USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The Florida education finance program from 1981 to 2009

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The Florida education finance program from 1981 to 2009 a historical review and equity analysis
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Bowden, Curtis Todd
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
State
Funding
Public
School
Distribution
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: In 1973, the state of Florida implemented the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP). The program was developed to distribute available funds to public school districts in a more equitable manner than the Minimum Foundation Plan it replaced. Almost immediately, the Florida Education Finance Program came under attack as less equitable and unnecessarily complex. The Florida Education Finance Program provides funding to local school districts based on the number students and the types of educational programs in which they are enrolled. Through a system of program cost factors and district cost differentials the Florida Education Finance Program adjusts for the type of students and the economic environment the district serves.But does it distribute funds equitably? This study was designed to answer one central research question: "Does the Florida Education Finance Program equitably distribute available funding to public school districts in the state?" In order to answer this question, a three phase method was implemented. In the first phase a chronological development of Florida's school finance plan was developed. The second phase employed research based statistical tools to gauge the distributional equity of Florida's mechanism for distributing available funds for Florida public school districts. The final phase used Pearson product-moment correlations to gauge the fiscal neutrality of the system. The study is patterned after a similar study completed in 1982 that called into question the distributional equity of the Florida Education Finance Program.The coefficient of variation, federal range ratio, McLoone index, Verstegen index, and Gini coefficient are all research based measures of distributional equity that are resistant to inflationary pressure. Each of these measures of distributional equity yielded the same results. They showed a high level of equity in the distribution of available funding to Florida's public school districts through the Florida Education Finance Program. This study left open the questions of adequacy and the role of the state in funding public education in the state of Florida to future study.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Curtis Todd Bowden.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 216 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002064028
oclc - 560712695
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0003044
usfldc handle - e14.3044
System ID:
SFS0027361:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200385Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002064028
005 20100319162937.0
007 cr bnu|||uuuuu
008 100319s2009 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003044
035
(OCoLC)560712695
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB2805 (Online)
1 100
Bowden, Curtis Todd.
4 245
The Florida education finance program from 1981 to 2009 :
b a historical review and equity analysis
h [electronic resource] /
by Curtis Todd Bowden.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2009.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 216 pages.
502
Dissertation (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: In 1973, the state of Florida implemented the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP). The program was developed to distribute available funds to public school districts in a more equitable manner than the Minimum Foundation Plan it replaced. Almost immediately, the Florida Education Finance Program came under attack as less equitable and unnecessarily complex. The Florida Education Finance Program provides funding to local school districts based on the number students and the types of educational programs in which they are enrolled. Through a system of program cost factors and district cost differentials the Florida Education Finance Program adjusts for the type of students and the economic environment the district serves.But does it distribute funds equitably? This study was designed to answer one central research question: "Does the Florida Education Finance Program equitably distribute available funding to public school districts in the state?" In order to answer this question, a three phase method was implemented. In the first phase a chronological development of Florida's school finance plan was developed. The second phase employed research based statistical tools to gauge the distributional equity of Florida's mechanism for distributing available funds for Florida public school districts. The final phase used Pearson product-moment correlations to gauge the fiscal neutrality of the system. The study is patterned after a similar study completed in 1982 that called into question the distributional equity of the Florida Education Finance Program.The coefficient of variation, federal range ratio, McLoone index, Verstegen index, and Gini coefficient are all research based measures of distributional equity that are resistant to inflationary pressure. Each of these measures of distributional equity yielded the same results. They showed a high level of equity in the distribution of available funding to Florida's public school districts through the Florida Education Finance Program. This study left open the questions of adequacy and the role of the state in funding public education in the state of Florida to future study.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Bobbie J. Greenlee, Ed.D.
653
State
Funding
Public
School
Distribution
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Educational Leadership
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.3044



PAGE 1

The Florida Education Finance Program from 1981 to 2009 : A Historical Review and Equity Analysis by Curtis Todd Bowden A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Depar tment of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Bobbie J. Greenlee Ed.D. Michael Bookman, Ph.D. Darlene Bruner, Ed.D John M. Ferron, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 19, 2009 Keywords: state, funding, public, school, distribution Copyright 2009 Curtis Todd Bowden

PAGE 2

D EDICATION To my beau tiful wife Janene, when we first met I was a classroom teacher with big hopes and dreams. One of my most important hopes was that one day I would meet a woman like you that I could spend the rest of my life with. I thank you for coming into my life. I a lso dreamed of earning a doctoral degree. There were times when I wanted to quit, but you would not allow it. Because of you this dream is coming true, not for me but for us, and I thank you for it. Thank you for standing by me through countless promoti ons, transfers, and relocations as I pursued my professional ambitions. For all of your love, support, encouragement, and occasional nagging to get this done I dedicate this dissertation to you. To my children, Johnna and Bobby, you learned to say the wor you on many occasions. But, please know that I did this for you and your future. This degree will open doors for us as a family. I am not sure you wil l remember the day that your father earned his doctoral degree, but having you there will be one of my most cherished memories. I dedicate this dissertation to both of you and hope that it serves as an example of what one can do when they set goals and wor k hard to achieve them. To my parents, thank you for teaching me two of the most important things I have ever learned. Number one, anything worth having is worth working for N umber two, no one can ever take your education away from you.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGME NTS To my committee chair, Dr. Bobbie Greenlee, I believe you were sent into my life for a reason. I am not sure I would have completed this process if it were not for you. To say it is a small world would be an understatement. Who would have thought t hat two kids who grew up together, but hardly knew each other, would find each other years later and forge the relationship that we have. Thank you for your support and encouragement through this process. Your knowledge of and guidance through, this pro cess has been invaluable. Dr. Michael Bookman, to have you in the room when I defended my dissertation is a moment I will never forget. I have always looked up to you as a leader in the field of education. Thank you for sharing just a small portion of y our expertise with me. Dr. John Ferron, you are an example to us all that you do not have to choose between family and career. Visiting your office was always something I looked forward to. Thank you for your advice and counsel. Dr. Darlene Bruner, of all of my committee members, you were the one I knew the least when this process started. I have enjoyed getting to know you. Thank you for believing in me and committing your time to this process.

PAGE 4

i T ABLE OF CONTENTS L IST OF TABLES v i L IST OF FI GURES i x A BSTRACT x iii C HAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Adequacy Defined 2 Equity Defined 4 Adequacy Versus Equity Studies 6 The Case of Florida 8 Statement of the Problem 10 Research Question 11 Procedures 1 1 Phase 1 12 Phase 2 12 Measures o f Dispersion of Variability and Variation 1 4 Phase 3 1 6 Independent Variables 17 Delimitations 1 7 Limitations 19 Justification for the Study 20 Definition of Terms 2 2 Organization of the Study 2 3 C HAPTER 2: HISTORICAT REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMEN T OF 1982 TO 2009 25 The FEFP Funding Formula in 1982 26 Full time Equivalent (FTE) 27 Program Cost Factors 28 Base Student Allocation 28 Sparsity Supplement 28 District Cost Differential 28 Declining Enro llment & Guaranteed Minimum Levels 30 State & Local FEFP Dollars 31 Required Local Effort 32 State FEFP Dollars 32

PAGE 5

ii Adjustments 32 Net State FEFP Allocation 32 Categorical Program Funds 33 Special Allocations 33 Total State Allocation 34 Th e Evolution of the FEFP 34 Changes to the District Cost Differentials 34 Calculation of the District Cost Differential 34 The Florida Price Level Index 36 Changes in the Program Cost Factors 37 The Number of Program Cost Factors 37 Program Caps 38 Additional Weighted FTE 42 Inclusion and Exclusion of Various Adjustments 42 Declini ng Enrollment Supplement and Guaranteed Minimum Levels 43 Guaranteed Minimum Level 44 Quality Assurance Guarantee 44 Equalization of Discretion ary Levy 45 Profoundly Handicapped Adjustment 46 Sparsity Supplement 46 Salary Allocation and Assigned Allocation 47 Rapid Growth Supplement 48 Extended Day Allocation 48 Adequacy Supplement 48 Math/Science Incentive 49 Funding Adju stment 49 Hold Harmless Adjustment 50 Safe Schools Allocation 50 First Grade Class Size Reduction 51 Remediation Reduction Incentive 51 Disparity Compression Adjustment 52 Dropout Prevention Incentive 52 Supplemental Academic Instructi on 53 ESE Guaranteed Allocation 53 Minimum Guarantee Adjustment 53 Lab School Discretionary Contribution 54 Summer Reading Allocation 54 Reading Program Allocation 55 0.51 (0.498) Mills Discretionary Compression 55 Special Teachers are Rewarded (STAR) Plan Allocation 56 Merit Award Program (MAP) Allocation 56 DJJ Supplement 56 Additional Allocations Outside of the Base FEFP Calculation 56

PAGE 6

iii Extended Day / Seventh Period 57 Adequacy Supplement 57 Caps Adjustment Supplement 57 Additional State Allocation 57 The Inclusion of Lottery Dollars 58 The FEFP Funding Formula in 2008 59 Full time Equivalent (FTE) 60 Program Cost Factors 61 Additional Weighted FTE 62 Base Student Allocation 62 District Cost Differenti al 63 Adjustments 63 State & Local FEFP Dollars 64 Required Local Effort 65 State FEFP Dollars 65 Adjustments 65 Net State FEFP Allocation 66 District Discretionary Lottery Funds 66 Categorical Program Funds 67 Special Allocations 67 To tal State Allocation 67 Legal Challenges 67 Equity Challenges 68 Adequacy Challenges 69 Constitutional Amendment 7 1 Conclusion 71 C HAPTER 3: METHODS AND PREVIOUS FINDINGS 73 Method for Conducting the Historical Review 74 Measures of Distributi onal Equality 74 Adjustment of Revenue Measures 75 The District Cost Differential 76 The Geographic Cost of Education Index 76 The Comparable Wage Index 77 Selected Years for Study 78 Equity Measures 79 Total State Revenue Measures 82 F indings from the Original Study 82 Total Local Revenue Measures 84 Findings from the Original Study 84 Total State and Local Revenue Measures 86 Findings from the Original Study 86 Assessing Distributional Patt erns of Per Pupil Revenues Using Lorenz Curves and Gini Coefficients 89

PAGE 7

iv Fin d ings from the Original Study 92 Relationships Between Revenue Measures and Selected Independent Variables 95 Selected Independent Variables 96 Total State Revenue Measures 97 Total Local Revenue Mea sures 99 Total State and Local Revenue Measures 101 Equity Studies in the Literature 104 The Equity of Public Education Funding in Georgia 104 School Finance Reform in Tennessee 105 Wealthy or Poor: Who R eceives and Who Pays in Iowa 105 Assessi 105 Horizontal and Vertical Equity Analysis of Indiana 106 The Equality of Public School District Funding 107 C HAPTER 4: FINDINGS 108 Research Design and Methods 109 Variables for Analysis 109 Measures of Dispersion of Variability and Variation 111 Correlations 113 Independent Variables 113 Measures of Distributional Equity 114 Total State Revenue Measures 114 Percentile Ranks 114 Range and Restricted Range 118 Coefficient of Variation 124 Federal Range Ratio 125 McLoone Index 127 Verstegen Index 128 Total Local Revenue Measures 129 Percentile Ranks 132 Range and Restricted Range 133 Coefficient of Variation 139 Federal Range Ratio 140 McLoone Index 142 Verstege n Index 143 Total State and Local Revenue Measures 144 Percentile Ranks 147 Range and Restricted Range 148 Coefficient of Variation 154 Federal Range Ratio 155 McLoone Index 157 Verstegen Index 158

PAGE 8

v Assessing Distributional Pa tterns o f Per Pupil Revenues Using Gini Coefficients 159 Total State Revenue 160 Total Local Revenue 162 Total State and Local Revenue 164 Comparison of Revenues 166 Relationship Between R evenue Measures and Selected Independent Variables 167 Dis trict Cost Differential and the Revenue Measures 167 Total State Revenue 168 Total Local Revenue 170 Total State and Local Revenue 172 Comparison of Revenue Types 174 Assessed Property Value per Pupil and the Revenue Measures 175 Total Sta te Revenue 176 Total Local Revenue 178 Total State and Local Revenue 180 Comparison of Revenue Types 182 Assessed Property Value per Pupil and the District Cost Differential 183 Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil Using Weighted Student FTE 185 C HAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 188 Overview 188 Phase I 188 Phase II 188 Phase III 189 Interpretation of Findings 189 Phase I 189 Phase II 190 Revenue Measures 190 Adjustment of Revenues 191 Measures of Dispersions or Variability 191 Findings 192 Phase III 194 Implications of Findings 195 Recommendations for Future Research 195 Conclusion 197 R EFERENCES 19 9 B IBLIOGRAPHY 20 6 A BOUT THE AUTHOR End Page

PAGE 9

vi L IST OF TABLES Table 1: 1981 82 Program Cost Fact ors 29 Table 2: 1981 82 District Cost Differentials 30 Table 3: Program Cost Factors, 1981 82 to 1989 90 39 Table 4: Program Cost Factors, 1990 91 to 1999 2000 40 Table 5: Program Cost Factors, 2000 01 to 2008 09 41 Table 6: 2008 09 Program Cost Fact ors 61 Table 7: 2008 09 District Cost Differentials 64 Table 8: Percentile Distribution of Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1970 1980 83 Table 9: Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1970 1980 84 Table 10: Pe rcentile Distribution of T otal Local Revenue per Pupil, 1970 1980 85 Table 11: Measures of the Variation in the Dis tribution of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1970 1980 85 Table 12: Percentile Distribution of Total State and Local Revenues Per Pupil, 1970 1980 87 Table 13: Measures of the Variation in th e Distribution of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 88 Table 14: Gini Coefficients of the Distrib ution of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 92 Table 15: Gini Coefficients of the Distrib ution of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 93

PAGE 10

vii Table 16: Gini Coefficients of the Distribution of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 95 Table 17: Product Moment Correl ation Between the District Cost Differential and Tota l State Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 98 Table 18: Product Moment Correlation Be tween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1970 80 98 Table 19: Product Moment Correlati on Between the District Cost Differential and Total Lo cal Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 100 Table 20: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 100 Table 21: Product Moment Correlati on Between the District Cost Differential and Total Sta te and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 102 Table 22: Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1970 80 102 Table 23: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween Assessed Property Value 80 103 Table 24: Percentile Distribution of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 115 Table 25: Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 1 16 Table 26: Additional Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 126 Table 27: Percentile Distribution of Tot al Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 130 Table 28: Measures of the Variation in the Distri bution of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 131 Table 29: Additional Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 141

PAGE 11

viii Table 30: Percentile Distribution of Tot al State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 145 Table 31: Measures of the Variation in the Dist ribution of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 146 Table 32: Additional Measures of the V ariation in the Distribution of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 156 Table 33: Gini Coefficients of the Distribut ion of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 160 Table 34: Gini Coefficients of the Distribu tion of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 162 Table 35: Gini Coefficients of the Distribut ion of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 164 Table 36: Product Moment Correlation Between the Distric t Cost Differential and Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 168 Table 37: Product Moment Correlati on Between the District Cost Differ entials and Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 170 Table 38: Product Moment Correlation Between the Distr ict Cost Differentials and Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 172 Table 39: Product Moment Correlatio n Between Assessed Pr operty Value per Pupil and Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 176 Table 40: Product Moment Correlation B etween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 178 Table 41: Product Moment Correlati on Between Asses sed Property Value per Pupil and Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 180 Table 42: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and the District Cost Differentials, 1982 2008 184 Table 43: Use of Weighted and Un weighted Students in Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil Equity Measures in 1998 99 186

PAGE 12

ix List of Figures Figure 1: Calculation of State and Local FEFP in 198 0 27 Figure 2: Calculation of Net State FEFP in 1981 82 31 Figure 3: Calculation of T otal State Allocation in 1981 82 33 Figure 4: Calculation of FEFP in 2008 09 60 Figure 5: Calculation of Net State FEFP Allocation in 2008 09 65 Figure 6: Calculation of Total State Finance Program in 2008 09 66 Figure 7: A Sample Lorenz Curve 90 Figu re 8: Range and Restricted Range of Un adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 119 Figure 9: Range and Restricted Range of DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 120 Figure 10: Range and Restricted Range of CWI Adjusted Total S tate Revenue per Pupil, 1998 2008 121 Figure 11: Range and Restricted Range of GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1988 2008 122 Figure 12: Range of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 123 Figure 13: Restricted Range of Total State Reve nues per Pupil, 1982 2008 124 Figure 14: Coefficient of Variation of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 125 Figure 15 Federal Range Ratio of To tal State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 127 Figure 16 McLoone Index of Total State Revenues per Pupil 1982 2008 128

PAGE 13

x Figure 17: Verstegen Index of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 129 Figure 18: Range and Restricted Range of Un adjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 134 Figure 19 Range and Restricted Range of DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 135 Figure 20: Range and Restricted Range of CWI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1998 2008 136 Figure 21: Range and Restricted Range of GCEI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1988 2008 137 Figure 22: Range of Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 138 Figure 23: Restricted Range of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 139 Figure 24: Coefficient of Variation of Tot al Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 140 Figure 25: Federal Range Ratio of Tota l Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 142 Figure 26: McLoone Index of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 143 Figure 27: Verstegen Index of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 144 Figure 28: Range and Restricted Range of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 149 Figure 29: Range and Restricted Range of DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 150 Figure 30: Range and Restricted Range of CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil, 1998 20 08 151 Figure 31: Range and Restricted Range of GC EI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil, 1988 2008 152 Figure 32: Range of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 153 Figure 33: Restricted Range of Total State a nd Local Reven ues per Pupil, 1982 2008 153

PAGE 14

xi Figure 34: Coefficient of Variation of Tota l State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 154 Figure 35: Federal Range Ratio of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 157 Figure 36: McLoone Index of Total St ate a nd Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 158 Figure 37: Verstegen Index of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 159 Figure 38: Gini Coefficients of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 161 Figure 39: Gini Coefficients of Total L ocal Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 163 Figure 40: Gini Coefficients of Total State and Local Revenues per Pup il, 1982 2008 165 Figure 41: Gini Coefficients of Unadjusted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 166 Figure 42: Gini Coefficients of DCD Adjusted Rev enues per Pupil, 1982 2008 167 Figure 43: Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differentials and Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 169 Figure 44: Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differentials and Total Local Revenu es per Pupil, 1982 2008 171 Figure 45: Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differentials And Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 173 Figure 46: Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differentials and Un adjusted R evenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 174 Figure 47: Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differentials and DCD Adjusted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 175 Figure 48: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total Stat e Revenues, 1982 2008 177 Figure 49: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween Assessed Property Value per Student and Total Local Revenues, 1982 2008 179

PAGE 15

xii Figure 50: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State and Local Revenues, 1982 2008 181 Figure 51: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Unadjusted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 182 Figure 52: Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and DCD Adjusted R evenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 183 Figure 53: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and the District Cost Differentials, 1982 2008 184

PAGE 16

xiii T HE FLORIDA EDUCATION FINANCE PROGRA FROM 1981 TO 2009 : A HISTORICAL REVIEW AND EQ UITY ANALYSIS Curtis Todd Bowden ABSTRACT In 1973, the state of Florida implemented the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP). The program was developed to distribute available funds to public school districts in a more equitable manner than the Mi nimum Foundation Plan it replaced. Almost immediately, the Florida Education Finance Program came under attack as less equitable and unnecessarily complex. The Florida Education Finance P rogram provides funding to local school districts based on the numb er students and the types of educational programs in which they are enrolled. Through a system of program cost factors and district cost differentials the Florida Education Finance Program adjust s for the type of students and the economic environment the district serves. But does it distribute funds equitably? Florida Education Finance Program equitably distribute available funding to public er to answer this question, a three phase method was plan was developed. The second phase employed research based statistical tools to gauge the distributional equity

PAGE 17

xiv Florida public school districts. The final phase used Pearson product moment correlations to gauge the fiscal neutrality of the system. The study is patterned after a similar study completed in 1982 that called into question the distributional equity of the Florida Education Finance Program. The coefficient of variation, federal range ratio, McLoone index, Verstegen index, and G ini coefficient are all research based measures of distributional eq uity that are resistant to inflationary pressure. Each of these measures of distributional equity yielded the same results. They showed a high level of equity in the distribution of available ida Education Finance Program. This study left open the questions of adequacy and the role of the state in funding public education in the state of Florida to future study.

PAGE 18

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For over 30 years, the distribution of educational opportunities and the equality of education funding across communities has generated considerable interest among policy makers, the public, and the courts (Moser & Rubenstein, 2002). T he majority of states have been involved in ongoing judicial and legisl ative controversies over education finance formulas that provide more education resources to students in some school districts than others. Despite scores of court decisions and dozens of legislative enactments, the legal and political issues concerning s tate funding of education remains muddled (Imber, 2001). Consistent with court decisions, states appear to be taking a more active role in the design of public school finance programs that recognize the difference in the needs of pupils, school and school districts (Verstegen & Jordan, 2009). Usually when the state assumes a greater fiscal responsibility for funding its public schools, a higher level of fiscal equity is the result (Driscoll & Salmon, 2008). The two key questions that currently guide the s chool funding debate are: 1. How much money is needed? 2. What is fair in the distribution of available funding (Ramirez, 2003) ? These questions revolve around the concepts of adequacy and equity. Challenges to the constitutionality of a state school finance s ystem as inequitable or inadequate have driven reform of school finance systems in those states (Hirth & Eiler, 2005). School funding

PAGE 19

2 litigation is nothing new to the United States (Murry, 2006). During the past 40 years, questions about the equity and ad equacy of school finance have been the subject of lawsuits in nearly every state (Glenn, 2006). In examining any school funding formula, it is important to understand the differences between equity, equality, and adequacy because it leads to profound diffe rences in the definition of the problems to be addressed and the remedies available for their solution (Hirth & Eiler, 2005). Theoretically, there should be no relationship between wealth and resources (Driscoll & Salmon, 2008). Adequacy Defined One wou ld think that a concept so central to the debate of funding of public education would have a readily accepted definition. Yet, a consensus of the experts is hard to find. In general terms, adequacy deals with the amount of money needed by a system of edu cation to deliver a specific result. The key to adequacy is that it revolves around a stated outcome. The adequacy of educational dollars is measured by the degree of student achievement in comparison to the stated performance standards of the education system (Odden, 2003). There is not and probably will never be a single standard that applies across states as the absolute cost of an adequate education (Baker, 2005). If we assume that state imposed standards define what we ca n refer to the amount of Reschovsky, 2003). To date, no single approach to determining an adequate spending level is dominant across the country, and each produces diff erent dollar amounts. Most

PAGE 20

3 require substantial increases in education funding (Odden, 2003). The Kentucky Supreme C ourt in Rose v. Council for Better Education in 1989 defined an adequate social and political governmental process to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation (Roelke, Green, & Zielewsk i, 200 4, p. 122) The Wyoming Supreme C ourt in Campbell County School District v. State in 1995 found that character which provides Wyoming students with a uniform opportunity to become equipped for their future role as citizens, participants in the political system (Roelke et al., 200 4, p. 122) The New Hampshire Supreme Court held in Claremont School District v. Governor des broad educational et al. 200 4, p. 122) T he New York Supreme Court found in Campaign for Fiscal Eq uity v. State in 2003 that an adequate education is one that provides students with greater than minimum preparation (Roelke et al 2004).

PAGE 21

4 The u nderlying theoretical assumptions for the shape of educational adequacy are : 1. Basic costs vary by desired outc omes 2. Marginal Costs of Achieving Outcomes vary by district scale 3. Marginal C osts of Achieving Outcomes vary by student needs 4. Marginal Costs of Producing Outcomes vary by prices districts must pay for comparable resources 5. Scale, student needs, and input pric es interact to influence costs multiplicatively 6. Marginal costs of achieving desired outcomes increase as performance standards increase and decrease as performance standards decrease (Baker, 2005) Court decisions and legislative struggles have emphasize d that adequacy state funding at levels that allow all children to perform at high levels is replacing equity as the school finance issue of our time (Picus, 2001). Long focused on fiscal equity, school finance is now shifting toward fiscal adequacy. And this shift represents a fundamental change: it means that school finance today encompasses not only fiscal inputs but also their connection to educational programs, teacher compensation, and student achievement (Odden, 2003). Adequacy is challenging e quity as the standard to which state school revenue distribution plans should be held (Cohen Vogel & Cohen Vogel, = 2001). Despite the shift to adequacy, those who make school finance policy must remain vigilant about fiscal disparities caused b y t he uneq ual distribution of available revenues As funding formulas are revised to ensure adequacy, there will also be an improvement in fiscal equity (Odden, 2003). Equity Defined The struggle for equity continues to be at once the most important and the most con tentious issue in American education (Imber, 2001). Equity is a long held and widely affirmed ideal of the American system of government (Verstegen & Driscoll, 2008). In

PAGE 22

5 one form or another, equity in school funding has been a major concern in K 12 educa tion finance discussions since the early 1970s (Toutkoushian & Michael, 2007). While perfect equity will probably never be fully defined, much less achieved, education policy and practice must be designed to promote the goal of creating the most equitable system of education possible (Imber, 2001). Two alternative definitions of equity exist in school funding. The first is know n as horizontal equity, meaning that school districts considered to be similar to each other a long dimensions that relate to th e cost of providing basic education, such as wealth, size, and socioeconomic status, should have comparable levels of funding. This is often called the equal treatment of equals in school finance literature. A second equity principle, vertical equity, st ates that for education funding to be equitable, school districts with higher costs to educate student populations should receive more funding than their counterparts to compensate for this difference; this is called the unequal treatment of unequals (Tout koushian & Michael, 2007). Fiscal equity in financing public education has been a substantive issue with a long history in school finance literature (Maiden & Evans, 2009). Equity targets need to be supplemented, not supplanted, by adequacy targets to determine whether there is su fficient funding available to teach all children to high standards (Verstegen, 2002). In

PAGE 23

6 theory, any system designed to provide adequate funding for virtually all students should also meet the standards of equity (Picus, 2001 ). Public education systems are designed to produce equity (fairness) in the treatment of their students, but they do not, cannot, and should not aspire to produce complete equality. In the difficult process of allocating resources for education, some recipients must necessarily rec eive advantages over others, while some suffer disadvantages. This is inevitable in a process where there are innate and fundamental t, and desire to learn (Brimley & Garfield, 2002). Adequacy Versus Equity Studies As stated previously, state distribution systems can be evaluated from two distinct perspectives. 1. How much money is needed? 2. What is fair in the distribution of available funding? Finance systems can be equitable but not adequate if children and youth w ithin a state receive insufficient funding to meet state standards, requirements, and laws (Verstegen & Driscoll, 2008). Researchers and policymakers should endeavor to ensure that resources supporting instruction as the critical component of the educatio nal enterprise are distributed fairly. Continued studies of state distribution systems are strongly recommended (Maiden & Evans, 2009). Studies designed to determine the amount of money needed to operate an adequate system of education are designed and c onducted differently tha n studies designed to test the fairness of the distribution of available funding. It is important for researchers to clearly differentiate whether they intend to conduct an adequacy or equity study, and tailor their methods accordi ngly.

PAGE 24

7 Over the past 10 years, education policy analysts have established four different approaches for determining an adequate per student funding level in a state system of education : 1. Determining the economic cost of various ed ucational functions 2. Linking spending to performance benchmarks 3. Asking professional educators 4. Pricing effective school wide strategies (Picus, 2001) Each of these methods results in a cost of education for a presumed hypothetical average student that can serve as an adequacy target and basis for school finance policy. This cost is further adjusted for special high cost students and district characteristics (Verstegen, 2002). It is important to note that researchers would chose from one of the four established approaches. A justifi cation for using the selected method would be required as each method will deliver a different result based on its methodology. Measures of equity are well established in the school finance literature (Bundt & Leland, 2001). New York University Professor s Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel have developed a widely used framework for conceptualizing and measur ing equity in education finance ( Verstegen, 2002). The framework consists of eight equity measures that can be used in conjunction with each other to ma ke judgments about distribution of available funding. The equity measures are: 1. Range 2. Restricted Range 3. Federal Range Ratio 4. Coefficient of Variation 5. Gini Coefficient 6. McLoone Index 7. Verstegen Index 8. Fiscal Neutrality

PAGE 25

8 The Case of Florida In 1982, a doctoral st udent at the University of Florida proposed to study the 12 public schools. That student, Dr. Lee Shiver, completed his doctoral studies with a dissertation entitled A Historical Review of the Development of ce Plan and the Fiscal Equalization Effects of the Florida Education Finance Plan. system for financing public education from two perspectives. The first perspective was a historical one. D r. Shiver chronicled the financing of public schools in Florida from statehood through the publication of his dissertation in 1982. The second perspective involved the application of statistical tests to determine if the newly enac ted Florida Education Fi nance Program (FEFP) distributed funds more equitably than the Minimum Foundation Plan (MFP) it replaced. held out as an equity study. His findings were surprising in that he found the Minimum Foundation Plan was more equitable tha n the newer Florida Education Finance P rogram In the introduction to his study, Dr. Shiver quoted from the work of Morphet, Johns and Reller (1982, p. 402) The quote stated: The equalization of educational opportunity within a state is not a simple task computation of variations in the unit costs for equivalent educational programs and services is a problem which requires continuous study in each state if educational opportunities are really equalized This s tatement is as true in 200 9 as it was in 1982. It is this need for continuous study 12 education.

PAGE 26

9 It behooves policymakers to carefully and continuously examine s tate education funding systems (Vesely, Crampton, Obiakor, & Sapp, 2008). Continuing that study and clearly differentiating between equity and equality, is the intent of this study Utilizing the multiple perspectives of the Shiver study, it is the desi re of this study to chronicle the evolution of the Florida Education Finance P rogram from the publication of Dr. Shivers work in 1982 through 200 9 The current study will also replicate the statistical techniques used by Dr. Shiver. N ewer statistical mod els are also to be employed so that a linear comparison can take place amongst the findings to produce a work, that when com piled with the original study, provides data about the equalization effects of the Florida Education Finance P rogram from the 1970 7 1 through 2008 09 academic year s Over a decade after the A Nation at Risk report and three decades well after the of education finance in state capitols indicate s that public school funding continues to be a tortuous undertaking and its path is strewn with technical and political minefields. The distant goal for many states (Nakib & Herrington, 1998). School finance policy for most of the 20 th century largely concerned fiscal equity. The key problem was differences in revenues per pupil across school district lines, usually but not always caused by differences in property wealth per pupil (Odden, 2000). In the twentieth century, state governments have tried to offset these funding inequities by supplementing local revenues with state funds through a variety of equalizing measures. Although these measures mitigate local in equalities, they rarely offset them (Rebell, 1999).

PAGE 27

10 Dr. Shiver wrote in 1982: educational opportunity in the state be updated to provide the information necessary for developing sound public finance policy in the future. Combined with a historical overview of the development of state support for public schools in Florida, such an analysis will enable scholars and governmental decision makers to reflect upon and evaluate the pertinent background information, the trends established, and the lessons learned in ( p. 5 ). Many things have changed in regards to financing schools equitably since 1982, yet many have not. The need for current informat system described by Dr. Shiver in 1982 is evident today. Twenty seven years later, t he From a statistical perspective, statistical tools have been develop ed and refined over the last twenty seven years that It is the need for an update d historical review and an updated statistical analysis of the State finance distribution formula that forms the basis of this study Statement of the Problem The United States has not one system of education finance but 50, each shaped by statutes of the particular state. Therefore, the study of education finance poli cy is the study of state legislative activity (Crampton, 2007). The means by which states provide funding for public education vary greatly across the United States, and there are many variations in the details of how these distributions are made Althou gh almost every state uses a funding formula for distributing revenues for public education, no two are alike in their specific details (Toutkoushian & Michael, 2008). The state of Florida has had in place since the time of San Antonio v. Rodriguez an e ducation finance system called the

PAGE 28

11 Florida Education F inance P rogram (FEFP), which makes substantial effort to equalize per pupil spending in all of the state's school districts while recognizing the local factors that may necessitate changes in that spend ing (Bauries, 2006). In 1982, Dr. Shiver called into question the equity components of the Florida Education Finance P rogram His findings specifically stated that the Minimum Foundation Plan was more equitable than the Florida Education Finance P rogram This study challenges those findings by using recent, research based statistical tools to conduct a true equity study A statistical analysis of the equalization of educational funding in Florida from 1982 83 to 2008 09 was conducted to determine the st ate aid impact on equalization in was employed as well as more recent statistical tools. The findings are presented side by side for comparative purposes. The coupling of these studies provide s data fr om 1970 71 through 2008 09. Measures of fiscal equality are the focus of the analysis. Research Question The central research question of this study is: Does the Florida Education Finance P rogram equitably distribute available funding to public school d istricts in the state? Procedures The study is condu cted using procedures outlined in the initial Shiver study as well as those contained in the current literature The study is conducted in three phases.

PAGE 29

12 Phase I The chronological development of Flo is traced through a review of relevant literature including official state and l ocal agency reports and records. This historical review covers the period from 1982 through 200 9 The historical review has been completed and is i ncluded as chapter 2 of this study Phase II Phase II begins with the identification of the statistical measures and independent and dependant variables, which will be used to assess the progress of state school aid, toward greater equalization of educatio nal opportunity. Based on the con cept and measurement approaches which have been used previously by Dr. Shiver and those established in the current literature as well as the accessible and centrally recorded data pertaining to the state and local fundin g of Florida's sixty seven public school districts necessary to conduct such analyses, the following measures are the varia bles for analysis. Variables for Analysis Total S tate R evenue per P upil This variable is the sum of all state revenue provided to d istricts and includes the FEFP appropriations, categorical program funding, special state revenue sources, special state appropriations, and state lottery funds divided by the unweighted FTE student count of the district. The required local effort is pres cribed by the state, but raised from local sources (property taxes) and will not be included in total state revenue per pupil. D istrict Cost Differential (DCD) Adjusted Total State R evenue per P upil. This variable is the sum of all state revenue provided to districts and includes the FEFP

PAGE 30

13 appropriations, categorical program funding, special revenue sources, special appropriations, and lottery funds divided by the unweighted FTE student count of the ial. Comparable Wage Index (CWI) Adjusted Total S tate R evenue per P upil. This variable is the sum of all state revenue provided to districts and includes the FEFP appropriations, categorical program funding, special revenue sources, special appropriations and lottery funds divided by the unweighted FTE student count of the e Index Geographic Cost of Education Index ( GCEI ) Adjusted Total S tate R evenue per P upil. This variable is the sum of all state revenu e provided to districts and includes the FEFP appropriations, categorical program funding, special revenue sources, special appropriations, and lottery funds divided by the unweighted FTE student count of the c C ost of Education Index Total L ocal R evenue per P upil Th is variable is the revenue derived f rom the required local effort combined with other local revenues provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE student count DCD Adjusted Total L ocal R e venue per P upil. Th is variable is the revenue derived f rom the required local effort combined with other local revenues provided to the District Cost Differential CWI Adjusted Total L ocal R evenue per P upil. Th is variable is the revenue derived f rom the required local effort combined with other local revenues provided to the

PAGE 31

14 district divided by the unweighted FTE student count divided by the distri Comparable Wage Index GC EI Adjusted Total L ocal R evenue per P upil. Th is variable is the revenue derived f rom the required local effort combined with other local revenues provided to the c Cos t of Education Index Total S tate and L ocal R evenue per P upil Th is variable combine s the total state revenue and the total local revenue provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE student count DCD Adjusted Total S tate and L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable combine s the total state revenue and the total local revenue provided to the district divided by the District Cost Differential CWI Adjusted Total S tate and L ocal R evenue per P up il. This variable combine s the total state revenue and the total local revenue provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE student count divided by the Comparable Wage Index GCEI Adjusted Total S tate and L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable combine s the total state revenue and the total local revenue provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE student count divided by the Geographi c Cost of Education Index Measures of Dispersion of Variability and Variation Seven different measur es of dispersions o f variability or variation were selected Three additional measures of dispersion or variability have been

PAGE 32

15 selected based o n their prevalence in the current literature. These ten different measures of dispersions or variability will be utilized in the current study Percentiles School districts are ranked according to the variable of interest with values listed for the 100 t h (highest), 95 th 75 th 50 th (median), 25 th 5 th and 1 st (lowest) percentiles. Range The range is the difference between the values of a variable in the highest and lowest districts in a distribution. Restricted R ange The restricted range is a measur e less sensitive to extreme values than the range. In this study, it is the difference between the values of the selected revenue measure at the 95 th and the 5 th percentiles. Federal Range Ratio The federal range ratio is the restricted range divided by the per pupil revenue measure at the 5 th percentile. Mean The mean is the sum of the school districts values of a variable divided by the number of districts. Standard D eviation The standard deviation is the square root of the mean of the squared dif ferences between the value of the variable in each district and the mean. Coefficient of V ariation The coefficient of variation is the standard deviation divided by the mean. Gini C oefficient After school districts are ranked in ascending order by the variable of interest, they will be plotted on a graph with the percentage of the total pupil population measured along the horizontal axis and the percentage of revenue received on the vertical axis. A 45 degree diagonal dissects the graph and represents the locus points

PAGE 33

16 where the two factors are equal, or a state of total equality. Inequalities are represented by the curve (Lorenz c urve) divergent from the diagonal. The Gini coefficient is a statistical summary of distributional equality and is equal to the area between the Lorenz c urve and the 45 degree diagonal divided by the area of the triangle below the diagonal. The closer the Gini coefficient approaches zero, the closer the distribution is to total equality. McLoone Index The McLoone i ndex is t he sum of per pupil revenue measure for students at or below the median divided by the sum of per pupil revenue measure if all the students below the median received the median amount. Verstegen Index The Verstegen i ndex is the sum of per pupil revenue m easure for students at or above the median divided by the sum of per pupil revenue measure if all the students above the median received the median amount. Corresponding data appropriate to the aforementioned variables and measures are then collected, com puted, and analyzed for every other school year beginning with 1982 83 through 2008 09 Phase III Assuming the continuance of some degree of variation among the aforementioned measures of distributional equality, a separate analysis using Pearson product moment correlations will focus on the relationship between each of the selected per pupil revenue measures and a pair of independent variables thought to have varying degrees of influence on per pupil revenues. Variations in distributional equality are t hen evaluated by assessing the changes in the strength of relationship associated with each correlation.

