|
|
|
Means
of Reform:
|
Results:
|
| Maryland |
1983,
Hornbeck v. Somerset County Board of Education, the State agreed
that the constitution guaranteed at least an "adequate"
level of education for each student.
1996,
Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education, provided an increase
in the amount of money spent for each student. It also called for
a new governing board for the schools that could ask the legislature
for additional funds, as needed.
|
To
obtain additional funds for the schools, two advocacy organizations
(The Thorton Commission and the New Maryland Education Coalition)
hired independent firms to perform costing out studies.
COSTING
OUT STUDIES:
Such studies are a means to identify the specific resources and
conditions necessary to provide all children a reasonable educational
opportunity.
|
April
3, 2002, Maryland approved a $1.3 billion increase in state funding
for education over a period of six years.
How
will they pay for the increase?
In
the first 2 years, the reforms were funded by a state tax on cigarettes.
Funding
for the remaining 4 years is yet to be determined.
Suggestions
for revenue sources include: sales tax, the state lottery, slot
machines and a telecommunications tax.
|
|
|
|
Means
of Reform:
|
Results:
|
| Michigan |
1994,
PROPOSAL A - MICHIGAN
Property
& Sales Taxes, is a constitutional amendment passed by the voters
of the State of Michigan that resulted in a 33% decrease in property
taxes and a 2% increase in the sales tax.
Objectives
of the proposal:
To
replace the property tax with a higher sales tax.
To
use this and other taxes in the establishment of a per pupil sum
of money allocated by the state for education. The proposal was
intended to close the gap in funding between school districts.
|
Under
the new proposal, the revenues that schools will receive are determined
by a foundation allowance (each school district will have a set
amount of at least $4,200 for each student).
|
Proposal
A created an equal amount of money per students, however, the new
formula for funding education does account for the cost difference
in districts.
The
Proposal has taken away the need for school levies.
The
Michigan School Aid Fund is vulnerable to changes in the economy
because it bases its revenues on sales and income taxes, which decrease
when the economy goes into a recession.
|
|
|
|
Means
of Reform:
|
Results:
|
| Vermont |
1999,
Brigham et. Al. v. State of Vermont, found that the state was required
to provide a certain amount of money for each student. As a result
of the case, the Vermont Equal Education Opportunity Act was passed.
|
Vermont
Equal Education Opportunity Act :
The
Act distributes property taxes equally through the use of state-centered
funding.
The
Act allows school districts to raise money in addition to state
per pupil funding if they choose.
|
The
act has been controversial for the residents of the state of Vermont:
Anderson
at al. V. State of Vermont, (1998) residents of Stowe County sued
the State charging that Act 60 "violated their right to a substantially
equal educational opportunity".
Wealthy
counties have withheld property taxes or found ways to indirectly
donate funds to the school systems to avoid losing money to poorer
districts.
The
debate concerns the right of high-income school districts to retain
their wealth and invest in their own children's future versus every
child's right to an education.
|
|
|
|
Means
of Reform:
|
Results:
|
| New Jersey |
1970,
Robinson v. Cahill, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that the
state's funding system (mostly relying on property taxes) was unconstitutional.
July
(1976), the New Jersey Supreme Court shut down the schools for eight
days because the lawmakers failed to meet the state funding requirement.
As
a result of this action, New Jersey used state income tax to relieve
some of the financial burden on schools.
|
1990, The Quality Education Act (QEA II), required the state to
pay a minimum of $6,635 per student.
1996,
the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act, limited
the difference in funding between rich and poor school districts.
|
The
state gives less money to rich districts and more money to poor
districts.
There
is a maximum amount of money local districts can spend on school
funding.
Test
scores of elementary school students, high school completion rates
and adult literacy rates have improved
Finding
sources of funding to assist the schools has been a challenge.
|
|
|
|
Means
of Reform:
|
Results:
|
| Kentucky |
1990,
Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). Kentucky was the first state
to attempt to force school funding equality between school districts.
Support
Education Excellence in Kentucky (SEEK), was created by KERA. SEEK
determines a minimum amount of money the state should spend on each
student per year.
|
KERA
allows school districts to add money to be spent on each student
in addition to funds received by the state.
The
Kentucky Instructional Information System (KRIS) was created to
evaluate student progress.
|
The
state gives less money to rich districts and more money to poor
districts.
There
is a maximum amount of money local districts can spend on school
funding.
Test
scores of elementary school students, high school completion rates
and adult literacy rates have improved.
Finding
sources of funding to assist the schools has been a challenge.
|
48 KB) is available.