ERIC EJ1066695: Examining Equity in Texas Public School Funding

2007·0.54 MB·English

by  ERIC

OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 1
Examining Equity in Texas Public
School Funding∗
Wayne Bingham
Timothy B. Jones
Sherion H. Jackson
This work is produced by OpenStax-CNX and licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0†
note: This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of
theProfessorsofEducationalAdministration(NCPEA)asascholarlycontributiontotheknowledge
base in educational administration.
1 Abstract
This research examined the level of equity of the public school funding system in Texas that in September
of 2004 was held to be unconstitutional by a state district judge. The study also introduces a mechanism,
referred to as the Revenue-to-Population Index or RTP Index, which compares funding equity within the
unconstitutional system among 1031 public school districts in Texas. The index utilizes the total funds
available to the school district and the school districts’ weighted average daily attendance (WADA). Data
suggest a level of inequity within the unconstitutional funding system with regards to accessibility of state
funds for PK-12 schools within Texas, as measured by the Gini-coe(cid:30)cient and the coe(cid:30)cient of variation.
Additionally, data indicates an extremely wide (0.85 to 2.91) di(cid:27)erentiation within the RTP Index, further
documenting a degree of inequity of the public school funding system. A graphical representation suggests
a high correlation between property wealth per WADA and revenue per WADA. This condition indicates a
violation of the central principal of (cid:28)scal neutrality. The processes cited in this paper provide a system that
can be used to correct disproportionate funding levels for PK-12 students across Texas, in compliance with
legislative objectives and in full-compliance with the directives of the courts.
∗Version1.1: Feb5,200711:19am-0600
†http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 2
2 Funding Public Schools in Texas: How Do We Quantify Inequity?
On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, State District Judge John K. Dietz in the West Orange Case, declared
the Texas system for funding its public schools to be unconstitutional. Judge Deitz noted that the $30
billion-a-year system was both inequitable and inadequate. (Stutz, Sept. 16, 2004). A review of newspaper
articles, press releases, and reports on meetings held around the state regarding public school (cid:28)nance would
indicate that Texas is on the verge of (cid:16)plowing new ground(cid:17) in school (cid:28)nance. If, as Keller (2004) proposes,
(cid:16). . . every Texas school will be accountable for closing achievement gaps among subpopulations of students
as a result of The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,(cid:17)and (cid:16). . . nearly three-quarters of Texas public school
studentsliveindistrictsthatlevypropertytaxesatornearthestatutorycapof$1.50per$100ofvaluation(cid:17)
(p. 93) then the challenge becomes reviewing every aspect of school (cid:28)nancing and available resources in
hopes that this review might yield an appropriate methodology to address equity and access issues.
3 Background of the Problem
Historically, thedevelopmentofafundingsystemforTexaspublicschoolshasbeencharacterizedbyaseries
of starts and stops, primarily driven by economic conditions and political considerations. Though this has
largely been an evolutionary process, it became more revolutionary in nature with the (cid:28)ling in the federal
court system of Rodriquez v. San Antonio ISD (1971)which challenged the constitutionality of the Texas
public school funding system. This e(cid:27)ort was unsuccessful and was followed by Edgewood v. Bynum (1984)
which challenged the Texas system in state court. The case was (cid:28)led again as Edgewood v. Kirby (1985)
and in 1989 the Texas Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision and a(cid:30)rmed the trial court’s
decisionthatfoundtheTexassystemofpublicschool(cid:28)nanceunconstitutional(Walker&Casey, 1996). The
basisoftherulingwasthattheConstitutioncallsforan"e(cid:30)cientsystem"andtheCourtfound"animplicit
link between e(cid:30)ciency and equality" (Edgewood v. Kirby, 1989). Not unlike other states, this ruling was
followedbyaseriesoflegislativeattemptstoremedytheproblemswithinthesystem. Theseattemptsleadto
successfullegalchallengestosubsequentlegislativeproposals. Finally,in1993withthepassageofSenateBill
7, the legislature was able to pass a funding bill that met constitutional muster. Senate Bill 7 provided the
framework for the revised Texas school funding system, but still carried the title of the previous Foundation
School Program.