PAGE 34

17 This procedure gauge s the fiscal neutrality of the system and is consistent with the procedures utilized in the Shiver study and are contained in the current literature Independent Variables The selected independent variables are measured in terms of amount or unit per pupil and are as follows: District C ost D ifferential F actor District cost differential factors are incorporated into the FEFP formul varying cost of providing similar education programs. The district cost differential is not based on student variables, but rather economic data relevant to the cost of doing business in a geographic reg ion and is not measured per pupil. Assessed V aluation The property tax base is the assessed, nonexempt value of property against which taxes are levied. Assessed property values are a net figure for a district. In order for the assessed valuation to be relevant for a school finance st udy, the figure was is divided by the unweighted FTE of that district. The result is an assessed valuation per pupil. Delimitations 1. The historica is funding systems since the Shiver study was completed in 1982. 2. The analysis of equalization of edu cational opportunity in the state is confined to the twelve selected revenue measures.

PAGE 35

18 3. The study is restricted to quantitative measures of distributional equality and fiscal neutrality as its criteria of school finance equity. 4. Analysis of the sta opportunity in the state is confined to a study of every other school year from 1982 83 through 2008 09 5. Given that va riations in revenues are more meaningful than variation s in expenditures when studying the distribution of funding the study is confined to analysis of measures of yearly revenues per pupil. 6. The assessed property values to be used in this study will be for the calendar year immediately preceding the selected school year. This is consistent with the method employed in the Shiver study and allow s for analysis of results across both the current and prior study. 7. The Comparable Wage Index and Geographic Cost of Education Index are cost adjustment indexes that are developed, ca lculated, and disseminated by outside third parties. Each of these indexes is only available for specific years of the current study. When a current index is not available, the index from the most recent previous year was employed. This is consistent wi 8 State revenue in the state of Florida is distributed to schools using the Florida Education Finance Program, but this is not the only means for distributing funds to Through the annual appropriation process, categorical funds are also allocated to public school districts. These categorical allocations take

PAGE 36

19 place outside of the Florida Education Finance Program are not included in any of the revenue measures used in th is study. Limitations Th is study is very clearly an equity study. It seeks to answer the question: "Does the Florida Education Finance P rogram (FEFP) equitably distribute available funding to public school districts in the state?" This study does not attempt to define what funding level is adequate for the students of Florida, nor does it attempt to make judgments on the of public schools. Although the FEFP remains, basically, a foundation program, the complexities inhere nt in its funding process dictate that comparison of the substantive conclusions of this study or the prior Shiver reform measures be made with caution. This study does not propose to, nor did th e Shiver study, represent a comprehensive application of the myriad school finance equity standards and measures to the FEFP and its effect on equalization, but instead, focuses on a more compendious design that provides the same type of evaluative informa tion in regard to distributional eq uity and fiscal neutrality. This stud y ha s been constructed using the same methodology as the Shiver study to allow for comparison between years uld be inconsistent with their design. The current study employs three cost adjustments in connection with the selected revenue measures. The cost adjustments are the District Cost Differential (DCD) the Comparable Wage Index (CWI) and the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI)

PAGE 37

20 The D CD is available for all years of the current and previous study. The D CD is a product of the Florida Price Level Index and the method for determining it has varied from year to year. This variation is discussed furth er in Chapter 2. The CWI was first calculated in 1997 and is available from 1997 through 2003. To allow for continuous evaluation, the CWI for 2003 is used for subsequent years of the study. The justification for this procedure is discussed in Chapter 3 The GCEI was first calculated for the 1987 88 school year and is available for the 1987 88, 1990 91, and 1993 94 school years. In years where a current GCEI is not available and to allow for continuous evaluation, the GCEI for the most recent preceding year is utilized. The justification for this procedure is discussed in Chapter 3. Justification for the Study Since establishing educational systems in the 1800s, most states have experienced problems in trying to equalize education funding from school t o s chool and district to district (Hadderman, 1999). The pace of reforms of state finance systems still shows no sign of slowing after 30 years of efforts. More than 50 years after the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision demanding equality of e ducational opportunity for all students, the role of state education funding systems as a tool to promote social justice remains understudie d and underutilized (Vesely, Crampton, Obiakor, & Sapp, 2008). changes to their foundation grants and the Serrano v. Priest decision gave reforms a legal push, equalization of school finance across school districts has been a prime concern of state policy makers (Chandler, 2002). Equity in the financing of education c ontinues to hold the attention of educational

PAGE 38

21 researchers and policymakers. Questions about whether public education funds are being fairly allocated (equity) and are sufficient for their specified purpose (adequacy) are being contested and debated by leg islative and judicial bodies across the nation in the states on a regular and ongoing basis (Parrish, Hikido, & Fowler, 1998). New attention to adequacy issues does not eliminate concerns about inequalities (Verstegen, 2002). The justification for this st udy is much the same as it was when Dr. Shiver first proposed to study the issue. Without a current understanding of the historical makers concerned with public school fun ding will be hard pressed to formulate sound policies for the future. The primary focus of school finance equity analysis has rightly (Fastrup, 2002). Documentation educational opportunity can provide school funding policy makers with an account of what has been accomplished in the past, thus facilitating their understanding of the origins and development of present da y problems and serving as a guide for the future. One of the most important standards by which we judge our education systems is equity (Bundt & Leland, 2001). The ultimate goal of educational finance and economic research is to improve the quantity and quality of educational opportunities provided to all children (Rolle, Houck, & McColl, 2008). Financial equity among school expenditures is one type of educational input whose importance is widely recognized (Oesch & Paquette, 1995). Although there are a few examples in which the target of equity has been the taxpayer, courts have only been

PAGE 39

22 concerned with the extent to which the state is providing equal educational opportunity for children (Cohen Vogel & Cohen Vogel, 2001). Although difficult to measure, or even define, equality of educational opportunity as a central policy objectiv e has prompted continuous study (Oesch & Paquette, 1995). The review of the historical s to expa nd significantly on the Dr. Shiver study equalization of educational opportunity in the state will not only allow legislators and school finance equity in Florida, but coupled with a review of the historical development of the s needed, consequential information for the When describing the limita analysis of the equalization trends before and after enactment of the FEFP may differ significantly in a future assessment of the long run equity effects of the FEFP ( p. 14 ). This study seeks to pr ovide that relevancy through the addition of current information and analysis to determine long public K 12 education. Definition of Terms The following terms were defined and utilized by the Shi ver study. Their definitions are presented here unchanged for consistency ( Shiver, 1982, p. 18) Distributional E quality Distributional equality refers to the absence of disparities in the cost adjusted distribution of per pupil, unweighted FTE, revenue s.

PAGE 40

23 Equalized E ducational O pportunity Equalized educational opportunity means that every individual should have an equal chance to acquire the type and quality of education that will meet his personal needs and the needs of his society. Fiscal N eutrality wealth of the district in which the child lives, the school finance program is said to be fiscally neutral. Foundation P rogram A foundation program is a school finance system financed jointly by the state and local school districts in proportion to their relative taxpaying ability. Full T ime E quivalent (FTE) S tudent An FTE student is a student who is enrolled in one or a combination of FEFP programs for not less than 25 hours per week in grad es four through twelve or less than 20 hours per week if enrolled in kindergarten through grade three. The 2008 in membership in one or more FEFP programs for a school year or its equivalent (Florida Department of Education, 2008, p. 9). Revenue Revenue refers to the dollar amount of funds received from specified sources (e.g., state, local). Organization of the Study This study is divided into five chapters. C hapter one introduces the p roblem and the procedures to be used C hapter two is an overview of the historical development of public school finance in Florida from 1982 200 9 The methods and procedures to be used in the study as well as a brief discussion of the results of the prev ious study

PAGE 41

24 comprise chapter three Chapters f our and five will represent the application of the statistical tools to the identified variables of interest. Specifically, chapter four will provide the analysis of the data and chapter five will present a su mmary of the findings, relevant conclusions, and recommendations for future practice.

PAGE 42

25 CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROGRAM FROM 1982 TO 200 9 l districts and schools, the Florida Education Finance P rogram (FEFP), has remained relatively consistent since its implementation in 1973. The FEFP bases funding on student enrollment, types of service s or programs in which students participate an annu al monetary allocation per student, and the cost of operating a school district in local economies (Florida Department of Education [FLDOE], 1981) In addition to these basic components of the FEFP, the formula also allows for categorical supplements and allocations. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the evolution of the FEFP from 1982 through 200 9 The chapter will begin with an examination of the FEFP in 1982. It will continue by exploring the changes the FEFP has undergone in each of five b road categories: 1. Changes in the District Cost Differential 2. Changes in the Program Cost Factors 3. Inclusion and Exclusion of Various Adjustments 4. Additional Allocations Outside of the Base FEFP Calculation 5. The Inclusion of Lottery Dollars

PAGE 43

26 The chapter will co nclude by examining the most recent FEFP for 200 8 09 discussing legal challenges brought against the FEFP, and drawing some conclusions about how the FEFP has changed over the last 2 7 years. The FEFP Funding Formula in 1982 Traditionally, state agencies have distributed dollars to school districts by formulas based upon instructional units or special services. In 1973, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) which changed the focus for funding education in the state. The Citizens Committee on Education, appointed in 1971 by Governor Askew, was generally credited with originating the basic National Education Finance Project (NEFP) stu dy of Florida directed by R. L. Johns of the University of Florida (Shiver, 1982). To provide equalization of educational opportunity in Florida, the FEFP formula recognized (1) varying program cost factors, (2) district cost differentials, (3) difference s in per student cost for equivale nt educational programs due to s parsity and dispersion of student population, and (4) required local effort. The key feature of the finance program is to base financial support for education upon the individual student pa rticipating in a particular educational program rather than upon the number of teachers or classrooms. FEFP funds are generated by multiplying the number of full cost factors to obtai student allocation and by a district cost differential to determine the state and local FEFP

PAGE 44

27 funds. Educational p rogram cost factors are determined by the l egislature and represent relative c ost differences among the FEFP programs (FLDOE, 1981) A total of $1,694,023,329 was appropriated for distribution in the Florida Education Finance Program for the 1981 82 school year (FLDOE, 1981) A graphical illustration Figure 1, of how the FEFP det ermines total state and local FEFP funds follows with a discussion of each of the components. Figure 1: Calculation of State and Local FEFP in 1980 Full time Equivalent (FTE) A full time equivalent in accordance with the p rovision s of the 1981 82 FEFP is one student on the membership roll of one school program or combination of school programs for five school days or the equivalent consisting of not less than a certain number of net hours as defined by the program type. A combination of full or part time students in one of the program areas is the equivalent of one full time student based on certain criteria for each program type (FLDOE, 1981) Full time Equivalent (FTE) Program Cost Factors X X Base Student Allocation + Sparsity Supplement X District Cost Differential + Declining Enrollment Supplement and Guaranteed Minimum Levels = State and Local FEFP Dollars

PAGE 45

28 To be eligible for full time equivalent membership, a student must meet both of the following requirements: (1) The student must be in program membership at least one day during the survey period, and (2) The student must be in attendance at least one of the days of the survey period or one of the six days preceding the survey period on which students were in attendance (FLDOE, 1981) Program Cost Factors To recognize the varying cost of educating students in different educational programs, the program cost factors provide a funding variable. The Program Cost Factors for the 1981 8 2 fiscal year are listed in Table 1. Base Student Allocation The based student allocation is determined annually by the legislature. For the 1981 82 fiscal year, the base student allocation was $1,238.99 (FLDOE, 1981) Sparsity Supplement Some school di stricts will qualify annually for a supplement for the extra costs of equivalent educational programs which have been caused by the sparsity of the student population. This supplement was represented and discussed in the 1981 82 FEFP, but no funds were al located for distribution. District Cost Differential Just as the FEFP recognizes the varying cost of educating students in different educational programs, it also recognized the varying cost of educating students in different economies across the state. The state policy objective for including cost

PAGE 46

29 Table 1: 198 1 8 2 Program Cost Factors (FLDOE, 1981) Basic Program o Kindergarten and Grades 1, 2, and 3 1.234 o Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 1.000 o Grades 10, 11, and 12 1.089 o Educational Alternatives 1.869 Exce ptional Student Programs o Educable Mentally Retarded 2.139 o Trainable Mentally Retarded 2.803 o Physically Handicapped 3.455 o Physical & Occupational Therapy (part time) 6.493 o Speech and Hearing Therapy (part time) 7.316 o Deaf 3.775 o Visually Handicapped (part ti me) 10.983 o Visually Handicapped 3.927 o Emotionally Disturbed (part time) 5.507 o Emotionally Disturbed 3.287 o Specific Learning Disability (part time) 4.767 o Specific Learning Disability 2.279 o Gifted (part time) 2.524 o Hospital Homebound (part time) 14.389 o Prof oundly Handicapped 5.628 Adult General Education Programs o Adult Basic Education & Adult High School 1.066 Vocational Technical Programs 7 12 Job Adult Vocational Preparatory Supplemental o Agr iculture 2.170 2.130 2.052 o Business & Office 1.627 1.651 1.453 o Distributive 1.508 1.585 1.293 o Diversified 1.404 1.433 -----o Health 2.097 2.157 1.491 o Public Service 2.358 2.380 1.787 o Home Economics 1.665 1.696 1.342 o Industrial 2.077 2.023 1.683 o Exploratory 1.399 ----------

PAGE 47

30 adjustments to state aid is to promote equity (Baker, 2008). To that end, the FEFP includes a district cost differential. The district cost differential is based upon an average of the previous three years of the Florida Price Le vel Index as determined by the Department of Administration. The district cost differentials for the 1981 82 fiscal year are listed in Table 2 Table 2: 1981 82 District Cost Differentials (FLDOE, 1981) Alachua ............... 0.9817 Hamilton ............. 0 9655 Okeechobee .. 0.9783 Ba ker ................... 0.9590 Hardee ................. 0.9674 Orange ......... 0.9827 Bay ...................... 0.9572 Hendry ................ 0.9770 Osceola ........ 0.9727 Bradford .............. 0.9562 Hernando ............. 0.9681 Palm Beach .. 1.0203 Brevard ................ 0.9885 Highlands ............ 1.9687 Pasco ............ 0.9684 Broward .............. 1.0213 Hillsborough ........ 0.9894 Pinellas ......... 0.9974 Calhoun ............... 0.9566 Holmes ................ 0.9540 Po lk .............. 0.9750 Charlotte .............. 0.9842 Indian River ......... 0.9929 Putnam ......... 0.9511 Citrus ................... 0.9694 Jackson ................ 0.9636 St. Johns ....... 0.9786 Clay ..................... 0.9815 Jefferson .............. 0.9708 St. Lucie ....... 0.9862 Collier ................. 1.0168 Lafayette ............. 0.9678 Santa Rosa .... 0.9538 Columbia ............. 0.9634 Lake .................... 0.9745 Sarasota ........ 1.0041 Dade .................... 1.04 42 Lee ...................... 1.0048 Seminole ...... 0.9872 De Soto ............... 0.9703 Leon .................... 0.9669 Sumter .......... 0.9679 Dixie ................... 0.9642 Levy .................... 0.9608 Suwannee ..... 0.9608 Duval ................... 0.9805 Liberty ................. 0.9752 Taylor ........... 0.9594 Escambia ............. 0.9640 Madison .............. 0.9543 Union ........... 0.9656 Flagler ................. 0.9873 Manatee ............... 0.9890 Volusia ......... 0.9911 Franklin ............... 0.98 18 Marion ................. 0.9750 Wakulla ........ 0.9842 Gadsden .............. 0.9603 Martin ................. 1.0157 Walton ......... 0.9670 Gilchrist .............. 0.9716 Monroe ................ 1.0721 Washington .. 0.9576 Glades ................. 0.9909 Nassau ................. 0.9641 Gulf ..................... 0.9618 Okaloosa ............. 0.9758 Declining Enrollment & Guaranteed Minimum Levels This supplement and guara ntee was the only such provision of the 1981 82 FEFP. Th e funding component is a collection of three guaranteed minimum funding provisions.

PAGE 48

31 The first of the minimum funding provisions is the declining enrollment supplement. In those districts w here the r unweighted FTE and added to the allocation of the district (FLDOE, 1981). The second guaranteed minimum fundi ng level provision is then applied to the total of all of the preceding dollars including the declining enrollment provision. It guarantees that each district will receive the greater of the total potential funding per full time equivalent student or the total funding available per full time equivalent student in the previous year, multiplied by the current full time equivalent students (FLDOE, 1981). The third provision provides that in addition to all other hold harmless provisions, each school district is entitled to receive additional state funds through the FEFP to compensate for reductions in funding related to certain federal programs (FLDOE, 1981). State & Local FEFP Dollars The state and local FEFP dollars is the total amount allocated for the cu rrent operations of each school district. It is subject to a reduction for local effort and var ious adjustments as illustrated in Figure 2 Figure 2: Calculation of Net State FEFP in 1981 82 State and Local FEFP Dollars Required Local Effort = State FEFP Dollars + Adjustments = Net State FEFP Allocation

PAGE 49

32 Required Local Effort The dist rict required local effort is subtracted from the basic amount for current operation or state and local FEFP dollars The required local effort is set by the legislature. For the 1981 82 fiscal year, the legislature set the required local effort at $838, 673,038. The Commissioner of Education, based on the amount set by the legislature then sets the state wide property millage levy necessary. For the 1981 82 fiscal year, the millage rate was 4.512 mills (FLDOE, 1981) State FEFP Dollars The state porti on of the FEFP or state FEFP dollars is the result of subtracting the required local effort from the state and local FEFP dollars. Adjustments A provision is also included in the 1981 82 FEFP to authorize the Department of Education to make prior year adju stments in the allocation of funds to a district for arithmetical errors, assessment roll changes, full time equivalent student membership errors, or allocation errors revealed in an audit report. Net State FEFP Allocation As Figure 3 illustrates, b y remo ving the adjustments from the state FEFP dollars, one can arrive at the net state FEFP allocation. The net state FEFP allocation is then increased by categorical program funds and special allocations to determine the total state allocation.

PAGE 50

33 Figure 3: Cal culation of Total State Allocation in 1981 82 Categorical Program Funds Categorical program funds are added to the FEFP allocation which is distributed to districts. The 1981 82 FEFP included eight such programs with allocat ions totaling $2 91, 134,427. They are listed below (FLDOE, 1981) : Community Schools $2,355,242 Comprehensive Health Education 1,272,868 Comprehensive School Construction and Debt Service 1 50, 035,935 o Public Education Capital Outlay $92,035,935 o Motor Ve hicle License Sales 58,000,000 Diagnostic and Learning Resources 817,479 Instructional Materials 36,290,000 School Lunch 9,321,676 Student Development Services 20,659,148 Student Transportation 70,382,079 Special Allocations Special Allocations are added to the FEFP allocation which is distributed to districts. Special allocations include all other sources of state aid for districts not classified by Florida Statutes as FEFP or categorical program funds. The 1981 82 FEFP included eight such specia l allocations totaling $142,144,159. They are listed below (FLDOE, 1981) : Net State FEFP Allocation + Categorical Program Funds + Special Allocation s = Total State Allocation

PAGE 51

34 C ommunity Instructional Services $4,889,963 Compensatory Education Supplement 33,176,646 Educational Improvement Grants 469,673 Environmental Education 325,437 K 3 Improvement P rog ram 79,899,792 Law Education 185,179 Migrant Education for 3 and 4 year olds 2,000,000 School Volunteer Program 319,929 School Bus Replacement 12,144,040 School Safety Fund Pilot Program, Dade County 2,500,000 Writing Skills Enhancement 6,000,000 Governo 233,500 Total State Allocation The total state allocation is the result of adding the categorical program funds and the special allocations to the net state FEFP allocation. The total state allocation represents the tot al state financial contribution to the operation of local school districts. The Evolution of the FEFP Changes to the District Cost Differentials The District Cost Differentials serve as a funding variable to adjust for the cost of doing business in the 67 county school districts in Florida. Its function in the Florida Education Finance Program has remained unchanged throughout the 2 7 year period covered by this study. However, the method in which the District Cost Differentials has been calculated has vari ed during this period. Calculation of the District Cost Differential In 1981 82, the District Cost Differential was based upon the average of the three previous years of the Florida Price Level Index as determined by the Department of Administration (FLD OE, 1981) This was consistent through the 1988 89 Florida

PAGE 52

35 Education Finance Program. The only change during this eight year period was a change in responsibility for determining the Florida Price Level Index being moved from the Department of Administra tion to the Executive Office of the Governor (FLDOE, 1988) The 1989 90 Florida Education Finance P rogram brought a significant change to the District Cost Differential. It was no longer solely based on the three year average of the Florida Price Level In dex. The 1989 Legislature provided that each district with a calculated value below 1.000 would be set to 1.000 in determining FEFP allocations. Only 9 of the 67 county school districts had a District Cost Differential other than 1.000 (FLDOE, 1989) Th e practice of setting values at 1.000 for districts under 1.000 was repeated again in the 1990 91 Florida Education Finance Program. Once again only 9 districts ha d a District Cost Differential other than 1.000 (FLDOE, 1990) For a two year period beginni ng in 1991 92, the District Cost Differential was based on the three year average of the Florida Price Level Index with three major adjustments. The first adjustment sought to tie the District Cost Differential to the salary component of school district o perating costs. T o accomplish th is the averaged index factor was multiplied by 0.008 and 0.200 was added to the product. The second adjustment indexed the calculated District Cost Differential so that the lowest value becomes 1.000. This was a signific ant departure from simply resetting all values less than 1.000 at 1.000. The third adjustment was that districts were placed in regions that given the highest v alue calculated for any district assigned to that region (FLDOE, 1991)

PAGE 53

36 The District Cost Differential calculation in 1993 94 and 1994 95 did not contain the provision of regions tied to the judicial circuits. It did, however, continue to be based on a th ree year average of the index adjusted to the salary component and was still indexed so that the lowest score was 1.000 (FLDOE, 1993) The Florida Education Finance Program dropped the practice of indexing scores so that the lowest score was 1.000 in 1995 96. The 1995 96 FEFP calculated the District Cost Differential based on the three year average of the Florida Price Level Index and adjusted for the salary component by multiplying by 0. 8 00 and adding 0.200 to its product (FLDOE, 1995) The District Cost Differential has continued to be calculated in this manner through the end of the study period in 2008 09 (FLDOE, 200 8 ). The Florida Price Level Index The Florida Price Level Index is an economic measure determined by the state or a delegated agency I ts use is not exclusive to the Florida Education Finance P rogram The consumer price index is used to adjust other state allocations to various areas of the state. The responsibility for determining the Florida Price Index currently belongs to the Execut ive Office of the Governor. The manner in which the Florida Price Level Index is calculated is not within the scope of this study. It should be said, however, that changes and advancements in economic and statistical measures as well as politic al clim ates over the years has had an impact on how the Florida Price Level Index is calculated. Any adjustment in the way the Florida Price Level Index is calculated will have a residual effect on how the District

PAGE 54

37 Cost Differential is determined ultimately eff ecting the distribution of educational funding throughout the state. Changes in the Program Cost Factors As discussed previously, the program cost factors serve as a funding variable that recognizes the varying expense of educating students in different ed ucational programs. Its role as that funding variable has been consistent during the 2 7 year period from 1981 82 through 200 8 09 Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the program cost factors for each year from 1981 82 through 2008 09. The Number of Program Cost Fa ctors In 1981 82, there were 44 different program cost factors (FLDOE, 1981) The number of program cost factors steadily r ose as the legislature added different funding categories. By the 1996 97 fiscal year, there were 54 program cost factors (FLDOE, 1 996) The 1997 98 Florida Education Finance Program brought a dramatic change to the number of program cost factors, but not their role as a funding variable. In 1997 98, there were only 12 program cost factors --a significant decrease from the 54 of the previous year (FLDOE, 1997). The decrease in program cost factors can be traced to Exceptional Student Education and Technical and Career Education. In 1996 97, there were 18 program cost factors for Exceptional Student Education and 25 for Technic al and Career Education (FLDOE, 1996). In 1997 98, the program cost factors had been reduced to 5 and 1 respectively (FLDOE, 1997) The reduction of program cost factors resulted in a streamlining of the calculation of district funds.

PAGE 55

38 Program cost f actors were further reduced in 2000 01. In the 2000 01 Florida Education Finance Program, there are only 7 program cost factors (FLDOE, 2000) This reduction is again attributable to a decrease in program cost factors for Exceptional Student Education (E SE) Beginning in 2000 01, students in Exceptional Education levels 1, 2, and 3 received the same program weight as those students in the corresponding grade level basic program. Funding for ESE students in levels 1, 2, and 3 is appropriated in the ESE G uaranteed Allocation which was first included in the 2000 01 FEFP. The following pages contain a table that depicts the program cost factors for each year from the 1981 82 FEFP to the 200 8 09 FEFP. Program Caps During the 2 7 year period covered by this stu dy, the program cost factors have been subject to a series of caps. These caps serve to reduce the amount of weighted funding districts receive. As an example, the 1981 82 Florida Education Finance Program contained a cap on students enrolled in the Speci fic Learning Disability Part T ime (SLD PT) program in any district which is in excess of .87% of the total K 12 unweighted FTE for that district shall be adjusted to a factor of 1 However, no district shall receive less than the unweighted FTE generated in 1978

PAGE 56

39 Table 3 : Program Cost Factors, 1981 82 to 19 89 90 Program 81 82 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 89 90 Basic K 3 1.234 1.165 1. 234 1.234 1.131 1.121 1.098 1.077 1.048 Basic 4 8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Basic 9 12 1.089 1.106 1.116 1.180 1.167 1.188 1.190 1.192 1.186 Dropout Prevention 1.683 1.689 1.722 Teenage Parent Dropout Prevention / Teen Parent Int. Eng./ESOL K 3 1.683 1.689 1.734 Int. Eng./ESOL 4 8 1.683 1.689 1.727 Int. Eng./ESOL 9 12 1.683 1.689 1.692 Int. Eng./ESOL All levels Basic "E ducational Alternatives" 1.869 1.818 1.763 1.676 1.632 1.657 Basic Mainstream K 3 2.352 2.468 2.262 2.242 2.196 2.144 2.096 Basic Mainstream 4 8 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 Basic Mainstream 9 12 2.232 2.360 2.334 2.376 2. 380 2.384 2.372 Basic Mainstream "Ed. Alternatives" 3.526 3.352 3.264 3.314 ESE Educable Mentally Retarded 2.139 2.149 2.154 2.172 2.189 2.184 2.188 2.182 2.176 ESE Trainable Mentally Retarded 2.803 2.832 2.863 2.887 2.927 2.937 2.982 3.010 3. 006 ESE Physical Handicapped 3.455 3.472 3.539 3.718 3.839 3.896 3.821 3.812 3.752 ESE PT/OT part time 6.493 6.674 7.045 7.698 7.981 8.099 8.003 8.453 8.722 ESE Speech, Lang. & Hearing (pt) 7.316 6.870 6.795 6.379 6.052 6.024 5.966 5.901 5.642 ESE Spee ch, Lang. & Hearing (ft) 3.888 3.995 3.827 3.700 3.476 3.434 ESE Deaf 3.775 3.835 3.840 ESE Visually Handicapped (pt) 10.983 11.393 11.666 12.452 13.118 13.654 13.896 13.946 13.697 ESE Visually Handicapped (ft) 3.927 4.248 4.316 4.587 4.793 4.860 4.957 4.989 4.861 ESE Emotionally Disturbed (pt) 5.507 5.094 4.922 4.473 4.157 4.125 4.058 4.005 3.908 ESE Emotionally Disturbed (ft) 3.287 3.242 3.183 3.100 3.026 2.976 2.931 2.896 2.867 ESE SLD (pt) 4.767 4.391 4.309 3.950 3.688 3.604 3.50 6 3.402 3.246 ESE SLD (ft) 2.279 2.347 2.294 2.286 2.275 2.266 2.272 2.241 2.182 ESE Gifted (pt) 2.524 2.427 2.371 2.242 2.148 2.135 2.104 2.059 1.992 ESE Hospital Homebound (pt) 14.389 13.295 12.873 11.610 10.442 10.004 9.965 10.592 11.457 ESE Profoun dly Handicapped 5.628 4.843 5.330 5.330 4.178 4.299 4.429 4.513 4.525 ESE K 3 w/ services ESE 4 8 w/ services ESE 9 12 w/ services ESE Support Level 1 ESE Support Level 2 ESE Support Level 3 ESE Support Level 4 ESE Support Level 5 Special Districts (HRS) 2.600 2.600 Adult Basic & Adult High School 1.066 0.999 1.012 0.946 0.924 9.120 Ad ult Basic Skills 0.929 0.904 0.860 Adult Secondary Education 0.929 0.904 0.854 Lifelong Learning 0.800 0.630 0.600 Adult Handicapped Vocational Education, 6 12 TCE Agriculture, 7 12 2.170 1.991 1.989 1.860 1.807 1.796 1.801 1.771 1.743 TCE Agriculture, Job Prep 2.130 1.923 1.929 1.735 1.618 1.556 1.641 1.679 1.683 TCE Agriculture, Adult 2.052 1.760 1.945 1.583 1.400 1.253 1.304 1.327 1.256 TCE Business, 7 12 1.627 1.475 1.470 1. 321 1.274 1.262 1.301 1.282 1.262 TCE Business, Job Prep 1.651 1.499 1.479 1.346 1.301 1.336 1.372 1.366 1.352 TCE Business, Adult 1.453 1.428 1.315 1.180 1.049 1.107 1.161 1.215 1.207 TCE Distributive, 7 12 1.508 1.414 1.409 1.351 1.341 1.320 1.258 1.1 85 1.144 TCE Distributive, Job Prep 1.585 1.471 1.467 1.400 1.378 1.434 1.468 1.495 1.464 TCE Distributive, Adult 1.296 1.183 1.183 1.152 1.085 1.111 1.042 1.051 0.928 TCE Diversified, 7 12 1.404 1.381 1.386 1.382 1.393 1.383 1.340 1.311 1.264 TCE Dive rsified, Job Prep 1.433 1.370 1.336 1.222 1.128 1.120 1.199 1.441 1.368 TCE Health, 7 12 2.097 1.967 1.952 1.833 1.775 1.763 1.743 1.717 1.642 TCE Health, Job Prep 2.157 2.021 1.975 1.840 1.785 1.865 1.924 1.924 1.816 TCE Health, Adult 1.491 1.251 1.393 1.248 1.208 1.212 1.244 1.378 1.369 TCE Public Service, 7 12 2.358 1.975 2.052 1.865 1.821 1.870 1.902 1.857 1.494 TCE Public Service, Job Prep 2.380 2.073 1.912 1.530 1.246 1.253 1.213 1.211 1.150 TCE Public Service, Adult 1.787 1.437 1.472 1.192 0.99 4 0.873 0.868 0.936 0.970 TCE Home Economics, 7 12 1.665 1.588 1.582 1.516 1.489 1.457 1.407 1.335 1.291 TCE Home Economics, Job Prep 1.696 1.679 1.634 1.531 1.443 1.422 1.429 1.506 1.534 TCE Home Economics, Adult 1.342 1.170 1.162 1.045 0.988 0.991 1.0 08 1.053 1.197 TCE Industrial, 7 12 2.077 2.013 1.982 1.906 1.891 1.899 1.900 1.847 1.800 TCE Industrial, Job Prep 2.023 1.823 1.785 1.595 1.506 1.514 1.527 1.548 1.543 TCE Industrial, Adult 1.683 1.543 1.514 1.390 1.294 1.314 1.273 1.259 1.240 Explora tory, 7 12 1.399 1.390 1.382 1.360 1.321 1.290 1.263 1.273 1.284 Vocational Mainstream

