Chapter 7
Education: A State Function
This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law.
The following are prohibited by law: any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over
a network; preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part,
of any images; any rental, lease, or lending of the program.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
Early Development of State Responsibility
•Early interest
Harvard-1636
laws of 1642 & 1647
ordinances of 1785 and 1787
James Madison-universities
Thomas Jefferson-appropriations of public lands
George Washington-national university
Article I, Section 8 of Constitution-general welfare of nation
10th amendment of Constitution-legal basis for state
responsibility
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
•state interpretation of responsibility
state school system from local units
Mann and Barnard-state foundations
•decentralized systems of education-developed over two centuries
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
Development of School Finance Policies
•Historically - costs of school operations defrayed with
nonmonetary services
•state finance systems-diversity and lack of standardization
•Education Commission of the States and national organizations-help
states learn from each other
•land grants and other nontax funds
state support developed slowly
beginning 20th century-17.2% of revenues from state sources
beginning 21st century-48% of revenues from state sources
early colonial period-land grants used to establish and support
schools
gifts, rate bills and lotteries also used
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
•early taxation patterns
largely permissive
favored city school districts-penalized rural areas
1890-all states had tax-supported school systems
1st quarter of 19th century-real beginning of taxing patterns and
decline of nontax sources
today-nontax sources prevalent-lotteries, foundations,
partnerships, gifts and benefits
taxation-remains primary source of state and school revenues
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
Developmental States of School Finance
•six stages of development
•ease and transition of movement into modern and realistic stage
dependent on
size of state
educational finance needs and traditions
educational leadership
•period one-emphasis on local responsibility
original colonies-rate bills and tuition
early New England-property taxes
permissive property tax laws became mandatory
pupil residence important determinant of quantity and quality of
education available
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
early 20th century-need for state support due to growth in
rural communities and neighborhoods
Depression-problems with reliance on property taxes
evident
•period two-early grants and allocations
•period three-emergence of foundation program concept
few states recognized and implemented responsibilities
Cubberley - pioneer in state apportionments of funds to
local districts and equality of educational opportunity
risks-increased state control and state monies supplant
rather than supplement
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
•period four-emergence of foundation program concept
Strayer and Haig—modern school finance theory
began with Educational Finance Inquiry Commission-1923
devised around rich district idea
guarantee quality of educational opportunity
encourage local initiative
features defined by law
constructed around needs and resources of each state
cost of foundation program should include a major part of total
cost of public education in that state
uniform property assessment essential
should encourage reorganization of school districts
should be a minimum, not a maximum
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
•period four-refinement of foundation program concept
movement away from levy of statewide property tax
fiscal independence of school districts
problems with change from state property taxation to local
property taxation
The Depression-states limited taxing power of school districts
beginning efforts in use of local nonproperty taxes
Cubberley’s emphasis on improvements and reward for effort
undercut
Morrison and Undegraff-early part of 20th century emphasized
state support for education and district power
equalization
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
•period five-power equalization
emphasized in first half of 20th century
state and local districts in partnership to pay for basic program
of education
mid-20th century-Mort advocated guaranteed foundation
program and encouraged local initiative
open-ended or shared-cost equalization—percentage of state
funds higher for poorer districts
equalized percentage matching (EPM)-combines equalization
and reward for effort
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
•period six-shift of emphasis and influence
limited progress in equity and adequacy
greater agency influences demanding accountability
more student choice
taxpayer revolt
fears of war and terrorism
natural disasters
shifting economic factors
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
The Varying State Roles
•during 1920’s almost complete responsibility for administering property
tax given to local districts and counties
•equalization became necessary
•problems existed
need for good equalization program
need to provide fiscal independence
need to provide assistance in administering local property
taxes
need to expand tax base
need to give local districts greater autonomy in administering
property taxes
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
•current programs
most common - foundation approach
modified foundation program-”Robin Hood” or leveling down
and leveling up
leveling up - recapturing money from richer districts for poorer
districts
flat grant-oldest and simplest method
combinations of programs exist
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
State Ability to Support Education
•measurement of a state’s ability to support is difficult
•ability of states to support education varies greatly
•some ways of measuring state taxing ability are no longer useful
•most common method now used requires inclusion of income
•taxing efforts vary by state
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008