 (percent)       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Alabama                    23.8          1.43       .87      1.15       .64           .83
Alaska                     11.2          1.90       .82       .64       .82           .53
Arizona                    21.0          1.74       .91       .75       .84           .74
Arkansas                   24.6          1.37      1.06       .99       .72           .86
California                 18.4          1.41       .93      1.28       .76           .61
Colorado                   14.8          1.40      1.17       .76       .45          1.26
Connecticut                10.4          2.67       .75       .73       .38           .48
Delaware                   12.2          1.35      1.24       .85       .82           .75
Florida                    18.6          1.17      1.22       .99       .79           .80
Georgia                    19.6          1.40      1.11       .82      1.07           .57
Idaho                      15.8          1.02      1.21      1.02       .90           .85
Illinois                   16.4          1.14      2.00       .79       .56           .37
Indiana                    13.5          1.32       .83       .83      1.20           .81
Iowa                       13.8          1.03       .96      1.19       .86           .95
Kansas                     13.8          1.36       .89       .92      1.01           .83
Kentucky                   25.1          1.63      1.06       .84       .71           .77
Louisiana                  31.8          1.17      1.08       .93      1.04           .72
Maine                      13.7          1.31       .96       .97       .92           .83
Maryland                   11.3          2.38       .79       .72       .59           .51
Massachusetts              13.3          1.91       .85       .54      1.20           .49
Michigan                   17.4          1.94      1.14       .72       .63           .42
Minnesota                  12.1          1.29       .80       .82      1.04          1.05
Mississippi                32.9          1.36      1.12       .91       .80           .82
Missouri                   17.0          1.39       .98       .80      1.01           .84
Montana                    19.5          1.36       .95       .93       .92           .85
Nebraska                   12.9          1.16       .94       .67      1.37           .83
Nevada\\                   13.3           .93      1.09       .67       .88            \a
New Hampshire               7.6          1.35       .87      1.07      1.05           .67
New Jersey                 11.3          2.57      1.07       .53       .39           .45
New Mexico                 27.5          1.57      1.01      1.06       .70           .47
New York                   18.5           .91       .72      1.65       .41           .31
North Carolina             17.1          1.56       .97       .93       .82           .74
North Dakota               16.4          1.42      1.06       .87       .82           .82
Ohio                       16.9          1.32      1.22      1.13       .76           .57
Oklahoma                   20.9          1.27      1.08       .82       .76          1.07
Oregon                     15.2          1.28      1.10       .97       .65          1.02
Pennsylvania               15.2          1.33       .92      1.47       .90           .39
Rhode Island               12.8          2.10       .39       .78       .60           .57
South Carolina             20.8          1.43      1.07       .71       .79           .97
South Dakota               18.2          1.60      1.13       .88       .78           .62
Tennessee                  20.4          1.11       .95      1.31       .86           .76
Texas                      24.4          1.73       .98       .70       .87           .72
Utah                       12.1          1.10      1.08       .64      1.01          1.29
Vermont                    11.8          1.21       .96       .90       .89          1.03
Virginia                   13.4          1.52      1.15       .78      1.12           .45
Washington                 14.3          1.45       .86      1.01       .93           .73
West Virginia              25.6          1.47      1.08       .89       .73           .82
Wisconsin                  14.1          1.14      1.84       .74       .77           .51
Wyoming                    13.8          1.06       .94      1.01      1.04           .96
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 



                                        Table V.5
                         
                                      Disabled Index

                                  (State average = 1.00)

                                           Average disabled rate index numbers
                                 --------------------------------------------------------
                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                        Average
                       disabled
                           rate
State                 (percent)       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Alabama                    13.5           .92      1.04      1.04      1.06           .95
Alaska                     13.5          1.14      1.00       .90       .95           .99
Arizona                     8.9          1.11      1.00       .94      1.06           .88
Arkansas                    9.7          1.09      1.01      1.04       .94           .92
California                  8.8           .93      1.00      1.02      1.05           .99
Colorado                    9.6          1.01      1.15       .93       .89          1.05
Connecticut                12.8          1.07      1.05       .94      1.00           .94
Delaware                   10.6           .98      1.08      1.03       .98           .90
Florida                    11.9          1.01       .92      1.01       .99          1.10
Georgia                     9.0          1.05      1.12       .96       .89           .99
Idaho                      10.4           .94      1.05      1.01       .98          1.03
Illinois                   13.0          1.08       .84      1.06      1.08           .97
Indiana                    11.6          1.03       .98      1.00      1.05           .94
Iowa                       12.6           .92       .96      1.02      1.05          1.05
Kansas                     10.2          1.00       .94      1.01      1.12           .95
Kentucky                   12.4          1.03      1.00       .97       .97          1.02
Louisiana                  10.7           .99      1.08       .94       .92          1.09
Maine                      11.9           .99       .95      1.00      1.04          1.03
Maryland                   12.0          1.23       .98       .88      1.02           .84
Massachusetts              15.9           .90      1.01       .99      1.09          1.00
Michigan                    9.9           .98       .99      1.00      1.08           .95
Minnesota                  10.7           .94       .95      1.02      1.05          1.05
Mississippi                12.0           .83      1.12      1.03      1.02           .99
Missouri                   10.0          1.12      1.15       .98      1.08           .68
Montana                     9.8          1.05       .96      1.18       .95           .85
Nebraska                   12.3           .92       .99       .97      1.03          1.09
Nevada                      9.4          1.17       .90      1.23      1.13            \a
New Hampshire              11.4           .92       .99       .99      1.01          1.09
New Jersey                 16.1           .94      1.06      1.04       .99           .98
New Mexico                 12.2           .89       .90       .95      1.17           .90
New York                   11.0           .98       .99      1.05       .95           .95
North Carolina             11.4           .98       .97      1.08      1.01           .96
North Dakota               10.4           .97      1.06      1.08       .97           .90
Ohio                       11.3           .99      1.06      1.03       .95           .98
Oklahoma                   11.4          1.07       .91       .92       .95          1.16
Oregon                      9.3          1.07      1.02      1.01       .93           .97
Pennsylvania               10.8          1.05      1.01      1.00      1.00           .93
Rhode Island               14.7           .92       .94      1.05      1.09          1.00
South Carolina             10.9           .98      1.05       .89      1.04          1.04
South Dakota                9.8          1.10       .88       .90       .97          1.16
Tennessee                  11.9          1.10      1.08       .87      1.02           .94
Texas                       9.9           .91      1.05      1.08      1.00           .96
Utah                       10.6          1.05       .98       .92       .89          1.14
Vermont                    10.4          1.05       .98      1.05       .99           .92
Virginia                   11.3           .94       .92       .96      1.07          1.13
Washington                  9.6          1.07       .99      1.09       .92           .92
West Virginia              13.4          1.05      1.06       .96       .97           .97
Wisconsin                  11.0           .99      1.05      1.00      1.03           .93
Wyoming                    10.3           .93       .95      1.09      1.08           .95
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 



                         Table V.6
          
                     High School Index

                   (State average = 1.00)

                Average high school student index numbers
                ------------------------------------------
                                                  Wealthie
                Poorest                              st
                --------                          --------
                           Group   Group   Group
State            Group 1       2       3       4   Group 5
--------------  --------  ------  ------  ------  --------
Alabama             1.02    1.02    1.00    1.01       .96
Alaska               .93     .99    1.03    1.02      1.08
Arizona              .77     .67     .76     .81      2.08
Arkansas             .99    1.00    1.01     .99      1.01
California           .80     .79     .92     .85      1.64
Colorado             .97    1.00    1.01    1.03       .99
Connecticut          .89     .99     .99    1.02      1.11
Delaware            1.03     .99     .99    1.02       .94
Florida             1.00    1.01     .99     .99      1.02
Georgia             1.01     .99    1.01     .96      1.03
Idaho               1.02    1.01    1.02     .98       .97
Illinois             .87     .87     .84     .46      1.97
Indiana             1.02    1.01    1.02     .96       .99
Iowa                 .99    1.01    1.01    1.03       .96
Kansas               .96    1.06    1.02    1.01       .96
Kentucky            1.00    1.01    1.02     .98       .99
Louisiana            .98     .97    1.03    1.01      1.01
Maine               1.15    1.10     .98     .88       .88
Maryland             .86    1.03    1.06    1.03      1.02
Massachusetts        .97     .99    1.04    1.07       .91
Michigan             .94    1.00    1.03     .99      1.05
Minnesota           1.05    1.04    1.01     .96       .93
Mississippi          .97     .98    1.02    1.03      1.00
Missouri            1.04    1.03     .98     .95       .99
Montana              .02     .04     .04    1.42      3.55
Nebraska            1.05    1.02     .99     .90      1.05
Nevada              1.00    1.00    1.04    1.00        \a
New Hampshire       1.16    1.18    1.22     .88       .57
New Jersey           .87     .91     .94     .86      1.42
New Mexico          1.02     .98    1.01    1.00      1.00
New York             .97     .98     .98    1.02      1.07
North Carolina      1.01    1.02    1.00    1.01       .96
North Dakota        1.02    1.06    1.00     .98       .93
Ohio                1.02    1.00     .96    1.01      1.02
Oklahoma            1.09    1.03    1.04     .98       .85
Oregon              1.00     .96     .95     .83      1.29
Pennsylvania        1.00    1.01     .98    1.00      1.02
Rhode Island         .95    1.07     .97    1.04      1.00
South Carolina       .99    1.02    1.03    1.03       .95
South Dakota         .93     .97     .99     .99      1.12
Tennessee           1.11    1.05     .97     .96       .92
Texas               1.02    1.01    1.01     .97       .99
Utah                1.04    1.02     .99    1.00       .97
Vermont             1.11     .60     .55     .97      1.75
Virginia            1.03    1.02     .94     .95      1.06
Washington          1.03    1.00     .96    1.00      1.01
West Virginia       1.01     .99     .99    1.00      1.01
Wisconsin           1.00     .88    1.04    1.02      1.06
Wyoming              .95     .99    1.05    1.01       .99
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 



                         Table V.7
          
                  Membership Squared Index

                   (State average = 1.00)

                 Average membership squared index numbers
                ------------------------------------------
                                                  Wealthie
                Poorest                              st
                --------                          --------
                           Group   Group   Group
State            Group 1       2       3       4   Group 5
--------------  --------  ------  ------  ------  --------
Alabama              .20     .37    2.19    1.15       .95
Alaska               .26     .51     .16    2.09       .08
Arizona              .26     .52    1.77    1.73       .58
Arkansas             .30     .42     .50    1.53      2.23
California           .21     .17    4.16     .33       .13
Colorado             .13     .51     .72    2.23      1.46
Connecticut         2.24     .85     .61     .56       .75
Delaware             .43     .51     .79    1.58      1.45
Florida              .25    2.23     .80     .86       .66
Georgia              .16     .26     .79    1.57      2.26
Idaho                .38     .44    1.12    1.01      2.05
Illinois             .04    4.08     .07     .07       .04
Indiana              .60     .51     .47    1.84      1.52
Iowa                 .17     .41    1.18     .61      2.54
Kansas               .67     .16     .39     .50      3.23
Kentucky             .26     .21     .29     .31      3.90
Louisiana            .32     .34     .87    1.71      1.80
Maine                .61    1.25     .93    1.00      1.21
Maryland            1.16     .31    1.25     .97      1.42
Massachusetts       1.13     .60     .33    2.53       .38
Michigan            3.23     .24     .22     .40       .36
Minnesota            .16    1.07     .87    1.28      1.61
Mississippi         1.93     .58     .63     .91       .94
Missouri             .20     .28     .79    1.83      1.93
Montana              .28     .32    1.89    1.69       .75
Nebraska             .18     .23     .55    2.58      1.38
Nevada               .05    1.48     .07     .45        \a
New Hampshire        .43     .68    2.08    1.42       .40
New Jersey          2.51    1.14     .60     .48       .27
New Mexico           .20     .17     .34    2.49       .33
New York             .02     .02    2.68     .01       .01
North Carolina       .40     .77     .60     .61      2.53
North Dakota         .30     .81    1.15    1.23      1.57
Ohio                 .29    1.41    1.07    1.27       .97
Oklahoma             .13     .45     .84     .56      2.98
Oregon               .19     .40     .94    1.02      2.53
Pennsylvania         .12     .14    4.20     .36       .19
Rhode Island        1.85     .49     .73    1.13       .31
South Carolina       .57     .42     .74     .80      2.30
South Dakota         .19     .21    1.53     .42      2.35
Tennessee            .22     .24    2.25     .39      1.66
Texas                .57     .40     .39    2.24      1.41
Utah                 .50     .22    1.53    1.99       .45
Vermont             1.04    1.20     .63     .95      1.20
Virginia             .30     .33    1.34     .31      2.63
Washington           .43     .66    1.03    1.20      1.71
West Virginia        .53     .48     .86     .94      2.07
Wisconsin            .10    3.47     .33     .65       .42
Wyoming              .40     .74     .51    1.66      1.72
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
distribution of the student population.  The wealthiest group is
group 4. 


--------------------
\89 The adjusted R square is the proportion of the variation of the
dependent variable explained by the independent variable(s). 


   CALCULATING STATE IMPLICIT
   FOUNDATION LEVELS AND
   EQUALIZATION EFFORT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

In appendix IV we demonstrated that to calculate the implicit
foundation level we must know the state's targeting effort, the local
share of total funding, the state's average total funding per
weighted pupil, and the equalizing factor.  Because the equalization
theory underlying the implicit foundation level implies state funding
is targeted to poor districts, when we determined the targeting
effort for calculating the implicit foundation level, we constrained
the coefficient of the tax base variable to be less than or equal to
0.  Then, having calculated the state's targeting effort (that is,
the coefficient of the tax base variable,
/(1-)) and knowing the local
share of education funding () and average total funding per
weighted pupil (), we can solve for the equalizing factor
().  Finally, knowing the equalizing factor, we can
calculate the state's implicit foundation level using equation IV.12
from appendix IV (reproduced here as equation V.3).  The results for
each state are reported in table V.8. 

   Equation V.3

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

where

= the state's average total funding per weighted pupil. 

The implicit foundation level available to all students in a state
depends upon the state's average total funding per weighted pupil,
targeting effort, and share of total funding.  Two states with the
same average total funding per weighted pupil can have very different
implicit foundation levels depending on their state equalization
policies.  For example, Alaska and Connecticut had about the same
average funding level.  However, Alaska's state share was about twice
that of Connecticut's.  Consequently, Alaska's implicit foundation
level ($6,137) was much more than Connecticut's ($4,556), even though
Connecticut's targeting effort was greater than Alaska's effort. 

Once we know the implicit foundation level, we can calculate the
state's equalization effort.  This is a measure of the implicit
foundation level as a percent of the state average.  Since the state
average is the maximum foundation level that is possible in a state
given the total funding devoted to education, the equalization effort
is a measure of how close a state comes to reaching the maximum
level. 


      RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1

States' implicit foundation levels varied widely.  The average
implicit foundation level was $3,090 per weighted pupil in school
year 1991-92, with levels ranging as low as $764 in New Hampshire to
as high as $6,137 in Alaska.\90

States' equalization efforts also varied widely.  Only one
state--Nevada--
reached the state average for each student.\91 The equalization
effort in the other 48 states was less than the state average,
ranging from 87 percent (Arkansas and Kentucky) to 13 percent (New
Hampshire) of their state average.  In 14 states, districts could
finance less than half the state average with a minimum local tax
effort. 

Table V.8 summarizes the critical data used to determine the implicit
foundation level and equalization effort for all states. 