PAGE 57

40 Table 4 : Program Cost Factors, 199 0 91 to 1999 2000 Program 90 91 91 92 92 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 00 Basic K 3 1.031 1.018 1. 014 1.017 1.029 1.041 1.049 1.054 1.057 1.057 Basic 4 8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Basic 9 12 1.196 1.213 1.225 1.224 1.210 1.198 1.190 1.169 1.138 1.115 Dropout Prevention 1.731 1.707 1.656 1.615 1.571 1.495 1.474 Teenage Parent 1.495 1.474 Dropout Prevention / Teen Parent 1.438 1.399 Int. Eng./ESOL K 3 1.695 1.692 1.644 1.600 1.478 1.311 1.280 Int. Eng./ESOL 4 8 1.732 1.690 1.679 1.617 1.509 1.262 1.280 Int. Eng./ES OL 9 12 1.773 1.748 1.649 1.454 1.318 1.310 1.280 Int. Eng./ESOL All levels 1.245 1.201 1.211 Basic "Educational Alternatives" 1.169 1.138 Basic Mainstream K 3 2.062 2.036 2.028 2.034 2.058 2.082 2.098 Basic Ma instream 4 8 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 Basic Mainstream 9 12 2.392 2.426 2.450 2.448 2.420 2.396 2.380 Basic Mainstream "Ed. Alternatives" ESE Educable Mentally Retarded 2.161 2.149 2.184 2.214 2.226 2.195 1.979 ESE Trainable Mentally Retarded 2.990 2.954 2.922 2.899 2.934 2.977 3.111 ESE Physical Handicapped 3.667 3.569 3.453 3.398 3.285 3.285 3.111 ESE PT/OT part time 9.033 9.079 9.527 10.664 11.729 12.971 13.690 ESE Speech, La ng. & Hearing (pt) 5.520 5.478 5.475 5.392 5.312 5.313 5.333 ESE Speech, Lang. & Hearing (ft) 3.337 3.200 3.176 3.130 3.103 2.992 2.777 ESE Deaf ESE Visually Handicapped (pt) 13.856 14.506 15.145 15.773 16.168 16.687 17.0 69 ESE Visually Handicapped (ft) 4.657 4.417 4.353 4.309 4.558 4.660 5.333 ESE Emotionally Disturbed (pt) 3.793 3.725 3.740 3.851 3.859 3.878 4.287 ESE Emotionally Disturbed (ft) 2.837 2.821 2.812 2.807 2.740 2.751 2.777 ESE SLD (pt) 3.113 3.001 2.914 2.816 2.766 2.769 2.777 ESE SLD (ft) 2.117 2.078 2.049 1.998 1.939 1.920 1.979 ESE Gifted (pt) 1.951 1.918 1.896 1.841 1.785 1.747 1.710 ESE Hospital Homebound (pt) 11.380 11.505 11.611 12.114 12.606 12.522 12.6 90 ESE Profoundly Handicapped 4.479 4.417 4.396 4.386 4.391 4.357 4.287 ESE K 3 w/ services ESE 4 8 w/ services ESE 9 12 w/ services ESE Support Level 1 1.341 1.341 1.341 ESE Support Level 2 2.072 2.072 2.072 ESE Support Level 3 3.287 3.287 3.287 ESE Support Level 4 4.101 4.101 4.101 ESE Support Level 5 6.860 6.860 6.860 Special Districts (HRS) Adult Basic & Adult High School Adult Basic Skills 0.805 0.780 0.745 0.721 0.718 0.766 0.802 Adult Secondary Education 0.807 0.788 0.763 0.758 0.785 0.853 0.802 Lifelong Learning 0.726 0.700 0.700 A dult Handicapped 1.614 1.575 1.337 1.140 0.933 0.994 0.962 Vocational Education, 6 12 1.272 1.240 1.211 TCE Agriculture, 7 12 1.716 1.711 1.728 1.710 1.676 1.612 1.513 TCE Agriculture, Job Prep 1.617 1.559 1.537 1.455 1.452 1.4 54 1.477 TCE Agriculture, Adult 1.322 1.363 1.516 1.614 1.676 1.807 1.477 TCE Business, 7 12 1.239 1.224 1.229 1.235 1.250 1.254 1.248 TCE Business, Job Prep 1.340 1.329 1.292 1.267 1.267 1.299 1.373 TCE Business, Adult 1.162 1. 142 1.114 1.190 1.272 1.371 1.373 TCE Distributive, 7 12 1.134 1.124 1.112 1.124 1.140 1.176 1.174 TCE Distributive, Job Prep 1.404 1.398 1.374 1.354 1.348 1.328 1.293 TCE Distributive, Adult 0.861 0.795 0.806 0.827 0.959 1.038 1.293 TCE Diversified, 7 12 1.237 1.185 1.185 1.204 1.231 1.241 1.232 TCE Diversified, Job Prep 1.239 0.942 0.877 0.847 0.925 0.932 0.948 TCE Health, 7 12 1.606 1.563 1.513 1.439 1.345 1.347 1.333 TCE Health, Job Prep 1.729 1.608 1.506 1.429 1.410 1.451 1.488 TCE Health, Adult 1.433 1.483 1.454 1.432 1.371 1.442 1.488 TCE Public Service, 7 12 1.157 0.907 0.930 0.969 1.020 1.076 1.119 TCE Public Service, Job Prep 1.097 1.020 0.959 1.011 1.045 1.113 1.155 TCE P ublic Service, Adult 1.001 0.989 1.060 1.161 1.237 1.297 1.155 TCE Home Economics, 7 12 1.278 1.274 1.261 1.247 1.254 1.272 1.277 TCE Home Economics, Job Prep 1.560 1.477 1.433 1.383 1.369 1.293 1.265 TCE Home Economics, Adult 1.292 1. 424 1.367 1.356 1.272 1.290 1.265 TCE Industrial, 7 12 1.764 1.752 1.746 1.740 1.758 1.764 1.743 TCE Industrial, Job Prep 1.551 1.477 1.418 1.361 1.384 1.421 1.473 TCE Industrial, Adult 1.232 1.294 1.332 1.463 1.573 1.778 1.473 Exploratory, 7 12 1.308 1.303 1.276 1.238 1.222 1.215 1.198 Vocational Mainstream 2.737 2.325 1.979 1.675 1.860 1.966

PAGE 58

41 Table 5 : Program Cost Factors, 200 0 0 1 to 2008 09 Program 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 09 Basic K 3 1.036 1.007 1.005 1.002 1.012 1.018 1.035 1.048 1.066 Basic 4 8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Basic 9 12 1.096 1.113 1.122 1.140 1.132 1.113 1.088 1.066 1.052 Dropout Prevention Teenage Parent D ropout Prevention / Teen Parent Int. Eng./ESOL K 3 Int. Eng./ESOL 4 8 Int. Eng./ESOL 9 12 Int. Eng./ESOL All levels 1.226 1.265 1.275 1.275 1.302 1.318 1.275 1.200 1.119 Basic "Educational Altern atives" Basic Mainstream K 3 Basic Mainstream 4 8 Basic Mainstream 9 12 Basic Mainstream "Ed. Alternatives" ESE Educable Mentally Retarded ESE Trainable Mentally Reta rded ESE Physical Handicapped ESE PT/OT part time ESE Speech, Lang. & Hearing (pt) ESE Speech, Lang. & Hearing (ft) ESE Deaf ESE Visually Handicapped (pt) ESE Visually Handicapped (ft) ESE Emotionally Disturbed (pt) ESE Emotionally Disturbed (ft) ESE SLD (pt) ESE SLD (ft) ESE Gifted (pt) ESE Hospital Homebound (pt) ESE Profoundly Handicapped ESE K 3 w/ services 1.036 1.007 1.005 1.002 1.012 1.018 1.035 1.048 1.066 ESE 4 8 w/ services 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ESE 9 12 w/ services 1.010 1.113 1.122 1.140 1.13 2 1.113 1.132 1.066 1.052 ESE Support Level 1 ESE Support Level 2 ESE Support Level 3 ESE Support Level 4 3.948 3.948 3.948 3.948 3.948 3.818 3.734 3.625 3.570 ESE Support Level 5 5.591 5.591 5.591 3.948 5.591 1.193 5.201 5.062 4.970 Special Districts (HRS) Adult Basic & Adult High School Adult Basic Skills Adult Secondary Education Lifelong Learning Adult Handicapped Voc ational Education, 6 12 1.211 1.206 1.186 1.190 1.187 1.193 1.159 1.119 1.077 TCE Agriculture, 7 12 TCE Agriculture, Job Prep TCE Agriculture, Adult TCE Business, 7 12 TCE Business, Job Prep TCE Business, Adult TCE Distributive, 7 12 TCE Distributive, Job Prep TCE Distributive, Adult TCE Diversified, 7 12 TCE Diversified, Job Prep TCE Health, 7 12 TCE Health, Job Prep TCE Health, Adult TCE Public Service, 7 12 TCE Public Service, Job Prep TCE Public Service, Adult TCE Home Economics, 7 12 TCE Home Economics, Job Prep TCE Home Economics, Adult TCE Industrial, 7 12 TCE Industrial, Job Prep TCE Industrial, Adult Exploratory, 7 12 Vocational Mainstream

PAGE 59

42 The 2008 09 FEFP contained an enrollment ceiling for weighted programs. This ceiling operated as a cap on weighted FTEs. Student enrollment above the cap is funded at the basic level (1.000). These caps are not uncommon and are found in various forms in each year of the Florida Education Finance Program. Additional Weighted FTE The 2007 08 FEFP authorized five additional FTE supplements. These FTE supplements are included in a districts weighted FTE and are subject to the other provisions of t he FEFP. The five additional FTE supplements are: Small District ESE Supplement Florida Virtual School Small, Isolated High School Supplement Bonus FTE Programs Algebra Supplement The 2008 09 FEFP did not include the Algebra Supplement as an additional w eighted FTE authorization. The four remaining additional weighted FTE supplements were included in the 2008 09 FEFP. Inclusion and Exclusion of Various Adjustments An area that has undergone considerable change durin g th e period from 1981 82 through 2008 09 is the a djustments Adjustments include certain g uarantees, s upplements, and i ncentives. The Florida Education Finance P rogram allows for a series of a djustments, g uarantees, s upplements, and i ncentives. These adjustments, guarantees, supplements, and incentives are found after the Base Allocation has been determined and are included in the calculation of Total State and Local FEFP Dollars.

PAGE 60

43 In 1981 82, the Florida Education Finance P rogram had one a djustment, the Declining Enrollment Supplement (FLDO E, 1981). In 200 8 09 the Florida Education Finance P rogram ha s eleven (FLDOE, 200 8 ). In the 2 7 year period that falls between the 1981 82 FEFP and the 200 8 09 FEFP, there have been 14 different a djustments, g uarantees, s upplements, and i ncentives that h ave come and gone. In the section that follows, a discussion of each of the 2 5 Adjustments, Guarantees, Supplements, and Incentives that have been included in the Florida Education Finance P rogram at some point during the last 2 7 years is defined and discu sse d as well as when it appeared in the FEFP Declining Enrollment Supplement and Guaranteed Minimum Levels This supplement and guarantee was the only such provision of the 1981 82 FEFP. This funding component is a collection of three guaranteed minimum funding provisions. The first of these is the declining enrollment supplement. In those districts w here the r e is unweighted FTE and added to the allocation of the district (FLDOE, 1981) The second guaranteed minimum funding level provision is then applied to the total of all of the preceding dollars including the declining enrollment provision. It guarantees that each district will receive the greater of the total potential funding per full time equivalent student or the total funding available per full time equivalent student in the previous year, multiplied by the current full time equivalent students (FLDOE, 19 81)

PAGE 61

44 The third provision provides that in addition to all other hold harmless provisions, each school district is entitled to receive additional state funds through the FEFP to compensate for reductions in funding related to certain federal programs (FLDO E, 1981) The Declining Enrollment Supplement and Guaranteed Minimum Levels component was the first such component of the FEFP. In 1982 83, the component was reduced to simply a Declining Enrollment Supplement removing the Guaranteed Minimum Level and fe deral funding provisions (FLDOE, 1982) The Declining Enrollment Supplement is included in the funding formula for the most recent FEFP (FLDOE, 2008) Guaranteed Minimum Level A separate Guaranteed Minimum Level component was included in 1983 84 FEFP (F LDOE, 1983) The component was also included in the 1984 85 and 1985 86 FEFPs. It was discontinued in 198 6 87 (FLDOE, 1987) Quality Assurance Guarantee The Quality Assurance Guarantee was implemented in the 1982 83 FEFP. This provision guarantees at l east a ten percent increase per FTE student in state funds over the amount received the previous year. If the amount received in the current year per district will be g iven a special allocation in the amount of the deficiency (FLDOE, 1982) This guarantee was included for three years beginning in 1982 83.

PAGE 62

45 Equalization of Discretionary Levy The 1982 L egislature provided state funds to equalize up to mill of discretion ary operating millage for each district wh en the value of a mill of taxation per student is below the state average value. Only discretionary millage levied by a district in excess of 1.1 mills is eligible for equalization. For qualifying districts, a st ate supplement will be provided representing the difference between the state average value of a mill per student and the district value of a mill per student, multiplied by the millage levied in excess of 1.1 mills, multiplied by the unweighted FTE member ship of the district. This supplement was implemented in the 1982 83 FEFP (FLDOE, 1982) It was renamed the Discretionary Tax Equalization Entitlement in 1983 84 (FLDOE, 1983) It appeared as the Discretionary Tax Equalization Entitlement through 1985 8 6 (FLDOE, 1985) From 1986 87 through 1993 94, the supplement was not included. In 1994 95 Discretionary Tax Equalization supplement was reintroduced. The 1994 95 FEFP called for addition al funding for district s that levy the discretionary 0.51 mill and an additional .25 mill. An amount was provided to ensure that each district receives $50 per FT E when combined with the amount raised by the 0.25 mill (FLDOE, 1994) The Discretionary Tax Equalization component has been included in every FEFP since it wa s reintroduced in 1994 95. The 2008 09 FEFP called for additional funding for districts that levy a discretionary 0.498 mill and an additional .25 mill. Districts shall receive a supplement if the additional 0.25 mills realize less than $100 per FTE (FLD OE, 2008).

PAGE 63

46 Profoundly Handicapped Adjustment The 1985 86 FEFP contained an adjustment to provide additional funds to level in the p rofoundly h andicapped program exceeds the preceding fiscal year s unweighted FTE revenue allocated to the program by at least 105 percent. The incremental district expenditure difference per unweighted FTE above 105 percent of district generated revenue per unweighted FTE is multiplied by the district pr eceding fiscal year (FLDOE, 1985) The allocation was expanded from the Profoundly Handicapped Adjustment to the Profoundly Handicapped and Intensive English/ESOL Adjustment in 1986 87. The 1986 8 7 FEFP provided additional funding for courses provided for students whose native language is other than English, such as English for Speakers of Other L anguages (ESOL). An adjustment in funding is provided when such students are in membership i n ESOL, intensive English or other b asic courses. This adjustment is 1.25 times the funding weight for the respective basic program (FLDOE, 1986) The supplement returned to simply the Profoundly Handicapped Adjustment in 1988 89 when the ESOL provision was removed and addresse d in the Program Cost Factors (FLDOE, 1988) The last year the Profoundly Handicapped Adjustment appeared in the FEFP was 1989 90. Sparsity Supplement The 1987 88 FEFP recognized the relative increase in expense of a smaller distr ict through a statutory formula in which the variable factor is a Sparsity index. The

PAGE 64

47 index is computed by dividing FTE of the district by the number of permanent senior high school centers, not to exceed three. Participation was limited to the smallest of districts. of the district. This adjustment is based on per FTE value of the maximum discretionary levy in the district relative to the state average. If a district value per FTE exceeds the state average, the Sparsity entitlement is negatively adjusted by an amount equal to the discretionary value per FTE exceeds the state average (FLDOE, 1 987) The component was allocated as a categorical program in 1986 87 (FLDOE, 1986) The Sparsity Supplement has enjoyed one of the longest runs in the FEFP being introduced in 1987 88 and continuing through the most recent FEFP. Participation in the Sp arsity Supplement is limited to districts of 20,000 or fewer F T E (FLDOE, 2008). Salary Allocation and Assigned Allocation The FEFP included a one year provision of a salary allocation in 1987 88. The Salary Allocation and Assigned Allocation of 20 millio n dollars were allocated to districts based on each district s proportion of the state total number of instruction al personnel. There was an additional assigned allocation in excess of 12 million dollars in the 2007 08 FEFP (FLDOE, 1987) An allocation s imilar to the Salary Allocation and Assigned Allocation appeared in 1990 91 as the Salary Improvement Incentive. The Salary Improvement Incentive provided a one year enhancement of in excess of 100 million dollars (FLDOE, 1990)

PAGE 65

48 Rapid Growth Supplement The 1989 90 and 1990 91 FEFPs included an added component to address the needs of districts where growth exceeded the state average change in unweighted FTE estimate. Th statewide average is to be multiplied by the district current unweighted FTE student count and the result used to distribute the funds allocated to this supplement (FLDOE, 1989) Ex tended Day Allocation The 1990 91 FEFP provided funds on a one year basis for extended day and seven period day programs for 9 12 grade students. Districts were allowed to implement one of two programs. The first was a seven period day. It called for s even periods of 50 minutes or more per day and was funded at the rate of $280.35 per student. The second option allowed for six period s of 60 minutes of instruction, it was funded at the rate of $138.38 per student. There was also a provision to fund stu dents in grades 6 8 if the school has a ninth or tenth grade, but not an eleventh o r twelfth grade. Such students will be funded if enrolled in seven periods of at least 50 minutes each or an equivalent amount of time (FLDOE, 1990) Adequacy Supplement The 1990 91 FEFP also provide s funds to guarantee a 5% weighted FTE increase in funding. This increase is measured based on total state and local FEFP, discretionary

PAGE 66

49 local funds, and the major formula based categoricals. The funding for this provision w as for the 1990 91 FEFP only (FLDOE, 1990) Math/Science Incentive The 1990 91 FEFP sought to increase student enrollment in higher level math and science courses through the Math/Science Incentive. These funds were to be used to enhance the quality of (FLDOE, 1990) It was implemented for one year in 1990 91. Funding Adjustment A Funding Adjustment was included in the 1991 92 and 1992 93 FEFP. This adjustment provides for each district to receive an equal ch ange (increase or decrease) in calculation included state FEFP major categorical funds and local required and discretionary tax proceeds in four steps. Step one: Divi de t he funds from the previous year by that year s weighted FTE students. Step two: Multiply result in step one by district s current funded weighted FTE. Step three: Prorate result in step to achieve a state total amount equal to the sum of all distri ct s unadjusted total potential funds. Step unadjusted total potential funds amount. The result is the district s funding adjustment which assure s that each district re ceives the same percentage change in funds per weighted FTE student (FLDOE, 1991)

PAGE 67

50 Hold Harmless Adjustment An adjustment to provide each district with a minimum percentage increase in sis was implemented in 1993 94. The calculation includes state FEFP, major categorical funds, discretionary lottery fund, local required effort taxes and fees, and discretionary tax process (FLDOE, 1993) The Hold Harmless Adjustment was introduced in th e 1993 9 4 FEFP. It was included in eight consecutive FEFPs through 2000 0 1 It was not included for the first time in 2001 02. Safe Schools Allocation In 1994, an amount was appropriated for Safe Schools. The Safe Schools Allocation was included in the FEFP for the first time in 1994 9 5 The allocation has run continuously through the current FEFP. The Safe Schools Allocation distributes funds to every district on a weighted FTE basis. Districts may not use these funds to supplant funds currently use d for these programs. The funds are available for after school programs for at risk students in middle schools. Districts are encouraged to build on existing after school programs within their communities. Districts are further encouraged to form partne rships with community groups in an effort to maximize resources. These funds are also available for alternative school programs for students involved with the Juvenile Justice S ystem and security programs that will provide for school resource officers, eq uipment, and other improvements to enhance the environment for learning. Districts must develop plans for the implementation of the specified programs and each

PAGE 68

51 affected school will report on the progress of the programs in the Annual School Report (FLDOE, 1994) The 2008 09 FEFP guaranteed each district a minimum of $71,538 under the Safe School Allocation Additional funds are awarded based on two variables: the Florida Crime Index and the district s share of the total state unweighted FTE (FLD OE 2008). First Grade Class Size Reduction An amount of 40 million dollars was allocated to achieve the constitutionally mandated objective that for each elementary school, class size for grades one, t wo and three shall not exceed 20 students, with a ratio of one teacher per 20 students. These funds were distributed through the First Grade Class Size Reduction supplement. For the purpose of this provision, class sizes that exceed 20 students meet the goal if, for every 10 students above a base of 20 students the re is at least one full time teacher aide. First priority for the use of these funds shall be the reduction of class si z e for grade level one, second priority shall be for grade level t wo and the third priority shall be the third grade. These funds were available only in the 1995 96 FEFP (FLDOE, 1995) Remediation Reduction Incentive The amount of 30 million dollars was appropriated for the R emediation R eduction I ncentive in the 1996 97 FEFP. The funds were allocated in two parts. Part 1 allocated twe nty million dollars who pass one or more subtests of the college place ment test. Part 2 allocates an additional ten million dollars h

PAGE 69

52 courses (FLDOE, 1996) Similar amounts were distributed in 1997 98 and 1998 99 (FLDOE, 1998) The Remediation Reduction Incentive was discontinued in 1999 2000. Disparity Compression Adjustment The 1996 Legislature created a component to reduce the di sparity in state and local potential funding per unweighted FTE student through the Disparity Compression Adjustment. Districts below the state average receive additional funding based on the greater of two calculations. In the first calculation, if a di than the calculation of one standard deviation below the mean of funding for all districts, ing per FTE is less than the mean of all districts, then the difference below the mean is multiplied by an equal percentage within the resources provided by the appropriation (FLDOE, 1996) This adjustment was included in the 1996 97, 1997 98, 1998 99 and 1999 2000 FEFP. Dropout Prevention Incentive The 1997 98 and 1998 99 FEFP included a performance based incentive entitled the Dropout Prevention Incentive. The grades 9 12 educational alternative program was funded at the basic 9 12 program weight and s upplemented by an incentive allocation. The statewide amount of the incentive is the difference between grades 9 12 basic weight and the dropout prevention weight multiplied by the grades 9 12 educational alternatives FTE and the base student allocation performance of student s in the educational alternatives program (FLDOE, 1997)

PAGE 70

53 Supplemental Academic Instruction The Supplemental Academic Instruction component provides funding to be used to help students g ain at least a year of knowledge for each year in school. Supplemental academic strategies may include; but are not limited to; modified curriculum, reading instruction, after school instruction, tutoring, mentoring, class size reduction, extended school year, intensive skills development in summer school, and other methods of improving student achievement. The 1999 l egislature originally created Supplemental Academic Instruction as a categorical fund for 1999 2000 (FLDOE, 1999) ; however for 2000 01 and s ubsequent years, it is a component of the FEFP (FLDOE, 2000) The adjustment for Supplemental Academic Instruction continues through the current FEFP. ESE Guaranteed Allocation Exceptional education services for students whose level of service is less th a n Support L evels 4 and 5 are funded through the ESE Guaranteed Allocation. The ESE Guranteed A llocation replaces weighted program cost factors that were included in previous FEFPs. The students generate FTE funding using the appropriate Basic Program we ight for their grade level. The allocation provides for the additional services needed. The ESE Guaranteed Allocation was first implemented in 2000 01 and continues to the current FEFP (FLDOE, 200 8 ) Minimum Guarantee Adjustment The Minimum Guarantee A djustment guarantees each district a 1% increase in potential funding on an unweighted FTE K 12 student basis. The calculation includes state FEFP programs, major categorical funds, discretionary lottery funds, required local

PAGE 71

54 effort proceeds, discretionar y tax equalization funds, and potential discretionary proceeds. The adjustment was included in its current format in the 2001 02 FEFP. It has been included in various formats since the FEFP was introduced (FLDOE, 2001) The Minimum Guarantee Adjustment continued through the current 2007 08 FEFP. It was not included in the 2008 09 FEFP. Lab School Discretionary Contribution Developmental Research School (lab schools) and the Florida Virtual School are established as separate school districts for purposes of FEFP funding. In 2003 04, the FEFP allocated funds for the lab school in lieu of discretionary local tax revenue which is already allocated and used by the district in which the lab school is located. The Florida Virtual School discretionary contrib ution is calculated by multiplying the maximum allowable nonvoted discretionary millage for operations by the value of 95 result by the total full time equivalent mem bership of the state; and multiply the result by the full time equivalent membership of the school (FLDOE, 2003) The Lab School Discretionary Contribution was continued through the 2006 07 FEFP The 2007 08 and 2008 09 FEFPs allocated funds under a rena med Discretionary Contribution to the lab schools. Summer Reading Allocation Twenty five million dollars of non recurring lottery funds were allocated by the 2003 04 Florida Education Finance P rogram to support and assist students who have not yet mastered the necessary skill for promotion or graduation. This Summer Reading

PAGE 72

55 Allocation is t o be used by third and twelfth grade students and for students needing supplemental instruction during the 2003 04 school year to reduce the need for summer remedial prog rams. These funds were in addition to the annual recurring funds appropriated for Supplemental Academic Instruction and were allocated to all school districts based on FTE student enrollment (FLDOE, 2003) An additional $25,000,000 was allocated for Summ er Reading in the 2004 05 school year (FLDOE, 2004) Reading Program Allocation The 2005 06 FEFP allocated funds in the amount of $89,000,000 for the Reading Program. Each district was allocated $50,000 with the remaining amount distributed based on each 12 base funding. Participation required districts to submit a plan prescribed by the Just Read Florida! Office. The 2006 07 2007 08, and 2008 09 FEFP s allocated funds using the same parameters 0.51 (0.498) Mill s Discretionary Compression For the 2005 06 FEFP, the 0.51 Mills Discretionary Compression adjustment was discretionary levy provides less than $200 per unweighted FTE, the school district shall recei ve from the state an amount, when added to the funds generated by the 0.51 mill that equals $200 (FLDOE, 2005). The Discretionary Compression was included in the 2006 07 and 2007 08 FEFP allocations. In 2008 09, the discretionary millage was reduced to 0 .498 and the supplement was renamed. Eligibility for the supplement was based on the state average yield of the 0.498 assessment.

PAGE 73

56 Special Teachers are Rewarded (STAR) Plan Allocation The 2006 07 FEFP allocated funds for the Special Teachers are Rewarded (STAR) P lan Allocation The allocation of $147,500,000 was allocated for performance pay rewards for instructional personnel based on improved student achievement Participating school districts must submit STAR plans to the state for approval. Plans m ust include automatic eligibility for all instructional personnel and rewards of at least five percent of the base pay of the top twenty five percent of instructional personnel (FLDOE, 2006). Merit Award Program (MAP) Allocation The 2007 08 FEFP allocated $147,500,000 to districts for performance pay to instructional and school based administrative staff (FLDOE, 2007). This allocation was in place of the 2006 07 FEFP's Special Teachers are Rewarded (STAR) Plan A llocation. The allocation was reduced to $3 2,072,461 in the 2008 09 FEFP (FLDOE, 2008). DJJ Supplement A supplement to school districts offering Department of Juvenile Justice education programs was included in the 2007 08 FEFP. This supplement was continued in the 2008 09 FEFP Additional Alloca tions Outside of the Base FEFP Calculation For a four year period beginning in 1989 90, the FEFP included a series of supplements. The supplements, four total, were add ons to the FEFP after the calculation of State FEFP Dollars and any adjustments (FLDOE 1989) No additional allocations outside of the base FEFP calculation were found after the 1991 92 FEFP (FLDOE, 1992)

PAGE 74

57 Extended Day / Seventh Period Amounts were appropriated in 1988 89 and again in 1989 90 for an extended day and seven th period. Dist ricts could implement seven periods of 50 minutes or more or six periods of 60 minutes or more for full time students in grades 9 12 during the 180 day school year and would be eligible for this enhancement. Under either option, the school day must be con tiguous, excluding dual enrollment periods (FLDOE, 1988) Adequacy Supplement To guarantee an 8 percent weighted FTE increase in funding, the 1989 90 FEFP included an Adequacy Supplement. The increase was based on total state and local FEFP, discretionary local funds, and the major formula based categoricals. This was included in the FEFP in this format in 1989 90 only (FLDOE, 1989) Caps Adjustment Supplement The 1989 Legislature provided a Caps Adjustment Supplement to use up to 10 percent of any remain ing funds in the FEFP appropriation after all components have been calculated and allocated. Any available funds were to be used to fund weighted FTE over group ceiling. This supplement was included in the FEFP for only one year, 1989 90 (FLDOE, 1989) A dditional State Allocation Through a supplemental appropriation, the 1991 Legislature added ninety million dollars to the Florida Education Finance P rogram This was a prorated amount districts received based on the product of weighted funded FTE students multiplied by the D istrict Cost D ifferentials (FLDOE, 1991)

PAGE 75

58 The Inclusion of Lottery Dollars With the passing of an amendment to the state constitution in 1986, the state of Florida began to operate a statewide lottery with proceeds to benefit education in the state. From 1986 through the 1991, lottery dollars were appropriated for the benefit of public school districts. During this time, lottery funds were not specifically identified in the Florida Education Finance Program. The lottery was used to fu nd categorical programs and special allocations but the source of the funds were not specifically attributed to the lottery. T he 1991 92 Florida Education Finance P rogram included a specific reference to lottery dollars for the first time. Proceeds from the Florida Lottery were used to finance four appropriations: District Discretionary Lottery Funds, Pre School Projects, High Performance Incentives, and Instructional Technology (FLDOE, 1991) The FEFP, beginning in 1991 92, distributed the District Discr etionary Lottery Funds as an enhancement included after the calculation of the Net State FEFP Allocation. An amount of $495,369,799 was appropriated in 1991 92 from the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (Lottery) to be expended in accordance with school district adopted policies and procedures that define enhancement and the types of expenditures consistent with that definition (FLDOE, 1991) Districts were required to provide the Department of Education with a copy of the policies and procedures and to submit an annual report showing all actual expenditure of enhancement funds. Special language was included to insure that districts complied with state regulations pertaining to school improvement plans. In 1991 92, school districts were required to allo cate a minimum of

PAGE 76

59 $4 per student to the school level for implementation of the school improvement process (FLDOE, 1991) The 2008 09 appropriation for the District Disc r etionary Lottery Funds is $217,406,176. This allocation included School Recoginiti on F unds. Language was also present regarding school improvement plans. The 2008 09 appropriation called for a minimum of $5 per student to the school level for implementation of the school improvement process (FLDOE, 2008). In the eig hteen year period b etween the first inclusion of lottery dollars, 1991 92, and the 200 8 09 Florida Education Finance Program the distribution of lottery dollars has undergone significant changes. The period included the 1997 Classrooms First Initiative that was funded with an annual appropriation of $180,000,000 from the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (Lottery) as well as the voter mandated class size reduction which had its own implications for school finance and lottery fund distribution (FLDOE, 1997) The FEFP Funding Formula in 200 8 The Florida Educational Finance Program enacted by the Florida Legislature in the state. A total of $ 9, 007,286,039 was appropriated for distributi on in the Florida Education Finance Program for the 200 8 09 fiscal year compared to $1,694,023,329 for the 1981 82 fiscal year ( FLDOE, 200 8 )

PAGE 77

60 A graphical illustration Figure 4, depicting how the 200 8 09 FEFP calculates Gross State and Local FEFP dollars is included below. A discussion of each component follows. Figure 4: Calculation of FEFP in 2008 09 Full time Equivalent (FTE) An FTE for FEFP funding purposes is one student in membership in one or more FEFP programs for a s chool year or its equivalent. The time equivalent for a school year varies with the school and student. In a standard school, students in grades 4 through 12 must be engaged in 900 hours of instruction per year, kindergarten through 3 rd grade Full time Equivalent (FTE) Program Cost Factors X = Base Student Allocation + Declining Enrollment Supplement X District Cost Differential + DJJ Supplement = Gross State and Local FEFP Dollars Weighted FTE Students X Base Funding + Sparsity Suppleme nt + Discretionary Contribution + 0.498 Mills Discretionary Compression + Safe Schools Allocation + Reading Program + Supplemental Academic Instruction + Merit Award Program (MAP) Allocation = ESE Guaranteed Allocation + Discretionary Tax Equalization +

PAGE 78

61 students mu st me engaged in 720 hours of instruction annually. Students in schools on double session or a school utilizing a special calendar approved by the State Department of Education have their hours reduced to 810 and 630 respectively. Special rules for determ ining FTE exist for students enrolled with the Florida Virtual School and schools associated with the Department of Juvenile Justice (FLDOE, 200 8 ). Program Cost Factors Program Cost Factors serve to assure that each program receives its equitable share of funds in relation to its relative cost per student. Through the annual program cost report, districts have reported the expenditures for each FEFP program. The cost per FTE student of each FEFP program has been used to produce an index of relative costs with the cost per FTE of Basic, Grade 4 8, established as the 1.000 base. The Program Cost Factors for the 200 8 09 fiscal year are listed in Table 6. Table 6: 2008 09 Program Cost Factors (FLDOE, 2006) Basic Program o Kindergarten and Grades 1, 2, and 3 1. 0 66 o Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 1.000 o Grades 10, 11, and 12 1. 052 Exceptional Student Programs o Kindergarten and Grades 1, 2, and 3 w/ ESE Services 1.0 66 o Grades 4, 5, 6, and 8 w/ ESE Services 1.000 o Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 w/ ESE Services 1. 052 o Support Le vel 4 3. 570 o Support Level 5 4.970 English for Speakers of Other Languages 1. 119 Programs for grad es 9 12 Vocational Education 1.077

PAGE 79

62 To provide for the planned use of FEFP funds, the Legislature has established the following combination of programs during the 180 day regular school year and summer school. Group Program Group Title 1 Basic Education Programs 2 Exceptional Education for Support Levels 4 and 5 English for Speakers of Other Languages Grades 9 12 Vocational Education Programs The Florida Virtua l School and schools associated with the Department of Juvenile Justice are the only schools that are eligible for summer school FTE reporting. Program Group 2 has an enrollment ceiling (cap) which is established based on each district's estimates (with mo difications) of FTE in each FEFP program. District estimates are reviewed and approved by a state enrollment estimating conference. Additional Weighted FTE The 2008 09 FEFP authorized five additional FTE supplements. These FTE supplements are included i provisions of the FEFP. The four additional FTE supplements are: Small District ESE Supplement Florida Virtual School Small, Isolated High School Supplement Bonus FTE Programs Base Student Allocati on The based student allocation is determined annually by the legislature. For the 200 8 09 fiscal year, the base student allocation is $ 3, 9 71.74 (FLDOE, 200 8 ) The base student allocation was $1,238.99 in the 1981 82 FEFP (FLDOE, 1981)

PAGE 80

63 District Cost Di fferential Just as the FEFP recognizes the varying cost of educating students in different educational programs, it also recognized the varying cost educating students in different economies across the state. To that end, the FEFP continues to include a D istrict C ost D ifferential (DCD) The DCD is based upon an average of the previous three years of the Florida Price L evel Index as determined by the Department of Administration. Th e three year average is multiplied by 0. 800 and 0.200 is added to the pro duct to determine the DCD This additional calculation is intended to limit the DCD adjustment to just the The District Cost Differ entials for the 200 8 09 fiscal year are presented in T able 7 for comparative purposes the DCD for each district in 1981 82 is shown in parenthesis (FLDOE, 200 8 ) : Adjustments The 2008 09 Florida Education Finance Program included eleven adjustments, guarantees, supplements, and incentives. They are (FLDOE, 2008): Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Declining Enrollment Supplement Sparsity Supplement Discretionary Contribution Discretionary Tax Equalization 0.498 Mills Discretionary Compression Safe Schools Allocation Reading Allocation Supplemental Aca demic Instruction ESE Guaranteed Allocation Merit Award Program

PAGE 81

64 Table 7: 2008 09 District Cost Differentials Alachua ............... 0.9 8 13 (0.9817) Hamilton ................. 0.9 3 18 (0.9655) Okeechobee ..... 0.9701 (0.9783) Baker ................... 0.9 793 (0.9590) Hardee .................... 0.9 672 (0.9674) Orange ............ 1.0090 (0.9 827) Bay ...................... 0.9 424 (0.9572) Hendry .................... 1.0012 (0.9770) Osceola ........... 0.9 903 (0.9727) Bradford .............. 0.9 747 (0.9562) Hernando ................ 0.9 784 (0.9681) Palm Beach ..... 1.0 3 64 (1.0203) Brevard ............... 0.9 843 (0.9885) Highlands ............... 0.9 578 (0.9687) Pasco ............... 0.9 939 (0.9684) Broward .............. 1.0 279 (1.0213) Hillsboroug h ........... 1.0 158 (0.9894) Pinellas ........... 1.0 0 53 (0.9974) Calhoun ............... 0.9 172 (0.9566) Holmes ................... 0.9 043 (0.9540) Polk ................ 0.9 8 04 (0.9750) Charlotte .............. 0.9 689 (0.9842) Indian River ............ 0.9 834 (0.9929) Putnam ............ 0.9 654 (0.9511) Citrus .................. 0.9 538 (0.9694) Jackson ................... 0.9 144 (0.9636) St. Johns .......... 0.9 8 73 (0. 9786) Clay .................... 0.9 957 (0.9815) Jefferson ................. 0.9 413 (0.9708) St. Lucie .......... 0.9 879 (0.9862) Collier ................. 1.0 530 (1.0168) Lafayette ................. 0.9270 (0.9678) Santa Rosa ...... 0.9 349 (0.9538) Columbia ............. 0.9 5 05 (0.9634) Lake ....................... 0.9 810 (0.9745) Sarasota ........... 1.0007 (1.0041) Dade .................... 1.0 1 45 (1.0442) Lee ......................... 1.01 32 (1.0048) Seminole ......... 0.9 986 (0.9872) De Soto ............... 0.9 7 79 (0.9703) Leon ....................... 0.9635 (0.9669) Sumter ............ 0.9 637 (0.9679) Dixie ................... 0.9 385 (0.9642) Levy ....................... 0.9 543 (0.9608) Suwannee ........ 0.93 13 (0.9608) Duval .................. 1.01 46 (0.9805) Liberty .................... 0.9236 (0.9752) Taylor ............. 0.9 191 (0.9594) Escambia ............. 0.9 37 6 (0.9640) Madison .................. 0.9 162 (0.9543) Union .............. 0.9 661 (0.9656) Flagler ................. 0.9 551 (0.9873) Manatee .................. 0.9971 (0.9890) Volusia ............ 0.9 584 (0.9911) Franklin ............... 0.9 105 (0.9818) Marion .................... 0.9 569 (0.9750) Wakulla ........... 0.9438 (0.9842) Gadsden .............. 0.9 434 (0.9603) Martin ..................... 0.9 930 (1.0157) Walton ............ 0 .93 07 (0.9670) Gilchrist .............. 0.9 555 (0.9716) Monroe ................... 1.0 149 (1.0721) Washington ..... 0.9134 (0.9576) Glades ................. 0.9 874 (0.9909) Nassau .................... 0.9 925 (0.9641) Gulf ..................... 0.9 152 (0.9618) Okaloosa ................. 0.95 42 (0.9758) Each of the adjustments, guarantees, supplements, and incentives inclu ded in the 2008 09 FEFP was defined and discussed in the previous section dedicated to their inclusion and exclusion over the years. State & Local FEFP Dollars The state and local FEFP dollars is the total amount allocated for the current operations of e ach school district. It is subject to a reduction for local effort and various adjustments as illustrated in Figure 5.

