. No. 6474•••• •

INTERIM REPORT OF

•

RELATIVE TO THE LAWS OF

July 21, 1975.

(under Chapter 157 of the Resolves of 1973and most recently revived and .continued by

Chapter 10 of the Resolves of 1975)

THE COMMONWEALTH PERTAINING TO

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

AS THEY RELATE TO UNEQUAL

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND SE~VICES

HOUSE

TO: The Honorable Senate and House of Representatives

FROM: The Special Commission On Unequal Educational Opportunity

July 3, 1975

uJ~!L.-:WALTER BOVERINf?Senate Chairman

HOlfsE - No. 6474

mIle ([ol1t1uoltfuea1t4 of ~ta£isctt4ltsetts

~l11tS~ o£ ~eprt.£i£llbtffues

"tab ~P1Ut, ~pstOlt

The undersigned members of the Special Commision onUnequal Educational Opportunity (established by Chapter157 of the ResolVle$,.;ofi',,;:i'9;:7::3:)IJ3iSll1bmit the following report:

Very respectfully:

1975]

1975) HOUSE- No. 6474

SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM IN MASSACHUSETTS, 1975:

INTERIM REPORT OF THE

SPECIAL COMMISSION ON

UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

April 28, 1975

senator Walter J. BoveriniChairman

Representative Michael J. DalyVice-Chairman

Edward P. MorganExecutive Director (Acting)

THE SPECIAL COHr1ISSION ON UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

Frank Nolan, PresidentMassachusetts Federation

of Teachers

Patricia FaceyFirst Vice PresidentLeague of Women Voters

of Massachusetts

Margaret Jacques, PresidentMassachusetts Association

of School Committees

John SullivanAssistant Executive SecretaryMassachusetts Teachers

Association

Michael J. DalyHouse ChairmanJoint Committee on Education

John J. ~~Donough, ChairmanBoston School Committee

Jean McGuire, ExecutiveDirector

METCO

Gregory lmrigCommissioner of Education

Mary Baxter~ ParentHome and School Association

Victoria Ford, ParentNAACP

John J. Callahan!"7illiam \HlkenLegislators EducationAc tion Pro j ect

Vice-Chairman:

Governor's Appointees:

C~nsUltants:

,<,\;'HOUSE - No. 6474

Ann C. Gannett

Research Assistance:

Peter H. Lappin

Kathleen KrollHichael Lissack

Edward P. MorqanExecutive Director (~cting)

Typists:

Joseph F. Timilty

George C. Young

Ronald C. MacKenzie

Helvin H. King

Angelo M. Scaccia

Walter J. BoveriniSenate ChairmanJoint Committee on Education

Nancy Ingallsr-1aureen BarryNary Dutler

Ed.....ard P. Horgan(Ae 617) 727-2584

6

Chairman:

Legislators - Senate

Allan R. McKinnon

Legislators - House

James G. Collins

Report p~ared for Commission by:

Staff Contact:

4. School Finance Revisions in Massachusetts inLight of Other State Finance Reforms 51

1112141623

Page11

414344

60

TABLE OF CONTCNTS

HOUSE - No. 6474 "

School District Sample • 611\id Ratios 63tleighted Pupil Units 65Total Aid Receipts and Property.Tax Relief 67Analysis of Distributive Efforts 70Guaranteed Yield 73

Pupil Weighting Plnns 51New Measures of Local Fiscal Ability 53Save-Ilarmless Provisions 54Po....,er Equalizing Aid for Communities with

Above-Average School Tax Effort 55Other Reform Elements Hot Covered in the

Massachusetts Dills 56Conclusion 58

Formula Similarities 44The Level of State ldd 45Definition of Expenditures 45The Definition of Relative School District

~lcalth 46Pupil Unit Definitions 47Save-i~rmless Definitions 49Tax Cffort and Add-On 49

BackgroundDefining Equal Educational OpportunityThe Conunission' s TaskSur.unary of the Commision's Nork to DateI·'uturc Study !leeds

1. School l'inance Reform The National Picture 25Litigation in Massachusetts 28

2. Educational Inequities in v~ssachusetts 29

1. Suooaary of Bill Components2. Computation of State Aid3. Analysis

5. The Fiscal Impact of the Three Bills

I. Introductory Abstract

II. School Finance Background

III. Analysis of Three Reform Bills;::,ij,'· jl,,:,i,:.~',l'Y/ltS:',,;~'~'~~~:~ ,tr11,;{)fi ".:,:i,~} <-

19751

Appendix II includes background data on all cities and towns.It can be obtained from the Massachusetts Teachers Association,Research Bulletin #745-9.

80

81

89

[July

Footnotes

II. Background D~ta for Massachusetts School Districts(UTA)

III. Fiscal Effects of the 1~ree Dills (LEAP)

Appendix III includes data detailing the fiscal effects of thethree bills for all cities and towns. Copies might be obtainedfrom the r.egislators Education Action Project, National Conferenceof State Legislatures, Suite #702, 1150 17th St., N.W., Wash­ington, D.C. 20036

* Note to readers of printed report:

Copies of full report, with data included in Appendices #11and III, arc available for reading in the State House Libraryand the office of the Special Commission on Unequal EducationalOpportunity. They have been omitted from the printed reportfor reasons of cost.

Appendix *

I. Alternative Formulae

IV. Conclusion

8 HOUSE - No. 6474

.11. Illustration of School Finance Inelluitieo: Two Towns 21

23

2S

10

26

56

66

67

69

Page

LIST OF TABLES

·/00118E - No. 6474

Aid Receipts per UArl, by Proposal

Aid Receipts per ~Jl\M, by Highest, Lo\"cs t and Meclian Aid

Tax Payments as a Proportion of Income

Factors Related to Per Pupil Expenditures

Disparities in Education Program Expenditur~s

DisL>arities in Property Uealth Per ?u:::,il

l.>isparities in Property Wealth Per ca~ita

Disparities in Per Capita Income

Disparities in Local School Tax Rates

Table

I. 1975 School Finance Bills: A Comparison

IV.

VI.

V.

VII.

III.

XVI. Aid Receipts per NAM, by Proposal and Per capitOll Valuation 64

XVII. Aid Receipts per NAM, by Proposal and Per Capita Income 65

VIII. Relationship Between Measures of Fiscal Ability

IX. School District Sample

X. Aid Ratios, by Proposal

Xl. Weighted FTE Pu~il Units, by Proposal

19751

Chart I.. Three Bills: AidDistribution

Chart II. Aid per NAM, by Decile

XVIII. DPE Add-On and Total Aid Receipts for a Sample

'{July

Introductory f.1eetingPoll of Commission Members

Staff Report: !Jational ConferenceInterim Report Outlin-e - Discussion

Secretary Parks: Comment3 to Commissionoiscussion .and Clarification of Three Dills

Testimony of Drafters:Cather ine 14inicuccir'elix 'ZolloEdward Horgan

Lt',APReport:' William \',ilkenFiscal l'cstirnony:

Steven 'WeissKennedy ShawLyman Ziegler

Testimony: Secretary John BuckleyDiscussiDn of It1t~rim I:eport J\-bstract

and roliey Alt~rnativcs

staff Present4tion:Explanation of Chapter 70 and Three Bills

COMMISSION Mf,;ETINGS

HOUSE - No. 6474

R-eport on Hembers' Pr iori tiesReport on LEAP Technical Assistance

Callahan 4nd WilkenT,est,i,,~ny of visiting r.egislators:

:~E;,;,'.;: [('1.:":,'1 ,,;,I'!R~/ croseph {;raba. MinnesotaRep. Robert M. Johnson, Florida

December 16,1974:

October 21, 1974:

February 3, 1975:

February 2~, 1975:

January 13, 1975;

t1arc~ 24, 1975:

April 1, 1975:

10

ments. As the Commission' s work to date indicates, Hassa.chusetts I

important area.

was established under Chapter 157 of the Resolves of 1973.

INTERn! REPORT

HOUSE - No. 647~"

I. Introductory Abstract

SPEC~AL COMMISSION ON

UNEQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

Background:

Public education has occupied a special place in the history

The Special Commission on Unequal Educational Opportunity

increase and provide equal educational opportunity therein." This

'L;··'f:;';;~'(>,;·!:~';:~:m!:-r~,:::~~~?r{'/'~:\t~r·:,';':,.'."'::i.~;~,1.~;;:;i:(~~~:4;~'~~,I;;\~~<·';;~;i

the "existence and extent of unequal educational opp~rtunity and

services in the commonwealth" and to recommend "ways and means to

The Commission was charged with the obligation to investigate

charge, only partially fulfilled at this writing, focuses on one

like most states, faces a number of critical policy issues in this

of the foremost constitutitional issues affected by state govern-

of the Commonwealth. Not only is a Massachusetts son, Horace Mann,

frequently designated as the "father of public schooling in America",

but Massachusetts has grappled with nearly all the aspirations and

pitfalls of pUblic education is formally recognized by the state

constitutional provision to "cherish the interests of literature and

the sciences" by, among other things, "spreading the opportunities

and advantages of education." (Chapter V, Section II)

19751

as well as legislation aeslgned to en hance equal educational....

Defining Equal Educational Opportunity:

In this context, the Conunlssion's first task 1s to define "equal

educational opportunity" -- a term which has incited considerable

[JulyHOUSE - No. 647412

Public education, in short, has been viewed as a fundamental

responsibility of the Commonwealth. '1'his view of education as a

opportunity. In the process, the burden of responsi~ility for

achieving equal opportunity in schools has shifted in large part

to state legislatures, particularly in the area of school finance

reform. In 1973, the Supreme Court abandoned its recent activist

trend in the Hodriguez decision. 2 By a 5-4 majority, the Court

ruled that inequities in the fiscal resources available for school

expenditures based on vari~tlons in the local tax base did not

constitute l;I. violation of Fourteenth Amendment rlehts. Although

the Court lamented "unfair" financing schemes, they charged individual

state legislatures with the responsibility to correct existing

~nequit1es.

state obligation coincides with interpretations of the United

States Supreme Court, particularly in the obligation to provide all

citlzens-to-be with an equal educational opportunity. In the historic

The Brown decision not only affirmed the requirement of universal

schooling, but placed the highest Court on record in support of equal

rights in the educat1ona~,;,,~Ptl:e.r~~ 'I'h~,s stand has been solidified

over the years by a series of court decisions -- state and federal

Wt.PI"CW'

Brown v. tioard of Education decision in 1954, Chief JusticeAwrote for

the unanimous Court, "Today, education is perhaps the most important

function of state and local Governments."l

political controversy and analytical disagreement. In its review

of written material relating to this subject, the Commission has

identified three basic elements of equal educational opportunity.

Each focuses attention on distinct policy areas. although all three

are frequently considered in combination. The three principles of

equal opportunity are as follows:

1) Equal Resources: The prir.ciple of equal resourcesbegins with the constitutional doctrine of ~fiscal

neutrality~ pronounced in Serrano v. Priest (1971)3-­namely that the quality of an individual's education maynot be a function of wealth. other than the wealth of thestate, as a whole. From this premise. one can expand thenotion of equality to argue that equal resources ought tobe available for each chilo's education. A more commonconclusion. and onethut iflcreasingly is becoming theguiding princip:i:e'itH·:,~tat'e';:reforms,is that equal dollars ~"~;J\;~'t\r';;;;!;i'i~J::;t!r;:J~~

do not guarantee an equal educational opportunity. In3tead,the distribution of school resources should take intoaccount variations in the educatioanal neeo of differentidentifiable types of students, reflected in differencesin program costs. equalization of school resourcesaccording to need focuses concern on the financing ofpUblic schools. and thus on school finance reform -- theprimary. object of Commission study to date.

2) Equal Involvement in Quality Educational Services:Moving beyond the issue of educational resources, thisprinciple bears on the quality of euucational servicesavailable to each pupil anothe appropriateness of thoseservices to e~ch pupil's needs and capacities. At itscore. the principle of equal involvement reflects thesocial aim of enabling each pupil to develop his or hertalents and potential to the fullest degree possible. Aless tangible principle than equal resources, equalinvolvement focuses on basic educational stanaards. onp~pil performance in class. on equal access to meaning­ful learning experiences. It ranges from a finite concernCor universal mastery of essential skills, to a broaddetermination of the "benefits" pupils receive fromtheir learning encounters.

Although the relationship between equal resourcesand equal involvement has been difficult to establishbeyond questioning in social science research, the twoare. at the very least. conceptually relatea. Equalresources can be seen as a necessary. though not suffi­cient step toward achieving full equal educational opportu­nity. It is also, as a number of state courts haveruled, a principle which can be Justified as an end in

1975] HOUSE - No. 6474 13

The Commission's Task:

educational opportunity concern for the General Court. At the

growing concern for inequities in the existing fiscal resources

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

itself. As a consequence, the Commission has, to date,concentrated primarily on school finance reform J touchingon equal involvement concerns only insofar as they relateto equal resources. Further examination of the qualityof public schooling in Massachusetts Is, 1n the Commission'sview, crucial, if full equal educational opportunity is tobe realized in Massachusetts

3) .. Equal Outcomes or Results: This last principle drawson assumptions implicit in much of the concern for equaleducational opportunity, and focuses on the school'sinstrumental function in the realization of full socialand economic equality. Behind many of the claims forequal educational opportunity lie assumptions about therole that education plays In opening access to employmentopportunities and ultimate occupational and economicsuccess. Two major, and controversial, research efforts-­the Coleman Heport il and Jencks study of Ineguali t;/i --have raised serious coubts about the effectivenss ofdifferent school inputs in realizing either greater equityin school achievement or long range social and economicstamUng(at lea5t;\a:(l~orde':thgto measures used thus·far). h;;\\~:.(,i),;,'·d":.;i("Eh:

These concerns strongly sUGgest the need for ~reater focus onsocial and economic inequalities as enos in themselves. Asan Indepeudent concern, however, social inequality liesbeyond the scope of ,this Commission I s resI'onsibl1ities, exceptfor the need to spell out its bearing on educational issues.

available for school expenditures, the initiation of litigation

the Massachusetts courts c~allenging the current system of

public school finance, and a burgeoning property tax revolt,

school finance reform looms as the foremost, critical equal

The complexity of equal educati~nal opportunity concerns -­

particularly those targeted by the principles of equal'resources

and equal involvement -- requires thorough and systematic study.

To date, this task has been undertaken by the Commission in its

partially completed study of scno01 finance reform.

Thus far~ the Commission has concentrated On a thorough

study of school finance reform in Massachusetts. Fueled by--

14

same time, however, a number of additional issues require study

resources, the Commission has singled out a number of concerns

'HOUSE - No. 6474.,.

by the Commission.

In deference to the urgent need for school finance reform.

Commission memoers voted at tneir first meeting to target this

issue as the Commission's first priority. Essentially, this

focus resulted from the members' concern for achieving two

basic objectives tnrough a revised system of state school aid.

These two targets t/are :

1). Equalization of school resources achieved througha revision of the 2cnool aid formula, and

2.) Decreased reliance on the local property tax asthe basis for financing schoOls, provided by anincrecM~\~\;\"~i':~Mj,.~YeX'~alllevel of stp.,t;~.alQ..

