=6

MICROCOPY RESOLUtION tESt CRAMNg" r,t, otplab t i ,witimib, l'I., A

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 105 557 EA 006 944

AUTHOR Heffley, John E.TITLE Financing Public Education in Massachusetts: A

Process for Revision.INSTITUTION Massachusetts Adviscry Council on Education,

Boston.PUB DATE Feb 75NOTE 115p.; Related documents are ED 083 906, ED 097 755

and EA 066 806; Pages 103-106 may reproduce poorly

EMIS PRICE NF-40.76 HC -$5.70 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Change Strategies; *Educational Finance; Elementary

Secondary Education; *Equal Education; EqualizationAid; *Finance Reform; Financial Support; *PoliticalInfluences; Regional Cooperation; School DistrictAutonomy; State Aid

IDENTIFIERS Massachusetts

ABSTRACTThe attitudes and opinions of Massachusetts

legislators, municipal leaders, and educators regarding schoolfinance reforn reveal that school finance reform should aim for equaleducational opportunity. Future school aid reform should be a totalprogram to provide aid to cities and towns, gradually raisingeducation's share to 50 percent state aid with certain programs fullyfunded. A legislative commission is asked to issue finance reformguidelines. Property tax assessment equalization, biannualeducational program cost different4.al reports, local control overfiscal policy, and regionalized school districts are conceptsfavorably recommended. The State Department of education is asked toshare more educational planning with local districts and to requirestandardized financial reports. (Author/DV)

U S OEPARTmENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION WELFARENATiONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION?DI, Du( *Ar. N BEEN REPRO0,,ct E ItA( ft, Y Ai OttE.vED F R(),6,v.,F. It sous% oR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN

thC, IT POIN T`, 0, .IF V. OR OPINIONSSTATED Da NOT NECESSARMY REPRESENT 0, I ILIA,. NA TONAL INSTITUTE 0,

0,, A T tON DR POLICY

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO ERIC AND RATIONS OPERATIAUNDER/X./KW NTS WITH THE NATIONAL IN

STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER ALPRO

DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE.

OUtRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT

OWNER

ove

financing public education in Alassachusetts

a process for revision

study director

John E. Heffley

2

a study conducted for the

massachuselts advisory council

on education

February, 1975

The Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education is an independent state agency created by special legislation(General Laws, Chapter 15, Section 1 H) for the purpose of recommending policies designed to improve the per-formance of all public education systems in the Commonwealth. As such the Advisory Council provides support forstudies which will recommend policies promoting and facilitating the coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency ofthese educational systems."Copyright ©1975' by the Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Allrights reserved.Reproduction of the whole or any substantial part of the contents of this report requires prior written permission ofthe Advisory Council on Education. It is the current policy of the Council to give such permission for non-commercialreproduction."

Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education

Ex OfficioGregory R. Anrig, Commissionerof Education

Patrick E. McCarthy, Chancellor,Board of Higher Education

Members of the CouncilMary E. Warner, Chairman,Engineer, Sunderland

Benjamin D. Fleet, Vice-Chairman,President, Fleet Tire, Inc., SandwichOliver W. Kerr, Account Manager,N.E. Telphone Company, SpringfieldElaine Kistiakowsky, League ofWomen Voters, CambridgeMilton Paisner, General Manager,Electronic Products, Inc., Newburyport

Walter J. Ryan, Business Manager,International Union of OperatingEngineers, Local 4, Roslindale

Nina E. Scarito, Obstetrician, Methuen

Verne W. Vance, Jr., Attorney,Foley, Hoag & Eliot, Boston

StaffRonald J. Fitzgerald, Director ofResearch

Allan S. Hartman and Ronald B. JacksonAssociate Directors of Research

Joan Fitzgerald, AdministrativeAssistant

Study Advisory Collin:Wee

Kevin Jones, Staff Member, Committee on Education,General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Paul Gordon, Massachusetts Association of SchoolCommittees

Catherine Minicucci, Associate Planner, MassachusettsDepartment of Education

Sean Dunphy, Mayor, City of Northampton

Richard Clark, Assistant Dean for Teacher Education,University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Ramona Hilgenkamp, Executive Office of EducationalAffairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Florence Rubin, President, Massachusetts League ofWomen VotersCharlotte Ryan, President, Massachusetts Congress ofParents, Teachers and Students

John Olver, State Senator, Commonwealth ofMassachusetts

George Hill, Executive Director, MassachusettsAssociation of School Superintendents

Felix Zollo, Jr., Director of Research, MassachusettsTeachers Association

Connie Kaufman, Senior Researcher, Committee orEducation, General Court of the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts

Allan Hartman, Associate Director of Research,Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education

Ronald Fitzgerald, Director of Research, MassachusettsAdvisory Council on Education

H. Felix de C. Pereira, Chairman, The Governor'sCommission on School District Organization andCollaboration

Legislative Consulting CommitteeNicholas J. Buglione, State Representative, MethuenEdward L. Burke, State Senator, FraminghamWalter J. Boverini, State Senator, LynnMichael J. Daly, State Representative, BrightonMary I.. Fonseca, State Senator, Fall RiverAnn C. Gannett, State Representative, WaylandFrank J, Matrango, State Representative, North AdamsWilliam L. Saltonstall, State Senator, Manchester 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

Preface

The ProblemThe Approach

Observations

Recommendations in Detail

Summary of Recommendations

Appendix A:

Appendix B:

Appendix C:

Appendix D:

Appendix E:

Discussion of StudyMethodology

Cities and Towns Involvedin Study

Questionnaire and Tally ofResp- -ses

Fiscal and School Data of Citiesand Towns in Study Sample

Pageii

iii

1

8

13

32

67

69

73

94

Model School Aid Program 98

4

FOREWORD

This report addresses the issue of finance reform for public school programsin Massachusetts. It shows that there if, a great need for such reform. Thevariation in fiscal support and effort for school districts across the Common-wealth is a major cause of inequality in educational opportunity. It is a varia-tion recognized by most respondents to the study.

The question of equal opportunity in education is complex. Therefore we re-commend that this report be considered in conjunction with three other MACEreports;

1. EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN THEPUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS (October, 1974). This study bythe Governor's Commission on School District Organization and Collabo-ration provides information on steps needed to ensure that finance reformresults in equalization of opportunity. (E:t., 0'7 765)

2. HIGHER EDUCATION IN MASSACHUSETTS: A NEW LOOK AT SOMEMAJOR POLICY ISSUES (June, 1973). This study by the Academy forEducational Development provides recommendations on planning and

OnEitsf4r4qualization of opportunity on the college and university level.

3. MASSACHUSETTS TAXES: A FACTUAL GUIDE TO FUTURE ACTION(December, 1974). This report by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Founda-tion described the realities of taxation and revenue raising that must befaced by all finance reformers. ot)(pweptc.)

Failure to consider any one of these areas concurrently with the question offinance reform in education would be unrealistic and inimical to the best inter-ests of the citizens and taxpayers of Massachusetts. Equal opportunity should-exist on all levels of education. However it should not be at the expense of anyone geographic or economic group.

This report contains recommendations based on a careful survey of many poli-tical and educational representatives across the Commonwealth. It recognizesthat finance reform is a political question and not just a matter of educationalequity. The question is one of addressing the aspirations of all citizens as wellas the legitimate hopes of educational leaders. This report, therefore, focuseson that dimension as a supplement to more specific reform proposals from theState Board of Education and other organizations.

The conclusions and recommendations in this study are the sole responsibilityof the project director. However, his efforts were aided immensely by thequestions and ideas defined by an outstanding advisory committee. The AdvisoryCouncil on Education is grateful to the members of that committee for their fineservice to the Commonwealth.

We now offer this report to the General Court, the Governor, the Secretary ofEducational Affairs, the state boards of education, and the general public as oneof the "yardsticks" that can be used to analyze proposals for finance reform ineducation. In conjunction with the other reports mentioned earlier in this fore-word, this document can be especially useful to the Commission on Equal Edu-cational Opportunity.

Ronald J. FitzgeraldDirector of Research

for theAdvisory Council on Education

S

PREFACE

This study was designed to sample attitudes and opinions concerningschool finance from political and educational leaders across thestate of Massachusetts. From this information and from findings ofresearchers and other existing studies we have attempted to developrecommendations which would lead eventually to a more equitablesystem of financing education in the state.

In this study, "equity" proved to be one of those things seen differentlyby different people. To some, the term meant a better distributionof existing resources - to others, the term implied extensive changesin the process by which the state identified and contributed to the costof local public education. Few, if any, ideas or proposals had unan-imous support among educators, municipal officials, and legislatorsparticipating in the study. As a matter of interpretive synthesis, wehave used the concept of "equity" which implies fair and impartialdispersal of state aid to insure fair and impartial access to educationfor all young people regardless of their residence.

Paul Cook, in the Preface to his MACE study on Modernizing_SchoolGovernance for Educational Equality and Diversi, states that "theissue has become one of finding new ways to meet the responsibilityto provide a system of public education that fairly responds to theneeds of all young people and of the state itself. " Th,..t issue is stillthe germane one in the commonwealth and it is an issue that is onlypartially addressed by the question of school finance. Until that ques-tion is fully addressed and a reasonable solution evolved, the equityproblem grows increasingly more complex since even the access toeducation is heavily influenced by where one lives.

A number of people have played important parts in this study. Indivi-duals long active and deeply committed to the proper distribution offunds within the state to help bring a sense of fiscal equity in educationvolunteered to serve on an advisory committee. They continually chal-lenged me to insure that the quality of this study was high. Their ques-tions, suggestions, and encouragement was a source of strength through-out the study. My appreciation is genuinely extended for their help andsupport.

My special appreciation goes to Charlotte Ryan. Charlotte has specialexpertise in the area of school finance and she gave extensively of hertime and constructive criticism/encouragement to insure that the studydid not become too narrow in its approach and in its conclusions.

Several people provided editorial and administrative support farbeyond the call of duty. Billie Howes and Alice Modrzakowskigave me much assistance in preparing data, typing drafts, hand-ling questionnaires and correspondence, and preparing the finalcopy. Their help was invaluable.

Finally, many thanks are due to Allan Hartman and Ron Fitzgeraldof the Advisory Council on Education. They helped in ways tooenumerable to list to help bring together good advice and counsel.

The scope of the completed study may appear to be broader thanmight have been handled using the most stringent standards of re-search technique. I have to acknowledge the limitations of the studyand to accept the fact that those most intimately involved in the pro-cess of revising school finance in the state may criticize the findingsand recommendations. The intent was, and is, to stimulate thoughtto insure that the resulting adjustments in the way in which we pro-vide equity to individual students is proper and just. Any other per-spective tends to be self-serving.

Obviously, I assume full responsibility for the report of the study.If it serves any useful purpose in helping to make the conditions foreducation to take place a little better then we can find considerablesatisfaction in its results.

Amherst, MassachusettsFebruary, 1975

John E. Heffley

7

- 1 -

THE PROBLEM

In the early 1960s, a series of widely-read articles appearedin The Boston _Globe_ entitled "The Mess in Bay State Education."The authors and researchers of the series, Ian Menzies and IanForman detailed the basic structural flaws which they saw in thepublic education process in Massachusetts. They cited a numberof deficiencies, including the following:

- - An archaic, inequitable formula of state aid which rankedthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts 47th among the statesin state support of public schools.

A heavy reliance on local property taxes to fund education,a reliance which meant that "the standard of education hasbecome geared to the accident of geographic location."That is, real estate - poor communities were unable topurchase the same level of educational services as wealthiercommunities.

- - A large number of high school students enrolled in a so-called "general curriculum" which was neither flesh norfowl; it prepared them neither for a job nor college.

A failure to plan and coordinate for an intelligible and com-prehensive system of education, a failure endemic "sinceHorace Mann first gave public education here its impetusin 1838."

- - A tradition of "every town for itself" which severely limitedthe possibility of state-coordinated action.

These deficiencies, along with a number of other conclusionsadded up to a simple indictment: Massachusetts education hadfailed to achieve either of the two most basic goals of schooling;quality education and equality of opportunity.

The _Globe_ series proved to be the catalyst to articulate a grow-ing concern about education in the state. In 1964, the state legisla-ture established the Willis-Harrington Commission to conduct anextensive two-year study of public education in the Commonwealth.From the Commission came a number of recommended changes whichwould have extensively altered the process and organization of educa-tion within the state. A number of the recommendations formulatedby the Commission were enacted by the Legislature and agencies ofthe Commonwealth. Many of the recommendations went into legisla-tive committees and were never reported out, thus going unheeded.

8

2

In 1966, a major revision of the mechanism to provide stateaid to education was effected. The General Court approved underChapter 70 of the Laws of 1966, a process for state aid to educa-tion based upon a percentage equalization formula. The law wasdesigned to provide reimbursement aid equal to about 35 percentof the total operating school costs in the Commonwealth. Indivi-dual cities and towns would receive varying percentages of stateaid ranging from a minimum of 15 percent to a maximum of 75percent of their operating expenses, according to their ability topay. This fo,:mula, by distributing state aid on a sliding scale andbasing the percentage upon a community's equalized wealth, was anattempt to remove the inequities which exist between wealthy andpoor towns. Under such a program, poorer towns would receivemore state aid than wealthy towns.

The intended effectiveness of the formula has never been com-pletely realized, however. The General Court has consistently failedto provide the necessary funds to fully reimburse cities and towns asprovided by the law. Added to this problem of adequate funding andcomplicating the issue of true equalization between towns of substan-tially different fiscal capacity are the problems caused by the minimumand maximum limits established in the law. For instance, the stateaid percentage max rise as high as 75 percent but nay not decline be-low 15 percent. Thus, the poorer districts in the state can not receivemore than 75 percent reimbursement and the most wealthy districtsare guaranteed at least 15 percent.

For the years 1973 - 1974, the following table illustrates the re-lative distribution of the "school aid percentage" among the cities andtowns.

Table 1

School AidPercentage15. 0

Number of Citiesand Towns Qualifying_

8815.1 - 30.0 4930.0 - 45.0 8745.1 - 60.0 11060.1 - 74.9 1675. 0 1 Source: "Analysis of School

Total 351 Aid to Massachusetts Citiesand Towns"Department of Education -1973 / 74

9

While only one school district qualifies for the upper limitof 75 percent reimbursement, 88 cities and towns are entitledto 15 percent reimbursement, or the minimum. Thus one-quarter of the school districts (cities and towns), while possess-ing a high level of fiscal resources receive the 15 percent mini-mum reimbursement whether they have need or not.

This guarantee of a 15 percent minimum has a significantimpact on the process of seeking equity in state aid. The effectof giving the more wealthy communities reimbursement of 15percent is to minimize relatively the aid received by poorer schooldistricts. As an example, Boston receives 57.8 percent of itsreimburseable expenditures under the 1973-74 Chapter 70 entitle-ment. Movement toward any true sense of equalization is blockedby the fact that the state is also providing 88 communities, withhigh levels of local fiscal resources, school aid equal to 15 per-cent of their reimburseable expenses. (1)

When the Globe articles were published over ten years agoMassachusetts was one of the wealthiest states in the nation basedon per capita income. At the time, the state also ranked 47thamong the states in state aid to education. Today, Massachusetts,which is still one of the wealthiest states in the nation if per capitaincome is used as a guideline, still ranks near the bottom in stateaid to education. Effectively, only 24.2 percent of the total reve-nues required for public education is provided by the state. Table 2shows Massachusetts to be substantially below the national averageof 43.0 percent for state aid to education.

The low percentage of state aid is a direct result of continuedreliance upon the local property tax as the primary source of schoolrevenues. And this reliance is a major factor in denying studentsaccess to the resources necessary for any legitimate claim to equal-ity of educaticnal opportunity. /

(1) See "Brief Amicuc Curiae on Behalf of Massachusetts EducationalConference Board" in the case of Timilty v. Sargent (U. S.District Court, District of Massachusetts) Civil ActionNo. 71- 2813 -G for a similar analysis of the state aid formula.

10

TABLE 2

REVENUE SOURCES FOR PUBLICELEMENTARY and SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Federal State Local_

Alabama 14.4% 68.0% 17.6%Alaska 16.87 62.8% 20.3%%

3544. 91%%16 37. 47 48.875o

38. 5%%

ArizonaArkansasCalifornia 6.7% 42.1% 51.27.Colorado 7. 3% 35.3% 57.4%

73. 8%Delaware 23. 7%Connecticut 3. I%

88. 6%D. C.61:46Ts.

8.7%5575. 01°,1

34.27Florida33. 0%Georgia

88. 8%I 2. 0%

8. 2%11.1%

Hawaii

5. 9%43. 3%

3. Of.Idaho

40. 0%45. 6%

Illinois

35. 3%

54. I%Indiana 5.1% 32. 7% 62.2%

50. 577ve.

Iowa 4.9709Kansas 8.0% 31.4% 60.5%

Kentucky 1 3. 8%5565. 02% 30. 1%%

31.0%Louisiana 14.0%Maine 9, 3%* 35. 0%*

47. 1%55.7 %s

Maryland 6.2%24. 2%

46. 7%Massachusetts 5. 2% 70.77.Michigan 50.0 %* 46, 0%*

58. 1%2.373 0743%Mississippi 24.5%

Minnesota44.. 70%%*

52.5%Missouri 7.670 35.9% 56.4°% e%

Montana8

51. 5%*40. 07oe7. 6 9%%* 4201.. 88%% 71, 3%Nebraska

Nevada 6.1%7. 4%

52.1%New Hampshire 3.0%

28. 7% 6895,66 °,e. O.New Jersey 5.7%64.4%

51 69 . 06 .15 "..

New Mexico146. 89%%New York10. 5%North Carolina 68. 7%

433493... 933;

20.8%47. 0%North Dakota 9. 1%58. 5%Ohio 7. 3%

44. 8%Oklahoma 9. 3% 45, 9%Oregon 4.1% 24.4% 71.5 °,iPennsylvania 6.8% 49.7% 43.5%Rhode Island 8. I% 36.4% 55.5%

7226. 08;'

I 5. 87eSouth Carolina14. 9%

57. 4%

I 3. I%1 3. 0%South Dakota

118.. 0277.0

Tennessee 45. I%47. 5%

41.8%41. 5%35. 0%

Texas56, 8%Utah

Vermont 6.17.3363. 7871.°

60.9`"052. 8%34. 85e*

Virginia I8.

47°4Washington 56. 5%*West Virginia 1 2. 574 57, 57. 30.07.

40. 0% 56.87WyomingW yi con n 3. 3%

I I. I% 36. 7% 52.2%

TOTAL U.S. 7.5% 43, 07. 49.5%

Note: *EstimatedSource:"Estimate of School Status,1973-74

National Education Association

ii.

-4

Much has been written and stated by the myriad of studiesabout the educational problems which are caused by inequities inthe process of providing financial support for schools. Also,much has been written in an attempt to establish the premise thatincreased financial aid alone will not guarantee improved instruc-tional quality if factors relating to the process and organization ofthe educational establishment are unchanged. Simply stated,changes in fiscal policy alone will not cause schools in Massachu-setts to improve the quality of or to make more equitably availablethe improved educational resoltrces available to students.

At the same time, a continuation of inequities in school financeparticularly when these inequities are transformed into inequitiesin the quality and amount of resources available to students andteachers, will perpetuate the problems of providing equality of edu-cational opportunity. Perhaps this point was best made in a workby John Coons and others in 1 970 by saying that the poor should havethe same opportunity that the rich have to prove that more resources(may) not improve education. (2) It is imperative that any seriousdiscussion of educational equity then start at first instance with thequestions surrounding the source and availability of financial re-sources.

Expanding upon the issue raised above about the commitment onthe part of the state toward improving the distribution and amount offunding available to the local school districts, one needs to look atthe situation in Massachusetts at the present time. Table III showsthe range of differences among selected school districts in the statein three areas - local capacity to raise funds for school expendi-tures, equalized school tax rates, and expenditures per pupil.

These data demonstrate that large disparities do exist in ? calwealth, school tax effort, and levels of individual school systeia: ex-penditures. The differences between the highest and lowest indivi-dual district values are extreme. (3)

This issue is discussed in John E. Coons, et al. Private Weaand Public Education. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: BelknapPress, 1970)The information on highest and lowest communities in each instance is provided only for extremes. In many cases the coimunity is unusually.small or does not operate a full schoolprogram within the jurisdiction of a single or regional schoodistrict.

.,.....0..,

1

lth

5

Given the continuing dependence on the local property tax toraise local revenue, the most significant variation appears inequalized valuation Ter school attendinz child. This is the mea-sure of local ability to pay for schools used in Chapter 70 as itis now written. Variation in equalized school tax rates and fundsapplied by local districts is also quite high, which tends to re-flect a synthesis of fiscal ability and local commitment to thefunding of education.

Disparities in local wealth are particularly important inso-far as they will affect variation in tax effort and school spendingat the local level so long as they are not offset by state supportand/or financial intervention. Prior studies of school financehave consistently concluded that local wealth is the most impor-tant single factor affecting expenditures for education. Data avail-able from cities and towns in Massachusetts (Table 3) support thisconclusion. There is a consistent pattern wherein equalized valua-tion per child exceeds the state average. The expenditure per stu-dent also exceeds state averages. Notable exceptions are the threemajor cities in the sample - Boston, Springfield, Worcester. Ineach case, local pressures and cost differentials have caused perpupil cost to exceed state averages, extensively in Boston and Wor-cester, moderately in Springfield, even though equalized valuationin each city is over twenty-five percent lower than the state average.

In contrast to this situation, a more equitable process of publicschool finance would equitably reward a:community in proportion toits own effort to provide good schools. This process would thenbreak the tie between local wealth and educational offering, the tieby which the present school financing system binds some co.nmuni-ties to inferior schools while rewarding others with educational ex-cellence achieved in a relatively "painless" manner. It would bedifficult to defend a state system where, for example, two districtshave similar school tax rates but one provides substantially moreper pupil spending as the other, or, two districts spend the same a-mount per pupil but one must levy school taxes at a higher rate thanthe other. Table (3) includes limited and selected examples, but theyillustrate a pattern of inequitable disparities that affect individuallocalities in each state. (4)

(4) Similar conclusions and observations were afforded by a ResearchReport to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in 1970 by StevenJ. Weiss, "Existing Disparities in Public School Finance andProposals for Reform. "

13

TA

BL

E 3

Dis

trib

utio

n of

Com

mun

ity F

isca

l Abi

lity,

Eff

ort,

and

Per

Pupi

l Exp

endi

ture

sSe

lect

edC

omm

uniti

es19

73-

1974

Com

mun

ityE

qual

ized

Val

uatio

n Pe

rSt

ate

Equ

aliz

ed S

choo

lFu

nds

App

lied

per

Stat

eSc

hool

Atte

ndin

g C

hild

Ran

kT

ax R

ate

-1

973

1000

Val

uatio

nR

ank

Tot

al P

erPu

pil C

ost

Stat

eR

ank

And

over

32, 8

9994

31.3

038

.05

239

II 7

8. 1

254

Bar

nsta

ble

63, 8

3429

9.00

19. 8

632

310

84. 8

510

9

Bos

ton

16, 5

8131

.35

. 54

65. 9

534

1223

.00

43B

rook

line

68, 9

0127

21.7

526

. 94

300

1672

. 14

6

Cam

brid

ge39

, 370

6631

, 59

41. 8

920

916

98.1

35

Chi

cope

e16

, 364

322

22. 3

351

.33

119

845.