                                        Table V.8
                         
                            State Targeting, State Share, and
                                      Funding Levels

                            State
                        targeting       State's
                         effort\a    share as a
                     (/(1-         total       average      Implicit  Equalization
                     ))    )    level\b ()    level (e*)         (e*/)
-------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Alabama                      .000          69.8        $3,277        $2,287          69.8
Alaska                       .000          76.4         8,030         6,137          76.4
Arizona                     -.232          46.8         4,507         2,598          57.7
Arkansas                    -.328          65.4         3,784         3,289          86.9
California                  -.119          68.9         4,543         3,504          77.1
Colorado                    -.753          43.5         5,047         3,847          76.2
Connecticut                 -.430          38.8         8,221         4,556          55.4
Delaware                    -.070          70.2         5,576         4,190          75.1
Florida                     -.615          53.0         5,555         4,759          85.7
Georgia                     -.242          54.6         4,324         2,932          67.8
Idaho                       -.130          67.1         3,504         2,654          75.7
Illinois                    -.230          33.2         4,970         2,031          40.9
Indiana                     -.099          54.1         4,993         2,970          59.5
Iowa                        -.104          49.0         4,849         2,622          54.1
Kansas                      -.241          43.8         4,973         2,706          54.4
Kentucky                    -.239          70.0         3,728         3,232          86.7
Louisiana                    .000          62.2         3,912         2,433          62.2
Maine                       -.287          49.4         5,681         3,612          63.6
Maryland                    -.566          40.4         6,039         3,819          63.2
Massachusetts               -.316          30.8         6,264         2,542          40.6
Michigan                    -.475          32.9         5,851         2,839          48.5
Minnesota                   -.499          53.5         5,646         4,524          80.1
Mississippi                 -.020          64.4         2,831         1,860          65.7
Missouri                    -.017          44.6         3,972         1,802          45.4
Montana                     -.126          44.2         4,835         2,407          49.8
Nebraska                    -.246          34.3         5,148         2,203          42.8
Nevada\d                   -1.007          56.9         3,597         3,597         100.0
New Hampshire               -.571           8.3         5,850           764          13.1
New Jersey                  -.104          43.1         9,239         4,399          47.6
New Mexico                   .000          85.0         3,830         3,254          85.0
New York                    -.578          42.6         7,787         5,240          67.3
North Carolina              -.016          67.7         4,424         3,043          68.8
North Dakota                 .000          48.0         4,079         1,957          48.0
Ohio                        -.180          41.9         4,709         2,325          49.4
Oklahoma                    -.102          71.1         3,623         2,838          78.3
Oregon                      -.043          31.1         5,087         1,652          32.5
Pennsylvania                -.255          43.0         6,406         3,455          53.9
Rhode Island                -.694          39.3         5,939         3,953          66.6
South Carolina              -.505          52.4         4,112         3,239          78.8
South Dakota                 .000          29.5         3,756         1,109          29.5
Tennessee                    .000          47.0         3,329         1,566          47.0
Texas                       -.522          47.4         4,603         3,318          72.1
Utah                        -.172          60.2         3,177         2,240          70.5
Vermont                     -.539          29.0         7,722         3,453          44.7
Virginia                    -.499          36.0         4,713         2,541          53.9
Washington                  -.009          75.2         5,302         4,025          75.9
West Virginia               -.127          72.5         4,927         4,028          81.8
Wisconsin                   -.270          46.2         5,865         3,439          58.6
Wyoming                      .000          52.5         5,920         3,111          52.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income adjusted for statewide differences in cost and need.  An
elasticity of 0 signifies no targeting.  States with a .000 have had
their income coefficient constrained. 

\b The state average is the average total (state and local) funding
per weighted pupil in the state and represents the state's maximum
possible foundation level given the total funding devoted to
education in the state. 

\c This is equal to the implicit foundation level as a percent of the
state average. 

\d Nevada targeted more state funds to poor districts than was
necessary for districts to finance the state average with all
districts making the same tax effort.  As a result, poor districts in
Nevada were able to finance the state average funding level with a
lower tax effort than wealthy districts. 


--------------------
\90 These figures have not been adjusted for national differences in
geographic and student need-related costs.  See table V.10 for the
nationally adjusted figures. 

\91 In fact, Nevada targeted more state funds to poor districts than
was necessary for districts to finance the state average with all
districts making an equal tax effort.  As a result, poor districts in
Nevada were able to finance the state average funding level with a
lower tax effort than wealthy districts. 


      SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.2

In addition to targeting additional funds to poor districts, some
states provided the same minimum amount of state funding to all
districts, regardless of district income.  Unlike funding for lower
income districts, such funding for wealthy districts in some states
was not part of the state's targeting effort because it was not
sensitive to district income.  Consequently, we also estimated the
state implicit foundation level and equalization effort, assuming the
goal was to have all students except for the 15 percent of students
in the wealthiest districts receive the implicit foundation level. 
Using this analysis, we found that 16 states had a net increase of 10
percentage points or more in their equalization effort, that is, in
the extent to which they achieved the state average.  Table V.9
provides the results of this analysis. 



                                        Table V.9
                         
                              Implicit Foundation Level and
                          Equalization Effort for 85 Percent of
                                  Students in Each State

                      State average          Implicit      Equalization
                      funding level  foundation level     effort for 85      Equalization
                     for 85 percent    for 85 percent    percent of the    effort for all
State                 of students\a       of students        students\b        students\c
-----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
Alabama                      $3,237            $2,286              70.6              69.8
Alaska                        8,001             6,893              86.1              76.4
Arizona                       4,284             2,468              57.6              57.7
Arkansas                      3,783             3,296              87.1              86.9
California                    4,456             4,002              89.8              77.1
Colorado                      5,016             4,251              84.8              76.2
Connecticut                   7,614             5,354              70.3              55.4
Delaware                      5,499             4,154              75.5              75.1
Florida                       5,418             4,252            78.5\d              85.7
Georgia                       4,241             2,659            62.7\d              67.8
Idaho                         3,504             2,654              75.7              75.7
Illinois                      4,275             2,701              63.2              40.9
Indiana                       4,960             3,054              61.6              59.5
Iowa                          4,833             2,610            54.0\d              54.1
Kansas                        4,955             3,098              62.5              54.4
Kentucky                      3,727             3,294              88.4              86.7
Louisiana                     3,912             2,433              62.2              62.2
Maine                         5,631             4,109              73.0              63.6
Maryland                      5,526             4,464              80.8              63.2
Massachusetts                 5,451             3,657              67.1              40.6
Michigan                      5,636             4,028              71.5              48.5
Minnesota                     5,539             4,478              80.8              80.1
Mississippi                   2,828             2,141              75.7              65.7
Missouri                      3,887             2,311              59.4              45.4
Montana                       4,141             1,993            48.1\d              49.8
Nebraska                      5,076             3,092              60.9              42.8
Nevada                        3,597             3,597             100.0             100.0
New Hampshire                 5,474             1,175              21.5              13.1
New Jersey                    8,683             7,897              91.0              47.6
New Mexico                    3,826             3,255              85.1              85.0
New York                      7,111             7,111             100.0              67.3
North Carolina                4,418             3,014            68.2\d              68.8
North Dakota                  4,074             1,957              48.0              48.0
Ohio                          4,550             2,673              58.7              49.4
Oklahoma                      3,621             2,885              79.7              78.3
Oregon                        5,043             2,432              48.2              32.5
Pennsylvania                  6,084             4,119              67.7              53.9
Rhode Island                  5,846             5,439              93.0              66.6
South Carolina                4,112             3,239              78.8              78.8
South Dakota                  3,756             1,108              29.5              29.5
Tennessee                     3,329             1,567              47.1              47.0
Texas                         4,588             3,600              78.5              72.1
Utah                          3,177             2,240              70.5              70.5
Vermont                       7,367             3,036            41.2\d              44.7
Virginia                      4,342             2,994              69.0              53.9
Washington                    5,228             4,350              83.2              75.9
West Virginia                 4,927             4,028              81.8              81.8
Wisconsin                     5,764             4,987              86.5              58.6
Wyoming                      $5,920             3,111              52.5              52.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The state average is the average total (state and local) funding
per weighted pupil in the state and represents the state's maximum
possible foundation level given the total funding devoted to
education in the state. 

\b This is equal to the implicit foundation level as a percent of the
state average for 85 percent of the students. 

\c From table V.8. 

\d The state achieved a higher percentage when all students were
included, indicating that state funding was sensitive to district
income across the entire range of district income. 


      CROSS-STATE COMPARISONS OF
      IMPLICIT FOUNDATION LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.3

To facilitate cross-state comparisons of the implicit foundation
levels, we adjusted the implicit foundation levels reported in table
V.8 for interstate differences in costs and student needs.  We used a
teacher cost index available from the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) for the states to adjust funding data for national
differences in cost, and we created a nationwide need index for the
states in the same way we created other indexes (see app.  II).  To
compare states, we divided the funding data from a state by the
product of the nationwide cost and need indexes of that state.  Using
this method, we calculated the nationally adjusted implicit
foundation level for each state (see table V.10 and fig.  V.1). 
Table V.11 lists the original nationwide teacher cost index we
obtained from NCES, an adjusted nationwide index that applies only to
teacher costs, and the nationwide need index for each state. 



                         Table V.10
          
          Nationally Adjusted Implicit Foundation
                           Levels

                                         Adjusted implicit
State                                   foundation level\a
--------------------------------------  ------------------
Alabama                                             $2,447
Alaska                                               5,415
Arizona                                              2,712
Arkansas                                             3,698
California                                           3,324
Colorado                                             3,953
Connecticut                                          4,051
Delaware                                             4,175
Florida                                              4,917
Georgia                                              3,215
Idaho                                                2,827
Illinois                                             1,883
Indiana                                              3,029
Iowa                                                 2,827
Kansas                                               3,067
Kentucky                                             3,460
Louisiana                                            2,744
Maine                                                3,485
Maryland                                             3,698
Massachusetts                                        2,170
Michigan                                             2,751
Minnesota                                            4,626
Mississippi                                          2,078
Missouri                                             1,913
Montana                                             $2,564
Nebraska                                            $2,397
Nevada                                               4,409
New Hampshire                                          721
New Jersey                                           3,789
New Mexico                                           3,441
New York                                             4,648
North Carolina                                       3,227
North Dakota                                         2,175
Ohio                                                 2,281
Oklahoma                                             3,171
Oregon                                               1,685
Pennsylvania                                         3,311
Rhode Island                                         3,509
South Carolina                                       3,524
South Dakota                                         1,260
Tennessee                                            1,683
Texas                                                3,542
Utah                                                 2,339
Vermont                                              3,469
Virginia                                             2,642
Washington                                           3,919
West Virginia                                        4,398
Wisconsin                                            3,497
Wyoming                                              3,517
National average                                     3,134
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Adjusted for differences in cost and need nationwide. 

   Figure V.1:  Nationally
   Adjusted Implicit Foundation
   Levels (Ranked)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                         Table V.11
          
           Nationwide State Cost and Need Indexes

                                    Adjusted
                         State         state
                  teacher cost  teacher cost    State need
State                  index\a       index\b         index
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Alabama                  88.27         .9005        1.0381
Alaska                  113.56        1.1150        1.0164
Arizona                  97.07         .9752         .9823
Arkansas                 87.22         .8916         .9974
California              109.39        1.0796         .9765
Colorado                 99.26         .9937         .9791
Connecticut             113.80        1.1170        1.0069
Delaware                102.08        1.0176         .9863
Florida                  94.91         .9568        1.0115
Georgia                  91.70         .9296         .9811
Idaho                    93.86         .9480         .9903
Illinois                106.76        1.0573        1.0201
Indiana                  97.74         .9808         .9995
Iowa                     90.28         .9176        1.0104
Kansas                   87.77         .8963         .9843
Kentucky                 89.22         .9086        1.0282
Louisiana                84.57         .8691        1.0201
Maine                   103.94        1.0334        1.0029
Maryland                103.84        1.0326        1.0002
Massachusetts           114.06        1.1192        1.0466
Michigan                105.34        1.0453         .9873
Minnesota                98.89         .9906         .9872
Mississippi              83.86         .8631        1.0371
Missouri                 94.59         .9541         .9871
Montana                  93.92         .9484         .9895
Nebraska                 89.87         .9141        1.0054
Nevada                   94.90         .9567         .9748
New Hampshire           108.71        1.0739         .9874
New Jersey              113.02        1.1104        1.0454
New Mexico               90.34         .9181        1.0300
New York                114.82        1.1257        1.0014
North Carolina           92.91          9399        1.0033
North Dakota             89.19         .9084         .9907
Ohio                    102.06        1.0174        1.0015
Oklahoma                 86.60         .8864        1.0098
Oregon                  100.42        1.0036         .9772
Pennsylvania            105.97        1.0506         .9931
Rhode Island            110.76        1.0912        1.0324
South Carolina           90.00         .9152        1.0043
South Dakota             87.08         .8904         .9879
Tennessee                90.29         .9176        1.0140
Texas                    92.66         .9377         .9992
Utah                     96.58         .9710         .9862
Vermont                 101.42        1.0120         .9836
Virginia                 95.96         .9658         .9960
Washington              105.84        1.0496         .9786
West Virginia            86.01         .8813        1.0393
Wisconsin                98.76         .9895         .9937
Wyoming                  87.99         .8981         .9848
----------------------------------------------------------
\a This state index has been rounded to two decimal places.  See Jay
Chambers and William Fowler, Public School Teacher Cost Differences
Across the United States, Department of Education, NCES,
Analysis/Methodology Report, No.  95-758 (Washington, D.C.:  Oct. 
1995). 

\b We have adjusted the state index to make 1.00 the average for the
nation rather than 100 and to reflect differences in teacher costs
that represent only 84.8 percent of current education expenditures. 


   FUNDING GAPS, STATE
   EQUALIZATION EFFORT, AND
   RELATIVE LOCAL TAX EFFORT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

After calculating the state equalization effort, a measure that
accounts for the combined effects of state targeting and state share
in state equalization policies, we used it together with relative
local tax effort to explain cross-state variation in funding gaps. 
In equation V.4, the dependent variable was the state fiscal
neutrality scores reported in table III.1; the two independent
variables were the state equalization efforts, reported in table V.8
and the elasticity of local tax effort reported in table III.6. 

   Equation V.4

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The results of this analysis showed that the two factors accounted
for 63 percent of the variation in the funding gaps.\92 The
elasticity of local tax effort accounted for more of the variation in
funding gaps than did state equalization efforts (see table V.12). 



                         Table V.12
          
                     Regression Results
                          (N = 49)

                    Regression          Beta
Factor             coefficient   coefficient   t statistic
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
State                   -.4457        -.4340        -4.890
 equalization
 effort
Elasticity of            .2687         .6178         6.962
 local tax
 effort
----------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\92 The adjusted R square for the analysis was .6293. 


GUIDE TO STATE PROFILES
========================================================== Appendix VI

Appendixes VII through LV contain profiles for 49 states.  Each
profile provides the critical data resulting from our analysis of
state school finance policies.  In addition, each profile provides
information in tabular and graphic form on (1) the actual
distribution of state and local funding to regular school districts
in school year 1991-92 and (2) how the funding would have been
distributed if the state share of total funding had remained the same
and the targeting of state funding had been changed so that districts
could spend the state average of total funding on each student with
an average tax effort.  All funding data in the profiles were
adjusted for differences in geographic cost and student need within
the state.  The profiles show averages for districts within the state
in five groups according to increasing income per pupil based on
student population.\93 For example, the poorest group of districts
typically contains about 20 percent of a state's student population
and has the lowest incomes per pupil. 

In the stacked bar graphs (the first two figures in each profile),
the height of the bars shows how state funding that has been adjusted
for cost and need is equalized among districts.  If the state fully
equalized funding, all the bars are the same height.  To assess the
targeting of state funds, examine the shaded area within each bar,
which represents the state's share of total funding.  Where state
funding was targeted to poor districts, the shaded portion is highest
for the poorest districts and becomes smaller as the per pupil income
of a district increases. 

The first figure in each profile shows how total funding per weighted
pupil changed as district income per pupil increased.  Typically, the
local funding increased with increasing per pupil income, often at a
faster rate than the decline in state funding.  Thus, total funding
typically was greatest for the wealthiest districts. 

The second figure in each profile shows how state and local funding
would have been distributed if all districts could have spent the
average total funding per weighted pupil (the total funding level is
the same across all groups) with an average tax effort.  This figure
assumes that the state optimized its targeting effort without
changing the state share or the total funding for education. 

The third figure in each profile compares the state funding in the
first figure with the state funding in the second figure.  The third
figure illustrates which groups of districts would have received more
or less than what they needed if the state had targeted its funds so
that each district could have spent the state average of total
funding on each student with an average tax effort. 

The data used in each of the figures appear in tables in each
profile.  The numbers in the tables may not add due to rounding. 

Data used in the profiles were based mainly on the Department of
Education's Common Core of Data (CCD) for school districts for the
1991-92 school year.  In some cases, we obtained data directly from
state education offices, and we imputed income and cost data for a
district when the data were missing from the source.  Income per
pupil data were adjusted for differences in cost within a state. 
Funding per pupil data were adjusted for differences in student need
and geographic costs within a state.  Funding data included all state
and local revenue for all purposes, including maintenance and
operations, transportation, and capital expenditures and debt
service.\94


--------------------
\93 Each of the five groups typically had about the same student
population.  In some states, however, the groups may have had large
differences in the number of students because districts cannot be
divided into smaller units.  Nevada's districts were divided into
four groups because of the distribution of the student population. 

\94 Because the CCD does not report separate data on local funding at
the district level devoted to capital expenditures and debt service,
we could not exclude these funding categories from our analysis. 


STATE PROFILE:  ALABAMA
========================================================= Appendix VII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table VII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 70 percent of the total funding to Alabama's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Alabama averaged $3,277 with an implicit foundation level of $2,287
for each student, which is about 70 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was .000, indicating that state education funds were
not targeted to poor or wealthy districts.\95 (To compare this score
with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal
neutrality score was .290, indicating that total funding increased as
district income increased.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see fig.  1.) An Alabama education official reported
that the state had changed its school finance system since school
year 1991-92 to increase funding to poor districts compared with
wealthy districts (see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance
system in perspective, table VII.2 presents demographic data for
school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing
district income. 



