We believe the standard is not that strict. We believe that the congressional intent of having a high standard with limited exceptions to that general prohibition has been exceeded. In the words of the regulation, 25 percent of the states are considered now to qualify for equalization. In the words of most of the people-I believe most of the people have examined the Serrano opinion used as justification for this, very, very few states reached that standard. Therefore, we consider what has happened to be in excess. Specifically, we can point to a particular aspect of the program. For example, a "disparity" standard. The "disparity" standard would allow 25 percent variation, or disparity in expenditures after you remove the bottom five percent of the school districts. In other words, the Federal government is now saying that five percent of the students in a state would be removed from the protection of the equalization requirement. We can't even consider this. The 25 percent in school districts now spending around $1300, $1400 as a national average, a 25 percent disparity would allow enough funds going into a single classroom to provide $9,000 or $10,000 in that classroom. That is enough for a teacher's aide, the first thing teachers want when it comes to providing additional resources for their classroom. In each classroom, it would be quite a substantial range of acceptable variation. We have several elements which concern us about the other programs. Those will come out in the testimony that follows. I would like to say this about the requirements for the Federal regulations in several points. Since the intent of equalization programs is to produce a fair, rational, explainable school support system, the only method of judging the quality is by qualifying the results of the application in comparable dollar figures and in terms of benefits available to the local school system to spend on education of the students. You are going to hear a lot about millage figures, required programs at the state level. That is not the Office of Education's problem or business. The results are. Secondly, since school districts lack the resources of the development of statistical data, analysis should be shown on a district by district basis with explanation of student need and program and not by development factors such as school district size or tax structure. I would like to indicate this morning in a rumor passed around the group prior to our entry here, we found that South Carolina has enacted a law discounting impact aid payments. I am wondering what monitoring occurred at the Office of Education prior to the passage of that law. What statistical support, what statistical data was made available and looked at on a district by district basis? Third, this is a very interesting one. Since impact aid is a vested property right of the local property taxpayer and its loss would be damaging to him, unless there were two equalizations school districts, should be entitled to due process prior to any change in their current financial position. As a matter of fact, we interpret the wording of Section 5(d)(2) to mandate that. However, the regulations say-paraphrasing my recollection of the quote-nothing in this section shall preclude a state from considering impact aid prior to requesting a determination. In other words, the state can take the money first and the school district must fight to get it back. That is an expensive and damaging cost to local school systems when you have to go into narrow resources for the problem of going to court. Since the state will have the burden of utilizing the exception clause, the states should have to provide the burden of proof before removing the funds. Since the states have allowed the gross inequities in public school finance for so many years the assurance of good performance in the future cannot be accepted without very careful, close monitoring and implementation when the program is in existence. I find it difficult to accept the phrase that was used previously that these are recognized good principles because the regulations included two sets of percentages. My recollection is that the disparity standard was at twenty percent initially and was increased to 25 percent. It is interesting. Maybe they consulted with different experts in the field. It is also my recollection that the original amount of funds that must be included under the fiscal neutrality was 90 percent and then it was increased to 85 percent. Maybe more books were consulted. That disparity standard should have some scientific statistical basis that would show what the effect would be in the classroom of increasing these arbitrary markers. The final statement regards the process mentioned here. school districts were not adequately consulted in the process. There was one meeting at the Office of Education-I know because I invited myself. The word was passed to the state departments to bring somebody to the meeting. the meeting didn't occur until we brought this to the attention of the Office of Education and only a few people from eight states were invited. There were fewer than 20 districts in the room when this took place. Another factor we consider important, two tests were developed, equalization being equalization. If those two tests are necessary, and I don't believe they are, that one would work. We don't even see the necessity for the Commissioner's exception unless the desire is to qualify as many states as possible. Finally, in the process the Office of Education did not develop or publish any data showing the effect of the proposed regulations and in fact a contract was awarded to one of the organizations that have been identified here as an advocate on one side in this issue. This contract allows this organization to develop its own interpretation and results. Somehow I don't consider this a very desirable practice. As a matter of fact, it is highly questionable and I think it is something that should be looked into. Above all, we are concerned about the future of the program. There is something that seemed a good idea that later on became obsolete in its limitation. I wish to close with this