4731

6

Eve

rett

46, 9

7641

23.8

222

, 25

321

II 7

8. 7

253

Fitc

hbur

g26

,165

154

27.2

435

.64

256

999.

1320

7L

ongm

eado

w41

, 836

5523

. 70

30.7

328

412

05. 8

647

Med

ford

23,6

1418

327

.26

40.9

921

898

7.62

213

New

Bed

ford

17, 6

4430

227

, 68

53.6

510

387

8. 5

629

4N

orth

ampt

on29

.575

119

29.9

637

.13

246

1146

. 17

72

Pitts

fiel

d24

, 541

175

28.6

443

.52

1 94

1058

. 4S

142

Sale

m30

, 733

106

29. 5

736

. 28

251

1027

. 78

171

Scitu

ate

21, 6

1122

428

. 24

52. 2

611

797

7. 3

022

4Sp

ring

fiel

d17

, 105

315

33.9

457

.02

7998

6. 5

121

4

Tau

nton

16, 6

7531

729

. 09

60. 3

5 ,

6185

3.02

310

Wal

tham

45,1

36

4420

. 56

26. 9

030

111

43.0

273

Wob

urn

24,2

7917

825

,51

42.2

020

398

6.49

215

Wor

cest

er18

, 775

282

39. 5

661

.72

5411

76.1

555

Stat

e T

otal

/Ave

rage

25,5

5127

.52

15.0

696

4.20

Hig

h C

omm

unity

Row

e37

8,78

81

New

bury

55.0

4A

yer

106.

671

Gos

nold

2570

.78

1

Low

Com

mun

ity.

Aye

r8.

003

351

Gos

nold

3.02

1-1

Mou

nt W

ashi

ngto

n6,

97

351

P crM

erri

mac

638.

7735

1C

P

Sour

ce:

Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion

Dat

a C

onta

ined

in A

nnua

l Rep

orts

for

Yea

r E

ndin

g Ju

ne 3

0.19

73

6

Throughout this report, the point will be emphasized thatsolving the problems of revenue raising and distribution alonewill not make substantially equal educational resources avail-able to children. This position is not unique for educators in-volved in researching school finance and its complexities haveconsistently taken this position. Joel S. Berke, in one of hismost recent works, Answers to Ineasibr, speaks to this issue.

"When scholars in the sixties examined the impact of stateaid formulas and local finance provisions, frequently employingthe concepts and methods of economics and political science,they found a series of significant defects. Equalization formulaswere so diluted and the proportion of state funding was so lowthat property valuation repeatedly turned out to be the primarydeterminant of spending levels for elementary and secondaryschools, despite the fact that most educational aid was nominallyclassified as equalizing.

"The employment of public finance concepts and methods de-monstrated the rudimentary character of statutory measures offiscal capacity, the measures that determine how much a localitymight be expected to contribute from its own resources. The re-liance on property value per pupil made no provision for the farheavier demands on urban tax bases for general municipal ser-vices than on suburban or rural resources. Similarly, a betterunderstanding of the productivity of different typcs of property hadlittle impact on aid formulas.

"Nor had much educational theory been incorporated into fund-ing schemes. The developing understanding that different types ofpupils require different resources for effective learning was seldomlinked to systems of resource distribution. While a number of stateformulas had long distinguished between elementary and secondaryschool pupils, few states had come to grips through their generalaid formulas with the particular needs of pupils with learning prob-lems or with special requirements such as the physically and men-tally handicapped, or of pupils in vocational programs. "(5)

(5) Joel S. Berke, Answers to Inequity. Berkeley: McCutchenPublishing Corporation, 1974, pp. 3f

15

7

In a more localized sense, a recent study conducted byPaul W. Cook, Jr., for the Massachusetts Advisory Councilon Education observed that it was overwhelmingly evident thatfiscal measures alone, relying on a mix of state aid and differ-entiated incentives favoring poorer districts, will not cause ed-ucational resources available to children to approach equality.This does not say that fiscal measures are unimportant; theyaffect the average commitment level and the equity of the reve-nue and expenditure system. It would be difficult to sustain apolicy of educational equity that was not supported by fiscal equity.However, "the educational leadership should redirect much of itseffort to achieve equality of educational opportunity down a muchsimpler, more direct and more easily implementable route. Thatroute is to mandate substantially equal educational resources forthe public school attending children in the state, regardless ofwhere their parents may happen to live. u(6)

It would appear, therefore, that the final equity criterion ofany educational system will not be found exclusively in financialdistributions, though these are important. The final criterion willlikely be found in two areas:

One, in the uses made of education - who does what forwhom, under what conditions, and with what degreeof skill;

Two, in the commitment of political and educationalleaders that inequities in the process of educationare to be eliminated and that the obvious discre-pencies between tax effort and yield on the one handand educational needs and resources on the other arebridged. Commitment alone is not a valid criteriaof equity within an educational system. It does con-stitute the necessary "first instance" ingredient,however, which enables the other steps to be taken.Lacking such commitment, the actions of politicaland educational leaders tend to be non-productive inthis area.

(6) Paul W. Cook, Jr. Modernizing School Governance for EducationalEquality and Diversity. A Study for the Massachusetts AdvisoryCouncil on Education, Boston, September 1972, pp 80 f.

16

-g

THE APPROACH

"Throughout its history this Nation has stressed education asthe primary means of guaranteeing every citizen an equal chanceat obtaining the rewards of an open society. If educational oppor-tunities are unequal, then the American experiment in equality ofopportunity must fail. The evidence indicates that we are _indeedfailing. Nor is thee any strong indication that we are about to cor-rect this failure."( )

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, like the overwhelmingmajority of states in America, is annually helping to prove this ob-servation through the practice of permitting wide variance in thetotal resources available to the educational process. A multiplicityof studies in recent years have clearly identified the inequity prob-lems between the ability of wealthy communities to fund high qualityschool programs and the inability of other communities to providebasic skill instruction.

Since 1 966 the state of Massachusetts has had a system of finan-cial aid to schools designed to help reduce the reliance upon the localproperty tax as a source of school financing. This program, admin-istered through a complex formula in Chapter 70 of the General Laws,is designed to be equalizing - i.e., to channel more state revenue topoor districts than to wealthy ones.

In actual practice, Chapter 70 aid - while designed to be equ tl-_izing and to reduce reliance on the property tax - is basically anincentive formula, based on local educational expenditures and, tocomplete the circle, these expenditures are determined by the wealthof the community. The wealthier communities can raise and spendmore money per pupil than the poor ones. Thus, even though the poorercommunities may qualify for a higher aid percentage, it is frequentlyapplied to a lower per pupil expenditure.

In general, studies concerning school finance in recent yearshave expanded upon the obvious disparities between community re-sources and have recommended changes in the method of allocatingstate aid for education. These recommendations have been in two gen-eral categories:

(7) Alan K. Campbell, "Inequities of School Finance," SaturdayReview, Vol. LII (January 11, 1 969) - p. -44

17

9

(1) Upward adjustments to the aid percentage in the Chapter 70formula.

(2) Comprehensive tax reforms encompassing extensive adjust-ments in the state sales tax as well as the personal and cor-porate income taxes.

Recent studies have provided much valuable research on theexisting situation in financing public education within the state.Legislation resulting from these studies has not resulted in majorchanges in the state aid to education program, however. In the sev-eral cases where major adjustments were proposed the legislationwas not enacted because the proposal was not politically attractive orsubstantial additional funding was required which the political leadersof the state could not support.* (See Note Below)

It would appear, therefore, that a proposed change in the stateaid program in education should be jointly evolved between politicaland educational interests and should reflect sufficient changes in theprocess to insure genuine equalizing provisions.

This study was proposed to look at the process of funding edu-cation in the Commonwealth. A comprehensive sampling of the atti-tudes and opinions held by educational and political leaders in thestate would be effected and presented through the Advisory Councilon Education. The resulting recommendations would then be distri-buted to legislators, the Depart ent of Education, the MassachusettsEducational Conference Board, public tax reform groups, city andtown officials and other interested groups for discussion and comment.The important facet in the design and conduct of the study would be therecognition that in the final analysis, the decision to significantly changestate funding for education would likely be more of a political concernthan an educational one and, therefore, the political needs, attitudes,and opinions of officials representing the cities and towns should beconsidered from the outset.

From the beginning, the intent of the study would be to make thefindings and recommendations of the study available to a legislativecommission working on equalization of educational opportunity and toother interest groups planning alternative proposals for the funding ofpublic education. The rationale for this approach was well-stated inthe MACE study on modernizing school governance conducted by PaulCook.

-:: Recent Major Legislative Bills Relating to School Finance(Note)rt17 session - nnateill 7513,-Benate Bill-9g5:5772

1972/73 Session - Senate Bill 412, House Bill 1876;1973/74 Session - MTA Bill

18

- 10 -

"Massachusetts seems unintentionally to have done about allit possibly could to insure that cities and towns would have bad re-lationships with their school systems. In the school situation, citiesand towns and school districts are responsible to essentially the sameelectorates, since in the typical case, the city or town is the schooldistrict. Issues and officials for school and town appear typically onthe same ballots or warrants. This tends to involve the non-parentgroup in school affairs more than would otherwise be the case, andthe result is less support for schools. The school system has beengiven fiscal autonomy, which appears to mean that the school commit-tee can establish whatever budget it wants, and the resulting tax goeson the city tax rate, albeit as a separately identifiable item. Fiscalautonomy is of course generally perceived to be a strongly pro-educa-tion measure; probably - not certainly - it is, but is is clearly an ad-vantage often enjoyed at the price of harmonious relationships. Bothin many of the cities and towns and in the Legislature, it produces anannual conflict and acrimonious debate. "(8)

Unless this institutionalizing of conflict between municipal andeducational interests is clearly and skillfully addressed by the legis-lative leaders, in concert with the concerned interest groups, the lik-lihood of any real reform of the school aid system would appear to beremote.

As a preliminary step in the process of collecting data from thepolitical and educational leaders in the cities and towns, a questionnairewas developed and sent to state senators, state representatives, mayorsor chairmen of boards of selectmen, and superintendents of schoolsrepresenting ninety-six cities and towns. Included in the questionnairewas a number of areas designed to:

(1) Sample existing thoughts about the present Chapter 70 dis-bursement formula and its strengths or weaknesses;

(2) Pose general and specific questions related to the expectationsfor state assistance in the area of education;

(3) Determine what educational programs and services should befunded in the school finance plan and for whom should theseprograms be provided;

(4) Ascertain what the financial needs of schools will be in the nearand long range future and what financial assistance would berequired - considering the needs for other governmental servicesand the financial ability of the state;

(8) Cook, 02 Cit. , p - 13

19

(5) Sample opinions on what actions might be possible in thenear future for changing the existing state funding proce-dures;

(6) Determine what attitudes and opinions might exist concerningthe areas related to the funding of education - i. e., how mighteducational resources be converted into the most efficient andeffective learning processes. (9)

In addition to the questionnaire, personal interviews were con-ducted with a sampling of individuals having a vested interest in thefunding of education in the state. The scope of these interviews wasoriginally to be similar to that for the questionnaire but pursued ingreater depth. Early analysis of the questionnaire returns, however,caused a slight alteration of this intent. The single issue which ap-peared to be of greater concern to both educational and political leadersthan to the question of funding alone was over the quality of what theschools were doing.

The quality of public schools - which is to say the degree towhich valid educational results are being achieved - was a high levelconcern to over 70 percent of the respondents. Put another way, over80% of the same respondents listed the achieving of educational resultsfor all children as one of the most important issues existing in the schoolstoday. This ranked ahead of many of the more popularized issued beingdiscussed regularly in the media - i. e.,

Public involvement in schoolsBehavior of youth - in and out of schoolRacial and minority group issuesFunding of educationEducation of youngsters with special handicapsEfficiency of school operationQuality of teaching staffs

In addition, the perceived quality of education was not totallyequated to the quality of the schools. For instance, to the followingselected points of view, a high percentage of the respondents indicatedhigh degrees of support:

(a) The quality of education a child receives is a product of thequality of life of the whole community - not just the qualityof his schools. (Eighty percent of the respondents supportedthis concept. )

(9) A copy of the questionnaire along with a more extensive discus-sion of the methods used in this study are included in Appendix A.Tabulated results of the questionnaire are included in Appendix C.

20

- 12 -

(b) Equal educational opportunity requires local commitment tothe interests of each student more than it requires money.(Over seventy-four percent of those responding to the ques-tionnaire supported this concept.)

(c) Equal educational opportunity requires unequal allocation offunds to local school districts. (Over sixty-eight percent ofthe respondents indicated a high level of support to this concept.)

Given this degree of interest and concern by all groups, it wasdecided to alter the focus slightly to concentrate on this issue. Inter-views were then scheduled with thirty-seven individuals across thestate to discuss in more depth the relationship between allocation offunds and the problems connected with transforming financial re-sources into educational results. (10)

. ... ...From the responses to the questionnaire and the interviews, it

is possible to evolve some recommendation for further study andpossible implementation. It should be noted that this is one of thefirst times that attitudes and opinions were actively solicited frompolitical leaders and educators in cities and towns across the state.The interesting element connected to the tabulation of results wasthat the gradients of differences on many items were similar regard-less of the constituency of the respondent - be it Boston or a small hilltown in the Berkshires.

(10) Additional information concerning the interviews and a sample"interview focus" form are included in Appendix A.

21

- 13 -

OBSERVATIONS

The topic of school finance in the 1970s brings forth many dif-ferent responses from different people. To the academician or to thefiscal reformer, the topic is of continuing concern as a pressing issuein educational research and just esoteric enough to remain outside thenormal domain of the layman. To the educator, the topic is one offrustration since there is much talk of fiscal reform and yet schooldistricts remain caught without reform in a cycle of inflation, in-creasing costs, and new demands for additional services, with a les-sening of public enthusiasm and support for the schools.

To the layman, the topic is almost too difficult to comprehendsince it is not easy to speak of school aid reform without resorting toterms designed for the specially initiated few. Terms like "equalizedvaluation per capita", "fiscal capacity", "revenue per child in averagedaily attendance", "power equalizing", and "local revenue yield foreducation" fill nearly all books, articles and studies devoted to thesubject. It is almost as if the. topic has been declared "off limits" fordiscussion or understanding by the public and even many of the publicservants in the various cities and towns.

One of the goals of the survey administered and interviews con-ducted in this study was to sample the attitudes of school administrators,legislators, municipal and town officials, and laymen concerning theprocess of education in Massachusetts and the methods by which it isfinanced. A deliberate attempt was made to insure that the questionnaireitems and interview questions were posed in a form that would not beoverly confusing to the respondents. From the sampling, we can drawsome interesting conclusions.

We started our study with assumptions that legislators and muni-cipal officials might share the concern of educators about the relativelylow percentage of state aid provided by the state to cities and towns tofinance local public education. The question as to whether the responsi-bility for education belongs to the state or local government has tradi-tionally been resolved in that such responsibility resided with the state.This responsibility is one of those "powers not delegated" to the federalgovernment by the Constitution and therefore reserved as a function ofthe state. In Massachusetts, the state legislature, in the absence ofspecific constitutional mandate, has final authority over the financing ofpublic education.

22

- 14 -

Through a series of legislative actions, the responsibilityfor education has been delegated to locally elected school commit-tees. The fact remains, however, that the fiscal powers of schooldistricts are strictly controlled by the state and it is the state thatguarantees that the city councils and town meetings must appropriatethe full amount requested by local school committees for the annualbudgets which are required to operate the public schools. Addition-ally, and in a pure sense, local school districts may be altered,consolidated, or abolished by the legislature. The elected staterepresentatives have the ultimate responsibility for the quality ofeducation in the state. The legislature may have delegated this re-sponsibility to local school districts but courts have consistently heldthat the state cannot abdicate its obligation to provide equal access toeducation for all its citizens.

In a collective sense, the states continue to acknowledge andaffirm this responsibility. The National Legislative Conferenceunanimously adopted in 1972 a statement of policy in this area.

"Brown v. Board of Education set the stage for a new era ofthinking as to the availability of certain fundamental rights to all citi-zens on equal terms. The case was based on two important assump-tions:

(1) Education is perhaps the most important function of stateand local government;

(2) It is doubtful that any child may succeed in life if he isdenied the opportunity of an education.

The decision made it plain that there is no compelling state interestwhich will justify any radically discriminatory policy in public educa-tion.

Today, almost twenty years later, a new challenge is before thepublic and the courts - a challenge with ramifications as far reachingas those initiated by the Brown ruling. The courts are now being askedto consider the propoLition that education is a fundamental personalright, protected by the state and being asked to rule that the presentsyatem of elementary and secondary educational financing, which isconditioned on the wealth of a child's parents and neighbors, is unlaw-ful.

23

- 15 -

"The National Legislative Conference affirms the principlethat all states have an obligation to provide an equal educationalopportunity and quality education to all children attending publicschools within their jurisdiction. We are in agreement with theprinciple established in Serrano v. Priest that the quality of a stu-dent's public elementary and secondary education should not bedependent on the affluence of his parents or school district. Regard-less of future court actions, we believe the principle established bySerrano, so far as public education is concerned, is essentially rea-sonable and equitable and ought to serve as a policy objective forevery state, " (11)

The state of Massachusetts provides less than thirty percentof the revenue required to support public education in the state.Local communities are required to raise about seventy percent ofthese annual revenues, primarily through the local property tax.Only four states (Connecticut, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and SouthDakota) provide smaller percentages of state aid to local communitiesand school districts (See Table 2).

While concern was expressed over the state's relatively lowcontribution to the financing of education and over the effectivenessof the existing program for reimburseable state aid, equal concernwas also expressed over the quality and access of education to allstudents. When asked to what extent the existing school aid programwas meeting the goal of helping to provide adequate state support forlocal education, less than six percent of the respondents indicated thatthey believed the existing program was meeting this goal.

(11) Peoort of the National Legislative Conference Special Committeeon ."-.;,:hool Finance. Adopted unanimously on August 3, 1972, bythe National Legislative Conference at its annual meeting in NewOrleans.

24

11111, - --16-

WINO MNIN NNIIM. =MI 01111 01111

Chapter 70 school aid is designed to help provide adequatestate support for local education. In your opinion, to what extentis the aid program meeting this goal?

Not at all1 2 3

To a greatExtent

4 5

Superintendents 13 45 32 2 1

Representatives 3 31 24 6 -Senators 1 9 10 1 -Municipal Officials 7 18 18 2 -

24 103 84 11 1

N a 223 10. 76% 46.19% 37. 67% 4. 93% 0.45%56. 95% 5. 38%

NINO, OEM .1111.1* OEM. eMIMI OEM ... OM.

In this same general area of questioning, when asked the rea-sons as to why the existing aid program was not meeting its designedgoal over half of the respondents indicated their belief that a lack offull funding was responsible and/or that weaknesses existed in thepresent program.

On. 4111 0.... vols. 11 sm. MN& OEM 11

If, in your opinion, the existing school aid program is notmeeting its designed goals, which of the following conditions might beresponsible for this? (Note 78.92% of the questionnaire respondentsindicated that Chapter 70 aid was not meeting its designed goals. )

(a) Lack of full funding of

StiptI__R22: Sen. MO Totals

Chapter 70 61 18 5 24 108 61.36%

(b) Inadequacy of equaliza-tion in property valuation 34 31 14 25 104 59. 09%

(c) Weaknesses of the pre-sent funding program 43 24 9 14 90 51.14%(i. e. , Chapter 70)

(d) Other factors 7 6 5 2 20 11.36%

N = 176

=11. MIMEO limm MOM

25me. AMID MO.

- 17 -

While concern for this area of funding was expressed, an evenhigher concern was registered over steadily increasing localschool budgets (i. e., over 80 percent of the respondents identi-fied increase of local school budget a high level of concernin their area of constituency.

MIMI, NAM ONO 41111.. 41111.. Ot/NO INN., OEM.

In general, what is the level of interest over the followingissue concerning schools in recent elections within your area orconstituency?

Low LevelNot a concern

High LevelConsiderableConcern

Increase of school budget 1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents =I. 5 13 33 43Representatives Oil 4 7 29 26Senators - 3 2 16Municipal Officials AO 4 4 14 23

13 27 78 108

MI/. MIMI,

N - 226 5.75% 11.95% 34.51% 47.79%82. 30%

OEM. OMR, .01M. OM.

26

- 18 -

The issue which emerges here is a reflection of both thepolitical realities and frustrations associated with school finan-cing. If education is seen as an important function of the stateand there is no demonstrable full commitment on the part of thestate to fund the performance of that function, then local commun-ities are forced to raise the necessary funds from local taxes.This matter is serious in Massachusetts and is common to allstates as observed by Joel Berke.

"The signs are unmistakable that the squeeze between risingcosts and lagging educational revenues has finally caught up withmany public elementary and secondary schools. Overall growthin expenditures, for example, has outrun the growth in the econo-my as a whole; during the last decade, education has averaged a10. 3 percent annual growth in expenditures while the Gross NationalProduct has averaged just under 7 percent annual increase. Whenmeasured against the growth rate in per capita personal income perpupil educational expenditures are nearly three times greater.Finding the revenues to cover these expenditures has required in-creasingly more effort on the part of taxpayers. In 1961, state andlocal revenues averaged 4.0 percent of total personal income. In1971/72 the comparable figure was 5.4 percent. As a result of thesetrends, rates of expenditures increase are no longer automaticallymatched by concomitant' growth in revenue.