                              Table VII.1
                
                Summary Data for Alabama in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,277
State share of total funding (percent)                            69.8
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                   .000
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,287
Equalization effort\d                                             69.8
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .290
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the constrained score (elasticity of state funding
relative to district income) used to calculate the state's implicit
foundation level.  The actual targeting elasticity is .020, which is
not statistically different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table VII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             128            48        30        16        15            19
Total pupils            719,789       140,612   149,556   165,837   115,330       148,454
Poverty rate               23.8          34.1      20.7      27.5      15.2          19.8
 (percent)
Disabled rate              13.5          12.4      14.1      14.1      14.3          12.8
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $63,313       $43,762   $54,973   $61,497   $66,632       $89,685
Tax effort\a             $15.52        $17.41    $13.56    $13.94    $16.25        $16.76
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table VII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Alabama districts.  Alabama's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the poor
and wealthy groups from about 93 percent to about 18 percent.  Figure
VII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table VII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Alabama, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                    State                                                    with poorest
Funding source       mean   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local                $989      $766      $746      $868    $1,077    $1,482          1.93
State               2,287     2,447     2,326     2,185     2,208     2,313          0.95
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,277    $3,213    $3,072    $3,053    $3,285    $3,795          1.18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure VII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Alabama, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table VII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure VII.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure VII.3. 



                                       Table VII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Alabama Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                    State                                                    with poorest
Funding source       mean   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b              $993      $682      $860      $950    $1,048    $1,428          2.09
State               2,284     2,594     2,417     2,327     2,229     1,849          0.71
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,277    $3,277    $3,277    $3,277    $3,277    $3,277          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure VII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Alabama Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure VII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Alabama Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\95 This is the constrained targeting score used to calculate the
state's implicit foundation level.  This differs from the actual
targeting score found in table V.1 in app.  V. 


STATE PROFILE:  ALASKA
======================================================== Appendix VIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table VIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 76 percent of the total funding to Alaska's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Alaska averaged $8,030 with an implicit foundation level of $6,137
for each student, which is about 76 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was .000, indicating that state education funds were
not targeted to poor or wealthy districts.\96 (To compare this score
with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal
neutrality score was -.272, indicating that total funding increased
as district income decreased.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system
in perspective, table VIII.2 presents demographic data for school
year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district
income. 



                              Table VIII.1
                
                 Summary Data for Alaska in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $8,030
State share of total funding (percent)                            76.4
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                   .000
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $6,137
Equalization effort\d                                             76.4
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                        -.272
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the constrained score (elasticity of state funding
relative to district income) used to calculate the state's implicit
foundation level.  The actual targeting elasticity is .068, which is
not statistically different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table VIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              52            20        12         8       1\a            11
Total pupils            117,331        23,505    30,666     8,889    44,749         9,522
Poverty rate               11.2          21.4       9.2       7.2       9.2           6.0
 (percent)
Disabled rate              13.5          15.4      13.5      12.2      12.9          13.3
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $83,220       $40,791   $75,327   $93,327  $102,123      $115,112
Tax effort\b             $22.99        $30.25    $34.75    $25.80    $16.00        $19.47
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Anchorage was the only district in this group. 

\b Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table VIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Alaska districts.  Alaska's
equalization policies essentially eliminated the funding disparity
between the poor and wealthy groups.  Figure VIII.1 provides table
information in graphic form. 



                                       Table VIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Alaska, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,893    $1,279    $2,608    $2,358    $1,617    $2,217          1.73
State               6,137     7,633     6,307     5,239     5,210     6,660          0.87
=========================================================================================
Total              $8,030    $8,912    $8,915    $7,598    $6,828    $8,877          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure VIII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Alaska,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table VIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure VIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure VIII.3. 



                                       Table VIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           Alaska Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,906      $907    $1,721    $2,171     2,347    $2,652          2.92
State               6,123     7,123     6,309     5,859     5,683     5,378          0.76
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $8,030    $8,030    $8,030    $8,030    $8,030    $8,030          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure VIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Alaska Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure VIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Alaska Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\96 This is the constrained targeting score used to calculate the
state's implicit foundation level.  This differs from the actual
targeting score found in table V.1 in app.  V. 


STATE PROFILE:  ARIZONA
========================================================== Appendix IX

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table IX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided about
47 percent of the total funding to Arizona's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Arizona averaged $4,507 with an implicit foundation level of $2,598
for each student, which is about 58 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.232, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .141, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table IX.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                               Table IX.1
                
                Summary Data for Arizona in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,507
State share of total funding (percent)                            46.8
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.232
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,598
Equalization effort\d                                             57.7
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .141
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                        Table IX.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             193            78        32        27        17            39
Total pupils            647,354       130,672   122,347   134,103   140,306       119,926
Poverty rate               21.0          36.6      19.1      15.7      17.7          15.6
 (percent)
Disabled rate               8.9           9.9       8.9       8.4       9.4           7.9
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $98,442       $34,011   $60,599   $74,605  $105,171      $226,036
Tax effort\a             $24.35        $47.63    $29.86    $31.49    $20.89        $18.56
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table IX.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Arizona districts.  Arizona's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 144 percent to about 32 percent. 
Figure IX.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                        Table IX.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Arizona, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,398    $1,681    $1,803    $2,314    $2,197    $4,108          2.44
State               2,109     2,465     2,312     2,205     2,216     1,365          0.55
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,507    $4,146    $4,115    $4,520    $4,413    $5,473          1.32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure IX.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Arizona, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table IX.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure IX.2 provides information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure IX.3. 



                                        Table IX.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Arizona Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,424      $805    $1,484    $1,843    $2,561    $5,634          7.00
State               2,083     3,702     3,023     2,664     1,946         -         -0.30
                                                                    1,127\c
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $4,507    $4,507    $4,507    $4,507    $4,507    $4,507          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure IX.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Arizona Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure IX.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Arizona Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  ARKANSAS
=========================================================== Appendix X

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table X.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided about
65 percent of the total funding to Arkansas's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Arkansas averaged $3,784 with an implicit foundation level of $3,289
for each student, which is about 87 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.328, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .220, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table X.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                               Table X.1
                
                Summary Data for Arkansas in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,784
State share of total funding (percent)                            65.4
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.328
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,289
Equalization effort\d                                             86.9
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .220
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                        Table X.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             316           105        69        75        39            28
Total pupils            430,420        86,533    84,141    86,293    86,708        86,745
Poverty rate               24.6          33.8        26      24.3      17.8          21.1
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.7          10.6       9.8      10.1       9.2           9.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $55,895       $36,020   $45,048   $51,705   $61,445       $84,862
Tax effort\a             $23.40        $26.81    $22.31    $20.85    $22.45        $25.04
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table X.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Arkansas districts.  Arkansas'
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 111 percent to about 14 percent. 
Figure X.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                        Table X.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Arkansas, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,308      $990    $1,008    $1,082    $1,355    $2,094          2.11
State               2,476     2,756     2,594     2,531     2,362     2,188          0.79
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,784    $3,747    $3,602    $3,613    $3,717    $4,282          1.14
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure X.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Arkansas, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table X.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure X.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure X.3. 



                                        Table X.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Arkansas Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,315      $824    $1,052    $1,207    $1,465    $2,020          2.45
State               2,469     2,960     2,732     2,577     2,319     1,764          0.60
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,784    $3,784    $3,784    $3,784    $3,784    $3,784          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure X.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Arkansas Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure X.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Arkansas Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  CALIFORNIA
========================================================== Appendix XI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided about
69 percent of the total funding to California's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
California averaged $4,543 with an implicit foundation level of
$3,504 for each student, which is about 77 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.119, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .073, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XI.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                               Table XI.1
                
                 Summary Data for California in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,543
State share of total funding (percent)                            68.9
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.119
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,504
Equalization effort\d                                             77.1
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .073
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                        Table XI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             971           263       192        69       144           303
Total pupils          4,978,164       995,837   996,457   996,425   996,127       993,318
Poverty rate               18.4          26.1      17.1      23.7      14.0          11.2
 (percent)
Disabled rate               8.8           8.2       8.8       9.0       9.2           8.7
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $121,872       $49,081   $76,553   $95,830  $122,991      $265,332
Tax effort\a             $11.79        $18.65    $15.48     $9.97    $13.60         $9.35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of California districts. 
California's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 166 percent to about
13 percent.  Figure XI.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                        Table XI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                             California, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,411      $921    $1,182      $967    $1,668    $2,448          2.66
State               3,131     3,486     3,221     3,525     2,906     2,518          0.72
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,543    $4,407    $4,404    $4,492    $4,574    $4,965          1.13
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XI.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   California, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XI.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XI.3. 



                                        Table XI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                         California Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,421      $564      $889    $1,098    $1,430    $3,312          5.56
State               3,121     3,979     3,654     3,445     3,113     1,411          0.35
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,543    $4,543    $4,543    $4,543    $4,543    $4,543          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   California Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in California Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  COLORADO
========================================================= Appendix XII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 44 percent of the total funding to Colorado's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Colorado averaged $5,047 with an implicit foundation level of $3,847
for each student, which is about 76 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.753, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .154, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Colorado education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XII.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XII.1
                
                Summary Data for Colorado in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,047
State share of total funding (percent)                            43.5
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.753
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,847
Equalization effort\d                                             76.2
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .154
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             174           101        31        23         8            11
Total pupils            592,435       118,643   111,334   134,003   118,013       110,442
Poverty rate               14.8          20.8      17.4      11.3       6.7          18.7
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.6           9.7      11.0       8.9       8.5          10.1
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $81,879       $51,188   $65,989   $78,606   $96,107      $119,635
Tax effort\a             $34.97        $47.93    $31.11    $36.25    $31.40        $33.29
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Colorado districts.  Colorado's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 63 percent to about 8 percent. 
Figure XII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Colorado, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,853    $2,481    $2,095    $2,810    $2,939    $4,031          1.63
State               2,194     2,629     2,700     2,120     2,127     1,470          0.56
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,047    $5,109    $4,794    $4,930    $5,066    $5,501          1.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Colorado, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XII.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XII.3. 



                                       Table XII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Colorado Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,861    $1,768    $2,260    $2,776    $3,439    $4,127          2.33
State               2,186     3,279     2,787     2,271     1,608       921          0.28
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,047    $5,047    $5,047    $5,047    $5,047    $5,047          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Colorado Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Colorado Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  CONNECTICUT
======================================================== Appendix XIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 39 percent of the total funding to Connecticut's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in Connecticut averaged $8,221 with an implicit
foundation level of $4,556 for each student, which is about 55
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.430, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare
this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .241, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.  (To compare this score with
those of other states, see fig.  1.) A Connecticut education official
reported that the state had changed its school finance system since
school year 1991-92 to increase funding to poor districts compared
with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school
finance system in perspective, table XIII.2 presents demographic data
for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing
district income. 



                              Table XIII.1
                
                 Summary Data for Connecticut in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $8,221
State share of total funding (percent)                            38.8
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.430
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $4,556
Equalization effort\d                                             55.4
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .241
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                         Table XIII.2
                           
                           Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                              92

                                   Poorest                                        Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                    ------------
                          State       Group 1       Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             159            16            27        28        42            46
Total pupils            462,403        92,149        92,783    91,748    92,447        93,276
Poverty rate               10.4          27.7           7.8       7.6       4.0           5.0
 (percent)
Disabled rate              12.8          13.7          13.4      12.0      12.8          12.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $148,273       $82,380      $114,150  $130,956  $155,668      $257,018
Tax effort\a             $34.29        $29.69        $32.40    $35.61    $39.26        $33.59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Connecticut districts. 
Connecticut's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from 234 percent to about 34
percent.  Figure XIII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                             Connecticut, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $5,035    $2,540    $3,707    $4,602    $6,047    $8,486          3.34
State               3,186     4,885     3,739     3,367     2,388     1,500          0.31
=========================================================================================
Total              $8,221    $7,426    $7,446    $7,969    $8,435    $9,985          1.34
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XIII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Connecticut, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XIII.3. 



                                       Table XIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                             Connecticut Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $5,072    $2,710    $3,870    $4,510    $5,347    $8,880          3.28
State               3,149     5,511     4,351     3,711     2,874    -659\c         -0.12
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $8,221    $8,221    $8,221    $8,221    $8,221    $8,221          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Connecticut Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Connecticut Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  DELAWARE
========================================================= Appendix XIV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 70 percent of the total funding to Delaware's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Delaware averaged $5,576 with an implicit foundation level of $4,190
for each student, which is about 75 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.070, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.\97 (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .072, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.\98 (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XIV.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for
five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XIV.1
                
                Summary Data for Delaware in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,576
State share of total funding (percent)                            70.2
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.070
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $4,190
Equalization effort\d                                             75.1
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .072
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                       Table XIV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              16             5         5         3         2           1\a
Total pupils             97,986        17,221    22,073    14,423    29,809        14,460
Poverty rate               12.2          16.5      15.2      10.4      10.0           9.2
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.6          10.5      11.5      11.0      10.4           9.6
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $106,718       $64,681   $77,905   $89,875  $125,350      $179,156
Tax effort\b             $15.44        $12.92    $14.95    $19.33    $17.42        $12.21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Wilmington was the only district in this group. 

\b Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XIV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Delaware districts.  Delaware's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 156 percent to about 9 percent. 
Figure XIV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XIV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Delaware, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,660      $840    $1,182    $1,739    $2,170    $2,149          2.56
State               3,916     4,476     4,022     3,773     3,732     3,668          0.82
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,576    $5,316    $5,204    $5,512    $5,903    $5,817          1.09
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XIV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Delaware, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XIV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XIV.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XIV.3. 



                                       Table XIV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Delaware Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,668    $1,001    $1,197    $1,397    $1,966    $2,835          2.83
State               3,908     4,575     4,379     4,179     3,610     2,741          0.60
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,576    $5,576    $5,576    $5,576    $5,576    $5,576          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XIV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Delaware Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XIV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Delaware Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\97 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 

\98 See footnote 97. 


STATE PROFILE:  FLORIDA
========================================================== Appendix XV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 53
percent of the total funding to Florida's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Florida averaged $5,555 with an implicit foundation level of $4,759
for each student, which is about 86 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.615, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .239, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XV.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                               Table XV.1
                
                Summary Data for Florida in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,555
State share of total funding (percent)                            53.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.615
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $4,759
Equalization effort\d                                             85.7
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .239
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                        Table XV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              67            38         3         7        10             9
Total pupils          1,929,239       380,985   433,922   350,723   415,513       348,096
Poverty rate               18.6          21.9      22.6      18.5      14.7          14.9
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.9          12.1      10.9      12.0      11.8          13.2
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $98,373       $67,959   $81,583   $90,995  $109,511      $146,728
Tax effort\a             $26.48        $22.60    $25.31    $27.03    $25.93        $29.37
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Florida districts.  Florida's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 181 percent to about 18 percent. 
Figure XV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                        Table XV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Florida, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,609    $1,546    $2,057    $2,461    $2,815    $4,341          2.81
State               2,946     3,740     3,183     2,979     2,849     1,922           .51
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,555    $5,286    $5,239    $5,440    $5,664    $6,264          1.18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Florida, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XV.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XV.3. 



                                        Table XV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Florida Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,610    $1,793    $2,174    $2,413    $2,931    $3,861          2.15
State               2,946     3,762     3,382     3,143     2,624     1,694          0.45
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,555    $5,556    $5,556    $5,556    $5,556    $5,556          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Florida Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Florida Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  GEORGIA
========================================================= Appendix XVI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XVI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 55 percent of the total funding to Georgia's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Georgia averaged $4,324 with an implicit foundation level of $2,932
for each student, which is about 68 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.242, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .323, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XVI.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for
five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XVI.1
                
                Summary Data for Georgia in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,324
State share of total funding (percent)                            54.6
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.242
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,932
Equalization effort\d                                             67.8
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .323
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XVI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             183            75        56        20        19            13
Total pupils          1,177,358       234,753   227,823   244,138   252,333       218,311
Poverty rate               19.6          27.5      21.8      16.1      21.1          11.3
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.0           9.4      10.1       8.7       8.1           8.9
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $73,340       $45,588   $60,087   $68,588   $84,522      $109,402
Tax effort\a             $26.23        $23.12    $20.65    $28.29    $27.39        $28.83
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XVI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Georgia districts.  Georgia's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 189 percent to about 30 percent. 
Figure XVI.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XVI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Georgia, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,962    $1,073    $1,261    $1,921    $2,296    $3,104          2.89
State               2,361     2,794     2,664     2,391     2,166     1,924          0.69
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,324    $3,867    $3,924    $4,312    $4,462    $5,029          1.30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XVI.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Georgia, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XVI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XVI.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XVI.3. 



