Search

The "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts" is an annual publication providing a meaningful perspective to staff in the Division of the Budget, the Legislature, the Education Department, and school officials concerning school expenditures, State Aid, and local support. This edition of the Analysis summarizes the finances of the 674 major school districts in school year 2016-17, as well as public school expenditures and State Aid since 1998-99. In summarizing school district expenditures, the Analysis compares various percentiles of operating expenditures per pupil and describes the magnitude of the disparity in approved operating expenditures per pupil between districts in the 10th and 90th percentiles for each year. Decile tables ranked by wealth, expenditure per pupil, and need/resource index are also included. These decile tables provide comparisons of school districts' expenditures per pupil, tax rates, and wealth per pupil. Another feature of the Analysis is its presentation of five-year trend data on full value, expenditures, State Aid, tax rates, and local revenue. These items are displayed on a per pupil basis for the entire State, New York City, and the rest of State (school districts outside New York City). [This report was produced by the New York State Education Department's Fiscal Analysis and Research Unit. For the 2015-16 report, see ED595357.]

The "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts" is an annual publication providing a meaningful perspective to staff in the Division of the Budget, the Legislature, the Education Department, and school officials concerning school expenditures, State Aid, and local support. This edition of the Analysis summarizes the finances of the 674 major school districts in school year 2015-16, as well as public school expenditures and State Aid since 1997-98. In summarizing school district expenditures, the Analysis compares various percentiles of operating expenditures per pupil and describes the magnitude of the disparity in approved operating expenditures per pupil between districts in the 10th and 90th percentiles for each year. Decile tables ranked by wealth, expenditure per pupil, and need/resource index are also included. These decile tables provide comparisons of school districts' expenditures per pupil, tax rates, and wealth per pupil. Another feature of the Analysis is its presentation of five-year trend data on full value, expenditures, State Aid, tax rates, and local revenue. These items are displayed on a per pupil basis for the entire State, New York City and the rest of State (school districts outside New York City). [This report was produced by the New York State Education Department's Fiscal Analysis and Research Unit. For the 2014-15 report, see ED579674.]

The "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts" is an annual publication providing a meaningful perspective to staff in the Division of the Budget, the Legislature, the Education Department, and school officials concerning school expenditures, State Aid, and local support. This edition of the Analysis summarizes the finances of major school districts in school year 2014-15, as well as public school expenditures and State Aid since 1996-97. In summarizing school district expenditures, the Analysis compares various percentiles of operating expenditures per pupil and describes the magnitude of the disparity in approved operating expenditures per pupil between districts in the 10th and 90th percentiles for each year. Decile tables ranked by wealth, expenditure per pupil and a need/resource index are also included. These decile tables provide comparisons of school districts' expenditures per pupil, tax rates, and wealth per pupil. Another feature of the Analysis is its presentation of five-year trend data on full value, expenditures, State Aid, tax rates, and local revenue. These items are displayed on a per pupil basis for the entire State, New York City and the rest of State (school districts outside New York City). In terms of data collection, the total revenue from State sources displayed in the tables from 1996-97 through 2014-15 is the State Aid reported in the Annual Financial Report (Form ST-3) submitted by school districts. It should be noted that this data item may include prior year State Aid adjustment payments. Data for 2015-16 is based on State Aid payments to school districts and does not include some grants, prior year adjustments, and miscellaneous revenues from State sources. Total expenditures for 2015-16 are based on estimates provided by school districts. The 2014 Income data are as of October 2016. Other items contained in the Analysis are as of May 2016. School Tax Relief (STAR) revenue is also addressed in the report. [For the previous report, "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts, 2013-14," see ED579673.]