While complex in themselves, these two obJec~ives also bear on

a number of related concerns of great significance, including

local budgetary autonomy, statewide tax reform, state municipal

aid programs, and state oversight or educational programs. In

ad.ditlon, members have expressed an interest in investigating

resource variations within school districts, and future school

construction needs in light of equal opportunity considerations.

In addition to issues involVing the equalization of school

requiring systematic stUdy. Two major areas of concern are:

1) the quality of education in Massachusetts schools, and 2) the

possibilities for metropolit an cooperation to break down racial-..; .

and social isolation in urban and subuzoban schools. The former

concern incorporates a range of issues, inclUding assessment of

basic educational standards and objectives, the quality of partlcu-

1975]

curriculum, admlssio,F,\~,t~,.e.~,fu\:!i:!r~a(:"kingassignments; th~ assessment';i;;,:.m;:'.\l!ii!t'!lIii!~l:Jllii

of programs designed for special needs students; governance and

of considerable immediacy.

Finally, Commission members have sugge~ed a number of

additional items \'Ihich might merit investip;atlon, including the

issue of discrimination in staff hiring in schools as well as in

[July

I. An examination of existing fiscal inequities among the351 local school districts and their bearing on schoolresources.

III. Analysis of legislation designed to revise the currentsystem of state aid to local school districts -- witha focus on the three major bills filed in the 1975session. and a consider~tion of alternatives.

IV. A review of recent school finance reforms in other states.

II. A review of the shortcomings in existing school financestatutes. particularly their failure to counter tbe in­equities uncovered above.

community co~trol issues; and the impact o~ the desegregation

order on state funding and the quality of educational programs.

Summary of the Commission's Work To Date:

The Commission's investigation or school finance reform in

MassaChusetts has proceeded on four fronts thus far, as follows:

HOUSE - No. 6474

lar programs (such as career education, the general-education

track), innovative and alternative educational programs and

approaches, accountability and assessment of state-mandated

programs, and teacher training. The second concern concentrates

on the state's role in encouraging cooperation and shared resources

between urban and surrounding suburban communities -- an issue

16

I. The examination of fiscal inequities among the local

school districts has focused on measures of local wealth (property

values, personal income), tax effort (equalized school tax. tax

In addition to these, the Commission has begun to -look more closely

at the Commonwealth's tax ana revenue potential in light or a

coalition that has grown up around three related issues: state

HOUSE - No. 6474

1). In the first place. tbere 1s a basic cleavage betweenr1ch towns (high property value) and poor towns. andthe relative amount of scbool revenue each is able togenerate from existing property values. In the mostbasic sense. the revenue available for a child's educa­tion in a given town is a function of the relativelyarbitrary value of property in that community. The arbi­trariness or property values is illustrated by towns made"artificially wealthy" by the presence of a nuclearpower plant or other high tax sources. By virtue of suchan "accident". the Uwealthiest" communltJ (Rowe) has aproperty base 92 times that of the Commonwealth's poorestcommunities.

2.) This basic inequality is underscored by the fact thatsome poorer communities tax themselves more heavily thando (property) rich communities, yet still ar~ unable toraise as much revenue for schools as the wealthier d1stricts.The wealthiest ten commun1ties, for example. tax them-aelves at less than one-fifth the millage rate of the tenpoorest communities. yet they generate 160% of the schoolrevenue (per pupil) raiSed by the poorer districts.

municipal aid, state educational aid, and local property tax

rellef. The·work accomplished thus far 1n eacb of the above

areas will be described briefly here, and in greater detail in the

main text of the Report.

the so-called "municipal overburden"), existing educational

expenaitures, and variations 1n educational needs (proportions of

low-income, bilingual, or "special needs" children).

~ased on the analysis of this data. a number or descriptive

conclusions result:

1975]

is unnecessary.

II. The second area or investigat10n has elicited a number of

basic shortcomin£s in the current Chapter 70 formula for distri­

buting state school aid. ~r1efly, these are:

1.) The low level of state contribution: In 1969, Massachusettsranked 45th In the proportion of pUblic school revenueprovided by the state. Despite Imrro vements since thattime, !'1assachusetts has lagged behind many states whichhave made substantial increases in the level of state aid.As a consequence of this low level -- technically 35%of the average community's general scho~l expenditures -­a substantial portion of school costs depends entirely onfluctuations in the local property base. All expendituresover 110% of the state average, and most major categori-

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

3.) Differences 1n taxable property values are furthercompounded by inequalities in the non-school tax "burden".Cities, in particular, have a high non-school revenuedrain, since they must provide substantial municipalservices for densely populated areas, high concentrationsof lower-income peoples, and non-residents who make useof the cities during the day-time. This non-school drainmakes the raising of school revenues more difficUlt, theideal illustration being Chelsea, where a high non-schoolproperty tax comprises 90~ of the total local tax.

4.) Based on these inequities, school expenditures areradically unequal among the locd districts. Even with thecurrent Chapter 70 formula for state school aid, sub­stantial inequities exist among the local districts inper pupil expenditures. The ten wealthiest communities,for example, spend 133% of the amount spent on schools inthe ten poorest communities including the state contri­bution.

Thes~basic'inequiti~~i;"':R~V~/;"'iri'ract, given rlse'"tC;'litfgk­tion 1n the Federal District Court. The case of Timilty et al

v. Sarg~nt et aI, although held back by a lack of funds at this

writln~, charges that the existine s~stem of school financing

1n Massachusetts, despi te Chapter 10, 1s uncons t i tutlonaL In

its review of testimony, the Commission has yet to hear any party

argu~ that the current system is fair or equal, or that reform

18

III. The Commission has devoted substantial time to the study of

possible measures to counter the fiscal inequities described above,

and to correct the shortcomings of current state aid programs. In

particular, much time has been given to in-depth study of the

three major school finance reform bills filed in the 1975 legisla­

tive session and recently referred to the Commission by the

Education Committee. The three aref H128, filed by the Board

of Education, S423/H2876, filed by the Massachusetts Teacher's

Association, and H3628, filed by the Boston "Coalition", a cross­

sectional group of Boston legislators and representatives from the

Boston School Committee and the Major's Office.

Much of this investigation has focused on conceptual differences

ambng the three B111s and differences between them and the current

Chapter 10. In brief, these are depicted In 'J'al.ile I and are

summarized in the AppendiX.

19751 ,,: .... ""HOUSE - No. 6474

cal aid programs are not subject to equalization at thestate level. ---

2.) A floor of 15% aid, and a ceiling of 75%, prevent stateaid from varying the full*gree that local wealth varies.Both act as impediments to equalization.

3.) The use of property valuation per pupil as an Indica-'tor of local fiscal ability favors communities with ahigh proportion of pupils in the total population byde-emphasizing non-school drains On the property base.

4.) Because Chapter 70 is funded with revenue remainingafter other categorical school aid programs are fullyfunded, the level of the state's contribution is furtherdiminished, as is its equalizing effect.

5.) Since state aia is based on the reimbursement ofpast-year expenditures, Bchool districts are handicappedin their ability to undergo medium or long ranee planning.Low wealth communities, are further handicapped bythei,r.relative,.,,:l,Il~~l,.+J...:;3'tic raise the initial revenue to',WJ1j'!l';'~':'':'':t\\:;i\l.l\iget new programs"o ff'the ground.

1975 SCHOOL FINANCE DILkS: COMPAHISON

Component Cbapter 70 ~I.T!A. Dept. of Education Boston COalition

1.~ Aidlfercentage 50%..... 7.e;,

(1981)50';

:ef·0'"eCf)~

Izo.

I~1104

e 1.4

... 2.5

.. 3·5

.. 4.5:= 5-5

.Vocational"1 = 1.5

#2 .. 2.0

Regular Day = 1.0k - 3 = 1.2

~peclal Ed.,1(/2#3#4

~£qualized Valuation}Jer Capita and• Fer C~pita Income

'"' .2 Low Income

Bilingual

Low Income

~:

aegular~ay "" 1. a

Vocational #1= 1.1tl2= 1.4if;: 2.0

Special Ed.HI'" 2.592= 3.5if3= 5.0*4... 6.0

'"' 1.4 Bilingual

.c;qualizedValuationfer Capin~a

~

EqualizedValuationPer Capita

Regular Day .. 1.0k - 6 "".1.2

Vocational • I.?

Low-Income ~ .1to ~5(l979)

"CriticalDeficiencies· -1.25

EqualizedValuationFer Fupll

RegularDay

J. frogr~ Coveredand m!illwe 19b~tJl.)

2. Fiscal CapacityIndex

Re 1mbursable(80 - 110% ofState Average)

Reimbursable(80 - 110% ofState Average)

'Current - Year(quarterly)

(~tate iLverage)

Current - Year(quarterly)

(State Average)

5. AdditionalGuarantees &Incentives

15% floor, 75%ceiling

Save-harmless& 6~

~ave-harm1esB

Gu~ranteed ~leldrrogram tj

Save-harmless.......'-

=~~.

In addition to these conceptual differences, each of the

three bills has distinctive fiscal effects. The Commission is

engaged in an on-going analysis of these, with the extremely

valuable technical assistance of the Legislators' Education Action

ProJect of the National Conference of State Legislatures. At the

time of this writing, enough data has been assembled in computer

8imulations to predict basic distributive and cost effects of all

three bills. These, and the reasons for these, will be spelled

out In det~ll in tne maln Report text, with accompanying data in

the Appendix.

Thus at this Juncture, the Commission has the tools with

f'Cit·,tlOUSE _ No. 6474

;,~i..1>S:H':ht}j,~~;,\~r~;,-~~"~;,~!~,~

which to analyze the eff~cts of different components in each of

the bills, and thus to work towards combining the most effective

and most desirable components into a specific recommendation for

legislation. One advantage the Commission has enjoyed thus far is

that it has been able to take the necessary' time and summon the

reaources required to examine a range of alternative reforms in

some depth. Tilis process is continuing; additional elements are~ .,

being included In the anrysls~distributiveand total cost effects.

IV. Flnally, the Commission has been ably assisted by the

Legislators' Education Action Project in reviewing and profiting

from the reform experiences in a number of other states. In

addition to hearing testimony from Representative Joseph Graba of

Minnesota and Representatlve Robert Johnson of Florida, the L.E.A.P.

researchers, John J. Callahan and William Wilken have bought to the

Comm1ss1on their familiarity With the national picture of school

finance reform. In addItion, staff person, Edward Morgan attended

1975]

the National School Finance Conference in March, and conveyed

useful information of national scope to Commission members.

The perspective of school finance reform in other states has

been partioularly useful in two ways: 1) by suggesting elements

of school finance reform packages that ought to be weighed in

Massachusetts~ and 2) by providing a back-drop against which the

three reform bills, or any alternatives,can be evaluated. The"

national perspective has been especiclly helpful in determining

drawbacks or ommissions shared by all three of the reform bills.

In this regard, the experience of other states has pointed the

way to a number of issues yet unstudied, as is discussed in the

final section of this introductory abstract.

Finally, the Commission members have been greatly concerned

about t:ne f1s~al context of school finance reform -- in particular,

the existence and relative desirability of various state revenue

sources required for any increase 1n state school aid. As of

this writing~ the Commission has heard testimony !'rom a number of

parties involved in tax issues and tax reform, and will be meeting

on April 7 with Secretary of Administration and Finance, John

Buckley. Addltionally~ Commission members have been extremely

mindful of the over-a~l issue of tax reform, particularly the

need for property tax relief. The Commission has, in fact, heard

testimony relating to state municipal ald~ in addition to school

aid, and the relation of both to possiblities for a diminished

local property tax burden. As 1s spelled out below, this area

requires further stUdy.

22 HOUSE - No. 6474 [July"':

7.) Additional insight into the fiscal history of Massachusettslocal school districts.

8.) Cost assessments of weighted programs -- particularlySPecial ducation programs.

HOUSE - No. 6474"

1). School Aid Formula: Computer simulations and adjust­ments to combine elements contained in the three reformbills and altel1'lla',t,1"ye:S":!5nt·o a "best" formula .,D~:·'X,\l;"fMi)~!!""i'r~;,.;",

2.) State Standards and Accountability vs. Local Control:Careful examinution of the many issues arising out ofthe conflict between state stanaards for ~tate fundsand local autonomy and control of scnooIs -- including:targeting state funds for particular programs, limita­tions on tax efforts and inequities, directing state fundsto local property tax relief.

3.) Tie-in witn Tax Reform: Continuing examination oftax revenue posslbuities, the effect of school aid and .general municipal aid, and a continuing aialogue wi~theExecutive branch about tax needs.

4.) Planning: Study of the likely impact of greatly in­creased state aid on local school systems and budgets,1ncluding assessment of ways of channeling funds intoboth equalized school expenditures and property tax relief.

5.) Phase-in: Study of ways to phase in the increase 1nstate aid in an equitable manner.

6.) Administration: StUdy of administrative needs grow­ing out of complexities inherent in proposed reforms,most notably the need for oversight of local pupil place­ments.

Future Study Needs:

Although the Commission has accomplished a great deal

1n the analysis of school finance reform, a number of issues

relating to school finance reform require considerable study in

the coming months. In aadition, as mentioned in the intrOduction,

a number of additional equal educational opportunity issues urgently

require thorough examination.

In terms of school finance reform, the Commission feels that

the following areas require further careful study:

1975)

addition, members of the Commission have felt that other

critical equal educational opportunity issues require study in the

1

",,;w';;.,,\\;:1+ "l~i~ ,'. ;.". :. 1- .

HOUSE - No. 6474

issaes thoroughly. In particular, other future stUdy needs are:

1.) School Construction: The need to assess future con­struction neecslnthe Commonwealth. and' the state 'srundlrigrorlilulai';';l~>,an:l!'~tilarlyin light of decl1,nlhgsub- ,urban enrollments and the need for replacement structuresin the cities.

9.) Further examination of the relationship betweenspending and program quality.

These additional needs, it is felt, will require considerable

staff input and time. The Commission looks forward to continuing

cooperation with the Legislators Education Action Project. In

very near future. if not immediately. These. too. will require

staff input as well as considerable time to examine all pressing

2.) The Quality of Education in Massachusetts' Schools:'!'he need for a thorough examination of the quality 01'education in Massachusetts schools, focusing particularlyon variations in that quality which work to the detri-ment of some groups of students. Attention needs to begiven to particular types of programs (sucn as careereducation) as well as to alternative and innovative approaches.

3.) Metropolitan Cooperation: A number of proposed billssuggest the urgency of examining the alternativ~for urban­suburban cooperation in overcoming racial and social isola­tion in the schools of each community-type.

Finally, additional areas related to equal educational

opportunity have been suggested for stUdy and possible future

"r"recommendations. Others likely to arise' as current study continues."

In light of these related and complex concerns, the Commission

strongly urges that stUdy continue unabated for the forseeable

future.