What makes this fiscal situation most alarming, however, isthat, even if enlightened citizens grcups, voters, and politicianssucceed in raising more money for the schools, a significant crisiswill still exist. We are faced with far more than a failure to provideadequate funds to support our schools in the style to which they havebecome accustomed. We are also confronted with a crisis in theequity and efficiency with which educational revenues are raised anddistributed. In virtually every state in the union, systems of financedo not allocate resources in proportion to need; they are regularlyproviding less money to the school systems that face society's mostcostly and challenging educational tasks. In short we face a double-edged dilemma: a failure to provide adequate revenues in many schr,,n1systems, and an inability to raise and allocate revenues efficiently andequitably. ,, (12)

(12) Joel Berke, Op. Cit. , p. 8

27

-19-

The broad questions about the quality of educational pro-grams also emerged as a persistent area of concern. In everyitem on the questionnaire concerning "quality" of education oraccess to "equal" educational opportunity, the responses indi-cated overwhelming (i. e., over two-thirds of the respondentsreflecting a common reply) adherence to the idea that quality ofequity was a high priority. Examples would include the followingitems and responses:

Strongly Mildly No Mildly StronglySupport Support Opinion Opp_ose Oppose

1 2 3 4 5Equal educational op-portunity requireslocal commitment tothe interests of eachstudent more than itrequires money.

SuperintendentsRepresentativesSenatorsMunicipal Officials

TotalsN-224

42 29 4 7 1026 29 3 4 4

5 11 3 2 -13 11 7 13 1

86 80 17 26 1538.39% 35.71% 7.59% 11.61% 6.70%

74.10% 18.31%

Low LevelNot a concern

...am

High LevelConsiderableConcern

1 2 3 4 5Quality of schools -educational resultsbeing achievedSuperintendents 3 6 29 44 12Representatives 1 6 12 20 27Senators - 2 6 13Municipal Officials 3 15 10 17

Totals 4 15 58 80 69N-226 1.77% 6.64% 25.66% 35. 40% 30. 53%

8.41% 65.93%

28

- 20 -

The response to the question raised here brought forth aninteresting perspective. While almost two-thirds of all respon-dents indicated that the achievement of educational results was ahigh level of concern, both legislators and municipal officialsreflect a higher percentage interest than educators.

Percentage IndicatingQuestionnaire Group. High Level of Concern

Superintendents 59. 57%Legislators 75. 86Municipal Officials 60. 00

At issue here is the growing concern by all elements of thecommunities that the schools should be more "accountable" forthe way in which public funds are expended in the educational pro-cess. None of the individuals we interviewed would go to the ex-treme of saying that the schools should guarantee results. However,a wide spread concern was that the schools should make a more con-centrated effort to insure that some reasonable "minimum" level ofresults - particularly in the area of basic skills - was achieved.

4110. - - - - _ -Strongly Mildly No Mildly StronglySupEort Support Ozinion Opp_ose OpEose

The quality of educationa child receives is a pro-duct of the quality of lifeof the whole community -not the quality of hisschools alone.

SuperintendentsRepresentativesSenatorsMunicipal Officials

TotalsN-225 36.89% 43.11% 4.89% 12.00% 3.11%

80.00% 15.11%

1 2 3 4 5

33 41 2 12 5

22 34 4 4 212 9 -16 13 5 11

83 97 11 27 7

29As

- 21 -

Our interviews with individuals both in and outside the edu-cational community uncovered some problems of definition in thisarea of "quality of educational programs" or "equal educationalopportunity". In almost every case, definitions tended to reflectvalue judgments on the part of respondents more readily than pre-cise understandings as to what elements went into "quality" educa-tion or what constituted equal access to "quality" education. Theword "quality" itself was a difficult word to define. Though itcarries a favorable connotation to most people, it is ambiguousand encompasses many complicated concepts.

Despite millions of dollars having been expended in educa-tional research over a period of years, a lack of experimentallyproven data on the learning process has afforded skeptics and cri-tics of modern education to assert that more money for school doesnot necessarily mean better education. What is needed, one hears,is a commitment to quality and excellence in all that we do.

John Gardner, in his 1961 effort entitled Excellence: CanWe Be Equal and Excellent Too? provides perhaps the definitionwhich reflects the consensus of respondents to the questionnaireand of the individuals which we interviewed.

"Our kind of society demands the maximum development of indivi-dual potentialities at ever/ level of ability.

The goal of the American educational system is to enable everyyoungster to fulfill his potentialities regardless of his race, creed,social standing or economic position.

The traditional democratic invitation to each individual to achievethe best that is in him requires that we provide each youngster withthe particular kind of education which will benefit him."

30

- 22 -

Our study tended to uncover some attitudes among the re-presentatives and municipal officials that seemed almost contra-dictory at times. On the one hand, individuals and groupsexpressed the position that schools had received preferentialtreatment in Massachusetts for a number of years. In their viewmore money for the schools without some appropriate sense ofcontrol over how the funds might be used would be a mistake andwould not, in itself, help to rectify any proven situation of needin Massachusetts. As an example of this point, consider the re-sponses on the following question.

The cost of providing public services tends to rise at a faster levelthan the public funds readily available for distribution. In amouropinion, what is the level of competing demand for tax resourcesbetween schools and other municipal services within your area ofrepresentation?

(a) competitive, priori-ties established bypublic

(b) competitive, prior-ities established bymunicipal officials

(c) competitive, schoolsreceiving priority

(d) competitive, schoolsnot receiving priority

(e) low level of competi-tion between schoolsand other services

N - 225

Supt. R. Sen. Mun.Off. Totals %

7 7 3 2 19 8.44

17 13 9 3 42 18.67

40 26 6 35 107 47. 56

5 - - - 5 2. 22

24 20 3 5 52 23.11

Of special interest here is the response of the different groups. While40 of 93 superintendents (43. 01 %) agreed that the level of competing

31

- 23 -

demand for tax resources was competitive, with schools receivingpriority. 24 of 93 (25. 81 %) felt that there was a low level of com-petition between schools and other municipal services. At the sametime, 35 of 45 municipal officials (77.78%) felt that schools werereceiving priority in the competition for public funds and only 5 of45 (11.11%) expressed any conviction in the theory that a low levelof competition existed.

In our interviews concerning this issue, we asked whether givingmore funds to the schools would result in better education. Of the37 people we interviewed, only 1 3 expressed any confidence that thiswould result unless a stronger sense of efficiency and "accountability"was fostered upon the schools. (1 3) The most prevalent commentstated in this area was the belief that additional funds to the schoolswould most likely result in higher teacher and administrative salariesalong with the purchase of many "frill" items, such as excessive audio-visual equipment. The concern stated was that more money for thesame services and staff would not automatically result in better schools.What would be needed would be a better process to determine how themoney would be spent as well as a better way established to let thepublic know how school funds were being spent.

(13) In a related study conducted in 1974 as part of the annual GallupPoll of Public Attitudes Toward Public Education, when a repre-sentative sample of the American people was asked if doublingschool expenditures would make a great deal of difference instudent achievement, only 39 percent said yes.

Forty-eight percent of the people said the additional expensewould make little of no difference. Thirteen percent didn't knowif there would be any difference.

This attitude is from the same sample which, in another part ofthe Poll, generally gave schools above average marks for the waythey were operating. Sixty four percent of public school parentsgave the schools an "A" or "B" grade, with another 24 percentgrading schools at "C" or average. Additionally, 62 percent ofparochial school parents and 57 percent of adults without schoolage children gave schools an average or above average score.

32

- 24 -

This concept of public access to internal school informationhas received extensive publicity but it is not a new idea. In 1970a study conducted by Joseph M. Cronin in collaboration with theMassachusetts Advisory Council on Education proposed that parentgroups and school councils ought to be shown each year a profileof their school's resources and performance. They are entitledto this information which could be presented on an easily-preparedform which might include information to answer the following ques-tions:

(1) How many teachers are in the school?

(2)

(3)

How many years of experience, in local schools and else-where do they have?

How many are new, how many tenured compared to thesystem average?

(4) What special programs are allocated to or conducted bythe school, and what aides and extra staff have been madeavailable?

(5) To what junior high or high schools have recent graduatesgone and with what results (e.g., known dropout rates,college acceptances)?

(6) What are the test scores for each grade or level, by sub-ject or skill areas, and with what patterns or special weak-nesses, successes, or problems?What are the school's expenditures for:

(a) teachers and counselors,(b) custodians,(c) books and materials,(d) repairs and alterations,(e) special staff, and(f) lunches

(7)

(8) What are projected enrollments for the next three years?

These data, not readily available in a convenient form, actually needto be shared and discussed with parents who then can help developand support constructive programs of action. Each business firmhas an end of year balance sheet. The cry for accountability in edu-cation is a plea for forthright reporting. Otherwise, the parent groups

33

- 25 -

(14)and school councils may well withdraw their confidence and support.

In a similar vein, the Governor's Commission on School Dis-trict Organization and Collaboration recently issued its report whichcalls for a regular program of public disclosure. Under this model,each public school district should organize its resources and collabo-rative activities to provide its constituents with the following informa-tion.

A. A results-oriented school management program characterizedby needs assessment, goal definition, careful considerationand selection of action or program alternatives (so-called pro-gram budgeting), long-range planning, meaningful opportunitiesfor informed involvement of students and other citizens in deci-sion-making, and systematic use of evaluation techniques.

B. A level of economy in school operations that is explained annu-ally for the pas t fiscal year through a published and widely dis-tributed report on cost comparisons with other districts ofsimilar size and organization categories utilized in reports ofthe Massachusetts Teachers Association. Such an annual re-port should include at least the following:

(1) Ratio of full-time certified staff members or staff-memberequivalents (including aides in differentiated staffing pro-grams where the number of certified teachers has beenreduced) to full-time students (two half-day students count-ing as one full-time student, etc. ).

Total expenditure per full-time student in(a) 1000 accounts (central administration)(b) 2000 accounts (instruction)

(1) salaries supporting instruction(2) all other instructional expenses

(c) 3000 accounts (non-instructional service)(d) 4000 accounts (operation and maintenance)(e) 5000 accounts (fixed charges)

_ (f) 9000 accounts (cooperative programs)(3) Staffing and expenditure comparisons among schools in the

district in terms of disclosing local equalization and specia-lization of resources. Also, it could include such additionalexplanatory remarks as seem appropriate to the school com-mittee with jurisdiction. (15)

(2)

(14) Joseph M. Cronin, Org_anizing_an Urban School System for DiversityBoston, Mass. Advisory Council on Education, Oct. 1970, p.1-03

(15) The Governors Commission on School District Organization andCollaboration. Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equal Opportunity inthe Public Schools of Massachusetts, MACE Report, Oct. 1974

II!

l.'" i,"'

- 26 -

There was also a strain running through the questionnaire andespecially in the interviews that all children cannot be educated equallywith a straiglt line equality of fiscal resources. (16) In the question-naire, this position was best expressed by the response to the followingquestion.

Strongly Mildly No Mildly StronglySupport Support Opinion s_pose Oppose

Equal educational oppor-tunity requires unequalallocation of funds to localschool districts.

Superintendents 54 21 9 7 3

Representatives 21 22 3 13 7

Senators 12 5 1 3

Municipal Officials 13 7 11 11 3

Totals 100 55 24 34 13

N-226 44.25% 24.34% 10.62% 15.04% 5.75%68.59% 20.79%

(16) In 1972, the Massachusetts legislature passed into law a compre-hensive special education law (Chapter 766 of the Acts of 1972).

The law requires all cities and towns to carefully look at the manner inwhich students with special needs were being educated. In general, ithad been established that "past development of special education programshas resulted in a great variation of services with special needs" and that"past methods of labeling and defining the needs of children have had astigmatizing effect and have caused special education programs to be over-ly narrow and rigid."

The law became effective on September 1, 1974. From that timecities, towns, and regional school districts are required to meet the spec-ific provisions of the law and to develop adequate programs within a rea-sonable period of time for ALL persons of ages three through twenty onewho have not attained a high school diploma or its equivalent.

The new law has massive implications - both educationally and fi-nancially - for local school districts. However, the lull publicity andimpact of this law was only beginning in the spring of 1974 when our ques-tionnaire was administered. The full consequences of the law were betterunderstood during the period of our interviews and probably accounts for astronger awareness of the problem of different costs for any special pro-grams among this group. The problem of special needs for special studentswas a focal point of discussion in our interviews and the full understandingof the higher costs was keenly understood and appreciated.

...

35

- 27 -

Simply stated, children with special learning deficienciescaused by social or cultural deprivation or mental or physical in-capacities can not always be served well in traditional school pro-grams. And, the school programs geared to the needs of thesestudents cost more than regular programs geared to students withoutany particular learning problems. In our interviews, the questionwas posed as to whether the state aid program in Massachusetts ade-quately measured or compensated for these higher cost programs.With the exception of several areas of limited categorical aid pro-grams (Special Education, Occupational and Vocational Aid) fundedon a straight percentage reimbursement basis, the general concep-tion was that the state aid program did not adequately measure orcompensate the differing educational needs. The suggestion heardmost frequently was to provide proportionately more funds to schooldistricts with large numbers of high cost students.

The phrase "proportionately more funds" presents a broadspectrum of problems to anyone who desires to translate that into aspecific program of fiscal action. There are essentially three waysin which school districts may receive additional funding for high coststudents.

(1) High cost students are identified according to some clearlydefined categories and additional financial support is providedthrough the general aid fund. This may be through a systemof pupil weighting or through some process of per pupil stipend.This can be either through reimbursement of costs or in so-called "front-end" money which anticipates the educational costs.

(2) Categorical aid programs can be established to reimburse schooldistricts at some pre-determined percentage amount for legitimateexpenses incurred in high cost programs.

(3) The state can recognize the extra cost aspect of such programsand assume the costs for properly identified students and programs.This process might be appropriate when the state mandates a min-imum standard for such a program.The many court cases of the late 1960s concerning school financingwere based upon the premise that a child's education should not becontingent upon the wealth of the school district in which the stu-dent resided. In those cases, (17)

(17) The Most significant of these cases would include McInnis v.Olgilvie(293 F. Supp. 327 (N. D. Ill. 1 968)), a challenge by inner-city Chicago residentsto the method of financing education in Illinois;and which was one of the firstcases to raise the issue of educational need as a factor in determining the doc-trine of equity;Serrano v. Priest (96 Ca. Rept.601, 487p. 2nd 1241 (1971)), achallenge to California school financing statutes based primarily on the feder-al equal protection clause; Van Dusartz v. Hatfield (334 F.Supp. 870 (D. Minn.1971)) another equal protection challenge; and Rodriguez v. San Antonio Inde-pendent School District (411 U. S. 1 (1973)), a challenge to equal access to ed-ucational resources for property-poor school districts.

36

- 28 -

the standard of equality of educational opportunity required equalfiscal resources as measured in terms of property values since itwas the local property tax that provided the bulk of local educationalfunds. There were few significant efforts to require the incorpora-tion of educational need standards into the legal adjudication of equaleducational opportunity.

An interesting exception to this situation was the revision ofthe process by which the state of Utah provides school funds. Utah'sold system met many of the objections of school finance court casesin the period of the late 1960s and early 1 970s. Additionally, theNational Educational Finance Project findings showed that only Hawaii,with its system of full state funding, had a better system of equaliza-tion of resources within the state.

A study was commissioned in Utah by the state legislature toimprove the system of funding even further. The result was a majorrevision of the process in 1 973 which changed the measure of alloca-tion from a general "distribution unit" to a "weighted pupil unit." Thebill provided for an extensive system of weighting factors for ten cate-gories of handicapped education, for small schools, for professionalstaff costs, for administrative costs, and for vocational education. Inaddition, the new process equalizes school district spending per weightedpupil.

The wave of cases and of school finance reforms concerned onlywith equalizing fiscal resources seems to have passed. Indicationsnow would appear to signal the beginnings of new standards of equityin educational opportunity which may well consider wealth variationsamong school districts but also educational need variables among stu-dents. The first major court case to be decided in this so-called "new"generation of school finance cases has been the New Jersey case --Robinson v. Cahill (287 A. 2d 187 (1972)). This case suggests that ifa state has established qualitative goals of universal application to itssystem of public education, school finance reform may well be achievedby providing that the general objectives are not being achieved with re-gard to certain groups of students, and that one of the major factorscontributing to this non-achievement is the lack of adequate financialresources. This case even went further into the issue by specificallystating that there may well need to be differences in costs to insure fulleducational opportunity.

37

- 29 -

Perhaps nowhere will this problem be better illustrated thanin the fiscal plight of urban centers. Most large cities have higherthan average wealth when measured in terms of either propertyvaluations or adjusted gross income, but also have large numbersof socially and culturally deprived children. (18) To continue toconsider only the equalization of fiscal resources among schooldistricts while not equally considering the prevalence of high needdifferentials will not only not help but will continue to hinder the ed-ucational programs in cities.

(18) This issue is extensively discussed in R. L. Johns, KernAlexander, and Dewey Stoller. Status and Impact of EducationalFinance Programs, Volume 4 (Gainesville, Florida; National Edu-cational Finance Project, 1 970) Conclusions in this area would includethe fact that local revenues alone do not equalize educational oppor-tunity for the culturally disadvantaged student. While state aid formu-las have great potential for funding the higher per pupil cost of educa-ting the students with greater need, there is often no provision foridentification and compensating for the specific high Cost programs.

The study concludes that if disparities are to be effectively re-duced, either the state must adapt their allocation formula to all moreeffective identification of these students or hope for substantially in-creased federal funds - a hope with little chance of success in the nearfuture.

38

- 30 -

To illustrate this point, Table 4 is provided to show the esti-mated percentages of "special need" students in selected urban schooldistricts.

MEM,

Northeast

Physicallyor

MentallyHandicapped

With aSpecialLearningDisorder

Table

Title I VocationalEligible Technical

4

Tot.1

Boston, Mass. 3. 7% 4.7% 36.1% 1. 5% 47.0%Buffalo, N. Y. 4.0 N. A. 31.4 9. 0 44.4Pittsburgh, Pa. 3. 8 .5 48.9 7.2 60.4

MidwestChicago, Ill. 2. 5 .1 60.8 27. 1 90. 5Detroit, Mich. 2.6 .3 32. 7 .6 36. 2Minneapolis, Minn. 3. 8 7. 8 16.8 2,9 31. 3St. Louis, Mo. 5. 2 .2 29.8 7. 0 42. 2Cleveland, Ohio 1.3 .1 43.1 6.7 51. 2Milwaukee, Wisc. 2. 7 N. A 37.2 N. A 39. 9

SouthAtlanta, Ga. .8 .1 7.3 4.9 1 3. 1Houston, Texas Z. 2 N. A 25. 7 7.3 35.2

West_Los Angeles, Cal. 1.9 5.2 34.6 12.9 54.6San Diego, Cal. 1.5 .5 9.5 6.1 17.6Sari FranciscoOakland, Cal. 2.2 . 8 32.4 1.9 37. 3

Denver, Colo. 3.6 .9 16.4 5.2 26.1Portland, Ore. 5.2 2.3 52.7 10.2 70.4

AVERAGE 2.8% 1.6% 30.3% 6.9% 41.6%

Table Source: Urban Schools & School Finance Reform: Promise and

-Reality-- by John J. Callahan et al, National UrbanCoalition, p. 34.

Assuming that the figures provided in Table are accurate, Bostonhas over 36 peicent of its total school enrollment qualifying for Title Iassistance. The cost of educating these students is higher than the costof educating students who would not quality as being either socially orculturally deprived. Some additional source of educational funds is man-dated for the urban areas if any sense of equity is to be reached.

39

Information gathered from this study - including both thequestionnaire and extended interviews with a number of individualsin and out of education - has provided the bases for a number ofrecommendations relating to the question of state aid and support ofpublic education in the Commonwealth.

40

- 32 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1

ALL FUTURE ATTEMPTS AT SCHOOL AID REFORMSHOULD BE PURSUED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF OR-GANIZATIONAL REFORM FOR EQUALIZATION OF EDUCA-TIONAL OPPORTUNITY.

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHOULD WORKWITH THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EDUCATION AND OTHERAPPROPRIATE RESEARCH AGENCIES TO DEVELOP AN ON-GOING PROCEDURE TO IDENTIFY AND ACCOUNT FOR THEEDUCATIONAL NEED DIFFERENTIALS AMONG STUDENTS INVARIOUS SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Equal expenditures will not buy equal opportunity in the faceof local and regional cost differentials or for children with differentcombinations of needs. A stronger system is needed to help localschool districts guarantee the availability of basic and special ser-vices to all citizens.

School finance programs should not only be adjusted to com-pensate for dificiencies in a school district's fiscal ability, but pro-grams should be modified as necessary to insure that some equityexists in the quality of a district's basic educational programs. Somemechanism to reasonably assess the quality of school district programsand the specific educational needs of its students needs to be evolved.

Simply stated, the existing school finance program in Massachu-setts does not have the flexibility to adequately measure or compen-sate for the differences in educational needs of children. Any revisionto the financing program should include provisions for proportionatelyproviding financing increases to school districts with high incidencesof high cost students.

A fundamental concern in this altered approach to state aid is tobuild in a commitment to be as concerned, if not more so, for theequity of educational opportunity as for the equity of fiscal ability.

Information has been presented in this section that concern forquality of educational programs as well as equal access to those pro-grams was one of the major recurring themes which ran through boththe questionnaires and interviews. (See Appendix C of this report.) Thisissue is also a major focus of the report issued by the Governor'sCommission on School District Organization and Collaboration. To

41

- 33 -

paraphrase the approach afforded by that study, if our focus isexcellence of service to all citizens, the state must act to ensurethat no matter where a citizen resides he or she will be providedwith onvenient access to basic educational services.

42

- 34 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2

ALL FUTURE ATTEMPTS AT SCHOOL AID REFORMSHOULD BE PURSUED IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL PROGRAMOF PROVIDING AID TO CITIES AND TOWNS, NOT AS ANACTION FOCUSED SOLELY ON EDUCATIONAL SERVICE INTER-ESTS.

Competition for state funds to aid the cities and towns in theCommonwealth remains at a high level. Too often, educators pro-posing reforms to the process of school aid have acted in a limitedor parochial manner and have proposed solutions to educational prob-lems which were politically and fiscally impossible. To avoid thiscontinuing cycle of non-successful efforts to adjust only the education-al facet of aid to cities and towns, future attempts at school aid reformmust be coordinated with the taxation impact of all other governmentalservices.

Educators and others often become so convinced of the "rightness"of their arguments that there is a tendency to offer simplistic panaceasto solve problems of financing the schools. Most efforts at revising theaid formula in Massachusetts in the past few years have concentratedon the fact that there is inequity in the amount of money available foreducation in the various cities and towns because of inequities in therelative wealth of the towns. The real questions about the educationalneeds of the children of those towns have not been properly addressedand the shared responsibility for identifying new revenue sources hasnot been pursued with equal vigor.

