TABLE 10-23-RATING OF MODELS,-(CONTINUED) *In all of these models, the assumption is made that all districts levy the legal maximum tax rate because that rate represents the local revenue potential. The Incentive Grant Model As pointed out above, an incentive grant can be added to the percentage equalizing or state aid ratio model and the StrayerHaig model. It is difficult to examine the impact of the incentive grant model by all of the same methods used to examine the other models presented above. However, it is possible to compare an incentive grant model with an equalization model with a fixed level foundation program by graphical methods if assumptions are made with respect to variations among districts in local tax effort. The incentive grant model is compared with Equalization Model II-C below. Table 10-24 shows the revenue per weighted pupil in average daily membership (excluding transportation) from: (a) the required local levy, (b) the state and (c) from local leeway taxes for Model II-C. The data are shown only for one-half of the districts in the prototype state, randomly selected in order of wealth in order to simplify the chart developed from this table. Data for transportation are also excluded in order to simplify the two models, the assumption being made that the allowable costs of transportation would be funded by the state in both models. Col. 2 TABLE 10-24 REVENUE PER WEIGHTED PUPIL IN ADM FROM REQUIRED LOCAL EFFORT, FROM THE STATE AND FROM LOCAL LEEWAY LEVY UNDER MODEL II-C, TABLE 10-9 (EXCLUDING REVENUE FOR TRANSPORTATION) FOR SAMPLE DISTRICTS FROM THE PROTOTYPE STATE District Col. 1 "Column 5 of Table 10-9 Column 3 of Table 10-4. "Column 6 of Table 10-9- Column 2 of Table 10-9 Column 3 of Table ÷ 10-4. Column 7 of Table 10-9 Column 3 of Table 10-4. "The sum of Columns 2+3+4 of Table 10-24. Table 10-25 shows the computation of the funds available to the same selected sixteen districts under an incentive grant formula with the following assumptions: 1. The same weighted pupils are used in the incentive grant model as in Model II-C. 2. A mandated minimum levy of 10 mills is required for the incentive grant model and districts have the option of levying up to 17 mills. 3. The same percentage of state funds for the district of average wealth is provided for in the incentive grant formula as in Model II-C for the same mandated local effort. 4. The sixteen districts levy the tax rates indicated. Table 10-26 shows the revenue per weighted pupil in average daily membership for the sixteen districts from: (1) local taxes and (2) the state for the incentive grant model. TABLE 10-25 THE PERCENTAGE EQUALIZING OR STATE AID RATIO MODEL FOR SELECTED DISTRICTS FROM THE PROTOTYPE STATE WITH THE PERCENT OF STATE AID PROVIDED FOR THE DISTRICT OF AVERAGE WEALTH EQUIVALENT TO THAT PROVIDED IN MODEL II-C (Excluding REVENUE FOR TRANSPORTATION) 'Column 2 of Table 10-26 × Column 4 of Table 10-4. (Column 6 of Table 10-9- Column 2 of Table 10-9) Column 5 of Table 10-9. Use decimals to 4 places. "Column 3 of Table 10-25 × Column 4 of Table 10-25. "The sum of Columns 3 and 5 of Table 10-25. Figure 10-5 shows the data for Model II-C and Figure 10-19 for the incentive grant model. The following conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of these two charts: 1. The financial equalization of educational opportunity is disequalized by the incentive grant model as compared with Model II-C because under the incentive grant model, the level of the program guaranteed by the state in a district depends upon its local tax effort rather than variations in educational need as compared with other districts. 2. Both local tax revenue and state appropriations are increased under the incentive grant model. The incentive grant model was developed some years ago primarily to stimulate innovation and the improvement of the quality of education. It had been observed in some states that there was a tendency for the public to become satisfied with a fixed TABLE 10-26 REVENUE PER WEIGHTED PUPIL UNDER THE INCENTIVE GRANT MODEL FROM LOCAL SOURCES AND FROM THE STATE FOR SELECTED DISTRICTS FROM THE PROTOTYPE STATE (EXCLUDING REVENUE FOR TRANSPORTATION) *Column 3 of Table 10-25 "Column 5 of Table 10-26 Column 3 of Table 10-4. "Total of Columns 2 and 3 of Table 10-26. level foundation program and it was difficult to change the level of the program. It was theorized that if the state rewarded increases in local effort by state grants that this would stimulate an increased level of school financing. This policy, of course, establishes various foundation program levels within a state depending upon the level of local effort. The incentive grant idea was generally supported by most of the experts on school finance including some of the researchers for the National Educational Finance Project. However, experience with this model and evidence presented in Figures 10-5 and 10-19 raise some serious questions concerning the desirability of the incentive grant model. Following are some of the objections to this model : 1. It tends to disequalize educational opportunity within a state. 2. It stimulates an increase in local property taxes for school support despite the fact that too high a proportion of the school budget is already obtained from property taxes in most states. |