The "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts" is an annual publication providing a meaningful perspective to staff in the Division of the Budget, the Legislature, the Education Department, and school officials concerning school expenditures, State Aid, and local support. This edition of the Analysis summarizes the finances of major school districts in school year 2013-14, as well as public school expenditures and State Aid since 1995-96. In summarizing school district expenditures, the Analysis compares various percentiles of operating expenditures per pupil and describes the magnitude of the disparity in approved operating expenditures per pupil between districts in the 10th and 90th percentiles for each year. Also provided are decile tables ranked by wealth, expenditure per pupil and a need/resource index. These decile tables provide comparisons of school districts' expenditures per pupil, tax rates, and wealth per pupil. Another feature of the Analysis is its presentation of five-year trend data on full value, expenditures, State Aid, tax rates, and local revenue. These items are displayed on a per pupil basis for the entire State, New York City and the rest of State (school districts outside New York City). In terms of data collection, the total revenue from State sources displayed in the tables from 1995-96 through 2013-14 is the State Aid reported in the Annual Financial Report (Form ST-3) submitted by school districts. It should be noted that this data item may include prior year State Aid adjustment payments. Data for 2014-15 is based on State Aid payments to school districts and does not include some grants, prior year adjustments, and miscellaneous revenues from State sources. Total expenditures for 2014-15 are based on estimates provided by school districts. The 2013 Income data are as of November 2015. Other items contained in the Analysis are as of May 2015. School Tax Relief (STAR) revenue is also addressed in the report.

California is in the midst of sweeping education changes. The state is rolling out the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and a new system of assessments. Voters approved a temporary statewide tax increase that will provide additional funding to schools after years of spending cuts. The Legislature adopted a new system for funding schools (the Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF) that shifts resources to school districts that enroll lots of poor students and English learners, while granting local districts tremendous control over their budgets and spending. After years of budget cuts and policy stagnation, how do Californians view their education system and the changes that are now underway? This brief presents the findings from the latest Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and University of Southern California Rossier School of Education voters on education issues, which was conducted by MFour/Tulchin Research in August 2013. This is the third in a series of PACE/USC Rossier polls. The findings from our earlier polls were summarized in a 2012 policy report. Findings from all PACE/USC Rossier polls are available at PACE website (http://www.edpolicyinca. org/polls). This most recent poll surveyed registered voters' opinions regarding a variety of education-related topics, including standardized tests, curriculum, teachers, evaluations and accountability, the general direction of the state and state education, Governor Brown's job performance in handling education, Proposition 30 and school funding. [For " How Californians Feel about Public Education: Results from the PACE/USC Rossier August 2012 Poll," see ED564339.]

This November, California voters must decide two policy questions of great concern to public-sector unions. One is a tax hike to stave off further cuts to state spending (there are two versions on the ballot with a chance of passing). The other is a "paycheck protection" measure that would ban the practice of unions' deducting money from member paychecks to spend on political activism. Public-sector union members stand to benefit from the tax increase, and they are campaigning heavily for one version, Proposition 30, which is being promoted by Governor Jerry Brown. Conversely, the unions stand to lose money and power if paycheck protection passes, and they are working hard to defeat it. To understand what these political battles teach us about the outsize influence of public-sector unions in California politics, this study examines how public-sector unions have fared on proposition campaigns since 1980. This analysis suggests that the vote on the tax increase is likely to be very close, and the unions will probably be able to defeat the paycheck-protection measure for a third time. Union Power in the State Legislature is appended. (Contains 4 charts, 5 tables, and 37 endnotes.)

America faces many challenges in working together to restore the promise of economic growth and security for the country, U.S. families and the American worker. The challenges are both real and serious. Despite hopeful signs of economic recovery, America remains mired in the deepest jobs crisis since the 1930s. One out of every 12 Americans who are willing and able to work cannot find a job. Approximately 13 million Americans remain unemployed. Frustrated and discouraged, millions more have simply given up looking for work altogether. To be sure, the severe job losses experienced during the depths of the 2007-2009 recession have ended, and the unemployment rate fell from 9.4 percent in December 2010 to 8.5 percent in December 2011. But vigorous and sustained job creation has not returned at the level required to put America back to work, and the numbers of long-term unemployed remain at record levels. The CEOs of Business Roundtable (BRT) have a plan to revitalize U.S. economic growth and job creation. They believe that America's business leaders have an obligation to bring their real-world experience on economic matters to public policy, especially in a time of widespread joblessness and economic distress. Job creation depends on economic growth, which cannot occur unless businesses are free to innovate, invest and grow. "Taking Action for America" is a comprehensive plan to jump-start new business investment and knock down barriers to economic growth. It includes pragmatic, actionable recommendations organized into three broad categories: (1) American Global Leadership, which must be secured through: (a) sound fiscal policy; (b) smarter regulation; and (c) competitive taxation; (2) American Advantages, which depend on: (a) open markets for international trade and investment; (b) reliable, affordable energy; (c) protecting U.S. technology assets with effective cybersecurity; and (d) contributions of highly educated world talent; and (3) American Workers and Families, who deserve policies that promote: (a) a skilled, prepared workforce; (b) affordable, quality health care; and (c) stable policies that ensure retirement security. Individual sections contain endnotes.