The method provided in Senate Bill 7 for funding maintenance and operations consisted of a two-tiered
system. Tier I is a Minimum Foundation Program and Tier II is a Guaranteed Yield component. This
system is built on a partnership between the local district and the state and it relies heavily on local
property taxation. The unique and controversial feature of this system is the provision for recapture of
all local property taxes collected above a legislatively determined cap, called the Equalized Wealth Level
(Texas Education Code, Title 2, Chapter41, 42, and 46).This program is commonly referred to as a (cid:16)Robin
Hood(cid:17) planbecause,e(cid:27)ectively,itrecapturesfundsfrompropertywealthydistrictsandreroutesthatfunding
indirectly to property poor districts.
Within the recent Foundation School Program, Tier I required that local districts levy a $0.86/$100
valuationtaxratetoprovidethelocalshareofthetotalcostofTierIandguaranteedthatthedistrictwould
beabletoaccessfundsof$295,000ofpropertywealthperweightedstudent. TierIIalloweddistrictstolevy
anenrichmenttaxrateofupto$0.64/$100valuationsinceM&Oratesarelegislativelylimitedto$1.50/$100
valuation. This helps ensure access to a property wealth level of $271,400 per student in Weighted Average
Daily Attendance (WADA). The Equalized Wealth Level was set at $305,000 property wealth per WADA.
Also built into the Foundation School Program are adjustments for di(cid:27)ering educational needs of students
through a weighted pupil approach and for varying local economic conditions by way of a Cost of Education
Index (CEI) and size and sparsity adjustments.
A major addition to the original Senate Bill 7, relating to state school (cid:28)nance, has been the addition of
assistance for funding for instructional facilities. This assistance is comprised of two parts. The (cid:28)rst is the
Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA), which requires applications for assistance in building proposed new
facilities. These applications are approved based on greatest need (determined by per-pupil local property
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 3
wealth)untilallocatedfundsareexpended. ThesecondpartconsistsoftheExistingDebtAllotment(EDA)
and is used to assist districts with debt retirement requirements on old debt. The allotment for both IFA
and EDA is a guaranteed yield at $35 per ADA per penny on the debt service tax rate. The provision of
recapturedoesnotapplytolocalfundsforbuildingnewfacilitiesortotheretirementofcurrentdebt(Texas
Statutes, Texas Education Code, Title 2, Chapter 46). Although not widely known, and thus not often
discussed, this is seemingly a critical point in assessing equity across the current funding system.
Additionally, this version of the Foundation School Program has been a large step forward in the equal-
izationoffundingforpublicschoolstudentsinTexas. However,areasofcontentioncontinuetosurface. The
most divisive area appears to be the concept of recapture, which is a plan speci(cid:28)cally designed to address
equity in funding among the 1031 state independent school districts. Districts that have property wealth
above the cap send large amounts of local revenue back into the system to be accessed by districts with less
local property wealth per student. The existence and degree of contention in regard to this matter is largely
a matter of perspective. The less contentious, but more pervasive area is that of capacity. The maximum
tax rate for Texas school districts for funding current year operations is $1.50 per $100 valuation. For (cid:28)scal
year2004,60%ofthedistrictshadM&Otaxratesof$1.46to$1.50(Thompson,2004). Atthispoint,under
the above constraints, equity becomes an issue.
Judge Dietz’s ruling of September 15, 2004 gave the legislature one year to replace the system with one
that is constitutionally acceptable. At that time, the Attorney General of the State of Texas noted that the
state would appeal the ruling directly to the Texas Supreme Court in order to resolve the issues raised by
thetrialcourt. InthestateofTexas,theissueoffundingequityhasbeenthedrivingforceformanychanges
occurringinthewaythestatefundsitsschools. Therecentstandardtendstofocusonprovidingequalaccess
to funds at substantially equal tax e(cid:27)ort in order to address these gaps (Thompson, 2003). The numbers
would indicate that there still exist considerable di(cid:27)erences in available revenue between property-rich and
property-poor school districts. For example, the system has never closed the gap to the $600 promised in
Edgewood IV. The gap has actually widened to over $1,000 (Equity Center Positions of the West Orange-
Cove Case, 2003). Funding policies that continue to allow and/or exacerbate the ability for some districts
to have access to needed funds include the following two issues.