Pragmatically, and although it will not be an easy thing for educa-tors to accept, any major plan to alter the funding of education whichinvolves increased state contribution will most likely be a tax equityquestion first and an educational equity question in the second instance.It is an issue that is resolved in the legislature and not any place else.Educational interest groups, tax reform groups, and fiscal conserva-tives can prepare a thousand plans but it is the legislature where thefinal plan is evolved. In virtually every state where major educationalfinancing reform has been effected, it was legislative leadership whichwas able to draw together the many disparate elements and groups toforge the many final compromises which had to happen before new legis-lation was passed. School finance reform legislation alone rarely hassufficient support to be enacted - particularly when new monies or amajor reallocation of funds is required. (19)

(19) See Joel Be rke, it., pp 163 f for discussion of this issue.

- 35 -

This point was the focal point of a recent study conducted bythe Educational Governance Project at Ohio State University entit-led State Polic_ymakina. for Public Schools: A Com_parative Analysis.The study concluded that since education dollars inevitably must com-pete with an expanding public sector, decisions on school finance arenormally based on political expediency (i. e., what can pass) ratherthan on the "best" education arguments.

The Ohio State report also focuses upon the strong influence ofpersonalities and policy influence in any school finance issue. Forexample, it concludes that state boards of education lack substantivepolicy influence. Chief state school officers are often active in policymaking but the report concludes that much of this reputation is moreperceived than true. Teacher associations are ranked as the most in-fluential at the state level, followed by school boards, administratorgroups and teacher federations where they exist.

Although the traditional fragmentation of education groups hastended to create conflict, the various elements concerned about schoolfinance issues - educators, legislators, governors, the general public-have come to see that they can live with conflict about educational issues,the report says. Finally, it says that although school finance reformis broad based, it also is highly technical, and only a few individualsmake the key decisions. Since it is a political issue, finance reformultimately depends on the political leaders.

44

- 36 -

In the questionnaire, answers to the following question re-flected the perspectives of our respondents.

In your opinion, which of the following general patterns should there-examination of school finance programs and the distribution ofstate funds follow?

N-226

(a) equalization of educationalopportunity is a high prior-ity and school finance re-form should be evolved assoon as possible

(b) school finance reform isonly a part of general fis-cal reform and should beconsidered as one part ofa comprehensive reformpackage

(c) school finance reform isimportant but other fis-cal reforms have higherpriority

(d) the case for changingmethods of financing edu-cation have not yet beenproven

Supt. Rep. Sen.Mun.Off. Totals %

40 19 9 16 84 37.17

48 42 8 26 124 54.87

2 - - 2 0.88

4 5 4 3 16 7.08

At the same time, however, school aid reformers must consi-der that aid to cities and towns is available in areas other than schoolaid reimbursements. School aid can not solve all the problems of urbanareas - either in the form of property tax relief or in the area of free-ing additional funds for other municipal services.

45

- 37 -

State aid to education should be just that - and not an effortto help cities solve problems of fiscal over-burden in other areas.State aid to education should be carefully alloted so that school dis-tricts are able to use those funds directly for the maintenance andimprovement of educational services.

State aid is allocated on a school aid, not municipal aid, basis,but it is paid to the cities and towns, since school districts are notfiscal agents. School aid comes as a reimburseable expenditure,meaning that its amount is determined by what the districts havespent in a prior year. It is not identified with current school bud-get decisions, since it is the reflection of budget de- isions of pre-vious years. No one knows for certain if the Legislature will fullyfund state aid entitlements. Since entitlements are determined inpart by averages that no one can accurately predict until after thefact, no one can with confidence relate a decision on a new expendi-ture level to the distribution formula. It is also difficult to predictwith confidence what school costs the local property tax will have tobear. There is no conclusive evidence as to whether additional stateaid would go to schools, to other municipal services, or to tax relief.Increasing aid levels would alone do nothing to resolve these conflicts,whatever it might do as a tax equity measure. (20)

(20) See Paul Cook, Op. Cit. , p. 13 for further discussion on thisissue

46

- 38 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3

CHANGES AND PROPOSED CHANGES IN SCHOOL AIDDISTRIBUTION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO A LEGISLATIVECOMMISSION ON EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.

THE GENERAL COURT SHOULD TASK THIS SPECIALLEGISLATIVE COMMISSION WITH .THE RESPONSIBILITY TOISSUE GUIDELINES CONCERNING FISCAL REFORM TO IN-SURE THAT ALL PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SCHOOL AIDFUNDING BE FORWARD LOOKING AND PLAN FOR PROJEC-TED NEEDS OVER A MINIMUM PERIOD OF SEVEN-TENYEARS.

As the state is increasingly called upon to fund greater per-,

centages of the cost of public education in the Commonwealth, pres-sures will evolve for the state - through the State Board of Education-to assume a greater degree of control and regulation over issues whichhave traditionally been resolved at the local level. A policy issuewhich needs early resolution is the nature and scope of the state'sresponsibility to individual students and how the exercise of that re-sponsibility may effect the role of local school districts.

Every school finance study of merit has established the positionthat local revenues alone cannot equalize educational opportunity forstudents with special or distinct needs. If there is a commitment tothe concept of "equal educational opportunity" then eventually the moreequalizing power of state funds will have to be increased in percentageto fund local schools. The opportunity exists now to use the SpecialLegislative Commission to serve as the study group and the clearinghouse for all proposals to change the state process for school aid. TheCommission could also work with the State Board of Education to helpdefine the basic issue involved in school finance - what is the legitimateresponsibility of the state in the financing of public education?

If a general statement of policy could be established on that issuethen the other questions of "how" and "when" in relation to school aidare made a little less complex. If such a policy could be evolved, thenthe fundamental priority questions and decisions on aid to cities andtowns as well as the whole area of social services could then be madein a more reasoned framework.

As an example, if the state share of financing local education wasknown and a commitment to full funding was established, local school dis-tricts could be more involved in the improvement of education and not so

47

- 39 -

heavily involved in the political games necessary to explain andjustify high school tax impacts in the local towns and cities. Thefollowing item from the questionnaire is applicable at this point.

Strongly Mildly No Mildly StronglySup_port Sport Opinion Oppose Oppose

Public education in thestate would .be improvedif educational decisionsat the local level couldbe completely divorcedfrom considerations oflocal taxes

Superintendents 62 19 9 4Representatives 19 14 6 23 4Senators 3 2 6 9 1

Municipal Officials 19 15 2 7 2

Totals 103 50 14 48 11

Percentages 45. 58% 22.12% 6. 19% Z1. 24% 4.87%N-226 67. 70% 26.11%

MOM

A related part of this recommendation would be that a strongcase exists for the re-activation of the Master Tax Plan Commission.As has been stated several times above, it does little good to developeducational finance plans without a comprehensive financing plan. TheMaster Tax Plan Commission has done high quality work in the pastand could be counted upon to analyze the state's fiscal position andprojections and could come up with a long range plan which would en-able the entire aid to cities and towns to be reviewed and possibly up-dated.

Throughout this report an effort has been made to establish thefact that any revisions to the process of allocating school aid needs tobe a part of a comprehensive look at the state's system of revenueraising and allocation of funds. It is equally important that the raisingof revenue be equitable. The MACE study conducted by the Massachu-setts Taxpayers Foundation entitled "Massachusetts Taxes: A FactualGuide to Future Action" discussed this issue in some detail,

48

- 40 -

Resources and ski] s exist now to project the social needsof the state's population over a reasonable period of time. A con-ceptual framework needs to be established, however, that willenable individuals and agencies proposing changes in existing leg-islation to know legislative goals and priorities.

In addition to the basic consideration called for in recom-mendation number 2, examples of issues in which goals and prior-ities might be established could include the following: (21)

(1) What are the legitimate financial needs of the public schoolsand how might those needs be met considering the other legi-timate needs for other governmental services and the financialability of the state?

(2) What level of educational opportunity should the state guaranteeto all students?

(3) How much latitude should a local district have to spend localfunds above the established level of basic equity?

(4) Should a commitment to work toward a defined level of supportby the state in financing education be publicly established?

(5) If a level of substantial funding increase for public education bythe state is established, will the philosophy of local control ofschools be materially altered?

(6) What level of evaluation and "accountability" will be establishedto help local school districts insure that increased state fundingwill actually result in improved education for all students?

(7) What new or adjusted sources of revenue might be needed to in-sure proper funding of legislated aid programs?

(21) This concept of having the legislature publicly establish goalsand priorities was a fundamental part of the National EducationalFinance Project in the studies related to the planning far thefinancing of education.

49

- 41 -

At the heart of this recommendation is the desire to have aclear articulation of the state and the local responsibilities in pub-lic education. One of the oldest "truisms" is that control of a pro-cess is vested in the hands of the funding source. With any substan-tial increase in state support of local education will come thepressures for the state to assure that the expenditures of state fundsare being conducted in such a manner that true opportunity for accessto quality education is afforded to all students.

Any increased state role in the evaluation of programs and theestablishing of priorities for the local systems may, at some point,conflict with the tradition of local control. The intent of this recom-mendation is to set the ground rules for an appropriate balance be-tween local and state educational groups in regard to "control" of theschools. Obviously, some balance is reasonable and should be under-stood at the same time that a different funding program was instituted.

The situation is not one which is unique to Massachusetts. Inresponse to the court decision in the case of Robinson v. Cahill wementioned earlier, the New Jersey Tax Policy Committee recommen-ded that local school boards would continue to be responsible for thefollowing areas even though the primary responsibility for fundingwould be the state:

(1) Local educational programs;(2) Staffing ratios;(3) Appointment of personnel;(4) Selection and implementation of auxiliary services;(5) Work conditions and assignments;(6) Administration and management of the school system.

This combining of centralized financing with decentralized control ofthe schools will take time as changes are affected in the traditionalconcept of governance. The state government will have to relinquishsome of the control it would normally exercise as a result of its fundraising authority. The local school systems would retain enoughautonomy to assume the responsibilities listed above while relinquish-ing the authority to determine how much would be raised and in whatmanner.

04-0

- 42 -

In Massachusetts, the perspective on local control is fairlytraditional. The following item from the questionnaire reflectsattitudes about local control and the quality of education.

.11Im .mm. Ow.a OEM

Strongly MildlySupport Support

OEM

NoOpinion

MildlyOppose

amm

StronglyOppose

The quality of educa-tion depends upon thepreservation of localcontrol of the schools.

Superintendents 38 35 2 13 5

Representatives 21 18 3 21 3

Senators 8 3 1 9 -Municipal Officials 19 8 3 9 5

Totals 86 64 9 52 13

Percentages 38. 39% 28. 58% 4.02% 23. 21% 5.80%

66.97% 29.01%N-224

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 4

THE STATE SHARE OF FUNDING PUBLIC EDUCATIONSHOULD BE INCREASED THROUGH A PLANNED INCREMENTALPROGRAM TO AN EVENTUAL PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF FIFTYPERCENT.

The recommended level of state aid to public education is anarbitrary one. It is based, however, upon several points worthy ofconsideration.

(1) The level of effort for financing public education by the state inMassachusetts is low when compared to the national averages

and, except for New Hampshire, it is low even for New England. Thenational average for the share of revenue of the states for schools is43% and is showing a slight increase each year. Massachusetts cur-rently (1 973-74) contributes only an estimated 24,2% of the revenuefor operating the public schools.

51

- 43 -

(2) Massachusetts is a comparatively wealthy state with consid-erable fiscal capacity. An in-depth analysis is needed of the

effectiveness of the various revenue sources but only to determinehow to better raise the necessary funds. The state does have thecapacity to raise and generate revenue if a commitment is exactedto do so.

(3) The personal tax burden from residential property taxes inMassachusetts is almost sixty percent above the national aver-

age. By most measures, the general property tax in this state isthe nation's highest: (22)

(a) In relation to population, it stood first in 1972-73 - thelatest census - with $358 per capita, followed closely by

Connecticut, New Jersey, and California. The United Statesaverage was $216 per capita.

(b) In relation to personal income, it also stood first in 1972-73. Massachusetts property taxes of $74.11 per $1000 of

personal income far exceeded the national average of $48.41.

(c) In relation to the value of taxed property, it stood firstfor single-family homes, according to FHA statistics as

shown in table below.

While a significant reduction in this particular tax burdenwould not appear likely or practical, it is reasonable to substan-tially alter the use of monies raised by the general property tax.If a significant percentage of the school operating expenses wereeliminated from the yield of the local tax, it would permit localcommunities to use more of the property tax yield to raise muni-cipal revenues. Without the heavy school expenses, the rate ofincrease for the local property tax would be slowed considerably.

(22) Massachusetts Taxes: A Factual Guide to Future Action. MACEPublication, December, 1974, p.6

Se

Table 5

- 44 -

Average property tax per $1,000 ofsales price of existing FHA-financedsingle homes in 10 highest states: 1972

Rank State

1 MASSACHUSETTS $33.792 New Jersey 30.30

3 New Hampshire 32.92

4 Nebraska 32.89

5 Wisconsin 32.47

6 Iowa 28.54

7 New York 28.29

8 California 27.56

9 Colorado 27.0910 Vermont 26.92

11 South Dakota 26.75

12 Connecticut 26.38

13 Maine 24.74

14 Maryland 24.48

15 Oregon 24.06

16 Illinois 23.29

17 Kansas 22.76

18 Rhode Island 22.65

19 Michigan 22.27

20 Indiana 21.70

50 States 21.14

53

- 45 -

(4) Given the disparity in fiscal capacity of the various citiesand towns, fifty percent is a practical average to work to-

Ward to provide adequate funds for financing education.

The decision to recommend fifty percent as the average a-mount for the state to assume funding responsibility is based ontwo factors. One, the amount is a reasonable increase in light ofthe real world constraints facing the Commonwealth at the presenttime and in the near future. It is a substantial increase from thepresent level of funding and would move Massachusetts from itspresent ranking of 451:h to approximately 18th position among thestates in percentage support to public education. This, in itself,would be a movement in terms of commitment for the state to as-sume increasing responsibility for the cost of public education.

In the second instance, the level of fifty percent reflects themedian expectations of the respondents to the questionnaire.

I=MID ONO O.M. ONO

At the present time, Chapter 70 aid is supposed to providean average of 35 percent of the reimburseable expenditures of theeducational cost? of the cities and towns. In recent years the actualpercentage has ranged between 25 and 28 percent. If the level of aidwas to be changed, what in your opinion, would be the optimum aver-agepercentage of state reimbursement?

Less than 35 percent

Sypt. Rep.

AND OD

45 percent 11 14

50 percent 27 23

65 percent 42 8

90 percent 12 17

Present funding is adequate

N - 218

(.1r"- A

4 i

Mun,Sen. Off. Totals %

3 8 36

12 20 82

2 6 58

4 9 42

MO DID OD OD

16.51

37.61

26.61

19.27

- 46 -

While considerable support (45.88 percent) is shown for anaverage level for state support of at least 65 percent, the major-ity of those respondents are superintendents with an obviousinterest in the higher state contribution. The amount which tendsto represent a more balanced position is 50 percent.

It should be noted tha' whereas an average percentage in -crease from 35 to 50 percent would he a substantial increase, fullequalization would not result. Considerable fiscal pressure willstill remain on the local property tax. Additionally, if no con-straint was placed on local spendirg, the differences between com-munities would remain although the relative gap would be slightlyreduced. The effort to move the state share to fifty percent wouldrepresent an increased commitment to the goal of equalization -both of fiscal support and in expanding the resources available tostudents.

It sho.uld also be noted that in formulating any process to in-crease the state's share of school aid, it would be imperative thatthe steps to reach the stated goal be realistic and that there be acommitment to fully fund that level of support and that the changebe a part of a comprehensive revenue bill.

The movement from the existing level of state funding to fiftypercent would require a massive increase in school aid if it wereto be accomplished in a single or even in two steps. Using the 1973-74 distribution year as an example, total new money in the amountof approximately $200 - $300 million would be required. Obviously,this amount of money would not be available without major new staterevenue sources. Our proposal would be that the increase be accom-plished in the following manner:

Year of Percentage ofEnactment State Aid

1 35% - Legislature fullyfund existing level

2

3

4

5

38%

42%

46%

50%

55

- 47 -

While it is difficult to precisely project the level of state-wide public education expenses over a five year period, it can beassumed that overall expense wilt continue to rise at 10-12 per-cent annually. Therefore, using that as a base-line, the estimatedannual average amount of new funds to raise the level of state aid_to fifty percent would be approximately $70 - 80 million annuallyfor five years.

56

- 48 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 5

AS PART OF THE COORDINATED STUDY OF AID TOCITIES AND TOWNS, THE GENERAL COURT SHOULD UNDER-TAKE A PROCESS WHEREBY LEGITIMATE AND AUTHORIZEDAID PROGRAMS ARE FULLY FUNDED.

Aid programs to cities and towns are established by statuteand represent a fiscal commitment from the state to its communi-ties. Consistent underfunding of the various aid funds only tendsto make the inequities which justified the establishment of the aidprogram more pronounced. As an example, Chapter 70 containsthe provisions for general educational aid to the cities and townsand it has only been fully funded twice since it was established.

In the section of the questionnaire which dealt with the exist-ing aid program, 56. 95% of all respondents expressed their opinionthat Chapter 70 as it was being administered was not doing the jobit was designed to do. In a related question as to why this was so,61.36% of the individuals responding identified the lack of full fund-ing as one of the most significant reasons for the existing aid pro-gram not working as it was designed.

The net effect of this practice can perhaps best be stated byan observation in the study of school finance in Massachusetts con-ducted by John J. Callahan and William H. Wilken for the Massachu-setts Teachers Association in 1973.

"Though the state does not vigorously participate in education-al finance, it does channel its modest State aid in a form that recog-nizes variations both in educational need and local fiscal capacity.For example, in 1968 - 69, Massachusetts distributed 97 percent ofits support in a form which recognized (1) educational need or (2)fiscal capacity or (3) both. Contrast this 97 percent Massachusettsaid figure with that of the national average of 77 percent.

While Massachusetts has a form of equalizing aid system, itsunderfunding_of that_p_rogram permits the State to have a school supjport system that is disegualizins in2ractice. As noted by the NationalEducational Finance Project, Massachusetts ranked 33 among all statesin its equalization performance. Indeed, 6 of the 7 other states thathad a State aid program in the form of Massachusetts' had higher equal-ization scores as of 1970. Massachusetts has a State aid vehicle whichcould put substantial equalization into its school finance system. How-ever, it simply chooses not to use it. " (23)

(23) John J. Callahan, Jr. and William H. Wilkin, Education FinanceReform in Massachusetts. A study conducted for The Massachu-setts Teachers Association, 1973, pp.3

- 49 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 6

THE GENERAL COURT SHOULD ESTABLISH, AS A HIGHPRIORITY, THE STRENGTHENING OF THE PROCESS FORINSURING EQUITY IN THE ASSESSMENT AND ADMINISTRATIONOF THE PROPERTY TAX.

Specifically, this recommendation would involve three areas:

(1) The state Tax Commission would be strengthened by insuringthat it was given sufficient executive support, legal authority,

and professional stature to insure full local compliance with statelaws calling for uniformity of property tax assessment.

(2) Training and certification of local assessors would be im-proved to insure that assessors are selected on the basis of

demonstrated ability to appraise property.

(3) All cities and towns would be required within a stated andreasonable time to cease the practice of fractional assessment

and to assess all property at full value.

This recommendation is in consonance with the recent rulingwith the state's Supreme Judicial Court that partial assessment bytowns is not legal and should be terminated.

Problems associated with the need for greatly improved methodsof equalizing local property values has been well documented - in thisstate and others. By not having all towns at or near full value assess-ment, the following problems remain:

(1) The State Tax Commission is required to use partial data to es-timate the full values of property in each city and town. In 1973,

nine towns revalued their property and in each of the nine, the reap-praised value of property exceeded the tax commission's estimates bysignificant amounts - i. e. , by more than 60%.

(2) The state consistently underestimates full property values andthis results in an exaggerated picture of the relative weight of

Massachusetts property taxes.

- 50 -

(3) Underestimated property values in equalizing the values foruse in state aid formulas results in a penalty for those cities

and towns which have revalued their property. The result of thisis that the communities which have not made an effort to revaluetheir property appear as being poorer than they are and, therefore,those towns receive significantly more in state aid than they are en-titled to receive. (24)

It should be noted that in both the questionnaire and in the in-terviews, almost sixty percent of the respondents identified poorassessment practices as major concerns in the process of state aidentitlements.

If you believe that the existing school aid program is not meet-ing its designed goal, is the inadequacy of equalization in propertyvaluation and assessment a factor?

Group Number Responding Affirmative

Superintendents 34

Representatives 31

Senators 14

Municipal Officials 25

Total 104

N - 1 76

59.1%

(24) Information and analysis in the area of assessment and equal-ized property valuation was facilitated by data and publicationsfrom the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

59

- 51 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 7

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHOULD ESTABLISHA PROCEDURE WHEREBY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM COSTDIFFERENTIALS ARE COMPUTED BI-ANNUALLY AND AREUSED TO DETERMINE STATE AID TO CITIES AND TOWNS IFTHE STATE AID PROGRAM IS SO MODIFIED.

These cost differentials would be expressed in terms of weightedratios and would include, as a minimum, the following types ofeducational programs:

(1) Regular day, basic elementary grades 1 - 6(2) Regular day, grades 7 - 9(3) Regular day, grades 10 - 12(4) Kindergarten(5) Programs for students with special learning needs(6) Other special programs under Chapter 766, Special Education

Law(7) Bi-Lingual programs(8) Occupational and vocational training(9) Continuing Education programs(10) Programs for disadvantaged students (Title I definition)

Oa

As the structure of soLiety has become more complex, so hasthe problem of identifying specific needs for specific children in achanging social environment. School officials are forced to plan pro-grams which are undercut by continuing migrations and shifting ofstudents, by increasing social malaise and discontent, and by high con-centrations of students with serious educational handicaps concentratedin urban areas. A reduction in the population in rural areas coupledwith a statewide stabilizing or declining birth rate, has had an unevenand artificial inflationary effect on per student cost in many districts.All of these factors have added to the difficulties in keeping up-to-datein the measurement of educational and financial needs in the state.

Increasingly, school aid programs are attempting to measurethe financial costs of designated program categories. These programscan then be described in terms of comparable work or service of theschool staff, the target student population served, essential materialsand facilities required as well as in their relationships to other pro-grams. In this regard, the total educational program can be broken

co

- 52 -

down into programs as functional components which can then berelated to students, their needs and development. (25)

The recommendation that there be at least nine categoriesof educational programs in any new school aid program in theCommonwealth includes those categories in current use aroundthe country and in Massachusetts. These may be altered or mod-ified as future needs of students might dictate. The procedure isdesigned to identify the target population through diagnosis of stu-dent need rather than using other indirect methods of cost estima-tion such as trying to anticipate the numbers of students havingsnecial educational needs or who might come from low incomefamilies.