The United States is at a critical juncture. The deep recession and weak economic recovery have left one in 10 American workers without a job, and the federal budget is driving the country's debt to unprecedented levels. Business Roundtable believes that the nation's business community, the White House and Congress must work together to encourage the investment and innovation necessary to restore the nation's economic growth. This Roadmap for Growth details the organization's recommended action plan. (Contains 13 endnotes.)

As noted in "School Referenda in Indiana", the contributing factors to school referenda outcomes are often subject to the individual communities; while a referendum with a high requested tax rate increase might fail in one community, the same referendum might pass in another. Despite this factor, there often are notable trends and factors which seem to apply to most referenda in a given election. For instance, in the May 2010 primary election, referenda generally passed when the leaders of school corporations clearly and openly communicated with their communities; the greater the effort to communicate with the community, the more probable a referendum victory was. However, not all referendum ballot trends that seemed apparent through May 2010 held true in November 2010. This update on Indiana school referenda will continue the examination of factors which contribute to the success or failure of school referenda, as well as provide a comprehensive look at the results of school referenda which took place during the November 2010 general election. (Contains 6 tables and 1 figure.)

The purpose of this descriptive case study was to describe the implementation of Ohio's version of the Evidence-Based Model (OEBM) state school finance system in 2009. Data sources included state budget documents and analyses as well as interviews with local school officials. The new system was responsive to three policy objectives ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court in the DeRolph lawsuit: (a) a distribution formula based on student needs; (b) elimination of phantom revenue; and (c) decreased reliance on the property tax. An examination of the distributional effects assuming full funding showed that the OEBM is designed to provide adequate funding from the state, when combined with a local property tax rate of just two percent. However, the OEBM was enacted with state appropriations far below full funding, and the new formula had no effect on distribution of state funds in 2009-10. Analysis of the distribution of all state funds for schools found that property tax reimbursement to public school districts and funding for choice schools were big competitors for the education dollar. (Contains 9 tables, 1 graph, and 2 endnotes.)

Education finance policy in New Jersey has been shaped by over 30 years of school finance litigation. Through its decisions in "Robinson v. Cahill" (1973-1976) and "Abbott v. Burke" (1985-2005), the justices of New Jersey's supreme court have defined the state's constitutional guarantee of a "thorough and efficient" education, set parameters for how the state's urban schools should be funded, and provided guidance on how education dollars should be spent in these communities (the so-called Abbott districts). In January 2008, the legislature enacted a new funding formula, the School Finance Reform Act of 2008, which jettisons the court's remedies. The court upheld the constitutionality of this law in its 20th "Abbott" ruling issued in May 2009. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of court-mandated school finance reform in New Jersey and describe the School Finance Reform Act (SFRA) of 2008 and its potential impact. The first section of this paper provides the demographic and economic context for education policy in New Jersey. The second and third sections describe how the court has defined educational "success" or "adequacy" over the last 30 years and how New Jersey measures an adequate education. The fourth section looks at the impact of school finance reform on education spending, taxation, and student achievement. The fifth section describes SFRA and its impact and the most recent round of litigation. Appended are: (1) Regular Education Budget per Pupil, Districts Grouped by Property Wealth per Pupil, 1975-76 through 2007-08, CPI Adjusted; (2) Regular Education Budget per Pupil, Districts Grouped by Property Wealth per Pupil, 1984-85 through 2007-08, Abbott Districts Separated, CPI Adjusted; and (3) School Tax Rates, Districts Grouped by Property Wealth per Pupil, 1984-85 through 2007-08, Abbott Districts Separated, CPI Adjusted. (Contains 6 figures, 7 tables and 17 footnotes.)