PAGE 82

65 Figure 5: Calculation of Net State FEFP Allocation in 2008 Required Local Effort The district required l ocal effort is subtracted from the basic amount for current operation. The required local effort is set by the legislature. For the 200 8 09 fiscal year, the legislature set the required local effort at $ 8,267,476,267 (FLDOE, 200 8 ) The Commissioner of E ducation, based on the amount set by the legislature then sets the state wide property millage levy necessary. For the 200 8 09 fiscal year, the average millage rate was 5. 136 mills (FLDOE, 200 8 ) The average millage rate is subject to adjustment if an effort exceeds 90% of the districts total FEFP entitlement. In 2008 09, there were twelve districts which benefited an adjustment of their required local effort based on this provision (FLDOE, 2008). State FEFP Dollars The sta te portion of the FEFP or state FEFP dollars is the result of subtracting the required local effort from the state and local FEFP dollars. Adjustments A provision is also added to authorize the Department of Education to make prior year adjustments in the allocation of funds to a district for arithmetical errors, assessment G ross State and Local FEFP Dollars Required Local Effort = Gross State FEFP + Adjustments = Net State FEFP Allocation

PAGE 83

66 roll changes, full time equivalent student membership errors, or allocation errors revealed in an audit report. Net State FEFP Allocation By removing the adjustments from the state FEFP dollars, one can arrive at the net stat e FEFP all ocation as demonstrated in Figure 6. Figure 6: Calculation of Total State Finance Program in 2008 09 District Discretionary Lottery Funds An amount of $2 17,406,176 was appropri ated from the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (Lottery) for S chool R ecognition F unds and D istrict D iscretionary L ottery F unds to be expended according to school district policies and procedures that define enhancement and the types of expenditures consi stent with that definition. District funding entitlement to the amount of the lottery appropriation Local school boards must allocate at least $ 5 per unweighted FTE student to be used at the discretion of the School Advisory Committee, or in the absence of such a committee, at the discretion of the staff and parents of the school (FLDOE, 200 8 ). Net State FEFP Allocation + Categorical Program Funds + = Total State Finance Program District Discretionary Lottery Funds

PAGE 84

67 Categorical Program Funds Categorical program funds are added to the FEFP allocation which is distributed to districts. The 200 8 09 FEFP included four such programs with allocations totaling $ 3,576,466,185 They are listed below (FLDOE, 200 8 ) : Class Size Reduction Allocation 2, 809,079,054 Instructional Materials Formula Funds 2 59,551,440 Student Transportation 4 71,078,862 Florida Teachers Lead 36,756,829 Special Allocations The 2008 09 FEFP did not contain any special allocations. Total State Allocation The total state allocation is the result of adding the categor ical program funds and the district discretionary lottery funds to the net state FEFP allocation. The total state allocation represents the total state financial contribution to the operation of local school districts. Legal Challenges Since the Serrano v Priest decision in 1971, the vast majority of states have faced challenges to their school finance systems. I n 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled five to four in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez that the Texas school finance system did n ot violate the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing equal protection. The Court held that education was not a fundamental right guaranteed by the federal constitution and that the Texas system satisfied the legitimate state purpose of local autonomy. The Rodriguez case did not stop efforts by plaintiffs at

PAGE 85

68 the state level who were able to cite education clauses in state constitutions (Berne, Moser, & Stiefel, 1999). Despite differences in the legal strategies employed in these cas es, most have centered on the inter district equity of funding within state s (Rubenstein, Doering, & Gess 2000). Because of the high degree of inter district equity built into its school finance formula, the state of Florida has been spared much of the j udicial and legislative turbulence that has marked public school financing in many states (Herrington & Weider, 2001). equity of the system. Although some equity issues cont inue to be raised, current challenges focus on whether Florida is spending enough on education to enable the system to provide a high quality education to all of the students (Herrington & Weider, 2001). of financing public education can be classified into two dis tinct categories: equity challenges and adequacy challenges. A discussion of also including an overview of the 1998 amendmen t to the state constitution. Equity Challenges Equity challenges have centered on whether some students or districts receive more funds for their education tha n other students or districts in the state (Herrington & Weider, 2001). The first challenge t o Florida FEFP was in 1979. In 1979, the school board of Escambia County, a property poor district, challenged the discretionary millage

PAGE 86

69 provision of the FEFP. In Gindl v. The Department of Education the board argued that the provision allowing district s to levy discretionary millage resulted in funding disparities between districts with significant property wealth and those considered property poor. The argument was based on the equal protection clause of the state constitution. The Florida Supreme Co urt ruled in favor of the state. The ruling stated (Herrington & Weider, 2001). The FEFP was again challenged under equity arguments in 1993. Department of Education v. Gla sser brought by the Sarasota School Board, challeng ing the discretionary millage provision from the perspective of a property rich district. The argument was based on an article of the Florida Constitution that authorized a maximum of 10 mills for the su pport of schools. The Florida Supreme Court again ruled in favor of the state. The ruling state d that the article cited only set a maximum, and that the state was in its rights to limit the levy (Herrington & Weider, 2001). In both equity cases discusse d, the courts refused to tightly constrain the state se calls for a of education. Adequacy Challenges Adequacy challenges focus on whether the amount of money available for public education is sufficient to meet the academic standards set forth from the state (Thompson & Crampton, 2002). Two lawsuits have challenged the FEFP, but neither was successful, leaving the system largely unchanged almost three decades after its adoption. Following

PAGE 87

70 other state courts, the Florida Supreme Court asserted in its decisions that the vagueness of state constitutional requirements and the importance of legislative discretion preve nted justices from intervening (Harris, 2005). Funding advocates lost a third case before the Florida Supreme Court in 1996, Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles The coalition suit was filed before the Florida Constitution was amended by voters in 1998. An overview of that amendment is included in the subsequent section. The second suit, Faith L Honore v. Florida State Board of Education was filed after the constitution was amended. In 1995, the Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles challen system of funding education on the basis of adequacy. The Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness filing challenged the amount of funding available denying the c laim, the Florida Supreme court stated that the education clause did not provide sufficient guidance to them on what an adequate education might be (Herrington & Weider, 2001) This led to the constitution s amendment. In 1999, after the adoption of the substantially stronger education clause in the Florida Constitution a new adequacy case was filed. Faith L Honore v. Florida State Board of Education was filed after the adoption of the amendment but before it legally took effect. It was rejected under similar arguments as Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles In its ruling, however, the Florida Supreme court refused to close the door to future adequacy claims (Herrington & Weider, 2001).

PAGE 88

71 Constitutional Amendment In 19 98 the citizens of Florida considerably strengthened the education article in It has resulted in what many consider to be the strongest education language to be found in any state constitution (Herrington & Weider, 2001). Articl e IX Education Section of the Florida Constitution reads ( italicized language was added by the 1998 amendment) : 1. Public education The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require. Conclusion public educ ation has been subject to changes each year in the 2 7 year period from 1981 82 through 200 8 09 Yet, with all the change that has taken place, the fundamental principles that the Florida Education Finance Program was based upon has not changed. Those pri nciples include a variable for educational setting, the program cost factor, and a variable for economic and geographical considerations, the district cost differential, and have been consistent in their purpose In 1981 82, the Legislature appropriated $1,694,023,329 for public education in the State of Florida (FLDOE, 1981) By 200 6 07 the appropriation had more than quintupled to $ 9, 007 286 039 (FLDOE, 200 8 ) In that same period, the source of funding for school districts has slowly shifted from th e state to local counties. In 1981 82, state

PAGE 89

72 funding accounted for 56.4% of district allocations and local funds accounted for 32.3% (FLDOE, 1981). By 200 8 the state was only contributing 4 0.63 % of funds compared to 50.47 % locally (FLDOE, 2008) During this same period, the FEFP has withstood legal challenges on the basis of both equity and adequacy. The 1998 constitutional amendment has opened the door to future litigation using adequacy arguments. Its language is specific and could call into questio n the amount of money allocated to public education in the State of Florida. There is nothing in the constitutional amendment that suggests that the equity, or means of distribution of funding, may be in some legal peril

PAGE 90

73 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PREVI OUS FINDINGS The methods and procedures in the statistical analysis and the historical review of the Florida Education Finance P rogram is the focus of this chapter. Incl uded is a discussion of the statistical tools employed, as well as the findings from the previous study in 1982. Much of the language and definitions presented in this chapter come (1982) This is by design. This section also detail s the current statistical tools available to evaluate the equitability of distribution mechanisms. Ultimately is replicated on data through the 200 8 09 school year and those findings are presented along side an analysis using the current statistical tools discussed in th is chapter. The chapter conclude s with a brief discussion of similar linear studies found in the literature. These studies come from six different states all with the common goal of determining distribution of available funding for education. This chapter i s divided into four distinct subsections. Those subsections are entitled Method for Conducting the Historical Review Measures of Distributional Equity Relationships Between Revenue Measures and Selected Independent Variabl es, and Equity Studies in the Literature A discussion of the findings from 1982 as well the statistical tools employed is included in each section. Application of the statistical tools to the period from 1982 200 9 is the basis of this study.

PAGE 91

74 Method for Conducting the Historical Review The first phase of this study seeks to conduct a historical review of the changes in the Florida Education Finance P rogram The historical review was conducted to tem for education. This review is for the fiscal years from 1982 83 through 200 8 09 To complete the review, Florida School Districts, was obtained for the 2 7 year per iod beginning in 1982 83 and ending with the 200 8 09 publication The statistical reports were used to document the Florida Education Finance P rogram funding formula in 1982 83, changes to the formula during the period from 1982 83 through 200 8 09 and th e structure of the funding formula in 200 8 09 The historical review has been completed and is included as C hapter 2 of this study The historical review forms one of the compelling arguments for enacting the statistical components of this proposal Mea sures of Distributional Equality The second phase of this study aims to investigate t he effect of the FEFP on the The State of c ation Finance P rogram is ana lyzed at three different levels of revenue aggregation: total state revenue per pupil, total local revenue per pupil and total state and local revenue per pupil At each of these levels, the variables of interest are subjected to three separate, disti n ct cost adjustments. The end result is a total of twelve revenue figures to which our measures of variability are applied. This is a major

PAGE 92

75 departure from the Shiver study. The Shiver study did not allow for different cost of living adjustments for the 67 school districts. Ultimately, this is a major source of criticism of the original study. Adjustment of Revenue Measures The proposed study takes a major departure from the original study when it comes to the adjustment of revenue measures. The original S hiver study does not use an adjustment to any of its revenue measures; in fact, it calls into question the Florida Education Finance P rogram This study calls for the use of three separate, disti nct cost adjustments of the revenue measures. Inclusion of cost adjustments indicates that a portion of the apparent revenue advantage may simply compensate for the higher costs these districts face and may not 2000). The consideration of the cost variations in educational services is a fundamental part of analyzing the equity of the system (Cohen Vogel & Cohen Vogel 2001). Common sense suggests that some school distric ts must pay more to hire good teachers than other school districts (Taylor, Alexander, Gronberg, Jansen, & Keller, 2002). Due to local economic factors, c osts are higher in some districts than others largely because more resources are required to educate s ome students compared to others and because some districts will have to pay more money than other districts to attract high quality teachers (Reschovsky & Imazeki, 2001).

PAGE 93

76 Most states including Florida, have cities where the cost of living differs widely f rom the state average (Kramer, 2002). The basic premise underlying the cost of living approach is that areas with a high cost of living will have to pay higher salaries to attract school employees, thus increasing the cost of education. The cost of living becomes a proxy for the cost of education that cannot be directly influenced by school policy (Taylor et al., 2002). The three cost adjustments this study implement s are the District Cost Differential, the Geographic Cost of Education Index, and the Compa rable Wage Index. The District Cost Differential The D istrict C ost D ifferential (DCD) is the Florida Education Finance P rogram cost adjustment component. The DCD has been fundamental to the FEFP since its enactment This study proposes to use the DCD as an adjustment to the revenue measures. Each of the three revenue measures total local revenue per pupil, total state revenue per pupil, and total state and local revenue per pupil for each district is d ivided by the DCD. Since the DCD is used in t he formula to determine funding to the districts, dividing available funding by the DCD will greatly reduce its impact. The DCD in effect cancel s itself out in the calculation. The Geographic Cost of Education Index The Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) was developed by Jay Chambers in 1998 with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Development. The GCEI was developed to focus directly on school inputs and attempts to adjust for qualitative differe nces in those inputs employed

PAGE 94

77 across geographical locations. The index controls for variations in a wide range of person nel and job characteristics that affect the supply of, and demand for, school personnel. It reflects differences across geographic loc ations in factors that underlie cost of living differences and differences in the characteristics of regions that affect their desirability as places to live and work (Chambers, 1998). The Geographic Cost of Education Index was calculated for every school district in the country for the 1987 88, 1990 91, and 1993 94 school years. The correlation year intervals is 98; the correlation between year interval is .96. This suggests that the pat terns of geographic variations in costs do not change substantially over time and the GCEI estimated for any given year provides a reasonable estimate of the GCEI for adjacent and future years (Chambers, 1998). Dr. research shows that the GCEI does not need to be updated every year. For the purposes of this study Chambers GCEI from 1987 88 was used to adjust the 1988 89 revenue measures. The GCEI calculated for the 1990 91 school year was used to adjust the 1990 91 and 1992 93 revenue measur es. Finally, the GCEI calculated for the 1993 94 school year the last year it is available was used to adjust the 1994 95, 1996 97, 1998 99, 2000 01, 2002 03, 2004 0 5 2006 07 and 2008 09 revenue measures. The Comparable Wage Index In May of 2006, Lori Taylor in conjunction with the National Center for Educational Statistics release d the Comparable Wage Index (CWI). The basic premis e of the CWI is that all types of workers including teachers demand higher wages in areas

PAGE 95

78 with a higher cost of li ving or lack of amenities The CWI reflects the systematic, regional variations in the salaries of college graduates who are not educators. Provided that these noneducators are similar to educators in terms of age, educational background, and tastes for local amenities, a CWI can be used to measure the uncontrollable component of variations in the wages paid to educators (Taylor, 2006). The CWI offers a complete picture of labor costs because it reflects not only differences in the price of goods and ser vices, but also any influence on wages due to differences in important community characteristics such as climate, crime rates, or cultural amenities (Taylor, 2006). Evidence suggests that demographic profiles are remarkably stable over time, so any bias in the gr o wth rates induced by demographic shifts should be modest. Among metropolitan areas, there is a 0.968 correlation between 2002 and 2004. This allows for the use of in future years. The Comparable Wage Index (CWI) was first calculated in 1997 and is available from 1997 through 2003 For the purposes of this study, the CWI for 1998 w as used to adjust the 1998 99 revenue measures; the 2000 CWI was used to adjust the 2000 01 revenue measures, and the 2002 CWI was used to adjust the 2002 03, 2004 05, 2006 07 and 2008 09 revenue measures. Selected Years for Study To facilitate assessment of changes in the distribution of the selected per pupil by the original study for analysis over an 11 year time span, 1970 71 and 1972 73, prior to the

PAGE 96

79 75, 1976 77, 1978 79, and 1980 81. Using the same selection method, 1 4 years have been selected for ana lysis by this study -1982 83, 1984 85, 1986 87, 1988 89, 1990 91, 1992 93, 1994 95, 1996 97, 1998 99, 2000 01, 2002 03, 2004 05 2006 07 and 2008 09 The years cover a 2 7 year time span from the end of the original study in 1982 through 200 9 Equity M easures Seven measures of central tendency and variation were selected by the previous study and are utilized in this study. Three additional measures of dispersion or variability that are prevalent in the current literature were employed, bringing to te n the number of measures employed by this study. Nine of the equity measures are discussed here. Discussion and analysis using the Gini c oefficient is divided into a separate subsection s Percentile R anks. A percentile rank is a value on a transformed s cale which corresponds to the percentile point. For example, if $ 2500 per pupil is an amount at or below which 75 percent of the school districts fall, the 75 is the corresponding percentile rank. The districts were ranked according to the per pupil reve nue amount from highest to lowest. Values are listed for the 100 th (highest), 95 th 75 th 50 th (median), 25 th 5 th and 1 st (lowest) percentile rank. A commonly used measure of central tendency, the median is the point of a scale of distribution such tha t half the observations fall above it and half below it. Range. The simplest measure of variation is the range that is the difference between the lowest and highest measurements in a distribution. Although the range is not very stable because it is base d on only two measurement s or values and does not provide

PAGE 97

80 any information about the variability of those per pupil amounts lying between the largest and smallest revenue measurements, it facilitates the comparison of changes in a particular aspect of distr ibutional equality which may lead to the discovery of less obvious disparities lying elsewhere. Restricted R ange. A measure less sensitive to extreme values than the range, the restricted range is the difference between two selected values in a distribut ion, usually in terms of percentiles. For the purpose of th is study the restricted range is the difference between the 5 th and 95 th percentile of per pupil revenue. Federal Range Ratio. The federal range ratio is the restricted range divided by the per pupil revenue measure at the 5 th percentile. This measure is prevalent in the current literature. It was not in practice at the time of the original Shiver study. Data will only be made available for the fourteen selected years of the current analysis. Mean. The mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of measurements in the set. Unlike the median, the mean is based on all the values in a distribution and the quantity of the measurements. Its measurement over time facilitates as sessment of the growth in the average per pupil revenue amount received by school districts. Standard D eviation. A better index of dispersion or variability than either of the range measures, the standard deviation is equal to the square root of the vari ance that is the mean of the squared deviation scores. The standard deviation is by far the most commonly used measure of variability and is based upon all the values in a distribution.

PAGE 98

81 Coefficient of V ariation. The coefficient of variation is the stand ard deviation divided by the mean of distribution and measure s equality relative to the mean. The lower the coefficient of variation, the more equal the distribution. McLoone Index. The McLoone i ndex is the sum of the per pupil revenue measure for studen ts at or below the median divided by the sum of per pupil revenue measure if all the students below the median received the median amount. This measure is prevalent in the current literature. This index quantifies the relationship between students below the mean in per pupil revenues and the mean It also shows how f a r these students fall below what equal per pupil funding would generate. It was not in practice at the time of the original Shiver study. Data is only available for the fourteen years of t he current analysis. Verstegen Index. The Verstegen i ndex is the sum of per pupil revenue measure for students at or above the median divided by the sum of per pupil revenue measure if all the students above the median received the median amount. This in dex quantifies the relationship between students above the mean in per pupil revenues and the mean and shows how far these students rise above what equal per pupil funding would generate. This measure is prevalent in the current literature. It was not in practice at the time of the original Shiver study. Data is only available for the fourteen years of the current analysis. Data for the pre FEFP years 1970 71 and 1972 73 was obtained by Dr. Shiver from The Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education Data for the 1974 75, 1976 77, 1978 79, and 1980 81 school years were obtained from Profiles of Florida School

PAGE 99

82 Districts. Data for the 1982 83, 1984 85, 1986 87, 1988 89, 1990 91, 1992 93, 1994 95, 1996 97, 1998 99, 2000 01, 2002 03, 2004 05 2006 07 a nd 2008 09 years are extracted from the First Calculation from the year of interest made available from the C ommissioner of E ducation. The First Calculation was selected as the data source for the current study so that analysis take s place using the same figures the legislature uses in its annual deliberations. Total State Revenue Measures Tables 8 and 9 show the framework for evaluating the distribution of total state revenue. Tables 8 and 9 are populated with data from the original study. Data from the Findings from the Original Study Table 8 shows that total state revenue per pupil has increased steadily across the percentile ranks except for the first and last two year intervals at the 1 st percentile and the period between 1976 77 and 1978 79 at the 25 th percentile. From 1970 71 to 1980 81 the median increased 170 percent, the largest increase of any percentile rank for the same period. During the same period, the 100 th percentile rank, representing the district which received the most state revenue per pupil each of the six years, increased 145 percent as compared to the 1 st percentile rank, representing the district which received the least state revenue per pupi l, which increased only 43 percent. These finding s from the original study show a growing disparity between the so called rich and poor districts. It is important to note that only unadjusted figures are available for this period. Is the funding betwee n the rich and poor growing or is the cost

PAGE 100

83 of doing business in these districts changing? The inclusion of cost adjusted revenues will provide data to more accurately judge this disparity. Table 8: Percentile Distribution of Total State Revenue per Pupi l, 1970 1980 Year Revenue Type 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th 1 st 1970 71 Unadjusted 922.09 768.58 618.33 533.19 480.79 427.82 382.30 1972 73 Unadjusted 984.44 839.75 687.35 593.42 537.89 445.30 363.98 1974 75 Unadjusted 1397.91 1093.60 911.18 815.57 702.45 536.84 366.84 1976 77 Unadjusted 1577.74 1282.76 1058.85 922.20 829.12 557.84 409.34 1978 79 Unadjusted 1896.99 1716.93 1204.10 1022.78 819.79 604.88 548.47 1980 81 Unadjusted 2262.73 1727.10 1540.98 1442.46 1273.75 1032.69 544.55 In Table 9 th e range of the distribution again increased steadily with the greatest percentage coming between 1972 73 and 1974 75, the years immediately prior and subsequent to the establishment of the FEFP. From 1970 71 to 1980 81 the range more than tripled in size while the restricted range only doubled. The substantial decrease in the size of the restricted range between 1978 79 and 1980 81 is reflected by the coefficient of variation and standard deviation recorded for 1980 81. The mean total state revenue per p upil increased 151 percent between 1970 71 and 1980 81. For the same period, the standard deviation grew by almost 111 percent with a 19 percent decrease in the size between 1978 79 and 1980 81. Overall, disparities in the distribution of total state rev enue appear to have increased for each year except 1980 81 when the coefficient of variation was the lowest of any year studied. With 1980 81 being the last year of the previous study, it is important that the variation was the lowest of any year studied. Was this a sign of things to come, or, simply an abnormality that dissipated in subsequent years? Only continued study can address this issue.

PAGE 101

84 Table 9 : Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State Revenue s per Pupil 1970 1980 Restricted Standard Coefficient of Year Revenue Type Range Range Mean Deviation Variation 1970 71 Unadjusted 539.79 340.56 560.14 117.58 .210 1972 73 Unadjusted 620.46 394.45 621.47 128.66 .207 1974 75 Unadjusted 1031.06 556.76 813.95 176.65 .217 19 76 77 Unadjusted 1168.40 724.92 931.22 215.39 .231 1978 79 Unadjusted 1348.52 1112.05 1054.66 293.66 .278 1980 81 Unadjusted 1718.17 694.41 1407.66 247.68 .176 Total Local Revenues Tables 10 and 11 show the framework for evaluating the distribution of to tal local revenue. Tables 10 and 11 are populated with data from the original study. Data from Beginning with the first year of the proposed study, 1982 83, the t ables are formatted to local revenue per pupil. The tables expand in 1988 89 and again in 1996 indices became available. Findings from the Original Study Table 10 presents the percentile distribution of total local revenue per pupil that combines the local discretionary effort with the required local effort per pupil. The percentile ranks show a steady increase during the 11 year period of the original study except for a nominal decrease at the 5 th percentile rank between 1970 71 and 1972 73 and a 13 percent decline at the 1 st percentile rank between 1974 75 and 1976 77. From 1970 71 to 1980 81 the median increa sed 175 percent.

PAGE 102

85 Table 10: Percentile Distributions of Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1970 1980 Year Revenue Type 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th 1 st 1970 71 Unadjusted 679.91 486.48 316.92 221.00 150.54 107.02 80.84 1972 73 Unadjusted 272.24 530 .76 347.68 246.16 167.89 106.37 99.16 1974 75 Unadjusted 1129.81 756.74 539.00 391.69 276.83 176.98 161.62 1976 77 Unadjusted 1246.43 1041.33 650.35 446.28 311.77 213.39 142.66 1978 79 Unadjusted 1390.76 1251.91 864.70 569.09 374.82 228.18 203.81 1980 81 U nadjusted 1971.77 1339.94 907.34 606.68 393.93 243.66 217.64 During the same period, the largest increase in total local revenue per pupil across all percentile ranks was between 1972 73, the year before the FEFP was enacted, and 1974 75, the year immedi ately after. The measures of variation presented in Table 11 along with the mean summarized the changes in the distribution of total local revenue per pupil over the 11 year period of study. Continued analysis will provide an additional 2 5 year period of current data. Both the range and the restricted range nearly doubled in size with the largest percentile change in the range coming between the years immediately preceding and following the year the FEFP was implemented. The mean grew by 172 percent and like the standard deviation, experienced the largest percentage increase during the same years as the range and restricted range. The relatively large increase in per pupil local revenues Table 11 : M easures of the Variation in the Distribution of Tota l Local Revenues per Pupil 1970 1980 Restricted Standard Coefficient of Year Revenue Type Range Range Mean Deviation Variation 1970 71 Unadjusted 599.07 379.46 251.12 126.26 .503 1972 73 Unadjusted 628.08 424.39 278.63 138.85 .498 1974 75 Un adjusted 968.19 579.78 425.16 197.01 .463 1976 77 Unadjusted 1103.77 827.94 502.24 254.12 .506 1978 79 Unadjusted 1186.95 1023.73 635.00 308.38 .486 1980 81 Unadjusted 1754.13 1096.28 683.46 369.68 .541

PAGE 103

86 between 1972 73 and 1974 75 may be attributable to a variation in the required local effort set by the legislature for the same period. Although the coefficient of variation fluctuated, it was approximately 8.4 percent higher in 1980 81 than in the year before the FEFP. This observation coupled with the s teady increase in the standard deviation between 1970 71 and 1980 81 reflected the growing disparity in the distribution of total local revenue per pupil. This disparity may or may not have continued in subsequent years. The trend may have stabilized or continued. The analysis of additional data, data that includes cost adjustments, and a wider time period will allow for conclusions to be drawn that are current and relevant to contemporary practice. Total State and Local Revenue Measures Tables 12 and 1 3 show the framework for evaluating the distribution of total state and local revenue. Tables 12 and 13 are populated with data from the original study. Data from the original study did not use any means of cost adjustment and is listed as Findings from the Original Study Table 1 2 p resents the percentile ranks for the distribution of total state and local revenue per pupil across the selected years of the previous study. With the exception of the first two year interval at the 100 th percen tile, total state and local revenue per pupil

PAGE 104

87 Table 12: Percentile Distributions of Total State and Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1970 1980 Year Revenue Type 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th 1 st 1970 71 Unadjusted 1164.83 1003.20 862.71 793.95 734.5 4 663.94 610.77 1972 73 Unadjusted 1129.87 1114.64 964.13 887.40 829.56 758.57 673.46 1974 75 Unadjusted 1647.37 1463.89 1293.76 1236.22 1153.54 1101.13 986.71 1976 77 Unadjusted 1951.39 1770.89 1562.84 1393.38 1290.21 1158.28 1063.23 1978 79 Unadjusted 2 210.67 2086.37 1782.46 1667.44 1549.98 1459.30 1346.13 1980 81 Unadjusted 2745.60 2587.57 2184.75 2061.07 1912.76 1793.31 1756.22 increased steadily across the percentile ranks since 1970 71. From 1970 71 to 1980 81 total state and local revenue per pup il at the 95 th percentile increased 158 percent while the 5 th percentile increased only a slightly higher 170 percent. The median fluctuated in the degree of percentage change in total state and local revenue per pupil with a minimum increase of 11.7 perc ent between 1970 71 and 1972 73 and a maximum of 39.3 percent between 1972 73 and 1974 75, the years immediately before and after the establishment of the FEFP. The first percentile, representing the district which received the least total state and local revenue per pupil, showed the greatest increase from 1970 71 to 1980 81, i.e., 187 percent. The 100 th percentile, representing the district that received the most total state and local revenue per pupil, increased the least of the percentile ranks, i.e., 136 percent. From 1970 71 to 1980 81 the median increased 160 percent. W hile there appears to have been an equalization effect across the 95 th and 5 th percentile ranks between 1970 71 and 1980 81, the ranks represent roughly only 10 percent of the total n total state and local revenue receipts per pupil above and below the upper quartile (half the number of districts) indicates movement away from fiscal neutrality, a disequalizing

PAGE 105

88 effect. A judgment cannot and should not take place on the equity of the distribution of total state and local revenue based on unadjusted revenue. The current study will provide more complete data over a longer period and therefore will provide a better foundat ion from which to draw conclusions. Table 1 3 presents the range, restricted range, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation for the distribution of total state and local revenue for the selected years of study. Total state and local revenue s per pupil increased by about 185 percent between 1970 71 and 1980 81. In 1972 73 and 1978 79 the range decreased in relation to its size two years earlier. For the 11 year period of study, the range grew by about 79 percent while the restricted range i ncreased steadily by about 135 percent, the largest increase coming between 1974 75 and 1976 77. For the same period, the mean increased almost 158 percent. Table 13: Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State and Local Revenue s per P upil, 1970 1980 Restricted Standard Coefficient of Year Revenue Type Range Range Mean Deviation Variation 1970 71 Unadjusted 554.06 339.26 881.26 110.38 .136 1972 73 Unadjusted 456.41 356.07 900.10 103.01 .114 1974 75 Unadjusted 660.66 362 .76 1239.10 117.24 .095 1976 77 Unadjusted 888.16 612.61 1433.46 193.28 .135 1978 79 Unadjusted 864.54 627.54 1689.66 187.65 .111 1980 81 Unadjusted 989.38 794.26 2091.12 233.40 .112

PAGE 106

89 The standard deviation has doubled between 1970 71 and 1980 81 with d ecreases corresponding to reductions in the size of the range for 1972 73 and 1978 79. The smallest increase in the variability of the distribution of total state and local revenue per pupil between any of the selected years was between the year immediate ly prior to the 2 73, and the year immediately following, 1974 75. Fluctuations in the coefficient of variation prohibit estimations of distributional equalizing or disequalizing effects; although it is worth noting that the coeff icient of variation for the year immediately preceding the FEFP and the coefficient for the most recent year are virtually the same. Assessing Distributional Patterns of Per Pupil Revenues Using Lorenz Curves and Gini Coefficients The purpose of this s ub section is to examine the overall pattern of the distribution of revenues per pupil among Florida school districts using an analysis separate from the measures presented in the previous sub section to assess changes in the degree of inequality associate d with school revenue distribution between 1970 71 and 200 8 09 Data from the initial study is presented here and includes the period from 1970 71 through 1980 81. The current study presents data from 1982 83 through 200 8 09 The most widely used measur e of equality, the Gini coefficient, which is based on the Lorenz c urve, has often been used by economist and school finance researchers to study various distributional patterns. In this section, the equalizing or disequalizing effect of the three selecte d per pupil revenue measures total state and local revenue, total state revenue, and total local revenue is analyzed using the Lorenz c urve and the Gini

PAGE 107

90 coefficient to assess the role each plays in the degree of fiscal neutrality achieved by the s school finance plan. Figure 7 illustrates the hypothetical Lorenz c urve and is constructed as follows: ordered for poor to rich based on the assessed valuation per pu pil in each district. As percentage of the total state population. The Y axis is the cumulative percentage of total school revenues accruing to the population on the X axis. The 45 per pupil are the same for the entire population if we assume equal unit on each axis. Thus, 25 percent of the pupil population would re ceive 25 percent of the total school revenues, half of the population would receive half the revenues, etc. Figure 7 : A Sample Lorenz Curve (Shiver, 1982)

PAGE 108

91 The Lorenz c urve has the ability to show that at point A the poorest 30 percent of while point B shows that the richest 30 percent of the pupils receive 45 perc ent of the revenues. A Lorenz c urve that coincided with the line of equality would indicate perfect f iscal neutrality, since pupils in each district would receive an equal share of the total state school revenues. The Gini coefficient is derived by dividing the area between the Lorenz c urve and the line of equality by the area of the triangle below the l ine of equality. The resulting quotient characterizes the degree of inequality in a distribution and is shown by the following formula: GC = A / B Where GC is the Gini coefficient, A is the area between the Lorenz c urve and the line of equality, and B is the triangular area below the line of equality. For example, if the shaded area between the Lorenz c urve and the line of equality equaled 1.5 square inches and the triangular area under the line of equality were six square inches, the Gini coefficient for total school revenues would be: GC = 1.5 / 6 = .250 If the Lorenz c urve were to lie above the line of equality, the Gini coefficient would carry a negative sign, thus reflecting the disproportionally larger percentage of revenue received by the poor er students. As school revenues are more equally distributed among districts of varying fiscal capacity, the area between the Lorenz c urve and the line of

PAGE 109

92 equality becomes smaller. The closer the Gini coefficient approaches zero, the greater the degree o Tables 14 15 and 16 show the framework for evaluating the distribution of revenues using Lorenz c urves and the resulting Gini c oefficients Findings from the Original Study Total Local Re venue Lorenz c urves for the distribution of total local revenue across each of the six selected years of the original study were produced and the Gini coefficient calculated for each year by Dr. Sh iver. Table 14 shows the Gini c oefficients for each of t hese years. Although there is little difference between the distributions for 1970 71, 1972 73, and 1980 81, it was noted that immediately following establishment of the FEFP total local revenues were more equally distributed than at any other time durin g the selected years of the original study. The inequality in the distribution of total local revenues was greater in 1980 81 than in any of the earlier years studied based on the unadjusted revenues. Table 14: Gini Coefficients of the Distribution of To tal Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1970 1980 Unadjusted Total Local Year Re venue 1970 71 0.1996 1972 73 0.1959 1974 75 0.1582 1976 77 0.1863 1978 79 0.1817 1980 81 0.2044

PAGE 110

93 Total State Revenues The Lorenz c urves for total state re venues were also produced and Gini coefficients determ ined. Table 15 shows the Gini c oefficients for total state revenues. Total state revenues were distributed in favor of the poorer districts each year. The equalizing power of total state revenue to t he poorest districts, however, actually decreases between 1972 73 and 1980 81. A comparison of the Gini coefficients for total state revenues reveals that in 1980 81, state aid was less effective in offsetting the unequal distribution of total local reven ues that in any other year. The larger the value of the negative total state revenue Gini coefficient, the more effectively it contributes to fiscal neutrality by reducing the Gini coefficient of total state and local revenue inequality. Table 15: Gin i Coefficients of the Distribution of Total State Revenue s per Pupil, 1970 1980 Unadjusted Total State Year Revenue 1970 71 0.0376 1972 73 0.0650 1974 75 0.0498 1976 77 0.0335 1978 79 0.0443 1980 81 0.0259 Gini coeffici ents derived from two of the four total state revenue Lorenz c urves 77 and 1980 81 curves actually lay closer to the line of equality than either of the Lorenz c urves for 1970 71 and

PAGE 111

94 1972 73. When compared with the Lorenz curves for the other years, the position of the 1972 73 total state revenue Lorenz c urve in relation to the line of equality indicates that the pupils residing in the poorest districts received a smaller share of total state reven ue in 1974 75, 1976 77, 1978 79, and 1980 81 than they did in 1972 73. Thus, total state revenues were distributed more in favor of high fiscal capacity districts for the years 73. These c onclusions are drawn solely on the basis of unadjusted revenues. The inclusion of cost adjustments as proposed may show the FEFP to be more equitable. Total State and Local Revenues Gini coefficients for total state and local revenue are displayed in T a ble 16. Although the Gini coefficients for the distribution of total state and local revenues varied less than the coefficients for the other revenue distributions and are nearly identical, an examination of Gini coefficients of total state and local reve nue reveals that total state and local revenues were distributed more in favor of the richer districts in 1980 81 than in any of the earlier years of study. The most equal distribution of total state and local revenues came in 1974 75, the year immediatel y following establishment of the FEFP. It is to be noted however that the corresponding Gini coefficients for 1970 71 and 1972 73 suggest a declining trend over time in the degree of total state and local revenue distribution inequality prior to the FEFP. The design of the FEFP provides for a cost adjustment for districts, the District Cost Differential (DCD) The inclusion of this cost adjustment provides weighted funds based on local economies.