                                       Table XVI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Georgia Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,970    $1,198    $1,584    $1,854    $2,280    $2,974          2.48
State               2,354     3,126     2,740     2,469     2,044     1,350          0.43
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,324    $4,324    $4,324    $4,324    $4,324    $4,324          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XVI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Georgia Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XVI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Georgia Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  IDAHO
======================================================== Appendix XVII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XVII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 67 percent of the total funding to Idaho's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Idaho averaged $3,504 with an implicit foundation level of $2,654 for
each student, which is about 76 percent of the average and represents
the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort with those
of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for state funding
was -.130, indicating that state education funds were targeted to
poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of other states,
see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .247,
indicating that total funding increased as district income increased. 
(To compare this score with those of other states, see fig.  1.) An
Idaho education official reported that the state had changed its
school finance system since school year 1991-92 to increase funding
to poor districts compared with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI). 
To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XVII.2
presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XVII.1
                
                 Summary Data for Idaho in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,504
State share of total funding (percent)                            67.1
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.130
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,654
Equalization effort\d                                             75.7
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .247
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XVII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             108            30        29        11        26            12
Total pupils            216,503        45,299    41,300    44,163    42,438        43,303
Poverty rate               15.8          16.1      19.1      16.0      14.2          13.5
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.4           9.8      10.9      10.5      10.3          10.7
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $51,724       $30,589   $41,813   $50,172   $54,189       $82,453
Tax effort\a             $22.34        $24.35    $21.51    $20.98    $19.18        $24.86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XVII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Idaho districts.  Idaho's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 177 percent to about 26 percent. 
Figure XVII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XVII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                                Idaho, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                                   Wealth
                                                                                  funding
                                                                                 compared
                                                                                with poor
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5     funding\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,155      $740      $910    $1,054    $1,034    $2,048          2.77
State               2,350     2,506     2,485     2,327     2,467     2,027          0.81
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,504    $3,246    $3,395    $3,381    $3,501    $4,075          1.26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XVII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Idaho,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XVII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XVII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XVII.3. 



                                       Table XVII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           Idaho Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,155      $687      $923    $1,119    $1,215    $1,842          2.68
State               2,349     2,817     2,581     2,385     2,289     1,662          0.59
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,504    $3,504    $3,504    $3,504    $3,504    $3,504          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XVII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Idaho Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XVII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Idaho Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  ILLINOIS
======================================================= Appendix XVIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XVIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 33 percent of the total funding to Illinois' school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Illinois averaged $4,970 with an implicit foundation level of $2,031
for each student, which is about 41 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.230, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .338, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XVIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for
five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XVIII.1
                
                Summary Data for Illinois in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,970
State share of total funding (percent)                            33.2
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.230
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,031
Equalization effort\d                                             40.9
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .338
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XVIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             934           256        16       219       211           232
Total pupils          1,821,061       301,035   426,836   361,247   367,907       364,036
Poverty rate               16.4          18.8      32.9      13.0       9.2           6.0
 (percent)
Disabled rate              13.0          14.1      11.0      13.8      14.1          12.7
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $134,121       $66,174   $78,601   $90,547  $124,521      $308,349
Tax effort\a             $24.39        $29.09    $29.91    $27.57    $26.55        $20.38
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XVIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Illinois districts.  Illinois's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 215 percent to about 67 percent. 
Figure XVIII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XVIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Illinois, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,318    $1,955    $2,363    $2,504    $3,304    $6,153          3.15
State               1,652     2,375     1,867     1,881     1,331     1,097          0.46
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,970    $4,330    $4,230    $4,384    $4,635    $7,249          1.67
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XVIII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Illinois, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XVIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XVIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XVIII.3. 



                                      Table XVIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Illinois Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,358    $1,616    $1,935    $2,236    $3,088    $7,852          4.86
State               1,612     3,354     3,035     2,734     1,882         -         -0.86
                                                                    2,882\c
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $4,970    $4,970    $4,970    $4,970    $4,970    $4,970          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XVIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Illinois Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XVIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Illinois Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  INDIANA
========================================================= Appendix XIX

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XIX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 54 percent of the total funding to Indiana's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Indiana averaged $4,993 with an implicit foundation level of $2,970
for each student, which is about 60 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.099, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .153, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) An Indiana education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XIX.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XIX.1
                
                Summary Data for Indiana in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,993
State share of total funding (percent)                            54.1
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.099
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,970
Equalization effort\d                                             59.5
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .153
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XIX.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             294            90        74        66        33            31
Total pupils            952,639       191,981   190,297   182,032   196,761       191,568
Poverty rate               13.5          17.8      11.1      11.2      16.1          10.8
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.6          11.9      11.4      11.6      12.2          11.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $76,049       $52,389   $65,870   $74,174   $81,358      $106,199
Tax effort\a             $30.13        $37.13    $31.81    $32.04    $27.87        $26.22
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XIX.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Indiana districts.  Indiana's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 40 percent to about 10 percent. 
Figure XIX.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XIX.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Indiana, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,290    $1,966    $2,082    $2,367    $2,293    $2,751          1.40
State               2,703     2,838     2,740     2,649     2,749     2,548          0.90
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,993    $4,804    $4,822    $5,015    $5,042    $5,299          1.10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XIX.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Indiana, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XIX.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XIX.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XIX.3. 



                                       Table XIX.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Indiana Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,297    $1,565    $1,998    $2,244    $2,427    $3,247          2.07
State               2,695     3,428     2,995     2,748     2,565     1,746          0.51
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,993    $4,993    $4,993    $4,993    $4,993    $4,993          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XIX.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Indiana Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XIX.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Indiana Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  IOWA
========================================================== Appendix XX

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 49
percent of the total funding to Iowa's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in Iowa
averaged $4,849 with an implicit foundation level of $2,622 for each
student, which is about 54 percent of the average and represents the
state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort with those of
other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for state funding was
-.104, indicating that state education funds were targeted to poor
districts.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .031,
indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.\99 (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XX.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                               Table XX.1
                
                  Summary Data for Iowa in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,849
State share of total funding (percent)                            49.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.104
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,622
Equalization effort\d                                             54.1
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .031
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                        Table XX.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             419           144        95        59        75            46
Total pupils            487,004        96,685    98,192    96,775    92,677       102,675
Poverty rate               13.8          14.2      13.3      16.3      11.9          13.1
 (percent)
Disabled rate              12.6          11.5      12.1      12.8      13.2          13.3
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $69,690       $51,544   $60,642   $66,301   $75,108       $93,734
Tax effort\a             $35.87        $51.39    $40.36    $33.60    $35.00        $27.22
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XX.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Iowa districts.  Iowa's
equalization policies increased the funding that poor districts had
compared with wealthy districts from 2 percent to about 4 percent. 
Figure XX.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                        Table XX.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                                Iowa, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,474    $2,621    $2,432    $2,244    $2,637    $2,568          0.98
State               2,375     2,431     2,435     2,399     2,357     2,287          0.94
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,849    $5,051    $4,867    $4,643    $4,994    $4,855          0.96
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XX.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Iowa,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XX.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XX.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XX.3. 



                                        Table XX.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            Iowa Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,476    $1,851    $2,168    $2,338    $2,663    $3,319          1.79
State               2,373     2,998     2,681     2,511     2,186     1,530          0.51
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,849    $4,849    $4,849    $4,849    $4,849    $4,849          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XX.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Iowa Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XX.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Iowa Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\99 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  KANSAS
========================================================= Appendix XXI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 44 percent of the total funding to Kansas' school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Kansas averaged $4,973 with an implicit foundation level of $2,706
for each student, which is about 54 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.241, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .014, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.\100 (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Kansas education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XXI.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XXI.1
                
                 Summary Data for Kansas in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,973
State share of total funding (percent)                            43.8
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.241
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,706
Equalization effort\d                                             54.4
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .014
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                       Table XXI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                     Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                  ----------
                          State       Group 1     Group 2   Group 3   Group 4     Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  ----------  --------  --------  ----------
Total districts             304            69         100        70        57           8
Total pupils            437,033        87,100      86,292    89,096    85,852      88,693
Poverty rate               13.8          18.7        12.3      12.6      13.8        11.5
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.2          10.2         9.6      10.3      11.4         9.7
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $74,725       $51,423     $60,923   $69,640   $81,926    $109,173
Tax effort\a             $37.62        $40.78      $43.96    $41.04    $34.52      $32.90
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Kansas districts.  Kansas'
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 68 percent to about 9 percent. 
Figure XXI.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XXI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Kansas, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,793    $2,113    $2,652    $2,855    $2,867    $3,555          1.68
State               2,181     2,534     2,630     2,375     2,103     1,534          0.61
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,973    $4,648    $5,282    $5,230    $4,969    $5,089          1.09
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXI.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Kansas,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXI.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XXI.3. 



                                       Table XXI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           Kansas Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,798     $1907    $2,302    $2,607    $3,023    $4,129          2.17
State               2,176     3,066     2,672     2,366     1,951       845          0.28
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,973    $4,973    $4,973    $4,973    $4,973    $4,973          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Kansas Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Kansas Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\100 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  KENTUCKY
======================================================== Appendix XXII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 70
percent of the total funding to Kentucky's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Kentucky averaged $3,728 with an implicit foundation level of $3,232
for each student, which is about 87 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.239, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .126, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XXII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for
five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XXII.1
                
                Summary Data for Kentucky in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,728
State share of total funding (percent)                            70.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.239
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,232
Equalization effort\d                                             86.7
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .126
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XXII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             175            43        52        38        37             5
Total pupils            633,901       126,077   127,755   124,667   127,649       127,753
Poverty rate               25.1          40.9      26.5      21.2      17.7          19.4
 (percent)
Disabled rate              12.4          12.9      12.4      12.1      12.1          12.7
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $63,691       $36,511   $49,602   $60,505   $73,669       $97,742
Tax effort\a             $17.42        $14.04    $16.06    $16.01    $16.95        $20.80
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Kentucky districts.  Kentucky's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 283 percent to about 15 percent. 
Figure XXII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XXII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Kentucky, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,119      $528      $798      $959    $1,229    $2,020          3.83
State               2,609     3,072     2,846     2,660     2,414     2,123          0.69
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,728    $3,601    $3,644    $3,618    $3,644    $4,143          1.15
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Kentucky, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXII.3. 



                                       Table XXII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Kentucky Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,126      $626      $871    $1,076    $1,318    $1,730          2.76
State               2,603     3,103     2,858     2,653     2,410     1,999          0.64
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,728    $3,728    $3,728    $3,728    $3,728    $3,728          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Kentucky Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Kentucky Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  LOUISIANA
======================================================= Appendix XXIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 62 percent of the total funding to Louisiana's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in Louisiana averaged $3,912 with an implicit
foundation level of $2,433 for each student, which is about 62
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was .000, indicating that
state education funds were not targeted to poor or wealthy
districts.\101 (To compare this score with those of other states, see
table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .216,
indicating that total funding increased as district income increased. 
(To compare this score with those of other states, see fig.  1.) A
Louisiana education official reported that the state had changed its
school finance system since school year 1991-92 to increase funding
to poor districts compared with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI). 
To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
XXIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XXIII.1
                
                  Summary Data for Louisiana in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,912
State share of total funding (percent)                            62.2
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                   .000
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,433
Equalization effort\d                                             62.2
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .216
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the constrained score (elasticity of state funding
relative to district income) used to calculate the state's implicit
foundation level.  The actual targeting elasticity is .150. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XXIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              65            24        23        10         5             3
Total pupils            753,188       149,900   153,216   150,781   175,284       124,007
Poverty rate               31.8          37.3      34.4      29.4      33.0          22.9
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.7          10.6      11.5      10.0       9.9          11.6
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $58,920       $39,718   $45,820   $55,695   $67,411       $90,238
Tax effort\a             $25.11        $23.86    $27.49    $27.21    $28.66        $19.12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups Louisiana districts.  Louisiana's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 80 percent to about 21 percent. 
Figure XXIII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Louisiana, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,480      $956    $1,277    $1,499    $1,919    $1,717          1.80
State               2,433     2,551     2,395     2,489     2,271     2,521           .99
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,912    $3,507    $3,672    $3,988    $4,190    $4,238          1.21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXIII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Louisiana, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXIII.3. 



                                      Table XXIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                         Louisiana Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,483      $991    $1,137    $1,415    $1,704    $2,276          2.30
State               2,429     2,922     2,775     2,497     2,208     1,637          0.56
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,912    $3,912    $3,912    $3,912    $3,912    $3,912          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Louisiana Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Louisiana Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\101 This is the constrained targeting score used to calculate the
state's implicit foundation level.  This differs from the actual
targeting score found in table V.1 in app.  V. 


STATE PROFILE:  MAINE
======================================================== Appendix XXIV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 50 percent of the total funding to Maine's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Maine averaged $5,681 with an implicit foundation level of $3,612 for
each student, which is about 64 percent of the average and represents
the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort with those
of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for state funding
was -.287, indicating that state education funds were targeted to
poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of other states,
see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .176,
indicating that total funding increased as district income increased. 
(To compare this score with those of other states, see fig.  1.) To
put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXIV.2
presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XXIV.1
                
                 Summary Data for Maine in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,681
State share of total funding (percent)                            49.4
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.287
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,612
Equalization effort\d                                             63.6
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .176
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XXIV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             227            53        23        38        48            65
Total pupils            211,295        43,274    43,198    40,379    40,807        43,637
Poverty rate               13.7          17.9      13.1      13.3      12.6          11.4
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.9          11.8      11.3      11.9      12.4          12.3
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $76,336       $48,731   $57,869   $67,998   $87,059      $119,681
Tax effort\a             $37.61        $46.46    $35.13    $35.84    $34.79        $38.04
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXIV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Maine districts.  Maine's
equalization policies reduced the total funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 100 percent to about 17 percent. 
Figure XXIV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XXIV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                                Maine, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,875    $2,276    $2,017    $2,434    $3,038    $4,554          2.00
State               2,807     3,193     3,192     3,056     2,862     1,845          0.58
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,681    $5,469    $5,210    $5,490    $5,901    $6,399          1.17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXIV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Maine,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXIV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXIV.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXIV.3. 



                                       Table XXIV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           Maine Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,878    $1,828    $2,197    $2,567    $3,273    $4,513          2.47
State               2,803     3,853     3,484     3,115     2,409     1,168          0.30
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,681    $5,681    $5,681    $5,681    $5,681    $5,681          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXIV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Maine Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXIV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Maine Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  MARYLAND
========================================================= Appendix XXV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 40 percent of the total funding to Maryland's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Maryland averaged $6,039 with an implicit foundation level of $3,819
for each student, which is about 63 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.566, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .469, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Maryland education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XXV.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XXV.1
                
                Summary Data for Maryland in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $6,039
State share of total funding (percent)                            40.4
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.566
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,819
Equalization effort\d                                             63.2
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .469
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XXV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              24             6         8         4         4             2
Total pupils            736,238       147,982   144,665   141,124   190,872       111,595
Poverty rate               11.3          26.9       9.0       8.1       6.6           5.7
 (percent)
Disabled rate              12.0          14.8      11.8      10.5      12.3          10.2
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $114,832       $76,344   $89,714  $109,357  $134,053      $172,482
Tax effort\a             $31.59        $23.79    $34.67    $30.58    $31.37        $36.41
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Maryland districts.  Maryland's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 217 percent to about 65 percent. 
Figure XXV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XXV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Maryland, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,601    $1,919    $3,089    $3,271    $4,185    $6,091          3.17
State               2,438     2,767     2,843     2,630     2,208     1,636          0.59
=========================================================================================
Total              $6,039    $4,686    $5,931    $5,901    $6,393    $7,728          1.65
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Maryland, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXV.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XXV.3. 



                                       Table XXV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Maryland Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,627    $2,269    $2,835    $3,511    $4,225    $5,577          2.46
State               2,413     3,771     3,205     2,528     1,814       462          0.12
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $6,039    $6,039    $6,039    $6,039    $6,039    $6,039          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Maryland Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Maryland Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  MASSACHUSETTS
======================================================== Appendix XXVI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXVI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 31 percent of the total funding to Massachusetts' school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in Massachusetts averaged $6,264 with an implicit
foundation level of $2,542 for each student, which is about 41
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.316, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare
this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .447, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.  (To compare this score with
those of other states, see fig.  1.) A Massachusetts education
official reported that the state had changed its school finance
system since school year 1991-92 to increase funding to poor
districts compared with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI).  To put
the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXVI.2
presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XXVI.1
                
                Summary Data for Massachusetts in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $6,264
State share of total funding (percent)                            30.8
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.316
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,542
Equalization effort\d                                             40.6
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .447
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XXVI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             265            25        46        63        38            93
Total pupils            738,672       148,207   148,084   144,468   150,204       147,709
Poverty rate               13.3          25.3      11.2       7.2      15.9           6.5
 (percent)
Disabled rate              15.9          14.3      16.1      15.8      17.4          16.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $133,452       $80,285  $103,188  $124,984  $147,482      $211,155
Tax effort\a             $32.62        $25.58    $35.56    $34.70    $33.18        $32.36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXVI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Massachusetts districts. 
Massachusetts' equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 228 percent to about
54 percent.  Figure XXVI.1 provides table information in graphic
form. 