The purpose of this report was to summarize the impact the economic recession had on funding, access, and overall support for U. S. community colleges in 2008. Mortgage foreclosures, reduction in stock values, and an enormous credit crunch were headlines of economic news in the final quarter of 2007 and throughout 2008. A survey conducted by the Education Policy Center at the University of Alabama, was sent to 51 members of the National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC). A special section related to tuition and student aid was included. It is important to note that 27 of the 49 respondents completed the survey prior to the collapse of the Wall Street investment houses and aggressive intervention into the capital markets by Secretary Henry Paulson in mid-September 2008. A primary concern of respondents was the weakening of state funds for all public education; among community colleges rural community colleges experienced the greatest financial strain. Vocational, technical, and occupational programs of study experienced significant weakening as well. Other "hot topics" included high gas prices, capped enrollment, and capacity to meet current and projected needs of potential student enrollment. Dramatic tuition increases and decreases in state revenue created an economic gap for community colleges that the respondents described as "troubling" Federal assistance related to Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), changes in the federal tax code, and increasing the federal match for the state portion of Medicaid would produce an immediate and positive impact on access and funding for community colleges. Local Tax Appropriation Funding Status of Community Colleges is appended. (Contains 14 tables.)

Vermont lawmakers had grappled with the thorny issue of how to finance public education long before the Vermont Supreme Court's 1997 ruling that the state's funding system was unconstitutional. In "Brigham vs. State," the court found that the system in effect at that time violated the state's constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law and directed the Legislature to establish a system that would afford "substantially equal opportunity" to all Vermont school children. Less than six months after this ruling, lawmakers enacted the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (known as Act 60), under which tax rates and educational opportunities were substantially equalized across school districts by redefining property wealth (for educational purpose) as a state resource. Act 60 and its successor, Act 68, both narrowed disparities in educational funding across school districts. But the issue of who pays for education remains contentious, with calls for further reform driven by the perception that education property tax burdens are unreasonably high and remain inequitable. During this biennium session, the Legislature is expected to consider a range of reform proposals, including repeal of the current system. This paper provides a broad overview of major efforts to reform education finance in Vermont since 1969. Two appendices are included: (1) Additional reading; and (2) Court rulings, legislation, and reform proposals. (Contains 8 footnotes.)

Part one of this trilogy of policy briefs explains the challenge facing Texas in funding public education. This policy brief explains why a Texas-style personal income tax is the best way to meet the needs of Texas. Only a personal income tax can significantly reduce reliance on property taxes--cutting the school operations tax from $1.50 to $0.50--while providing adequately for education--over $5 billion annually. Alternative tax proposals are not able to reduce property taxes as much or fund public education as well. An expanded business tax by itself cannot raise enough money. A higher sales tax would be volatile and regressive. An income tax would "reduce" taxes on the middle class and "benefit" the economy. Public opinion polls show that Texans are open to considering a Texas-style income tax.

This is the third in a trilogy of policy briefs discussing education and taxation. The first brief explained Texas' need to increase its investment in public education. The second brief explained how a Texas-style personal income tax is the best way both to adequately support public education and to reduce reliance on the property tax. That brief outlined why a new business tax by itself won't raise enough money to significantly cut property taxes and why a higher sales tax would be a move in the wrong direction. This third brief explains alternative ways to cut property taxes, targeting reductions to those who need them the most.

The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a school finance proposal, exemplified by House Bill 113 of the 2003 legislative session, that would shift some school funding away from local property taxes and toward state funds and local income taxes. The proposal would give greater proportional benefits to homeowners with lower property values. A shift toward broader-based and less regressive tax funding of the public schools would be admirable, as would the progressive nature of the proposed property tax relief. However, the proposal has two harmful features: (1) It would do virtually nothing to change the total revenue available to any school district in the state, but would simply replace some revenue that each district currently raises from local property taxes with revenue from local income taxes and additional state funds. In so doing, it would perpetuate Pennsylvania's current, highly inequitable pattern of school funding; and (2) It would impose a limit on increases in school tax rates in each district and prevent districts from obtaining additional revenue from new taxes. A district would be able to override these limits through voter approval in a referendum.One source of evidence is the research literature on outcomes in other states that have imposed limits on school taxes and funding. Although the details of limits imposed vary from state to state and no separate research analyzes proposals exactly like the Pennsylvania proposal, the literature on other states that have imposed limits is the best available gauge of the impact of a similar Pennsylvania proposal. This briefing paper reviews this research literature. (Contains 22 endnotes.)

