the progressivity score for all of these models would have been higher. The data presented in Chapter 9 of this volume show the following: 1. The higher the percent of state revenue derived from relatively progressive taxes, the higher the progressivity score of a state's tax structure. 2. The higher the percent of state revenue in relation to local tax revenue, the higher the progressivity score of the state's school finance plan. 3. The higher the percent of school revenue provided from federal sources in relation to state and local sources, the higher the progressivity score of a state's school finance plan. The progressivity score for federal revenue for 1969 was 39.90 (see Table 9-4). For example, the tax progressivity score would be 25.65 under a revenue model with 30 percent of the school revenue provided by the federal government, 60 percent by the state and 10 percent by local school districts. Table 10-23 shows that the progressivity scores for flat grant Models IV-A through IV-C increase as the percent of state revenue increases. The same trend is observed in equalization Models V-A through V-C. However, when the percent of state funds is reduced, the tax progressivity score decreases as shown in flat grant Models V-A and VI-B and equalization Models VIIA and VII-B. Model VIII, the complete local support model, has a tax progressivity score of 14.00, the lowest possible score. SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES There are numerous other possible variations in school finance models. Some of those possible variations are discussed below. Other Variations in Models Examined Following is a list of some of the possible variations: 1. Various program elements, such as pre-school programs and special programs might be added or subtracted. 2. Cost differentials could be varied. 3. Special supporting services and facilities such as school food service, transportation, summer programs and capital outlay could be added or subtracted. TABLE 10-4 AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP, WEIGHTED AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP AND EQUALIZED VALUATION OF THE PROTOTYPE STATE 4. Other modifying factors such as training and experience of teachers could be included or excluded. 5. Sources of state revenue could be varied. 6. Sources of local revenue could be varied. 7. Measures of local ability in equalization models could include factors other than equalized valuation. The National Educational Finance Project has developed a computerized model which can incorporate all of these variations. The details of this model are too extensive to be included in this volume but are available in a technical monograph published by the Project. District of Dollars TABLE 10-5-MODEL I-A FLAT GRANT OF $500 PER PUPIL IN ADM NO ALLOCATION FOR TRANSPORTATION LOCAL TAX RATE OF 12 MILLS In Dollars Revenue in % Equalized 161.27 61.27 5,241 6,725 11,965 1,142 155.36 55.36 16,266 15,439 31,705 975 132.15 32.15 61,659 55,492 117,151 950 126.79 26.79 2,599 2,173 4,771 918 106.20 6.20 5,090 3,520 8,609 846 112.07 12.07 7,610 5,157 12,767 839 108.58 8.58 906 624 1,529 844 107.52 7.52 3,529 2,721 6,250 886 97.11 -2.89 68,664 43,042 111,707 813 109.29 9.29 11 1,616 938 2,554 790 107.00 7.00 12 2,365 1,420 3,785 800 105.61 5.61 13 2,033 1,290 3,323 817 93.98 -6.02 14 82,662 44,581 127,243 770 105.67 15 2,381 1,464 3,845 808 88.00 5.67 -12.00 16 8,325 4,184 12,508 751 95.01 - 4.99 17 36,972 18,156 55,128 746 97.74 2.26 18 10,620 5,498 16,118 759 92.47 7.53 19 15,009 6,665 21,674 722 94.57 - 5.43 20 7,431 3,505 10,935 736 88.75 -11.25 21 12,506 5,947 18,453 738 89.15 -10.85 22 9,484 4,102 13,586 716 85.31 -14.69 23 3,062 1,324 4,386 716 79,45 -20.55 24 3,623 1,558 5,180 715 75.71 -24.29 25 104,007 42,964 146,971 707 80.06 -19.94 26 6,959 2,518 9,477 681 84.58 -15.42 27 6,789 2,406 9,195 677 79.21 -20.79 28 1,252 387 1,638 655 85.81 -14.19 29 5,642 1,695 7,337 650 73.43 -26.58 30 2,766 721 3,487 630 72.07 -27.93 31 3,032 795 3,827 631 70.00 -30.00 32 2,493 607 3,100 622 73.63 -26.37 DISTRICT FIGURE 10-1. MODEL I-A REVENUE PER WEIGHTED 12 MILLS 27 29 31 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 REVENUE PER CHILD, IN DOLLARS score is reduced from 4.1 to 2.4. Furthermore, Table 10-19 shows that the district of greatest wealth would have revenue available equal to 209 percent of full equalization whereas the district of least wealth would have only 56 percent of the revenue required for full equalization. Equalization Models with the Same Total Revenue as I-A but Increasing the Revenue from Local Sources and Decreasing State Revenue Under Model VII-A, 50 percent of the revenue is provided from state sources, 50 percent from local sources, the local levy is 16.3 mills, 11 of which is required in support of the foundation program leaving a local leeway of 5.3 mills. The requirement of 11 mills of local effort was selected so that the district of greatest wealth would receive no state funds. Under this model, average deviation from full equalization is increased from 1.90 percent in Model V-B to 5.03 percent and the NEFP score is reduced from 7.5 to 7.2. Although all of the state's revenue is used for equalization purposes under Model VII-A, it is noted that the possibility of financial equalization under an equalization model is not as great when the state provides 50 percent of state revenue as when it provides a higher percent of school revenue. Model VII-B shows more clearly the effect on financial equalization of educational opportunity when the percent of local revenue is increased and state revenue decreased. Under this model, 75 percent of revenue is obtained from local sources, 25 percent from state sources, the local tax rate increased to 24.452 mills, 10 mills of which is required in support of the foundation program leaving a local leeway of 14.452 mills. The required local effort of 10 mills was selected because the districts of greatest wealth would receive no state revenue under this requirement. Despite the fact that all of the state revenue is used for equalization, when the state provides only 25 percent of total revenue, the average deviation from full equalization is increased from 5.03 in Model VII-A to 14.25 in Model VII-B and the NEFP score is decreased from 7.2 to 5.1. A comparison of Table 10-6 with Table 10-21 and data presented in Table 10-23 for Models I-B and VII-B will show that a flat grant model when the state provides 63 percent of the revenue will equalize educational opportunity better than an equalization model when the state provides |