                                       Table XXVI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                            Massachusetts, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $4,332    $2,059    $3,664    $4,290    $4,992    $6,761          3.28
State              $1,932     3,169     2,003     1,543     1,618     1,276          0.40
=========================================================================================
Total              $6,264    $5,227    $5,667    $5,833    $6,610    $8,037          1.54
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXVI.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Massachusetts, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXVI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXVI.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXVI.3. 



                                       Table XXVI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            Massachusetts Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $4,342    $2,607    $3,359    $4,106    $4,703    $6,935          2.66
State              $1,921     3,657     2,905     2,158     1,561    -671\c         -0.18
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $6,264    $6,264    $6,264    $6,264    $6,264    $6,264          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXVI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Massachusetts Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXVI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Massachusetts Could Have
   Spent the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  MICHIGAN
======================================================= Appendix XXVII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXVII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 33 percent of the total funding to Michigan's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Michigan averaged $5,851 with an implicit foundation level of $2,839
for each student, which is about 49 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.475, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .290, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Michigan education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XXVII.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XXVII.1
                
                Summary Data for Michigan in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,851
State share of total funding (percent)                            32.9
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.475
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,839
Equalization effort\d                                             48.5
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .290
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XXVII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             558           131       134       131        87            75
Total pupils          1,619,705       383,231   263,756   320,904   331,100       320,714
Poverty rate               17.4          33.8      19.8      12.5      10.9           7.4
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.9           9.7       9.8      10.0      10.7           9.4
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $80,367       $50,990   $60,070   $72,329   $86,839      $133,525
Tax effort\a             $48.78        $40.01    $50.86    $52.09    $51.37        $49.38
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXVII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Michigan districts.  Michigan's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 208 percent to about 36 percent. 
Figure XXVII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXVII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Michigan, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,926    $2,093    $3,063    $3,738    $4,449    $6,444          3.08
State               1,925     3,182     2,288     1,832     1,325       754          0.24
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,851    $5,275    $5,351    $5,570    $5,774    $7,198          1.36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXVII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Michigan, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXVII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXVII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXVII.3. 



                                      Table XXVII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Michigan Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,954    $2,430    $2,932    $3,565    $4,268    $6,681          2.75
State               1,897     3,421     2,919     2,286     1,583    -830\c         -0.24
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $5,851    $5,851    $5,851    $5,851    $5,851    $5,851          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXVII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Michigan Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXVII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Michigan Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  MINNESOTA
====================================================== Appendix XXVIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXVIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 54 percent of the total funding to Minnesota's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in Minnesota averaged $5,646 with an implicit
foundation level of $4,524 for each student, which is about 80
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.499, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare
this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .113, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.  (To compare this score with
those of other states, see fig.  1.) A Minnesota education official
reported that the state had changed its school finance system since
school year 1991-92 to increase funding to poor districts compared
with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school
finance system in perspective, table XXVIII.2 presents demographic
data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of
increasing district income. 



                             Table XXVIII.1
                
                  Summary Data for Minnesota in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,646
State share of total funding (percent)                            53.5
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.499
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $4,524
Equalization effort\d                                             80.1
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .113
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XXVIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             404           166        79        71        47            41
Total pupils            741,835       148,475   147,144   149,452   149,247       147,517
Poverty rate               12.1          15.7       9.7      10.0      12.6          12.8
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.7          10.0      10.2      10.9      11.2          11.3
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $81,234       $49,929   $62,803   $71,975   $89,893      $131,745
Tax effort\a             $31.75        $36.66    $33.36    $29.23    $29.25        $32.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXVIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Minnesota districts. 
Minnesota's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from 133 percent to about 11
percent.  Figure XXVIII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXVIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Minnesota, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,627    $1,827    $2,074    $2,101    $2,646    $4,256          2.33
State               3,019     3,785     3,383     3,230     3,003     1,956          0.52
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,646    $5,613    $5,457    $5,331    $5,649    $6,212          1.11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXVIII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Minnesota, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXVIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXVIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure
XXVIII.3. 



                                      Table XXVIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                         Minnesota Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,627    $1,622    $2,053    $2,333    $2,889    $4,243          2.62
State               3,019     4,024     3,593     3,313     2,757     1,403          0.35
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,646    $5,646    $5,646    $5,646    $5,646    $5,646          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXVIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Minnesota Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXVIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Minnesota Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  MISSISSIPPI
======================================================== Appendix XXIX

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXIX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 64 percent of the total funding to Mississippi's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in Mississippi averaged $2,831 with an implicit
foundation level of $1,860 for each student, which is about 66
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.020, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.\102 (To
compare this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app. 
V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .007, indicating that total
funding increased as district income increased.\103 (To compare this
score with those of other states, see fig.  1.) A Mississippi
education official reported that the state had changed its school
finance system since school year 1991-92 to increase funding to poor
districts compared with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI).  To put
the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXIX.2
presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XXIX.1
                
                 Summary Data for Mississippi in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $2,831
State share of total funding (percent)                            64.4
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.020
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $1,860
Equalization effort\d                                             65.7
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                       Table XXIX.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             148            31        37        32        28            20
Total pupils            496,277        99,428    97,200   100,261   107,073        92,315
Poverty rate               32.9          44.8      36.9      29.9      26.2          27.0
 (percent)
Disabled rate              12.0          10.0      13.5      12.4      12.3          12.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $51,017       $30,029   $38,911   $44,232   $52,892       $91,561
Tax effort\a             $19.78        $39.02    $19.60    $17.25    $20.92        $13.74
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXIX.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Mississippi districts. 
Mississippi's equalization policies eliminated the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups, with poor districts receiving
about 2 percent more total funding than wealthy districts.  Figure
XXIX.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XXIX.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                             Mississippi, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,008    $1,169      $779      $763    $1,098    $1,245          1.07
State               1,823     1,866     1,862     1,887     1,800     1,729          0.93
=========================================================================================
Total              $2,831    $3,034    $2,642    $2,650    $2,898    $2,974          0.98
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXIX.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Mississippi, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXIX.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXIX.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXIX.3. 



                                       Table XXIX.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                             Mississippi Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,008      $595      $753      $875    $1,056    $1,809          3.04
State               1,823     2,236     2,078     1,956     1,775     1,022          0.46
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $2,831    $2,831    $2,831    $2,831    $2,831    $2,831          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXIX.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Mississippi Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXIX.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Mississippi Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\102 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 

\103 See footnote 102. 


STATE PROFILE:  MISSOURI
========================================================= Appendix XXX

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 45 percent of the total funding to Missouri's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Missouri averaged $3,972 with an implicit foundation level of $1,802
for each student, which is about 45 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.017, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.\104 (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .362, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Missouri education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XXX.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XXX.1
                
                Summary Data for Missouri in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,972
State share of total funding (percent)                            44.6
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.017
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $1,802
Equalization effort\d                                             45.4
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .362
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XXX.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             538           173       164       105        45            51
Total pupils            822,099       165,035   164,035   169,117   155,397       168,515
Poverty rate               17.0          23.6      16.6      13.7      17.1          14.2
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.0          11.2      11.5       9.8      10.7           6.8
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $79,570       $48,589   $61,069   $75,587   $90,076      $122,231
Tax effort\a             $27.41        $22.71    $23.31    $27.78    $34.09        $27.10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXX.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Missouri districts.  Missouri's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from 181 percent to about 70 percent.  Figure
XXX.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XXX.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Missouri, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,200    $1,131    $1,446    $2,083    $3,097    $3,179          2.81
State               1,773     1,781     1,644     1,485     2,175     1,758          0.99
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,972    $2,912    $3,090    $3,568    $5,272    $4,937          1.70
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXX.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Missouri, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXX.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXX.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XXX.3. 



                                       Table XXX.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Missouri Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,240    $1,313    $1,664    $2,118    $2,477    $3,610          2.75
State               1,733     2,660     2,308     1,854     1,495       363          0.14
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,972    $3,972    $3,972    $3,972    $3,972    $3,972          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXX.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Missouri Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXX.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Missouri Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\104 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  MONTANA
======================================================== Appendix XXXI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 44 percent of the total funding to Montana's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Montana averaged $4,835 with an implicit foundation level of $2,406
for each student, which is about 50 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.126, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .393, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Montana education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XXXI.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XXXI.1
                
                Summary Data for Montana in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,835
State share of total funding (percent)                            44.2
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.126
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,406
Equalization effort\d                                             49.8
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .393
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XXXI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             480           114        87        45       135            99
Total pupils            154,488        30,656    30,001    33,496    29,426        30,909
Poverty rate               19.5          26.5      18.6      18.1      17.9          16.6
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.8          10.2       9.4      11.6       9.3           8.3
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $115,518       $49,344   $74,493   $91,295  $123,824      $239,311
Tax effort\a             $23.94        $42.44    $30.36    $22.14    $25.07        $18.64
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXXI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Montana districts.  Although
Montana provided more state funding to wealthy districts than to poor
districts, Montana's equalization policies moderated the funding
disparity between the wealthy and poor groups from about 104 percent
to about 73 percent.  Figure XXXI.1 provides table information in
graphic form. 



                                       Table XXXI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Montana, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,698    $2,136    $2,248    $2,056    $3,077    $4,365          2.04
State               2,137     1,870     2,010     2,019     2,353     2,577          1.38
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,835    $4,006    $4,258    $4,075    $5,430    $6,942          1.73
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXI.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Montana, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXI.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXXI.3. 



                                       Table XXXI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Montana Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,730    $1,145    $1,754    $2,098    $2,948    $5,726          5.00
State               2,105     3,690     3,081     2,737     1,886    -891\c         -0.24
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $4,835    $4,835    $4,835    $4,835    $4,835    $4,835          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Montana Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Montana Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  NEBRASKA
======================================================= Appendix XXXII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 34 percent of the total funding to Nebraska's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Nebraska averaged $5,148 with an implicit foundation level of $2,203
for each student, which is about 43 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.246, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .154, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Nebraska education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XXXII.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XXXII.1
                
                Summary Data for Nebraska in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,148
State share of total funding (percent)                            34.3
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.246
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,203
Equalization effort\d                                             42.8
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .154
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XXXII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             678           150        96        87        51           294
Total pupils            276,085        55,219    55,181    55,320    58,772        51,593
Poverty rate               12.9          15.0      12.1       8.6      17.7          10.7
 (percent)
Disabled rate              12.3          11.2      12.1      11.9      12.6          13.4
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $94,845       $64,972   $78,825   $90,020  $107,093      $135,169
Tax effort\a             $36.38        $51.44    $41.86    $37.79    $29.19        $30.73
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXXII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Nebraska districts.  Nebraska's
equalization policies reduced the total funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 27 percent to about 5 percent. 
Figure XXXII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXXII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Nebraska, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,380    $3,309    $3,291    $3,364    $3,164    $4,191          1.27
State               1,768     2,058     1,993     1,723     1,668     1,422          0.69
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,148    $5,367    $5,284    $5,087    $4,832    $5,614          1.05
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Nebraska, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXXII.3. 



                                      Table XXXII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Nebraska Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,384    $2,342    $2,819    $3,247    $3,772    $4,809          2.05
State               1,764     2,806     2,329     1,901     1,376       339          0.12
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,148    $5,148    $5,148    $5,148    $5,148    $5,148          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Nebraska Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Nebraska Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  NEVADA
====================================================== Appendix XXXIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 57 percent of the total funding to Nevada's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Nevada averaged $3,597 with the same implicit foundation level,
achieving an equalization effort of 100 percent.\105 (To compare this
effort with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score
for state funding was -1.007, indicating that state education funds
were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those
of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality
score was -.556, indicating that total funding increased as district
income decreased.  (To compare this score with those of other states,
see fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XXXIII.2 presents demographic data for 1991-92 for
four groups of districts of increasing district income.  Nevada was
divided into four groups rather than five because of its student
population distribution. 



                             Table XXXIII.1
                
                 Summary Data for Nevada in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,597
State share of total funding (percent)                            56.9
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                      -
                                                                 1.007
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,597
Equalization effort\d                                            100.0
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                        -.556
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XXXIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                    Poorest                                  Wealthiest
                                  ------------                              ------------
                           State       Group 1       Group 2       Group 3       Group 4
------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Total districts               17            11           1\b             2             3
Total pupils             211,810        29,577       129,233        12,402        40,598
Poverty rate                13.3          12.4          14.4           8.9          11.7
 (percent)
Disabled rate                9.4          11.1           8.5          11.6          10.6
 (percent)
Mean income per          $86,827       $57,218       $85,716       $93,306      $109,952
 pupil
Tax effort\a              $17.84        $28.42        $17.81        $18.51        $13.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

\b Las Vegas was the only district in this group. 

Table XXXIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the four groups of districts.  Nevada's
equalization policies increased the funding that poor districts had
compared with wealthy districts, resulting in wealthy districts
having 31 percent less funding than poor districts.  Figure XXXIII.1
provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXXIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Nevada, School Year 1991-92

                                      Mean funding per weighted pupil
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                                   Poorest                            st
                                 ------------                      --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source            State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       group\a
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local                    $1,549        $1,654    $1,513    $1,756    $1,526          0.92
State                     2,049         2,865     1,943     2,579     1,591          0.56
=========================================================================================
Total                    $3,597        $4,518    $3,455    $4,335    $3,117          0.69
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXIII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Nevada, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure
XXXIII.3. 



                                      Table XXXIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           Nevada Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                      Mean funding per weighted pupil
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                                   Poorest                            st
                                 ------------                      --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source            State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       group\a
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b                  $1,549        $1,003    $1,543    $1,635    $1,940          1.93
State                     2,048         2,594     2,055     1,962     1,657          0.64
=========================================================================================
Total\c                  $3,597        $3,597    $3,597    $3,597    $3,597          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Nevada Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Nevada Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\105 Nevada actually targeted more state funds to poor districts than
was necessary to achieve the average as an implicit foundation level. 


STATE PROFILE:  NEW HAMPSHIRE
======================================================= Appendix XXXIV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 8 percent of the total funding to New Hampshire's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in New Hampshire averaged $5,850 with an implicit
foundation level of $764 for each student, which is about 13 percent
of the average and represents the state's equalization effort.  (To
compare this effort with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The
targeting score for state funding was -.571, indicating that state
education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this
score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .238, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.  (To compare this score with
those of other states, see fig.  1.) To put the state's school
finance system in perspective, table XXXIV.2 presents demographic
data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of
increasing district income. 



                             Table XXXIV.1
                
                Summary Data for New Hampshire in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,850
State share of total funding (percent)                             8.3
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.571
Implicit foundation level\c                                       $764
Equalization effort\d                                             13.1
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .238
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XXXIV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             158            29        19        13        26            71
Total pupils            173,044        34,720    34,262    35,559    32,753        32,750
Poverty rate                7.6          10.3       6.6       8.1       7.9           5.0
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.4          10.5      11.4      11.3      11.6          12.5
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $106,978       $66,877   $83,834   $96,242  $114,078      $172,277
Tax effort\a             $50.35        $70.96    $61.21    $49.30    $46.67        $40.24
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXXIV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of New Hampshire districts.  New
Hampshire's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from 48 percent to about 30
percent.  Figure XXXIV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXXIV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                            New Hampshire, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $5,364    $4,718    $5,117    $4,741    $5,337    $6,981          1.48
State                 486       874       526       425       324       303          0.35
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,850    $5,592    $5,643    $5,166    $5,661    $7,284          1.30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXIV.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   New Hampshire, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXIV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXIV.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXXIV.3. 



                                      Table XXXIV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                         Been Distributed If Each District in New
                         Hampshire Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $5,362    $3,380    $4,222    $4,833    $5,714    $8,586          2.54
State                 486     2,470     1,628     1,017       136         -         -1.11
                                                                    2,736\c
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $5,850    $5,850    $5,850    $5,850    $5,850    $5,850          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXIV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   New Hampshire Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXIV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in New Hampshire Could Have
   Spent the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  NEW JERSEY
======================================================== Appendix XXXV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 43 percent of the total funding to New Jersey's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in New Jersey averaged $9,239 with an implicit
foundation level of $4,399 for each student, which is about 48
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.104, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare
this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .168, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.  (To compare this score with
those of other states, see fig.  1.) A New Jersey education official
reported that the state had changed its school finance system since
school year 1991-92 to increase funding to poor districts compared
with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school
finance system in perspective, table XXXV.2 presents demographic data
for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing
district income. 