24

As suggested in the introductory section, much of the litigation

a~~ legislation relating to d~ual educational opportunity has focused on

school finance reform. 1"0110wing a brief overview of the

25HOUSE - No. 6474

classification," like race, and that there is no compelling

year.

justification for making a child's education de~endcnt upon the

The"fiscal neutralityft principle of the Serrano case

triggered a wave of legislative reform efforts and litigation

1. School Finance Heform - The National Picture

Although school finance reform has a long history tracing. < . . ". . _ .' .t';~;'I';;' '.\{.;;1;~;':,~~~:~~ ;~"/,,,:,,~"":.:~\: , " " ",-".' ' , .; ,,:',. ' J

back tocar'lY1n the c"e'rtt:u'ry , "the momentum for mucllof the

reform in recent years can be traced to the landmark Serrano

wealth of his local school district. Federal courts made similar

rulings in l<\innesota in October and Texas in December of that

of financing public schools was found to be unconstitutional

According to the court opinion, a pupil's education cannot be

subject to the arbitrary wealth of his parents and ncighbors, or

any wealth other than that of the state as a whole. In brief

the Court stipulated that education is a fundamental interest

protected by the Constitution, that wealth is a "suspect

in particular on three reform bills.

report examines school finance reform in Massachusetts, focusing

nationalp.icture of school finance reform, the balance of this

\/. Priest decision handed down by the California Supreme Court

on August 30, 1971. In that decisi~n, the California system

1975]

II. SCHOOL FIUANCE BACKGROUND:

state and federal consti tutit>ns. On appeal, hmwver, the

its decision, being careful that the opinion did not

[July

to by stymied in Harch, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court

re~used to uphold the Serrano principle as fourteenth amend­

ment right. The 5-4 majority in 'San Antonio School District

v. Rodriquez argued that wealth inequalities reflected in

infringe on local control.

The momentum of school finance reform at first appreared

efficient" system of public education for 0.11 school age children.

Another case based on state constitutional grounds occured

in Hichigan.. The Supreme Court of that state in 1·1111i):e" v.1

Green (1912) struck down the state's system of financing public

schools because it denied equal protection of the laws guaran­

t~ed by the Michigan Constitution. The court held, "The right

to an education in ~lichigan is a specifically enumerated consti­

tutional mandate." The court 'went on to define the limits of

HOUSE - No. 6474

Supreme Court of Ue..l Jersey took a sQmowhat c.li fferent view and

decided that tlie H4~>'J~'ff~~y sy~tem of financihg'schoolsviolate'(f'i:,\loP;,,,,,,,I"::\

the state constitutional provision requiring a "thorough and

held that the New Jersey system of public school financing

violated the require~ent for equality contained in both the

by judicial decree, to reform existing systems of school

pronouncements that the states have an obligation, backed

finance to provide "equal educational opportunity." In6

Robinson v. Cahill, decided January 19, 1972, the Superior Court

in number of states. Lawsuits in some states resulted in

of New Jersey, adopted the "fundamental interest" thesis and

26

,,;'t:~~:\;,:,'~r, < ~ ,~,-;~~••':::::',? . ~ ;.; ':' ('I\i.:'\) '~':>l':I":i~,':,\" /,!-,:t:~':-,,,,:{; :~<,,; ""

zation" ~ and iillocation aid to high-need dis trict:.s by rii6~ns'·""·'··a

of pupil weighting systems. In general, the reforms since

Rodriguez have had three l.>asic fiscal effects:

of the 14th amendment, guarantee of "equal i.:lrotection."

In fact, during the year after the Supreme Court decision,

7HOUSE - No. 6474

Essentially, the majority declared that it wa~ not the role of

district school expenditures did not constitute a deprivation

2. Increased per pupil aid, especially in lowwealth, high need ·areas, thus enhancing c<Jualizationof school resources.

1. Expanded state funding of local school costs,increasing state appropriations by an average of over$100 million. 9

the Federal Courts to provide the impetus for correcting

injustices in state school finance.

3. Reducfld property taxes in four states(Colorado, Kanl:t1s, aonlrana, and North Dakota), andgeneral property tax 'rel~ef" - as compared to thosestates not passing school finance reform measures.

packages. Eight of these - notably those in Florida, Kansas,

In addition to the movement of state legislation follow-

Contrary to the expectations of some observers, school

finance reform continued unabated after the Rodriguez decision.

no fewer than eleven states passed major school finance reform

and Michigan - include some measure of "district power .equali-

ing Rodriguez, a number of suits have been filed concentrat­

ing on state constitutional guarantees. tIDst recently, in

January, 1975, a Connecticut Superior Court ruled that the

Connecticut system of school finance violated both the equal10

protection and education clauses of the State Comt:.itution.

1975]

Suffolk. Dun to a lack of financial resourC~9 ror furthpr

Litigation in Ha~sachusetts:

HOUSE - No. 6474

In January, 1~72, State Senator Joseph Timilty and others

filed a complain~ in the Federal District Court. Admitting that

heavily to attain minimal expenditure levels.

Plaintiffs claim that the Massachusetts statu­tory scheme for financing primary and secondary educa­tion results in wide disparities in the financial re­sources available per pupil, the amounts expendedper pupil among the various t1assachusetts public schools,and the rate of taxation between districts as a directresult of the reliance in the 1-1assachusetts scheme uponlocal property taxation and that the selection, with­out regard to variations in equalized valuation perpupil, of local cities and towns as the taxing unitviolates the 14th Amendment of the u.s. Constitution.

After Rodriguez, the Timilty case was rafiled by private

attornies Goodrich and ~~rcellino, arguing that the educa-

tional inequities in ~1assachusetts violated State Constitutional

provision&. The case is still pending in the Superior Court in

Amendment. Timilty v. Sargent was outlined for the Senate

Select Committee on Equality of Educational Opportunity as

follows (December, 1971. Page 248):

the Massachusetts school finance plan reflected an effort to

equalize educational opportunit~ the suit argued that the

resulting systE!mwafi'lndi'i'etheless in violation of the, Fourteenth,~QF:fn,*:\:rit:\;"j

high property values can raise excessive school funds on relatively

comfortable tax rates, while oth~smust tax themselves

The ruling - now under appeal - followed the recent trend of

Court decisions, focusing on the fact that districts with

28

constitutional. There is some indication t~at thes~ comr~unities

joining the suit.

HOUSE - No. 6474

research on the part of the plaintiffs (despite aid from the

Lawyer's Committee for Civii Rights), the case has lain dormant.

In addition to the Timilty suit two l1assachusetts commu­

nities (Cambridge and T!alden) have filed suit against the

2. Educational Inequities in Massachusetts:

Despite the effort to equalize schuol resources bi r.lear.s of

Cownonwealth, again claiming that the current system is un-

will be joined by others. At this ~oint, hgawam is considering

sect:ion, Chapter 70 contains several shortcoMings ...,hieh unuer-

which have resulted in successful litigation and/or consider­

able reform in other states. As enumerated in the introductory

Chapter, 70 of the'WGeoora.l"Laws , the current ·sohool finance·s.ysItr~iliX;&~:l,t:;:':'~

exhibits all the qualities of fiscal and educational inequity

mine the effort to tlqualize school resources throughout the

Conunonwealth (see pages 8-9). 'l'he purpose of this section

is briefly to outline and illustrate the range of existing

by all relevant measures, the current school finance structure

relies extremely heavily on the local property tax. 11assachusetts

ranks 45th in the nation in the relative proportion of school11

rev~nues proviLlud b:l th.:.: scata. And a 19"/1 ~:;ti.l:1atc of the

inequities.

According to fairly recent school finance data, Massachusetts

fares badly when compared to her sister states. Most notably,

1975]

their schools. Table II illustrates the differences between two

such towns, Weston and Rutland. Although Weston has nearly~

times the property wealth of Rutland, and alnost three times

the income wealth, both towns tax themselves at about the same

(27th),.butdfoP~th~~,sgmml?R~E!alt:ll.;~ 47th when t~:~,s:.~.tc·s

income level is taken into account.

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

In light of this general picture of the ~~ssachusetts

school finance and property tax structure, it is hardly

surprising that considerable inequities exist in school re­

sources, these are illustrated by Tables II-VIII in this sec­

tion.

The most fundamental inequality (yet one which still·

does not take into account differences in ~ducational need)

is illustrated by discrepancies in the total per pupil expendi­

tures in towns which tax themselves at nearly equal rates for

equalizing impact of that state share ranked the Commonwealth12

33rd of the 50 states. In terms of the proportion of all state

and local revenue generated by the local property tax,

Massachusetts ranks 2nd in the nation in per capita terms, and13

as high as 4th, when personal income is taken to account. In

other words, although the state is wealthier than average (in

personal income), the property tax bite for schools is still

4th highest in the nation even when this income measure is.

accounted for. Finally, general education expenditures ($ per

capita) place :tassdchusctts in the middle of the state rankings

30

Weston:

Median Years of Schooling Ratio To State Average~

31

.900

18.53 mills

$462

$362

$788

3,198

2.238

.930

Table II

HOUSE - No. 6474

Weston:

Rutland:

Weston: 1.25

Rutland 1.01

Total Exrenditures Per Purl1

State Aid Per Pupil $ 137

Total Expenditures Per Pupil . $1841

Populat1on

State Aid Per Pupil

Equalized Valuation Per Capita(Ratio to State Average)

Equalized School Tax Rate

Locally Raised Revenue Per Pupil

Population 10,870

Equalized Valuation Per Capita(Ratio to State Average) 2.448

Equalized School Tax Rate 18.68 m1lls

Locally Raised Revenue Per Puoll $1704

Illustration of School Finance Inequities: Two Towns·

Rutland:

Per Capita Income Ratio to State Average:

• Aid figures are based on 1972-73 levels.

1975]

in ~"eston have more than twice the school revenue available

cost of equality). "nigh-need" students tend to be locateu in

from. State aid, in other words, fails to clos~ the e~ucational

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

the cities and poorer rural towns, yet under the current funding

system, the wealthy suburban towns are better able to draw on

state support for high-neenstudents.

for thei~ education th~n pu?ils in Rutland are able to benefit

The measure of local wealth most traditionally associated

with educational inequities has been that of property value.

According to Table IV, the measure currently used in calculating

rate. The result is a glaring difference in revenue available

for school expenditures. t"leston 's per pupi 1 revenue is almost

four times that of Rutland. The state provides aid to Rutland

that more than doubles the aid to Weston, but the resulting

total per pupil expenuitures remain grossly unequal. Pupils

towns (Gosnold and Chilmark) are affected by unusually low

pupil counts. The median expenditure level of the top ten

districts is more than two and a half times that of the low

expenditure districts. These discrepancies do not take into

account difference~ in educational need (and therefore the

in the current system. As illustrated by Table II~ these ex­

penditures range widely among the Massachusetts cities and

towns. Although the expenditure levels of certain individual

Discrepancies in per pupil expenditure after receipt)~:'~":Y~J1.;:~£",:":::,;;:1~(ni~~~:~;,4'"e.:·'.

of state aid, can therefore be used to indicate basic inequities

'Jap in a significant manner.

32

$4620279622351841171916811665166415931526

$ 788787715773766762760691663646

Table III

}I'OUSE - No. 6474

District

Ten Districts With Highest Expenditures

GosnoldChilmarkBrooklineWestonRoweLincolnWaylandTyringhamNewtonOakham

Ten Districts With Lowest Expenditures

RutlandFreetownSpencerPlainvilleBillericaMillvilleDunstableNorfolkAtholEast Brookfield

Ratio of High Median to Low Median • 2.6:1

Disparities in Educational Program Expenditures Per Pupil. 1973-74.by Ten Highest and Ten Lowest Districts

Educational ProgramExpenditures

Per Pupil 1973-74

1975)

1[J~ly

(At the same time,

median years of schooling .61, with expenditures per FTE.)

which takes into account educational need.

EV/SAC exhibits a .63 correlation, per capita income .77, and

Per capita income differences are far less dramatic (Table VI)

base as the poor towns (mostly cities). Si~nificantly this

measure reflects the overall demand on property wealth in each

Using a broader measure of local wealth - per capita

property value - the gap between richest and poorest districts

have somewhat more than twice the income wealth as the poorest

comparable range of variation.

, .. ,' \,~!i(',~:~·)~'~{Jf; ," 'to.

resort) now exhibit more than thirteen tir.\cs the property

than those in property values. The wealthiest towns (suburbs)

towns (rural, and Fall River). Per capita income correlates

most significantly of any measure tested (.71) with differences

in per pupil expenditures, in part because the two reveal a

local fiscal ability reveals'aidr~~ticgap between wealthy

and poor comm~nities;o Dis.tricts w:~th highest property wealth

(generally resort communities) have more than eleven times

community. Although it registers a correlation of only .09

with per pupil expenditure, this measure correlates significantly

(.44) with expenditures per full-time equivalent pupil, a figure

the property base on which to draw for school expenditures

as the poorest property districts (generally rural towns).

Per pupil property value correlates significantly (.33) with

districts) •

final per pupil expenditures (based cn a sample of t-lassachusetts

widens. As illustrated in Table V, the wealthy towns (mostly

34

I Note: Values 1n Rowe reflect the ores~nce of a nuclearpower olant in a small town.

HOUSE - No. 6474 ," "35

22,95022,55622,54722,22922,19821,90620,93919,12418,89317,036

EV!SAC

1,560,274378,182272,721271,762271,290258,312250,985242,065227,542205,6-28

Rowe I

ChilmarkGosnoldEdgartownTruroWellfleetMashpeeOrleansChathamNantucket,:h"i.>"Y' ',: ....: ",,'"

District

Ten Highest Districts

Ten Lowest Districts

DracutHarvardLeicesterTempletonBlackstoneWinchendonChelseaOrangeMillvilleAyer

Correlation or EV!SAC with Per Pupil Expenditures • .33

Ratio ot High Median to Low Median = 11.4:1

Table IV

Disparities in Property Wealth Per Pupii (SAC), byTen Highest and Ten Lowest Districts

(Equalized Valuation as of January 1, 1975)

1975]

TablC? v

Disparities in Property Wealth Per Capita.As a Ratio to the State Average. by Ten Highest and T~n Lowest Districts

(Equalized Valuation as or January 1. 1975)

Correlation or EVICAP with Per Pupil Expenditures • .09

Ratio of High Median to Low Median • 13.3:1

[July

.590

.585

.582

.579

.542

.541

.527

.441

.421'

.410

42.74528.6209.2578.6607.3637.0846.9966.4316.3836.359

Ratio to Average

HOUSE - No. 6474

Ten Districts with Weakest Tax Base

North AdamsLowellLawrenceAtholSomerv1lleFall RiverOrangeHarvardBostonChelsea

Ten Districts with Strongest Tax Bases

RoweNew SalemMashpeeEasthamEdgartownTruroMount WashingtonGaY:.JleacJ '>;,!,i-r;.'OrleansChllmark

District

36

Table VI

37

.779

.779

.778

.778

.771

.752

.746

.741

.677

.591

2.2542.2382.1641. 7931. 7891.1411.6211 .. 5721.5691.553

Ratio toState Average

Ten Districts with High Income

HinsdaleWestonDoverLongmeadowBrooklineWellesleyLincolnNewtonMarbleheadConcord

District

HOUSE - No. 6474

Disparities in Per Capita Income by Localitybased upon the state average (l970census)

Ten Districts with Low Inc~me

AchushnetFall RiverMonsonWarehamBlackstoneTempletonBridgewaterSalisburyBelchertownOtis

Ratio of High Median to Low Median. 2.3:1

Correlation of Per Capita Income to Per PupilExpenditures • .71

1975]

ten high expenditure tlistricts have much higher property values

be seen in Table VII. (Although "equalized", these tax rates

In light of .these basic, and frequently dramatic ,> lnequities,

Finally, substantial differences in school tax effort can

HOUSE - No. 6474

Massachusetts prepares to revise her system of financing public

elementary and secondary education. Against a backdrop of

considerable inequality, and two court suits, the first step has

been filed and referred to the Commission. The final portion

of this report draws on the study of these bills completed to

date by the Commission.

per pupil expenditure levels. As can be seen in Table VIrI, the

measure correlates significantly (.37) with per pupil expendi-

tax rate that is more than eight times that of the low tax

districts (resorts and Rowe). Not surprisingly, the tax rate

are based on current, unequal assessments.) The ten high tax

communities (rural and average wealth towns) have a median

tures.