This recommendation is a reflection of the attitudes andstated opinions of both the questionnaire respondents and the inter-viewees that m ethods for improving the quality of school programsand access to those programs be evolved. It is also consistent withnew legislative programs to provide state aid to education in NorthDakota, Utah, and Florida. (26)

(25) Roe L. Johns et al. Financing_Education: Fiscal and Learning._Alternatives. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company,1972, pp 194 ff

(26) Major School Finance Changes. A report of the EducationCommission of the States. June 8, 1973

61

- 53 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 8

THE GENERAL COURT AND ALL EDUCATIONAL AGEN-CIES SHOULD CONTINUE THEIR EFFORTS WHICH ARE DE-SIGNED TO RETAIN FISCAL AUTONOMY OF LOCAL SCHOOLCOMMITTEES OVER DECISIONS CONCERNING THE OPERATINGEXPENSES OF LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

In paraphrase, the New Jersey case of Robinson v. Cahill mayhave established the basic tenet for school finance reform - theeducation of a community's youth is too important a function to beleft to the fluctuating moods, and in some cases the low aspirations,of the taxpayers in a school district.

Much has been said about the question of fiscal autonomy for theschool committees of Massachusetts. While the "taxpayers' revolt"has not hit Massachusetts with the severity it has in other states, itmay be assumed that a round of new taxes in the state could causean increased demand for budget cuts in all areas but particularly ineducation. Here, frustrations over not being able to control or cutlocal school budgets reaches an annual crescendo every spring. Anindication of the extremes to which tills frustration might go is indi-cated below.

"Increased resistence to school support and its results are evi-dent at each level of government, but the taxpayers' revolt has beenparticularly acute at the local level recently. In California, thirtydistricts went badkrupt (and required state loans to continue operating)and 60 percent of the proposed increases in school taxes and new bondissues were rejected by voters in 1970/71. In Michigan, twenty oftwenty-five requests for higher property taxes were rejected and thirty-six of ninety-one requests to continue current rates also failed to pass.New Jersey suffered its highest rate of budget defeats in history. NewYork in 1 970 fell just one short of equaling its 1969 all-time high of120 budget defeats. These actions had a serious impact on schoolprograms. In California in 1971, the number of teachers employeddropped by nine thousand while enrollment climbed by one hundredthousand. In Michigan, 4, 480 teachers and 248 administrators werenotified that they would not he rehired in the fall of 1971. In New YorkState, a study of budgetary adjustments in 1 969/70 showed a net reduc-tion in staff for English, foreign languages, guidance, psychologicalservices, art, and music.

- 54 -

Individual districts use a bevy of administrative practices thatwere never taught in educational administrative courses. Fouryears ago, in Champaign, Illinois, teachers were paid with vouchersthat local banks agreed to cash on the understanding that bonds couldbe sold to redeem the scrip. In big city districts where the crises hasbeen most acutely felt in recent years, teachers have been laid off(in Cincinnati, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Detroit), schoolshave seriously considered closing early (in Philadelphia), class sizehas been increased (in Detroit and New York City), experimental pro-grams have been eliminated (in Detroit and New York City), schoolhours have been shortened (in Los Angeles and Cincinnati), librariesshut (in Cincinnati), and the next year's revenues used for the currentyear's payrolls (in New York City." (27)

In Massachusetts, considerable interest and concern has beenshown over this issue in local communities. An assessment of thisconcern was indicated in one area of the questionnaire.

In general, what is the level of interest over the following issueconcerning schools in recent elections within your area or consti-tuency?

Low LevelNot a Concern

High LevelConsiderableConcern

1 2 3 4 5

Fiscal autonomy ofschool committee

Superintendents 5 11 28 28 22

Representatives 3 4 19 27 9

Senators - 2 5 9 5

Municipal Officials 3 7 15 7 13

11 24 67 71 49

N - 222 4.95% l0.81%30.18% 31.98% 22. 08%

- _ - - - - - - - - -In response to the question concerning retention of fiscal auto-

nomy, the respondents to the questionnaire did not all agree on sup-port of the concept.

(27) Berke, Op. Cit. , p. 9. This issue is also discussed in considerabledepth in Philip K. Piele and John Stuart Hall, Budietsj_ Bonds, andBallots. Lexington, Mass: D. C. Heath and Company, 1973.

C3

- 55 -

Respondents were asked to indicate the level of acceptance ornon-acceptance of the following statement.

_ _

"Fiscal autonomy of the local school committees provides a meansto avoid local underfundingnomy should be retained.

SuperintendentsRepresentativesSenatorsMunicipal Officials

N - 225

of school programs. Such fiscal auto-"

Strongly Mildly No Mildly StronglySupport Support Opinion Oppose Oppose

1 2 3 4 5

72 19 1 - 1

19 14 3 7 238 5 1 1 6

9 11 3 9 13

108

48.00%49

21.77%8

3.55% 7.

17

55%

43

1 9. 11%6 9.77% 26.66%

The different responses by the three groups - educators, statelegislators, and municipal officials - perhaps reflect better than anyother indicator the frustrations over the issue. All groups had indica-ted an overwhelming support of education. Only a relatively small per-centage of respondents had indicated any level of non-trust betweenmunicipal officials and school. committees. (Less than 35 percent ofall respondents indicated that they believed that a low level of trust ex-isted between municipal officials and school committees. It should benoted, however, that almost half (47. 50%)af the respondents including77. 78% of the municipal officials believed that schools did receivepriority in the demand for tax resources.)

In the area of fiscal autonomy, however, the separation betweenmunicipal officials and superintendents is particularly telling. Overtwo-thirds of the respondents indicated that fiscal autonomy should beretained. However, this figure includes 97. 84% of the superintendents.Only 44. 44% of the municipal officials and only 52.87% of the legislatorsfavored retention of fiscal autonomy for school committees. This per-centage break-down closely parallels the recent votes in the state legis-

G4

- 56 -

lature over the issue. The school officials overwhelmingly sup-port the issue, the municipal officials are split but tend to opposethe matter, and the legislators are closely divided.

In many instances the opposition of fiscal autonomy reflectsa genuine concern for the growing tax burden on the cities andtowns. It should be noted that education, like other social ser-vices, is expensive. The legitimate and proper delivery of educa-tion programs to students in a community is of especial importanceand should not be subverted or reduced by emotional pressures.

C,5

- 57 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 9

THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHOULD EVOLVEA PLAN TO ESTABLISH A HIGHER DEGREE OF SHAREDRESPONSIBILITY WITH LOCAL SCHOOL COMMITTEES INTHE FOLLOWING AREAS:

(1) EDUCATIONAL GOALS AND PRIORITIES SETTING(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM STANDARDS(3) LEVELS OF ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY(4) EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS(5) SCHOOL DISTRICT SIZE AND ORGANIZATION

A traditional belief in education has been that educationaldecisions should be made on the lowest level where they can bemade efficiently. It would then follow that decisions should notbe made on the state level if they can be efficiently made on thelocal level.

On the other hand, control of the decision-making processnaturally tends to move to the level where the source of fundingresides. If school aid is effected and the state share of localschool educational expense is increased, it may be assumed thatpressures for increased state control of local education will soonfollow.

The State Board of Education might be able to anticipatethis pressure by evolving a process of shared decision-makingwith local school committees in advance. The five areas listedabove are areas in which shared responsibility might effectivelyexist. The responsibility for local budget review and approval aswell as negotiating staff and teacherst salaries would continue toreside with the local school committee.

The rationale for this recommendation is based upon thetradition of localism which has survived in Massachusetts untilthe present day. This is, of course, a strong Massachusetts her-itage, rooted in a history of village democracy. At its best, thetradition nourishes the strengths of self-reliance. At its worst,however, it spawns parochialism, inefficiency, and internecinebickering. In Massachusetts today, the tradition of localism hascombined with state leadership to thwart efforts at the kind of coop-

66

- 58 -

eration and improvement that exchange of information and expe-rience might yield. (28)

One consequence of Massachusetts localism is an idiosyn-cratic pattern of local school districts, a jumble of confusedjurisdictions and uneconomic units, that make rational planningof a state level exceedingly difficult. It has the added consequenceof creating breaks and disruptions in the articulation of any onechild's education from first through 12th grade. (29)

The Governor's Commission Report on School District Or-ganization and Collaboration explored in depth the problems 're-sulting from the many operating and overlapping school districtsin the state. One of its major recommendations is that strongaction be taken to encourage the elimination of many of the smalland inefficient school districts.

"The State Board of Education should follow three basic di-rections in approving proposals for formation of new or expansionof existing school districts:

A. Develop K - 12 School Districts that:

1. Adequately meet the needs of all towns in a particulararea, excluding no community that needs membershipto serve its students properly.

2. Encompass an adequate pupil base. Refer to appendixA for guidance on this criterion.

3. Expand partial regional districts to include all gradesin their member towns. Refer to appendix B for gui-dance on this criterion.

B. Develop K - 12 School Districts that possess the capabilityof providing a high quality of service in each of the nineteencategories listed in this report.

C. Develop an administrative system in which a superintendentis responsible to only one school committee no matter howmany communities are served. "(30)

(28) See The Governors Commission Report on School District Or-ganization and Collaboration.

(29) This issue has been discussed in some detail in the MACE AnnualReport of 1971: Massachusetts Schools:Past, Present, and Possible.

(30) Governor's Commission Report on School District Organizationand Collaboration, Q. Cit., Recommendation #3

67

- 59 -

While this approach is designed to eventually correct theproblems in delivery of educational services, it would take muchinfluence and encouragement to fully accomplish. In the interim,the approach of the State Board actively involving itself more con-clusively in the issues listed above would help to make the qualityof educational programs more consistent.

This question and related areas were discussed in the ques-tionnaire and in our interviews. In some areas, there appearedto be both political and educational support for an increased staterole.

Listed below are a series of possible guidelines related toschool district organization which might c.:s established to restruc-ture a program to finance public education. Indicate whether youwould attach Considerable (C), Much (M), Little (L), or No (N)importance to each possible guideline by circling the appropriateletter.

(a) Changes to state aid programs may necessitate some schooldistrict reorganization. State-wide studies should be insti-tuted to determine the extent o.. the need for re-organization.

C M L N

Superintendents 31 39 14 5

Representatives 1 i 11 31 11

Senators 3 7 6 5

Municipal Officials 10 8 18 8

N - 218 55 65 69 2925.23% 29.82% 31.65% 1 3. 30%

(b) Reorganization of school districts should result in an equali-zation of fiscal resources insofar as this is feasible.

C M L N

Superintendents 44 27 11 6

Representatives 10 23 17 14Senators 6 10 5

Municipal Officials 13 19 9 2

N - 216 73 79 42 2233. 80% 36. 57% 1 9. 44% 10.19%

70. 37%

- 60 -

(c) Provisions should be included which would enable smallschool districts to continue if the citizens so desired.

C M L N

Superintendents 19 23 32 16Representatives 15 29 15 5

Senators 7 7 6 -Municipal Officials 13 7 21 2

54 66 74 2324.59% 30.41% 34.10% 10.60%

55.30%

In two of the instances cited above, the stated importance ofguidelines indicates a significant majority favoring or showing inter-est in some aspects of reorganization. On the other hand, a majorityalso express interest in providing provisions for a small school dis-trict to continue if the citizens so desired. Of interest is the fact thatin the third question a majority of superintendents and municipal offi-cials express a low importance to this issue while legislators expresssignificantly more importance to the guideline.

69

- 61 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 10

ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE STATE FUNDINGPROGRAM FOR AID TO CITIES AND TOWNS SHOULD CON-TINUE TO INCLUDE SOME FORM OF INCENTIVE TOENCOURAGE SMALL. SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO FORM OR JOINREGIONALIZED SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

These incentives should be-forward looking and include pro-posals which plan for the overall anticipated educational needs ofschool districts for a period of at least ten years. Such incentivesmight encompass but not be limited to the following areas:

(1) Examination of existing statutes and regulations to repealor eliminate those provisions which retard or discourageschool district reorganization;

(2) Guarantees that local school districts will not completelylose their identity in the larger regional district. Maximumcitizen involvement should be sought in the development ofplans, establishing school committee composition and re-presentation, and the development of proposed legislation(if required);

(3) Optional provisions for regional school districts to assumebonded debt and receive state support for retiring debt pre-viously incurred by smaller districts prior to regionalization;

(4) Increased percentage of state assistance for school or facili-ties construction which might be needed as a result of region-alization;

(5) Incentive bonus aid in the form of reimbursed per-pupil costsfor regionalized school districts;

(6) Fully funded transportation reimbursement aid to cover thecosts of transporting students within the regionalized schooldistricts;

(7) Provisions that guarantee a level of school aid which would beno less than the total amount which would have been receivedby the local school districts prior to regionalizing.

'7o

-62-

House Bill 0100 of the 1974 legislative session had someregional school aid provisions included within its omnibus re-structuring of certain distribution and assessment formulas.Specifically, these provisions included:

(a) a new regional school incentive which would be based onthe reimburseable expenditures for the regional schooland the school aid percentage under Chapter 70 and whichwould provide more incentive for full K-12 regionalization;

(b) a changed incentive factor for the construction of regionalschools by granting a higher percentage of constructionassistance to regional schools with all grades (K - 12),than to regional schools with less than all grades.

This issue is discussed extensively in Section III of theReport of the Governor's Commission on School District Organi-zation and Collaboration. Recommendations there support thecontention that while increasing the size and scope of school dis-tricts does not guarantee quality, the more efficient and effectiveuse of such resources can be a factor in making quality more pos-sible and economical.

In this study, the responses to several areas related to thisissue have already been cited. Of particular interest is the directquestion concerning incentive features.

To the following guideline, indicate whether you would attach Con-siderable (C), Much (M), Little (L), or No (N) importance.

Incentive features should be maintained at a support level high enoughto encourage school district reorganization.

C M L N

Superintendents 41 31 11 7

Representatives 15 24 15 8

Senators 8 11

Municipal Officials 2 13 19 8

N - 213 66 79 45 2330. 98% 37. 09% 21. 1 3% 10. 80%

'1

- 63 -

The support for this guideline is significant by all groupsexcluding municipal officials. When questioned in succeedinginterviews, members of this group explained that the "incentivefeatures" known or suggested all were seen as aid directly toschool districts and might be seen as potential reductions in aidto cities and towns.

In the overall interest of providing the maximum opportunityfor more efficient and effective school operation --- and, by ex-tension, access to a higher quality education --- it is believed thatcontinued and active efforts to encourage regionalization are worth-while.

- 64 -

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 11

THE STATE BOARD SHOULD MANDATE THAT ALLANNUAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORTS BE PRE-PARED SO THAT A REPORT ON COST COMPARISONS WITHOTHER DISTRICTS OF SIMILAR SIZE UNDER STANDARD RE-PORTING CATEGORIES CAN BE DEVELOPED AND WIDELYDISTRIBUTED.

This area, under the general concept of efficiency of opera-tion was one of the most commonly discussed items in both thequestionnaire and in the interviews. It has been suggested that thisannual report include but not be limited to the following areas:

(1) Ratio of full time certified staff members or staff-memberequivalents to full-time students;

(2) Total expenditures per full-time student in the various oper-ating account categories (less fixed assets and debt services)as required under Chapter 72 of the General Laws;

(3) Staffing and expenditure comparisons with comparable schooldistricts.

The purpose of this annual report would be to help ensure thatno matter where a citizen resides in the state, he or she can be pro-vided with convenient access to basic educational services informa-tion so as to be able to use that information to make similar servicesavailable in local communities at a reasonable and comparable cost.

The area of increased public access to information is one inwhich educators need to be less defensive. On pages 28-31 of thisreport, the issue was discussed in terms of helping the public betterunderstand the programs in each school system and even to appreciatethe problems N .ii.c h face the schools. Too long a history exists of ed-ucators guarding in an over-zealous manner the information which thepublic has legitimate cause to know and to study. The concerns of ed-ucators relating to the access to this data need to be put aside and theschools need to strive to better explain their policies in light of therelations of school operation, not in the half-light of selected informa-tion released.

73

- 65 -

To this issue, a number of questionnaire items were ad-dressed. In the area of "level of interest", a surprisingly lowpercentage of respondents at both the low and high level of con-cern expressed any significant level of constituency interest.

In general, what is the level of interest over the following issueconcerning schools in recent elections within your area or consti-tuency?

Low LevelNot a Concern

High LevelCons iderableConcern

1 2 3 4 5

Public Involvement in Schools

Superintendents 5 17 44 15 12Representatives 7 13 32 10 4Senators 3 13 2 3Municipal Officials - 4 21 18 2

12 37 110 45 215. 33% 16.44% 48. 89% 20.00% 9.33%

The only group expressing a significant level of concern wasthe municipal officials. This interest was tied to local school ex-penses in almost every case. Without exception, individuals who ex-pressed a specific opinion on the issue of increaed access to schoolinformatio (excluding superintendents who werf.: consistently lessthan positive on this issue) felt that the concerns over local schoolfinancing might well be lessened if more information was readily avail-able.

In the area of state funding of education, this study found wide-spread misunderstanding and bewilderment uver the process of stateaid to cities and towns for reimbursement of educational expenses.As an example, consider the response to this particular item.

74

- 66 -

Under Chapter 70 of the General Laws, each city and town receivesfrom the state a certain amount of money for the support of itsschools. This state aid is based on a formula. Ideally, such aformula and program for state aid should be easy to understand sothat everyone concerned knows exactly what the program and formu-la accomplish.

Would you indicate your general level of understanding of theChapter 70 state aid program and the formula.

(a) Understand the aid pro-gram - Comfortable indiscussions about it

(b) Generally understandthe intent and workingsof the aid program

(c) Aid program and formu-la are confusing

(d) The school aid programand formula are incom-prehensible

It - 226

Supt. Rep: Sen. M. O. Totals

29 10 6 9 54(23. 89 %)

43 22 12 9 86(38.05%)

17 32 3 24 76(33.63%)

5 2 3 10( 4.43%)

If over one-third of the individuals who have the responsibility.for administering the state aid program are willing to admit to con-fusion or a low level of understanding, then more and better infor-mation is essential. It would appear that some method of providingan easy access to information is mandated. The best system to ac-complish this is to make as much information available as possiblein a format which enables the layman to understand the complexitiesof a process which receives up to two-thirds of the local tax dollarsin many communities. To continue any other alternative is to courtand invite continuing suspicion and negative response to the legitimatebudgetary needs of public schools.

-67-

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. All future attempts at school aid reform should be pursuedwithin the framework of organizational reform for equali-zation of educational. opportunity. To achieve this goal, theDepartment of Education should work with the AdvisoryCouncil on Education and other appropriate research agenciesto develop an ongoing procedure to identify and account forthe educational need differentials among students in variousschool districts.

2. All future attempts at school aid reform should be pursuedin relation to the total program of providing aid to cities andtowns, not as an action focused solely on educational serviceinterests.

3. Changes and proposed changes in school aid distribution shouldbe referred to a legislative commission on equal educationalopportunity. Additionally, the General Court should task thisspecial legislative commission with the responsibility to issueguidelines concerning fiscal reform to insure that all proposedrevisions to school aid funding be forward looking and plan forprojected needs over a period of seven to ten years.

4. The state share of funding public education should be increasedthrough a planned incremental program to an eventual percen-tage level of fifty percent.

5. As part of the coordinated study of aid to cities and towns, theGeneral Court should undertake a process whereby legitimateand authorized aid programs are fully funded.

6. The General Court should establish, as a high priority, thestrengthening of the process fo'r insuring equity in the assess-ment and administration of the property tax.

7. The Department of Education should establish a procedure where-by educational program cost differentials are computed bi-annuallyand are used to determine state aid to cities and towns if the stateaid program is so modified.

- 68 -

8. The General Court and all educational agencies should con-tinue their efforts which are designed to retain fiscal auto-nomy of local school committees over decisions concerningthe operation of local school districts.

9. The State Board of Education should evolve a plan to establisha higher degree of shared responsibility with local schoolcommittees in the following areas:

(a) Educational goals and priorities setting(b) Establishment of minimum standards(c) Levels of academic proficiency(d) Evaluation of educational programs(e) School district size and organization

10. Any proposed changes in the state funding program for aid tocities and towns should conti.me to include some form of in-centive to encourage small school districts to form or joinregionalized school districts.

11. The State Board of Education should mandate that all annualschool district financial reports be prepared so that a reporton cost comparisons with other districts of similar size understandard reporting categories can be developed and widely dis-tributed.

77

- 69 -

APPENDIX A

DISCUSSION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY

The main objectives of this study were threefold: (1) to samplepolitical acceptance of existing state aid to public education;(2) to ascertain the expectations of both political elements forstate aid in the future; and (3) to propose a series of recommen-dations that might assist in the gradual and long-range revisionof state aid programs.

In its original organization, the study was to have several compo-nents - developed initially as separate elements and then joinedtogether as a final product. These elements included:

(1) A study advisory committee was formed to provide a broadspectrum of counsel to the study director. Members of thiscommittee are listed at the beginning of this report and in-cluded a number of people with expertise and interest in thearea of state aid to education. This committee met on sev-eral occasions to provide feedback on the progress of thestudy, to serve as an informal sounding board for the studydirector, and to provide a channel of communications to in-dividuals and groups interested in this area.

(2) A questionnaire was developed and sent to a sample of educa-tors (usually superintendents of schools), state legislators,and municipal officials representing ninety-seven cities andtowns in the Commonwealth. The municipalities selected forinclusion in the study are included in Appendix B to this re-port. An effort was made to select communities by broadcategories to insure a balanced coverage but also to includethe communities containing the bulk of the state's pow, lation.

Included in the questionnaire were areas designed to accom-plish the following:

(a) Sample existing thoughts about the present Chapter 70disbursement formula and its strengths or weaknesses;

(b) Pose general and specific questions related to the expec-tations for state assistance in the area of education;

(3)

- 70 -

(c) Determine what educational programs and servicesshould be funded in the school finance plan and forwhom should these programs be provided;

(d) i.scertain what the financial needs of schools will bein the near and long range future and what financialassistance would be required - considering the needsfor other governmental services and the financialability of the state;

(e) Sample opinions on what actions might be possible inthe 1975-78 period for changing the existing statefunding procedures.

The questionnaire and its tabulated responses are includedin Appendix C of this report.