                              Table XXXV.1
                
                 Summary Data for New Jersey in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $9,239
State share of total funding (percent)                            43.1
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.104
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $4,399
Equalization effort\d                                             47.6
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .168
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XXXV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             550            35        64        98       139           214
Total pupils          1,085,033       216,539   215,008   219,560   216,787       217,139
Poverty rate               11.3          29.0      12.1       6.0       4.4           5.0
 (percent)
Disabled rate              16.1          15.2      17.0      16.7      15.9          15.8
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $160,761       $63,855  $101,685  $137,619  $175,659      $324,425
Tax effort\a             $32.93        $34.85    $38.74    $40.47    $39.11        $24.58
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXXV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of New Jersey districts.  New
Jersey's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between
the wealthy and poor groups from 247 percent to about 31 percent. 
Figure XXXV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XXXV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                             New Jersey, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $5,255    $2,267    $3,982    $5,555    $6,777    $7,867          3.47
State               3,985     6,167     4,733     3,189     2,601     3,220          0.52
=========================================================================================
Total              $9,239    $8,434    $8,715    $8,744    $9,377   $11,087          1.31
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in New
   Jersey, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXV.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXXV.3. 



                                       Table XXXV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                         Been Distributed If Each District in New
                           Jersey Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $5,314    $2,056    $3,293    $4,522    $5,831   $10,849          5.28
State               3,925     7,183     5,947     4,718     3,408         -         -0.22
                                                                    1,609\c
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $9,239    $9,239    $9,239    $9,239    $9,239    $9,239          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   New Jersey Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in New Jersey Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  NEW MEXICO
======================================================= Appendix XXXVI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXVI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 85
percent of the total funding to New Mexico's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in New
Mexico averaged $3,830 with an implicit foundation level of $3,254
for each student, which is 85 percent of the average and represents
the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort with those
of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for state funding
was .000, indicating that state education funds were not targeted to
poor or wealthy districts.\106 (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .004, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.\107 (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XXXVI.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for
five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XXXVI.1
                
                 Summary Data for New Mexico in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,830
State share of total funding (percent)                            85.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                   .000
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,254
Equalization effort\d                                             85.0
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the constrained score (elasticity of state funding
relative to district income) used to calculate the state's implicit
foundation level.  The actual targeting elasticity is .024, which is
not statistically different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                      Table XXXVI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              88            31        26        16        12             3
Total pupils            308,772        61,705    61,908    64,577   103,740        16,842
Poverty rate               27.6          43.4      27.8      29.3      19.3          13.1
 (percent)
Disabled rate              12.2          10.9      11.0      11.6      14.4          11.1
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $54,999       $26,342   $44,108   $50,207   $73,453      $104,736
Tax effort\a             $10.51        $27.48    $13.46    $11.36     $5.72         $9.67
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXXVI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of New Mexico districts.  New
Mexico's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between
the wealthy and poor groups from about 33 percent to about 5 percent. 
Figure XXXVI.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXXVI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                             New Mexico, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5      group\\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local                $576      $733      $586      $568      $424      $976          1.33
State               3,254     3,159     3,328     3,227     3,353     3,118          0.99
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,830    $3,891    $3,914    $3,795    $3,776    $4,094          1.05
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXVI.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   New Mexico, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXVI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXVI.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXXVI.3. 



                                      Table XXXVI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                         Been Distributed If Each District in New
                           Mexico Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b              $577      $273      $469      $528      $762    $1,138          4.17
State               3,253     3,557     3,362     3,302     3,068     2,693          0.76
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,830    $3,830    $3,830    $3,830    $3,830    $3,830          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXVI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   New Mexico Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXVI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in New Mexico Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\106 This is the constrained targeting score used to calculate the
state's implicit foundation level.  This differs from the actual
targeting score found in table V.1 in app.  V. 

\107 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  NEW YORK
====================================================== Appendix XXXVII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXVII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 43 percent of the total funding to New York's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
New York averaged $7,787 with an implicit foundation level of $5,240
for each student, which is about 67 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.578, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .370, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XXXVII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for
five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XXXVII.1
                
                Summary Data for New York in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $7,787
State share of total funding (percent)                            42.6
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.578
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $5,240
Equalization effort\d                                             67.3
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .370
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XXXVII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             693           302       144       1\a        46           200
Total pupils          2,608,699       520,956   447,934   962,269   156,803       520,737
Poverty rate               18.5          16.7      13.3      30.5       7.6           5.8
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.0          10.8      11.0      11.6      10.5          10.5
 (percent)
Mean income per        $114,397       $71,624   $96,585  $109,889  $116,663      $180,157
 pupil
Tax effort\b             $39.87        $42.35    $49.54    $25.53    $50.04        $49.75
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a New York City was the only district in this group. 

\b Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXXVII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of New York districts.  New York's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 189 percent to 32 percent.  Figure
XXXVII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXXVII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              New York, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $4,467    $3,017    $4,738    $2,879    $5,692    $8,719          2.89
State               3,320     5,292     4,116     2,688     3,376     2,231          0.42
=========================================================================================
Total              $7,787    $8,309    $8,853    $5,567    $9,068   $10,950          1.32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXVII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   New York, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXVII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXVII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure
XXXVII.3. 



                                      Table XXXVII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                         Been Distributed If Each District in New
                            York Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $4,489    $2,816    $3,819    $4,181    $4,676    $7,250          2.58
State               3,298     4,971     3,968     3,606     3,111       537          0.11
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $7,787    $7,787    $7,787    $7,787    $7,787    $7,787          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXVII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   New York Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXVII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in New York Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  NORTH CAROLINA
===================================================== Appendix XXXVIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXVIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 68 percent of the total funding to North Carolina's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in North Carolina averaged $4,424 with an implicit
foundation level of $3,043 for each student, which is about 69
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.016, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.\108 (To
compare this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app. 
V.) A North Carolina education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  The fiscal neutrality score was .250, indicating
that total funding increased as district income increased.  (To
compare this score with those of other states, see fig.  1.) To put
the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXXVIII.2
presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
districts of increasing district income. 



                            Table XXXVIII.1
                
                   Summary Data for North Carolina in
                          School Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,424
State share of total funding (percent)                            67.7
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.016
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,043
Equalization effort\d                                             68.8
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .250
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                     Table XXXVIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             132            42        29        27        24            10
Total pupils          1,082,899       210,835   221,949   215,571   209,004       225,540
Poverty rate               17.1          26.6      16.6      15.8      13.9          12.6
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.4          11.2      11.1      12.3      11.6          11.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $76,415       $51,667   $64,236   $70,911   $86,835      $107,140
Tax effort\a             $18.58        $18.77    $17.51    $16.62    $19.88        $19.54
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXXVIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of North Carolina districts.  North
Carolina's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 110 percent to about
18 percent.  Figure XXXVIII.1 provides table information in graphic
form. 



                                     Table XXXVIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                           North Carolina, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,429      $983    $1,120    $1,188    $1,719    $2,068          2.10
State               2,995     3,200     3,047     2,984     2,935     2,851          0.89
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,424    $4,183    $4,167    $4,171    $4,654    $4,919          1.18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXVIII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   North Carolina, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXVIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXVIII.2 provides this
information in graphic form.  The difference between how state
funding was actually distributed and how it would have been
distributed if districts could have financed the average is shown in
figure XXXVIII.3. 



                                     Table XXXVIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           North Carolina Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
                                                                                  group\a
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5     (percent)
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,433      $955    $1,207    $1,316    $1,632    $2,029          2.13
State               2,991     3,469     3,217     3,107     2,791     2,395          0.69
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,424    $4,424    $4,424    $4,242    $4,424    $4,424          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXVIII.2:  How State
   and Local Funding Would Have
   Been Distributed If Each
   District in North Carolina
   Could Have Spent the Average,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXVIII.3:  Comparison
   of Actual State Funding With
   State Funding Assuming Each
   District in North Carolina
   Could Have Spent the Average,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\108 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  NORTH DAKOTA
======================================================= Appendix XXXIX

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XXXIX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 48
percent of the total funding to North Dakota's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
North Dakota averaged $4,079 with an implicit foundation level of
$1,957 for each student, which is 48 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was .000, indicating that state education funds were
not targeted to poor or wealthy districts.\109 (To compare this score
with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal
neutrality score was .236, indicating that total funding increased as
district income increased.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see fig.  1.) A North Dakota education official
reported that the state had changed its school finance system since
school year 1991-92 to increase funding to poor districts compared
with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school
finance system in perspective, table XXXIX.2 presents demographic
data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of
increasing district income. 



                             Table XXXIX.1
                
                Summary Data for North Dakota in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,079
State share of total funding (percent)                            48.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                   .000
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $1,957
Equalization effort\d                                             48.0
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .236
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the constrained score (elasticity of state funding
relative to district income) used to calculate the state's implicit
foundation level.  The actual targeting elasticity is .173. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XXXIX.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             251            72        42        37        39            61
Total pupils            117,927        23,694    23,535    23,412    27,694        19,592
Poverty rate               16.4          23.3      17.3      14.3      13.4          13.5
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.4          10.1      11.0      11.3      10.1           9.4
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $58,094       $39,424   $51,292   $57,268   $64,658       $80,555
Tax effort\a             $37.11        $47.60    $37.25    $36.34    $33.97        $35.24
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XXXIX.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of North Dakota districts.  North
Dakota's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between
the wealthy and poor groups from about 48 percent to about 18
percent.  Figure XXXIX.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XXXIX.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                            North Dakota, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,122    $1,893    $1,927    $2,094    $2,178    $2,793          1.48
State               1,957     2,112     1,924     2,006     1,935     1,916          0.91
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,079    $4,006    $3,851    $4,100    $4,113    $4,709          1.18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XXXIX.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   North Dakota, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XXXIX.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XXXIX.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XXXIX.3. 



                                      Table XXXIX.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            North Dakota Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,131    $1,439    $1,859    $2,080    $2,385    $2,997          2.08
State               1,948     2,641     2,220     1,999     1,694     1,082          0.41
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,079    $4,079    $4,079    $4,079    $4,079    $4,079          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XXXIX.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   North Dakota Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XXXIX.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in North Dakota Could Have
   Spent the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\109 This is the constrained targeting score used to calculate the
state's implicit foundation level.  This differs from the actual
targeting score found in table V.1 in app.  V. 


STATE PROFILE:  OHIO
========================================================== Appendix XL

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XL.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided about
42 percent of the total funding to Ohio's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in Ohio
averaged $4,709 with an implicit foundation level of $2,325 for each
student, which is about 49 percent of the average and represents the
state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort with those of
other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for state funding was
-.180, indicating that state education funds were targeted to poor
districts.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .315,
indicating that total funding increased as district income increased. 
(To compare this score with those of other states, see fig.  1.) An
Ohio education official reported that the state had changed its
school finance system since school year 1991-92 to increase funding
to poor districts compared with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI). 
To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XL.2
presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
districts of increasing district income. 



                               Table XL.1
                
                  Summary Data for Ohio in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,709
State share of total funding (percent)                            41.9
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.180
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,325
Equalization effort\d                                             49.4
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .315
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                        Table XL.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             607           194       130        97        94            92
Total pupils          1,774,710       354,716   357,256   355,695   352,452       354,591
Poverty rate               16.9          22.4      20.6      19.1      12.9           9.6
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.3          11.1      12.0      11.6      10.7          11.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $80,781       $52,436   $64,691   $73,820   $88,110      $125,043
Tax effort\a             $33.75        $37.27    $33.27    $34.01    $32.51        $33.55
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XL.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Ohio districts.  Ohio's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 110 to 32 percent.  Figure XL.1
provides table information in graphic form. 



                                        Table XL.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                                Ohio, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,738    $1,969    $2,182    $2,529    $2,826    $4,132          2.10
State               1,971     2,336     2,164     2,030     1,766     1,556          0.67
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,709    $4,305    $4,346    $4,559    $4,592    $5,688          1.32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XL.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Ohio,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XL.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XL.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XL.3. 



                                        Table XL.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            Ohio Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,751    $1,765    $2,168    $2,487    $3,031    $4,311          2.44
State               1,958     2,944     2,541     2,222     1,678       398          0.14
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,709    $4,709    $4,709    $4,709    $4,709    $4,709          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XL.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Ohio Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XL.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Ohio Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  OKLAHOMA
========================================================= Appendix XLI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 71 percent of the total funding to Oklahoma's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Oklahoma averaged $3,623 with an implicit foundation level of $2,838
for each student, which is about 78 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.102, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was -.053, indicating that total funding increased as district income
decreased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XLI.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for
five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XLI.1
                
                Summary Data for Oklahoma in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,623
State share of total funding (percent)                            71.1
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.102
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,838
Equalization effort\d                                             78.3
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                        -.053
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XLI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             565           184       124        77       122            58
Total pupils            583,670       116,050   117,306   114,866   116,972       118,476
Poverty rate               20.9          26.6      22.6      17.1      15.9          22.4
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.4          12.2      10.4      10.5      10.8          13.2
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $64,014       $39,994   $51,158   $57,806   $73,948       $96,483
Tax effort\a             $16.45        $19.55    $19.51    $16.19    $16.53        $13.67
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Oklahoma districts.  Oklahoma's
equalization policies eliminated the 69 percent funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups, resulting in poor districts
having about 6 percent more funding than wealthy districts.  Figure
XLI.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XLI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Oklahoma, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,047      $796      $989      $920    $1,204    $1,349          1.69
State               2,575     2,939     2,769     2,569     2,529     2,179          0.74
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,623    $3,735    $3,758    $3,489    $3,732    $3,528          0.94
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLI.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Oklahoma, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLI.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XLI.3. 



                                       Table XLI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Oklahoma Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,048      $644      $846      $963    $1,232    $1,547          2.40
State               2,574     2,979     2,777     2,660     2,391     2,076          0.70
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,623    $3,623    $3,623    $3,623    $3,623    $3,623          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Oklahoma Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Oklahoma Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  OREGON
======================================================== Appendix XLII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 31 percent of the total funding to Oregon's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Oregon averaged $5,087 with an implicit foundation level of $1,652
for each student, which is about 33 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.043, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.\110 (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .166, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) An Oregon education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XLII.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XLII.1
                
                 Summary Data for Oregon in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,087
State share of total funding (percent)                            31.1
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.043
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $1,652
Equalization effort\d                                             32.5
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .166
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XLII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             286            91        51        31        37            76
Total pupils            497,341       100,064    98,967   100,194   104,705        93,411
Poverty rate               15.2          19.4      16.7      14.7       9.9          15.5
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.3          10.0       9.6       9.5       8.7           9.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $85,350       $55,212   $67,246   $78,331   $95,185      $133,320
Tax effort\a             $41.09        $53.06    $45.46    $40.97    $42.27        $32.74
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Oregon districts.  Oregon's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 46 to 22 percent.  Figure XLII.1
provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XLII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Oregon, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,503    $2,972    $3,073    $3,211    $3,957    $4,351          1.46
State               1,584     1,888     1,602     1,664     1,285     1,559          0.83
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,087    $4,860    $4,675    $4,875    $5,242    $5,910          1.22
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Oregon,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XLII.3. 



                                       Table XLII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           Oregon Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,515    $2,236    $2,748    $3,216    $3,975    $5,505          2.46
State               1,571     2,850     2,339     1,871     1,112    -418\c         -0.15
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $5,087    $5,087    $5,087    $5,087    $5,087    $5,087          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Oregon Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Oregon Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\110 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  PENNSYLVANIA
======================================================= Appendix XLIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 43
percent of the total funding to Pennsylvania's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Pennsylvania averaged $6,406 with an implicit foundation level of
$3,455 for each student, which is about 54 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.255, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .300, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table XLIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for
five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XLIII.1
                
                Summary Data for Pennsylvania in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $6,406
State share of total funding (percent)                            43.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.255
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,455
Equalization effort\d                                             53.9
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .300
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XLIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             500           158       118        51        77            96
Total pupils          1,663,264       332,301   332,621   331,441   333,339       333,562
Poverty rate               15.2          20.3      14.0      22.4      13.8           5.9
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.8          11.4      10.9      10.8      10.8          10.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $99,378       $63,705   $81,640   $91,116  $106,597      $153,601
Tax effort\a             $36.63        $36.67    $37.64    $30.99    $39.05        $38.27
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Pennsylvania districts. 
Pennsylvania's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 142 to 32 percent. 
Figure XLIII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XLIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                            Pennsylvania, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,653    $2,371    $3,071    $2,859    $4,154    $5,733          2.42
State               2,753     3,441     2,907     2,975     2,576     1,941          0.56
=========================================================================================
Total              $6,406    $5,812    $5,978    $5,833    $6,730    $7,674          1.32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLIII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Pennsylvania, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XLIII.3. 