An overview of these discr}ancies can be gained by examining

characteristics of the districts with highest and lowest

(calculated in terms of both per pupil and per capita value)

and substantially higher income and schooling levels. The low

expenditure districts exhibit the opposite tendencies (although

Dunstable has a high per capita property base).

38

Correlation or Tax Rate to Per Pupil Expenditures • .37

Ratio or High Median to Low Median • 8.3:1

2.252.723.133.303.593.7~

3.903.954.1~

It.15

27 .9128.0328.l~

28.6728.7228.9329.0829.~l30.1631.95

Egualized Ta~ RateDistricts

RoweGosnoldErlingOrleansMashpeeTruroBarnstableCh1lmarkSandwichNantucket

HOUSE - No. 6474

Disparities 1n Local School Tax Rates in Millsbased upon equalized valuations

Ten Districts with Lowest Tax Rates

Table VII

"Ten Districts with Highest Tax Rates

BlackstoneRowleyBarreMerrimacHollistonrUllvil1eGrovelandWhitmanWinchendon

.Orange

1975]

Table VIII

Relationship Between Measures of Fiscal Ability.Tax Rates) Expenditures by Ten High Expenditure

and Ten Low Expenditure Di5trlc~s

DistrictExpenditurePer Pupil

EV/SAC EV/Cap IncJCap Med .Sch.'Ratio' Ratio Ratio Ratio Tax

GosnoldChilmarkBrooklineWestonRoweLincolnWaylandTyringhamNewtonOakham

RutlandFreetownSpencerPlainvilleBillericaMillvilleDunstableNorfolkAtholE. Bridgewater

$116202796223518q1171916811665l66q15931526

788787775773766762760691663646

7.9818.7372.2841.913

41.3201.8761.1903.21!11.4021.197

.847

.935

.664

.839

.751

.4391.460

.886

.589

.804

3.7576.3591.2512.q1l8

42.71151.5111.5611l.3531.2881.253

.9001.261

.7491. 04"51.018

.5832.16~1.071

.5791.053

.943•.9 11 3

L'~892/238

.8921.6211.1167

.9291.572

.927

.930

.851

.857

.869

.836

.9291.088

.821

.919

.877

1.051.25

1.231.16

1.05

1.01.93.94

1.011.01

1.01.95

1.01

2.723.95

13.3318.68

2.2516.9022.175.09

22.7212.33

18.5318.1815.7717.4020.4528.9313.3517.1019.0221.06

:=o~rJJ~

Izo.

......."'"".c:'~

~.

.37.47.71.09.33Correlation with Per pupilexpenditures

• Median Years of Schooling Ratio included as ~val1able

;;

3. (S. 423/H.2876) by the Massachusetts Teachers Association.

Commission by The Joint Committee on Education. The three are:

41HOUSE - No. 6474

2. (U.J628) by a cross-section of Boston lC<Jislators, are;Jresentative of the Mayor's Office, and a member ofthz Doston School Committee - hereafter referred toinformally as the Boston Coalition.

1. (H.12S) by the Board of Education.

15III. ANJ...LYSIS OF THREE REFOzu.1 BILLS:

1. E~ua1ization of School Resources from district todistrict within the Commonwealth. All three bills makesubstantial changes in the present Chapter 70 school aidformula, redirecting school aici to conrnunities with lowper capita wealth and extraordinary educational need.

2. Decreased Reliance on the Local proEe~dT~x as thebasis for financing schools. All 6ills wou lncreasethe average state share of school expenditures from thestatu~ory 35:PerCent (Chapter 70) to 50 percent or more.

The ?roposed revisions in school aid include the following:

Three oajor.school finance reform bills have been filed16

during the 1975 legislative session, and formally referred to the

~l~ ~h.ree bil:l.:~,~.~~·re<R~s.i;c. objectives. In essence they

aim at:

In addition, all three bills would require at least $680

million in state revenue in 1975-76 if aid were paid on the basis

of 1972-73 expenditure levels. Thus, the state would have to

raise a minimum of $170-200 million beyond the anticipated

$513 million level required for 1975-76 anticipated under exist­

ing legislation.

1. Summa~y of Bill Components:

1975]

New Measures of School District Wealth: The measure oflocal fiscal ability in all three I.>Uls differs substantiallyfrom present Chapter 70 formula. The state Board of Educationand MTA bill measure the relative wealth of the communityby its per capita property value. The Boston Coalitionbill calls for an averaging of per capita property valueand per capita income in order to determine the relativewealth of the local community. The riTA bill in 1977 adjuststhe per capita wealth measure by the relative total taxrate of the local community.

Pupil Wcig~ting systems: All ~hree bills incorporate a pupilwtrr.gli[Ihg 5y5 tern ~n order to d~rect more Chapter 70 aid tocommunities with concentrations of children that are expensive

42 HOUSE - No. 6474

Increased State Share: All three bills call for an averagestate contribution to school costs at the 50 percent levelin 1973-76. The average state sh~re would rise to 75 levelpercent in til<2 ;·ldssuchusetts Teachers Association C·IT]\)bill by 1931-32 and th~reafter.

Program Consolidation: The Board of EJucation and BostonCoalition bills would consolidate present vocational,special, and bilingual education funding programs into anew Chapter 70 formula. The r1TA I.>ill would consolidatepresent Chapter 74 vocational education programs into anew Chapter 70 proposal.

New-Program Funding: All three bills call for the creationO1'a new aid ?rogram for disadvantaged children operatingwithin the new Chapter 70. Aid for this program isdistributed by means of weighting for "lo\o,-incorne" pupils,defined differently in each bill. The MTA bill calls foraduitional aid for educationally cisadvantageJ childrenwhose educational performance is substantially Lelowstatewide avera9:~.'

Aid Limitations: All three proposals place restrictionson the .:lmount of aiu that a district can receive underthe new Chapter 70 program. The 11'l'A iJill will share ina school district's -expenditures at a minimun of ~O percentof state average up to a maximum of 110 percent of stateaverage per pupil expenditure I while the iJoard and Uos.tonbill contribute aid based on the state average per pupilexpenditure.

All three bills guarantee that no city or town willreceive less Chapter 70 aid than it did in the 1974-75school year. The MTA bill provides for increasing this"save-harmless" guarantee by six percent a year to keeppace with inflation.

[July

compared to those in Chapter 1.0 on page 10 of the Introduction'~~;.',l;;,;'":,"!';.:V;;t• , ,', ~;':>:'i C,,' ,<'c

2. Computation of State Aid

Aid distributed to each school district is calculatedaccording to the following general formula:

1. Board of Education:

43

~ 1.OQ-.5(income/cap local)(income/cap state)

X State average per pupilexpenditure (previous year)

X Total Pupil Weights

HOUSE - No. 647,4

1.00-.5 (EV/capita local)(EV/c~pita state)

X State average per pupil expenditure (previous year)

~ 1.00-.5 (EV/capita local)*(Ev!capita state) +

X Total Pupil Heights(*not to fall below zero)

Educational Need X Program expenditures

to educate. These weighting systems classify a child byhis grade level, or educational program, or other socio­economic or educational characteristic, and they guaranteeadditional state funding for all but "regular day" pupils.The MTA bill has four separate pupil weightings, the StateBoard of Education nine and the Dos ton Coalition elevenseparate weighting classifications. The weighting provisionsin the State Board and Boston Coalition !)lans are vertsimilar.

Other Features: All three bills call for auvance fundingof Chapter 70 aid payments. The Board and Coalition plansalso provide for direct paymctits to regional school districts.The State Board proposes a relatively minor program ofadditional school aid to those communities that have schooltax rates that are substantially above the state average.

Aid , (based on the inverse of local fiscal ability X

The components of each bill are further summarized and

2. Boston Coalition:

State aid is computed in each bill as follows:

1975]

would hoCbe dist:rtBti't'edequaUy among all schooldiStric:ts buti:i:''':,.

in relation to such important considerations as local educational

need, expenditure level, tax effort and wealth. Under all three

• As at present, however, the actual share of local ex­penditures borne by the state would depend on the degreeto which the new proposals are funded.

',. [j'~iy

X Total pupil weights

The additional state dollars, however,

: ,~;.>:;

HOUSE - No. 6474

1.00-.5 (EV/capita local)(EV/capita state)

X Total reimbursable expenditures (between 80%and 110% of the state average)

3. MTA:

percent in 1975-76.

3. Analysis:,

Formula Similarities:

All three major school finance bills now before the Commission

would increase the state's share of most school district expendi­

tures from a statutory level of 35 percent in 1974-75 to 50..

bills, more state aid would be paid to school districts with a

majority of their pupils enrolled in regular day school programs.

Under each of the bills the amount of state aid ,will grow with

increases in the level of school district ezpenditures. Under

two of the bills, more state aid would be paid to school districts

that make exceptional tax effort than to districts which make

only average tax effort. Under all three bills, state aid

would increase to districts with above-averag~wealth. Each, of these

bills, however,works differently since all three define their

essentially common considerations for aid payment in markedly

44

different ways. These differences are clarified in subsequent

sections.

The Level of State Aid:

In the first year each bill would go into effect, all three

major school finance proposals would set the average state share

at 50 percent of those school district expenditures subject to

state aid. Following the 1976-77 fiscal year, the share of local

expenditures picked up by the state under the MTA plan would,

however, increase to 55 percent in 1977-78, to 60 percent in

1978-79; to 65 percent in 1979-80, and to 75 percent in 1981-

82 an9-a11 year.~ ;~;I)~'Jie{1f,t;er'.,,,,),,,, ,:\1\,::.,,;:; :,i

Definition of Expenditures:

Another key difference among the three bills can be found

in their definitions of aidable expenditures. The proposals of

the State Board and the Boston Coalition define the aidable

expenditures for each school district as the average expense per

weighted full time equivalent (WFTE) pupil in the Commonwealth.

In contrast, the Teachers Association bill defines aidable ex­

penditures for each school district in terms of district expense

per enrolled pupil not to exceed 110 percent of the state average,

and not to be less than 80 percent of the state average.

Other differences among the expenditure definitions arise

in two areas: (1) the expenditures subject to aid according

to pupil type; and (2) the expenditures subject to aid by func­

tion and object. Vnder the State Board and Boston Coalition

bills, Chapter 70 in the future would pay aid for expenses

HOUSE - No. 64741975]

community service outlays.

All three bills exclude from aid school district outlays

of these programs under a general aid formula covering vitually

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

* Neither of these bills makes any specific reference to a fewmiscellaneous pupil expenditure categories. included underthe current Chapter 70 legislation, most importantly, regu-lar evening school, and vacation schools.

in their definitions of the state share and aidable expenditures,

The Definition of Relative School District Wealth:

While the State Board and Boston Coalition bills are identical

they part company significantly in their approaches to the

gate regulations that would allow aid to be paid for certain

would give the Commissioner of Education discretion to promul-

made for pupil transportation, food services, capital outlays,

tuition receipts, federal aid, and the proceeds from investments

bursed under Chapter 70, and vocational expense categories now

treated under separate categorical programs. It would not

and other miscellaneous sources. Moreover, all three proposals

currently reimbursed through separate categorical vocational,

special education, and bilingual programs by consolidating each

all pupil types. Specifically, the State Board and Coalition bills

would pay aid for expenses incurred for regular day school,

special education, vocational and bilingual pupils.·

The Teachers Association proposal, on the other hand,

would include only pupil expense categories currently reim-

include the expenses ,fQr pupils.. nQw treated under categoJ;ical

programs for special education or bilingual education.

46

funding -- the property base and income available for expendi­

tures -- in the comp'J.tatior. of local fiscal alJilitj.

in terms of equalized property valu~tion per capita and in terms

of personal income per capita. According to this formula, school

*Although not spelled out in the Boston Coalition bill,it is the intent of its authors that the local valuationpercentage shall not fall below zero.

47HOUSE - No. 6474.'

definition of relative school district wealth. The state Board

proposal together with the Teachers Association plan specifies

that the rel~tive wealth of regular school districts shall be

determined by the per capita, equalized, market or true pro-

perty valuation per person. By virtue of this change from

property valuation per pupil, school districts having a high

percentage of their population in public school will appear

more wealthy while school districts with a low pupil proportion

Boston coalition bill rep);'esents an even greater departure"'':: i .. "'r' , " , , ';1,,',"':;'·~/~ ·":'''~,'''}'"i.i';r',,';~:y:: .'" ", t"};;;j;';~,~f(1:r';>":~:'1'.:':~,',:.i:.\·,!<;~~/:<:;":,J

from present practice than the change required by the other bills.

Under the Coalition bill, relative local wealth is defined both

will appear poorer relative to the norm.

The definition of relative local wealth contained in the

aid is based on an average of the local property value and per

capita income proportions.· Though not explicitly stated,

the purpose of including personal income in the measure of local

wealth is essentially to include two sources of local school

Pupil Unit Definitions:

An additional significant difference between the three

bills arises from the way each defines its pupil units. Both

1975]

take account of the view that there is a need to assign educa-

less use of pupil classifications and weights, since it in-

and weighting system. The Teachers Association bill makes

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

assigns an additional .2 weight to all pupils classified as low­

income, while the Boston Coalition assigns low-income pupils a

.5 weight. The MTA proposal begins' with a .1 low-income weight

in 1975, and increases this to .5 by 1979. l\dditionally, signi-

tional priority to pupils during the early years of their

pUb~ic education. The State Board bill does not give additional

weight to elementary school pupils.

Second, the three bills differ over the priority that should

be assigned to the education of children from low income homes -­

children who at present have an extraordinarily high probability

of low educational achievement. The Board of Education bill

Quite clearly, the classification and weighting schemes of

all three bills are based on the view that the Commonwealth's

considerably by key differences in several areas.