Since 1998, Florida voters have passed three amendments that pressure state officials to increase education spending. The 1998 amendment introduced constitutional language establishing the importance of education to the state and its citizens, requiring "adequate provision?for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools." Two amendments followed in 2002, requiring free, high-quality pre-kindergarten and mandating the reduction of class sizes. The analysis in this brief suggests that the recurring costs of the class size and pre-K amendments will be $3 billion per year after full implementation. For pre-K, the actual costs estimated here are close to the estimates being used by the Legislature; for class size, the actual costs estimated here are lower. Florida now has the lowest overall tax rates in the country. This analysis suggests that full funding of the two amendments would raise Florida's ranking only slightly, from 50th to 49th. Therefore, Florida would remain a low tax state.

While there are many factors that determine the quality of a public school, inequitable and insufficient school funding is a major obstacle to improving public education for all children. When it comes to funding public education, Illinois has a serious problem. Not only does the state limit its commitment to adequately fund public schools, but it also puts the burden of funding on local school districts. As a result, there is a wide disparity between wealthy and poor districts. Additionally, the lack of adequate funding has resulted in local school districts running up huge deficits and debts, forcing almost 80 percent of all school districts in Illinois to operate in the red today. Because of its funding crisis and the way in which the state chooses to fund its public education, Illinois schools are struggling financially and are forced to make impossible choices that lower the quality of education they provide. Local districts have had to close schools, eliminate teaching positions, increase class sizes, eliminate support services like teachers' aides, and reduce extracurricular and athletic options for students. While these cuts are an effort to save money, they come at the cost of a quality education. Since education in Illinois is already polarized by wealthy and poor districts, students in predominantly low-income schools are going to fall further behind. Education is often viewed as the great equalizer, creating equal opportunities for all students to develop into participatory and responsible citizens, regardless of ethnicity, race or socioeconomic backgrounds. However, in Illinois, this is clearly not the case. Quality education is available to those who can afford it rather than an opportunity for all students. Critics of the state's school funding system argue that the funding mechanism does not support the goals of NCLB. Instead, by favoring the wealthier school districts, Illinois leaves the poor ones behind to be penalized under NCLB's rigorous accountability measures. This inequity will severely impact the state in the long run, creating an ill-prepared, less-educated workforce. Rather than addressing the funding problems and educational inequities that have plagued the state's public schools for decades, the state continues to tragically turn its back on the majority of Illinois' school children. While many factors affect education quality, adequate funding is absolutely necessary to guarantee a quality education. By reforming Illinois' tax system and reducing its reliance on local property taxes, the state can make meaningful progress toward providing every child with a high-quality public education regardless of his or her address.

This document is comprised of presentation slides for overhead projection summarizing federal funding for child care since the 1996 changes in welfare and child care laws, and the status of reauthorization. The first slide provides a presentation overview; the remaining sheets cover the following: (1) two main sources of federal funds for low-income child care assistance; (2) the role of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) in child care spending; (3) federal CCDF (Child Care and Development Fund) allocations and TANF used for child care (1997-2001) (4) federal and state child care spending, 1996-2001 CCDF and TANF (and predecessor programs); (5) results of increased child care funding; (6) what's changed since 2001; (7) state budget situations February 2003; (8) examples of cuts and proposed cuts; (9) reauthorization context; (10) proposals last year; (11) action this year so far; (11) four goals for child care funding; (12) how much will it cost to maintain current services?; (13) considerations when looking at any funding proposal; (14) the substantial funding increase needed to accomplish child care goals; (15) how the budget surplus has rapidly dissipated over the last 2 years; (16) where did the surplus go?; (17) the administration's tax proposals; (18) considerations when looking at any tax proposals; and (19) considerations for child care advocates. (HTH)