                                      Table XLIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            Pennsylvania Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,672    $2,311    $3,007    $3,312    $3,935    $5,788          2.50
State              $2,734     4,095     3,399     3,094     2,471       618          0.15
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $6,406    $6,406    $6,406    $6,406    $6,406    $6,406          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Pennsylvania Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Pennsylvania Could Have
   Spent the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  RHODE ISLAND
======================================================== Appendix XLIV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 39 percent of the total funding to Rhode Island's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in Rhode Island averaged $5,939 with an implicit
foundation level of $3,953 for each student, which is about 67
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.694, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare
this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .274, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.  (To compare this score with
those of other states, see fig.  1.) A Rhode Island education
official reported that the state had changed its school finance
system since school year 1991-92 to increase funding to poor
districts compared with wealthy districts (see app.  LVI).  To put
the state's school finance system in perspective, table XLIV.2
presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XLIV.1
                
                 Summary Data for Rhode Island in 1991-
                                   92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,939
State share of total funding (percent)                            39.3
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.694
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,953
Equalization effort\d                                             66.6
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .274
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XLIV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              37             5         6         6         5            15
Total pupils            141,364        37,661    19,662    28,335    29,743        25,963
Poverty rate               12.8          26.7       5.0       9.9       7.7           7.3
 (percent)
Disabled rate              14.7          13.6      13.9      15.4      16.0          14.8
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $108,151       $79,842   $95,443  $109,764  $118,827      $144,847
Tax effort\a             $33.60        $31.54    $41.78    $29.66    $35.48        $32.86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLIV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Rhode Island districts.  Rhode
Island's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between
the wealthy and poor groups from about 85 to 19 percent.  Figure
XLIV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XLIV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                            Rhode Island, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,606    $2,546    $3,901    $3,264    $4,239    $4,719          1.85
State               2,333     2,961     2,325     2,365     1,904     1,834          0.62
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,939    $5,507    $6,226    $5,629    $6,144    $6,553          1.19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLIV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Rhode
   Island, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLIV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLIV.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XLIV.3. 



                                       Table XLIV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            Rhode Island Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,610    $2,639    $3,253    $3,653    $3,940    $4,865          1.84
State               2,329     3,300     2,686     2,286     1,998     1,074          0.33
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,939    $5,939    $5,939    $5,939    $5,939    $5,939          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLIV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Rhode Island Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLIV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Rhode Island Could Have
   Spent the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  SOUTH CAROLINA
========================================================= Appendix XLV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 52 percent of the total funding to South Carolina's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in South Carolina averaged $4,112 with an implicit
foundation level of $3,239 for each student, which is about 79
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.505, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare
this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .150, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.  (To compare this score with
those of other states, see fig.  1.) To put the state's school
finance system in perspective, table XLV.2 presents demographic data
for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing
district income. 



                              Table XLV.1
                
                   Summary Data for South Carolina in
                          School Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,112
State share of total funding (percent)                            52.4
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.505
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,239
Equalization effort\d                                             78.8
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .150
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XLV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              91            36        24        15        11             5
Total pupils            625,839       127,515   125,497   122,407   110,791       139,629
Poverty rate               20.8          29.8      22.2      14.7      16.4          20.2
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.9          10.7      11.5       9.7      11.4          11.4
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $65,707       $44,530   $56,351   $65,417   $73,981       $87,143
Tax effort\a             $29.70        $30.40    $31.82    $29.03    $32.92        $26.48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of South Carolina districts.  South
Carolina's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 69 to 8 percent. 
Figure XLV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XLV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                           South Carolina, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,959    $1,371    $1,807    $1,854    $2,429    $2,317          1.69
State               2,153     2,470     2,328     2,242     1,949     1,834          0.74
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,112    $3,840    $4,136    $4,096    $4,378    $4,151          1.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in South
   Carolina, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLV.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure XLV.3. 



                                       Table XLV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           South Carolina Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,964    $1,319    $1,669    $1,998    $2,216    $2,589          1.96
State               2,148     2,793     2,444     2,115     1,897     1,523          0.55
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,112    $4,112    $4,112    $4,112    $4,112    $4,112          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   South Carolina Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in South Carolina Could Have
   Spent the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  SOUTH DAKOTA
======================================================== Appendix XLVI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLVI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 30 percent of the total funding to South Dakota's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in South Dakota averaged $3,756 with an implicit
foundation level of $1,109 for each student, which is about 30
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was .000, indicating that
state education funds were not targeted to poor or wealthy
districts.\111 (To compare this score with those of other states, see
table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .367,
indicating that total funding increased as district income increased. 
(To compare this score with those of other states, see fig.  1.) To
put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XLVI.2
presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XLVI.1
                
                Summary Data for South Dakota in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,756
State share of total funding (percent)                            29.5
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                   .000
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $1,109
Equalization effort\d                                             29.5
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .367
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the constrained score (elasticity of state funding
relative to district income) used to calculate the state's implicit
foundation level.  The actual targeting elasticity is .116, which is
not statistically different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table XLVI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             161            55        47        24        20            15
Total pupils            124,665        25,208    22,748    31,388    20,232        25,089
Poverty rate               18.2          29.1      20.6      16.0      14.3          11.2
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.8          10.8       8.7       8.8       9.5          11.5
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $57,440       $37,717   $50,120   $57,730   $63,374       $78,745
Tax effort\a             $46.52        $50.90    $54.34    $46.47    $44.77        $41.36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLVI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of South Dakota districts.  South
Dakota's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between
the wealthy and poor groups from about 66 to 28 percent.  Figure
XLVI.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XLVI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                            South Dakota, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,648    $1,977    $2,698    $2,642    $2,807    $3,276          1.66
State               1,109     1,320     1,305       994     1,069       952          0.72
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,756    $3,297    $4,003    $3,636    $3,876    $4,228          1.28
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLVI.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in South
   Dakota, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLVI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLVI.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XLVI.3. 



                                       Table XLVI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            South Dakota Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,658    $1,705    $2,339    $2,703    $2,954    $3,608          2.12
State               1,099     2,052     1,418     1,053       802       148          0.07
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,756    $3,756    $3,756    $3,756    $3,756    $3,756          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLVI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   South Dakota Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLVI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in South Dakota Could Have
   Spent the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\111 This is the constrained targeting score used to calculate the
state's implicit foundation level.  This differs from the actual
targeting score found in table V.1 in app.  V. 


STATE PROFILE:  TENNESSEE
======================================================= Appendix XLVII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLVII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 47
percent of the total funding to Tennessee's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Tennessee averaged $3,329 with an implicit foundation level of $1,566
for each student, which is 47 percent of the average and represents
the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort with those
of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for state funding
was .000, indicating that state education funds were not targeted to
poor or wealthy districts.\112 (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .242, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Tennessee education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XLVII.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XLVII.1
                
                  Summary Data for Tennessee in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,329
State share of total funding (percent)                            47.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                   .000
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $1,566
Equalization effort\d                                             47.0
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .242
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the constrained score (elasticity of state funding
relative to district income) used to calculate the state's implicit
foundation level.  The actual targeting elasticity is .017, which is
not statistically different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                      Table XLVII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             134            45        38        16        26             9
Total pupils            830,038       162,495   168,648   175,240   137,994       185,661
Poverty rate               20.4          22.8      19.4      26.8      17.6          15.4
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.9          13.1      12.9      10.4      12.1          11.2
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $70,681       $45,784   $58,753   $65,648   $80,007      $101,123
Tax effort\a             $24.82        $29.77    $21.53    $29.62    $24.32        $22.13
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLVII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Tennessee districts. 
Tennessee's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 59 to 21 percent. 
Figure XLVII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                      Table XLVII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Tennessee, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,763    $1,386    $1,276    $1,934    $1,941    $2,202          1.59
State               1,566     1,653     1,580     1,567     1,601     1,469          0.89
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,329    $3,038    $2,856    $3,501    $3,541    $3,671          1.21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLVII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Tennessee, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLVII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLVII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XLVII.3. 



                                      Table XLVII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                         Tennessee Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,770    $1,125    $1,452    $1,647    $2,004    $2,566          2.28
State               1,559     2,205     1,877     1,682     1,325       763          0.35
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,329    $3,329    $3,329    $3,329    $3,329    $3,329          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLVII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Tennessee Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLVII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Tennessee Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\112 This is the constrained targeting score used to calculate the
state's implicit foundation level.  This differs from the actual
targeting score found in table V.1 in app.  V. 


STATE PROFILE:  TEXAS
====================================================== Appendix XLVIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLVIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 47 percent of the total funding to Texas' school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Texas averaged $4,603 with an implicit foundation level of $3,318 for
each student, which is about 72 percent of the average and represents
the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort with those
of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for state funding
was -.522, indicating that state education funds were targeted to
poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of other states,
see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .003,
indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.\113 (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Texas education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XLVIII.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                             Table XLVIII.1
                
                 Summary Data for Texas in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,603
State share of total funding (percent)                            47.4
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.522
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,318
Equalization effort\d                                             72.1
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                      Table XLVIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts           1,046           222       326       256        80           162
Total pupils          3,462,964       693,672   691,190   700,596   692,550       684,956
Poverty rate               24.4          42.2      23.8      17.2      21.2          17.6
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.9           9.1      10.4      10.7       9.9           9.5
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $62,842       $30,006   $51,336   $63,427   $73,839       $95,988
Tax effort\a             $38.73        $44.82    $44.48    $38.37    $34.41        $37.74
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLVIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Texas districts.  Texas'
equalization policies eliminated the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups.  Figure XLVIII.1 provides table information
in graphic form. 



                                      Table XLVIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                                Texas, School Year 1991-92

                             Mean funding per weighted pupilighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,423    $1,373    $2,293    $2,424    $2,527    $3,566          2.60
State               2,180     3,316     2,500     2,230     1,851     1,126          0.34
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,603    $4,689    $4,792    $4,654    $4,379    $4,691          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLVIII.1:  State and
   Local Funding Distribution in
   Texas, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLVIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLVIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure
XLVIII.3. 



                                      Table XLVIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                           Texas Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,437    $1,136    $1,975    $2,459    $2,864    $3,765          3.31
State               2,166     3,467     2,628     2,144     1,739       837          0.24
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,603    $4,603    $4,603    $4,603    $4,603    $4,603          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLVIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Texas Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLVIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Texas Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\113 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  UTAH
======================================================== Appendix XLIX

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table XLIX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 60 percent of the total funding to Utah's school districts. 
Total funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Utah averaged $3,177 with an implicit foundation level of $2,240 for
each student, which is about 71 percent of the average and represents
the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort with those
of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for state funding
was -.172, indicating that state education funds were targeted to
poor districts.\114 (To compare this score with those of other
states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score was
.036, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.\115 (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) A Utah education official reported that the state had
changed its school finance system since school year 1991-92 to
increase funding to poor districts compared with wealthy districts
(see app.  LVI).  To put the state's school finance system in
perspective, table XLIX.2 presents demographic data for school year
1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                              Table XLIX.1
                
                  Summary Data for Utah in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $3,177
State share of total funding (percent)                            60.2
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.172
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,240
Equalization effort\d                                             70.5
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .036
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                       Table XLIX.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              40            16        12         2       1\a             9
Total pupils            456,552       105,334    47,601   123,040    80,330       100,247
Poverty rate               12.1          13.3      13.1       7.8      12.2          15.6
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.6          11.2      10.4       9.8       9.5          12.2
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $41,385       $28,599   $35,986   $39,903   $43,367       $57,616
Tax effort\b             $30.43        $45.72    $37.21    $27.55    $23.50        $26.86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Salt Lake City was the only district in this group. 

\b Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table XLIX.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Utah districts.  Utah's
equalization policies eliminated the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups, resulting in poor districts having 1 percent
more funding than wealthy districts.  Figure XLIX.1 provides table
information in graphic form. 



                                       Table XLIX.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                                Utah, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,266    $1,318    $1,338    $1,081    $1,006    $1,583          1.20
State               1,911    $2,015    $2,103    $2,001    $1,804    $1,718          0.85
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,177    $3,333    $3,441    $3,082    $2,809    $3,301          0.99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure XLIX.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in Utah,
   School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table XLIX.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure XLIX.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure XLIX.3. 



                                       Table XLIX.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            Utah Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,265      $870    $1,102    $1,242    $1,344    $1,724          1.98
State               1,911     2,307     2,075     1,935     1,833     1,453          0.63
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $3,177    $3,177    $3,177    $3,177    $3,177    $3,177          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure XLIX.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Utah Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure XLIX.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Utah Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\114 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 

\115 See footnote 114. 


STATE PROFILE:  VERMONT
=========================================================== Appendix L

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table L.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 29
percent of the total funding to Vermont's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Vermont averaged $7,722 with an implicit foundation level of $3,453
for each student, which is about 45 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.539, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .176, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table L.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                               Table L.1
                
                Summary Data for Vermont in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $7,722
State share of total funding (percent)                            29.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.539
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,453
Equalization effort\d                                             44.7
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .176
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                        Table L.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             236            39        44        56        52            45
Total pupils             92,491        18,516    17,861    19,128    17,890        19,096
Poverty rate               11.8          14.2      11.4      10.6      10.5          12.2
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.4          11.0      10.3      11.0      10.4           9.6
 (percent)
Per pupil income       $112,652       $56,715   $83,165  $102,725  $131,592      $186,672
Tax effort\a             $48.97        $66.35    $50.78    $54.05    $50.74        $39.30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table L.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Vermont districts.  Vermont's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 91 to 31 percent.  Figure L.1
provides table information in graphic form. 



                                        Table L.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Vermont, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $5,479    $3,800    $4,212    $5,577    $6,656    $7,273          1.91
State               2,243     2,677     3,019     2,657     1,825     1,180          0.44
=========================================================================================
Total              $7,722    $6,478    $7,231    $8,233    $8,481    $8,454          1.31
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure L.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Vermont, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table L.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure L.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure L.3. 



                                        Table L.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Vermont Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $5,507    $2,736    $4,063    $4,983    $6,439    $9,198          3.36
State               2,214     4,986     3,659     2,739     1,283         -         -0.30
                                                                    1,476\c
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $7,722    $7,722    $7,722    $7,722    $7,722    $7,722          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure L.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Vermont Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure L.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Vermont Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  VIRGINIA
========================================================== Appendix LI

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table LI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided 36
percent of the total funding to Virginia's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Virginia averaged $4,713 with an implicit foundation level of $2,541
for each student, which is about 54 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was -.499, indicating that state education funds were
targeted to poor districts.  (To compare this score with those of
other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal neutrality score
was .377, indicating that total funding increased as district income
increased.  (To compare this score with those of other states, see
fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance system in perspective,
table LI.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
groups of districts of increasing district income. 



                               Table LI.1
                
                Summary Data for Virginia in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,713
State share of total funding (percent)                            36.0
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.499
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $2,541
Equalization effort\d                                             53.9
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .377
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                        Table LI.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             133            40        37         9        34            13
Total pupils          1,017,948       205,812   201,384   223,676   185,625       201,451
Poverty rate               13.4          20.3      15.4      10.5      14.9           6.0
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.3          10.6      10.4      10.8      12.1          12.8
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $93,199       $62,643   $74,607   $80,465  $101,389      $149,596
Tax effort\a             $31.55        $28.65    $28.34    $31.86    $34.66        $32.15
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table LI.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Virginia districts.  Virginia's
equalization policies reduced the funding disparity between the
wealthy and poor groups from about 168 to 38 percent.  Figure LI.1
provides table information in graphic form. 



                                        Table LI.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Virginia, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,018    $1,802    $2,100    $2,537    $3,555    $4,828          2.68
State               1,695     2,336     2,110     1,718     1,612       874          0.37
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,713    $4,138    $4,210    $4,255    $5,167    $5,701          1.38
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure LI.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Virginia, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table LI.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure LI.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure LI.3. 



                                        Table LI.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Virginia Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,014    $2,026    $2,434    $2,634    $3,248    $4,813          2.38
State               1,699     2,687     2,279     2,079     1,465   -$100\c         -0.04
=========================================================================================
Total\d            $4,713    $4,713    $4,713    $4,713    $4,713    $4,713          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The state would have had to recapture this amount of local funding
from these districts for distribution to other districts. 

\d The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure LI.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Virginia Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure LI.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Virginia Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  WASHINGTON
========================================================= Appendix LII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table LII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 75 percent of the total funding to Washington's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in Washington averaged $5,302 with an implicit
foundation level of $4,025 for each student, which is about 76
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.009, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.\116 (To
compare this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app. 
V.) The fiscal neutrality score was .055, indicating that total
funding increased as district income increased.  (To compare this
score with those of other states, see fig.  1.) To put the state's
school finance system in perspective, table LII.2 presents
demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts
of increasing district income. 



                              Table LII.1
                
                 Summary Data for Washington in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,302
State share of total funding (percent)                            75.2
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.009
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $4,025
Equalization effort\d                                             75.9
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .055
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table LII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                     Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                  ----------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------
Total districts             290           104        50        45          43          48
Total pupils            860,198       176,414   166,660   179,429     170,415     167,280
Poverty rate               14.3          20.8      12.3      14.5        13.3        10.4
 (percent)
Disabled rate               9.6          10.3       9.5      10.4         8.8         8.8
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $82,373       $50,688   $64,265   $73,890     $87,323    $137,883
Tax effort\a             $15.84        $17.72    $17.93    $17.14      $15.96      $13.44
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table LII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Washington districts. 
Washington's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 99 to 4 percent. 
Figure LII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table LII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                             Washington, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,314      $915    $1,147    $1,279    $1,379    $1,824          1.99
State               3,988     4,337     4,094     4,013     4,003     3,657          0.84
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,302    $5,252    $,5241    $5,292    $5,382    $5,481          1.04
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure LII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Washington, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table LII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure LII.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure LII.3. 