First, the Boston Coalition and Teachers hssociation bills

corporates fewer progra~5.

the State Board and Boston Coalition bills define and count

programs, as well as pupils from backgrounds associateu with": '~-'",,','; " ,;.:7),,:::'~li":"·;'

educational "disadvantage". This consensus, however, is offset

school district pupils by means of an elaborate classification

school finance system must provide greater support to pupils

who are relatively expensive to educate -- aamely pupils requiring

the services of s~ecial education, vocational and bilingual

48

The Teachers Association proposal guarantees all school

districts at least 6 percent more aid in the future than in

1974-75.

49HOUSE - No. 6474

Save-Harmless Definitions:

The State Board and Boston Coalition bills qualify their

basic'provisions by insuring all school districts that they

will receive no less state aia in the future than in 197,4-

75.

Tax Effort and Add-On:

The State Board plan, unlike the other two; requires all

school districts to make a minimum revenue effort amounting to

the difference between the state-wide average expenditure per

pupil and their revised per pupil Chapter 70 aid. In addition,

it guarantees all school districts $45 per pupil per mill of true

ficant differences arise in each billis definition of "low­

income" children. The BOard bill uses the current Title I formula

-i.e. all children below the federal poverty level. The Boston

bill uses the old Title I formula, namely!!! children below

poverty level or on welfare. The MTA proposal includes all

. pubiic school children from families in the lowest income decile.

Additionally, the Teachers Association bill assigns a 1.25

weight to all pupils who have ·critical deficiencies in basic

learning skills" as defined by performance ill a statwide tC'st­

lng program of an unspecified nature to go into effect during

fiscal 1977.

1975]

tax effort in excess of a state average tax effort, the $45

per pupil figure is dOout $3 per pupil above the yield from

a one mill tax levy in an average wealth school district. The

ceiling on this mill guarantee, however, is limited to a maxi­

mum of $180 per pupil.

Like the State Department proposal, the Teachers Associa­

tion bill also provides increased aid to school didtricts

on the basis of local tax effort, but takes a substantially

different approach. Under the Teachers bill, school districts

with a total tax burden -- school and non-school -- greater

than the state ave~~ge will res~ivesmall sU~plements to their:~i~"1>

Chapter 70 allotments beginning in 1977. Thi~ will be done

by manipulating the definition of relative local"wealth in such

a way that tax effort will count 10 percent and property

valuation 90 percent. By and large, this will provide supple­

mentary assistance to school districts now suffering from

-municipal overburden.-

50 HOUSE - No. 6474 [July

purpose of these weighting plans is to concentrate more state

HOUSE - No. 6474"

systems are in effect in another thirteen. The ostensible

states, Florida, New Mexico, and Utah. Partial weighting

Many of the components of the three school finance reform

* The COmMission is indebted to John Callahan and WilliamWilken for their report on school finance reform, inother states. r-tuch of this review is derived from thatreport.

4. School Finance Revisions in Has!:lachusctts in Light ofOther State Finance Reforms.

the three proposals before the Commission.

Pupil Weiqhtinq Plans:

Comprehensive pupil weighting plans are in effect in three

provides a useful perspective for subs~Iuent evaluation of

Where pupil weighting systems have been employed they

bills have been includcd in school ,finance revisions in other

states. A brief re~iew* of new measures in these states

aid on high-cost children and to redistribute Inore monies to

formula program. This, in turn, assures that local communities

but on some more objective standard of'educational need.

districts that have above-average concentrations of such

pupils. ~wreover, these weightinq systems are often advocated

in order to fold-in categorical programs to a general aid

will receive aid not on the basis of local "grantmanship"

have met with considcrable public favor. These r>lans, however,

require efficient educational administration to be effective.

Most legislators admit that there is a need for periodic evalua­

tion of such plans, and many are concerned about the tendency

1975]

Few states have revised their original weighting programs

programs.

eilch eUucational n()~J,;at<.?'1ory. Cons8'lucntly, there \.:ill be no

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

would allow. ~~Q states, Minnesota and Illinois, have begun

weighting systems might recognize nor would districts rrovide

educational programs that are more costly than weighting systems

incentive to ,:>rovido,:! -.J[ficient programs that CQ~t le::;sthan

in a sweeping fashion. Hew York has added a weighting program

to address themselves to this liltter ?roblem by raising the

level of weightings as the concentration of high-need pupils

within a district increases.

for educationally disadvantaged pupils, and Minnesota has in­

creased the level of its weightinq for Title I pupils. Florida

is presently considering reducing its weighting for vocational

pupils since the state already funds a'large share of vocational

In summary, the pupil weighting schemes ape suitable devices

for fiscal redistribution in a school aid formula. Yet these

costs through its complete assumption of cnpital construction

ment ~f standardized weighting programs will create pressure

for districts to sflt:!n.l only to the level of cost wci'Jl,ting in

for local districts to misclassify students into high-cost

cat~gories. In Utah, for c~ample, this has caused the Legislative

Research Council to consider developing potential target popu­

lations in each district in order to dctermine how well different

districts are taking advantage of the pupil weighting system.

Others have become concerned about the possible inflexi­

bility of weightinq programs. Some contend that the develop-

52

schemes require a high level of administrative ,oversight so that

districts will be able to participate equally in the weighting

program on an eyual footing.

53HOUSE - No. 6474

New Measures of Local Fiscal Ability:

All three reform proposals contain new measures of local

fiscal capacity. The MTA and Board of Education bill advocate

a per capita property value measure of local fiscal capacity

while the Boston Coalition bill adjusts the per capita property

value measure by the relative per capita income of the local

communi ty •

States hav~,generlilillY;beenchanging their methods of

com~uting local fiscal capacity, generally 4110ng the lines pro­

posed in all three bills. These changes have essentially taken

two forms. First, several have mov~d to count income as well

as proparty wealth as part of local taxable capacity. Both

Kansa and Iowa measure local wealth as a composite of property

values and income while Virginia includes property wealth,

income and retail sales in its computation of relative local

fiscal ability. Rhode Island adjusts its local fiscal ability

measure by the median family income in the district. All these

changEa, similar to the change in the Boston bill, have been

made on the grounds that relative property values alone do not

always reflect the local wealth of a community.

Secondly, states have been changing the standard by which

relative wealth is judged. Most states until recently measured

local wealth in terms of full value of property per pupil in

average daily attendance (ADA). Nine states since 1958 now base

1975]

Save-Harmless Provisions:

capita wealth measures in their aid formulas. All three

[July. HOUSE - No. 6474

from simple pupil counts as the unit of local wealth measure-

their pupil counts o~..-average daily membership (ADM) rather than

average daily attendance. In short, most states are moving away

ment and several are considering or have incorporated per

All three bills have save-harmless provisions which

Michigan, where a community's aid ratio is adjusted by the re-

funds to "municipally-overburdened" Detroit.

lative total tax rate of a city or town. This component,

similar to the one contained in the MTA bill, channels additional

Massachusetts bills compute fiscal ability on a per capita

basis in an effort to deterQine the over-all fiscal ability

of each district. In short, all are sensitive to the diffi­

culties of measuring the local wealth of a community and the

need to adjust wealth measurements in light of other circum­

stances (i.e. residential poverty or high tax effort) that"""~" .. ' .' '{';~!'.;'~f1;'.;>,.",:"~'_"-:"", ' ,"-':", •. "'\_'~'

affect the amount of"actual fiscal capacity in a locality.

Another sort Qf fiscal capacity aJjustment occurs in

particular, reduced aid payments substantially in many rural.

guarantee that no local community will lose aid under the new

finance plan. Five of the 14 states that have substantially

revised their school finance systems since 1971 did not have

save-harmless provisions in their aid programs. Kansas, in

districts though it eased these reductions by giving each district

54

,fJuly 1975) HOUSE - No. 6474-

than

away

,10nal

a share of state income tax proceeds. In several other states

that did not have save-harmless provisions -- Montana, North

Dakota, and Utah -- the levelling up of aggregate state aid

payments meant that virtually all districts in the state re-

ceived increased aid. Hence the lack of save-harmless provisions

in these states had no practical effect on local school district

finances.

Most reform states have been concerned about the impact

of their finance revisions on wealthier districts. Flat grant

or minimum aid payments were continued in California and Colorado

though the in California ruled "those grants

unconstitutional. Michigan and !-laine <>hased in school tax

mandates for wealthier communities receiving state aid. More-

oever, most reform states still permit local communities to raise

unequalizcd revenues from local taxation over and above the re-

imbursable expenditure levels of state aid programs. Only

z,laine, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin "recapture" excess local

school tax revenues from wealthier local communities.

In sum, most reforms have not yet reduced absolute aid in

wealthier communities though court rulings in some states

(California and New Jersey) and fiscal pressures in others may

make states reconsider whether they can afford to retain save-

harmless provisions in their aid reforms.

trictPower Equalizing Aid for Communities .with Above-Average SchoolTax Effort:

Another major component is the Board of Education's

"guaranteed yield" add-on. Where this type of equalization

School finance reforms in other states exhibit several

Other Reform Elements Not Covered in the Massachusetts Bills:

plan has been employed, it has met with varied success. In

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

finance revisions. Florida, Maine, and New Mexico put absolute

school tax rate limitations on their sfhool districts.

California, Colorado, and Kansas put variable expenditure limi­

tations on local school districts depending on-their relative

program, and only one of these waS poor enough to qualify for

Maine, this component of the equalization plan has aided many

medium wealth communities and added about $13 million to the

of the reform states, however, had such proposals in their

40 school districts in the state have voted an additional leeway

First, none of the three proposals addresses the question

of tax or budget limitations on local school districts. All

features not contained in any of the major revision proposals

now before the Commission.

costs of reform in that state in 1974-75. In Utah only ten of

aid in :'lontana went to fund this add-on progrilm. In Florida,

state assistance under this program. In Montana, on the

other hand, virtually all of the districts in the state took

advantage of this program; 20 percent of all equalizing state

system.

'<":,:;;!,,,,:~.;::•. ',', .'".'a number of poor dlstrlcts contended that they did not havtF':the'

fiscal ability to make the additional effort to qualify for

add-on aid. This component has been dropped from Florida's

56

wealth or their enrollment size. Other states -- l-1ontana

and Wisconsin -- put expenditure limitations on local school

district budget increases though Hontana has since dropped this

fiscal restriction due to inflationary pressures on local school

districts.

l~ny contend that school tax or buuget limitations are

necessary in order to provide local property tax relief in the

course of state school finance reform. At the same time,

many states have been sensitive to inflationary pressures,on

local school districts and several, Colorado and Wisconsin,

permit local di§!;~ict~:tf9',P~titionthe state to waive budg~~~.;:!, ,,;' \j:rn:',;.j

limitations. Most all other reform states have permitted local

dis~ricts to over-ride these fiscal limits by local referenda as

well. The property tax relief question, then, is one that most

major reforms have addressed but which is not specifically

addressed in the three major school finance proposals now before

the Commission.

Secondly, none of the three reform bills yet addresses

the budgetary impact of school finance reform on Massachusetts

state government. Initial estimates are that all three bills

may cost the state an additional $170-200 million. This will

certainly require an increase in state taxes since the state

does not have surplus revenue from which to finance these new

programs. Few states have enacted new reforms while facing fiscal

deficits; the bulk of state reforms have been financed from a

combination of state revenue surpluses and federal revenue-

[July

ny

,the.

s

1975] HOUSE - No. 6474 57

Conclusion:

New fiscal capacity measures which have met Vlith acceptance in

need in ull three bills than in the ~eeent Chapter 70 formula.

}

1

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

The three major school finance revisions now before the

Commission all incorporate new school finance developments in

other states. There is a clearer recognition of educational

sharing proceeus. Consequently, all three Lills might benefit

from an analysis of how the incremental costs of achieving

reform might be spread over a three-to-five year period.

underway. A number of questions, proviuing direction for future

study, have been suggested by the Legislators' Education Action

programs.

On the other hand, none of the bills directly audresses

problem of local property tax relief which is pressing one in

many Massachusetts communities. Nor do the bills answer the

question of how they might be phased in over time given the

state's current budgetary problems.

In light of these observations, there is considerable need

for further study of these bills and school finance reform in

general. Attention needs to be given to adjustments in the

three formulas, including the study of alternatives alreauy

other states are being proposed as well as tax effort equaliza­

,tion programsth~t are in effect in other state'$.Th~revI~i~~~

are also sensitive to their impact on wealthier c~.oU'I\lnities

which in some cases may be offering high quality educational

58

[July 1975] 59

nefit

'q

the

s in

ita1

,rlllula •

'. in

he

project repor~~ as follows:

--Can the state put the new Chapter 70 aid plans' into effectir:uncrJiately since they '.... ill cost an ,additional $168million in the first year? Should a fiscal phase-inof the reform bills 'be consiJcrcclto east! the imiJacton the state burJget? ShoulJ the legislature con::;irlcrphasing'7out the save-harmless guarantees cOl'lt<J.inccl' inall the provosals?

--Do the bills rerJistribute Chapter 70 monies in a mannerdeemed equitable by the General Gourt? Is new aiJ bein']directed to communities with the greatest educationalneed and the le<J.st wealth available to support its schools?

--How will the local communities use their new Chapter 70aid? Nill they use it to increase school outl<J.Ys or reducelocal school property taxes? !·ll1<J.t sort of uirectionshoulrJ the legislature give to this matter? Is companionlegislation for property tax circuit-bre~kers and munici­pal revenue sharing sufficient to ueal with the propertytax r,eHef que,sti,.on?. ' ' "".~.:":'<:~' ";:; .' ,~" < : '';;.I1.t~, :f~;\1j~,":;,:' ,:~·~:·~;};~,.:~\>'~lti\<N3j

--Arc the new aid systems administratively 11anaycilble?110\... well can th~ pupil weiCJhting system::; unJ~r the threenew proposals work as compare,] to the present cateqori­cal or forInul~ prograns no\... in effect for vocation.:<l,special, and bilin'Jual cducati on J:)upils? Are the newmeasures of local fiscal capacity adequate,given thelIlany fiscill problems occurring with the new valu<J.tionsrecently issued by the Department of Cor~orations anJl'axation?

bills taken as complete entities. In brief, the bills have the

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

5.

2. Taken together, the wealth and educationalneed measures of the three major bills now before theGeneral Court would greatly increase the amount ofstate aid received by almost all school districts.

3. Assuming 1972-73 tax and expenditure levels,as well as 1972-73 pupil po~ulations, the state revenueneeded to fully fund the bills filed by the Board ofEducation, the Ooston Coalition, and Teachers Associationat the very least would range between $600 and $690million. It is readily apparent, however, that allow­ances for grO\'/th in school expenditures, taxes andenrollments since 1972-73 would re~uire substantiallymore than $680 million to fund any of the bills. The

aefor~ analyzing the impact of eaeh bill on these com~oJlents,

receipts.

following general effects:

1. All three bills would result in a much rnor~ equiti­able school finance system than under present legisla-tion. All three would increase state support for localschools where it is needed most -- in the Commonwealth'surban centers, moderate-income suburbs, and low-incomerural communities. The State Board and 'reachersAssociation proposals provide a broader range of fiscaldistribution than the Coalition proposal, while thelatter concentrates greater aid,on low to moderateincome communities.

it is possible to sunmarize the major effects of the three

The Fiscal Impact of the Three Bills

As of this writing, the Commission has cQmpleted a basic

analysis of the fiscal effects of the three bills. Computer

simulations of the three bills, provided by the Legislators'

Education Action Project, have greatly assisted this effort.

