-39 districts pay excess funds into a central pool which is used to provide Under this proposal, 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 plan outlined in Model 8. However, in addition to the flat grant and locally chosen add-on, the state would provide special aids for any number of categorical adjustments or cost refinements, such as outlined in Models 2, 3 and 4. These could be made through additional flat grants by the states or could be included within the power equalized add-on by adjustments in the formula. For example, a handicapped or under-achieving youngster could be counted twice in the formula. $ -40 3. Family Choice School Finance Systems. There are a number of hypothetical systems using the family unit as the agent for dispensing all or part of the publicly financed educational expenditure. The systems could be administered through the state or local school district. These systems can be designed to satisfy the requirements of the Serrano case. Under this system families would receive vouchers for the full cost of public education in the state per child, such as a voucher worth $1,000. The parents would redeem the vouchers in either public or private schools. Under-achievers, handicapped and other special groups would receive larger vouchers to assist in equalizing the quality of education which they would require. DD This plan would provide additional educational opportunity for youngsters who are under-achieving for after-school educational experiences. It could be used as a supplement to nearly any of the other financing models suggested above. It meets the Serrano rule in that the educational expenditure is not tied to the wealth of the parents or school districe. 4. Other Plans or Structures. It is possible to devise other combinations of plans to meet the principles established by the courts. Some plans may not be completely realistic, although it is important that they be evaluated by the states. One such plan is noted here. 83-453 O 72 15 (Pt. 3) Under this plan a state would be redistricted into geographical areas with substantially equal assessed valuation per pupil in average daily enrollment. The funds could be appropriated for education in a variety of ways, such as the state allocating a minimum foundation program supplemented by local revenue based on property or other taxes. The local property tax re enue would be "equal" in each district if the taxes were levied at the same millage on equally assessed property. It is recognized that any effort to divide the state on an equal assessment basis would be a monumental task and would require a complete reshuffling of existing districts. -43- Part VII Funding and Taxing Approaches The educational fiscal dilemma is to a large extent caused by the necessity to provide an adequate funding system to assure equalizing educational opportunity as well as new processes for the collection of educational revenues. The previous chapter noted various possible alternatives for allocating expenditures to fulfill the requirements laid down in the Serrano type cases. Now we consider alternatives for securing revenue which would be consistent with the court decisions. 1. Abandoning the Local Property Tax Base as a Source of In view of the fact that the courts declared that the public educational spending could not be a function of parental or neighborhood wealth, it is suggested that the states can meet the courts' position by outright abolition of local property taxes for school purposes. In its place, the state could fund education through a combination of state income, sales, state property, and other taxes. Except in states where state property taxes are prohibited, a state could make a statewide levy on local property for public education. The funds collected by the state would be distributed to the school districts. Statewide collection of property tax assumes an effective and fair method of statewide assessment practices. 2. Removal of Industrial and Commercial Property from School District Tax Base. |