                                       Table LII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                         Washington Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,320      $797    $1,031    $1,169    $1,408    $2,233          2.80
State               3,981     4,505     4,271     4,132     3,894     3,069          0.68
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,302    $5,302    $5,302    $5,302    $5,302    $5,302          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure LII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Washington Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure LII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Washington Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\116 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  WEST VIRGINIA
======================================================== Appendix LIII

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table LIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 73 percent of the total funding to West Virginia's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in West Virginia averaged $4,927 with an implicit
foundation level of $4,028 for each student, which is about 82
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.127, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare
this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .071, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.\117 (To compare this score
with those of other states, see fig.  1.) To put the state's school
finance system in perspective, table LIII.2 presents demographic data
for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing
district income. 



                              Table LIII.1
                
                Summary Data for West Virginia in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $4,927
State share of total funding (percent)                            72.5
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.127
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $4,028
Equalization effort\d                                             81.8
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .071
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                       Table LIII.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              55            15        17        12         6             5
Total pupils            320,249        61,797    66,219    69,242    52,010        70,981
Poverty rate               25.6          37.7      27.5      22.8      18.6          21.1
 (percent)
Disabled rate              13.4          14.0      14.2      12.8      12.9          13.0
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $58,725       $38,898   $48,913   $57,314   $66,647       $80,711
Tax effort\a             $23.03        $25.84    $22.84    $21.44    $25.09        $22.05
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table LIII.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of West Virginia districts.  West
Virginia's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 70 to 4 percent. 
Figure LIII.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table LIII.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                            West Virginia, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $1,353    $1,032    $1,130    $1,216    $1,645    $1,759          1.70
State               3,574     3,827     3,698     3,624     3,462     3,284          0.86
=========================================================================================
Total              $4,927    $4,859    $4,828    $4,840    $5,107    $5,044          1.04
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure LIII.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in West
   Virginia, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table LIII.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure LIII.2 provides this information
in graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was
actually distributed and how it would have been distributed if
districts could have financed the average is shown in figure LIII.3. 



                                       Table LIII.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                            West Virginia Could Have Spent the
                               Average, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $1,358      $874    $1,114    $1,335    $1,561    $1,882          2.15
State               3,569     4,053     3,813     3,592     3,367     3,045          0.75
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $4,927    $4,927    $4,927    $4,927    $4,927    $4,927          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure LIII.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   West Virginia Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure LIII.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in West Virginia Could Have
   Spent the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\117 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE PROFILE:  WISCONSIN
========================================================= Appendix LIV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table LIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided
about 46 percent of the total funding to Wisconsin's school
districts.  Total funding (state and local funds combined) per
weighted pupil in Wisconsin averaged $5,865 with an implicit
foundation level of $3,439 for each student, which is about 59
percent of the average and represents the state's equalization
effort.  (To compare this effort with those of other states, see fig. 
5.) The targeting score for state funding was -.270, indicating that
state education funds were targeted to poor districts.  (To compare
this score with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The
fiscal neutrality score was .129, indicating that total funding
increased as district income increased.  (To compare this score with
those of other states, see fig.  1.) To put the state's school
finance system in perspective, table LIV.2 presents demographic data
for school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing
district income. 



                              Table LIV.1
                
                  Summary Data for Wisconsin in School
                              Year 1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,865
State share of total funding (percent)                            46.2
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                  -.270
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,439
Equalization effort\d                                             58.6
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                         .129
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
income. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income. 



                                       Table LIV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts             426           168        47        79        42            90
Total pupils            813,614       162,519   163,918   160,381   164,659       162,137
Poverty rate               14.1          16.0      25.8      10.4      10.8           7.2
 (percent)
Disabled rate              11.0          10.9      11.6      11.0      11.4          10.2
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $82,555       $56,430   $68,951   $75,869   $85,530      $126,089
Tax effort\a             $38.31        $47.27    $32.46    $40.43    $36.99        $37.63
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table LIV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Wisconsin districts. 
Wisconsin's equalization policies reduced the funding disparity
between the wealthy and poor groups from about 74 to about 8 percent. 
Figure LIV.1 provides table information in graphic form. 



                                       Table LIV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                              Wisconsin, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $3,157    $2,673    $2,297    $3,049    $3,158    $4,647          1.74
State               2,707     3,301     3,234     2,777     2,457     1,808          0.55
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,865    $5,974    $5,531    $5,825    $5,615    $6,455          1.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure LIV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Wisconsin, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table LIV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure LIV.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure LIV.3. 



                                       Table LIV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                         Wisconsin Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $3,176    $2,158    $2,571    $2,921    $3,278    $4,954          2.30
State               2,689     3,707     3,294     2,944     2,586       911          0.25
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,865    $5,865    $5,865    $5,865    $5,865    $5,865          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure LIV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Wisconsin Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure LIV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Wisconsin Could Have Spent
   the Average, School Year
   1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


STATE PROFILE:  WYOMING
========================================================== Appendix LV

ACTUAL EDUCATION FUNDING
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL YEAR
1991-92

As table LV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, the state provided about
53 percent of the total funding to Wyoming's school districts.  Total
funding (state and local funds combined) per weighted pupil in
Wyoming averaged $5,920 with an implicit foundation level of $3,111
for each student, which is about 53 percent of the average and
represents the state's equalization effort.  (To compare this effort
with those of other states, see fig.  5.) The targeting score for
state funding was .000, indicating that state education funds were
not targeted to poor or wealthy districts.\118 (To compare this score
with those of other states, see table V.1 in app.  V.) The fiscal
neutrality score was -.196, indicating that total funding increased
as district income decreased.\119 (To compare this score with those
of other states, see fig.  1.) To put the state's school finance
system in perspective, table LV.2 presents demographic data for
school year 1991-92 for five groups of districts of increasing
district income. 



                               Table LV.1
                
                Summary Data for Wyoming in School Year
                                1991-92

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Average total funding per weighted pupil\a                      $5,920
State share of total funding (percent)                            52.5
Targeting score (state funds)\b                                   .000
Implicit foundation level\c                                     $3,111
Equalization effort\d                                             52.5
Fiscal neutrality score\e                                        -.196
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

\b This is the constrained score (elasticity of state funding
relative to district income) used to calculate the state's implicit
foundation level.  The actual targeting elasticity is .296, which is
not statistically different from 0. 

\c This is the minimum amount of total funding the state's
equalization policies would enable districts to spend for each
student, assuming all districts had made the same minimum tax effort. 

\d This is the implicit foundation as a percent of the average. 

\e This is the elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative
to district income.  The score is not significantly different from 0. 



                                        Table LV.2
                         
                         Demographic Context in School Year 1991-
                                            92

                                   Poorest                                    Wealthiest
                                 ------------                                ------------
                          State       Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4       Group 5
-----------------  ------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Total districts              49            17        10        13         5             4
Total pupils            101,017        20,293    19,411    21,327    19,421        20,565
Poverty rate               13.8          14.5      12.9      13.9      14.3          13.2
 (percent)
Disabled rate              10.3           9.5       9.7      11.2      11.0           9.7
 (percent)
Per pupil income        $55,152       $37,739   $48,824   $55,741   $61,767       $71,450
Tax effort\a             $51.22        $90.83    $82.84    $59.54    $28.88        $21.79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income. 

Table LV.3 presents data on how state and local funding was
distributed among the five groups of Wyoming districts.  Wyoming's
equalization policies resulted in wealthy districts having 16 percent
less funding than poor districts.  Figure LV.1 provides table
information in graphic form. 



                                        Table LV.3
                         
                         State and Local Funding Distribution in
                               Wyoming, School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local              $2,810    $3,405    $4,015    $3,355    $1,801    $1,546          0.45
State               3,111     3,169     2,148     2,782     3,516     3,968          1.25
=========================================================================================
Total              $5,920    $6,573    $6,163    $6,137    $5,317    $5,514          0.84
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

   Figure LV.1:  State and Local
   Funding Distribution in
   Wyoming, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

HOW FUNDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISTRIBUTED IF DISTRICTS COULD
HAVE SPENT THE AVERAGE ON EACH
STUDENT

Table LV.4 provides data on the distribution of state and local
funding if all districts could have spent the average total funding
per weighted pupil with an average tax effort.  This assumes the
state optimized its targeting effort without changing the state share
or the total funding for education.  Under this scenario, the
implicit foundation level equals the maximum possible foundation
level (the state average).  Figure LV.2 provides this information in
graphic form.  The difference between how state funding was actually
distributed and how it would have been distributed if districts could
have financed the average is shown in figure LV.3. 



                                        Table LV.4
                         
                          How State and Local Funding Would Have
                           Been Distributed If Each District in
                          Wyoming Could Have Spent the Average,
                                   School Year 1991-92

                                   Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Wealthie
                           Poorest                                    st
                           --------                                --------
                                                                               Funding of
                                                                               wealthiest
                                                                                    group
                                                                                 compared
                                                                             with poorest
Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5       group\a
---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------------
Local\b            $2,811    $1,939    $2,509    $2,811    $3,117    $3,667          1.89
State               3,109     3,981     3,411     3,109     2,803     2,253          0.57
=========================================================================================
Total\c            $5,920    $5,920    $5,920    $5,920    $5,920    $5,920          1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This ratio is determined by dividing the wealthiest districts'
funding by the poorest districts' funding. 

\b This is the local funding that could have been raised assuming all
districts had made the same average tax effort. 

\c The average is the maximum foundation level possible in a state. 

   Figure LV.2:  How State and
   Local Funding Would Have Been
   Distributed If Each District in
   Wyoming Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure LV.3:  Comparison of
   Actual State Funding With State
   Funding Assuming Each District
   in Wyoming Could Have Spent the
   Average, School Year 1991-92

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\118 This is the constrained targeting score used to calculate the
state's implicit foundation level.  This differs from the actual
targeting score found in table V.1 in app.  V. 

\119 However, this score is not significantly different from 0. 


STATE SURVEY RESULTS
========================================================= Appendix LVI

In this report, we relied on state and local funding data from the
1991-92 school year.  However, many states have made subsequent
changes to their school finance system in response to legal changes
or to concerns about equity.  We telephoned officials in the 49
states to determine what changes had been implemented in the school
finance system from school years 1991-92 through 1995-96.  We
specifically asked about changes in targeting that would affect
low-wealth districts and changes in a state's share of total
funding.\120 These two factors affect the implicit foundation level
that all districts in a state can finance with the same minimum tax
effort--the greater the targeting effort to low-wealth districts or
the greater the state share, or both, the greater the implicit
foundation level. 

Education officials in over half the states (25) said their state had
not increased the targeting of state funds to low-wealth districts
since school year 1991-92.  Officials in the other 24 states reported
that their state was targeting more or many more state funds to
low-wealth districts.  We did not verify the statements of the state
officials. 

Fewer states had increased the state share of total funding
significantly.  Officials in eight states reported an increase of 6
percentage points or more in the state share.  Officials in 38 states
reported that their state's share of total funding had a net increase
or decrease of 5 percentage points or less, and 3 states reported a
decrease of 6 percentage points or more.\121

Among the states that had changed their finance system were Missouri
and Michigan.  These states reported using different approaches to
raise revenue and target more funds to low-wealth districts. 
Missouri's state share declined slightly, but changes implemented in
1993 resulted in increased targeting to low-wealth districts.  The
state developed a new formula that rewards districts for tax
effort--the lower the property wealth and the higher the tax rate,
the more state funding a district receives.  In Michigan, the state
share increased almost 45 percentage points between school years
1991-92 and 1994-95 as statewide property and sales taxes replaced
the local property tax as the principal source of funding.  Since
1994 (the year the new system was implemented), the lowest wealth
districts have experienced an increase of about 50 percent in state
funding; the highest wealth districts, however, have had to raise
their local property taxes to maintain former spending levels.  Table
LVI.1 summarizes our findings of the changes states have made. 



                                       Table LVI.1
                         
                            Summary of Changes to State School
                         Finance Systems, School Years 1991-92 to
                                         1995-96

                                     1995-96 targeting to low-wealth districts compared
                                                        with 1991-92
                                   ------------------------------------------------------
                        Change in
                      state share
                      (percentage
State                     points)     Much more          More          Same          Less
-------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Alabama                       3.2             X
Alaska                       -0.8                                         X
Arizona                       2.0                                         X
Arkansas                      6.0                                         X
California\a                 -9.7                                         X
Colorado                     11.2                           X
Connecticut\b                -1.4                           X
Delaware                     -1.6                                         X
Florida                      -0.3                                         X
Georgia                       2.2                                         X
Idaho\b                       0.4                           X
Illinois\a                   -1.1                                         X
Indiana\b                     2.2                           X
Iowa                          0.8                                         X
Kansas                       17.6                           X
Kentucky                      2.4                                         X
Louisiana                    -6.0             X
Maine                        -5.0                                         X
Maryland                     -1.1                           X
Massachusetts                 8.0             X
Michigan\b                   44.9             X
Minnesota                     0.4                           X
Mississippi                   2.2                           X
Missouri                     -1.3             X
Montana                      -4.9             X
Nebraska                      0.2                           X
Nevada                       -6.9                                         X
New Hampshire                -1.0                                         X
New Jersey                   -5.0                           X
New Mexico                    0.0                                         X
New York                     -3.2                                         X
North Carolina               -1.0                           X
North Dakota                 -4.0                           X
Ohio\b                       -0.4                           X
Oklahoma\b                    3.0                                         X
Oregon                       30.0                           X
Pennsylvania                 -1.1                                         X
Rhode Island                  0.8                           X
South Carolina               -1.7                                         X
South Dakota                 -0.4                                         X
Tennessee                    10.0             X
Texas                         1.1                           X
Utah                         24.0                           X
Vermont                      -3.4                                         X
Virginia\b                    2.1                                         X
Washington                   -2.7                                         X
West Virginia                -4.0                                         X
Wisconsin                     3.7                                         X
Wyoming                       0.7                                         X
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Change as of school year 1993-94. 

\b Change as of school year 1994-95. 


--------------------
\120 Not all states had school year 1995-96 data available:  seven
states reported changes as of school year 1994-95, and two states
reported changes as of school year 1993-94. 

\121 Because not all state officials knew the local contribution for
capital expenditures and debt service, we asked state officials to
estimate their state's share of total funding exclusive of these
categories. 


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
======================================================== Appendix LVII

GAO CONTACTS

Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209
Barbara A.  Billinghurst, Senior Evaluator, (206) 287-4867
Jerry C.  Fastrup, Supervisory Economist, (202) 512-7211

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Peter J.  Bylsma, Evaluator-in-Charge, (206) 287-4881
Nancy Purvine, Evaluator
Virginia Vanderlinde, Evaluator


GLOSSARY
=========================================================== Appendix 0


      ELASTICITY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.1

The percent change in one variable relative to a 1-percent change in
another variable. 


      EQUALIZATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.2

In the context of this report, a state's effort to compensate for
differences in districts' abilities to raise education revenues. 


      EQUALIZATION EFFORT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.3

The ratio of a state's implicit foundation level to the maximum
foundation level (the state average). 


      EQUITY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.4

Equity in school finances is concerned with the distribution of
education funding or resources.  To determine the equity of school
finance systems, experts recommend considering the following four
issues:  (1) who is to benefit (taxpayers or public school students);
(2) what objects are to be equally distributed, such as revenues or
key resources (for example, curriculum and instruction), or outcomes
(for example, student achievement); (3) what principle is to be used
for determining whether distribution is equitable (such as vertical
equity or fiscal neutrality); and (4) the statistic used to measure
the degree of equity. 


      FISCAL NEUTRALITY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.5

A definition of equity that asserts that no relationship should exist
between educational spending per pupil and local district income per
pupil (or some other measure of fiscal capacity).  In this study, a
fiscal neutrality score of 0 indicates that no relationship exists
between district funding and district income. 


      FISCAL NEUTRALITY SCORE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.6

The elasticity of total (state and local) funding relative to
district income. 


      IMPLICIT FOUNDATION LEVEL
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.7

The minimum amount of total funding per weighted pupil that a state's
equalization policies implicitly enable districts to spend with the
same minimum local tax effort. 


      MAXIMUM FOUNDATION LEVEL
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.8

The average amount of total funding per weighted pupil in a state. 


      TAX EFFORT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.9

In this study, the tax effort is a ratio of a district's local
education revenue to its income. 


*** End of document. ***