A full set of computations produced by the LEAP program is

included in the appendix to this report - detailing the impact

of each bill on school district aid ratios, pupil units,and aid

60

[July

1975] HOUSE - No. 6474 61

Boston Coalition bill would be the least expensive;the Board of Education's the next most expensive, andthe Teachers hssociation bill the most expensive --even though it has no provisions coverning aid to specialeducation and bilingual programs.

School District Sample:

For example, one can note the differences in the school

tax proportion between the cities and towns, revealing the degree

Analysis of the fiscal impact of the three bills is illus­

trated by a cross-sectional sample of twenty-two Massachusetts

communities. As background for subsequent analysis, Table IX

provides basic fiscal data on each of the cornnlunities, thereby

illustrating some of the inequities which currently exist

among these districts'" \ ",

of municipal overburden (or high non-school tax purden) in the

former tc.f. Chelsea). Additionally, one can see how the change

to a per capita wealth measure makes cities and other densely

populated communities appear poorer relative to the rest of

the state. Thirdly, the table illustrates how a number of ex­

tremely high property wealth communities are poorer than the

state in terms of personal income (c.f. Bourne, Falmouth).

Finally, and most importantly, the table illustrates the

range of inequity in the amount of per pupil revenue generated

by each district's existing property value and school tax. As

a group, the cities generate the least revenue per pupil, follow-

n

.ct

';~id

ed closely by the rural towns.

[July

Table IX

HOUSE - No. 6474

School iJi strict Sample

62

chool District Schl. Tax , ch. Rev/PupilCit or Town T as % of Tot from tax

IUrban School Districts I

1

Pop. 100,000 Iover !

.422i

Boston .527 .905 118 . 59 25% $ 393

Worcester .761 .587 I .945 22.39 42 681Springfield .628 .599 : .871 !16.76 77 422New Bedford .761 .641 i .787 113 •96 35 427

Pop. under 100,000 I jIChelsea .522-:; .410 I .8,35 J 8.51 10 II?I

I }

Cambridge 1.660 .892 ;1.138 :23. 49 i 32 lS'S'5Lowell .581 .585 1.835 : 14.67 I liS 350Newton 1.507 ;1.264 ;1-.576 : 21.25 I 50 1286j

1, I 1Suburban School Districts I

I I IHl"h Income i jI

1 IBrookline 2.477 1.247 1. 794 ~16.70 33 i 1661Lexington 1. 240 1. 444 1.li49 ~22.45 59

j1117

I.on~meadow 1.157 1.505 1.793 120 .53 65 950Weston 1.913 2.448 2.238 j18.68 55 1329,

1Hoderate Income IDracut .536 .675 .813 ~ 25. 41 80 I 544Burlington 1.088 1.645 .931 i 24.88

!59 1

1082Amherst 1. 366 .794 • 8~6 i 21. 67 65 1l8~

Waltham 1.336 ,1.168 .9 8 ! 16.63 1 46

IasaI

j !Rural School Districts I

Resort I Ii 1

I

1.671 2.520 .783,

9.08 53 609Bourne IFalmouth 2.026 2.864 .960 j 12.90 52 1050Orleans 5.983 6.484 1. 390 6.34 li3 1523

Non-Resort

Oranr;e .439 .527 .793 \ 31. 95 29 561Barre .582 .667 .881 1 28 . 07 73 656Easthampton .85tJ .905 .957 i16. 8li 59 678

I

HJuly1975]

Aid Ratios:

HOUSE - No. 6474 63

Rev Pupilom tax

1661117;'950329

'$44:tl82i.3,8"9asa

p09,050\523

;'561656!678

The most significant distributive effects of all three bills

result from the aid ratio determined for each district by the

bill's definitions of fiscal ability and state aid. As illustrated

in Table X, the aid generated by the per capita wealth measures,

anJ the 50~ state aid l~vc;:l, results in substantial increases

in almost all cor.utlunitics. The pe:r capita J:)roperty valuation

measure of local wt::alth used in the Coard of Education and

Teachers Association bills tends to produce a substantially

higher aid ratio in urban, higher-income suburban, and non-resort

rural districts than either the per pupil property valuation

measure used in the'ig~ri~llt";c~;;~ter 70 formula >or in the com-

bined per capita property valuation/per capita income measure of

local wealth proposed in the Boston Coalition bill. Thus these

bills provide for a higher aid ratio in all cities, and in

communities like Brookline, Longmeadow,orangc and Barre.

The combined measure of wealth use in the Boston Coalition

bill, however, sUbstantally increases the aid ratio of rural

resort communities (Cape Cod), whereas thesc communities receive

no increase in the other two bills. In addition," the bill

increases the aid ratio of communities where ~ersonal income

is lower, relative to the state average, than property values.

Thus the bill provides for a greater aid ratio in communities

like Burlington and Waltham.

In essence then, the fiscal ability I:lcasura;, when taken

by themselves, result in a trade-off of benefits. The pure

School District by Aid Ratio, Legis. ProposalCity or Town Type 1972-73 Board of Ed. Boston Coa1it. Teachers Assn.

Urban School Districts

Aid Ratios in 1972-73, and 1975-76 for Selected School Districtsby Legislative Proposal and by City or Town Type.

lAid ratios computed using 1975-76 equalized property valuationsas of January I, 1975.

[July

.110

.000

.000

.789

.106

.699

.676

.736

.660

.541

.662

.177

.603

.416 "

.795

.566

.707

.356

.314

.271

.241

.000

.360

.260

.153

.669".617.632.642

.613

.356

.598

.466

.689

.499

.645

.285

.240

.274

.175

.000

.670

.610

.532

.110

.000

.000

.736

.660

.541

.789

.706

.699

.676

.795

.566~,"107

.356

.662

.171

.603

.416

.374

.271

.247

.000

HOUSE - No. 6474

Table X

.638

.622

.342

.150

.150

.150

.150

.194

.150

.150

.605

.. 293

.150.150

.558

.505

.536

.557

.599

.150

.'573

.150

OrangeBarreEasthampton

Non-Resort

Resort

BourneFalmouthOrleans

Moderate Income

High Income

BrooklineLexingtonLongmeadowWeston

DracutBurlingtonAmherstWaltham

Pop. over 100,000

BostonWorcesterSpringfieldNew Bedford

Rural School Districts

Pop. under 100,000

ChelseaCambridBeI.owellNewton

Suburban School Districts

64

[July 19751 HOUSE - No. 6474 65

property-value measure (Board and MTA) provides for a greater

range of aid distribution, raising aid ratios in the needy

cities and poor rural, conununities. On the other hand they

exclude a number of communities from the aid formula (mostly

Cape districts) and increase the aid ratios in wealthier suburban

districts. The mixed measure (Boston), reduces the distributive

range of aid and provides for less of an increase in the needy

cities and rural districts. Yet it includes all but two

communities in the formula (Weston and Dover) and results in a

less substantial aid-ratio increase in wealthy suburbs.

An additional tracle-off in the two measures needs nentioning.,~,,:.~,:":>,,:: /,:, " '., "', ·,r:~"Y"; :."~,~~~;;L+:'.'~:·~1:2\ei,~:;I>'\<'.· :,:,_'~;a

Per capita income data suffers from the fact that is is up-dnted

at best only every five years (as of the present) and thus it

fails to reflect short-range econom;c trends. Yet it provides

aid distribution with a stability that is lacking in the pro-

perty measure because of controversy over property assessment

procedures.

Weighted Pupil Units:

Differences in aid distribution caused by the aid ratios are in

part countered by the differences in total weighted pupil units.

As Table XI shows, all three bills yield a high level of

educational need in school districts which undoubtedly face the

gre2t:est costs of education. This is particularly the case in

the Boston Coalition bill. Under the Coalition plan, the number

of weighted full-time equivalent pupils in Boston, for example,

Pupil units for 1975-76 do not include vocational and special educationstudents enrolled 1n reEional schools., They are also based on theBoston Coalition definition of "low-ml;children. Appropriate figures wouldresult in some reduction of weighted units in the Board's bill, andpossibly the MrA bill. ~TA units do not include snee1al and b1-11n~ual

Boston 93.568 109,954 129.926Worcester 28,660 31.151 34,6 43Springfield 30,393 34,611 39,037New Bedford 16,803 19,580 22,210

population under 100.000

Chelsea '#·/(54 5,,,197 5,956 .Cambridge 9,759 11.,433 13,043Lowell 16,673 18,520 20,925Newton 16,616 17,506 18,544

[July

3,6625,560

816

1,710984

2,778

1,4549,4654,4032,963

5,OJ9·10,70018,25317,682

4,8498,1043,679

12,Xl39

102,69430,80333,24518,165

7,8419,7664,5673,083

3,8236,075

845

5,1738,2153,808

13,532

Boston Coalition Teachers As~

Lp.~islative Proposal

3,4815,608

804

1,7~7936

2,724

7,3049,2624,3652,918

4,8527,7603,554

12,629

Boardof EducationNAM

3,3685,137

255

1,653462

2,594

1,2678,9 494,2292,196

4,4331,2961,995

11,301

HOUSE - No. 6474

Table XI

Estimated Weighted FTE Pupil Units in 1975-76 forSelected School Districts by Legislative Proposal and

by City or Town Type.

66

OrangeBarreEasthampton

Resort

Non-Resort

DracutBurlingtonAmherstWaltham

BourneFalmouthOrleans

Population over 100.000

High Income

BrooklineLexingtonLongmeadowWeston

r-toderate Income

Urban School Districts

•

Rural School Districts

School District byCity or Town Type

Suburban School Districts

Total Aid Receipts and Property Tax Relief:

When all components are included in. the computations, the

total dollar figures illustrated in Table XII result. As can

be seen in the table, the cities show the the greatest percentage

increase in aid, ranging from 50\ for Worcester in the Doston

Bill to 590\ for Cambridge in the Teachers Association bill.

would approach 130,000, a number nearly 50 percent greater than

its net average membership, while under the Doard of &iucation

and Teachers Association proposals, the number of weighted

full-time equivalent pupils would be less than 110,000. The

number of weighted pupils under the Teachers ~ssociation proposal,

however, would eventually approach the nwnber under the DoSton

Coalition because of its phase-in of higher weights for low-

67HOUSE - No. 6474

income pupils and because of its inclusion uf ·.i~i':lhts for

educational disadvantagement currently unMe~surcd.

In comparing pupil unit data, three qualifications shoulu

be kept in mind. Ldw.Jihdomepcrpils in each district were

tabulated using the Boston Coalition definition and available

Title I figures - thus somewhat overstating the unit figures

of the Doard and Teachers bills. Secondly, the numbers in the

MTA bill do not include special and bi-lingual education pupils,

thus' understating l-1TA totals. And finally, regional vocational

and special education pupils are not included in each district's

totals.

1975]

As~

['[July

Table XII

Aid Receipts per NAM in 1975-76 Assuming 1972-73 Expenditure Levelsfor Selected School Districts by Legislative Proposal,

Wealth and City or Town Type

(6)(6)(6)

[July

(152)(590)

(87 )(216 )

(181)(89)(76)

(191)

883771706475

519 (356)360 (62)323 (117)109 (6)

657 (48)242 (89)79!l 07l)531 (277)

289122120

717 (59)692 (102)528 02l)

(129 )(296)

(99)(70)

272 (85)292 (16)1811 (3)137 (0)

839649788310

382 (36)290 (129)159 (21)

746 (61)662 (83)587 (131)

693 (56)384 (97)63 4 (243)543 (212)

Legislative ProposalBoston Teachers

Coalition Assn.

(0)(0)(0)

(50)(329)(110 )( 118)

Board ofEducation

823 (77)713 (98)603 (137)

920703833398

765 (72) I

197 (0.8)649 (251)492 (183)

"30 (92)298 (18)271 (52)137 (0)

277127131

(Figures in brackets indicatepercent growth in aid over1972-73 levels). I

$1t 00 3 (l29)~' $900 (105) l$1t080813 (68) I 726 (50) 865843 (06) I 790 (93) 718835 (175) 826 (172) I 801

iIlI

HOUSE - No. 6474

Oranr:eBarreEasthampton

Moderate Income

Non-Resort

Resort

Pop. under 100.000

ChelseaCambridgeLowellNewton

High Income

BrooklineLexingtonLongmeadowWeston

BourneFalmouthOrleans

DracutBurl1np:tonAmherstWaltham

Pop. over 100.000

BostonWorcesterSpringfieldNew Bedford

68

Urban School Districts

Rural School Districts

School District byCity or Town Type

Suburban School Districts

-[July1975) HOUSE - No. 6474 69

Wealthier suburban districts show for less increase, with the

exception of densely populated Brookline. Remaining communities

range widely in percentage increases, from zero.increase

registered by Cape towns under the Board1s bill to the 371'1;

increase registered by Amherst under the !-ITA plan.

Clearly, many communities will receive tremendous increases

in state aid under eachof the three bills. This influx of new

money would allow for a substantial decrease in local school

property taxes - ranging from zero decrease in the towns not

receiving increased aid, to a potential elimination of the

school tax in some communities. According to the LEAP calcu1a-

tions, a typical school district could use its additional state

aid to cut property taxes by about 8 mills - a rate reduction

that would bring about $160 a year in tax relief to the owner

of a $20,000 market valu~ house, about $320 a year to the owner

of a $40,000 house, and about $480 a year to the owner of a

$60,000 house.

At the same time, this new aid poses additional problems

which the Commission has not examined as of yet. Briefly,

these are:

1. Should the state direct a proportion of aidto property tax relief, and if so how?

2. What can, or should, the state do to insurean equitable distribution of tax cuts within a givencommunity?

3. l'lhat effect on local school expenditures woulda windfall of new aid be likely to have?

4. ~fuat would be the consequences of a phase-inof state aid, and how might this be accom91ished equitably?

As illustrated in Table XIII, all three bills concentrate

the greatest amount of aid in the urban centers. This tendency

is somewhat less pronounced in the Teachers Association bill,

due in part to the reimbursement format of state aid contained

Analysis of Distributive Effects:

Basic distributive differences in the three bills can be

discerned in two ways: I.} by an examination of the types of

districts receiving the most aid and the least aid in each of

the bills, and 2.) by analysis of overall distributive patterns

of each bill.

in that bill.

Also as illustrated in the table, the most glaring dift~:~e~c~s

emerge in the districts designateu for~ aid by each bill,

reflecting the different methods of co~puting local fiscal·

ability. The property value measure in the Board and Teachers

bills allocates the least aid (i.e. no increase) to Cape and

resort communities, while the Boston Coalition bill appropriates

the lowest amount of ai« to wealthy suburban communities.

