Slike strani
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Under a fully centralized state taxing plan, the state would
provide each district with a set sum per student, such as $1200. The
district would be required to spend differently to meet the special
needs of different students and programs. For example, the district
might be required to spend $2500 for blind or handicapped children;
$1500 for vocational programs; $1400 for gifted and under-achievers.
The district would have some discretion for spending within these
prescribed programs.

Model 5. Full State Funding of School Districts with Limited
District Spending Discretion and Prescribed Categorical
Inequity.

DDDDDDDD

[graphic]
[ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Under a fully centralized state taxing plan, the state would provide districts with funds based on student categories, such as in Model 3, i. e., $700 per normal average student; $100 per under-achieving student, etc. This model provides that the district must spend the allocations according to the categories or priorities specified by This model severely limits the degree of local

the legislature.

[blocks in formation]

DD DDDI

-36

This

Under a fully centralized state taxing plan, the state would allocate fiscal support directly to the individual schools. model rather effectively bypasses the district. The role of the local school district would be largely to provide regional coordination and assistance. In some instances it is quite possible that there would no longer be a function for the district. Each school would recei e an allocation, such as $900, per pupil in average daily enrollment for current operating expenses. The school would be given a specified degree of autonomy and discretion in spending the funds. In this model the state assumes responsibility for capital costs which are provided separately as needed in the judgment of the state school superintendent or state board of education.

Model 7. Full State Funding Through District Allocations to
the School with Prescribed Categorical Inequity.

District

State

District

Taxes

-37

Under this fully centralized state taxing model, the state would allocate fiscal support directly to the individual schools based on the character of the student population, the curriculum and the area cost level of each school. This model would take into consideration some of the student categories noted in Model 3 and the cost refinements of Model 2. The school would have only a very narrow discretion for distributing the funds within the school. In both Model 6 and 7, the state would make provisions for children incapable of functioning within the standard school milieu.

2.

Decentralized State Taxation Models or Power Equalization.

These

Two models are provided for decentralized taxing systems. plans call for the state to provide a substantial source of school expenditures supplemented by local taxing effort. The state would supply funds to the local districts in amounts varying according to a legislative formula and the district's taxing effort. "Power equalizing" would enable a poor district to provide the same amount of money per pupil as a wealthy district with the same tax effort, rather than tax itself two or three times as hard.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Under this plan, the state would supply each district with a flat grant from state sources of approximately $700. Each district could add on from $25 to $500 per pupil additional according to the rule that for each additional tax mill ($.001) on the $100 taxable value of local property, an additional $25 could be spent. If a mill raised less than $25 per pupil in average daily enrollment (i.e., in districts with less than $25,000 assessed valuation per pupil), the state would make up the difference. If the district raised more than $25 per mill per pupil, the excess would be recaptured by the state and be available for redistribution. Thus, when a wealthy district and a poor district would each add 16 mills to their tax rates, each could spend a total of $1,100 per child. This system has been labeled "power equalization." Essentially, the wealthy

« PrejšnjaNaprej »