PAGE 112

95 Table 1 6: Gini Coefficients of the Distribution of Tot al State and Local Revenue s per Pupil 1970 1980 Unadjusted Total State & Local Year Revenue 1970 71 0.0534 1972 73 0.0366 1974 75 0.0324 1976 77 0.0560 1978 79 0.0506 1980 81 0.0605 It is to be expected that more state and local revenue would flow to these high cost districts. This is the major flaw in the Shiver study. The Shiver study does not recognize inequitable because it provi des more funds to the higher cost districts, ignores the basic fact that it cost more money to operate a district in certain local economies. The current study uses multiple cost adjustments. If adjusted revenues show an inequ i ty exists, then the FEFP co uld be called into question. To question the formula based on unadjusted revenue is misleading. Relationships Between Revenue Measures and Selected Independent Variables The third phase of this study focuses on changes in the relationship between per pu enactment in 1973. The Pearson product moment correlation was used by Dr. Shiver to assess the extent to which changes in per pupil revenues are associated with changes in the independent variables identified in Chapter 1 D istrict C ost D ifferential factor and

PAGE 113

96 A ssessed V aluation. Using each of the six years studied previously -1970 71, 1972 73, 1974 75, 1976 77, 1978 79, and 1980 81 -matrices were constructed which show t he correlation between each of the independent variables and the three per pupil revenue measures total state revenue per pupil, total local revenue per pupil, and total state and local revenue per pupil used by Dr. Shiver. An additional fourteen year s will be analyzed by the current study -1982 83, 1984 85, 1986 87, 1988 89, 1990 91, 1992 93, 1994 95, 1996 97, 1998 99, 2000 01, 2002 03, 2004 05, 2006 07 and 2008 09 To aid in the interpretation of changes in the strength of the indicated relation ships, the coefficient of determination is symbolized by r 2 Selected Independent Variables The selected independent variables are defined as follows: Assessed V aluation per P upil. A traditional measure of fiscal capacity in school finance equity studie s, the property tax base is the nonexempt value of property in each pupil. This procedure is employed again in the current study. District C ost D ifferential F actor districts are included in the Florida Education Finance Program ( FEFP ) formula, but were not a part of the Minimum Foundation Plan ( MFP ) The factor is intended to compensate districts for significant diffe rences in the cost of living based on an annual study and Because the D istrict C ost D ifferential factor is an index, the variable was not measured

PAGE 114

97 per pupil in the correla tion matrices. This procedure is employed again in the current study. Because the product moment coefficient of correlation assumes that the relationship between the two variables is a linear one, scatter plots were constructed by Dr. Shiver and inspecte d for each correlation in the original study to determine if relationships were possibly curvilinear, the computed Pearson r can underestimate the true strength of the relationship. Therefore, for those scatter plots that appeared to depict pronounced cur vilinear relationships, a second order polynomial regression model was created in order to obtain a more appropriate indicator of the strength of the relationship between the variables. Scatter plots again are constructed and analyzed. Should any of thes e appear to be curvilinear; the second order polynomial regression model will be employed. Total State Revenue Measures Table s 17 and 18 show the relationship between total state revenue per pupil and the aforementioned independent variables of interest at two year intervals from 1970 71 through 1980 81. The table s have been expanded to allow for the addition of data at the stated two year interval for the period from 1982 83 through 200 8 09 In addition to the reported Pearson product moment correlatio n coefficients, symbolized by r, corresponding coefficient of determination (r 2 ) also were presented. The multiple correlation coefficient, R 2 and its square root, R, are given in parentheses alongside those

PAGE 115

98 Table 17: Product Moment Correlation Betwe en the District Cost Differential and Total State Revenue s per Pupil, 1970 1980 Total State Year Revenue r r 2 1970 71 --1972 73 --1974 75 .59 .35 1976 77 .48 .23 1978 79 .49 .24 1980 81 .49 .24 Tabl e 18: Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State Revenue s per Pupil, 1970 1980 Total State Year Revenue r r 2 1970 71 .37 .14 1972 73 .60 .36 1974 75 .78 .61 1976 77 .68 .46 1978 79 .79 .62 1980 81 .84 .71 product moment correlations and coefficients of determination that substantially underestimated the strength of relationships due to their curvilinearity. (All multiple correlations coefficient are positive.) A much strong er inverse relationship appeared to have developed between total state revenue per pupil and assessed v aluation per pupil as shown in T able 18 By 1980 81, 71 percent of the variance in one variable was associated with variance in the other

PAGE 116

99 variable an increase of 57 percentage points over the coefficient of determination of the same variables in 1970 71. The difference between the first and last year correlation coefficients for total state revenue per pupil and assessed valuation per pupil shows a substantially greater degree of negative relationship a greater equalizing effect under the FEFP. The c urrent study provide s data to determine if that inverse relationship continued or reversed in subsequent years. The moderate negative relationship between state revenue per pupil and the T able 17 remained relatively stable across the selected years of study. That stability may or may not continue in the current study. But either the development o f a future trend or the continued stability would be noteworthy as well as changes in the relationship as adjusted revenues are implemented. Total Local Revenue Measures The matrix presented in Table 19 and 20 show the correlations between total local rev enue per pupil and the independent variables of interest for the selected years of the original study. The matrix has been expanded to allow for the addition of data for the selected years of the current study. impact on the relationship between total local revenue per pupil and the selected independent variables to have been negligible during the period of the original study. Continued study provides data to determine if a relationship emerged or if the impact remained negligible.

PAGE 117

100 Table 19 : Product Moment Correlation Between the District Cost Differential and Total Local Revenue s per Pupil 1970 1980 Total Local Year Revenue r r 2 1970 71 --1972 73 --1974 75 .63 .40 1976 77 .67 .45 1978 79 .64 .41 1980 81 .66 .44 Table 2 0 : Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total Local Revenue s per Pupil 1970 1980 Total Local Year Revenue r r 2 1970 71 .87 .76 197 2 73 .94 .88 1974 75 .96 .92 1976 77 .97 .94 1978 79 .98 .96 1980 81 .96 .92

PAGE 118

101 Total State and Local Revenue Measures Tables 21 and 22 display correlations between total state and local revenue per pupil and each of the selected independ ent variables of interest. In T able 22, total state and local revenue per pupil was correlated with assessed valuation per pupil. The moderate positive relationship between the two variables had remained relatively stable over the 11 year period of the original study with virtually identical correlation coefficients reported for 1970 71 and 1980 81. The static condition of this particular relationship is not characteristic of a school finance plan, which has moved or is moving toward fiscal neutrality. Should the st atic condition continue through the proposed 27 year period it would be even more striking fiscal neutrality in the combined 36 years of study. It has been argued that measures differences in the standard of living among the districts rather than differences in the cost of the same standard of living a viewpoint supported by the fact that residents of wealthier dist ricts tend to purchase a greater amount and higher quality of goods and services than do those who live in poorer districts (Johns, Alexander, & Jordan, 197 1 ). Because a higher district cost differential factor is supposed to be a result of higher cost of living in a particular county, the moderate pos itive relationship reported in T able 21 for 1980 81, which is considerably stronger than the correlation for 1974 75, may be of greater interest if a strong relationship exists between the D istrict C ost D iffe

PAGE 119

102 Table 21: Product Moment Correlation Between the District Cost Differential and Total State and Local Revenue s Per Pupil, 1970 1980 Total State and Year Local Revenue r r 2 (R) (R 2 ) 1970 71 --1972 73 --1974 75 .18 .03 1976 77 .36 .13 1978 79 .27 .07 1980 81 .52 .27 Table 22: Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State and Local Revenue s Per Pupil, 1970 1980 Total State and Year Local Revenue r r 2 (R) (R 2 ) 1970 71 .60 .36 (.66) (.44) 1972 73 .52 .27 1974 75 .42 .18 1976 77 .52 .27 1978 79 .37 .14 1980 81 .62 .38

PAGE 120

103 Table 23 shows the district cost differential factor correlated with assessed valuation per pupil for the selected years of study after the FEFP was enacted. The wealth measure lends credence to the criticism of the func differential. T able 2 3 : Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil 1970 1980 Assessed Value Year per Pupil 1974 75 .63 1976 77 .66 1 978 79 .65 1980 81 .65 Returning to T able 21 the 1980 81 coefficient of determination of .27 means that D istrict C ost D ifferential explains or is associated with approximately 27 percent of the variation in total state and local revenue pe r pupil. Given this degree of association between this particular measure of state aid and the district cost differential for 1980 If there are real variations among the counties of the state in the cost of livin g for the same standard of living, the legislature should take those variations into consideration in the Finance Act because approximately 80 percent of the current expenses of schools are required to pay the salaries and wages of school employees. Howev er, the legislature defeats the purpose of providing for substantially equal educational programs and services if it allocated school funds in such a manner as to provide for a higher standard of living in some counties than in others (Johns & Alexander, 1 971).

PAGE 121

104 Continued study will determine if the criticisms leveled by Johns and Shiver resulted in modifications to the FEFP or if a need to renew those criticisms exists. The analysis of timely data and its publication would provide the needed determinant f or this judgment. Equity Studies in the Literature The method described in this chapter, and previously in C hapter 1, draws support available funds for education ca n be found throughout the literature. Equity studies can be found from multiple authors, in multiple journals, and for many different states. In the pages that follow, these studies and their methods are detailed. The Equity of Public Education Funding i n Georgia Ross Rubenstein, Dwight Doering, and Larry Gess conducted an assessment of s system for distributing state funding to local districts. Published in the fall of 2000 by the Journal of Education Finance, the study examined the distribution of funding in Georgia from 1988 1996. The study examined the distribution of state and local per pupil revenues. These revenues were adjusted using two independent indexes. Revenues were also adjusted for annual differences using the Consu mer Price Index (Rubenstein, Doering, & Gess, 2000). Equity measures employed by the study include the range, restricted range, coefficient of variation, and the McLoone i ndex. Correlations were calculated between revenues per pupil and factors the auth property wealth.

PAGE 122

105 School Finance Reform in Tennessee Laura Ann Cohen Vogel and Daniel Cohen Vogel conducted an assessment of the ublished in the winter of 2001 by the Journal of Education Finance the study examined the distribution of funding in Tennessee from 1991 to 1998. The study examined operating expenditures e adjusted using also adjusted based on annual differences using inflation measures from the U.S. Department of Commerce (Cohen Vogel & Cohen Vogel 2001). The Tennessee stud y employed six equity statistics: the range, restricted range, federal range ratio, coefficient of variation Gini coefficient and the McLoone index. Wealthy or Poor: Who Receives and Who Pays in Iowa Julie Bundt and Suzanne Leland conducted a review of I owa system for distributing available funding Published in the spring of 2001 by the Journal of Education Finance, the study loo ked exclusively at data from 1998. The study did not employ cost adjustments of any kind. The authors discussed cost adjustm ents but noted that Iowa has a more uniform economy tha n most other states (Bundt & Leland, 2001). Four equity statistics were used in the Iowa study: federal range ratio, McLoone index, coefficient of variation, and the Gini coefficient. Assessing the Equ ity of SEEK Formula Lawrence Picus, Allan Odden, and Mark Fermanich conducted a review of

PAGE 123

106 Kentucky or SEEK formula. Published in the spring of 2004 by the Jour nal of Education beginning with the 1990 91 school year and ending with the 1999 2000 school year. The study looked from a revenue perspective at the resources available to school districts in (Picus, Odden, & Fermanich, 2004) Seven equity statistics were employed by the Kentucky study: the range, restricted range, federal range ratio, coefficient of variation, Gini c oefficient, McLoone index, and Verstegen index. Fiscal neutrality was also judged using correlations between per pupil revenues and the wealth of each district. District wealth was established using the property tax base. Horizontal and Vertical Equity A nalysis of Indiana Marilyn Hirth and Edward Eiler conducted an assessment system for distributing state funding to local districts. Published in the spring of 200 5 by the Journal of Education Finance, the study examined the distr ibution of funding in Indiana from 1993 through 2001. The study examined the distribution of state and local for effort school funding formula. These revenues were adjusted for both the cost of living variations and inflation (Hirth & Eiler, 2005) The range, restricted range, federal range ratio, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, and coefficient of variation were employed as equity statistics in the Indiana study.

PAGE 124

107 The Equality of Public School District Funding Mi chele Moser and Ross Rubenstein authored a national study to determine the equity of public school financing in the United States. Published in January of 2002 by the j ournal Public Administration Review, the study exa mined state and local revenues p er pu pil across each of the fifty states in fiscal years 1992 and 1995. State and local revenues per pupil (Moser & Rubenstein, 2002). The federal range ratio, coefficient of variations, McLoone index, and Gini coefficient were equity measures used in the national study.

PAGE 125

108 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS The purpose of this study was to examine the distribution of available funding for Florida public school districts. Data covering a twenty seven year p eriod from the 1982 83 school year through the 2008 09 school year was examined. Data was examined for even number years during this period yielding 14 data sets. Data for the 1982 83, 1984 85, 1986 87, 1988 89, 1990 91, 1992 93, 1994 95, 1996 97, 1998 99 2000 01, 2002 03, 2004 05 2006 07, and 2008 09 years were extracted from the First Calculation from the year of in terest made available from the C ommissioner of E ducation. The First Calculation was selected as the data source for the study so that anal ysis takes place using the same figures the legislature uses in its annual deliberations. Chapter three outlined the research design and methods to be employed in this study. This chapter will begin with a brief review of those methods and continue into a presentation of the results. The results will be presented in two sections. Measures of distributional equity will be discussed in the first results section. The relationship between the selected revenue measures and the independent variables will be t he subject using weighed students based on the program cost factors.

PAGE 126

109 Research Design and Methods This phase of th e study investigate s the effect of the FEFP on the degree of Florida Education Finance Program is analyzed at three different levels of revenue aggregation: total state revenue per pupil, total local revenue per pupi l, and total state and local revenue per pupil. At each of these levels, the variables of interest are subjected to three separate, distinct cost adjustments. The end result is a total of twelve revenue figures to which our measures of variability are ap plied. Variables for Analysis Total S tate R evenue per P upil. This variable is the sum of all state revenue provided to districts and includes the FEFP appropriations, categorical program funding, special state revenue sources, special state appropriations and state lottery funds divided by the unweighted FTE student count of the district. The required local effort is prescribed by the state, but raised from local sources (property taxes) and is included in total state revenue per pupil. D istrict Cost Dif ferential (DCD) Adjusted Total S tate R evenue per P upil. This variable is the sum of all state revenue provided to districts and includes the FEFP appropriations, categorical program funding, special revenue sources, special appropriations, and lottery fun ds divided by the unweighted FTE student count of the DCD Comparable Wage Index (CWI) Adjusted Total S tate R evenue per P upil. This variable is the sum of all state revenue provided to districts and includes the FEFP

PAGE 127

110 app ropriations, categorical program funding, special revenue sources, special appropriations, and lottery funds divided by the unweighted FTE student count of the CWI Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) Adjusted Total S tate R evenue per P upil. This variable is the sum of all state revenue provided to districts and includes the FEFP appropriations, categorical program funding, special revenue sources, special appropriations, and lottery funds divided by the unweighted F TE student count of the Total L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable is the revenue derived from the required local effort combined with other local revenues provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE s tudent count. DCD Adjusted Total L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable is the revenue derived from the required local effort combined with other local revenues provided to the DCD. CWI Adjusted Total L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable is the revenue derived from the required local effort combined with other local revenues provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE student CWI. GC EI Adjusted Total L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable is the revenue derived from the required local effort combined with other local revenues provided to the

PAGE 128

111 Total S t ate and L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable combines the total state revenue and the total local revenue provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE student count. DCD Adjusted Total S tate and L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable combines the total state revenue and the total local revenue provided to the district divided by the CWI Adjusted Total S tate and L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable combines the total state revenue a nd the total local revenue provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE student count divided by the CWI. GCEI Adjusted Total S tate and L ocal R evenue per P upil. This variable combines the total state revenue and the total local revenue provided to the district divided by the unweighted FTE student count divided by the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI). Measures of Dispersion of Variability and Variation Ten m easures of dispersions or variability are utilized in the current study. Percenti les. School districts are ranked according to the variable of interest with values listed for the 100 th (highest), 95 th 75 th 50 th (median), 25 th 5 th and 1 st (lowest) percentiles. Range. The range is the difference between the values of a variable in the highest and lowest districts in a distribution.

PAGE 129

112 Restricted Range. The restricted range is a measure less sensitive to extreme values than the range. In this study, it is the difference between the values of the selected revenue measure at the 95 th an d the 5 th percentiles. Federal Range Ratio. The federal range ratio is the restricted range divided by the per pupil revenue measure at the 5 th percentile. Mean. The mean is the sum of the school districts values of a variable divided by the number of di stricts. Standard Deviation. The standard deviation is the square root of the mean of the squared differences between the value of the variable in each district and the mean. Coefficient of Variation. The coefficient of variation is the standard deviatio n divided by the mean. Gini Coefficient. After school districts are ranked in ascending order by the variable of interest, they will be plotted on a graph with the percentage of the total pupil population measured along the horizontal axis and the percent age of revenue received on the vertical axis. A 45 degree diagonal dissects the graph and represents the locus points where the two factors are equal, or a state of total equality. Inequalities are represented by the curve (Lorenz c urve) divergent from t he diagonal. The Gini coefficient is a statistical summary of distributional equality and is equal to the area between the Lorenz c urve and the 45 degree diagonal divided by the area of the triangle below the diagonal. The closer the Gini coefficient app roaches zero, the closer the distribution is to total equality.

PAGE 130

113 McLoone Index. The McLoone i ndex is the sum of per pupil revenue measure for students at or below the median divided by the sum of per pupil revenue measure if all the students below the medi an received the median amount. Verstegen Index. The Verstegen i ndex is the sum of per pupil revenue measure for students at or above the median divided by the sum of per pupil revenue measure if all the students above the median received the median amount Correlations S eparate analysis using Pearson product moment correlations will focus on the relationship between each of the selected per pupil revenue measures and the independent variables. Independent Variables The selected independent variables are measured in terms of amount or unit per pupil and are as follows: District C ost D ifferential F actor. This factor is incorporated into the FEFP education programs. The D istrict C ost D ifferential is not based on student variables, but rather economic data relevant to the cost of doing business in a geographic region and is not measured per pupil. Assessed V aluation. The property tax base is the assessed, nonexempt v alue of property against which taxes are levied. Assessed property values are a net figure for a district. In order for the assessed valuation to be relevant for a school finance study, the assessed valuation is

PAGE 131

114 divided by the unweighted FTE of that district. The result is an assessed valuation per pupil. Measures of Distributional Equity Total State Revenue Measures Tables 24 and 25 show the framework for evaluati ng the distribution of tota l state revenue. Tables 24 and 25 are populated with data from the current study. Fourteen years worth of data is displayed. Table 24 displays the percentile ranks of total state revenues at the 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th and 1 st percentiles. T able 25 displays the range, restricted range, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. Unadjusted total state revenue and District Cost Differential (DCD) adjusted total state revenue is shown for all fourteen years. Beginning in 1988 89 total state revenue is show n adjusted by the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI). The Comparable Wage Index is first shown as an adjustment to total state revenue in 1998 99. Percentile Ranks The percentile ranks in Table 24 show increases in the m ajority of the years by measure over the previous year. In 1992 93, 2002 03, and 2008 09, at least three out of four revenue measures show decreases. At the highest levels 100 th and 95 th percentiles, total state revenues grew in each year from 1982 83 through 199 0 91 This was true of all revenue measures during the period. In 1992 93, DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue and GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue decreased at both the 100 th and 95 th percentiles. Unadjusted Revenues

PAGE 132

115 Table 24: Percentile Di stribution of Total State Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Year Revenue Type 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th 1 st 1982 83 Unadjusted 1704.55 1598.35 1474.88 1350.54 1137.90 724.28 541.98 DCD Adjusted 1788.06 1654.68 1517.53 1403.92 1147.88 707.24 547.8 6 1984 85 Unadjusted 2053.23 1851.01 1757.57 1586.18 1362.21 695.91 432.51 DCD Adjusted 2127.47 1954.52 1810.38 1652.17 1398.83 709.61 406.02 1986 87 Unadjusted 2361.13 2182.40 2017.57 1828.10 1510.81 743.63 573.28 DCD Adjusted 2438.93 2310.39 2118.52 1839.13 1524.13 760.88 540.64 1988 89 Unadjusted 3284.14 3201.91 3002.87 2530.52 2109.93 1412.37 1134.86 DCD Adjusted 3522.62 3368.52 3137.04 2621.59 2187.81 1377.21 1112.79 GCEI Adjusted 3950.73 3763.77 3440.65 2683.40 2218.36 1431.62 1154.52 1990 91 Unadjusted 3783.81 3631.65 3378.01 2836.77 2360.18 1394.42 802.33 DCD Adjusted 4083.38 3948.64 3575.30 3023.11 2387.04 1365.22 768.14 GCEI Adjusted 4552.79 4248.74 3821.40 3096.60 2404.49 1362.69 781.35 1992 93 Unadjusted 3696.74 3498.54 3191.09 2676.22 2211.39 1151.11 729.56 DCD Adjusted 3495.08 3354.87 3047.79 2526.99 1988.07 1034.42 655.03 GCEI Adjusted 4368.38 4171.58 3619.84 2909.39 2203.92 1152.86 710.94 1994 95 Unadjusted 3869.69 3789.55 3395.83 2884.41 2348.17 1343.48 799.79 DCD Adjusted 3777 .88 3724.57 3333.48 2723.87 2192.97 1217.71 713.47 GCEI Adjusted 4751.99 4612.20 3974.59 3271.23 2488.32 1421.33 810.26 1996 97 Unadjusted 4064.46 3942.65 3545.47 3129.28 2660.84 1485.74 946.48 DCD Adjusted 4393.06 4227.29 3843.06 3284.97 2691.28 1478.9 0 915.75 GCEI Adjusted 4929.94 4736.85 4125.59 3416.41 2743.56 1560.42 959.87 1998 99 Unadjusted 4269.37 4109.12 3720.09 3264.21 2801.16 1124.86 861.18 DCD Adjusted 4573.02 4411.27 4043.24 3369.98 2832.50 1135.86 825.56 GCEI Adjusted 5178.48 5019.51 44 19.71 3570.66 2880.79 1235.49 862.52 CWI Adjusted 7063.82 6170.83 5060.95 4109.26 3250.55 1434.76 994.45 2000 01 Unadjusted 4429.78 4361.89 3946.68 3490.54 2991.12 1255.36 877.03 DCD Adjusted 4746.06 4654.99 4272.42 3587.83 3020.82 1252.23 843.04 GCEI Adjusted 5436.70 5335.93 4706.82 3813.98 3092.79 1289.19 878.38 CWI Adjusted 6175.63 5522.86 4581.46 3849.00 3148.79 1324.23 919.08 2002 03 Unadjusted 4627.00 4412.25 4014.56 3484.15 2785.54 952.32 885.04 DCD Adjusted 4939.16 4771.37 4272.65 3467.36 287 0.82 961.11 874.86 GCEI Adjusted 5799.75 5420.97 4632.39 3685.14 3069.35 1053.85 935.49 CWI Adjusted 6119.59 5609.70 4480.84 3426.60 2839.93 1058.69 868.66 2004 05 Unadjusted 5628.86 4959.02 4437.61 3744.54 3225.70 1306.58 1249.59 DCD Adjusted 5915.78 5288.51 4691.90 3850.80 3207.48 1291.33 1257.08 GCEI Adjusted 7055.54 6061.64 5139.61 4137.21 3321.60 1385.80 1315.85 CWI Adjusted 6396.44 5807.64 4740.80 3656.46 2888.45 1266.41 1136.09 2006 07 Unadjusted 6291.73 6067.31 5178.07 4519.29 3113.06 1702.21 1608.08 DCD Adjusted 6647.36 6442.56 5414.03 4590.02 3185.01 1733.79 1681.46 GCEI Adjusted 7821.57 7325.98 6072.37 4891.16 3366.86 1807.73 1753.50 CWI Adjusted 7394.77 7001.34 5680.12 4175.37 2904.79 1596.87 1521.90 2008 09 Unadjusted 6223.95 6008.00 4936.66 4210.79 2761.49 1931.65 1852.56 DCD Adjusted 6785.82 6338.95 5096.59 4216.46 2756.85 1954.84 1926.70 GCEI Adjusted 7783.26 7326.96 5655.96 4494.14 2936.37 2025.27 1918.51 CWI Adjusted 7361.34 7041.46 5436.51 3901.15 2514.48 1767.11 1700.52

PAGE 133

116 Table 25: Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Restricted Standard Coefficient of Year Revenue Type Range Range Mean Deviation Variation 1982 83 Unadjusted 1203.27 874.07 1276.25 280.96 .22 DC D Adjusted 1292.57 947.44 1308.74 303.20 .23 1984 85 Unadjusted 1804.60 1155.10 1475.72 372.34 .25 DCD Adjusted 1880.16 1244.92 1527.44 401.35 .26 1986 87 Unadjusted 1918.76 1438.77 1697.33 444.02 .26 DCD Adjusted 2000.55 1549.51 1749.65 474.96 .27 19 88 89 Unadjusted 2242.04 1789.54 2470.76 570.65 .23 DCD Adjusted 2495.31 1991.31 2556.88 634.42 .25 GCEI Adjusted 2902.86 2332.15 2718.73 752.31 .28 1990 91 Unadjusted 2982.18 2237.23 2746.10 736.46 .27 DCD Adjusted 3355.49 2583.43 2883.67 835.66 .29 GCEI Adjusted 3781.98 2886.05 3013.33 946.19 .31 1992 93 Unadjusted 2987.21 2347.44 2562.60 754.79 .29 DCD Adjusted 2859.18 2320.45 2396.71 743.55 .31 GCEI Adjusted 3672.91 3018.72 2815.26 954.89 .34 1994 95 Unadjusted 3072.85 2447.07 2778.63 774.19 .2 8 DCD Adjusted 3064.47 2506.86 2650.19 790.53 .30 GCEI Adjusted 3943.02 3190.87 3139.43 1021.33 .33 1996 97 Unadjusted 3137.94 2456.90 2975.30 761.81 .26 DCD Adjusted 3480.69 2748.39 3119.54 860.25 .28 GCEI Adjusted 3992.31 3176.42 3353.27 1008.68 .30 1998 99 Unadjusted 3418.18 2984.26 3088.70 872.52 .28 DCD Adjusted 3767.21 3275.41 3228.55 962.79 .30 GCEI Adjusted 4317.08 3784.03 3480.13 1125.53 .32 CWI Adjusted 6099.95 4736.07 4076.90 1391.04 .34 2000 01 Unadjusted 3565.62 3106.53 3283.86 915.97 .28 DCD Adjusted 3929.22 3402.76 3439.77 1012.74 .29 GCEI Adjusted 4562.18 4046.76 3697.71 1180.74 .32 CWI Adjusted 5276.59 4198.63 3759.11 1202.17 .32 2002 03 Unadjusted 3798.97 3459.93 3239.22 1020.52 .32 DCD Adjusted 4080.65 3810.26 3391.72 1114.2 7 .33 GCEI Adjusted 4874.38 4367.12 3650.77 1298.05 .36 CWI Adjusted 5260.27 4551.00 3554.86 1355.34 .38 2004 05 Unadjusted 4405.67 3652.45 3587.76 1145.70 .32 DCD Adjusted 4682.63 3997.18 3731.77 1233.99 .33 GCEI Adjusted 5742.72 4675.84 4042.82 1458 .35 .36 CWI Adjusted 5270.70 4541.23 3686.59 1421.60 .39 2006 07 Unadjusted 4749.46 4365.09 4135.29 1435.76 .35 DCD Adjusted 5010.65 4708.77 4265.92 1523.10 .36 GCEI Adjusted 6087.07 5518.25 4681.25 1822.81 .39 CWI Adjusted 5878.50 5404.47 4257.73 176 4.25 .41 2008 09 Unadjusted 4405.03 4076.36 3965.18 1365.17 .35 DCD Adjusted 4866.14 4384.11 4112.56 1485.67 .36 GCEI Adjusted 5956.16 5301.68 4471.94 1756.13 .39 CWI Adjusted 5695.33 5274.36 4081.12 1712.30 .42

PAGE 134

117 decreased in 1992 93 at the 95 th perc entile only. The period from 1994 95 through 2006 07 showed constant growth with the exception of CWI Adjusted Total State Revenue in 2000 01 at the 95 th percentile and 2002 03 at the 100 th percentile. Total State Revenue at the 100 th percentile decreased in 2008 09 in unadjusted, GCEI adjusted, and CWI adjusted. At the 95 th percentile, only unadjusted revenue decreased in 2008 09. At the intermediate levels; 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentiles, revenues grew consistently from 1982 83 through 1990 91. This was true of all revenue measures during the period. In 1992 93, Unadjusted Total State Revenue decreased at the 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentiles. DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue decreased at only the 75 th percentile. GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue d ecreased at the 50 th and 25 th percentiles. The period from 1994 95 to 1998 99 again showed consistent growth in all measures. CWI Adjusted Total State Revenue decreased at the 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentile in 2000 01. The other three revenue measures r ecorded another year of growth. In 2002 03, reduction in revenues took place at the 50 th and 25 th percentiles for unadjusted revenues, 75 th and 50 th percentiles for GCEI adjusted revenues, and at 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentiles for CWI adjusted revenues. There was growth across the board in 2004 05. A decrease in Unadjusted Total State Revenue took place at the 25 th percentile in 2006 07. In 2008 09, unadjusted revenues decreased at the 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentiles. GCEI adjusted revenues decreased at the 75 th and 50 th percentiles during 2008 09. CWI adjusted revenues decreased at the 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentiles for the year.

PAGE 135

118 At the lowest levels, 1 st and 5 th percentiles, Total State Revenues fluctuated more tha n the other levels. In 1984 85, when revenues increased consistently for the intermediate and high levels, revenues decreased for Unadjusted Total State Revenue at the 5 th and 1 st percentile. At the 1 st percentile, DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue also decreased in 1984 8 5. Total stat e revenues increased across the board in 1986 8 7 and 1988 89, almost doubling in 1988 89. Revenues decreased for 1990 91 at the 1 st and 5 th percentiles for Unadjusted Total State Revenue. DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue deceased at the 5 th percentile an d increased at the 1 st GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue increased at the 5 th percentile and decreased at the 1 st for the same year. As with the intermediate and high percentiles, 1992 93 showed decreases in the majority of the revenue measures. Growth was consistent in 1994 95 and 1996 9 7 when all revenues increased. The period from 1998 99 through 2002 03 showed great variation of revenues at the 5 th and 1 st percentiles. From 2004 05 to 2008 09, the revenues grew consistently. Range and Restricted R ange The range and restricted range of total state revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 25. Graphical illustrations of the range and restricted range of state revenues are shown Figures 8 through 1 3 Figure 8 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of Unadjusted Total State Revenue per P upil. The figure clearly shows the range and restricted range increasing on an annual basis. The range and restricted range peak in 2006 07 before showing a modest decline in 2008 09.

PAGE 136

119 Figure 8: Range and Restricted Range of Unadjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 Figure 9 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil. Unlike the range and restricted range unadjusted revenues per pupil depicted in Figure 8, the range and restricted range of DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil does not increase consistently. Both the range and rest ricted range decrease in 1992 93 before resuming a steady climb and pe aking in 2006 07. Like the unadjusted range and restricted range, the DCD adjusted range and restricted range decreases in 2008 09.

PAGE 137

120 Figure 9: Range and Restricted Range of DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 Figure 10 shows a mu ltiple line graph of the range and restricted range of CWI Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil. Unlike Figures 8 and 9 that show fourteen data points, Figure 10 has only six. The range of CWI adjusted revenues decreases from 1998 99 to 2000 01. It is flat from 2000 01 to 2004 05, increases in 2006 07, and decreases in 2008 09. The restricted range of CWI Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil decreases in 2000 01 and 2008 09. It increases in 2002 03 and 2006 07. From 2002 03 to 2004 05 CWI Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil is flat.

PAGE 138

121 Figure 10: Range and Restricted Range of CWI Adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1998 2008 Figure 11 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil. The restricted range in this graph shows a steady climb similar to the graph of unadjusted revenue. Like the unadjusted revenue line, the line representing the restricted range of GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil increases each year with the exception of the final year of the study, 2008 09. The range of GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil increases in the same manner with the exception of a slight decrease in 1992 93.

PAGE 139

122 Figure 11: Range and Restricted Range of GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1988 2008 Figure 12 is a compilation of the ranges of each revenue type. This multiple line graph shows the range for unadjusted, DCD A djusted, GCEI Adjusted, and CWI A djusted T otal S tate R evenues. With the exception of a slight outlier in 1998 99, this graph shows that the ranges of total state revenues per pupil moved in concert together showing similar trends.

PAGE 140

123 Figure 12: Range of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Figure 13 is also a compilation this time of the restricted range. The same comments hold true for the restricted range as the range. The restricted ranges show similar trends with the exception of and outlier in 1998 99. The restricted range of T otal S tate R evenues per P upil show a much more d ramatic spike in 2006 07 than the ranges do.