In 1994, Michigan voters approved Proposal A, which reduced school property taxes, increased the sales tax, and established a per-pupil funding guarantee for public schools. This report describes the effects of Proposal A and challenges to it. Since Proposal A was implemented, funding for schools has grown substantially while property taxes have fallen, as promised. However, school districts have levied additional taxes, resulting in a millage-rate growth of over 60 percent in 6 years. Michigan legislators continue to explore ways to increase the taxing powers of local school districts beyond those allowed by Proposal A. One proposal would allow districts to use "sinking-fund" taxes to pay costs that go beyond their intended use. To better understand the impact of such legislation on taxpayers, this report simulated the effects of increased school sinking-fund taxes over a 10-year period and found a substantial tax increase. As a result, the report presents the following options for Michigan policymakers: (1) retain Proposal A; (2) consider regional taxes; (3) prohibit "double dipping"; (4) tighten allowable purposes for debt millage; (5) expand charter schools; and (6) insist on better management. (Contains nine charts and graphs, and photocopies of state documents itemizing Proposal A.) (WFA)

Vermont's Act 60 is arguably the most equitable school funding system in the nation. However, it is also one of the most controversial. The disputes are primarily focused on the recapture provision that sends excess revenues from property-rich towns to the state's education trust fund. After a 4-year implementation period, the system is now in its second year of full operation. This evaluation addresses the equity effects and the associated educational achievement trends since this reform was implemented. It also discusses the adequacy issues being brought to the forefront as a result of the February 1997 Supreme Court decision ("Brigham versus the State of Vermont") and the reforms. The major findings include equality of tax rates, equality of tax burden, variation in tax rate and spending between towns, and general improvement in state test scores. While controversies remain as well as strong efforts to repeal the recapture portion of the state funding system, Vermont's Act 60 reforms have provided tax-rate and tax-burden equity. Education spending levels have become more equitable and educational test scores have improved across the board with the biggest gains being for the traditionally lowest scoring towns. (Contains 18 endnotes and 5 tables.) (RT)

A study by the Congressional Budget Office of income and tax trends since 1979 showed dramatic increases in income disparities, especially between the wealthiest one percent of Americans and the rest of society, in the 1980s and 1990s. The percentage of income Americans paid in federal taxes declined for every income group between 1979-97. The average after-tax income of the poorest 20 percent of American households in 1979 was $10,900 (adjusted for inflation and expressed in 1997 dollars); in 1997 it was $10,800. For the middle fifth of households, average after-tax income rose 10 percent over time. Average after-tax income climbed 157 percent among the top one percent of households. Income disparities between rich and poor, and between rich and middle class, were much wider in 1997 than at any other time studied. Data for 1998-99 indicate that all income groups gained somewhat since 1997, but those gains were concentrated at the top of the income distribution. The share of federal income taxes paid by those at the top increased over the past two decades, due to increased concentration of income among the very affluent. The top one percent of taxpayers experienced a larger percentage point drop in their effective tax rate during the study period than did any other group. (SM)

Vermont's Act 60 received national attention not only because of the controversy surrounding the sharing pool (or recapture provision) but also because of its "potential for being the most equitable system in the country." For fiscal years 1998 to 2001, tax rates have become more equitable, and a direct relationship has appeared between spending level and tax rate at the town level. Tax burdens have also become more equitable on a town-to-town and individual basis. Education spending equity is occurring, though at a relatively slower pace than tax equity. Educational achievement equity is emerging when state test data are used as a measure. Issues are discussed include whether or not the sharing pool should be maintained and whether the recapture provision should be modified. Other issues are monetary gifts as a means of obtaining exemption from recapture, small schools, whether money should move with the child, and the need to reduce bureaucratic complexity. An important question is whether the legislature will weaken the provisions of the act and cause greater inequities or improve the deficiencies in the formula so that it can work more effectively. The paper ends with six charts illustrating financial trends for fiscal years 1998 to 2001. (Contains 11 endnotes and 9 tables and charts.) (RT)

This report identifies overall tax burdens faced by low income families, explaining how those burdens would change if certain types of federal income tax cuts were enacted. Using detailed household-level data on incomes and taxes, the report shows how federal income and payroll taxes differ for low income families and how these families benefit from certain features of the income tax, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The report examines five tax cut options that are representative of recent proposals, comparing the benefits for low income families with those for higher income taxpayers. They are: an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates; an increase in standard deductions and in the income range for the lowest tax bracket; an increase in the child tax credit; an expansion of the earned income tax credit; and a new refundable payroll tax credit. The analysis highlights the effect of such tax cuts on average tax rates rather than marginal ones. Overall, options to increase the EITC or to create a new refundable payroll tax credit are the most beneficial to low income working families. The other three options provide very little benefit to low income families. (SM)