As the questionnaire results were being collected and ini-tially tabulated, a sense of personal interviews were con-ducted with individuals having a vested interest or aparticular perspective concerning state aid to education.These interviews were open-ended and conducted withoutthe verbation recording of responses. The interviews wereintended to provide background material and in-depth re-sponses to areas in the questionnaire. Thirty se,en completeinterviews were conducted among representatives of thefollowing groups:

State legislatorsMembers of state agenciesSchool committeesMunicipal officialsSupe intendents of schoolsLa},or union officialsAdvocacy groups

School administratorsTeachersParent groupsMembers of the PressBankersUniversity staff

Informatior Ind areas of focus concerning the conduct of theinterviews e included below:

Notes to Interviewer(A) The interviews should expand upon the data we have re-

ceived from tabulating the questionnaire.

- 71 -

(B) Encourage the person being interviewed to expand uponareas under discussion. While we would like to havesome consistency in the responses,- it is more impor-tant that we use this opportunity to obtain broaderattitudes and opinions than are available from the ques-tionnaire.

(C) Areas and general topics for discussion might includethe following items. Please, feel free to pursue areasbeyond the simplistic responses which the questionsmight elicit.

(1) The auestion of quality of educational_progyams.How important is it? Will increased funding helplocal school districts attain higher quality educa-tion? What are impediments to local districtshaving quality programs? What does the intervieweefeel is most important in attaining "quality" educa-tion? What is "quality" education?

(2) The auestion of equal educational opportunity.Does such opportunity exist in Massachusettsschools? Urban schools? Suburban schools? Whatare the real constraints? Is the integration of urbanschools a problem or an opportunity? What new orrevised programs would be advantageous? Howmight different funding patterns help achieve theseprograms? 'What evaluation mechanisms should beused?

(3) The auestion of state aid to education.How well do you understand the provisions of Chap-ter 70? How well do you understand the other as-pects of school aid? Categorical aid? Due to thetechnical aspects of school aid, can it ever be under-stood by the layman? Is this a problem? What revi-sions might be in order? Why?

(4) The auestion of school district organization.Is there an optimum size for efficient and effectiveschool operation? Should regionalization be encour-aged through types of incentives? What are the ad-vantages/disadvantages of small school districts?

so

- 72 -

Should communities be able to maintain smalldistricts if they desire? What role should theState Board of Education play in this area? Whatroles should the Department of Education play?Regional offices?

(5) The question of special education.How well do you understand the new specialeducation law (Chapter 766)? What changes, ifany, should be made in the school aid programsbecause of the new law? Are cost differentialsmore advantageous than categorical aid? Why?

Upon completion of the sampling and interviews, the data was tabu-lated and used as a basis for evolving the specific recommendationsincluded in this study report. Additionally, a model has been deve-loped and included as Appendix E. This model is not intended to bethe MACE model or even the foundation for a specific piece of legis-lation. It is intended to incorporate some of the recommendations ofthe study, however, and should be viewed as a working alternativeto existing programs of state aid to education.

. 81

- 73 -

APPENDIX B

CITIES AND TOWNS INVOLVED IN STUDY

GROUPING BY CATEGORIES

1. Urban Core Districts035281348

BostonSpringfieldWorcester

2. Central Cities Other Than Core Districts044095097128160201236

BrocktonFall RiverFitchburgHaverhillLowellNew BedfordPittsfielt

3. Industrial/ Commercial Suburbs Adjacent to Urban CoreDistricts049 Cambridge 229 Peabody061 Chicopee 243 Quincy093 Everett 248 Revere163 Lynn 258 Salemi65 Malden 308 Waltham176 Medford

4. Suburban Districts008 Amherst 159 Longmeadow 285 Stoughton009 Andover 166 Manchester 287 Sturbridge023 Bedford 171 Marshfield 288 Sudbury025 Bellingham 1 98 Natick 290 Sutton042 Bridgewater 199 Needham 294 Templeton046 Brookline 207 Newton 305 Wakefield056 Chelmsford 208 Norfolk 320 Wenhrm067 Concord 220 Norwood 336 Weymouth072 Dartmouth 264 Scituate 341 Williamstown082 Duxbury 265 Seekonk 347 Woburn131 Hingham 279 Southwick155 Lexington 280 Spencer

- 74 -

APPENDIX BPage 2

5. Medium-Size Cit_y/Town Districts (over 15,000)016 Attleboro 209 North Adams020 Ba rnstable 210 Northampton096 Falmouth 239 Plymouth107 Gloucester .293 Taunton114 Greenfield 325 Westfield1 53 Leominster1 70 Marlborough

6. Small Districts (3, 000 - )5,000)

019 Ayer 113 Great Barrington 259 Salisbury121 Barre 144 Ipswich 310 Wareham024 Belchertown 191 Monson -... 326 Westford055 Chatham 197 Nantucket074 Deerfield 227 Palmer

242 Provincetown

7. Rural Districts (less than 3,000)006 Alford 085 Eastham013 Ashfield 089 Edgartown022 Becket 195 Mt. Washington033 Blandford 216 Northfield034 Bolton 241 Princeton058 Cheshire 249 Richmond060 Chesterfield 255 Royalston077 Douglas

83

. ...:r

:oo"

r

J

MA

SS

AC

HU

SE

TT

S

St.!

C. .

41S

.111

1.V

TIC

1L11

.M

1. .1.

**11

4,14

71:c

u11

7.14

. tul

so

Alfo

rdA

mhe

rst

And

over

Ash

field

Attl

ebor

oA

yer

Bar

nsta

ble

Bar

reB

ecke

tB

edfo

rdB

elch

erto

wn

Bel

lingt

onB

land

ford

Bol

ton

Bos

ton

Brid

gew

ater

Bro

ckto

nB

rook

line

Cam

brid

geC

hath

am

Citi

es a

nd T

owns

Invo

lved

In S

tudy

.

Che

lmsf

ord

Ipsw

ich

Nor

tham

pton

Che

shire

Leom

inst

erN

orth

field

Che

ster

field

Lexi

ngto

nN

orw

ood

Chi

cope

eLo

ngm

eado

wP

alm

erC

onco

rdLo

wel

lP

eabo

dyD

artm

outh

Lynn

Pitt

sfie

ldD

eerf

ield

Mal

den

Ply

mou

thD

ougl

asM

anch

este

rP

rince

ton

Dux

bury

Ma

rlbor

ough

Pro

vinc

eton

Eas

tham

Mar

shfie

ldQ

uinc

yE

dgar

t ow

nM

edfo

rdR

ever

eE

ve*

ett

Mon

son

Ric

hmon

dF

all R

iver

Mt.

Was

hing

ton

Roy

aist

onF

alm

outh

Nan

tuck

etS

alem

Fitc

hbur

gN

atic

kS

alis

bury

Glo

uces

ter

Nee

dham

Sci

tuat

eG

reat

Bar

ringt

on N

ew B

edfo

rdS

eeko

nkG

reen

field

New

ton

Sou

thw

ick

Hav

erhi

llN

orfo

lkS

penc

erH

ingh

amN

orth

Ada

rr s

Spr

ingf

ield

Sto

ught

onS

turb

ridge

Sud

budy

Sut

ton

Tau

nton

Tem

plet

onW

akef

ield

Wal

tham

Wa

reha

mW

enha

mW

estfi

eld

Wes

tford

Wey

mou

thW

illia

mst

own

Wob

urn

Wor

cest

erD

U

N A

N

- 76 - APPENDIX C

Massachusetts Advisory Council on EducationStud _on Financina_Public Education

Questionnaire and Tally of Responses

Total

Educational Community(Superintendents)

State Representatives

State oenators

Municipal Officials(Mayors & Selectmen)

A.General Information1. Your position:

TotalMailed

Numb e rReturned

PercentageReturned

406 226 55.67%

108 94 87. 04

162 66 40. 74

40 21 52. 50

96 45 46. 88

Legislator (Senate)Legislator (House)MayorSelectman/ Town ManagerSuperintendent of Schools

2. Years in present position

3. In general, what is the level of interest over the followingissues concerning schools in recent elections within yourarea or constituency? Circle the appropriate number:

(a)

Low LevelNot a Concern

High LevelConsiderableConcern

1 2 3 4 5

Quality of schools-educational resultsbeing achieved

Superintendents 3 6 29 44 12Representatives 1 6 12 20 27Senators 2 6 13Municipal Officials 3 15 10 17

85

- 77 -

(b) Racial balance ofschools

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 72 12 5 2 2Representatives 41 10 4 4 7Senators 9 6 - 3 3Municipal Officials 28 5 5 5 2

(c) Increase of schoolbudget

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents - 5 13 33 43Representatives - 4 7 29 26Senators - - 3 2 16Municipal Officials - 4 4 14 23

(d) Public involvementin schools

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 5 17 44 15 12Representatives 7 13 32 10 4Senators - 3 13 2 3Municipal Officials - 4 21 18 2

(e) Closing of parochialschools-potential oractual

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 56 19 8 9 3Representatives 18 9 , 27 6 6Senators 3 3 9 3 3Municipal Officials 13 11 5 9 7

(f) Adequacy of facilities 1 2 3 4 5(including physical plant)

Superintendents 7 15 19 32 21Representatives 2 8 8 26 22Senators 3 6 7 5Municipal Officials 2 8 8 11 16

(g) Fiscal autonomy ofschool committee

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendent 5 11 28 28 22Representatives 3 4 19 27 9Senators - 2 5 9 5Municipal Officials 3 7 15 7 13

86

- 78 -

(h) Other Issues 1

SuperintendentsRepresentatives -SenatorsMunicipal Officials

2 3 4 5

- - 5 6

1 2 2 1

lob

I 2

4. In the school budget process within your area, to what extentdo you think municipal officials trust the school committee(s)?

Not at all Great Extent1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 1 21 33 32 7

Representatives 4 18 29 13 2

Senators 6 12 3

Municipal Officials 7 13 13 9 3

5. To what extent do you think the school committee(s) trust themunicipal offic Is?

Not at all1 2 3

Great Extent4 5

Superintendents 2 16 46 26 4

Representatives 7 24 28 4 3

Senators - 12 6 3 -Municipal Officials 3 15 19 5 3

6. The cost of providing public services tends to rise at a fasterlevel than the public funds readily available for distribution. Inyour opinion, what is the level of competing demand for tax re-sources between schools and other municipal services withinyour area of representation?

(a) competitive, priorities estab-lished by public

(b) competitive, priorities estab-lished by municipal official.

(c) competitive, schools receivingpriority

(d) competitive, schools not re-ceiving priority

(e) low level of competition be-tween schools and other mun-icipal services

t

Supt. Rep. Sen. M.O.

7 7 3 2

17 13 9 3

-0 26 6 35

5 - -

24 20 3 5

87

- 7 9 -

7. In your opinion, which of the following general patterns shouldthe re-examination of school finance programs and the distri-bution of state funds follow?

(a) equalization of educational oppor-tunity is a high priority and schoolfinance reform should be evolvedas soon as possible

(b) school finance reform is only apart of general fiscal reform inthe f.":ommonwealth and should beconsidered as one part of a com-prehensive reform package

(c) school finance reform is impor-tant but other fiscal reforms havehigher priority and should be con-sidered first

Supt. Rep: Sen. M. O.

40 19 9 16

48 42 8 26

(d) the case for changing existing met-hods of financing education has notyet been proven 4 5 4 3

B. Info z nation About Educational and Political Attitudes

1. Listed below are a series of statements about the public and ed-ucation. Please indicate your opinion of each statement by circlingthe number in the column which comes the closest to representingyour acceptance or non-acceptance of the statement.

Strongly Mildly No Mildly StronglySupport Smport Oppose Oppose (22poze

(a) Residents and voterswho have children inschool are more like-ly to support schoolbudget increases thanthose who do not havechildren in school

SuperintendentsRepresentativesSenatorsMunicipal Officials

1 2 3 4

44 44 3 332 27 2 5

8 1118 18

5

- 80 -

(b) Re sidents and voters 1

who own their homesare more likely to sup-port school budget in-creases than renters

Superintendents 4Representatives 2

Senators 1

Municipal Officials 1

(c) Middle-aged citizens 1

are more likely to showa high degree of inter-est in school relatedissues than either thevery young or the veryolsl

Superintendents 21

Representatives 4Senators 1

Municipal Officials 11

(d) The greater a resi- 1

dent's educational at-tainment, the morelikely he will activelyparticipate in resol-ving school relatedIssues

Superintendents 41Representatives 13Senators 9Municipal Officials 15

(e) The greater an indivi- 1

dual's attachment to acommunity, the moreactive he will be inschcol related issues

Superintendents 26Representatives 13Senators 6

Municipal Officials 13

2 3 4 5

26 15 35 1318 3 31 12

8 2 10 -3 7 27 7

2 3 4 5

35 6 22 922 7 29 4

8 6 6 -22 7 5 -

2 3 4 5

42 2 5 438 8 § 1

8 2 2 -13 7 7 2

2 3 4 5

43 11 12 234 5 13 1

9 3 2 1

24 3 5 -

69

- 81 -

(f) The smaller the size 1 2 3 4 5of a school district.the higher will be thepercentage of involve-ment in school relatedis sues.

Superintendents 24 42 16 8 3Representatives 19 19 1 3 11 4Senators 6 2 7 5 1

Municipal Officials 9 19 9 5 3

(g) Non-voting by resi- 1 2 3 4 5dents is a reflectionof the stability of thepolitical system and isa response to the de-cline of major socialconflicts

Superintendents 6 16 16 31 25Representatives 7 4 7 19 26Senators - 2 5 6 8Municipal Officials 4 9 2 I 3 17

(h) When local elections 1 2 3 4 5generate a substantialincrease in turnout,one can infer that theelection is a symtomof a deeply felt com-munity conflict

Superintendents 39 34 6 14Representatives 23 26 - 13 4Senators 8 3 1 9 -Municipal Officials 13 17 5 5 5

(1.) The greater the de- 1 2 3 4 5gree of organizedopposition to schoolrelated issues, themore likely is defeatof incumbents orschool bond (construc-tion) elections

Superintendents 56 28 1 5 3Representatives 32 17 4 12Senators 12 3 2 3 -Municipal Officials 16 19 2 6 2

- 82 -

(j) School districts re- 1

ceiving "favorablelocal newspaper sup-port" are more likelyto have token opposi-t ion to school relatedis sues

Superintendents 20Representatives 7

Senators 3

Municipal Officials 5

(k) Citizens who display 1

attitudes toward schoolofficials are more like-ly to vote against in-cumbents and schoolrelated issues than thosewho support school offi-cials

Superintere,ents 44Representatives 33Senators 9Municipal Officials 15

(1) Equal educational op- 1

portunity requires un-equal allocation offunds to local schooldistricts

Superintendents 54Representatives 21

Senators 12Municipal Officials 13

(m) Educational programs 1

are influenced moreby actions taken at thenational and state levelthan at the local level

Superintendents 10Representatives 17Senators 9Municipal Officials 13

2 3 4 5

55 8 4 744 3 8 , 414 1 3 -19 11 7 3

2 3 4 5

43 3 1 226 4 3

6 3 2 1

24 3 3 -

2 3 4 5

21 9 7 3

Z2 3 13 75 1 3 -7 11 11 3

2 3 4 5

33 3 29 1923 17 9

3 3 6

11 3 13 5

91

- 83 -

(n) Public education inthe state would be im-proved if educationaldecisions at the locallevel could be com-pletely divorced fromconsiderations of localtaxes

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 62 19 9 4Representatives 19 14 6 23 4Senators 3 2 6 9 1

Municipal Officials 19 15 2 7 2

(o) The quality of educa-tion depends upon thepreservation of localcontrol of the schools

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 38 35 2 13 5

Representatives 21 18 3 21 3

Senators 8 3 1 9Municipal Officials 19 8 3 9 5

(p) The quality of educa-tion a child receivesis a product of thequality of life of thewhole community -notthe quality of hisschools

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 33 41 2 12 5

Representatives 22 34 4 4 2

Senators 12 9 -Municipal Officials 16 13 5 11 -

(q) Education is a funda-mental right of allchildren

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 90 3 1

Representatives 64 2Senators 21

Municipal Officials 37 5 3

- 84 -

(r) Equal educational op- 1

portunity requireslocal commitment tothe interests of eachstudent more than itrequires money

Superintendents 42Representatives 26Senators 5Municipal Officials 13

(s) Fiscal autonomy of 1

the local school com-mittees provides ameans to avoid localunderfunding of schoolprograms. Such fiscalautonomy should be re-tained

Superintendents 72Representatives 19Senators 8

Municipal Officials 9

(t) Education is the most 1

important function ofstate and local govern-ment

Superintendents 72Representatives 17Senators 7

Municipal Officials 9

(u) In today's society. it 1

is doubtful that anychild may succeed inlife if he is denied theopportunity of an edu-cation

Superintendents 63Representatives 26Senators 9Municipal Officials 27

(v) Education is the re- 1

sponsibility of thestate and not of thelocal cities & towns

Superintendents 40Representatives 7

SenatorsMunicipal Officials 7

2 3 4 5

29 4 7 1029 3 4 411 3 2 -11 7 13 1

2 3 4 5

19 1 -14 3 7 23

5 1 1 6

11 3 9 13

2 3 4 5

20 1 1

11 12 19 7

3 6 5

12 9 7 7

2 3 4 5

25 4 1 1

28 2 7 3

8 2 2

11 3 3 -

2 3 4 5

22 1 21 710 10 23 16

3 3 6 99 2 9 17

3

2.L

iste

d be

low

are

pro

blem

s an

d is

sues

whi

chm

ost s

choo

l dis

tric

ts a

nd c

omm

uniti

es f

ace

inre

gard

to e

duca

-tio

n. A

dditi

onal

spa

ces

have

bee

n in

clud

ed in

whi

chyo

u m

ight

wis

h to

indi

cate

add

ition

al p

robl

ems

and

issu

es.

FIR

ST, b

e su

re th

at th

e lis

t: co

ntai

ns th

ose

issu

es w

hich

you

feel

to b

e of

maj

or im

port

ance

for

sch

ools

in th

e 19

70s.

TH

EN

,id

entif

y th

e fi

ve m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t iss

ues

whi

chyo

u fe

el e

xist

in th

e sc

hool

s to

day

by p

laci

ng a

(1)

besi

de th

e m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t, a

(2)

besi

de th

e se

cond

mos

t im

port

ant,

and

so o

n th

roug

h (5

).

Issu

eR

AN

KSu

peri

nten

dent

s

1

Rep

rese

ntat

ives

5-r

IMPO

RT

AN

CE

Sena

tors

Mun

icip

al O

ffic

ials

12

34

51

23

45

12

34

51

23

45

(a)

Publ

ic in

volv

emen

t in

scho

ols

57

18

26

43

33

12

23

42

31

(b)

Bas

ic s

kills

inst

ruct

ion

(c)

Beh

avio

r of

you

th-i

n an

d ou

tof

sch

ool

12 2

6 12

7 3

11 6

8 7

610

3 3

3

13

6 3

3 1

21

1 2

3 1

8 4

3 1

3 5

2 3

2 1

Lnoo

(d)

Rac

ial &

min

ority

grou

p is

sue

(e)

Edu

catio

nal r

esul

ts b

eing

achi

eved

1

1720

5

16

4 7

5 7

4 1916

1

9 7

9 8

2 29

2 3

1 2

1 2

2 8

4 6

2 8

2 6

1

12(f

)Fu

ndin

g of

edu

catio

n33

1217

36

1612

96

69

34

21

115

73

(g)

Occ

upat

iona

l& v

ocat

iona

l ed.

(h)

Edu

catio

n of

you

ngst

ers

with

spec

ial h

andi

caps

1

6 6

8

12

12 12

9

11

7 4

7 4

7

10

13

3

8 3

1 2

1 1

2 2

9 12

2 1

2 3

9 2

7 2

7 9(i

)E

ffic

ienc

y of

sch

ool o

pera

tion

67

811

4-

46

91

11

33

61

52

(j)

Eva

luat

ion

of s

choo

l ope

ratio

ns3

75

1212

311

-3

13

21

22

63

(k)

Qua

lity

of te

achi

ng s

taff

167

78

6-

912

-3

32

26

43

2(1

)Pr

oble

ms

of s

choo

l"dr

op-o

ute

2-

33

32

12

5(m

) O

ther

Iss

ues

33

34

11

13

1

- 86 -

C. Inform'ation RegardiuPresent School Funding_

1, Under Chapter 70 of the General Laws, each city and town re-ceives from the state a certain amount of money for the sup-port of its schools. This state aid is based upon a formila.Ideally, such a formula and program for state aid should beeasy to understand so that everyone concerned knows exactlywhat the program and formula accomplish.

FIRST, Would you indicate your general level of understanding ofthe Chapter 70 state aid program and the formula.

(a) Understant the aid program-comfor-table in discussions about it

(b) Generally understand the intent andworkings of the aid program

(c) Aid program and formula are confus-ing

(d) The school aid program and formulaare incomprehensible

Statz_R22: Sen. M.O.

29 10 6 9

43 22 12 9

17 32 3 24

5 2 1 3

THEN, would you indicate, in general terms, your level of supportand acceptance of the Chapter 70 aid program as it is cur-rently administered. (Check as many items as required).

(a) Aid program is acceptable as it cur-Supt. Reel Sen. M. O.

rently exists 2 2

(b) Aid program is unacceptable. Majorrevisions are necessary 46 27 11 14

(c) Aid program is generally acceptable.Should be modified as indicated below:(1) to reflect variations in total local

tax efforts 18 18 7 14

(2) to remove minimum and maximumpercentages from state aid compu-tations

14 6 3 4

(3) to raise the overall average levelof state aid 42 12 24

(4) to include existing special categoryaid funds under the general schoolaid fund (i. e. , school construction,transportation, special education,occupational and vocational aid)

15 3 8

95

- 87 -

(5) to include supplementary aid forregional school districts

(6) to establish a minimum level ofmandatory educational expendi-tures for each city and town

(7) to reflect variations in educationalneed among different school dis-tricts

(8) to include provisions for cost dif-ferentials in different cities andtowns (i. e., the cost of similarservices may differ from town totown)

(d) Aid program is generally acceptable.Rill funding by the legislature ofChapter 70 is required

Supt._ Ruz Sen. M. 0.

12 3 - 4

19 9 3

21 21 9 6

17 21 8 8

22 12 6 12

2. Chapter 70 school aid is designed to help provide adequate statesupport for local education. In your opinion, to what extent is theaid program meeting this goal?

Not at allTo a greatExtent

1 2 3' 4 5

Superintendents 13 45 32 2 1

Representatives 3 31 24 6 -Senators 1 9 10 1

Municipal Officials 7 18 18 2 -

3. In your opinion, is the existing school aid program encouragingeffort on the part of all cities and towns to provide the best possibleeducation?