PAGE 141

124 Figure 13: Restricted Range of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Coefficient of Variation The coefficient of variation of total state revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 25. Graphi cal illustrations of the coefficient of variation of state revenues are shown in Figure 14. The coefficient of variation fluctuates throughout the sample period. Unadjusted Total State Revenue per P upil has a minimum coefficient of variation of 0 .2 2 and a maximum of 0 .35. DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil has a minimum coefficient of variation of 0 .23 and a maximum of 0 .36 GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil has a minimum coefficient of variation of 0 .28 and a maximum of 0 .39. CWI Adj usted Total State Revenue per P upil has a minim um coefficient of 0 .34 a n d 0 .42. For each total state revenue type, the minimum occurs in its first year of existence and the

PAGE 142

125 Figure 14: Coefficient of Variation of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 maximum the last year of the study. As one examines the multiple line graph in Figure 14, it is interesting to note that the lines never cross. The distribution of Unadjusted Total State Revenues per Pupil became less equitable as the stud y progress ed. Unadjusted Total State Revenues per Pupil were distributed most equitably in 1984 85 and least equitably in 2006 07. Federal Range Ratio The federal range ratio of total state revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 2 6 Graphical illustrat ions of the federal range ratio of state revenues are shown in Figure 15. The federal range ratio for all total state revenue types begin at slightly over one. They build in unison to a peak in 2002 03. At their peak, the federal range ratio is most

PAGE 143

126 Table 26: Additional Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 Federal Range McLoone Verstegen Year Revenue Type Ratio Index Index 1982 83 Unadjusted 1.21 .79 1.10 DCD Adjusted 1.34 .77 1.10 1984 85 Unadjusted 1.66 .76 1.10 DCD Adjusted 1.75 .75 1.10 1986 87 Unadjusted 1.93 .75 1.11 DCD Adjusted 2.04 .76 1.15 1988 89 Unadjusted 1.27 .80 1.15 DCD Adjusted 1.45 .79 1.17 GCEI Adjusted 1.63 .79 1.17 1990 91 Unadjusted 1.60 .77 1.16 DCD Adjuste d 1.89 .74 1.17 GCEI Adjusted 2.12 .73 1.21 1992 93 Unadjusted 2.04 .75 1.17 DCD Adjusted 2.24 .72 1.17 GCEI Adjusted 2.62 .71 1.21 1994 95 Unadjusted 1.82 .76 1.17 DCD Adjusted 2.06 .75 1.20 GCEI Adjusted 2.24 .72 1.21 1996 97 Unadjusted 1.65 .77 1.13 DCD Adjusted 1.86 .75 1.15 GCEI Adjusted 2.04 .75 1.21 1998 99 Unadjusted 2.65 .75 1.14 DCD Adjusted 2.88 .74 1.17 GCEI Adjusted 3.06 .73 1.22 CWI Adjusted 3.30 .73 1.26 2000 01 Unadjusted 2.47 .75 1.13 DCD Adjusted 2.72 .75 1.17 GCEI Adjuste d 3.14 .73 1.21 CWI Adjusted 3.17 .74 1.22 2002 03 Unadjusted 3.63 .71 1.15 DCD Adjusted 3.96 .74 1.22 GCEI Adjusted 4.14 .72 1.26 CWI Adjusted 4.30 .72 1.35 2004 05 Unadjusted 2.80 .73 1.19 DCD Adjusted 3.10 .73 1.21 GCEI Adjusted 3.37 .70 1.25 C WI Adjusted 3.59 .70 1.31 2006 07 Unadjusted 2.56 .66 1.17 DCD Adjusted 2.72 .66 1.20 GCEI Adjusted 3.05 .65 1.26 CWI Adjusted 3.38 .67 1.37 2008 09 Unadjusted 2.11 .67 1.21 DCD Adjusted 2.24 .68 1.27 GCEI Adjusted 2.62 .67 1.33 CWI Adjusted 2.98 68 1.42

PAGE 144

127 Figure 15: Federal Range Ratio of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 inequitable. The declines subsequent to 2002 03 show them moving to a more equitable position. Unadjusted Total State Revenues per Pupil were distributed least equi tably in 2002 03 when the measure of distributional equity is the federal range ratio. They were most equitable in the first year of the study in 1982 83. McLoone Index The McLoone i ndex of total state revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 2 6 G raphical illustrations of the McLoone index of state revenues are shown in Figure 16. The McLoone i ndexes peak in 1988 89 at 0 80 for Unadjusted Total State Revenue per P upil and 0 .79 for both DCD and GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil. A high er McLoone value indicates a higher level of equity. The McLoone values

PAGE 145

128 Figure 16: McLoone Index of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Are at their lowest, most inequitable, in 2006 07 at 0 .65 for GCEI Adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, 0 .66 for both Unadjusted and DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil, and 0 .67 for CWI Adjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil. School districts whose Unadjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil fell below the state mean were treated most equitably by the Florida Education Finance Program in 1988 89. These same districts were treated least equitably in 2006 07. Verstegen Index The Verstegen i ndex of total state r evenues is displayed in a column format in Table 2 6 Graphical illustrations of the Verstege n index range of state revenues are shown in Figure 1 7. The Verstegen i ndex is at i t s lowest value for each revenue type in 1982 83 and 1984 85, the first two years of the study. A lower Verstegen i ndex represents a greater

PAGE 146

1 29 Figure 17 : Verstegen Index of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 level of equity. As the Verstegen index grows throughout the study period, equity decreases. School districts whose Unadjusted Total State Revenue per Pupil was above the state mean were treated most equit ably by the Florida Education Finance Program in 1982 83. These same districts were treated least equitably in 2008 09. Total Local Revenue Measures Tables 27 and 28 show the framework for evaluating the distribution of total local revenue s Tables 27 a nd 28 are populated with data from the current study. Fourteen years worth of data is displayed Table 27 displays the percentile ranks of total local revenues at the 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th and 1 st percentiles. Table 28 displays the range, r estricted range, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. Unadjusted T otal L ocal R evenue and District Cost Differential (DCD) A djusted T otal

PAGE 147

130 Table 27: Percentile Distribution of Total Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Year Reven ue Type 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th 1 st 1982 83 Unadjusted 1203.03 1065.78 562.45 349.52 219.25 132.74 111.02 DCD Adjusted 1189.12 1007.82 580.69 360.19 226.18 137.75 116.02 1984 85 Unadjusted 1809.80 1373.62 715.26 459.69 276.19 150.70 134.30 DCD Ad justed 1800.26 1379.03 729.14 473.58 285.83 159.84 140.52 1986 87 Unadjusted 2198.94 1757.28 948.06 650.11 365.65 195.11 166.81 DCD Adjusted 2179.11 1784.80 965.56 661.15 383.69 205.73 174.31 1988 89 Unadjusted 2811.55 2283.22 1316.34 833.86 454.84 280. 91 209.23 DCD Adjusted 2631.78 2224.06 1320.96 869.44 476.67 287.37 217.90 GCEI Adjusted 2908.85 2323.30 1356.49 880.50 525.27 321.91 246.89 1990 91 Unadjusted 3780.38 2780.16 1554.61 1055.00 534.63 329.88 257.88 DCD Adjusted 3432.65 2694.96 1569.37 11 04.36 569.57 355.16 278.90 GCEI Adjusted 3635.06 2745.98 1557.43 1101.53 619.56 387.46 296.60 1992 93 Unadjusted 3769.39 2883.47 1655.82 1090.02 626.15 375.95 295.32 DCD Adjusted 3059.32 2588.19 1485.11 1005.19 599.06 352.52 279.21 GCEI Adjusted 3624.4 9 2990.47 1728.14 1184.50 724.91 427.15 339.49 1994 95 Unadjusted 3965.77 3143.77 1703.89 1172.77 675.90 423.62 344.86 DCD Adjusted 3277.41 2848.87 1599.96 1098.00 649.06 416.02 336.85 GCEI Adjusted 3950.98 3325.29 1894.83 1261.58 797.27 493.64 422.70 1996 97 Unadjusted 4087.73 3290.43 1835.73 1201.06 761.05 476.52 375.45 DCD Adjusted 3745.74 3241.46 1883.86 1245.09 808.12 503.80 403.51 GCEI Adjusted 4072.48 3483.41 1938.42 1321.62 908.26 556.13 460.25 1998 99 Unadjusted 4516.42 3686.64 2017.09 1345. 93 934.10 608.48 417.14 DCD Adjusted 4200.93 3760.45 2050.15 1397.79 970.05 641.30 445.59 GCEI Adjusted 4499.57 4078.71 2174.47 1499.95 1067.30 718.67 511.36 CWI Adjusted 5024.94 4875.37 2443.13 1695.06 1246.85 746.29 539.69 2000 01 Unadjusted 4824.27 4018.70 2161.28 1522.88 989.63 664.75 470.34 DCD Adjusted 4468.67 4071.99 2152.49 1554.91 1042.09 708.87 504.50 GCEI Adjusted 4817.36 4308.16 2242.43 1607.52 1125.64 801.41 566.21 CWI Adjusted 4908.20 4325.00 2281.50 1610.51 1146.72 738.27 522.51 2002 03 Unadjusted 4982.58 4513.42 2344.38 1684.44 1035.26 672.27 513.30 DCD Adjusted 4806.80 4594.60 2375.30 1727.28 1103.53 720.67 549.77 GCEI Adjusted 5660.01 4871.70 2472.69 1767.45 1194.13 839.52 609.07 CWI Adjusted 5645.59 4449.84 2263.31 1666.86 1288. 35 818.64 544.54 2004 05 Unadjusted 5378.93 4773.35 2549.39 1817.54 1182.17 682.47 570.60 DCD Adjusted 5250.82 4809.49 2573.37 1889.19 1218.06 720.30 601.65 GCEI Adjusted 6173.24 5201.80 2800.93 2009.59 1307.85 817.71 700.09 CWI Adjusted 5746.07 4618.2 7 2496.13 1691.76 1273.11 731.95 563.65 2006 07 Unadjusted 6448.29 5430.15 3543.27 2207.04 1601.34 796.85 603.56 DCD Adjusted 6642.67 5680.05 3621.19 2236.59 1647.28 819.36 650.64 GCEI Adjusted 7641.71 6260.07 3884.53 2384.72 1817.37 962.08 739.93 CWI Adjusted 7112.94 5563.57 3219.85 2108.49 1601.21 848.49 632.41 2008 09 Unadjusted 6408.27 5399.07 4189.70 2831.99 1908.50 1024.14 769.29 DCD Adjusted 6647.99 5613.99 4208.01 2802.90 1993.80 1082.22 828.49 GCEI Adjusted 7389.74 6141.95 4382.63 3046.45 2 220.37 1236.76 940.90 CWI Adjusted 6878.40 5601.25 3688.03 2778.79 2055.68 1130.46 871.14

PAGE 148

131 Table 28 : M easures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Restricted Standard Coefficient of Year Revenue Ty pe Range Range Mean Deviation Variation 1982 83 Unadjusted 1094.69 933.04 434.66 291.81 .67 DCD Adjusted 1075.47 870.08 439.35 285.86 .65 1984 85 Unadjusted 1676.24 1222.92 576.39 396.30 .69 DCD Adjusted 1660.70 1219.20 586.64 388.08 .68 1986 87 Unadj usted 2037.56 1562.16 771.42 511.58 .66 DCD Adjusted 2012.42 1579.07 783.24 501.66 .64 1988 89 Unadjusted 2604.75 2012.31 995.98 646.26 .65 DCD Adjusted 2417.37 1936.69 1011.50 628.56 .62 GCEI Adjusted 2666.76 2001.39 1056.89 651.85 .62 1990 91 Unadju sted 3535.63 2450.27 1206.26 810.48 .67 DCD Adjusted 3172.17 2339.80 1233.80 782.45 .63 GCEI Adjusted 3345.84 2358.53 1263.81 784.89 .62 1992 93 Unadjusted 3499.76 2507.53 1276.92 829.58 .65 DCD Adjusted 2804.40 2235.67 1169.18 772.83 .62 GCEI Adjuste d 3305.87 2563.31 2563.31 806.09 .60 1994 95 Unadjusted 3642.16 2720.15 1377.84 867.32 .63 DCD Adjusted 2962.83 2432.85 1282.40 763.29 .60 GCEI Adjusted 3556.01 2831.64 1488.02 866.02 .58 1996 97 Unadjusted 3753.54 2813.91 1428.84 862.35 .60 DCD Adjus ted 3389.57 2737.66 1464.76 834.70 .57 GCEI Adjusted 3664.59 2927.29 1547.92 866.15 .56 1998 99 Unadjusted 4148.43 3080.16 1608.78 972.24 .60 DCD Adjusted 3810.44 3119.15 1648.98 949.82 .58 GCEI Adjusted 4050.43 3360.03 1747.30 995.13 .57 CWI Adjusted 4495.23 4129.07 2051.59 1190.70 .58 2000 01 Unadjusted 4386.72 3353.95 1703.49 1016.05 .60 DCD Adjusted 3998.89 3363.12 1751.58 998.41 .57 GCEI Adjusted 4283.33 3506.75 1852.91 1046.20 .56 CWI Adjusted 4401.69 3586.73 1902.67 1097.50 .58 2002 03 Unad justed 4514.29 3841.15 1908.13 1128.61 .59 DCD Adjusted 4301.24 3873.93 1965.12 1120.40 .57 GCEI Adjusted 5088.45 4032.18 2078.91 1180.06 .57 CWI Adjusted 5148.16 3631.20 2016.18 1159.69 .58 2004 05 Unadjusted 4891.32 4090.88 2117.12 1263.91 .60 DCD A djusted 4732.59 4089.19 2173.18 1263.18 .58 GCEI Adjusted 5578.10 4384.09 2308.57 1334.02 .58 CWI Adjusted 5193.35 3886.31 2092.59 1219.68 .58 2006 07 Unadjusted 5928.37 4633.20 2663.58 1567.03 .59 DCD Adjusted 6105.56 4860.69 2723.46 1586.11 .58 GCEI Adjusted 7007.14 5298.00 2900.88 1650.00 .57 CWI Adjusted 6523.59 4714.68 2631.14 1519.78 .58 2008 09 Unadjusted 5645.73 4378.92 3061.04 1479.06 .48 DCD Adjusted 5848.12 4531.76 3144.15 1491.80 .47 GCEI Adjusted 6453.21 4905.19 3342.27 1539.80 .46 CW I Adjusted 6017.58 4470.79 3030.88 1421.22 .47

PAGE 149

132 Local Revenue is shown for all fourteen years. Beginning in 1988 89, total local revenue is shown adjusted by the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI). The Comparable Wage Index (CWI) is first shown a s an adjustment to total local revenue in 1998 99. Percentile Ranks The percentile ranks in Table 27 show increases in the majority of the years by measure over the previous year. The only year where there was a consistent reduction in revenue was in 200 8 09 and that was only at the highest percentiles. At the highest levels, 100 th and 95 th percentiles, total local revenues grew in each year from 1982 83 through 1990 91. This was true of all revenue measures during the period. In 1992 93, Unadjusted an d GCEI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil decreased at the 100 th percentile, DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil decreases at both the 100 th and 95 th percentiles. The period from 1994 95 through 2006 07 again showed constant growth with the exc eption of 2000 01 when CWI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil decreased at both the 100 th and 95 th percentiles. In 2008 09, revenues decreased in every area except DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil at the 100 th percentile where it was flat. A t the intermediate levels; 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentiles, revenues grew consistently throughout the fourteen years of the study. During the time of the study, there was not a single year where more than one revenue type showed decreases. In 1992 93, D CD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil decreased at the 75 th and 50 th percentile. DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil decreased again in 2008 09, but only at the 75 th percentile. CWI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil decreased at

PAGE 150

133 the 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentiles during 2000 01, the 75 th percentile in 2002 03, and the 75 th and 25 th percentiles in 2004 05. At the lowest levels, 5 th and 1 st percentiles, t otal l ocal r evenues were the most consistent. Revenues at the 1 st percentile only dec reased in 2000 01 when measured by the CWI adjustment. DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil decreased only once at the 5 th percentile, in 1992 93. CWI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil decreased twice during the period at the 5 th percentile, 2 000 01 and 2004 05. The only decrease to GCEI Adjusted Total State and Local at the 5 th percentile occurred in 2004 05. Range and Restricted Range The range and restricted range of total local revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 2 8 Graphi cal illustrations of the range and restricted range of state revenues are shown in Figures 18 through 23. Figure 18 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of Unadjusted Local Revenue per P upil. The range and restricted range move c onsistently with each other peaking in 1990 91. After the peak in 1990 91, there is a slight decrease before climbing steadily to a second peak in 2006 07. The range and restricted range decrease for a second time in 2008 09.

PAGE 151

134 Figure 18: Range and Restri cted Range of Unadjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 Figure 19 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil. The range and restricted range of DCD Adjusted Total Local Reven ue per P upil act in an identical manner as the Unadjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil The range and restricted range move consistently with each other peaking in 1990 91. After the peak in 1990 91, there is a slight decrease before climbing steadily t o a second peak in 2006 07. The range and restricted range decrease for a second time in 2008 09.

PAGE 152

135 Figure 19: Range and Restricted Range of DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 Figure 20 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of CWI Adjusted Local Revenue per P upil. Unlike figures 18 and 19 that show fourteen data points, Figure 20 has only six. The range and restricted range of CWI Adjusted Local Revenue per P upil do not mirror each other in the same manner that the Unadjusted and DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenues per P upil do. In 1998 99, the range and restricted range are only $366.16 per pupil apart. In 2000 01, both the range and restricted range decrease, but the differen ce between them increases to $8 14.96 per pupil. In 2002 04, the range and restricted range begin to increase, but the difference between them again expands. The difference between the range and restricted range in 2002 04 is $1516.96. This separation remains relatively consistent thr ough the end of the study period in 2008 09. The range and restricted range of local revenues increase until their peak in 2006 07.

PAGE 153

136 Figure 20: Range and Restricted Range of CWI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1998 2008 Figure 21 shows a mul tiple line graph of the range and restricted range of GCEI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil. The range and restricted range of GCEI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil returns to the pattern displayed by the Unadjusted and DCD Adjusted Total Loca l Revenues per P upil. The range and restricted range move consistently with each other peaking in 1990 91. After the peak in 1990 91, there is a slight decrease before climbing steadily to a second peak in 2006 07. The range and restricted range decreas e for a second time in 2008 09.

PAGE 154

137 Figure 21: Range and Restricted Range of GCEI Adjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, 1988 2008 Figure 22 is a compilation of the ranges of each revenue type. This multiple line graph shows the range for unadjusted, D CD A djusted, GCEI A djusted, and CWI A djusted Total L ocal R evenue. This graph clearly shows the pattern that has been discussed previously. For each revenue type there is a peak in 1990 91 and a second peak in 2006 07.

PAGE 155

138 Figure 22: Range of Total Local R evenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Figure 23 is also a compilation this time of the restricted range. The same comments hold true for the restricted range as the range. The restricted ranges show similar trends with the exception of an outlie r in 1998 99 This outlier was also evident when examining the restricted ranges of total revenues in Figure 13.

PAGE 156

139 Figure 23: Restricted Range of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Coefficient of Variation The coefficient of variation of total local reven ue s is displayed in a column format in Table 28. A graphical illustration of the coefficient of variation of total local revenues is shown in Table 24. The coefficient of variation for total local revenues shows a general downward trend throughout the st udy period There is a remarkable drop off in the final year, 2008 09. As the coefficient of variation decreases, the distribution of revenues is considered to be more equitable. In its best year, 2008 09, the coefficients of variation range from 0 .46 t o 0 .48. The distribution of Unadjusted Total Local Revenues per Pupil became more equitable as the study progressed. Unadjusted Total Local Revenues per Pupil were distributed most equitably in 2008 09 and least equitably in 1984 85.

PAGE 157

140 Figure 24: Coeffic ient of Variation of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Federal Range Ratio The federal range ratio of total local revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 29. A graphical illustration of the federal range ratio of local revenues is shown in Figure 25. Like the coefficient of variation, decreases in the federal range ratio is interpreted to demonstrate movement to a more equitable position. For each revenue type, the federal range ratio is at its lowest point in the last years of th e study. The federal range ration of Unadjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil begins at 7.03 in 1982 83 before peaking at 8.12 in 1984 85. The values decrease each year through1998 99 before rising to a second peak in 2004 05. The values fall dramatica lly for the final year of the study to 4.27. That pattern of values for the unadjusted revenues is repeated for the DCD A djusted, CWI A djusted, and GCEI A djusted revenues per pupil

PAGE 158

141 Table 29 : Additional M easures of the Variation in the Distribution of T otal Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Federal Range McLoone Verstegen Year Revenue Type Ratio Index Index 1982 83 Unadjusted 7.03 .64 1.84 DCD Adjusted 6.32 .64 1.80 1984 85 Unadjusted 8.12 .64 1.86 DCD Adjusted 7.63 .65 1.82 1986 87 Unadju sted 8.01 .61 1.76 DCD Adjusted 7.68 .62 1.75 1988 89 Unadjusted 7.43 .61 1.77 DCD Adjusted 6.74 .61 1.71 GCEI Adjusted 6.22 .65 1.75 1990 91 Unadjusted 7.43 .58 1.70 DCD Adjusted 6.59 .59 1.64 GCEI Adjusted 6.09 .62 1.67 1992 93 Unadjusted 6.67 .6 1 1.73 DCD Adjusted 6.34 .62 1.70 GCEI Adjusted 6.00 .63 1.63 1994 95 Unadjusted 6.42 .63 1.72 DCD Adjusted 5.85 .65 1.68 GCEI Adjusted 5.74 .67 1.68 1996 97 Unadjusted 5.91 .67 1.70 DCD Adjusted 5.43 .69 1.66 GCEI Adjusted 5.26 .70 1.64 1998 99 U nadjusted 5.06 .68 1.71 DCD Adjusted 4.86 .69 1.66 GCEI Adjusted 4.68 .70 1.63 CWI Adjusted 5.53 .72 1.62 2000 01 Unadjusted 5.08 .65 1.59 DCD Adjusted 4.74 .67 1.58 GCEI Adjusted 4.38 .70 1.60 CWI Adjusted 4.86 .71 1.65 2002 03 Unadjusted 5.71 .65 1.61 DCD Adjusted 5.38 .67 1.60 GCEI Adjusted 4.80 .71 1.64 CWI Adjusted 4.44 .73 1.68 2004 05 Unadjusted 5.99 .66 1.66 DCD Adjusted 5.68 .67 1.63 GCEI Adjusted 5.36 .68 1.61 CWI Adjusted 5.31 .73 1.74 2006 07 Unadjusted 5.81 .66 1.75 DCD Adjuste d 5.93 .67 1.75 GCEI Adjusted 5.51 .69 1.73 CWI Adjusted 5.55 .71 1.78 2008 09 Unadjusted 4.27 .66 1.50 DCD Adjusted 4.19 .69 1.55 GCEI Adjusted 3.97 .70 1.50 CWI Adjusted 3.95 .70 1.48

PAGE 159

142 Figure 25: Federal Range Ratio of Total Local Revenues per Pup il, 1982 2008 Unadjusted Total Local Revenues per Pupil were distributed most equitably in 2008 09 when the measure of distributional equity is the federal range ratio. They were distributed least equitably in 1984 85. McLoone Index The McLoone i nde x of total local revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 29. A graphical illustration of the McLoone i ndex of local revenues is shown in Figure 26. As shown in Figure 26, the McLoone i ndexes decrease for the first five sample years. A decrease in the McLoone i ndex shows a reduction in equity. The McLoone i ndexes begin five year climb in 1992 93. From 199 8 99 through the end of the study period in 2008 09 the McLoone i ndex values fluctuated in a tight range between 0 .65 and 0 .70 with the excep tion of the CWI adjusted values.

PAGE 160

143 Figure 26: McLoone Index of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 School districts whose Unadjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil fell below the state mean were treated most equitably by the Florida Education Fin ance Program in 1998 99 These same districts were treated least equitably in 1990 91. Verstegen Index The Verstegen Index of total local revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 29. A graphical illustration of the Verstegen Indexes of local r evenues is shown in Figure 27. After peaking in 2006 07, the Verstegen Index is at its lowest value for the entire study period for each revenue type in 2008 09. As the Verstegen decreases, equity increases. The Verstegen Index shows that local revenues were most equitably distribut ed in the final year.

PAGE 161

144 Figure 27 : Verstegen Index of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 School districts whose Unadjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil was above the state mean were treated most equitably by the F lorida Education Finance Program in 2008 09. These same districts were treated least equitably in 1982 83. Total State and Local R evenue Measures Tables 30 and 31 show the framework for evaluating the distribution of total state and local revenue. Tabl es 30 and 31 are populated with data from the current study. Fourteen years worth of data is displayed. Table 30 displays the percentile ranks of total state revenues at the 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th and 1 st percentiles. Table 31 displays the r ange, restricted range, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. Unadjusted total state and local revenue and District Cost Differential (DCD) A djusted T otal S tate and L ocal R evenue is shown for all fourteen years. Beginning in 1988 89, to tal state and local revenue is shown adjusted by the Geographic Cost of Education

PAGE 162

145 Table 30: Percentile Distribution of Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 Year Revenue Type 100 th 95 th 75 th 50 th 25 th 5 th 1 st 1982 83 Unadjusted 1907. 88 1853.29 1734.82 1695.85 1664.79 1633.15 1619.56 DCD Adjusted 1944.05 1852.52 1765.66 1735.51 1714.38 1690.19 1677.45 1984 85 Unadjusted 2244.22 2184.47 2093.19 2051.16 1997.40 1945.40 1928.62 DCD Adjusted 2267.03 2220.47 2144.57 2104.32 2076.03 2043. 46 2023.83 1986 87 Unadjusted 2809.45 2666.13 2524.13 2466.00 2401.80 2312.83 2262.09 DCD Adjusted 2712.16 2633.38 2581.15 2529.36 2497.05 2423.16 2389.04 1988 89 Unadjusted 4055.59 3727.80 3546.61 3443.77 3343.29 3245.13 3199.52 DCD Adjusted 3940.64 3 856.11 3704.17 3545.03 3448.04 3314.16 3304.51 GCEI Adjusted 4525.02 4258.22 4026.36 3752.17 3535.82 3373.43 3209.70 1990 91 Unadjusted 4582.00 4246.89 4036.59 3918.90 3855.15 3694.40 3658.98 DCD Adjusted 4582.80 4426.03 4271.69 4102.19 3968.67 3768.25 3711.59 GCEI Adjusted 5135.89 4837.70 4568.38 4221.18 4025.79 3787.47 3597.64 1992 93 Unadjusted 4603.12 4113.73 3940.63 3803.00 3726.67 3611.50 3559.64 DCD Adjusted 3912.77 3841.51 3685.99 3535.95 3447.72 3325.22 3271.82 GCEI Adjusted 4832.09 4705.64 4376.02 4117.17 3898.65 3639.94 3537.85 1994 95 Unadjusted 4842.77 4461.26 4277.62 4118.03 4008.82 3891.34 3820.52 DCD Adjusted 4339.30 4278.01 4020.86 3942.21 3819.32 3622.06 3586.21 GCEI Adjusted 5465.15 5309.87 4841.41 4589.15 4376.21 4003.69 3908.56 1996 97 Unadjusted 5088.98 4668.02 4504.40 4365.72 4274.39 4186.85 4186.85 DCD Adjusted 5084.25 4852.12 4668.58 4590.35 4489.32 4308.53 4243.90 GCEI Adjusted 5705.59 5483.19 5136.55 4856.36 4639.72 4363.09 4156.59 1998 99 Unadjusted 5382.74 4948.82 48 04.50 4658.31 4574.98 4463.35 4461.01 DCD Adjusted 5260.35 5119.24 4990.54 4899.18 4747.65 4609.36 4569.84 GCEI Adjusted 5956.81 5875.34 5516.47 5245.83 4944.44 4611.14 4404.77 CWI Adjusted 8125.52 7582.95 6663.27 5988.81 5562.67 5066.11 4982.31 2000 0 1 Unadjusted 5707.93 5244.90 5041.36 4956.05 4871.43 4772.49 4744.18 DCD Adjusted 5485.90 5430.99 5326.22 5193.62 5064.44 4972.16 4836.43 GCEI Adjusted 6338.29 6196.49 5841.90 5468.05 5311.15 4930.66 4648.24 CWI Adjusted 7097.45 6871.71 5928.79 5731.53 5277.00 4903.72 4834.68 2002 03 Unadjusted 5926.81 5543.21 5253.54 5099.50 4938.92 4924.40 4868.90 DCD Adjusted 5804.96 5656.06 5493.09 5305.72 5224.69 5119.19 5024.96 GCEI Adjusted 6729.93 6429.63 6109.94 5654.59 5463.46 5072.02 4742.30 CWI Adjusted 7 426.65 7013.73 6137.61 5368.69 4936.92 4566.81 4501.70 2004 05 Unadjusted 6696.67 6268.48 5784.55 5648.61 5533.57 5416.49 5351.34 DCD Adjusted 6560.40 6262.81 6045.92 5867.42 5749.88 5624.74 5582.79 GCEI Adjusted 7824.36 7129.32 6739.07 6227.55 6028.11 5624.90 5168.09 CWI Adjusted 7528.00 7235.02 6354.92 5602.96 5121.19 4742.45 4697.42 2006 07 Unadjusted 8189.28 7466.20 6870.75 6716.44 6603.66 6487.26 6397.65 DCD Adjusted 8279.38 7557.21 7161.08 6878.40 6763.66 6630.44 6587.08 GCEI Adjusted 9524.58 8 639.16 8068.06 7413.25 7165.22 6671.38 6148.33 CWI Adjusted 9004.87 8799.67 7507.78 6660.08 6047.85 5700.88 5629.45 2008 09 Unadjusted 8381.22 7613.96 7092.61 6934.10 6824.89 6703.07 6548.36 DCD Adjusted 8645.70 7901.24 7430.34 7147.60 6994.37 6874.06 6 813.09 GCEI Adjusted 9610.35 8919.64 8317.48 7692.19 7389.40 6883.94 6467.58 CWI Adjusted 9459.99 9027.24 7830.49 7884.38 6257.86 5903.39 5815.95

PAGE 163

146 Table 31: Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State and Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Restricted Standard Coefficient of Year Revenue Type Range Range Mean Deviation Variation 1982 83 Unadjusted 293.33 220.14 1710.91 66.51 .04 DCD Adjusted 276.82 162.33 1748.10 54.99 .03 1984 85 Unadjusted 324.18 239.34 2052.11 75.61 .04 DCD Adjusted 250.82 177.00 2114.07 53.92 .03 1986 87 Unadjusted 561.21 353.30 2468.75 108.34 .04 DCD Adjusted 336.28 210.22 2532.90 67.43 .03 1988 89 Unadjusted 901.72 482.68 3466.74 168.66 .05 DCD Adjusted 640.55 541.95 3568.38 163.97 .05 GCEI Adju sted 1315.38 884.78 3775.62 310.40 .08 1990 91 Unadjusted 929.12 552.49 3952.36 170.09 .04 DCD Adjusted 872.79 657.78 4116.86 200.41 .05 GCEI Adjusted 1546.93 1050.23 4277.14 350.77 .08 1992 93 Unadjusted 1082.99 502.23 3839.52 179.26 .05 DCD Adjusted 644.20 516.29 3565.89 164.78 .05 GCEI Adjusted 1318.51 1065.70 4154.96 347.53 .08 1994 95 Unadjusted 1048.80 569.92 4156.46 196.23 .05 DCD Adjusted 775.60 655.95 3932.59 180.95 .05 GCEI Adjusted 1617.66 1306.18 4627.44 388.54 .08 1996 97 Unadjusted 902.13 481.16 4404.14 175.41 .04 DCD Adjusted 853.58 543.60 4584.30 167.19 .04 GCEI Adjusted 1605.25 1120.10 4901.19 364.77 .07 1998 99 Unadjusted 921.74 485.46 4697.48 176.08 .04 DCD Adjusted 719.56 509.87 4877.53 156.70 .03 GCEI Adjusted 1563.08 126 4.20 5227.42 378.35 .07 CWI Adjusted 3162.78 2516.84 6128.48 766.02 .12 2000 01 Unadjusted 970.06 472.41 4987.35 172.23 .03 DCD Adjusted 681.43 458.83 5191.35 156.17 .03 GCEI Adjusted 1832.06 1265.83 5550.62 402.34 .07 CWI Adjusted 2274.21 1967.99 566 1.78 542.89 .10 2002 03 Unadjusted 1077.15 618.82 5147.34 203.66 .04 DCD Adjusted 822.16 536.87 5356.84 179.00 .03 GCEI Adjusted 2135.43 1357.60 5729.67 443.59 .03 CWI Adjusted 2929.98 2446.93 5571.04 760.70 .14 2004 05 Unadjusted 1362.27 851.99 5704. 88 257.61 .05 DCD Adjusted 1016.50 638.07 5904.95 221.68 .04 GCEI Adjusted 2806.75 1504.43 6351.39 526.30 .08 CWI Adjusted 2838.10 2492.58 5779.17 776.31 .13 2006 07 Unadjusted 1872.00 978.94 6798.87 324.53 .05 DCD Adjusted 1692.35 926.77 6989.37 337. 79 .05 GCEI Adjusted 3673.67 1967.78 7572.13 670.94 .09 CWI Adjusted 3424.41 3098.79 6888.87 943.50 .14 2008 09 Unadjusted 1898.87 910.89 7017.22 310.24 .04 DCD Adjusted 1833.61 1027.18 7256.72 369.91 .05 GCEI Adjusted 3407.64 2035.70 7814.22 664.79 09 CWI Adjusted 3712.95 3123.85 7112.00 982.09 .14

PAGE 164

147 Index (GCEI). The Comparable Wage Index (CWI) is first shown as an adjustment to total state and local revenue in 1998 99. Percentile Ranks The percentile ranks in Table 30 show increases in the great majority of the years by measure over the previous years. In 1992 93, there was a consistent decrease in all revenue measures. In 2000 01 and again in 2002 0 3 revenues showed a decrease in most percentiles when adjusted using the CWI. At the highest le vels, 100 th and 95 th percentiles, total state and local revenues grew in each year from 1982 83 through 1990 91. In 1992 93, revenue for each revenue type decreased at both percentile levels. The only exception was Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenu e at the 100 th percentile which was flat. From 1994 95 through the end of the study in 2008 09, all revenues grew consistently except for CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue which decreased in at both the 100 th and 95 th percentiles in 2000 01. At the intermediate levels; 75 th 50 th and 25 th percentiles; t otal s tate and local revenue grew in each year from 1982 83 through 1990 91 without exception. In 1992 93, revenue for each revenue type decreased at all three percentile levels. From 1994 95 t hrough the end of the study in 2008 09, all revenues grew consistently except for CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue which decreased at all three percentile levels in 2000 01 and at the 50 th and 25 th percentiles in 2002 03. At the lowest levels, 5 th and 1 st percentiles, total state and local revenue grew in each year from 1982 83 through 1990 91 without exception. In 1992 93, revenue for

PAGE 165

148 each revenue type decreased at both percentile levels. From 1994 95 through the end of the study in 2008 09, a ll revenues grew consistently except for CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue which decreased at the 5 th and 1 st percentile levels in 2000 01 and 2002 03. Range and Restricted Range The range and restricted range of total state and local revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 31. Graphical illustrations of the range and restricted range of total state and local revenues are shown in Figures 28 through 33. Figure 28 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of Unadju sted Total State and Local Revenue per pupil. The range and restricted range in Figure 28 are of a similar shape. They increase and decrease at approximately the same times. What is remarkable is that although the shape of each line is reflective of the other, they become increasing separated over the length of the study. In 1982 83 the difference between the range and restricted range is $73.19 by the end of the study in 2008 09 the difference is $987.98.

PAGE 166

149 Figure 28: Range and Restricted Range of Unadj usted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 Figure 29 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil The range and restricted range in Figure 2 9 are also of a simila r shape increasing and decreasing at approximately the same times. As with the unadjusted revenues they become increasing separated over the length of the study

PAGE 167

150 Figure 29: Range and Restricted Range of DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pup il, 1982 2008 Figure 30 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of the CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil. Unlike Figures 28 and 29 that show fourteen data points, Figure 30 has only six. The range and restri cted range of CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil do mirror each other, but they do not separate the way the other revenue measures did. The range and restricted range are at their lowest levels in 2000 01 before climbing to their highest levels in 2008 09, the final year of the study.

PAGE 168

151 Figure 30: Range and Restricted Range of CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil, 1998 2008 Figure 31 shows a multiple line graph of the range and restricted range of GCEI A djusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil. The range and restricted range in Figure 31 return to the pattern discussed for Figures 28 and 29. The lines mirror each other and gain increasing separation during the length of the study.

PAGE 169

152 Figure 31: Range and Restric ted Range of GCEI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil, 198 8 2008 Figure 32 is a compilation of the ranges of each revenue type. The lines representing the unadjusted and DCD adjusted ranges can best be described as intertwined. This d emonstrates that the measures are very closely related. The GCEI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil is similar but consistently lies above the unadjusted and DCD adjusted lines. The CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil once again demonstrates and outlier in 1998. The figures in subsequent years begin to mirror those of the other measures. Figure 33 is a compilation of the restricted ranges of each revenue type. The restricted ranges behave in a similar manner to the range s discuss in Figure 32.

PAGE 170

153 Figure 32: Range of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Figure 33: Restricted Range of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008

PAGE 171

154 Coefficient of Variation The coefficient of variation of tot al state and local revenues is displayed in a column format in Table 31. A graphical illustration of the coefficient of variation of total state and local revenues is shown as Figure 34. As Figure 34 demonstrates, the coefficients of variation for total state and local revenues fluctuate over time, but in a very tight range. The coefficient of variation is interpreted to show equity as it decreased. A set of data is defined as equitable if it has a coefficient of variation below 0 .10. In our study, all of the data points for U nadjusted, DCD A djusted, and GCEI A djusted T otal S tate and L ocal R evenues fall below 0 .10. The values for CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per pupil vary in the first two years before settling into a stable patter n for t he final four years at a value slightly below 0 .14 The distribution of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil is never Figure 34: Coefficient of Variation of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008

PAGE 172

155 greater than 0 .05 at any po int during this study demonstrating an equitable distribution of available resources. Federal Range Ratio The federal range ratio of total state and local revenue is displayed in a column format in Table 3 2 A graphical illustration of the federal rang e ratio of total state and local revenue per pupil is shown as Figure 35. Figure 35 shows the federal range ratio for total state and local revenues to fluctuate o ver time in a very tight range. The federal range ratio has a minimum value of zero. As va lues move away from zero, they show disparity in the set of data. The closer a value is to zero, the more equitable the distribution. For this study, unadjusted revenues and DCD adjusted fluctuate in a very tight range between 0 .09 and 0 .18. These excep tionally low values are indicative of an equitable distribution of Unadjusted and DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil. The values for GCEI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenues per P upil fluctuate tightly around 0 .30. The values for CW I Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil vary in the first two years before settling into a stable pattern for the final four years at a value slightly above 0 50. The federal range ratio for Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil is never greater than 0 .16 demonstrating an equitable distribution of available resources.