Financial support of elementary and secondary education in Canada has gone from absolute local dependence to local with some government support to local with substantial government support to current total government support with restricted, if any allowed, local support. This has been challenged on constitutional grounds in two provinces, Alberta and Ontario, by the Roman Catholic separate school system. This system does not receive support as the public school system and, in addition, has certain legally protected constitutional rights. The Roman Catholic school system seeks the inclusion of local taxation in these rights. The paper describes current funding and funding sources for each of the provinces and territories. (DFR)

Noting that a state's tax policies have direct impact on a family's ability to feed, clothe, house, educate, and care for its children, this report presents an overview of taxes in the state of Pennsylvania. The report is presented in five sections. Section 1 presents the argument that it is necessary to understand the rule driving the revenue system in a state in order to make the system work for Pennsylvania families and their children. Section 2 contains a glossary of tax terms and concepts used throughout the paper. Section 3 introduces Pennsylvania's major taxes and revenue generators: (1) property (the primary funding source for Pennsylvania schools) and other local taxes; (2) personal income tax; (3) sales and excise taxes; (4) corporate net income and other business taxes; and (5) lottery and motor license funds. Section 4 evaluates the entire system's effectiveness and quality, based on criteria developed by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Section 5 presents proposals for 3 new family-friendly tax strategies: (1) increase tax forgiveness thresholds; (2) establish a general fund property-tax/rent rebate program for low-income families with dependent children; and (3) create a dependent care tax credit. The report concludes by asserting that although taxes are at the heart of a functioning government, it is important to evaluate the allocation of tax dollars and to inject a family perspective into the tax system. (Contains 20 references.) (KB)

This monograph on charter schools and reform contains four chapters. The first chapter ("The Unfinished Goal and the Role of Interest Groups") discusses the history of the charter movement, its role, benefits, shortcomings, and the opposition to the movement from teacher unions. Charter schools have attracted support across the political spectrum in theory; however, this support varies on the operational level. Charter schools cannot offer truly innovative programs because they remain bound to public authorities; they have to be more independent and less regulated than they are in many states. Chapter 2 ("California: The Uphill Battle") discusses California's dismal educational record during the 1990s and the struggle to enact charter legislation in the state. The most serious problem in California's new law was funding. All categorical funding had to be negotiated; however, individual charter schools received no money directly from the state. Instead, they had to rely on districts to distribute state funding. The chapter goes on to discuss state bureaucracy and union intransigence. Chapter 3 ("Arizona: The Free Market Model...With Strings Attached") compares Arizona's and California's education demographics, which are quite similar in many respects. However, there are important differences between the two states, principally surrounding right-to-work issues and the emergence of Arizona's charter-school laws that sought to avoid the difficulties encountered by California. The final chapter ("Charter Schools and the Failure of Real Competition") discusses teacher unions and their fight against deregulation; the chapter also describes the voucher system in several states, the disorganization of the charter movement, and the fact that the movement has yet to trigger significant responses from local school boards and other officials. (Contains 189 references.) (DFR)

This report examines cost sharing, a term that combines the concepts of direct-cost recovery and indirect contributions from pupils, their parents, and sponsors. Such contributions may be voluntary, quasi-compulsory, or even compulsory. For the study reported here, cost sharing is used when the subject under discussion is not restricted to user-fee issues. The approach of the study was quantitative, but important cultural and sociological aspects were also considered. The report is primarily concerned with putting together a modest body of evidence on education expenditures by governments and households and with exploring the implications the evidence has for the central questions that need to be asked to develop and sustain government-expenditure policies. The report is presented in five chapters. Following an introduction, chapter 2 outlines the principles of cost sharing and explores the key issues that underpin cost-sharing policies. The next two chapters consist of case studies of specific countries: Ghana and Tanzania. These chapters are not self-contained and each complements the other. The last chapter summarizes the issues surrounding cost sharing and draws some policy conclusions. (Contains approximately 105 references.) (RJM)