This distinction, reflecting the impact of the per capita

income measure, presents an important policy consideration for

the Commission and the General Court, namely: should the least

aid be directed to communities whose personal income is highest

in the state, or to communities whose property base is the

highest in the state? Although, property wealth has traditionally

been used in determining aid, two factors might be considered

in resolving this dilemna.

'[JulyHOUSE - No. 647470

• MTA ri~ures do not inclUde special and bil1n~ual education ••• Aid to dlstr~cts like Harvard and Winchendon is artificially high, since

NAlo\ totals do not include pupils in regional vocational and specialeducation programs.

71

$1174473413469469461459li59'l57'l57

WoburnAshlandF.ciStonGrotonDouglasWilbrahamStoughtonRead1n"SaugusAshburnham

Danvers $502'Conway 502Av:m 502Arl1 ne;ton 499Hubbardston 1198Saugus 1195Wakefield 494w. Srrin~rield.9~

Leyden 494New Salem 493

$11564551155443114244011351134431430

Legislative Proposal

Board of Education Boston Coalition Teachers Association

Harvard -- $1009 Boston $900 Boston $1080Boston 1003 Winchendon-- 875 Harvard •• 936Winchendon-- 963 Chelsea 839 Somerville 932Chelsea 920 New Be<!ford 826 Chelsea 883Somerville 862 Harvard-- 820 Woreester 865'all River 856 Fall River 613 Milford 841SpJ'ln~f1eld 843 SomervIlle 793 New Bedford 801Lynn 8110 Sprinl';fie.ld 790 Lynn 801New Bedford 835 Lynn 789 Amherst 794Lowell 833 Lowell 788 Cambridge 777

Somerest $67 Duxhury $194 Somerset $83Plainfield 87 Manchuter 192 Goshen 83Sandwich 84 Marblehead 191 Yarmouth 81Ooshen 84 Longmeadow 184 Oak Bluffs 80Mt.Washington 83 '.oIelle31ey 179 Nantucket 12Nantucket 68 Concord 178 Duxbury 71Stockbridce 65 Westwood 173 Stockbridge 69New l~arlboroul':h 62 Orlea!1s 159 New Marlborough 66W. Tisbury 60 Dover 162 W. Tisbury 63(;hilmark 0 Weston 137 Chilmark 0

Saue;usHoU1stonFoxboroue:hDanversW. SpringfieldReading.". BO'ylstonCharltonSouthwickBrookl1ne

Table XIII

Aid Receipts per NAM in 1975-76 Assuminp; 1972-73 Expenditure Levelsfor Districts Receiving Highest, Lowest, and Median

Aid by Legislativ~ Proposal

HOUSE - No. 6474

Ten DistrictsRecelvlnlS MostAid per Pupil

1.2.3.Il.5,6.1.8.9.

10.

171112173174175116117178119180

'ren 01tJtrict s!reCeivIng LeastAle per Pupil

342]433111l3453463413116349350351

Ten DistrictsRe.ceivlng :'led18n

Level Aid per Pupil

t 975)

and personal income. According to this calculation, the average

[July

Correlation withPer Pupil Expenditures

.71

.47

.31

.33

.09

HOUSE - No. 6474

In the first place, one can compare average school tax

Independent Variables

Per Capita IncomeMedian Years of SchoolingTax RateEqu. Valuation per SACEqu. Valuation per Cap.

*correlation coefficients are based on an la-district sampleof Massachusetts communities.

Table XV: Factors Related To Per Pupil Expenditures

Table XIV: Tax Pay,cents as a Proportion of Income

analysis must bear in mind the correlation* between the follow­

ing independent variables and'total per pupil expenditures:

proportion of personal income in school taxes:

*computations for the Board bills are based on the lowestten aid communities, where the appropriate data was available

Thus, residents of the suburban towns pay a somewhat lower

school tax than those in resort communities, and their tax

payments are a significantly lower percentage of available

personal income. Further analysis is needed for the Commission

to be able to recommend a resolution of this issue. Such

Ten Lowest Aid Districts* Tax Payment 1'ax payment as(according to: ) per house hold " of Family Income

Board of Educationand $1,268 11.3\

Teachers AssociatioR, \

Boston Coalition $1,191 7.5'

household in the ten lowest aid districts pays the following

payments as a function of income in both district groupings.

This measure accounts for differences in both property values

72

[July 19751 HOUSE - No. 6474 73'

'asIncome

Work of this nature is proceeding as the Commission studies

possible adjustments in the formulae, in addition to alternate

formulae (se~ Appendix).

The second consideration in weighing the merits of the

two fiscal ability measures is related to the amount of aid

distributed to groups of districts. Tables XVI and Table XVII

illustrated the impact of both measures. As can be seen in

these tables, the use of per capita income increases the aid

amounts to all middle-range communities - as measured by pro-

perty value and income level. It also increases aid to low­

income areas, but allocates less aid to low property - wealth

communities. Fin~il.Y,< .;,.~. w~'~~ve seen, the income measure

providcs more aid to high income communities.

Thcse tendencies result in a distribution pattern illustrated

in the graphs designated as Chart I and Chart II. According

to these charts, the per capita measure causes a narrower distri-

bution of aid in the Boston bill than in either of the two bills

Less aid is allocated to the "poorest" districts (as defined by

the bill), more aid to the ·wealthiest" districts (50 defined),

and more aid to middle-level districts.

Guaranteed Yield:

Finally, the guarante~d yield component in the Board of

Education proposal results in modest aid increascs in a variety

of districts, most notably those in the moderate to slightly­

wealthier-than-average districts. Also, according to the

.• Aid receipts under Teachers Association proposal do not include aid

receipts for 5p~cial education.

Table XVI

Aid Receipts per NAM in 1975-76 Assuming 1972-73 Expenditure Levelstor Selected School Districts by Lp.pislatlve Proposaland by 1975-76 Per Capita Property Wealth P~rcentile

(July

120183

88112

92132137

500505531448526457531530543473"03

$8831.080

936717698932705

15928927928030429"299

$839900820146813193701

. !l85528543489553Jl95514466485511542

424478492460·484456492455463469402

131173

83106127125131

$9201,0031.009

823856662803

$3,9484,0564,2!l55,0795,2115,2385,519

11.05211.18411.24511,25611,30611.31811,35811,36011,43311.48411.501

61,40861,86467.30868,15270,63089.053

411,191

'HOUSE - No. 6474

Equalized Property Legislative ProposalValuation Per Board of Boston Teachers'Capita 1975-76 Education Coalition Assn.

74

Percentiles 98-100 (high)

Percentiles 1-2 (low)

School District byPer Capita PropertyWealth Percentile

Great BarringtonRowleyWalthamMillisGloucesterSaugusWest NewburyHollistonWalpoleAshlandHalifax

Percentiles 49-51

ChelseaBostonHarvardOrangeFall RiverSomervilleAthol

OrleansGay HeadMt. WashingtonTruroEdgartownMashpeeRowe

i'lJuly 1975] HOUSE - No. 6474,

Table XVII

75"

Aid Receipts per NAM in 1975-76 Assumin~ 1972-73 Expenditure Levelsfor Selected School Districts by Legislative Proposal

and by 1969 Per Capita Income Percentile

Per Capita Legislative ProposalIncome,1969 Board of Ed. Boston Coalition Teachers Assn.

School District byPer Capita Income

Percentile

Percentiles 1 - 2 (low)

Belchertown $2,327 $701Salisbury 2,547 164Templeton 2.585 759Bleckstone 2,645 724Wareham 2,671' .:~+,,'\ . .' ,' .. :1:0.2'<1,;,':Fall River 2.676 856Monson 2,676 7{)6

;'0Percentiles 49 - 5105

,U Egremont 3,191 94

'26 Florida 3.191 279Han~ock 3,191 261

,§I Hinsdale 3,191 310Monterey 3.191 112

30 Mt. Washington 3,191 83,~3 New Ashford 3,191 11013 New Marlborough 3,191 62'03 Peru 3,191 136

Sandisfield 3,191 162-", Savo)' 3,191 131'.

k

'20 Percentiles 98 - 100 (high)

'83 Newton 5,398 398';6S Lincoln 5,569 26012 Wellesley 5,980 205

:92 Brookline 6,144 43032 Longmeadow 6,157 27137 Dover 7,434 162

Weston 7,685 131

aid

$729468106687311 5813685

2682793874)6241279297240276313278

310226179272184162137

$572152714642

91698638

99257273391119

88116

661115160145

1175332211519323150109

Chart 11

THREE ~ILLS: AID DISTRIBUTION

I II I

00-35 towns)

~f""-~'C.0 (16-22 towns)Z ~ .I I I

~I I ,...1

Number of NI 1:1rJJ~ DistI'icts

...,........,0 :I~ ~

.... oqo I= Receiving 1I1e; II

"I' I ~Illi.:<13 ..-i..-il I:: 'O('0 as ClJd'l..-i :E:I~~I 1::1

.1:;;: 0'01 +>1~l< UllIII E-! 001:E: CQI1Q

1I I

Cut-orf - - - .I

(at least ondistrict rece ving I

'C aid) I

f""- a $ ~ Aid Per Pupil$500 $1000

,~-::s-........

AID PER NAM BY DECILE:---------+-.----+----f-----+---.--~-_f--_+_---_t-----+_---_1_

1

I,II1II

200 -J.--j.C~+--'""-.2!~~--_4----f_-~:r____+------~---+_---_r_---_t---

~. .,...."CS

i._ ..........ou..,. J.r::::::--_4-__"""'--L l- 4- ~ J_ ...... ~:_---~---

2 3 5 6 7 $ 9Decilea or Locallties By AmOunt or Ald Recelved

.000

>:~ ~l'

-;'·-800~'C I1f.

'd0

~~

Z <

I CD

j~

al 600~

~CQ

rJ1~;:J 0

0 co

==r..cd

-~-4000

Q

LEAP estimates, illust~ated in Table XVIII, Boston would

qualify for $2.3 million in additional aid, although other

central cities are not as likely to qualify for aid.

78 HOUSE - No. 6474 [July

79

Table XVIII

HOUSE - No. 6474,·

DPE Add-On and Total Aid Receipts in 1975-76 UnderBoard or Education Proposal for a 33 Percent

Sample of Qualifying School Districts

School District OPE Add-On Total Aid,Aid, 1975-76 1975-76 Aid Ratio

Ashby $7 ,4'39 $357,.956 .538Auburn 20,437 1,972,801 .1163Berkley 9,225 290,916 .538Boston "2 • 311 7 .939 94 ,3 47,008 .789Buckland. 4.618 272,788 .49 /jChelmsford 116,834 5,037,893 .494Cohasset 9,5!15 459,183 .163Easton 35~.720 1,714,281 .447Georgetown 46,922 1,.146.684 .457Hampden 21,423 790,013 .496Hingham 12,781 2,042,(,07 .3114Holinton 33,072 1,675,078 .410Hubbardston 3,360 198,578 .439IpSWich 32,496 1,379,476 .389Leyden 859 2,664,1l75 .239r-~ansrleld 25,416 174,502 .4119r-~edway 30,829 1,223,337 .431Natick 7,578 3.359.107 .311New Salem 1,232 51,766 .342Norwell 1,100 606,528 .213Pembroke 37,704 1,716,959 .1168Plainville 8.,56£ 655,991 .452Reading 16,109 "2~609.4B8 .396Rowley 5,722 397.534 .1119Scituate 151,105 2,289,188 .391Shelburne 215 20.8,271 .4118Southwick 16,101 829,928 .387Sudbury 13.116 1,171 ,.216 .168Townsend 1~,917 676,521 .502Walpole 21,018 2,211,783 .1106West Newbury 11 .165 366.009 .408Williamsburg 8,355 380.047 .558

19751

80 HOUSE - No. 6474 [July 1975]

CONCLUSION:

This Interim Report is essentially a working document, pre­

pared as the Commission continues its on-going study of school

finance reform and equal educational opportunity as charged by

the General Court. As such, it includes an overview of the Com­

mission's charge and work to date, a description of the most

striking educational and fiscal inequities in Massachusetts, and

an in-depth analysis of the three reform bills.

As indicated in the introductory section, considerable ad­

ditional study is needed - both in school finance reform per ~

and in other critical equal educational opportunity areas. The

Commission hopes to continue its ~ork unabated in this important

task, and plans to continue to draw on the expertise and insights

of many involved in these issues. To assist in this effort, and

to enhance the vitally important sharing of ideas and information

as we proceed, the Commission hereby files this report as a public

document.11

1

1:

1.

1·

1!

[July 1975] HOUSE - No. 6474

FOOT,lOTES

81

, pre-

hoo1 1-

d by 2.

e Com- 3.

st 4.

s, and

S.e ad-

er se 6.The 7.

ortant 8.

nsights

t, and

rmation 9.

a public

10.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 4a3 (1954).

San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1~73).

Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 534, (1971).

James S. Coleman, et aI, Equality of Educational~portunity (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of~ucation, U.S. Government Printing Office: 1966).

l\ Reassessmentin l\merica

Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473 (1973).

l·1illiken v. Green, 203 NW 2nd 4~7 (1972).

For further information on these reforms, see \1. NortonGrubb and Jack Costello, Jr., Hew Pro<Jral~s of StateAid ('Nashington, D.C.: National Legislative Conference,I914) •

See "The Politican Context of School Finance Reform,"a speech by Senator Gilbert Bursley of Michigan,delivered at the 17th nati~ma1 School Finance Conference,New Orleans, 1975.

(

Horton v. Meskill, Conneticut Superior Court,"Memorandum of Decision", Hartford, Connecticut,December 26, 1974.

11. National Education Association, Rankings of the States­~ (Tables 6-8 and 6-9), Washington, D.C. 1973.

12. National Education Finance Project, Status and Impactof Educational Finance Programs, 1971, p. 137.,

13. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, GovernmentalFinances in 1970-71, Ootober, 1972.

14. Ibid.

15. The Commission has drawn for some of its analysison the computer simulations analysis and report of TheLegislators Education Action Project, compiled byJohn J. Callahan and William Wilken, entitled "SchoolFinance Reform in Massachusetts: A Fiscal Analysis ofThree Major Proposed Chapter 70 revisions."

8423: Felix Zollo, Massachusetts Teachers'Association, Research for MTA bill originallydone by John J. Callahan and Williaml'lilken.

82 HOUSE - No. 6474

16. Staff eontacts for-each of the bills are as follows:

8128: Catherine Minicucci, Office of theCommissioner, Department of £ducation.

H3628: Edward Morgan, Committee on Education,State House.

[July

APPENDIX

All school expenses are cO:1sidered "reir.Jbursable" exceptvocational education costs, construction costs, transportationcosts and certain other costs which are reimbursed throu~h

other schemes. Before a town submits its aoollcation fo~reimbursement, it must subtract those costs' plus any revenuefrom other sources.