1. Adjusting for localized di(cid:27)erences in the cost of providing educational services. The current Cost of
EducationIndex(CEI)isdatedandisinneedofrevisionwithmoreaccurateandappropriatestatistical
measures for determining local di(cid:27)erences in costs (Taylor, 2004).
2. Accounting for individual di(cid:27)erences in student educational needs. The current system of weighted
pupils is generally accepted, but perhaps needs study in regard to the validity of the assigned weights.
WADA is a statistical adjustment that is not exactly equal to the number of actual weighted students,
a di(cid:27)erence that is not generally understood.
Though equity is the focus of many studies, this study concentrates on accessibility to the funding. Acces-
sibility, by de(cid:28)nition, is not how much funding school districts have but how much funding districts have
access to or how much is available to them. Districts unable to access the total amount of funding allotted,
for one reason or another, have little recourse but to place themselves into the inequitable arena.
3.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the degree of equity in funds available for access through the
current funding system for public schools in Texas. More speci(cid:28)cally, this study statistically addressed
the accessibility of funding in the Texas Foundation School Program and then de(cid:28)ned a new process, the
Revenue-to-Population Index or RTP Index, to compare each school district based on this data.
3.2 Signi(cid:28)cance of the Study
This research is signi(cid:28)cant in three major areas. First and foremost, current literature on state formula
funding in Texas has not used a normalized statistical technique in assessing the equity of the formula
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 4
fundingsystem,asmeasuredbyschooldistrictsizeandWADAaccesstofunding,comparedagainstthefunds
districts and students actually receive. Second, current literature does not provide a means of comparing
equity or inequity among individual school districts across the state. This de(cid:28)ciency must be addressed in
ordertofurtherreformsandtocontributesubstantivelytothedialogueonrestructuringthecurrentsystem.
With so much history of revision, legal challenges and the like, it is seemingly obvious that a fresh, new,
criticallookatthesystemisinorder. Finally,asalternativesandchangestotheFoundationSchoolProgram
in Texas are contemplated, this study provides a vehicle, the RTP Index, for comparing the equity merits of
new, existing, and/or emerging proposals.
4 Methodology
This project utilized a quasi causal-comparative research design. Speci(cid:28)cally, the researchers, utilizing
currentdataprovidedbytheTexasEducationAgency,setouttodetermine(cid:16)consequencesofdi(cid:27)erencesthat
already exist between or among groups(cid:17) (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003). In the case of this research project,
both school districts and WADA were considered as parts of the analysis. While this study does examine
di(cid:27)erences that have already occurred and were thus analyzed retrospectively, the term (cid:16)quasi(cid:17) was added
to the design description because this research also attempts to formulate a method for analyzing future
proposals of formula funding within the state. This (cid:28)nal additional element takes this design out of the
scope of Fraenkel and Wallen’s de(cid:28)nition and moves it into the quasi-comparative arena.
4.1 Research Questions
This research was guided by the following research questions:
1.What is the degree of equity and (cid:28)scal neutrality in the methodology for providing access to funds in
the current system of formula funding in the Texas Foundation School Program?
2.How do Texas School Districts compare in equity to other school districts as measured by percent of
weighted student versus percent of available formula funding-generated dollars?
4.2 Population and Sample
In responding to the (cid:28)rst research question, the total population was considered and a purposeful sample of
the population was collected and utilized (cid:16)to select unique cases that are especially informative(cid:17) (Neuman,
2004). Since 82% of WADA in the state of Texas are consider to be in Tier II districts, our purposeful
sample was designed to include the 18% of those outside Tier II. Therefore, the selected sample population
consisted of the upper 18% and the lower 18% of WADA ranked by per WADA revenue. This sample was
selectedfromthetotalpopulationofpublicindependentschooldistrictsinTexas(n=1031)thatwereeligible
to access state formula-funding. All students within the State of Texas equate to
5, 336,535. Thus the purposeful sample utilizes the bottom 18% and the top 18% or approximately
1,923,083. The purposeful sample of 36% of the state’s total WADA equates to 774 public school districts
(N=774). This sample was utilized in order to omit the repetition of districts falling within the Tier II
funding system. The intent of drawing this purposeful sample of the population was to examine the true
inequities within the system.
Inordertoaddressthesecondresearchquestion,thetotalpopulationwasanalyzed. Thistotalpopulation
consistedofall1031schooldistrictsintheStateofTexas. Datafromthetotalpopulationwerecollectedand
utilized. Charter schools and private schools were intentionally omitted from this study due to a funding
system that is not related to local property wealth.