Not at allTo a greatExtent

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 26 35 26 5 1

Representatives 7 23 23 11

Senators 3 3 9 6

Municipal Officials 7 22 11 5 -

96

mu-,R &COPY IILSOLUIION ItSr CHAR

- 88 -

4. The existing state aid program is designed to take into consider-ation the fact that some towns do not have the same ability to payfor educational programs as other towns do. To what extent isthis provision working?

Not at allTo a greatExtent

1 2 3 4 5

Superintendents 14 44 25 8 1

Representatives 2 32 13 17 -Senators 1 11 3 6 -Municipal Officials 7 22 11 5 -

5. If your choices above tend to reflect that the existing school aidprogram is not meeting its designed goal, which of the followingconditions might be responsible for this?

Supt. R. Sen. M. 0.(a) Lack of full funding of Chapter 70 61 18 5 24

(b) Inadequacy of eqt: ,lization in pro-pe rty valuation 34 31 14 25

(c) Weaknesses of the present fundingprogram (i.e. , Chapter 70)

43 24 9 14

(d) Other factors 7 6 5 2

D. Information on Possible Revised School FundiuProvisions

1. Listed below are a series of possible guidelines related to schooldistrict organization which might be established to restructure aprogram to finance public education. Indicate whether you wouldattach Considerable (C), Much (M), Little (L), or No (N) impor-tance to each possible guideline by circling the appropriate letter.

(a) Changes to state aid programs may necessitate some schooldistrict reorganization. State-wide studies should be insti-tuted to determine the extent of the need for re-organization.

C M L N

Superintendents 31 39 14 5

Representatives 11 11 31 11

Senators 3 7 6 5

Municipal Officials 10 8 18 8

- 89 -

(b) On both the local and state level, maximum citizen involve-ment should be sought in the ckvelopment of plans, criteriafor school district reorganization, and proposed legislation.

C ML N

Superintendents 26 34 23 6Representatives 17 34 9 4Senators 6 12 3 -Municipal Officials 15 12 13 4

(c) Reorganization of school districts should result in an equali-zation of fiscal resources insofar as this is feasible.

C M L NSuperintendents 44 27 11 6Representatives 10 23 17 14Senators 6 10 5 -Municipal Officials 13 19 9 2

(d) New legislation should provide "bonus" aid for reorganizeddistricts on a per pupil basis.

C M L NSuperintendents 31 26 21 11Representatives 4 14 32 14Senators 3 1 9 6Municipal Officials 4 9 17 13

(e) Incentive features should be maintained at a support level highenough to encourage school district reorganization.

C M L NSuperintendents 41 31 11 7Representatives 15 24 15 8Senators 8 11 --Municipal Officials 2 13 19 8

(f) Provisions should be included which would enable small schooldistricts to continue if the citizens so desired.

C ML NSuperintendents 19 23 32 16Representatives 15 29 15 5Senators 7 7 6Municipal Officials 13 7 21 2

38

4.

( g )

- 90 -

Minimum standards for school district operation shouldbe issued as guidelines by the state - specific local stan-cards would remain a factor of local option.

Superintendents 38 30 12 9

Representatives 26 26 11 1

Senators 11 9 1

Municipal Officials 8 15 13 6

f: 9

2.T

he f

ollo

win

g ty

pes

of s

peci

al c

at e

gory

aid

exi

st in

add

ition

to C

hapt

er 7

0 ai

d. C

heck

whe

ther

you

bel

ieve

each

type

of

aid

shou

ld b

e tr

ansf

erre

d in

to a

gen

eral

aid

fun

d or

rem

ain

as s

peci

al c

ateg

oric

al a

id.

(a)

Scho

ol C

onst

ruct

ion-

Cap

ital O

utla

y

Tra

nsfe

r to

Gen

eral

Aid

Fun

dSu

pt.

Rea

.an

tM

. O.

Rem

ain

Supt

.as

Cat

egor

ical

Rem

.

Aid

Sen.

M. O

.

and

Deb

t Ser

vice

Fun

d10

73

1481

561

730

(b)

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Exp

ense

3317

1019

5746

1025

(c)

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

3817

1015

5146

1029

(d)

Scho

ol L

unch

Fun

d37

137

1951

5013

25

(e)

Occ

upat

iona

l and

Voc

atio

nal A

id51

179

1638

4611

28

(f)

Stat

e W

ard

Fund

327

314

5356

1729

3.A

t the

pre

sent

tim

e, C

hapt

er 7

0 ai

d is

sup

pose

d to

pro

vide

an

aver

age

of 3

5 pe

rcen

t of

the

reim

burs

eabl

eex

pend

iture

s of

the

citie

s an

d to

wns

.In

rec

ent y

ears

the

actu

al p

erce

ntag

e ha

s ra

nged

bet

wee

n 25

and

28

perc

ent.

If th

e le

vel o

f ai

d w

as to

be

chan

ged,

wha

t, in

you

r op

inio

n, w

ould

be

the

optim

um a

vera

ge p

er-

cent

age

of th

e st

ate

reim

burs

emen

t?

(a)

Les

s th

an 3

5 pe

r ce

nt(b

)45

per

cen

t(c

)50

per

cen

t(d

)65

per

cen

t(e

)90

per

cen

t(f

)Pr

esen

t fun

ding

is a

dequ

ate

Sept

.-

Rem

.Se

n.,..

...

M. O

.1.

...m

.N

M M

P

1114

38

2723

1220

428

26

121

14

9

4.If

an

incr

ease

d st

ate

fund

ing

leve

l was

eff

ecte

d, th

ere

wou

ld li

kely

be

som

e m

ovem

ent t

o in

crea

se th

ede

gree

of

stat

e co

ntro

l and

reg

ulat

ion

over

loca

l edu

catio

nal i

ssue

s.Pl

ease

indi

cate

whe

ther

you

bel

ieve

the

degr

ee o

f st

ate

cont

rol s

houl

d be

incr

ease

d or

whe

ther

loca

l con

trol

sho

uld

cont

inue

in e

ach

of th

efo

llow

ing

cate

gori

es.

Incr

ease

regu

latio

nSu

pt.

in s

tate

Rem

.

cont

rol/

Sen.

M. 0

.__

Loc

alSu

pt.

cont

rol

Rem

.to

con

tinue

Sen.

M.O

.--

-(a

)E

duca

tiona

l goa

ls a

nd p

rior

ity s

ettin

g38

1710

1556

4611

29

(b)

Min

imum

sta

ndar

ds e

stab

lishe

d86

491

832

814

312

(c)

Bud

get r

evie

w a

nd a

ppro

val

1611

65

7852

1539

(d)

Aca

dem

ic p

rofi

cien

cy le

vels

3329

1821

6033

321

-C)

IV

(e)

Eva

luat

ion

of p

rogr

ams

4742

1219

4721

925

(f)

Staf

f an

d te

ache

r's s

alar

ies

4113

97

5250

1235

(g)

Scho

ol D

istr

ict s

ize

and

orga

niza

tion

6017

821

3346

1323

5.L

iste

d be

low

are

a n

umbe

r of

poss

ible

tax

and

fisc

al r

efor

ms

whi

chm

ight

be

impl

emen

ted

to r

aise

add

i-tio

nal r

even

ue f

orpo

ssib

le s

choo

l fun

ding

ass

ista

nce.

Add

ition

al s

pace

s ha

ve b

een

prov

ided

in w

hich

you

mig

ht w

ish

to in

dica

te a

dditi

onal

ref

orm

s.

FIR

ST, b

e su

re th

at th

e lis

t con

tain

s th

ose

refo

rms

whi

chyo

u fe

el to

hav

e po

tent

ial f

or in

crea

sing

stat

e re

venu

e.

TH

EN

,in

ran

k or

der,

iden

tify

the

thre

e ite

ms

whi

ch y

ou b

elie

ve to

hav

e th

e m

ost

mer

it by

pla

cing

a (1

) be

side

the

mos

t im

port

ant,

a (2

) be

side

the

seco

nd m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t, an

d(3

) be

side

the

thir

d m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t.

RA

NK

Are

as o

f Po

ssib

le R

efor

mpu

peri

nten

den

ts1

-R

epre

sent

ativ

es3

IMPO

RT

AN

CE

Sena

tors

Mun

icip

al O

ffic

ials

12

31

23

1L

31

23

(a)

Exp

ende

d us

e of

sta

te s

hare

of f

eder

al r

even

ue-s

hari

ng33

1519

1812

93

67

129

4(b

)In

crea

sed

taxa

tion

ofco

rpo-

rate

inco

me

1112

132

36

31

44

(c)

Exp

ansi

on o

f st

ate

sale

s ta

x11

2013

921

128

52

69

2(d

)R

evis

ion

of s

tate

inco

me

tax

128

157

2.7

99

95

212

712

(e)

Incr

ease

of

fuel

and

gaso

line

tax

14

22

11

2(f

)St

ate-

wid

e pr

oper

ty ta

x6

87

22

61

23

22

2(g

)St

ate-

wid

e va

lue-

adde

d ta

x1

24

14

31

21

14

(h)

Stat

e ta

x on

pri

vate

non-

prof

ited

ucat

iona

l ins

titut

ions

12

74

1-

12

2(i

)St

ate.

(vs

. loc

al)

4sse

ssm

.ent

and

taxa

tion

ot u

tiliti

es a

nd in

dus-

tria

l fac

ilitie

s1

1312

14

6

(j)

Oth

er a

reas

of

poss

ible

ref

orm

13

32

2

Fisc

al a

nd S

choo

l Dat

aC

ities

and

Tow

ns in

Stu

dy S

ampl

e

City

/$w

ilS

yste

mN

umbe

rR

egio

nM

em:te

rP

op.

1970

-N

et

Ele

m,

Ave

rage

Juni

or

Yea

r E

ndin

gM

embe

rshi

p -

- S

peci

al r

d -

Sen

ior

Tot

alE

lem

. Jun

ior

Sen

ior

June

Tot

al

30,

VO

C.

Iota

/

1 9

7 3

Eq.

Val

.Lq

.v.

a.73

/74

75/

76

0000

Don

ned)

(000

Om

itted

)S

AC

10/I

170

Fq.

Val

,pe

r S

AC

Ch.

70

Aid

73/

74Io

ta!

Tax

Rat

es 1

973

Sch

ool G

ener

alF

ull

Val

ue

Alfo

rd00

676

530

217

1646

44.

700

8,80

0S

I92

,157

4 , 4

1721

129

21 0

4

Am

hers

t.3

0760

526

.131

1942

798

677

3417

4521

470

7I S

O, 0

0020

1,30

03,

610

41.5

5152

8,74

937

2111

37.0

3

And

over

009

823

21.6

9513

2913

0811

7662

1317

017

95

364

5424

0.00

035

0.40

07,

290

32,7

901.

043,

809

7149

3249

,70

Ash

field

013

717

1,27

413

215

227

48

b2

10,0

0019

.500

301

13,2

2345

,$71

5022

830

.00

Attl

ebor

o01

612

.907

3218

2578

1111

971

2510

214

614

421

117

7,00

027

7.00

08,

551

21,8

691,

197,

521

CO

2931

57 6

6

Aye

r01

97.

191

2227

541

702

3472

2121

132

.500

60,0

004,

061

7,00

379

4.82

712

444

7852

.10

Bar

nsta

ble

020

815

19.8

4228

9476

614

0751

6820

917

4414

0)5

0,00

080

7.30

05,

473

63,7

1475

7,67

915

96

14 8

0

Bar

re02

175

3/83

20.

825

442

409

871

56

II27

18,0

0025

.000

1,00

917

,839

380.

573

252

170

7257

.9i

Bec

ket

022

635

929

137

2168

227

62

714

,500

32.0

0027

153

,504

35,0

)934

30,9

0

Bed

ford

023

871

11.5

1320

2863

213

0839

8825

32

3054

130,

000

171,

700

4,10

131

118

723,

127

7849

2948

.40

Bel

cher

tow

n00

486

05,

936

072

240

403

1315

6363

1724

,000

47.6

001,

357

17,6

7612

4.91

370

3931

47.0

0

Bel

lingh

am02

5S

OS

13.9

6721

1115

5736

6835

3546

81,5

0010

8, 0

004,

467

18,2

451,

473.

749

3919

2015

.00

!land

lord

033

672

863

9071

7624

92

6,20

012

,700

241

25.2

0375

,510

166

48.1

0

Bol

ton

0)4

725

1905

391

179

070

4242

921

.000

31.6

0044

332

, e 5

085

.674

4835

1347

.00

Bos

ton

055

641,

071

55,5

8015

,817

16,3

5887

,275

949

830

-18

0134

922.

100.

000

2,40

0.00

012

6,64

816

,081

52,7

70,6

7419

74)

154

141,

0

Brid

gew

ater

042

625/

810

11.7

292.

268

781

3,04

9J

I7

1874

52,0

0010

4,30

03,

224

14,1

293.

623,

986

7247

2470

.40

Bro

ckto

n04

487

279

.040

10,7

743.

494

5,20

919

,477

200

4534

279

477

350,

000

697.

000

20,1

7337

.350

9,75

7,05

918

084

9695

.49

Bro

okltn

e04

658

.886

3,99

00,

129

6.12

731

4172

534

512.

000

709,

000

7,43

168

,901

947,

265

7325

4861

.150

Csm

brtd

ge04

910

0.36

16,

737

2.75

09,

487

272

272

1300

,000

838.

300

13,2

0839

,370

1.46

7,35

615

251

101

94,4

0

in&

Cha

tham

055

815

4.51

440

915

934

297

014

1413

110,

000

2)0,

500

995

110.

903

149,

967

7S37

3824

.20

C)

Che

lmsf

ord

056

852

31.4

324.

922

2.32

41.

557

8,80

374

7421

723

0,00

030

6,00

09.

435

24. 3

772,

545

, 588

4431

1344

.00

CsA

i)C

hesh

ire05

860

33,

006

379

127

222

728

164

323

915

,000

23,0

0075

210

.947

2.19

,574

4341

.00

Che

ster

field

000

683

704

137

8922

619

19II

7.20

011

,700

247

29.1

5050

.288

4736

I140

.09

Chi

cope

e00

166

,676

4,47

)3.

848

3,58

411

.903

112

4015

244

025

6.00

042

0,00

015

,644

16.3

645,

210.

734

137

5780

53.4

0

Con

cord

067

610/

830

16.1

481,

825

1,19

31,

401

4,41

421

2118

6,00

027

2,10

04.

796

37,9

9048

3,19

951

3516

50.5

0

Dar

tmou

th07

282

518

,800

1,85

01,

321

1,17

64,

347

4115

1773

9719

0,00

006

3,00

04,

821

39.4

1159

0,13

430

1911

30.0

0

Dee

rfie

ld07

467

03.

850

461

-36

)82

610

515

2519

,000

42,9

0091

420

.778

324,

206

7147

2442

.00

Dou

glas

077

805

2.94

744

027

971

914

1424

15.0

0027

,800

772

19.4

3027

2.71

530

1911

30.0

0

Dix

hury

000

7.63

62.

061

708

2.77

1'II

819

3197

.000

131.

002.

778

13.5

8737

6,05

944

26IS

44.0

0

Sas

tham

085

660/

815

0,04

319

018

818

556

1I9

22

233

44,0

0011

3,30

057

494

,991

87,0

4332

1714

25,9

1

Edg

arto

wn

084

' 700

1.48

124

993

340

1155

,000

104,

900

358

303.

6)1

52.8

7570

3040

21.7

0

City

/Tow

nS

yste

mN

umbe

rfie

gnon

Mem

ber

Pop

.19

70

-N

et

Ele

m.

Ave

rage

Juni

orM

eint

iera

hip

,S

enso

rT

otal

Spe

cial

Ed

-E

lem

, Jun

ior

Sen

ior

Tot

alV

ot ,

Tot

al

lq, V

al73

I74

0500

Om

itted

)

Fq,

75I

7(,

1000

Om

itted

/S

AC

10/1

,72

VA

, Vat

,pe

r S

AC

t 1,,

70 A

O71

/74

Iota

!

lax

fiale

1.7

3

Sch

ool G

ener

alV

alue

Eve

rett

043

42.4

853,

918

1.49

71,

270

o. 7

1 1

6262

219

400,

000

520,

000

8,41

546

,97,

1,03

7,54

100

Cx

5044

.12

Fal

l Riv

er09

582

196

,890

8,69

73,

142

1,9:

513

.814

275

6940

434

833

285,

000

504,

900

19, 0

4014

, 504

7. 1

47,5

8715

751

HP

86. 3

5F

alm

outh

036

5579

15,9

432.

370

1.27

51.

217

4,06

222

1113

4639

121

0,00

043

3,40

05.

521

19.4

150

0,19

087

643

s42

, 35

Fitc

hbur

g09

783

245,543

4,08

51,

806

1,350

7,24

110

114

13230

141

260,040

293,

600

9,93

726

165

1,99

2.06

355

2027

5 3.

)111

14

Glo

uces

ter

107

864

27. s

412.

822

1.18

91,

667

5,67

891

9112

318

4,00

031

5,90

00,

510

21,8

111,

640,

345

6352

0159

.23

Cill

Gre

at B

arrin

gton

1I3

018

7,53

786

528

440

01

,.57

21,

733

5058

,000

83, 3

002,

58/

34.4

6221

5, 7

1948

12It

48. 8

0

4;4/

Gre

enfie

ld11

418

.116

1.76

490

184

53.

510

4613

967

179

122,

000

284,

000

4,10

829

,848

764

209

5224

2752

.04

Hav

erhi

ll12

884

542

,220

6.02

52.

419

8,44

410

36

111

475

200.

000

306,

700

10,5

9118

,884

3,4,

6,23

715

044

6604

.00

Hin

gham

131

18.8

452,

918

1,31

11,

129

5,35

824

116

41

2705

0,00

0300

238,

000

5,81

427

,425

1.63

9.79

82

31.

231

54,4

4Ip

swic

h14

488

510

,750

1,22

340

279

92,

415

258

538

299

1288

136,

300

2,85

926

,233

798.

148

5627

451

.15

Leom

inst

er15

332

.419

1,82

41.

094

1,35

96,

877

7018

2311

127

519

5.00

030

6,90

08.

78.

22.2

072,

242,

425

4424

3344

,50

Lexi

ngto

n15

513

3031

,8x6

4,42

42,

213

2.12

18,

780

4935

1094

0.1

280.

000

417,

000

9.21

130

.390

2.07

4,23

410

SI

1950

..3Lo

ngm

eado

w15

915

.630

2,79

01,

070

I,318

4,17

831

87

465

196.

000

226,

300

4,18

541

,831

45.0

4040

21IS

38.1

3Lo

wel

l16

082

894

.239

9,31

42.

944

3,05

915

,917

141

128

161

595

330.

000

531.

000

21.8

5815

,097

7, 3

49, 7

3214

452

9675

.70

Lynn

163

90. 2

947.

560

3,62

02,

702

13,8

88au

'15

628

790

950

0.00

058

0,00

019

.676

20,4

124.

723,

955

237

8e14

460

.7)

Mal

den

165

053

56.1

275.

600

2.36

11,

617

9,57

811

022

3016

275

324

4.00

047

0,00

011

,832

20,6

223,

739,

490

158

9977

.42

Man

ches

ter

166

854

5.15

171

3-

544

1.25

751

538

64,5

0010

3.80

01,

514

42,5

0219

4, 3

3948

2424

42,2

4M

arlb

orou

gh17

080

127

.936

4,12

799

71.

450

6,57

437

2461

113

140.

000

275.

000

7,44

618

,802

4,57

2, 3

4816

071

899.

08

Mar

shfie

ld17

114

,223

2.58

482

21,

314

4,72

076

812

9610

910

5.00

021

0,00

05,

256

19,9

772,

119.

892

100

5842

06.5

05*

e800

rd17

604

.397

5.84

11,

606

3,32

810

,775

2555

3811

843

033

0,00

048

7,20

013

,975

23,6

143,

899,

105

167

6899

16.0

0M

onso

n19

186

07,

355

890

292

448

1,63

07

77

34.0

0052

.400

1,61

221

,092

594,

317

4042

645

.68

Mt,

Was

hing

ton

195

525

11

71,500

3,50

07

214,

286

1,08

236

II25

36.0

0N

antu

cket

197

3.77

454

515

522

992

93

319

0,00

094

190

.643

127,

665

8229

5324

.60

Nat

ick

198

11,1

574,

267

2,00

31,

845

8,11

5II

2512

7027

902:

0000

0037

5,80

08.

683

31.3

261,

430,

720

7142

3150

.37

Nee

dham

199

29. 7

483.

639

1.87

41,

852

7,36

543

273

7322

340.

000

478,

000

8,36

840

,631

1.13

8,66

645

2520

41,4

0N

ew B

edfo

rd20

18.

2510

1.77

710

,383

3.40

32.

521

16, 3

0742

944

2349

618

0,03

071

8,80

021

,537

17,6

447.

363,

178

134

4985

75,9

2N

ewto

n20

791

.066

8,29

03.

995

3,85

216

,137

9926

2214

733

268

0,00

01,

128.

500

19,2

7235

,284

2.49

4,86

120

210

795

71.3

4N

orfo

lk20

869

04,

656

654

262

226

1,14

25

52

1224

28,0

0048

,000

1,29

421

,610

434,

461

4720

1847

.60

Not

h A

dam

s20

985

119

,195

2.07

459

482

63.

494

3410

4423

680

,000

109,

000

4,21

718

,971

1,35

4,07

655

2731

362

,40

Nor

tham

pton

210

29.6

642,

307

1.17

394

94.

429

7413

1410

110

116

0,06

022

2,40

05.

410

29, 5

751,

115,

114

5432

2250

.76

Nor

thfie

ld21

675

03.

631

310

271

581

1010

822

.000

34,6

0063

934

.429

88,5

8242

2814

41,5

8N

orw

ood

220

800

30,8

152,

878

1,82

41.

927

6,62

921

1713

5114

620

0,00

032

9,20

08,

103

24.6

822,

4 3

5,24

639

2118

39. 0

04

Pal

mer

227

860

11,6

801.

464

-93

82.

402

3415

4775

75,0

0088

,000

2,63

228

.495

507,

696

193

121

7242

.46

Pea

body

229

854

48.0

805,

946

2,70

31,

966

10,6

1511

347

1117

137

331

5,00

046

8,90

012

.895

24.4

283,

995,

343

522I

2552

.10

Pitt

sfie

ld23

647

.020

6,17

82,

811

2,26

011

, 249

107

8145

253

530

350,

000

503,

000

14,2

6224

. 541

3,87

5, 7

0966

3333

57. 9

0

City

/Tow

nS

yste

m:lu

mbe

rR

egio

nM

embe

rP

op.