A percentage of "reimtursable expenditures" for a cityor town 1s reimbursed by the Com~onwealth. This percenta£eis found by mUltiplyin~ the avera~e taxable' property valuationper pupil in a to~n divided by the averar.e taxable propertyvaluation per pupil throup:il the state tir.Jes G5%J then sub­tracting this per:enta~e figure fro~ 100~. ThUS, if a town'staxable property per school attendinp: c-,'lild is rI'eater thanthe avera.::;e,~:Jme4.g9:,t.h=!';~"t,i;l.te,t:Je fi;::ure suutracted frQ'm~,Jl@Q'~.; ;'<"';>~will be greate~ t~an 6,%-and the cercentare of reimbursableexpendi tures to lJe reimbursed by t:le COr.'J~.o:l'..:eal th ·..:ill besmaller. This is the equalizln~ core of the present formula.A maxi~um of 75~ and a mini~um of 15~ form the boundaries withinWhich this formula is carried out. ~nother diDension of thisformula Frovides that if a town claims ove~ 110;'. of the averaeereimbursable expenditures ~er Child, it ~ill not be reimbursedfor costs ~reater tnan 110;'. Sirr.ilarly, if a town claims lessthan 8o~ of the averaEe rei~bur3able expe~ditures per childthe formula treats that town as if it claimed 80Z.

1. 100% - 65% X Town's avera~e nrorertv valuation rer school chileState's averar,e proFerty valuation per school chi .

1975] HO USE - No. 6474

J. Alternative Formula8:

HO\ol THE CHAPTER 70 FOP~:L'L,t. i·.'ORKS

• TOWH' S SCHOOL AID PERCEi;TAGE

Town's school ~d percent is never greater than 75% or lessthan 15%.

No town can receive less than 115~ 'of money they receivedunder old formula in 1965.

School aid percenta~e is applied to reimbursable expendituresup to or equal to 110~ of the state average, and to no lessthan 80% of the state avera~e.

One further di~en3ion to ~eec in mind is that this formulaatterr.pts to in:lude a r.lunici~al over::urden factor by usine:the entire s~hool a~e ~onulation of a town in firuring thevaluation pe~ ~upil ratner t~a~ 11rr.ltir.~ the definition tothose attendin~ public sc~col. As private schools close,this method of providlr.h more r.'.oney to cities loseseffectiveness, thus S0ne more le[lti~3te municipal over­burden factor should be sou~ht as part of any ne~ or revisedschool aid forr.:ula.

4.

2.

3.

Three b1l1f:, folummarized below, have been filed thus farto make ~i~nificant changer. in the current formula for difttri­buting ~ohool aid (Chapter 10). The hTA bill maker. majorohanp;er. in Chapter 70, while maintaining the basio form ofthe ourrent law. Both the Department of ::;duoatlon andBonton Coalition bills combine the funding now provided byChapters 70, 69 and 71 (~peclal Education),74 (VocationalEducation), and 7lA (Bilingual Education) in one compositepro~ram.

SCHOOL FINANCE BILLS, 1915: CHANGING THE ~CH001~AID FORMULA·

c. broadens 'reimbursable expendlturefl' to includevocational, lndu~trial, ap,ricultural, and nursetraining programs.

d. inoludes additional funding for low-income pupilsand ·students with critical deficiencies in basiclearninp; skills" (two years or more below statenorm in-readin~ and/or math).

e. pupils indifferent programs are given differentweights (see below, under computations).

[JulyHOUSE - No. 6474

1. The ~ass. Teachera' Association Bill (~42J) makes thefollowing major changes ~Chapter 70:

a. increasea the state aid percentage from ~ to~ in 1975, with increaReR to a level of ~in 1981. .

b. chaT1geR\:th~"'v'~iQ~tigr\·1::Percerita.ge'tmeafluringfiscal :';'l"",i,::;~",;!\T;i¥::;:t;:r;:,

capacity) from equalization per pup~l to ~ualized

valua1,ion 2!.!: .9.~I:?J.Sl! --thur. making densely populated(urbanr-BreaR eligible for more aid. In lY77, thevaluation percentage will include a measure ofthe local tax rate effort --an additional aidto those communities rnlrdened with a heavy over-all tax rate.

The Department of Education Bill (HI28) and the BostonGdalltion Bill TH3b2~) both make an additional significantchange ,differlnF; from the r';TA 1:3111: namely they switchto current-year L~~ instead of reimbursements. Bothuse a foundation level or funding per pupil (weighted),based on the average per· pupil expenditure state-wide.

2. The Department bill makes the.fol1owing changes in theChapter 70 formula:

a. increases the state aid percentage from .J5.I!. to jQl.

b. changes the valuation percentage from equalizedvaluation per pupil to equalized valuation percapita.

it Frerared ty Ect"';aru ;':orr;an

86

Both the Department and Boston Coalition Bills include asave-harmless ("grandfather") clauRe, whereby no communitycan receive less state aid than it currently gets.

(The Boston Coalition also filed a bill to provide direct state aidto districts with more than 10;'; 101-i-income students)

g. includes additional incentive program (nguaranteedyield") which guarantees additional state funds tothose .•cil)m'mti,n'1\tclei$;\,iWlltth greatef'."than-average tax· ra te;s~?'i;;';.~I~~~?·"'\~t~Yti."lii

Us 1ng a power-equalizing approach, the guaranteedyield section of the bill assures ull communitiesan output of S45/pupll for each addi tional "excesstax rate n dollar up to a limit of 4 mills.

J. The Boston Coalition Bill makes the following changes 1n theChapter 70 formula:

a. increases the state aid percentage from J2e to 50;.

b. chanP,es the valuation percentage from equalized valuationper pupil to equalized valuation per capita. r'or' itsfiscal capacity inde)', the bill uses an average of Lvicap! ta (local: s tate) and ~rsonallncome per capita( local: state) •

87HOUSE - No. 6474

c. incorporates all school funding (minus transportation,construction, etc.) in one formula, and therefore:

d. assigns wei~hts for full-time-equivalent pupils ina variety of programs, including regular day,special, vocational, bi-lingual, and:

~. assigns an additional weight to low-income children.(see computations below)

f. provides all state funding on a current-year ratherthan reimbursable basis (quarterly payments). basisfo1" foundation level funding is average state per­pupil-expenditure.

c. like the Dept. bill, incorporates all funding in onformula, and:

d. assigns weights for full-time equivalent pupils ina variety of programs, inclUding regular day,special, vocational, and bi-lineual, and:

e. assigns an additional weight to lo~-income children(see computations below).

f. provides all state funding on a current-year ratherthan reimbursable basis (quarterly payments). Basisfor foundation level funding is average state per­pupil-expenditure.

Department Bill (continued):

1975)

"'ajor Bills

Computations:

To oompute the amount or state aid each city or town willreoeive, tabulate as follows:

[July

BOSTON

1.2.6

1.01.02 • .5) •.54. .55.5

2.01.,5

1.4.,5

DEP'l'.

1.0.,5

1.01.02.5).55.06.0

MTA

2.01.41.1

-* 1.4.1 to., .2•5( 179)

1.25 (' 77) -

HOUSE - No. 6474

Pupll Woights:

All three bills include weighted measures for pupils incertain programs --reflecting higher costs for some programs,and additional incentives for others.

MTA Bill: 1:00 •• 5(EV ca ita local) X Total Pupil Weights(BV capita state)

X ~otal Reimbursable expenditures (up to 110% ofstate average, and fixed at 80%. it actuallylower)

Dept. Bill: 1:00 - .5 (EV ca ita local X Total Pupil Weight8(EV capita state

X state average expenditure for previous year(plus guaranteed yield, if applicable)

Boston B1l1:~(l:00 - .,(EV ca itl!.-local)L- (EV capita state)loca~ll) X Total pupil weights Xstate2.j

*Continues to be funded under separate Chapters (69,71,71A)**"Low-inoome·is defined as tollows:

MTA Bill: public school children trom families in bottom 10% incomeDept. Bill: pupil whose family is below Federal poverty, using

definition in Title I of ES~A, amendedBoston Bill: number of children (SAC) whose families are below

poverty level, USing definition in Title I of ~EA.

not amended.

·Critical deficiency'

Regular day (K-) 1.2Half-day kindergarten .6Regular day (4-6) 1.2Regular day (7••• ) 1.0Special Ed. (partially integrated) -*Special Ed. (substantially separate)-*Special Ed. (day pro~rams) -*Special Ed. (residential programs) -*Vocational Ed. 1.7

(specific occupational training)(oareer development program)(career awareness program)

Bilingual Education programsAdded low-income we,~ght~!~r '0,';;; ,\«)1<'(,:;';:'

88

REF.: An Alternative Formula for State Aid

The resources-equalization formula has been developed on thebasis of the following criteria:

89

School Finance

HOUSE - No. 6474

1.33 - (2/3 EV/Cap.Local + 1/3 Inc./Cap. Local).*(EV/Cap.State Inc.leap. State) X.••

1975]

Special Commission onUnequal Educational Opportunity

*REF .. "Resource Equalization Formula*'If the aid ratio according to the formula is zero or less, the followingformula shall be used: Aid R ti 1 00 I' C L 1a 0 = • - nco ape oca

Inc.Cap.State

The effect of the formula is that a town of,average fiscal abilitywill receive 33% state aid.

Except for the cost of maintaining the floor instate aid, theformula redistributes funds currently appropriated (assuming fullfunding) •

No aid shall exceed the state average, or shall be less than.165 times the state average per full time equivalent.

1). The cost of equalizing educational opportunity throughschool finance reform shall be as~~ possible to the currentcost of state aid (since the Commonwealth's fiscal condition is socritical).

2). An equal educational opportunity shall be defined in fiscalterms as one in which the total revenue (state and local)for educationin~ach,.district.shal,;j;~I~~PJ?~P'~~iJtl~~i\J.l~~e,stateav,e,rage for full tim~'~~~~tl:r~"i";\:\\~i'\'''Z,l'1'i11,1equivalent pupils.

3). Top priority shall be given to raising all cities and towns tothe state-average by means of state aid. (EQUALIZATION)

4}. Second priority shall be given ~o reducing the local propertytax burden in financing education. (PROPeRTY TAX RELIEF -- INCREASEDSTATE CONTRIBUTION) ---

5}.~ priority shall be given to minimizing the disruptionof existing state aid received by cities and towns.

6). Fiscal ability of cities and towns shall reflect both thetax base (equalized valuation per capita) and the ability to pay(per capita income) --the weight of each to be determined:

These considerations resulted in the following formula;

90 HOUSE- No. 6474 [fury

Comparison of Aid Ratios--Alternative Formulae:

Locality EV/CAP EV/lnc EV/lnc Ev/SAC,lInc/Low-Inc REF'(Board. NTA) .5 .5 .7 .3 .5 .4 .1

(Boston)

Boston .789 .667 .718 .691 .751

Springfield .699 .632 .658 .651 .642

New Bedford .676 .646 .657 .660 .640

Lynn .666 .609 .656 .619 .590

Cambridge .567 .499 .526 .633 .376

Chelsea .795 .689 .741 .709 .782

ct,"~~~:\\:~1S:l;!':-~'?R'" iPI"rj'1;,i'. ~1

Brookline .374 .240 .291 .227 .165"

Newton .356 .285 .311 .262 .165"

Lexington .271 .274 .273 .253 .165"

Wellesley .166 .148 .154 .135 .165"

Winchester .306 .270 .282 .2145 .165"

Amherst .603 .598 .598 .535 .533

Bourne .305 .183 .294 .220

Falmouth .260 .156 .258 .165"

Orleans .153 .090 .120 .165"

Barre .661 .610 .630 .619 .587

Shirley .705 .6!12 .676 .584 .660

Templeton .684 .654 .664 .590 .661

• REF • Resource Equalization Formula

•• Minimum Aid Ratio

(Submitted by T. ~~rgan)

District Share = District Low-Income ChildrenState Low-Income Children X Total ReVenue

91

Representatives:DalyKing, ".H.DonnellyScacciaFrankWhite, W.P.

10\ or more

HOUSE - No. 6474

School Low-Income ChildrenDistrict Low-Income Children. x Total District Share

~ COALITION LOW-INCOME SCHOOL AID DILL (83458)

Purpose: To achieve equal educational Filed by:opportunity by providing categoricalstate aid for programs in needyareas. These shall be designedto enhance reading and mathematicalskills of all school children designatedas "educationally disadvantaged."

District Qualification ~~ Aidl

A district will qualify for state aid whose percentage ofschool attending children defined as lnw-i~come (according to TitleI of ESEA, 1'65) equals ~ or more.

LoW-Income children in populationNet Average Membersh~p

Allocation of ~:

Each district shall receive a proportion of state aid equal toits proportion of low-income children. Each school within qualifyingdistricts shall receive an allocation equal to its proportion of districtl~-income children. Individual schools may combine a~establish

cooperative programs.

Accountability:

Programs are to be designed to meet the needs of the -mosteducationally disadvantaged" children. They shall emphasize theimprovement of reading and mathematical skills. Programs will beestablished by "school councils" (Including a parent ~jority) inconjunction with local school district officials and the Commissionerof Education. Programs shall be evaluated for their effectivenessat least bi-annually by the Councils, following guidelines establishedby the Commissioner.

Student Eligibility for Programs:

Any child in any s<:hool within an eligible district ,,'ho is-'''deemedto be "educatiorij\t':·;l!ilis'ad.v.aht~ed'\(workingoeldw grade expectation$~;"\:"·;i·if.~;~,.;.. :;~;lI';'il:~o~1

as determined by the school following guidelines established by thecommissioner) shall be eligible. (Eligible children need not be low-income.)

1975)

Towns , Small Cit.i.es

Haverhill 18.6\ 1682 $ 588,700Everett 18.4 1284 449,440Brockton 17.2 3396 1,188,600Salem 17.2 1276 446,(;00Revere 16.2 1185 414,750Malden 15.2 1566 548,100Hull 15.2 955 159,250Pittsfield 12.0 1441 509,350

Cape and Coastal Towns

Wareham 19.2\ 616 $215,600Mashpee 16.7 68 23,800Newburyport 16.2 558 195,300Gloucester 15.7 927 324,450Falmouth 14.3 735 257,250Bourne 13.8 466 163,100Dennis 13.7 165 57,750

Rural Towns

Goshen 18.7\ 20 $ 7000Winchendon 16.8 280 98,000Montague 15.6 285 99,750Greenfield 11. 4 408 142,800Easthampton 11. 4 296 103,600

STATE 14.1 168,051 $ 46,472,300 *

(NO "WEALTHY" COMMUNITIES i-lOULD RECEIVE*(at 10\

ANY AID ACCORDING TO THIS FORMULA)

BOSTON COALITION LOW-INCO~m AID BILL (3628)

[July 19751

$16,723,700575,050

1,091,6501,857,1001,649,2003,204,2501,570,8001,349,9501,361,500

831,600 12',1,3~\O~tY?:;I"'t"::it;; liN

$ - aid,at $350/pupil

47,7821643311953064712915544883857389023766100

# - Low­Income

School Aid Distribution

HOUSE - No. 6474

51.1%35.232.031. 629.830.129.728.827.026.6

_. :';j; .;;,(':;,,-\~'j"<":"; 2,:i'!;~,g'tki,f:;:~:,~:1f~'

, - Low­Income

Ci ties

92

District

BostonChelseaCambridgeNew BedfordLowellSpringfieldLynnSomervilleFall RiverHolyokeWorcester