PAGE 173

156 Table 32: Additional Measures of the Variation in the Distribution of Total State and Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Federal Range McLoone Verstegen Ye ar Revenue Type Ratio Index Index 1982 83 Unadjusted .13 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .10 .99 1.03 1984 85 Unadjusted .12 .97 1.03 DCD Adjusted .09 .99 1.02 1986 87 Unadjusted .15 .97 1.03 DCD Adjusted .09 .98 1.02 1988 89 Unadjusted .15 .97 1.04 DCD Ad justed .16 .97 1.04 GCEI Adjusted .26 .94 1.07 1990 91 Unadjusted .15 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .17 .96 1.04 GCEI Adjusted .28 .94 1.08 1992 93 Unadjusted .14 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .16 .97 1.05 GCEI Adjusted .29 .94 1.08 1994 95 Unadjusted .15 .97 1.05 DCD Adjusted .18 .96 1.03 GCEI Adjusted .33 .94 1.08 1996 97 Unadjusted .11 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .13 .97 1.03 GCEI Adjusted .26 .95 1.07 1998 99 Unadjusted .11 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .11 .97 1.02 GCEI Adjusted .27 .94 1.05 CWI Adjusted .50 .92 1. 13 2000 01 Unadjusted .10 .98 1.03 DCD Adjusted .09 .97 1.02 GCEI Adjusted .26 .96 1.07 CWI Adjusted .40 .91 1.06 2002 03 Unadjusted .13 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .10 .98 1.04 GCEI Adjusted .27 .95 1.07 CWI Adjusted .54 .92 1.15 2004 05 Unadjusted .16 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .11 .98 1.03 GCEI Adjusted .27 .96 1.08 CWI Adjusted .53 .92 1.15 2006 07 Unadjusted .15 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .14 .98 1.05 GCEI Adjusted .29 .95 1.09 CWI Adjusted .54 .91 1.15 2008 09 Unadjusted .14 .98 1.04 DCD Adjusted .1 5 .98 1.05 GCEI Adjusted .30 .95 1.08 CWI Adjusted .53 .91 1.15

PAGE 174

157 Figure 35: Federal Range Ratio of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 McLoone Index The McLoone i ndex of total state and local revenue per pupil is displayed in a col umn format in Table 3 2 A graphical illustration of the McLoone i ndex of total state and local revenue is shown as Figure 36. Figure 36 shows the McLoone i ndex of Unadjusted and DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil to fluctuate over the f irst ten years of the study before leveling off at a value of 0 .98 for the last four years. The Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue shows a McLoone i ndex value of 0 .98 for ten of the fourteen years of study. The McLoone i ndex has a maximum value of 1.0. The value of the McLoone i ndex approaches its most equitable position as it approaches 1.0. A value of 0 .98 shows an equitable distribution of revenues. The GCEI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenues per P upil fluctuates between 0 .94 and 0 .96 for the entire fourteen years of

PAGE 175

158 Figure 36: McLoone Index of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 the study. The CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenues per P upil fluctuate between 0 .92 and 0 .93 for the length of the study. The McLo one index for districts with Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil below the mean is between 0 .97 and 0 .98 throughout the entire length of this study. Verstegen Index The Verstegen i ndex of T otal S tate and L ocal R evenue per P upil is display ed in a column format in Table 3 2 A graphical illustration of the Verstegen i ndex of T otal S tate and L ocal R evenues per P upil is shown as Figure 37. Figure 37 shows the Verstegen i ndex of Unadjusted and DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P up il to fluctuate between 1.02 and 1.05 for the length of the fourteen year study. The Verstegen i ndex has a minimum value of 1.0 The value of the Verstegen i ndex approaches is most equitable position as it approaches 1.0. Values of

PAGE 176

159 Figure 37: Verstegen Index of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 1.02 to 1.05 show an equitable distribution of revenues. The GCEI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil fluctuate between 1.05 and 1.09 for the entire fourteen years of the stu dy. The CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil begins in 1998 99 at 1.13 then drops to 1.06 in 2000 01. For the final four years of the study, the value of the Verstegen Index of CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenues per P upil is 1.15 The Verstegen index for districts with Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil above the mean is never greater than 1.05 at any point during this study Assessing Distributional Patter n s of Per Pupil Revenues Using Gini Coefficients Tables 3 3 34, and 35 show the framework for evaluation the distribution of revenues using Gini c oefficients. Gini c oefficients range from one to zero, with a coefficient of zero representing total equality Each table is populated with data from the

PAGE 177

160 current stu dy. Fourteen years worth of data is displayed. Unadjusted and District Cost Differential (DCD) adjusted revenue is shown for all fourteen years. Beginning in 1988 89, revenue is show n adjusted by the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI). The Compa rable Wage Index (CWI) is first shown as an adjustment to total state and local revenue in 1998 99. Total State Revenue The Gini Coefficient s of the distribution of T otal S tate R eve nue per P upil is displayed in a column format in Table 33. A graphical il lustration of the distribution of total state revenue per pupil is shown in Figure 38. Table 33: Gini Coefficients of the Distribution of Total State Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Unadjusted DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total Local Total Local Total Local Total Local Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 1982 83 .122 .127 ----1984 85 .139 .144 ----1986 87 .144 .150 ----1988 89 .118 .127 .138 --1990 91 .139 .150 .160 --1992 93 .155 .164 .175 --1994 95 .146 .156 .1 67 --1996 97 .133 .143 .152 --1998 99 .151 .160 .168 .171 2000 01 .147 .155 .163 .161 2002 03 .170 .176 .184 .189 2004 05 .171 .176 .186 .192 2006 07 .192 .195 .208 .211 2008 09 .181 .184 .197 .201

PAGE 178

161 Figure 38 shows that the distribution of T otal S tate R evenues per P upil has gradually become less equitable. It is remarkable that all of the G ini coefficients follow the same pattern throughout the term of the study. They rise in 1984 85 and 1986 97 followed by a decrease in 1988 89. The y rise for another two years in 1990 91 and 1992 93 followed by a two year decrease in 1994 95 and 1996 97 A rise in 1998 99 is immediately followed by a decrease in 2000 01. From 2002 03 they rise steadily to their overall peak in 2006 07. The final year of study, 2008 09, shows a decrease over the preceding year. The Gini coefficient of Unadjusted Total State Revenues per Pupil increases throughout the term of this study. They were at their lowest levels in 1988 89 and highest in 2006 07. Increasing Gini coefficient values indicate decreasing distributional equity. Figure 38: Gini Coefficients of Total State Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008

PAGE 179

162 Total Local Revenue The Gini Coefficient s of the distribution of total local revenue per pupil is displayed in a column format in Table 34. A graphical illustration of the distribution of total local revenue per pupil is shown in Figure 39. Table 34: Gini Coefficients of the Distribution of Total Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Unadjusted DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total State Total State Total State Total State Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 1982 83 .233 .230 ----1984 85 .236 .234 ----1986 87 .255 .251 ----1988 89 .257 .252 .239 --1990 91 .256 .247 .238 --1992 9 3 .244 .237 .226 --1994 95 .237 .229 .219 --1996 97 .223 .213 .198 --1998 99 .210 .201 .186 .185 2000 01 .203 .193 .179 .184 2002 03 .202 .194 .179 .173 2004 05 .204 .196 .184 .180 2006 07 .237 .231 .216 .207 2008 09 .216 .208 .193 .185

PAGE 180

163 F igure 39 shows that the G ini coefficients for T otal L ocal R evenue per P upil rise for the first two years of the study. The distribution of local revenues becomes more equitable each year from 1988 89 as the G ini coefficients decline annually for the next eight years. The final three years of study are marked by sharp increases and decreases in the G ini coefficients The Gini coefficient of Unadjusted Total Local Revenues per Pupil decreases throughout the term of this study. They were at their lowest lev els in 2002 03 and highest in 1988 89. Decreasing Gini coefficient values indicate increasing distributional equity. Figure 39: Gini Coefficients of Total Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008

PAGE 181

164 Total State and Local Revenue The Gini c oefficient s of th e distribution of T otal S tate and L ocal revenue per P upil is displayed in a column format in Table 35. A graphical illustration of the distribution of total state and local revenue per pupil is shown in Figure 40. Table 35: Gini Coefficients of the Distr ibution of Total State and Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Unadjusted DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total State & Local Total State & Local Total State & Local Total State & Local Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 1982 83 .010 .0 07 ----1984 85 .012 .008 ----1986 87 .017 .011 ----1988 89 .016 .017 .031 --1990 91 .014 .020 .032 --1992 93 .015 .018 .032 --1994 95 .017 .018 .032 --1996 97 .013 .015 .029 --1998 99 .011 .014 .030 .052 2000 01 .010 .013 .02 8 .037 2002 03 .011 .013 .028 .056 2004 05 .012 .012 .030 .054 2006 07 .011 .012 .031 .054 2008 09 .010 .013 .030 .054

PAGE 182

165 Unlike Figures 38 and 39, Figure 40 shows consistency among the G ini coefficients for three of the four revenue measures. Unadju sted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil shows a consistently low gini coefficient, varying only slightly during the study between 0 .010 and 0 .017. The GCEI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil vary in a n even small er range of 0 .030 to 0 .03 2. DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil vary in a slightly larger range of 0 .007 to 0 .020. The CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil has the largest range of values due to a large drop in the second year of its existence. T he Gini coefficients for the distribution of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil never exceeds 0 .02 0 at any point during this study. The minimum value of the Gini coefficient is zero. The lower the Gini coefficient, the more equitable the distribution of available resources. Figure 40: Gini Coefficients of Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008

PAGE 183

166 Comparison of Revenues Types Figure 41 examines the G ini coefficients of each of the unadjusted measures, Unadjusted Total State R evenue per P upil, Unadjusted Total Local Revenue per Pupil, and Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil. Figure 38 showed state revenues becoming less equitable over time. Figure 39 showed local revenues becoming more equitable over time. Fig ure 40 showed the relative consistency of the distributional equity of total state and local revenue. Figure 41 provides a different look at the revenues by combining these revenue types in one multiple line graph. Figure 41: Gini Coefficients of Unadjus ted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008

PAGE 184

167 Figure 42 takes the same look at the G ini coefficients of each of the DCD adjusted measures as Figure 41 did with unadjusted revenues. DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per pupil, DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue pe r P upil, and DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil is the subject of Figure 42. Figure 42 : Gini Coefficients of DCD Adjusted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Relationship Between Revenue Measures and Selected Independent Variables District Cost Differential and the Revenue Measures Tables 3 6 3 7 and 3 8 show the framework for evaluation the relationship between a district District Cost Differential (DCD) and the selected revenue measures. Each table is populated with data from the curren t study. Fourteen years worth of data is displayed. Unadjusted and District Cost Differential (DCD) A djusted R evenue is shown for all fourteen years. Beginning in 1988 89, revenue is show n adjusted by the

PAGE 185

168 Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI). The Comparable Wage Index (CWI) is first shown as an adjustment to total state and local revenue in 1998 99. T otal State Revenue The relationship between the DCD and total state revenues is presented in a column format in Table 36. In addition to the correla tion itself (r) the percentage of values explained by the correlation is presented as (r 2 ). A graphical illustration of these relationships is shown as Figure 43. Table 36: Product Moment Correlation Between the District Cost Differential and Total Stat e Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 Unadjusted DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total State Total State Total State Total State Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 1982 83 .60 .36 .66 .43 ---1984 85 .59 .35 .65 .42 ----1986 87 .56 .32 .62 .38 ----1988 89 .73 .54 .78 .61 .75 .61 --1990 91 .76 .58 .81 .65 .79 .63 --1992 93 .66 .43 .71 .50 .68 .46 -1994 95 .70 .49 .75 .56 .73 .54 --1996 97 .69 .47 .75 .56 .74 .55 --1998 99 .64 .41 .70 .49 .70 .49 .74 .55 2000 01 .59 .35 .66 .43 .66 .44 .68 .47 2002 03 .53 .28 .59 .34 .59 .3 5 .64 .41 2004 05 .44 .19 .50 .25 .51 .26 .57 .33 2006 07 .33 .11 .39 .15 .41 .17 .50 .25 2008 09 .41 .17 .49 .24 .49 .24 .54 .30

PAGE 186

169 Figure 43 shows the correlation between the DCD and total state revenues t o be consistently negative. This shows an inverse relationship between the two variables. The relationship shows its strongest magnitude in 1990 91 at 0 .76, 0 .81, and 0 .79 for the U nadjusted, DCD A djusted, and GCEI A djusted S tate R evenue measures resp ectively. The magnitude is its weakest in 2006 07 at 0 .33, 0 .39, 0 .41, and 0 .50 for the U nadjusted, DCD A djusted, GCEI A djusted and CWI A djusted state revenue measures respectively. It is remarkable that each of the four revenue measures react in u nison from year to year. If one correlation rises, they all rise: if one decreases, they all decrease. T here is a strong inverse relationship between state revenue and the DCD. This relationship weakens over the course of this study but remains strong. Figure 43: Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differential s and Total State Revenues per Pupil 1982 2008

PAGE 187

170 Total Local Revenue The relationship between the DCD and total local revenues is presented in a column format in Table 37. In addition to the correlation itself (r) the percentage of values explained by the correlation is presented as (r 2 ). A graphical illustration of these relationships is shown as Figure 44. Table 37: Product Moment Correlation Between the District Cost Diffe rential s and Total Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total Local Total Local Total Local Total Local Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 1982 83 .71 .51 .69 .47 ----1984 85 .70 .49 .66 .44 ----1986 87 .66 .44 .63 .39 ----1988 89 .75 .57 .72 .52 .73 .53 --1990 91 .75 .57 .72 .52 .72 .52 --1992 93 .68 .46 .64 .41 .65 .42 --1994 95 .73 .53 .68 .47 .69 .48 --1996 97 .72 .52 .68 .47 .68 .46 --1998 99 .68 .47 .65 .42 .63 .40 .56 .32 2000 01 .64 .41 .59 .35 .57 .33 .55 .30 2002 03 .58 .34 .53 .28 .51 .26 .44 .19 2004 05 .51 .26 .46 .21 .44 .19 .36 .13 2006 07 .36 .13 .30 .09 .27 .07 .18 .03 2008 09 .43 .18 .35 .13 .33 .11 .23 .05

PAGE 188

171 Figure 44 shows the correlation between the DCD and total local revenues to be consistently positive. For the first eight years of the study (1982 83 through 1996 97), the correlations vary around 0 .70. In the five years that follow (1998 99 through 2006 07) the relationship between the DCD and total local revenues weakens as the correlation decreases each year. In 2 008 09, the final year of the study, the correlation shows a slight increase for all revenue measures. T here is a strong positive relationship between local revenue and the DCD. This relationship weakens over the course of this study but remains strong. Figure 44: Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differential s and Total Local Revenues per Pupil 1982 2008

PAGE 189

172 Total State and Local Revenue The relationship between the DCD and total state and local revenues is presented in a column format in Table 38. In addition to the correlation itself (r) the percentage of values explained by the correlation is presented as (r 2 ). A graphical illustration of these relationships is shown as Figure 45. Table 38: Product Moment Correlation Between the District Cost Differential s and Total State and Local Revenue s Per Pupil, 1982 2008 DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total State and Total State and Total State and Total State and Year Local Revenue Local Revenue Local Revenue Local Reve nue r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 1982 83 .59 .35 .05 .00 ----1984 85 .72 .53 .05 .00 ----1986 87 .82 .68 .33 .11 ----1988 89 .39 .16 .24 .06 .29 .09 --1990 91 .30 .09 .54 .29 .52 .27 --1992 93 .39 .15 .37 .14 .35 .12 --1994 95 .45 .20 .39 .15 .38 .14 --1996 97 .56 .32 .44 .19 .43 .19 --1998 99 .60 .36 .37 .14 .43 .18 .47 .22 2000 01 .62 .39 .46 .21 .45 .21 .41 .17 2002 03 .59 .35 .31 .10 .38 .10 .47 .22 2004 05 .56 .32 .15 .02 .31 .10 .49 .24 2006 07 .28 .08 .32 .10 .43 .19 .66 .43 2008 09 .21 .05 .52 .27 .54 .29 .61 .37

PAGE 190

173 Figure 4 5 sho ws the correlation between the DCD and Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue to be consistently positive. The relationship between the DCD and all three adjusted total state and local revenu e s is consistently negative The lesson here is that total st ate and local revenues have a relationship to the DCD. When we control for the cost of doing business in respective districts using either the DCD, GCEI, or CWI the magnitude of this relationship decreases considerably. T here is a mild positive relations hip between state revenue and the DCD. This relationship weakens over the course of this study and reaches its lowest value in 2008 09. Figure 45: Product Moment Correlation Bet ween District Cost Differentials and Total State and Local Revenues, 1982 2008

PAGE 191

174 Comparison of Revenue Types Figures 46 and 47 present t he correlation of the DCD to revenues from a different perspective. Figure 46 shows the relationship between the DCD and Unadjusted Total State Revenue per P upil, Unadjusted Total Local Revenu e per P upil, and Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil. Figure 47 shows the relationship between the DCD and DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil, DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil, and DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenu e per P upil. Figure 46 : Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differential and Unadjusted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008

PAGE 192

175 Figure 47 : Product Moment Correlation Between District Cost Differential s and DCD Adjusted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Assessed Property Value per Pupil and the Revenue Measures Tables 3 9 40 and 41 show the framework for evaluati n g the relationship between a district assessed property value per student and the selected revenue measures. Each table is populated w ith data from the current study. Fourteen years worth of data is displayed. Unadjusted and District Cost Differential (DCD) A djusted R evenue is shown for all fourteen years. Beginning in 1988 89, revenue is show adjusted by the Geographic Cost of Educat ion Index (GCEI). The Comparable Wage Index (CWI) is first shown as an adjustment to total state and local revenue in 1998 99.

PAGE 193

176 Total State Revenue The relationship between assessed property value per student and total state revenues is presented in a co lumn format in Table 39. In addition to the correlation itself (r) the percentage of values explained by the correlation is presented as (r 2 ). A graphical illustration of these relationships is shown as Figure 48. Table 39: Product Moment Correlation B etween Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State Revenue per Pupil, 1982 2008 DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total State Total State Total State Total State Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 1982 83 .98 .95 .98 .97 ----1984 85 .98 .97 .99 .98 ----1986 87 .98 .97 .99 .98 ----1988 89 .97 .94 .96 .94 .93 .87 --1990 91 .97 .94 .96 .92 .94 .88 --1992 93 .96 .92 .95 .91 .93 .86 --1994 95 .96 .92 .96 .92 .93 .86 --1996 97 .96 .92 .96 .92 .93 .86 --1998 99 .97 .94 .97 .93 .94 .89 .89 .79 2000 01 .97 .93 .96 .93 .93 .87 .91 .83 2002 03 94 .89 .94 .88 .91 .83 .86 .75 2004 05 .88 .77 .87 .76 .84 .70 .80 .63 2006 07 .75 .56 .74 .55 .70 .49 .67 .45 2008 09 .73 .54 .72 .52 .69 .48 .66 .44

PAGE 194

177 Figure 48 shows the correlation between asse ssed property per student and total state revenues per student to be consistently negative. This shows an inverse relationship between the two variables. For the first eleven years of the study (1982 83 through 2002 03) the correlation varied between 0 90 and 1.00. The final three years showed a weakening of the relationship as the values began to climb. The final correlations were 0 .73, 0 .72, 0 .69, and 0 .66 for U nadjusted, DCD A djusted, GCEI A djusted, and CWI A djusted S tate R evenues per P upil r espectively. Remarkably, each value over the course of the study maintained the same relative position to the other revenue measures. T here is a strong inverse relationship between state revenue and the Assessed Property Value per Pupil. This relationsh ip weakens over the course of this study but remains moderately high. Figure 48: Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State Revenues, 1982 2008

PAGE 195

178 Total Local Revenue The relationship between assessed property value per student and total local revenues is presented in a column format in Table 40. In addition to the correlation itself (r) the percentage of values explained by the correlation is presented as (r 2 ). A graphical illustration of these relationships is shown as Figure 49. Table 40: Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total Local Revenue s per Pupil, 1982 2008 DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total Local Total Local Total Local Total Local Year Reve nue Revenue Revenue Revenue r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 1982 83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ----1984 85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ----1986 87 1.00 1.00 1.00 .99 ----1988 89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .99 --1990 91 .99 .99 .99 .98 .99 .98 --1992 93 .99 .98 .98 .97 .98 .96 --1994 95 .99 .98 .98 .96 .98 .97 --1996 97 .99 .97 .98 .95 .98 .96 --1998 99 .99 .98 .98 .96 .98 .95 .96 .92 2000 01 .99 .97 .98 .95 .97 .95 .97 .93 2002 03 .97 .94 .96 .92 .95 .91 .93 .86 2004 05 .92 .86 .91 .84 .93 .86 .91 .83 2006 07 .83 .69 .84 .70 .86 .74 .85 .73 2008 09 .82 .67 .83 .69 .84 .70 .82 .67

PAGE 196

179 F igure 49 shows the correlation between assessed property per student and total state revenues per student to be consistently positive. This shows a direct relationship between the two variables. As with the state revenue in Figure 48, for the first eleve n years of the study (1982 83 through 2002 03) the correlation varied between 0 .90 and 1.00. The final three years showed a weakening of the relationship as the values began to fall. The final correlations were outside the previous range at 0 .82, 0 .83, 0 .84, and 0 .82 for U nadjusted, DCD A djusted, GCEI A djusted, and CWI A djusted L ocal R evenues per P upil respectively. As with the state revenues, each of the local values over the course of the study maintained the same relative position to the other revenue measures. T here is a strong positive relationship between local revenue and the Assessed Property Value per Pupil. This relationship weakens over the course of this study but remains moderately high. Figure 49: Product Moment Correlation Between Assesse d Property Value per Pupil and Total Local Revenues, 1982 2008

PAGE 197

180 Total State and Local Revenue The relationship between assessed property value per student and total state and local revenues is presented in a column format in Table 41. In addition to the correlation itself (r) the percentage of values explained by the correlation is presented as (r 2 ). A graphical illustration of these relationships is shown as Figure 50. Table 41: Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State and Local Revenue s Per Pupil, 1982 2008 Unadjusted DCD Adjusted GCEI Adjusted CWI Adjusted Total State and Total State and Total State and Total State and Year Local Revenue Local Revenue Local Revenue Local Revenue r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 r r 2 1982 83 .27 .07 .23 .05 ----1984 85 .39 .15 .19 .04 ----1986 87 .69 .48 .45 .20 ----1988 89 .56 .31 .09 .01 .16 .03 --1990 91 .54 .30 .15 .02 .31 .10 --1992 93 .55 .30 .01 .00 .28 .08 --1994 95 .59 .35 .04 .00 .25 .06 --1996 97 .68 .46 .05 .00 .24 .08 --1998 99 .66 .44 .01 .00 .23 .05 .13 .02 2000 01 .68 .46 .01 .00 .21 .05 .06 .00 2002 03 .64 .42 .14 .02 .13 .02 .13 .02 2004 05 .64 .41 .34 .12 .03 .00 .03 .00 2006 07 .69 .48 .60 .36 .21 .04 .12 .01 2008 09 .69 .47 .46 .21 .11 .01 .04 .00

PAGE 198

181 Figure 50 shows the correlation between assessed p roperty value per student and Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue to be consistently positive. An examination of the correlation between assessed property value per student and DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue shows it to lie between 0 .20 a nd 0 .20 nine out of the fourteen years of the study. All of the CWI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenues per P upil are within this range. The GCEI Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil are consistently around 0 .20 for the first eight year s of the study before becoming slightly positive for the last three years. The relationship intensified over the first three years of this study and then leveled off slightly above 0 .60. This shows a moderate relationship assessed property. Figure 50: Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Total State and Local Revenues, 1982 2008

PAGE 199

182 Comparison of Revenue Types Figures 51 and 52 present t he correlation of assessed property value per s tudent to revenues from a different perspective. Figure 51 shows the relationship between assessed property value per student and Unadjusted Total State Revenue per P upil, Unadjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil, and Unadjusted Total State and Local Reve nue per Pupil. Figure 52 shows the relationship between assessed property value per student and DCD Adjusted Total State Revenue per P upil, DCD Adjusted Total Local Revenue per P upil, and DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil. Figure 51 : Pr oduct Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Unadjusted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008

PAGE 200

183 Figure 52 : Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and DCD Adjusted Revenues per Pupil, 1982 2008 Assesse d Property Value per Pupil and the District Cost Differential Table 42 show s the framework for evaluat ing the assessed property value per student and its Dist rict Cost Differential (DCD). Each table is populated with data from the current study. Fourteen years worth of data is displayed. The relationship between assessed property value per student and is presented in a column format in Table 42 A graphical illustration of th is relationship is shown as Figure 53 Figure 53 shows the correlation between assessed property per student and a 0 .65 and 0 .80 for the first ten years of the fourteen year study. This relationship weakens over the next three years of the study as the correlation falls to 0 .13, its lowest value, in 2006 07. The final year of the study shows a very slight

PAGE 201

184 T able 4 2 : Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and the District Cost Differential s 1982 2008 Assessed Value Year per Pupil 1982 83 .71 1984 85 .69 1986 87 .67 1988 89 .75 1990 91 .77 1992 93 .70 1994 95 .74 1996 97 .74 1998 99 .70 2000 01 .66 2002 03 .59 2004 05 .50 2006 07 .13 2008 09 .19 Figure 53 : Product Moment Correlation Between Assessed Property Value per Student and the District Cost Differential s 1982 2008

PAGE 202

185 strengthening of the relationship to a value of 0 .19. T here is a moderate relationship between these two variables. The relationship deteriorates over the course of this study. Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil Using Weighted Student FTE A fundamental component of the Florida Education Finance Program is the Program Cost Factors. The Program Cost Factors are used to provide weighted fundin g based on the educational program in which the student is enrolled Although this study focuses on per student revenues at the school district level, the make up of each school district is different. The individual composition dent population would be reflected in its Weighted FTE. As a funding component, Weighted FTE has the potential to be an equalizing or disequalizing mechanism. Table 43 includes an analysis of the 1998 99 Florida Education Finance Program using Weighted F TE as the divisor when determining per student revenue per district. The funding variable on interest is total state and local funding per student. Data is presented for Unadjusted State and Local Revenue per P upil based on unweighted student counts, Una djusted State and L ocal Revenue per P upil based on weighted student counts, DCD Adjusted State and Local Revenue per P upil based on unweighted student counts, and DCD Adjusted State and Local Revenue per P upil based on weighted student counts. An examinat ion of the data in Table 43 shows that all percentile measures are lower when calculated using the weighted student counts. This is basic math. In all districts and all years, the weighted FTE will be higher than the unweighted FTE. The range of Unadjus ted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil decreases 32.3% when calculated using the weighted FTE. The range of DCD Adjusted Total State and Local

PAGE 203

186 Table 43: Use of Weighted and Unweighted Students in Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil Equity Meas ures in 1998 99 1998 99 1998 99 1998 99 1998 99 Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Measure Unadjusted Unadjusted DCD Adjusted DCD Adjusted 100 th percentile 5382.74 4288.51 5260.35 4168.67 95 th percentile 4948.82 3938.00 5119.24 4136.95 75 th perce ntile 4808.50 3801.21 4990.54 3982.02 50 th percentile 4658.31 3722.98 4899.18 3899.25 25 th percentile 4578.98 3664.50 4747.65 3802.42 5 th percentile 4463.35 3664.50 4609.36 3737.75 1 st percentile 4461.01 3664.50 4569.84 3707.43 Range 921.74 624.01 719.56 466.92 Restricted Range 485.46 273.51 509.87 399.20 Mean 4697.48 3758.20 4877.53 3903.12 Standard Deviation 176.08 113.23 156.70 124.06 Coefficient of Variation .04 .03 .03 .03 Federal Range Ratio .11 .07 .11 .11 McLoone Index .98 .99 .97 .98 Verste gen Index 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.03 Gini Coefficient .011 .007 .014 .011 Revenue per Pupil decreases a similar amount at 35.1%. The restricted range of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil decreases 43.7% when calculated using the weighted FT E. The restricted range of DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil decreases at about half the rate of the unadjusted revenues when calculated using weighted FTE at 21.7%. The coefficient of variation and federal range ratio showed a more eq uitable distribution of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenues per P upil when calculated using the weighted FTE. The coefficient of variation reduced from 0 .04 to 0 .03. The federal range ration reduced from 0 .11 to 0 .07. There was no difference in th e coefficient

PAGE 204

187 of variation or federal range ratio when using weighted FTE in the calculation of DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil. The McLoone i ndex and the Verstegen i ndex showed a more equitable distribution of revenue three out of fo ur times with the unadjusted and DCD adjusted levels when weighted FTE was used as the pupil measure. The McLoone i ndex increased from 0 .98 to 0 .99 with Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil and 0 .97 to 0 .98 with DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil. The Verstegen i ndex decreased from 1.04 to 1.03 with Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil and increased from 1.02 to 1.03 with DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil. The Gini c oefficient showed a more equitable distribution of total state and local revenues at both the unadjusted and DCD adjusted levels when using weighted FTE as the pupil measure. The Gini c oefficient decreased from 0 .011 to 0 .07 with Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil and 0 .014 to 0 .011 with DCD Adjusted Total State and Local Revenue per P upil. A comparison of weighted and unweighted student counts when calculating per pupil revenue equity measures shows that values generated using weighted student counts are consisten tly more equitable. This offers the possibility that some of the disparity in districts per pupil revenue may be attributed to the makeup of their student body.

PAGE 205

188 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Overview This study was designed to answer on e cent ral research question: Does the Florida Education Finance Program equitably distribute available funding to public school districts in the state? To answer this question, a three phase study was proposed and conducted. Phase I A historical review of the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) from 1982 th rough 2009 was conducted as phase one of this study. The historical review outlined the FEFP in 1982 83 and detailed changes to the FEFP during the 27 year period that followed. The FEFP in 2008 09 wa s then outlined to allow for comparison. Finally, a review of the relevant legal challenges to the funding of public schools in the state of Florida was conducted and discussed. Phase II Ten measures of dispersion or variability were employed in phase two to determine the level of distributional equity of the Florida Education Finance Program. Percentiles, range, restricted range, federal range ratio, mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, and Verstegen ind ex were calculated for even numbered years from 1982 83 through 2008 09 on twelve measures

PAGE 206

189 of per pupil revenue. The twelve measures of per pupil revenue include unadjusted state, local, and total revenues per pupil at the district level. Each of the per pupil revenues were adjusted by three economic adjustments: the District Cost Differential (DCD), the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI), and the Comparable Wage Index (CWI). Phase III A separate analysis using Pearson product moment correlatio ns was conducted as phase three. Correlations between each of the twelve per pupil revenue measures in phase two and the District Cost Differential and Assessed Valuation were calculated to determine the fiscal neutrality of the Florida Education Finance Program. Interpretation of Findings Phase I The historical review of the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) revealed that the fundamental components of the formula remained unchanged throughout the time frame of this study. The FEFP uses two central variables to adjust revenue. The first, the Program Cost Factors, adjusts per pupil revenue based on the programs the students are enrolled in. The second, the district cost differential, adjusts per pupil revenue based on the cos t of doing business in local economies. These variables were present in each year of the study. Although the variables Program Cost Factors and the District Cost Differential were present in all years of the study, they were not unchanged. Each variabl e was subject to changes in the way they were calculated, and the number of them employed. In addition to these central variables, a process of supplements and guarantees were used

PAGE 207

190 in the FEFP. These add ons were used to start special programs or to stim ulate certain behavior of the part of the school districts. Phase II Phase two of the study was proposed and conducted using twelve measures of a s of variability and dispersion Each of the revenu e and statistical measures were calculated as proposed, but their contribution to the analysis, interpretation, and final conclusions were not equal. Revenue Measures The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) formula calculates a total allocation for R equired L ocal E ffort, is then subtracted to determine the level of state aid. This simple mathematical equation presents three components: local revenue, state revenue, and total state a nd local revenue. This study proposed to use each of th o se measures. That thinking was flawed. State revenue and local revenue have an inverse relationship. Examination of the measures of dispersion or variability presented conflicting results. But, t hat is the exact point. State revenue is intended to supplement local revenue. The ue on its own. An analysis of the distributional equity of the Florida Education Finance Program should take place using total state and revenue.

PAGE 208

191 Adjustment of Revenues The per pupil revenue measures were subjected to three cost adjustments. The intent of th ese adjustment s were to determine if the cost adjustment included in the Florida Education Finance Program, the District Cost Differential was responsible for any of the variation in distributional equity. The use of these cost adjustments did not c ontribute to the knowledge base of this study. Each of the three adjustments was built on the same assumption, that there were varying costs of doing business in various economies across the state. An analysis of the distributional equity of the Florida Education Finance Program should take place using unadjusted revenues. Measures of Dispersions or Variability This study employed ten measures of dispersion or variability. Five of these measures are resistant to inflation, five are not. This is an impo rtant point to consider. Over the course of a twenty seven year study, the per pupil revenues of all districts rose. A measure of dispersion or variability needed to be resistant to inflation to provide useful information over the course of the study. T he percentiles, range, restricted range, mean, and standard deviation were not resistant to this inflationary pressure and therefore could not be used in a final analysis. These measures were not without contribution. In many cases, they were necessary f or the calculation of other measures that were useful. The measures that were resistant to inflationary pressure, and therefore useful in the final analysis, were the federal range ratio, coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, and Vers tegen index.

PAGE 209

192 Findings Although this study proposed to use twelve measures of per pupil revenue, in the end only one measure should be utilized to measure the distributional equity of the Florida Education Finance Program. The most useful measure of a di revenue is Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil. This study also proposed to use ten measures of dispersions or variability. Five of those measures proved to be resistant to inflation: the federal range ratio, coefficien t of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, and Verstegen index. Analysis of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil using the federal range ratio was presented in Table 32 and Figure 35 in Chapter 4. They show that the federal range rati o for Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil was between 0 .10 and 0 .16 for the length of this study. The federal range ratio ha s a minimum value of zero The closer the value of the federal range ratio to zero, the more equitable the distri bution. The coefficient of variation of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil for the study is detailed in Table 31 and Figure 34 of Chapter 4. They show values between 0 .03 and 0 .05 for the length of the study. A coefficient of variation of 0 .03 means that 68% of districts had per pupil revenues within 3% of the mean. It also shows that 95% of school districts had per pupil revenues with 6% of the mean. In their book entitled School F inance: A Policy Perspective Odden and Picus (1992) reco mmend a coefficient of variation of 10%, or 0 .10, as an equity goal.