comment: This is a very serious matter. We think that the regulations have gone too far and are abridging the rights of the school districts. We would like to see the results in dollar terms in the individual school districts programs laid out. Thank you. Mr. QUIE. Mr. Odom. Your statement will be included in the record at this point. [The prepared statement of Mr. Odom follows:] TESTIMONY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION BY WALLACE S. ODOM ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR FINANCE & BUSINESS AFFAIRS THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY 215 WEST GARDEN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1470 PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32503 ON JUNE 29, 1977 AT WASHINGTON, D. C. TOPIC: "EQUALIZATION" то THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Carl D. Perkins (Kentucky) (Chairman) Ike F. Andrews (North Carolina) Michael T. Blouin (Iowa) Paul Simon (Illinois) Leo C. Zeferetti (New York) George Miller (California) Austin J. Murphy (Pennsylvania) Baltasar Corrada (Puerto Rico) John Buchanan (Alabama) Larry Pressler (South Dakota) William F. Goodling (Pennsylvania) Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Wallace S. Odom, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs with the School Board of Escambia County, Florida. I am distinctly honored at the privilege accorded me today to address the Committee on the federal funding of public education--specifically with regard to equalization. I should like to begin on a positive note by commending you, Mr. Chairman, and the Congress for your demonstrated support for the public schools of this nation through the years. We in Florida are well aware of your constant concern that the education of children be supported fairly and equitably at all levels of government--federal, state and local. I am in complete agreement with the often-stated position that education should be a concern of the federal government, a responsibility of state government, and a function of local government. Mr. Chairman, if we could achieve that distribution of authority it would be the perfect dream come true for public education. The federal concern to which I refer should be not merely a philosophical admonition of a regulatory statute, but a tangible concern expressed in dollars. The subject at hand today is equalization. We all know what equalization is and by its historical definition I believe we are all in accord that we support it. Not to do so would be unconscionable. But today, through a revision of the federal rules and regulations the term equalization has taken on a new meaning--a meaning only applicable to public education. It is a meaning which should now qualify as an antonym to equalization. for equalization. Everyone is The problem is, what is it? Have the dictionaries been wrong all through the years in defining equalization as: to make equal; to make uniform; evenly proportioned; regular; unvarying? Have the dictionaries also been wrong in listing the antonyms as: unequal; different; disproportionate; inadequate? Let us now focus upon the final federal rules and regulations which go into effect July 1, 1977. These regulations deal with the treatment of payments under state equalization programs. Since the beginning of impact aid, payments by the Federal Government have been made directly to the school districts earning these funds. The new regulations will permit a state having an equalization program, through state legislative action, to require all such payments be made directly to the state for inclusion in its state education finance funding formula. In Florida there are 67 school districts (each county is one school district) of which 26 earn impact aid funds. Under the new federal regulations these funds would be paid to the state and then be redistributed by the state to all 67 school districts, 41 of which had no part in earning the funds. Obviously, the 26 school districts earning the funds would receive only a watered-down share. For a state to qualify under the new federal regulations, it must meet a certain test called the "disparity standard". States applying this test would rank all school districts in order of either revenues or expenditures per pupil. Then the school districts that had the top 5% and the bottom 5% of the pupils in terms of this ranking would be disregarded. If the revenue or expenditure figure of the new top district (the 95th percentile cut-off) was no more than 25% higher than the similar figure for the new bottom district (the 5th percentile cut-off), then the state would qualify as an "equalized" state. Under this test, 10% of the state's children are not counted because they are "statistical aberrations". I shall refer now to a publication produced annually by the Commissioner of Education of Florida entitled Profiles of Florida School Districts for the 1975-76 fiscal year. Let us pretend for a moment that the new federal rules and regulations on equalization were in effect during that period. We would find that in Florida for fiscal 1976 there were over 1.6 million full time students in our public schools. In disregarding the bottom 5% this would mean that over 80,000 students in Florida's poorest school districts would not have to be included in any equalization plan. Also, by disregarding the top 5% it would mean that over 80,000 students in the state's wealthiest school districts would literally be "above the law". I have included Appendix "A" to allow you to follow this analysis. The 25% spread around the average revenue per student in Florida for fiscal 1976 would allow the State Department of Education to say that children of Broward County at $1,551 per student are receiving the same quality education as those in Escambia County at $1,265 per student. This represents a revenue disparity of $286, or 22.6% per student. For a classroom of 25 students this is an actual difference of $7,150--enough in Florida to hire a teacher's aide and carpet and air condition the classroom; or purchase 30 new books for each and every child (750 total books); etc. Please note that this disparity is only 22.6%. |