4.3 Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected from both online sources including the Texas Education Agency and the Equity Center
in Austin, Texas. Speci(cid:28)cally, data from the 2004 (cid:28)scal year were used as it represented the last completed
year of state funding. The de(cid:28)nition of state funding used in this report assumes that all districts are at
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 5
$1.50 M&O and $.29 of existing debt allotment. In order to address the two research questions, the study
then utilized three statistical treatments for equity analysis of this data and a graphical representation for
(cid:28)scal neutrality. This study utilized three of the most commonly used measures of equity which have been
associated with previous studies in school (cid:28)nance, i.e. the Gini coe(cid:30)cient, the coe(cid:30)cient of variation, the
Verstegen Index, and a graphical representation of (cid:28)scal neutrality.
TheGinicoe(cid:30)cientisusedasamajorindicatoroftheequityintheformulafundingmechanismemployed
by the state of Texas. The decision to use this statistical procedure to demonstrate the relative equity in
wealth access across schools districts is based on the de(cid:28)nition of the Gini coe(cid:30)cient noting that this
procedure takes into account the total range of data within the set. It is important to note that rather
than pupil counts, such as ADA, this study used Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) because this
variableprimarilydrivesfundingintheFoundationSchoolProgram. Theexceptiontothiswasincalculating
the funding driven by Chapter 46 (facilities funding) where Average Daily Attendance (ADA) was noted as
the metric to be used (pupil count).
The Gini coe(cid:30)cient is derived from the Lorenz curve, a cumulative frequency curve that compares the
distribution of a speci(cid:28)c variable with the uniform distribution that represents equality. A diagonal line
represents perfect equality, and the greater the deviation of the Lorenz curves from this line, the greater
the inequality. The Gini coe(cid:30)cient is double the area between the equality diagonal and the Lorenz curve,
boundedbelowbyzero(perfectequality)andabovebyone(thecasewhenasinglememberofthepopulation
holds all of a particular resource.) The purest use of the Gini occurs when individual data are used. If only
groupdataisavailable,theLorenzcurvewillnotbeprecise(Hale,2001). Thisstudyusedindividualdataas
therevenueavailabletoeachWADAinthestateaspartofthesample;thereforetheGinicoe(cid:30)cientanalysis
was utilized. The Verstegen Index was also utilized to measure the degree of concentration of resources
in the top half of the distribution (Odden & Picus, 2004). This measurement calculates the ratio of the
total amount of resources above the median and the amount that would be available to the same number of
observations at the median per WADA revenue. The coe(cid:30)cient of variation among districts and WADA is
showntoillustratethepercentvariationaboutthemean(Odden&Picus,2004). Thecoe(cid:30)cientofvariation
issimplythestandarddeviationdividedbythemean. Thisstudyusedagraphicaltreatmentforillustration
of (cid:28)scal neutrality in the Foundation School Program. Speci(cid:28)cally, a graph was formulated to represent
each school district’s available revenue per WADA plotted in relationship to the school property wealth per
WADA.
5 Presentation of the Data
In this section, data are presented and discussed to address each of the research questions. The Lorenz
curves, as explained in the previous section, are depicted in Figures 1 and 2. The results of the analysis
are provided in Table 1 with benchmarks that are widely accepted in the research community. A graph
illustrating Fiscal Neutrality is provided as Figure 3.
5.1 Research Question 1
What is the degree of equity and (cid:28)scal neutrality in the methodology for providing access to funds in the
current system of formula funding in the Texas Foundation School Program?
Thedegreeofequityand(cid:28)scalneutralityinthemethodologyforprovidingaccesstofundsinthecurrent
formula funding in the Foundation School Program was analyzed. This analysis focused on the revenue
available or accessible to districts rather than the amounts of revenue that districts actually receive. This
approach allowed the focus to be placed on the system and not on the actions of the individual districts
since revenue realized by individual school districts re(cid:29)ected local tax rates and tax collection procedures.
Figure 1. Population.
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 6
Portion of Population per 5,336,535 WADAPortion of Revenue
The analysis of Research Question 1 was completed on the total of revenue available in the Foundation
School Program. This study presents two perspectives by which to apply the tests for equity in the system.