PAGE 210

193 Analysis of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil using the McLoone index is shown in Table 32 and Figure 36 of Chapter 4. They show the McLoone index to be between 0 .97 and 0 .98 during the length of our study. Odden and Picus (1992) provide a framework for interpreting the McLoone index and suggest that a value of 0 .95 or higher is desirable The closer the McLoone index is to 1.00 the more equitable the distribution. The values of 0 .97 to 0 .98 from this study suggest a more equitable distribution than Odden and Picus suggest as a policy goal. Analysis of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil using the Verstegen index is shown in Table 32 and Figure 37 of Chap ter 4. They show the Verstegen index to be between 1.03 and 1.05. This index can be 1.00 and higher and increase as disparities in the top half of the distribution increase. The Verstegen index is calculated same as the McLoone index except it deals with the upper half of the distribution of revenues. A policy goal was set at 0 .95 for the McLoone index which would translate into a 1.05 for the Verstegen index. The values of the Verstegen index values of 1.03 to 1.05 found in this study suggest that the policy goal has been met or exceeded. The Gini coefficient of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil for the study is detailed in Table 35 and Figure 40 of Chapter 4. They show values between 0 .010 and 0 .017. The Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1 with 0 indicating perfect equity. Values of 0 .010 and 0 .017 are extremely close to 0 indicating close to perfect equity. The use of the federal range ratio, coefficient of variation, McLoone Index, Verstegen index, and Gini coefficient are suppo rted by the literature to be well accepted

PAGE 211

194 measures of distributional equity. Each of these measures, when employed in our study, shows Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil to be distributed equitably. Phase III The purpose of phase three was to determine the source of any distributional inequality. The us e of the measures of dispersion and variability in phase two did not show the existence a distributional inequality in the examination of Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenues per Pup il. The correlations found in phase three are useful nonetheless in determining the wealth neutrality of the Florida Education Finance Program. Using the same arguments put forth in phase two, the analysis of the relationship of revenues per pupil to our variables will be limited to Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil. The relationship between the Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil and the District Cost Differential are detailed in Table 38 and Figure 45 of Chapter 4. T hey show a Pearson moment correlation between 0 .21 and 0 .82 for the time period of this study. This shows a moderate to strong relationship between Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil and the District Cost Differential. This relationship would be of some concern if the other measures showed an inequitable distribution of revenues. What this does tell us is that there is a definite relationship, which varies in strength, between the revenues a district receives and the cost of doing busine ss in that district. The relationship between the Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenues per Pupil and Assessed Property Value per Pupil is detailed in Table 41 and Figure 50 of

PAGE 212

195 Chapter 4. They show a Pearson moment correlation between 0 .27 and 0 .69 for the time period of this study. This shows a moderate relationship between Assessed Property Value per Pupil and Unadjusted Total State and Local Revenue per Pupil. It is not lue and their revenues. Implications of Findings This study was constructed with one central research question: Does the Florida Education Finance Program equitably distribute available funding to public school districts in the state? The findings sho w that the Florida Education Finance Program does in fact distribute available revenue equitabl y. Policy makers and taxpayers in the state of Florida should feel confident that funds are distributed equitably across that state. With an equitable formula in place, researchers and policy makers should turn their attention to the question of adequacy. Recommendations for Future Study To produce a workable study, it was necessary to limit the scope of the current study. By limiting the scope of this study, some issues were intentionally left to future study. In the initial introduction, t wo key questions were presented that currently guide the school funding debate: 1. How much money is needed? 2. What is fair in the distribution of available funding (Ramirez, 2 003)?

PAGE 213

196 This study sought to answer the question of equity, but left the question of adequacy to future research. This study focused exclusively on the state of Florida. Future research in other states using a method similar to this would allow for cross state comparisons Two additional questions became apparent as this study unfolded that would be ripe for future research. The first is the issue of program cost factors. Future research should examine the number of program cost factors employed in the Florida Education Finance Program. The historical review conducted as phase one of this study, found that the number and value of the Program Cost Factors varied greatly. What is the optimal number of Program Cost Factors needed to differentiate the cos ts of educating students? How should the value of these factors be determined? The second question that became apparent as this study unfolded centered on the District Cost Differential s In this study, three different cost adjustments were employed: t he Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI), the Comparable Wage Index (CWI), and the District Cost Differential (DCD). Each of these indexes produces different values that would affect the distribution of revenues to local districts if employed by the F lorida Education Finance Program. No position was taken by this study as to which of these indexes best distributes revenues based on the economic conditions of each district. Future and continual study should take place to determine the optimal method f or adjusting revenues based on local economic conditions. The construction of the method of this study included twelve per pupil revenue measures and ten measures of dispersions or variability. Future study should take clues from the findings of this stu dy. The use of state or local revenues in a state like Florida

PAGE 214

197 does not lend additional information to the study. The elimination of these revenue variables would streamline the study The use of multiple cost adjustments also was found to contribute li ttle to the study. The elimination of these cost adjustments would also streamline the study. The elimination of certain revenue measures and cost adjustments opens the door to the possibility of including per student program weights in future studies. This study examined data for a single year using weighted student counts as an adjustment to per suggested that the type of students in a given district contribute a s much to the revenues as location. Conclusion This study was originally patterned after a study completed in 1982. The intent of this study was to provide additional data, that when coupled with data from the original study, would allow for the examinat ion of distributional equity in the state of Florida prior to the implementation of the Florida Educational Finance Program. Due to the availability of additional equity measures, and changes to the calculations of existing ones, that was not possible. T his study takes no position on the prior study. It is important to note that the study completed in 1982 by Dr. Shiver came to a dramatically different conclusion. Dr. Shiver concluded that the Florida Education Finance Program did not distribute funds eq uitabl y By the very nature of the contradictory findings, one must question the findings of the previous study. This study ultimately used five different meas ures of distributional

PAGE 215

198 equality to measure the effectiveness of the Florida Education Finance P rogram. All five of the measures point to distributional equity. None of the existing measures point to an inequitable distribution. Our study sought to answer a single question: Does the Florida Education Finance Program equitably distribute available funding to public school districts in the state? There is no contradiction in the findings. The Florida Education Finance Program does, in fact, distribute available funds to school districts in the state of Florida equitably.

PAGE 216

199 REFERENCES Baker, B. D. (2005). The e merging s hape of e ducational a dequacy: f rom t heoretical a ssumptions to e mpirical e vidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30 259 287. Baker, B. D. (2008). Doing m ore h arm t han g ood? A c ommentary on the p olitics of c ost a djustment for w age v ariation in s tate s chool f inance f ormulas. Journal of Education Finance, 33, 406 440. Bauries, S. R. (2006). Florida 's p ast and f uture r oles in e ducation f inance r eform l itigation. Journal of Education Finance, 32, 89 104. Berne, R., Moser, M., & Stiefel L. (1999). Social policy: School finance. Journal of Management History, 5, 165 179. Brimley, V., & Garfield, R. R. (2002). Financing e ducation in a c limate of c hange (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bundt, J. & Leland, S. (2001). W ealthy or p oor: Who r eceives and w ho p ays? A c loser l ook at m easures of e quity in Iowa s chool f inance. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 397 414. Chambers, J. (1998). Geographic v ariations in p ublic s c osts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Development, National Center for Education Statistics. Chandler M. W. (2002). New i deas v ersus b ureaucratic p ower in s chool f inance. Journal of Education Finance, 28, 97 112. Cohen Vogel, L. A. & C ohen Vo gel, D. (2001). School f inance r eform in Tennessee: Inching t oward a dequacy. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 297 318. Crampton, F. E. (2007). State s chool f inance legislation: A 50 s tate o verview and t rend a nalysis. Journal of Education Finance, 32, 470 487. Driscoll, L. G. & Salmon, R. G. (2008). How in creased s tate equalization a id r esulted in g reater d isparities: An u nexpected c onsequence for the c ommonwealth of Virginia. Journal of Education Finance, 33, 238 261.

PAGE 217

200 Fastrup, J. (2002). Assessin g st ate p erformance in e qualizing a ccess to e ducational resources: The c ase of Rhode Island (1992 1996). Journal of Education Finance, 28, 207 234. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (1981, August). 1981 82 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport (MIS Series 82 02). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Management Systems and Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (1982, May). 1982 83 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport (MIS Series 82 27). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Management Systems and Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (1983, September). 1983 84 Florida e duca tion f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( MIS Series 84 05). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Management Systems and Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (1985, July). 1985 86 Florida e duc ation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( MIS Series 86 01). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Management Systems and Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (1986, August). 1986 87 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( MIS Series 8 7 01 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Management Systems and Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (198 7 August). 198 7 88 Florid a e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( MIS Series 8 8 01 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Management Systems and Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (198 8 August). 198 8 89 Flo rida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( MIS Series 8 9 04 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Business Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (198 9 August). 198 9 90 Florida e ducat ion f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( MIS Series 90 03 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Business Services.

PAGE 218

201 Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (19 90 August). 19 90 91 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( MIS Series 90 24 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Business Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools (199 1, August). 19 91 92 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s t atistical r eport ( MIS Series 92 02 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Business Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (19 92 August). 19 92 93 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( EIAS Series 93 01 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (19 93, May ). 19 93 94 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (19 94 July ). 19 94 95 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( EIAS Series 95 3 ). Talla hassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education. (19 95, August ). 19 95 96 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( EIAS Series 96 4 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management Section of the Bureau of School Business Services, Division of Public Schools Florida Department of Education. (19 96 August). 19 96 97 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( EAIS Series 97 06 ). Tallahassee, FL : Financial Management S ection of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education. (1997, August). 1997 98 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport (EAIS Series 98 05). Tallahassee, FL: Financial Management Section of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education. (1998, August). 1998 99 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport ( EIAS Series 99 04). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Service s.

PAGE 219

202 Florida Department of Education. (1999, September). 1999 2000 Funding for Florida s chool d istricts s tatistical r eport ( EIAS Series 2000 03). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. Fl orida Department of Education. (2000, September). 2000 2001 Funding for Florida school districts statistical report ( EIAS Series 200 1 03 ). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida D epartment of Education. ( 2001, August ). 2001 02 Funding for Florida school districts statistical report ( EIAS Series 200 2 03 ). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education. ( 2003 ). Funding for Florida school districts statistical report ( EIAS Series 200 4 06 ). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education. ( 2004 ). 2004 0 5 Funding for Florida school districts statistical report (Series 200 5 06 ). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education. (2005). 2005 06 Funding for Florida sch ool districts statistical report. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. F lorida Department of Education. (2006). 2006 07 Funding for Florida school districts statistical report. Tallahas see, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education. (2007). 2007 08 Funding for Florida school districts statistical report. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial R eporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. Florida Department of Education. (2008). 2008 09 Funding for Florida school districts statistical report. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business S ervices. Glenn, W. (2006 October ). Does s chool f inance a dequacy l itigation b enefit s tudents? School Business Affairs. 37 40. Hadderman, M. (1999, August). Equity and a dequacy in e ducational f inance. ERIC Digest, 129. (ERIC Document Reproduction Servic es No. ED 454 566)

PAGE 220

203 Harris, D. (200 5 ). s chools: Adequacy, c osts and the s tate c onstitution (EPSL 0401 110 EPRU). Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Herrington, C. & Weider, V. (2001). Equity, a dequacy and v ouchers: Pas t and p resent s chool f inance l itigation in Florida. Journal of Education Finance, 2 7 517 534. Hirth, M. & Eiler, E. (2005). Horizontal and v ertical e quity a r eward for e ffort f ormula. Journal of Education Finance,30, 382 398. Imazeki, J. & Reschovsky, A. (2003). Financing a dequate e ducation in r ural s ettings. Journal of Education Finance, 29, 137 156. Imber, M. (2001 August ). The s truggle for e quity. American School Board Journal, 33 35. Johns, R. L., & Alexander, K. (Ed s.). (1971). Alternative p rograms for f inancing e ducation. Gainesville, FL: National Education Finance Project. Johns, R. L., Alexander, K., & Jordan, K. F. (Eds.). (197 5 ). Planning to f inance e ducation. Gainesville, FL: National Education Finance Projec t. Kramer, L. (2002). Achieving e quitable e ducation t hrough the c ourts: A c omparative a nalysis of t hree s tates. Journal of Law & Education, 31 ( 1) 1 51. Maiden, J. & Evans, N. O. (2009). Fiscal e quity of t eacher s alaries and c ompensation in Oklahoma. Journal of Education Finance, 34, 231 246. Morphet, E. L., Johns, R. L., & Reller, T. L. (1982). Educational o rganization and a dministration: Concepts, p ractices, and i ssues (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Moser, M., & Rubenstein, R. (2002). The e quality of p ublic s chool d istrict f unding in the United States: A n ational s tatus r eport. Public Administration Review, 62 ( 1) 63 72. Murry, G. (2006 November ). School f unding l itigation: Changing the f ace of p ublic e ducation. School Busi ness Affairs, 32 35. Nakib, Y., & Herrington, C. D. (1998). The p olitical e conomy of K 12 e ducation f inance: T he c ontext of a f ast g rowing l arge s tate. Journal of Education Finance, 23, 351 373. Odden, A. (2000). The n ew s chool f inance: Providing a dequ acy and i mproving e quity. Journal of Education Finance, 25, 467 488.

PAGE 221

204 Odden, A. (2003 October ). Equity and a dequacy in s chool f inance t oday. Phi Delta Kappan, 120 125. Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (1992). School f inance: A p olicy p erspective. New York NY: McGraw Hill, Inc. Oesch, J. M., & Paquette, J. (1995). School b ased f inancial e quity in Ontario: 1988 1989. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 312 331. Parrish, T. B., Hikido, C. S., & Fowler, W. L. (1998). Inequalities in p ublic s chool d istrict r ev enue (NCES 98 210). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Picus, L. (2001 December ). How m uch is e nough? American School Board Journal, 28 30. Picus, L., Odden, A., & Fermanich, M. (2004). Assessi ng the e SEEK f ormula: A 10 year a nalysis. Journal of Education Finance, 96, 315 336. Ramirez, A. (2003 January ). The s hifting s ands of s chool f inance. Educational Leadership, 54 57. Rebell, M. A. (1999). Fiscal e quity l itigation an d the d emocratic i mperative. Equity & Excellence in Education, 32(3) 5 18. Reschovsky, A. & Imazeki, J. (2001). Achieving e ducational a dequacy t hrough s chool f inance r eform. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 373 396. Roellke, C., Green, P., & Zielewski E. (2004). School f inance l itigation: The p romises and l imitations of the t hird w ave. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2) 104 133. Rolle, A., Houck, E. A., & McColl, A. (2008). And p oor c hildren c ontinue to w ait: An a nalysis of h orizontal and v erti cal e quity among North Carolina s chool d istricts in the f ace of j udicially m andated p olicy r estraints 1996 2006. Journal of Education Finance, 34, 75 102. Rubenstein, R., Doering, D., & Gess, L. (2000). The e quity of p ublic e ducation f unding in Georgia, 1988 1996. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 187 208. Shiver, L. A. (1982). A h istorical r eview of the d s chool f inance p lan and the f iscal e qualization e ffects of the Florida e ducation f inance p rogram. Unpublished doctoral diss ertation, University of Florida, Gainesville

PAGE 222

205 Taylor, L. (2006). A Comparable Wage Approach to Geographic Cost Adjustment (NCES 2006 321). U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Taylor, L., Alexander, C ., Gronberg, D., Jansen, D., & Keller, H. (2002). Updating the Texas c ost of e ducation i ndex. Journal of Education Finance, 28, 261 284. Thompson, D. & Crampton, F. (2002). The i mpact of s chool f inance l itigation: A l ong v iew. Journal of Education Fina nce, 27, 783 816. Toutkoushian, R. K. & Michael, R. S. (2007). An a lternative a pproach to m easuring h orizontal and v ertical e quity in s chool f unding. Journal of Education Finance, 32, 395 421. Toutkoushian, R. K. & Michael, R. S. (2008). The i mpacts of s chool f unding f ormula m odifications on e quity, f iscal n eutrality, and a dequacy. Journal of Education Finance, 33, 352 380. Verstegen, D. (2002). Financing the n ew adequacy : Towards n ew m odels of s tate e ducation f inance s ystems that s upport s tandar ds b ased r eform. Journal of Education Finance, 27, 749 782. Verstegen, D. A. & Driscoll, L. G. (2008). Educational o pportunity: The Illinois d ilemma. Journal of Education Finance, 33, 331 351. Verstegen, D. A. & Jordan, T. S. (2009). A f ifty s tate s urvey of s chool f inance p olicies and p rograms: An o verview. Journal of Education Finance, 34, 213 230. Vesely, R. S., Crampton, F. E., Obiakor, F. E., & Sapp, M. (2008). The r ole of s tates in f unding e ducation to a chieve s ocial j ustice Journal of Edu cation Finance, 34, 56 74.

PAGE 223

206 B IBLIOGRAPHY Adams, J. E., Jr., & White W. E., II. (1997). The e quity c onsequences of s chool f inance r eform in Kentucky. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 165 184. Addonizio, M. F., Kearney, C. P., & P rince, H. J. (1995). h igh w ire a ct. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 235 269. Addonzio, M. F. (1997). Equality of c hoice? School f inance r eform and the i ncome e xpenditure r elationship. Journal of Education Finance, 23, 22 42. Addonizio, M F. (2003). From f iscal e quity to e ducational a dequacy: Lessons from Michigan. Journal of Education Finance, 28, 457 484. Alexander, K. (1991). Financing the public schools of the United States: A perspective on effort, need, and equity. Oxford Round Table 122 144. Alexander, K., & Salmon, R. G. (1995). Public s chool f inance. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Arnold, M. L. (1998). 3 k inds of e quity. The American School Board Journal, 34 36. Augenblick, J., Gold, S. D., & McGuire, K. (1990). Educat ion f Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 330 098) Augenblick, J., & McGuire, C. K. (1983). Changes in the equity of school finance systems in Oklahoma, Delaware, and Alaska. J ournal of Education Finance, 8, 436 448. Ayers, S., Sparkman, W. F., & Wyatt, T. (1989). Tax r eform j eopardizes tax e xempt s tatus of s chool b onds: The T ax E quity and F iscal R esponsibilities A ct of 1982. Journal of Education Finance, 14, 513 521. Baker, B. D., & Imber, M. (1999). e ducational e p olitics as u sual? Evaluating the o utcome of e ducational f inance l itigation in Kansas. J ournal of Education Finance, 25, 121 140.

PAGE 224

207 Baylis, E. A. (1997). The Oregon m odel: Education r eform b y p ublic m andate. Journal of Law & Education, 26(2), 47 100. Benson, C. (1975). Equity in s chool f inancing: Full s tate f unding. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Berger, C. (1998). Equity w ithout a djudication: Kansas s chool f in ance r eform and the 1992 School District Finance and Quality Performance Act. Journal of Law & Education, 27(1) 1 46. Berne, R. (1988). Equity issues in school finance. Journal of Education Finance, 14, 159 180. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1983). Chan ges in school finance equity: A national perspective. Journal of Education Finance, 8, 419 435. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1984). The m easurement of e quity in s chool f inance: Conceptual, m ethodological, and e mpirical d imensions. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hop kins University Press. Berne, R., & Steifel, L. (1992). Equity standards for state school finance programs: Philosophies and standards relevant to Section 5(d)(2) of the federal impact aid program. Journal of Education Finance, 18, 88 112. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1994). Measuring e quity at the s chool l evel: The f inancial p erspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 405 421. Beversluis, E. H. ( 1985) [Review of the book The m easurement of e quity in s chool f inance: Conceptual, m et hodological, and e mpirical c onsideration ]. Educational Studies, 251 255. Biddle, B., & Berliner, D. (2002 May ). Unequal s chool f unding in the United States. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 48 59. Books, S. (1999). School f undi ng: Justice v. e quity. Equity & Excellence in Education, 32(3), 53 58. Bosworth, M. H. (2001). Courts as c atalysts: State s upreme c ourts and p ublic s chool f inance e quity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bradley, A. (1995). Local f und r ai sing p rompts l arger q uestions a bout e quity. Education Week, 15(6), 1 12.

PAGE 225

208 Brent, B. O. (1999). An a nalysis of the i nfluence of r egional n onresidential e xpanded t ax b ase a pproaches to s chool f inance on m easures of s tudent and t axpayer e quity. Journal of Edu cation Finance, 24, 353 378. Brown, S. L. (1991). Educational finance equity: recent developments in state court. NASSP Bulletin, 80 85. Carroll, S., & Park, R. E. (1983). The s earch for e quity in s chool f inance. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Com pany. Chaikind, S., & Fowler, W. J. (Eds.). (2001). Education f inance in the n ew m illennium: AEFA 2001 y earbook. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Clune, W. H. (2001). [Review of the book Equity and a dequacy in e ducation f inance: Issues and p erspective s ]. Teachers College Record, 103(1), 55 89. Cohn, E., & Smith, M. S. (1989). A d ecade of i mprovement in w ealth n eutrality: A s tudy of s chool f inance in S outh Carolina, 1977 1986. Journal of Education Finance, 14, 380 389. Coleman, P. (1987). Equal o r e quitable?: Fiscal e quity and the p roblem of s tudent d ispersion, Journal of Education Finance, 12, 45 68. Colvin, R. L. (1989). School finance: Equity concerns in an age of reforms. Educational Researcher, 11 15. Coons, J. E. (1978). Can e ducation b e e qual and e xcellent? Journal of Education Finance, 4, 145 157. Crampton, F. E. (1991). The m easurement of e fficiency and e quity in Oregon s chool f inance: The b eginning s tages. Journal of Education Finance, 16, 348 359. Crampton, F. E. (2000). Educa tion f inance l egislative a ctivity and t rends at the s tate l evel. Journal of Education Finance, 25, 597 608. David, R. C., Honeyman, D. S., & Bryers, V. (1990). Equity in Indiana s chool f inance: A d ecade of l ocal l evy p roperty t ax r estrictions. Journal of Education Finance, 16, 83 92. Dayton, J. (1998). An e xamination of j udicial t reatment of r ural s chools in p ublic s chool f unding e quity l itigation. Journal of Education Finance, 24, 179 205. Dively, J. A., & Hickrod, A. (1992). Update of s elected s t s chool e quity f unding l box score Journal of Education Finance, 17, 352 363.

PAGE 226

209 Ericson, D. P. (1984). Liberty and e quality in e ducation: A s ummary r eview. Educational Theory, 43(1), 97 102. Equality in e ducation: Progress, p ro blems, and p ossibilities. (1991). CPRE Policy Brief Series. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 336 828) Fleeter, H. B. (1995). The i mpact of l ocal t ax b ased s haring on s chool f inance e quity in Ohio: Implementation i ssues and c omparative a nalys is. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 270 301. Flickstein, H. A. (1995). Inequalities in e ducational f inancing. Teachers College Record, 96(4), 722 728. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. (1984, September). 1984 85 Florida e ducation f inance p rogram s tatistical r eport (MIS Series 85 03). Tallahassee, FL: Financial Management Section of the Bureau of Management Systems and Services. Florida Department of Education. (2002, September). 2002 03 Funding for Florida s chool d is tricts s tatistical r eport (EIAS Series 2003 06). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting of the Bureau of School Business Services. f unction a nalyses and the s tudy of e ducational f un ding e quity: A m ethodological c ritique. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 21 46. Fox, W., Murray, M, & Price, P. (2002). Stability and e quity in e ducation f inance f ormulas. Journal of Education Finance, 27, 1013 1028. Gallagher, J. J. (1980). Can w e h a ve e quality and e ducational e xcellence? A p roposal for m aximum g ain for m inimum i nvestment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 194 481) Garris, J M, & Cohn, E. (1996). Combining e fficiency and e quity: A n ew f unding a pproach for p ublic e ducation. Journal of Education Finance, 22, 114 134. Geske, T. G. (1984). [Review of the book The s earch for e quity in s chool f inance ]. American Journal of Educa tion, 516 520. Goertz, M., & Edwards, M. (1999). In s earch of e xcellence for a ll: The c ourts and New Jersey s chool f inance r eform. Journal of Education Finance, 25, 5 32.

PAGE 227

210 Green, P. (1996). Equity, a dequacy and e fficiency in New York City s chool f inanc e l itigation. Journal of Education Finance, 22, 88 113. Greene, K. V. (1979). The e qualizing e ffects of d istrict p ower e qualization: A r eview of the e conomics l iterature. Journal of Education Finance, 5, 187 214. Gurwitz, A. S. (1981). The e conomics of p ublic s chool f inance. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 256 014) Guthrie, J. W. (1975). Equity in s chool f inancing: D istrict p ower e qualizing. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. G uthrie, J. W., Garms, W. I., & Pierce, L. C. (1988). School f inance and e ducational p olicy (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Harp, L. (1993). Texas Governor p reaches the g ospel of f inance e quity. Education Week, 12(31), 1, 16 17. H arp, L. (1994). Vermont House c lears p lan to e ncourage e quity. Education Week, 14. Hayes, K. J., Slottje, D. J., & Taylor, L. L. (1993). Equality and f iscal e quity in s chool f inance r eform. Economics of Education Review, 12(2), 171 176. Heinold, D. ( 1983). Impact of f ederal m onies on e quity a mong s tates in K 12 p ublic s chool f inance. Journal of Education Finance, 8, 461 474. Heise, M. (1995). The e ffect of c onstitutional l itigation on e ducation f inance: More p reliminary a nalyses and m odeling. Jou rnal of Education Finance, 21, 195 216. Hendrie, C. (1998). High c ourt in New Jersey e nds f unding s uit. Education Week, 17(37), 1, 15. Hirth, M. A. (1994). A m ultistate a nalysis of s chool f inance i ssues and e quity t rends in Indiana, Illinois, and Mich igan, 1982 1992: The i mplications for 21st c entury s chool f inance p olicies. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 163 190. Hooker, R. (1986). [Review of the book The m easurement on e quity in School Finance ]. Journal of Education Finance, 11, 498 499. Huerta, L. (2006). Next s teps for r esults: Campaign for f iscal e quity v. s tate of New York. Journal of Education Finance, 31(4), 379 394.

PAGE 228

211 Jefferson, A. L. (1983). Assessment of f iscal e quity: How w ell h ave w e d one? Journal of Education Finance, 9, 171 184. Johns, R. L., Alexander, K., & Jordan, F. (1972). Financing e ducation: Fiscal and l egal a lternatives. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Johns, R. L., Alexander, K., & Stollar, D. H. (Eds.). (1971). Status and i mpact of e ducational f i nance p rograms Gainesville, FL: National Education Finance Project. Johns, R. L., Goffman, I. J., Alexander, K., & Stollar, D. H. (Eds.). (1970). Economic f actors a ffecting the f inancing of e ducation. Gainesville, FL: National Education Finance Projec t. Johns, R. L., & Morphet, E. L. (1960). Financing the p ublic s chools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Johns, R. L., Morphet, E. L., & Alexander, K. (1983). The e conomics and f inancing of e ducation (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Johnson, G., & Pillianayagam, M. G. (1991). A l ongitudinal e quity s s chool f inance s ystem 1980 1989. Journal of Education Finance, 17, 60 82. Johnston, R. C. (1997). North Carolina c ourt t argets a dequacy in e quity r uling. Edu cation Week, 20 24. Jordan, K. F., & Lyons, T. S. (1992). Financing p ublic e ducation in an e ra of c hange. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation. Jordan, T. S., Garcia, J. P., Jr., Kops, G., & Jordan, K. F. (1998). School f inance r efor m in New Mexico. Journal of Education Finance, 23, 323 350. Kearney, C. P., & Chen, L. (1989). Measuring e quity in Michigan s chool f inance: A f urther l ook. Journal of Education Finance, 14, 319 367. Keller, B. (2000). School f inance c ase d raws to c lose in New York. Education Week 23, 29. Koski, W. S., & Levin, H. M. (2000). Twenty f ive y ears a fter Rodriguez: What h ave w e l earned ? Teachers College Record, 102(3), 480 513. Krupey, J. E., & Hopeman, A. (1983). Minnesota s chool f inance e quity, 1973 1 982. Journal of Education Finance, 8, 490 501.

PAGE 229

212 Ladd, H. F., Chalk, R., & Hansen, J. S. (Eds.). (1999). Equity and a dequacy in e ducation f inance: Issues and p erspectives. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Lake, P. (1983). Expenditure e quity in t he p ublic s chool of a tlantic Canada. Journal of Education Finance, 8, 449 460. Laubert, L. (2005). Housing m arkets and s chool f inancing. Jo urnal of Education Finance,30 187 208. L arson, L. (1990). State s chool f inance l itigation: A b ackground p aper. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota House of Representatives, St. Paul Research Department. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 335 791) Lindsay, D. (1995). Two f inance c ases s pur New York c ourt to c onsider h ow to m easure e quity. Education Week, 13. Linds ay, D. (1995). West Virginia c ourt r eopens l andmark f inance c ase. Education Week, 9. MacPhail Wilcox, B. (1985). Fiscal e quity for p ublic s chools in a n onreform s tate: North Carolina, 1975 1983. Journal of Education Finance, 10, 417 425. Mathis, W. (20 03). Financial c hallenges, a dequacy, and e quity in r ural s chools and c ommunities. Journal of Education Finance, 29, 119 136. McKinley, S. (2005). The j ourney to a dequacy: The DeRolph s aga (Part 1). Journal of Education Finance,30, 288 312. McKinley, S. (2005). The j ourney to a dequacy: The DeRolph s aga (Part 2). Journal of Education Finance,30, 321 381. McGuire, K. (1994). The c urrent p olicy d ebate in s chool f inance: Why d oes it m atter? The Clearinghouse, 68(2), 71 73. Melvin, L. D. (1984). The l aw of p ublic s chool f inance. Contemporary Education, 55(3), 149 155. Meyers, T. J., Valesky, T. C., & Hirth, M. A. (1995). K 12 e ducation f unding in Tennessee: Equity n ow a dequacy c oming. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 394 409. Molnar, A. (1985). The equality of opportunity trap. Educational Leadership, 60 61. Molnar, A. (1995). School f unding: The r ight i ssue, The w rong l ogic. Educational Leadership, 58 59.

PAGE 230

213 Murphy, J., & Picus, L. O. (1996). Special p rogram e ncroachment on s chool d istrict g eneral f unds in California: Implications for Serrano e qualization. Journal of Education Finance, 21, 366 386. Odden, A. R. (Ed.). (1992) Rethinking s chool f inance: An a San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. Odden, A. R., & Cl une, W. H. (1998). School f inance s ystems: Aging s tructures in n eed of r enovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 157 177. Owens, T., & Maiden, J. (1999). A c omparison of i nterschool and i nterdistrict f unding e quity in Florida. Jou rnal of Education Finance, 24, 503 518. Paquette, J. (1987). Vertical e quity in Ontario e ducation f inance. Journal of Education Finance, 13, 135 157. Phelps, J. L, & Addonizio, M. F. (1981). District p ower e qualizing: Cure a ll or p rescription. Journa l of Education Finance, 7, 64 87. Pipho, C. (1993). School f inance: Moving f rom e quity to p roductivity. Phi Delta Kappan 590 591. Plecki, M. L. (2000). Washington chool f inance r eform: Moderate s uccess and the n eed for i mprovement. Journal of Edu cation Finance, 25, 565 582. Prince, H. (1997). s chool f inance r eform: Initial p upil e quity r esults. Journal of Education Finance, 22, 394 409. Puerta, R. (1999). A Pennsylvania p w ithout a Journal of Law & Education, 28(2), 235 24. Rebell, M. A. (1998). Fiscal e quity l itigation and the d emocratic i mperative. Journal of Education Finance, 24, 23 50. Reinhard, B. (1997). Wisconsin j udge f inds s s chool a id s ystem c onstitutional. E ducation Week, 24. Rossmiller, R. A. (1987). Achieving e quity and e ffectiveness in s chooling. Journal of Education Finance, 12, 561 577. Rydell, L. H. (1983). Equity for t axpayers and e qual o pportunity for s tudents in Maine. Journal of Education Fina nce, 9, 39 52.

PAGE 231

21 4 Sample, P. R., & Hartman, W. T. (1990). An e quity s s chool f inance s ystem. Journal of Education Finance, 16, 49 69. Scheiuer, J. (1983). The e quity of New York s s ystem of f inancing s chools: An u pdate. Journal of Education Finance, 9, 79 96. Schnalberg, L. (1996). Arizona h igh c ourt a gain r ules f inance p lan u nconstitutional. Education Week, 23. Schnalberg, L. (1996). Report f inds n o e asy s olutions for d isparities in s chool f unding. Education Week, 2 3. Shelton, G. H. (2000). Equity for the 21st Century Unpublished Manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 441 895) Slavin, R. E. (1999). How c an f unding e quity e nsure e nhanced a chievement? Journal of Education Finance, 24, 519 582. Smith, C. A. (1994). Simulated p artial p roperty r edistribution in Illinois: An e mpirical and s patial a nalysis. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 191 200. Stark, S., Wood, R. C., & Honeyman, D. S. (1993). The Florida e ducation l ottery: Its u se as a s ubs titute for e xisting f unds and its e ffects on the e quity of s chool f unding. Journal of Education Finance, 18, 231 242. Taylor, L., Chambers, J., & Robinson, J. (2004). A n ew g eographic c ost of e ducation i ndex for Alaska: Old a pproaches with s ome n ew t wis ts. Journal of Education Finance, 30, 51 78. Thompson, D. C., Camp, W., Horn, J. G., & Stewart, G. K. (1988, September). Finance, f acilities, and e quity: Emerging c oncerns for the f uture. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Rural Education R esearch Forum and the National Rural Education Association Convention, Bismark, SD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 307 087) Thompson, D. C., Honeyman, D. S., & Wood, R. C. (1993). The Kansas s chool d istrict e qualization a ct: A s tudy of f isca l e quity f unding c ategories. Journal of Education Finance, 19, 36 68. Underwood, J. K. (1989). Changing e qual p rotection a nalyses in f inance e quity l itigation. Journal of Education Finance, 14, 413 425.

PAGE 232

215 Underwood, J. K. (1994). School f inance l itigat ion: Legal t heories, j udicial a ctivism, and s ocial n eglect. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 143 162. Verstegen, D. A. (1987). Equity in s tate e ducation f inance: A r esponse to Rodriguez. Journal of Education Finance, 12, 315 330. Verstegen, D. A. (199 4). Efficiency and e quity in the p rovision and r eform of American s chooling. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 107 131. Vergstegen, D. A. (1996). Concepts and measures fiscal inequality: A new approach and effects for five states. Journal of Education Finance, 22, 145 160. Verstegen, D. A. (2000). Author E. Wise and the p romise of e qual e ducational o pportunity. Journal of Education Finance, 25, 583 596. Verstegen, D. A. (2002, October). The new finance. American School Board Journal, 24 26. Vers tegen, D. A., & Salmon, R. G. (1988). Virginia e ducation f inance r eform: Have e xcellence and e quity b een a chieved? Journal of Education Finance, 14, 200 220. Verstegen, D. A., & Salmon, R. G. (1989). The c onceptualization & m easurement of e quity in s cho ol f inance in Virginia. Journal of Education Finance, 15, 205 228. Verstegen, D. A., & Salmon, R. G. (1991). Assessing f iscal e quity in Virginia: Cross t ime c omparisons Journal of Education Finance, 16, 416 430. Vesely, R. & Crampton, F. (2004). An a ssessment of v ertical e quity in f our s tates: Addressing r isk f actors in e ducation f unding f ormulas. Journal of Education Finance, 30 111 122. Vinik, D. F. (1996). The c ontrasting p olitics of r emedy: The Alabama and Kentucky s chool e quity f unding s uit s. Journal of Education Finance, 22, 60 87. Ward, J. G. (1987). In p ursuit of e quity and a dequacy: Reforming s chool f inance in Illinois. Journal of Education Finance, 12, 107 120. Wekhart, L. A., & Buoncristiano, B. A. (1984). Educational f inance and e ducational e xcellence: A p rogrammic a pproach to s chool f inance r eform. Brooklyn, NY: New York City Board of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 244 382)

PAGE 233

216 White, K. A. (1997). r uling, Judge o rders West Virginia f unding p l an. Education Week, 20. Williams, M. F. (1983). Small c p rogress t oward g reater s chool f inance e quity. Journal of Education Finance, 9, 97 115. Wong, K. K. (1999). Funding p ublic s chools: Politics and p olicies. Lawrence, KS: Universi ty Press of Kansas.

PAGE 234

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Curtis Todd Bowden received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration with a major in Accounting from the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida in 1993. He subsequently earned a Masters of Ed ucation Degree in Educational Leadership from the University of South Florida in 1998. Mr. Bowden is a third generation educator, following both his mother and his grandmother on his father's side into the profession. He has worked in a variety of instru ctional and administrative positions with the school districts of Hillsborough and Sarasota Counties on Florida's gulf coast. His administrative experiences include assistant principal positions at both a comprehensive and a technical high school in Hil lsborough County. He has also served as an adult high school principal and an adult technical school principal in Hillsborough County. Mr. Bowden currently serves as the director of the Sarasota County Technical Institute in Sarasota, Florida.