1970

-N

et

laem

.A

vera

geJu

nior

Mem

bers

hip

.S

enio

rT

otal

-

f.ler

nS

peci

al-

FA

Juni

or S

enio

rT

otal

Voi

.lo

cal

Lg. V

al,

73 /

7400

0 O

mitt

ed)

Eq.

Val

.75

/76

1000

Om

itted

)S

AC

10/1

172

6q. V

ol.

per

SA

C70

A,4

733

74lo

cal

Rat

esI '

r7l

Sch

ool G

ener

alJu

liV

alue

Ply

mou

th23

975

118

.604

2,18

31.

112

1,26

34.

558

3819

3209

622

0.00

047

4,40

03,

032

43.8

:'.35

2.81

076

1038

53.4

0

Prin

ceto

n24

177

51,

681

349

.14

549

417

17I

13,5

0019

,700

547

24.6

60:1

0.69

044

3014

44.0

0

Pro

vinc

es o

wn

242

815

2.91

121

920

320

865

04

8S

1366

.090

07,:0

063

010

3.44

897

,401

5420

3331

.60

Qui

ncy

243

87,9

668.

451

8.67

23,

370

15.4

4373

3436

140

651

515.

000

407.

800

10,0

3627

,004

4,90

2,21

415

866

339

75.1

Rev

ere

248

853

43.1

593.

787

1.85

81.

591

7.23

882

8214

021

0.00

034

9.00

08,

431

25,4

52.

010.

533

253

147

106

74.1

8

Ric

hmon

d24

91.

461

211

8188

364

2.

215

7,50

023

,400

384

19,5

3110

9,39

1IP

104

2259

.44

Roy

alst

on25

561

5/83

280

983

3728

148

22

37

113.

800

7,80

719

319

.039

7...1

1913

205

4755

.44

Sal

em25

885

440

.556

5.15

51.

879

7.03

425

419

273

130

260

000

427.

600

8,40

030

,737

1.44

4.06

935

264

8869

. o2

Sal

labu

ry25

977

3/88

54,

179

740

542

1.20

224

1133

03.6

,000

72.5

00I.

312

41,1

1414

4.14

843

2716

42 5

7

Sci

tuat

e26

487

316

,973

2.91

796

81.

526

5,40

151

47

6266

125.

000

205,

800

3.78

421

,611

2.04

7,52

767

II34

61.0

2

See

konk

265

-11

,116

1.71

851

382

73.

058

309

12S

I70

.000

145.

100

3,27

122

,939

1,14

5,96

432

21II

32.0

9

soup

wic

k27

96.

330

I, 35

302

3I,

976

247

3110

39,5

6074

.600

1, 4

4120

, 350

771.

705

3424

1034

00

Spe

ncer

280

767

8,77

992

152

358

22,

020

1212

4640

.000

63. 3

002,

284

19.7

0275

7.82

647

2423

42,7

7

Spr

ingf

ield

231

163,

905

16.9

266,

957

5,04

820

.31

307

307

1103

660.

000

930.

800

30,5

8517

,104

14,2

51, 4

9074

7440

71.7

6

Sto

ught

on23

507

223

,409

3.56

1.04

01,

2116

6.43

179

811

9812

810

9,00

023

2.50

01.

876

23.1

242.

016.

180

472.

II47

.99

Stu

rbrid

ge20

777

04.

870

462

58(

1,4(

802

122

42,0

0071

, SO

O1,

538

27,3

0838

0,76

346

2417

46.0

0

Sud

bury

283

695/

800

I 3, 5

063.

576

1.47

45.

050

2020

155.

000

216,

100

5,14

030

,746

1.17

7,65

349

3414

49.0

0

Sut

ton

290

805

4.59

054

207

61,

108

5I

640

20,0

0046

.500

1.23

616

,101

402.

775

126

6337

18.4

0

Tau

nton

201

810

43,7

565.

172

2.24

47,

417

106

104

292

160,

000

291.

490

9,59

516

,675

3,20

2.41

516

16

9)69

.14

Tem

plet

on29

472

03.

861

737

726

1,46

119

1635

322

.000

35.7

0011

,450

14.1

9482

9,93

158

3325

46, +

8

Wak

efie

ld30

585

324

.402

2.52

100

31.

634

5.05

838

923

7028

020

0,00

026

1, 0

006,

052

33,0

4775

2,93

012

213

6449

.53

'MI6

Wal

tham

308

61,5

825,

760

2,66

72.

SO

410

.931

152

152

194

560.

000

692.

500

220.

100

12.4

07

3,35

2

45.1

36

41.1

64

1.66

3,14

6

353,

961

44 18

2' 20

21 18

34.4

2

38.0

0

Cus

)

War

eham

310

879

11, 4

022.

228

920

3,14

468

6814

013

8,00

0

55,8

001,

016

37,4

0211

4.1(

537

2314

35.1

3

UT

%V

erdi

an)

Wes

tfiel

d

320

325

475/

854

3,84

9

31,4

33

389

3.90

2

155

1.20

6

303

1,64

5

847

6,83

3

40 5326

29

40

118

267

38.0

00

155,

000

305,

000

5.08

014

,183

2.32

1,27

754

2026

53.6

0

Wes

tford

326

852

10.3

681.

703

612

753

3,06

813

0It

I14

718

062

.000

315.

000

3.76

714

,499

1. 3

95. 3

385)

3023

53.5

9

Wey

mou

th33

654

610

6.33

13,

592

3.02

212

,995

9935

3917

335

238

6,00

054

6,50

015

.446

24.0

004.

020.

916

5324

2902

.00

Will

iam

stow

n34

171

5/85

18.

454

765

-76

31,

520

40II

SI

270

,000

79,9

001.

701

41.1

5222

5.92

039

2811

39.0

0

Wob

urn

347

85)

37,4

064.

299

2.35

02.

021

3,67

664

158

8713

724

0,00

040

6. 3

009,

885

24,2

792,

765.

341

117

4964

41.0

4

Wor

cest

er34

817

6.57

216

.573

6,64

64,

901

28.1

2629

813

142

471

6360

3.00

01.

000.

00?

36. 3

7918

,775

15,1

32,5

0215

163

8094

.85

Col

umn

Ex2

lana

tions

Net

Ave

rage

Mem

bers

hip

The

net

ave

rage

mem

bers

hip

is th

e av

erag

e m

embe

rshi

p fo

r a

give

n sc

hool

year

as

show

n by

the

scho

ol r

egis

ters

.It

is a

djus

ted

to r

efle

ct s

tude

nts

atte

ndin

g re

gion

al s

choo

ls a

nd s

tude

nts

ina

tuiti

on s

tatu

s.T

he a

ppar

ent i

ncon

sis-

tenc

ies

in th

e da

ta a

bove

und

er e

lem

enta

ry, j

unio

r hi

gh, a

nd s

enio

r hi

gh a

re c

ause

d by

a la

ck o

f co

nsis

tenc

y in

re-

port

ing.

The

"to

tal"

fig

ures

are

acc

urat

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e sc

hool

reg

iste

rs.

Eq.

Val

.73

-74

(Equ

aliz

ed V

alua

tion,

197

3 -7

4) T

he e

qual

ized

val

uatio

n of

the

aggr

egat

e pr

oper

ty in

a ci

ty o

r to

wn

subj

ect t

o lo

cal t

axat

ion,

as

repo

rted

by

the

Eq.

Val

. 75-

76st

ate

tax

com

mis

sion

to th

e G

ener

al C

ourt

und

er th

e pr

ovis

ions

of

Sect

ion

10 C

of

Cha

pter

58

of th

e G

ener

alL

aws

(Equ

aliz

ed V

alua

tion,

1 9

75-7

6)

SAC

(10

/ 1 /

72)

for

the

peri

od in

dica

ted.

Scho

ol A

ttend

ing

Chi

ld a

s re

port

ed b

y th

e to

wn

on O

ctob

er 1

, 197

2."S

choo

l Atte

ndin

g C

hild

" in

clud

es a

ny m

inor

child

in a

ny s

choo

l kin

derg

arte

n th

roug

h gr

ade

twel

ve w

ho is

a r

esid

ent i

n th

e ci

tyor

tow

n as

rep

orte

d by

the

supe

r-in

tend

ent o

f sc

hool

s in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

requ

irem

ents

of

Sect

ion

2 A

of

Cha

pter

72

of th

e G

ener

alL

aws.

Eq.

Va)

. per

SA

C (

73-7

4)E

qual

ized

Val

uatio

n pe

r Sc

hool

Atte

ndin

g C

hild

(19

73-

74)

is th

e co

mpu

ted

equa

lized

pro

pert

y pe

r sc

hool

atte

ndir

igch

ild a

s re

port

: d in

the

"Ana

lysi

s of

Sch

ool A

id to

Mas

sach

uset

ts C

ities

and

Tow

ns-

Dis

trib

utio

n Y

ears

197

3 -7

4."

Ch

70 A

id (

73 -

74)

Stat

e A

id to

Edu

catio

n en

title

men

t to

the

citie

s an

d to

wns

und

er th

e pr

ovis

ions

of

Cha

pter

70 o

f th

e G

ener

al L

aws

for

dist

ribu

tion

year

s 19

73-7

4

Tax

Rat

e1

973

Off

icia

l tax

rat

e pe

r $1

000

asse

ssed

val

uatio

n fo

r th

e 1

973

twel

ve-m

onth

per

iod

of th

e 19

73-7

4tr

ansi

tiona

l fis

cal

year

in M

assa

chus

etts

. The

fig

ure

liste

d un

der

the

colu

mn

"Ful

l Val

ue"

is th

e es

timat

ed ta

x ra

tepe

r $1

000

asse

ssed

valu

atio

n if

all

prop

erty

in th

e st

ate

was

d at

100

per

cent

of

its v

alue

.

Sour

ce o

f D

ata

(1)

Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion,

Ann

ual R

epor

t for

the

year

end

ing

June

30,

1973

.

(2)

Mas

sach

uset

ts "

reac

hers

Ass

ocia

tion

Res

earc

h B

ulle

tin73

4-9

"Bac

kgro

und

Dat

a fo

r M

assa

chus

etts

Sch

ool D

istr

icts

,19

73"

(3)

Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion,

"A

naly

sis

of S

choo

l Aid

to M

assa

chus

etts

Citi

es a

nd T

owns

,D

istr

ibut

ion

Yea

rs 1

973

- 74

"(4

)St

ate

Tax

Com

mis

sion

pro

pose

d eq

ualiz

ed v

alua

tions

for

the

peri

od 1

974

- 76

(as

am

ende

d by

the

App

elat

e T

ax B

oard

)

- 98 -

APPENDIX E

MODEL SCHOOL AID PROGRAM

The school aid program described in this model would combinethe existing aid programs currently funded under the followingareas:

General Aid Chapter 70Special Education Chapter 69 and 71Transitional Bilingual Education Chapter 71 (A)Vocational Education Chapter 74

The state aid percentage for funding public education would in-crease to 50 percent after five years. The transition to this levelwould be enacted as follows:

Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5

35 percent38 percent42 percent46 percent50 percent

Cities, towns, and regional school districts would receive stateaid for reimbursement of normal operating expenses according tothe following formula:

1, o .65 Equalized Val. /SAC localEqualized Val. /SA C state X

Sum of WeightedPupil Units

State Average - Per Pupil Cost

Note: This percentage would change in each of the succeed-ing years -Year 2 (.62), Year 3 (.58), Year 4 (.54), Year 5 (. 50)to reflect the gradual increase of the state's share to50 percent of the normal operating cost of the localschools.

107

- 99 -

Regional school districts would receive aid directly from thestate and would apply aid received in this program to reducethe assessments to member communities. Equalized valuationper school attending child for the region would be determined byweighting the equalized valuation per SAC of each member com-munity in proportion to that member community's share of theenrollment of the regional school.

An example of this process .:light be illustrated by using a fic-titious regional school district (Shawmut Regional School District)made up of the three towns of Coretown, Suburbia, and Fringeville

Students El. Val/SACPercentage =

Factor

Coretown 550 $17,600 56.4Suburbia 275 32,000 28.2Fringeville 150 25,560 15.4

Total 975 100.0

For purposes of this model, the equalized valuation per school at-tending child would be determined by multiplying the Eq. Val/ SACby the percentage factor and adding the sums therein.

Example

$17,600 x .564 $9926.32,000 x .282 9024.25,500 x .154 3927.

$22, 877.

Thus, the equalized valuation per school attending child for thisregional school district would be $22, 877.

-100-

The term "weighted pupil units" in the model formula refer tocost differentials for a number of differing types of educationalprogram. For purposes of this model, the cost of providing aunit of instruction for a single pupil in grades 1 through 6 isestablished as 1.o. Other types of "pupil unit" are weighted interms of full-time equivalent as listed below:

Type of ProgramWeightedPer Unit

Regular Day, Basic Elementary Grades 1-6 1.00

Regular Day, Grades 7 - 9 1.25

Regular Day, Grades 10 - 12 1.35

Kindergarten 1.25

Special EducationIntegrated Programs , 2.50Substantially Separate 3.50Tuitioned Out - Day Programs 5.00Residential placement 6.00

Bi-Lingual 1.40

Vocational Training 2.10

Occupational Training (Approved Programs) 1.60

Continuing Education .20

Programs for Disadvantaged Students(Title I definition) .30

(Note: The weighted pupil units in this model are "best judg-ments" of the current full-time equivalent costs andare based upon data available in the Department ofEducation's Annual Report for the period ending June 30,1973. We have recommended that up-dated equivalentsbased upon current cost differentials for the categorieslisted above be established by the Department of Educa-tion bi-annually. )

For purposes of this model, $1000 is established as the "stateaverage - per pupil cost." This is the approximate state averageexpenditure for regular programs - all categories - on a full-time

109

- 101 -

equivalent basis for the 1 972-73 school year. In future years,this state average would be based upon the most current year'sstate average expenditure.

This model operates under the assumption that no city ortown will receive less total state educational aid than it did in thefiscal year immediately preceding the enactment of a new stateaid formula.

Example of Model Aid Computation

Aid 1.0 - .65 Ea. Val/SAC local Sum of WeightedEq. Val/SAC state X Pupil Units X $1000

Andover

Aid = 1.0 - .65 x 32899 x25551

Sum of WeightedPupil Units

Sum of Weighted Pupil Units

x $1000

Program_Reg. (1 - 6)Reg. (7 - 9)Reg. (10 - 12)

No. of Students

279015191 381

Weight

1.01.251.35

WeightedPupil Units2790. 001 898. 751 864. 35

Kindergarten 558 1.25 697.50Sp. Ed. - Int 40 2.50 100.00Sp. Ed. - Separate 12 3.50 42. 00Sp. Ed. - Day 12 5.00 60. 00Sp. Ed. - Residential 4 6.00 24. 00Vocational 59 2.10 123.90Occupational 110 1.60 176. 00Cont. Education 450 90.00Pi-Lingual 0 1.40 0.00Disadvantaged 167 .30 50_10

Total $7916.60

1-0

-102-

Aid = .164 x 7916.60 x $1000

Aid = $1,298, 322

Compared to Existing Aid Entitlements

Chapter- 70 Aid (1974)

Special Education Aid (1973)

Aid to Vocational Education (1 973)

$1, 043, 80 9. 46

162,454.00

3, 851. 00

Total $1,210,114.46

(Note: The above computation incorporated the 1973 -74Equalized Valuation per School Attending Child figures.If the proposed 1974-75 figures are used the aid underthis model would be approximately $50, 000 more.The exact figure here is impossible to project until allup-dated data is available. )

Mod

el S

choo

l Aid

Pro

gram

Aid

*Su

m o

f W

eigh

ted

Eff

ects

of

Scho

ol A

id F

orm

ula

on

Sele

cted

Com

mun

ities

Stat

e A

idSt

ate

Aid

1 9

7 3

74C

ity /

Tow

nPe

rcen

tage

Pupi

l Uni

tsPr

ojec

ted

-Yea

rI

Cha

pter

70

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

Voc

. Edu

catio

n"t

otal

And

over

16.4

$7,

916

. 60

$I,

298

, 322

. 00

$ 1,

043,

809

.46

$16

2, 4

54.0

0$

3, 8

51. 0

0$

1,21

0.11

4.46

Bos

ton

57.9

118,

212

.60

68, 4

45, 0

95. 0

052

, 880

673

.79

3, 1

69, 8

32.0

03,

099

, 620

.00

59,1

50,

125

. 79

Che

lmsf

ord

38.0

10, 6

46. 7

54,

045,

765

. 00

2, 5

45. 5

88.4

616

6, 2

08. 0

02,

711

, 796

.46

Eve

rett

00.0

8.56

2.15

1, 2

54, 8

04.2

0 (I

)1,

037,

554

.20

156,

449

. 00

60, 8

01. 0

01,

254

, 804

. 20

t ,--

Lon

gmea

dow

00.0

5, 3

52. 9

077

4, 5

09. 7

5 (I

)64

5, 9

39.7

51

26, 8

45. 0

01.

725

. 00

774,

509,

750 (.

..)

New

Bed

ford

55.2

21, 3

92.0

0II

, 808

, 384

.00

7, 3

63, 1

78. 3

047

0, 6

30.0

058

8.00

7, 8

34, 3

96. 3

0t

Pitts

fiel

d37

.61

5 , 0

16. 0

05,

646

. 016

. 00

3, 8

75, 7

09.1

130

8, 6

1 4

. 00

422,

841

. 00

4,60

7, 1

64. I

1

Spri

ngfi

eld

56.6

38, 1

06.6

021

,568

,335

.00

14, 2

59, 4

90. 3

429

, 200

. 00

712,

686

. 00

15,0

01, 3

76.3

4

Wob

urn

46.6

10,6

97.6

04,

985

, 081

.00

2,76

5,34

1,17

41, 0

78.0

02.

806

. 41

9.17

Wor

cest

er52

.335

, 438

.10

18, 5

34,1

26. 0

015

, I 3

2, 5

02. 3

071

0, 8

21. 0

015

, 110

. 00

15, 8

58, 4

33. 3

0

*at

35%

-Y

ear

1

(1)

Safe

Har

mle

ss -

Gua

rant

eeof

sta

te a

id f

unds

at t

he s

ame

leve

las

the

prec

edin

g 'fi

scal

per

iod.

Invitation to Comment

The MassachusettsAdvisory Council onEducation invites yourcomments on this report.Any statements you mailto the Council BEFOREAPRIL 1, 1975, will becarefully considered bythe Council in its reviewof the conclusions and re-commendations of thestudy director.

The form to the rightof this invitation may beclipped and used to recordyour comments. Attachadditional sheets if neces-sary. Also, if you wishto appear before the Coun-cil to offer verbal testimo-ny on this report, recordyour request on the form.Mail your comments and/or request before April 1,1975, to:

Director of ResearchMass. Advisory Council

on Education182 Tremont Street13th FloorBoston, MA 02111

Thank you.

113

COMMENTS ON MACE REPORT ON FINANCING PUBLICEDUCATION (Use additional sheets if necessary.):

FROM (print name):

ORGANIZATION (if any)

ADDRESS:

TEL. NUMBER DATE:

SIGNATURE

A List Of Other Mace Projects

Underway At The Time Of This Printing

SPECIAL EDUCATION COLLABORATIVESdeveloping recommendations and resourcematerials needed to promote collaboratives under Chapter 766.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONdeveloping resource materials and alternatives to promote positivecitizen involvement in educational decision making.

STUDENT RECORDSassisting the Department of Education in developing regulations andguidelines governing school records.

.

ELEMENTARY SCIENCEassisting interested school districts in evaluating and improvingelementary science programs.

VANDALISMdeveloping resource materials for school districts interested in designing andmaintaining school buildings to reduce damage from vandalism.

URBAN READING PROGRAMSanalyzing factors that influence the degree of success achievedby urban school reading programs.

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMASdefining and proposing a statewide system for flexibility andcontrol of quality of student achievement in awarding high school diplomas.

SCHOOLS AND THE ELDERLYdefining and proposing actionsio promote mutually beneficialrelationships between the elderly and schools/colleges.

COLLEGE TEACHINGdefining and proposing actions to assist college and universities in theirdesign of systems for evaluating and improving teaching practiceson the college level.

114

.10,, i

Some Other Recent Reports OfThe Massachusetts Advisory Council On Education

TITLEEffectiveness, Efficiency andEqual Opportunity in the PublicSchool of Massachusetts

Massachusetts Taxes: A FactualGuide to Future Action

AUTHORGovernor's Commission onSchool District Organizationand Collaboration

Massachusetts TaxpayersFoundation

Aid to Private Higher Frederick E. TermanEducation in Massachusetts

Higher Education inMassachusetts: A New Lookat Some Major Policy Issues

Academy for EducationalDevelopment

Strengthening the Alternative George No lf, andPost-Secondary Education Valane NelsonSystem : Continuing and Part-TimeStudy in Massachusetts

Something of Value (Summary)andElementary Science Handbook

The Here, Now and Tomorrow ofCable Television in Education . . .

A Planning Guide

Modernizing School Governance forEducational Equality and Diversity

Massachusetts Schools: Past,Present and Possible

Child Care in Massachusetts:The Public Responsibility

A Systems Approach forMassachusetts Schools:A Study of School Building Costs

Organizing an Urban SchoolSystem for Diversity

Continuing Education inMassachusetts: StatePrograms for the 70's

Office of InstructionalResearch and EvaluationHarvard University

Creative Studies, Inc.

Paul W. Cook, Jr.

Richard H. de Lone

Richard R. Rowe

Campbell, Aldrich&Nulty

JOseph M. Cronin

Melvin LevinJoseph Slavet

Guidelines for Planning and Bruce DunmoreConstructing Community Colleges

Pupil Services for Gordon Liddle andMassachusetts Schools Arthur Kroll

Take a Giant Step: Evaluation of Herbert Hoffman.Selected Aspects of Project 750

Teacher Certification and Lindley J. Stiles

Preparation in Massachusetts

WHERE AVAILABLEMACE

MACE

MACE

MACESummary Only

MACE4-page SummaryOnly

MACE

MACE

MACE

MACE

ERICED #065-174 (full) .

ERICED #060 531 (full)ED #060 530 (summary)

D.C. HeathPublishing Co..Lexington, MA.

D.C. HeathPublishing CO.Lexington, MA.

ERICED #034 390

ERICED #037 767

ERICED #061695

ERICED #027 -243