The entire system (Figure 1) is evaluated which includes all WADA and districts and a sample population
(Figure 2) was also analyzed using the Gini Coe(cid:30)cient and the Lorenz Curve.
Figure 2. Purposeful sample population (Top and Bottom 18% of the Population).
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 7
Portion of Purposeful Sample Population per 5,336,535 WADAPortion of Revenue
The purposeful sample included the 18% of WADA receiving the lowest per WADA revenue and the
18% of WADA receiving the largest portion per WADA revenue. The purposeful sample is presented as an
alternative that would, perhaps, compensate for the potential masking of di(cid:27)erences in per WADA funding
due to the enormity of the system. As mentioned before, the 18% (cid:28)gure was arrived at because the system
is, seemingly, equalized at the 82nd percentile.
The results of the statistical treatments are interesting even if somewhat contradictory. The Gini coef-
(cid:28)cient based on the total system is well within the benchmark for equity; however the Gini coe(cid:30)cient for
the purposeful sample demonstrates the existence of considerable inequity. This mixed result, seemingly
indicates that the magnitude of the numbers tend to mask the di(cid:27)erences in funding levels.
Table 1
Results of Statistical Procedures on Both Population and Strati(cid:28)ed Sample
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 8
Statistical Treatment Participants Benchmark
Population PurposefulSample
Gini coe(cid:30)cient 0.03 0.06 * 0.05
Verstegen Index 1.06 * 1.13 * 1.00
Coe(cid:30)cient of Variation(WADA) 0.09 0.13* 0.10
Coe(cid:30)cient of Variation(District) 0.19 * 0.21* 0.10
Table 1
* Exceeds Benchmark (Odden & Picus, 2004, pp. 64-67)
The coe(cid:30)cient of variation of 0.19 by district for the total system and 0.21 (Table 1) for the purposeful
sample population (by district) are, in both cases, outside the benchmark of 0.10. These results would
indicate that there are great di(cid:27)erences in the amount of per WADA revenues available between those with
the greatest access and those at the level of least access.The Verstegen Index (Table 1) of 1.06 for the total
systemand1.12forthesamplepopulationindicatesbytherangeabove1.0(1.0indicatingequal),thatthere
is a considerable amount of per pupil revenues concentrated in the upper half of per pupil revenue access as
comparedtothoseatthemedian. TheVerstegenIndexistheactualrevenueintheupper50%ofobservation
as compared to revenue available for the same observation at the median revenue.
Examination of the graph (Figure 3) illustrating (cid:28)scal neutrality in the system indicates that there
continues to be a signi(cid:28)cant relationship between per WADA property value and per WADA revenue. This
relationship is particularly strong at the extreme end of the per WADA property value scale (x-axis). The
spikes in the per WADA revenue graph for those in the lower (approximately 80%) segment of property
wealth are, seemingly, due to di(cid:27)erences in leveling revenue such as CEI and district size adjustments.
Figure 3. Fiscal Neutrality.
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 9
Property Wealth per WADARevenue per WADA
5.2 Research Question 2
HowdoTexasSchoolDistrictscompareinequitytootherschooldistrictsasmeasuredbypercentofweighted
student versus percent of available formula funding-generated dollars?
In order to compare equity in available funding access among the 1031 school districts in Texas, the
(cid:16)Revenue-to-Population(cid:17) (RTP)Indexwasdevelopedwithinthisstudyforthepurposeofcreatingasimpli(cid:28)ed
method of comparison between available funding for districts. The index was calculated by dividing the
percentage of school district funds which were available to each district by the total weighted average daily
attendance within the district. The result was a number that could be easily understood and compared.
The RTP Indexwas calculated as follows:
Percentage of Funds Available (PFA)
(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:22) = RTP Index
Percentage of Total WADA (PTW)
The RTP Index was calculated for each district based on its WADA and total access to funds in the
Foundation School Program. This is a combined composite index representing the discrepancy, if it exists,
in school funding equity at the individual district level. The RTP Index was then used to calculate available
funding equity across the 1031 school districts in Texas. This index can be used to represent the funding
which districts receive compared to that which is available to each district.
