Sources of funding for schools

Future of Children

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 39-50

  Howell, Penny L ^a   Miller, Barbara B ^a  

^a EdSource   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUDGET; EDUCATION; FINANCE; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; GOVERNMENT; INCOME; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; SCHOOL; TAX;

EID: 0031400861     PISSN: 10548289     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1602444     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Augenblick, J., Gold, S., and McGuire, K. Education finance in the 1990s. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, November 1990.
2. National Education Association. Rankings of the states: 1996. Washington, DC: NEA, 1997.
3. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of education statistics, 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, p. 152.
4. See note no. 2, National Education Association, p. 41.
5. See note no. 3, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, pp. 98-102. For example, in California, Irvine Unified received 37% of its funding from the state, while Fontana Unified received 81%. These examples come only from districts enrolling more than 20,000 students. Inclusion of smaller districts might show an even wider range.
6. Kroes, S. Taxing California. Research Bulletin 8. Sacramento: California Taxpayers' Association, May 1996. Available online at http://www.caltax.org/research/taxing96/taxing96.htm.
7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1995. 115th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995, p. 314.
8. If $9.6 billion in net lottery revenue was generated in 1993 and 58% of that was used to benefit schools, this is a contribution of $5.6 billion, or 2% of the $236 billion in total national elementary and secondary expenditures that year. However, the actual contribution was presumably less because some share of the $5.6 billion went to higher education.
9. Brandon, D. State-run lotteries: Their effects on school funding. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service, 1993.
10. Other methods for distributing funds can be according to teacher units, special populations, excess or mandated costs, or weightings of pupils according to a variety of factors determined by the state. Despite considerable academic research on the subject, a system for funding education through an index of need or educational costs is not fully developed and is not in place at this time. This topic is of substantial potential importance as states consider revising their school finance systems.
11. Jordan, F., and Lyons, T. Financing public education in an era of change. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, March 1992.
12. Verstegen, D. The new wave of school finance litigation. Phi Delta Kappan (November 1994) 76,3:243-50.
13. Odden, Allen. Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Personal correspondence, July 1996.
14. Alexander, A. The growth of education revenues between 1982-83 and 1992-93: What accounts for differences among states? In Developments in school finance, 1995. W. Fowler, ed. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, July 1996, p. 63.
15. Fulton, M., and Sonovick, L. Fiscally dependent/independent school districts. Clearinghouse notes. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, November 1993.
16. Odden, A., ed. Rethinking school finance: An agenda for the 1990s. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1992, p. 33.