Data are presented in regard to the ratio of percent of revenue to the percent of population. A complete
listing of RTP Indices for all Texas public schools can be found in the appendix A. The listing is compiled
in ascending order by district number in Appendix A and in ascending order in Appendix B, by RTP Index
Rank. The RTP Index is based on the assumption that in a totally equitable system (in terms of access to
revenue)thateveryWADAanddistrictwouldhaveanRTPIndexof1. Interestingly,theactualRTPIndexes
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/
OpenStax-CNXmodule: m14297 10
forthe1031schooldistrictsinTexasrangedfrom0.85to2.91. Thatis,whateverpercentoftotalpopulation
a student (WADA) represents, that individual would receive the same percent of available revenue so in a
totally equitable system of 1% WADA would receive 1% of the available formula revenue.
InthecaseoftheFoundationSchoolProgram,wherethemeanofperWADArevenueis$5428,aWADA
in a district with an RTP Index of 0.85 would have access to 85% of $5428 or $4614, which would be $844
less than the district’s equitable entitlement per WADA. Conversely, a district with an RTP Index of 1.45 is
receiving145%oftheequitableWADA.Thisequatesto$7870perWADAor$2442morethantheequitable
amount of $5428. In this case, the district with the higher RTP Index is receiving $3256 more per WADA
thantheschooldistrictwiththeRTPIndexof.85. Thus,thesigni(cid:28)cantrangeofRTPvaluesclearlysuggests
amarkeddi(cid:27)erenceintheamountofrevenueavailableforschooldistrictsintheFoundationSchoolProgram.
6 Findings and Conclusions
The intent of this research was to provide some insights into the relative equity of the access to funds in
the Texas Foundation School Program. Based on 2004 (cid:28)scal data and regulations in place at that time,
the system was providing funding for more than (cid:28)ve million WADA and access to funds nearing thirty
billion dollars ($30 Billion). The analysis of the data reveals a system that is reasonably equitable in terms
of the most widely accepted methods of analysis. Enthusiasm must be tempered for the degree of equity
demonstrated by the Gini coe(cid:30)cient in light of the wide disparity in available funding within the system by
the unacceptably high levels of variance as shown in the coe(cid:30)cients of variation by WADA and by District.
Thereisalsoaconcentrationofperpupilrevenueintheupper50%ofthathierarchy, alongwithatroubling
relationship between per WADA property wealth and per WADA revenue.
The processes of performing these statistical tests are quite illuminating in regard to what issues drive
these variations in available per pupil revenue. Seemingly, these disparities are exacerbated by the following
factors:
• Availabilityofrevenueforpropertywealthydistrictsbetweenthelevelofabsoluteequalizationandthe
$305,000 property wealth per WADA cap on the system
• Hold-harmlessclausesthatallowChapter41districtsaccesstopropertywealthfarabovethecaplevel
• A percentage reduction in amounts of recapture for meeting certain criteria
• The method of disbursement of the per capita allotment
• No recapture on funds accessed for facilities
Any analysis of the data will reveal that the Foundation School Program is heavily reliant on local property
taxes. Furtherexaminationindicatesthatinanyschoolfundingsystemthatreliesonpropertytaxestofund
or supplement the system, equity and recapture are inseparable. It follows immediately that the greater the
reliance on local property taxes, the more volatile the issue becomes between those who insist on equity and
those who resent recapture.
The RTP Index values provided in Appendix A and Appendix B give voice to the equity and inequity
of the system by providing a means of comparing and communicating the di(cid:27)erences among districts. This
indexalsogiveskeydistrictleadersandpolicy-makersimportantdataforidentifyingpotentialfundingshort-
falls for their district in order to bring about dialog and subsequent actions for eliminating such short-falls.
This index will also lead to examination of these short-falls in order to unmask issues surrounding funding
availability.
Datainthestudyalsogivevoicetotheimportanceofaccessingallfundsavailableintheformula-funding
system and thus the concern that some school districts may not be accessing the full funding available to
them. It is a common factor for funding to be unavailable to districts due to some economic anomaly. It
is of little use to districts to have available funding and not have the ability to obtain or access and use
thesefunds. Thisanomalywidenstheinequitygapandfurthercomplicatestheproblemofequitablefunding
for school districts. The RTP Index developed within this study can be used to simplify communications
concerning the current funding system and to address its e(cid:27)ects upon districts. It is important to note
http://cnx.org/content/m14297/1.1/